House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee Twenty-third Report of Session 2008–09
Documents considered by the Committee on 24 June 2009
HC 19-xxi
House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee Twenty-third Report of Session 2008–09
Documents considered by the Committee on 24 June 2009
Report, together with formal minutes
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 24 June 2009
HC 19-xxi Published on 3 July 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00
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” are Council 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 “unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum” discussing 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”) Treaty establishing the European Community EM Explanatory Memorandum (submitted by the Government to the Committee) EP European Parliament EU (in “Legal base”) Treaty on European Union GAERC General Affairs and External Relations Council JHA Justice and Home Affairs OJ Official Journal of the European Communities QMV Qualified majority voting RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment SEM Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
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 in the House of Commons Vote Bundle on Mondays 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.
Letters sent by Ministers to the Committee about documents are available for the public to inspect; anyone wishing to do so should contact the staff of the Committee (“Contacts” below).
Staff
The staff of the Committee are Alistair Doherty (Clerk), Laura Dance (Second Clerk), David Griffiths (Clerk Adviser), Terry Byrne (Clerk Adviser), Sir Edward Osmotherly (Clerk Adviser), Peter Harborne (Clerk Adviser), Paul Hardy (Legal Adviser) (Counsel for European Legislation), Dr Gunnar Beck (Assistant Legal Adviser), Lisa Wrobel (Senior Committee Assistant), Allen Mitchell (Committee Assistant), Mrs Keely Bishop (Committee Assistant), Dory Royle (Committee Assistant), Karuna Bowry (Committee Support Assistant), and 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) 7219 3292/5465. The Committee’s email address is [email protected]
Contents
Report Page
Documents not cleared
1 BIS (30528) Protecting information networks from cyber attacks 3
2 DFT (30645) Aviation security charges 12
3 HO (30385) (30651) Use of Passenger Name Records for law enforcement purposes 15
Documents cleared
4 BIS (29896) Legal framework for setting up European Research Infrastructure Consortia 19
5 DFID (29973) (29979) Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the South African Development Community States 21
6 DH (29786) Cross-border healthcare 27
7 FCO (30691) Common Foreign and Security Policy 29
Annex: CFSP budget 2008 - commitment appropriations 35
8 FCO (30693) Presidency report on European Security and Defence Policy 37
Annex 1: Mandate for The Swedish Presidency 62
9 HMT (30037) Financial services 64
10 HO (29216) Implementation of the Directive on reception standards for asylum seekers 68
Documents not raising questions of sufficient legal or political importance to warrant a substantive report to the House
11 List of documents 71
Formal minutes 74
Standing order and membership 75
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 3
1 Protecting information networks from cyber attacks
(30528) Commission Communication: Protecting Europe from large scale 8375/09 cyber-attacks and disruptions: enhancing preparedness, security + ADDs 1–4 and resilience COM(09) 149
Legal base — Department Business, Innovation and Skills Basis of consideration Minister’s letter of 11 June 2009 Previous Committee Report HC 19–xvi (2008–09), chapter 2 (6 May 2009); also see (27570) 10248/06: HC 34–xxxv (2005–06), chapter 8 (13 July 2006). Also see (29300) 16840/07: HC 16–xxiii (2007–08), chapter 12 (4 June 2008); and (27466) 8841/08: HC 41–xxi (2006–07), chapter 15 (9 May 2007) To be discussed in Council To be determined Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Not cleared; further information requested
Background 1.1 As the Commission notes, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are increasingly intertwined in our daily activities, with some of these ICT systems, services, networks and infrastructures (in short, ICT infrastructures) forming a vital part of European economy and society, either providing essential goods and services or constituting the underpinning platform of other critical infrastructures, and being “typically regarded as critical information infrastructures (CIIs) as their disruption or destruction would have a serious impact on vital societal functions.” The Commission gives as recent examples the large-scale cyber-attacks targeting Estonia in 2007 and the breaks of transcontinental cables in 2008.
1.2 The Commission recalls its “strategy for a secure information society”, which was adopted in 2006,1 where it says “ownership and implementation by stakeholders appears insufficient”.
1.3 The Commission refers to the place in this strategy of the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA),2 established in 2004 to “contribute to the goals of ensuring a high and effective level of NIS within the Community and developing a culture
1 Which the Committee reported to the House on 18 July 2006: see (27570) 10248/06: HC 34–xxxv (2005–06), chapter 8 (13 July 2006). 2 According to its website, ENISA “was set up to enhance the capability of the European Union, the EU Member States and the business community to prevent, address and respond to network and information security problems. In order to achieve this goal, ENISA is a Centre of Expertise in Network and Information Security and is stimulating the cooperation between the public and private sectors.” See http://www.enisa.europa.eu/index.htm for full information on ENISA.
4 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
of NIS for the benefit of EU citizens, consumers, enterprises and administrations” — a mandate extended “à l’identique” until March 2012, but subject to “further discussion on the future of ENISA and on the general direction of the European efforts towards an increased network and information security”, as a result of which the Commission launched last November an online public consultation,3 the analysis of which will be made available shortly.
1.4 Other elements in the Policy Context to which the Commission refers are:
— the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP)4 and the Directive5 on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructures,6 which identifies the ICT sector as a future priority sector, and the Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CIWIN)7
— the Commission proposal to reform the Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services,8 and particularly the provisions to strengthen operators’ obligations to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to meet identified risks, guarantee the continuity of supply of services and notify security breaches,9 which the Commission says is “conducive to the general objective of enhancing the security and resilience of CIIs”, and which the European Parliament and the Council “broadly support”
— complementarity with existing and prospective measures in the area of police and judicial cooperation to prevent, fight and prosecute criminal and terrorist activities targeting ICT infrastructures, as envisaged inter alia by the Council Framework Decision on attacks against information systems10 and its planned update;11
— NATO activities on common policy on cyber defence, i.e. the Cyber Defence Management Authority and the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence;
— the G8 principles on CIIP15;12
— the UN General Assembly Resolution 58/199 Creation of a global culture of cybersecurity; and
— the protection of critical information infrastructures and the recent OECD Recommendation on the Protection of Critical Information Infrastructures.
3 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=4464 4 COM(2006) 786 5 2008/114/EC 6 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/104617.pdf 7 COM(O8) 676 8 COM(07) 697, COM(07) 698, COM(07) 699 9 Art. 13 Framework Directive 10 2005/222/JHA 11 COM(08) 712 12 http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/g82004/G8_CIIP_Principles.pdf
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 5
The Commission Communication 1.5 The Communication (which is summarised in greater detail in our previous Report)13 develops the case for enhancing resilience within CII infrastructure within Member States as well as across the EU, and developing a European capacity to counter cyber attack. The Commission says “a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is essential, taking place at the European level while fully respecting and complementing national responsibilities.” This would require strengthening the existing instruments for cooperation, including ENISA, and, if necessary, creating new tools.
1.6 The intention is to promote an integrated European approach to cyber security issues by focusing on the need for a more coherent approach to the protection and resilience of CII. The disparity in Member States’ capacity is important because of the pan-national and cross border nature in which CII and the internet functions. Because the sector is extremely competitive and has a large number of players operating and using national, European and global infrastructure, the Commission is advocating “Public Private Partnerships” in individual Member States, as well as a “Europe-wide multi stakeholder governance framework”, to foster EU level cooperation between public and private sectors. With this in mind, the Commission proposes five areas of work:
— Preparedness and Prevention: to ensure preparedness at all levels (through closer cooperation);
— Detection and Response: to provide adequate early warning mechanisms;
— Mitigation and Recovery: to reinforce EU defence mechanisms for CII (through Member State and pan-EU exercises);
— International cooperation: to promote EU priorities internationally (through further debate and the development of a European roadmap on principles and guidelines for resilience and stability, and on international cooperation and engagement);
— Criteria for the ICT sector: to support the implementation of the Directive on the Identification and Designation of European Critical Infrastructure.
1.7 Under these headings, ten actions are proposed, each with a target date for completion (also set out in detail in our previous Report). The Commission says that the success of these actions depends on building upon and benefiting public and private activities and on the commitment and full participation of Member States, European Institutions and stakeholders. To this end, a Ministerial Conference was to take place on 27–28 April 2009 to discuss the proposed initiatives with Member States and to mark their commitment to the debate on a modernised and reinforced NIS policy in Europe; and the Commission would initiate a stock-taking exercise toward the end of 2010, in order to evaluate the first phase of actions and to identify and propose further measures, as appropriate.
1.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 28 April, the Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Lord Carter of Barnes) noted that the elements of this Action Plan were
13 HC 19–xvi (2008–09), chapter 2 (6 May 2009); see headnote.
6 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
“aspirational and not binding”. The UK had been involved in helping develop critical information infrastructure protection policy at a European level for some time, and supported the drive from the Commission to achieve higher levels of resilient information infrastructure. He also approved of the indications of the importance that the Commission attached to working with industry and taking a risk-based approach to work in this area — “an approach which HMG strongly supports and promotes as the most effective way to enhance resilience and increase CII”.
1.9 The UK, the Minister said, was “generally ahead of the game in addressing critical information infrastructure protection and resilience to ensure availability of communications, and the overarching objectives of this Communication are part of core infrastructure resilience policy.” This had been achieved through — amongst other things — “continued close working with industry and across Government, through the Electronic Communications Resilience and Response Group (EC-RRG), security advice given by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI), as well as resilience requirements on key telecoms providers under the Civil Contingencies Act 2003”. In addition, “BERR and OGDs continue to work with industry to ensure that security and preparedness measures such as emergency response and protective security plans are in place; these are tested on a regular basis [and] the Cabinet Office has been leading work on a Cyber Security Strategy since September 2008.”
1.10 All this said, the Minister did have “some concerns” about the Communication:
“…in some cases the evidence base provided is relatively weak, and on occasion supports analysis which could be considered alarmist. Nevertheless, this should not detract from the fact that further work needs to be done at individual Member State level to enhance CII as well as further useful coordinating work at EU level.
“HMG believes the current timetable to be highly aspirational, and unlikely to be achievable across the EU — especially where emergency response exercises are concerned (these can take up to a year to organise). Experience has demonstrated that this is an area of work where preparedness needs to be built up in individual Member States before becoming effective at an EU level.
“The Communication seems to have adopted a relatively narrow view with regard to the resilience and stability solely of internet components — by apparently aiming to identify these globally. We are waiting to see how the Commission is aiming to achieve this without any kind of EU-wide consensus in the arena of Internet security. There is also no indication of where such a debate would take place.”
1.11 Finally, the Minister said that he believed that the Commission’s the long-term strategy was “to develop these areas of work into legal minimum levels and standards of resilience, preparedness and security”, but “there is no timetable or detail set out for this yet.”
Our assessment 1.12 We found it odd that the Minister made no mention of the April 2009 Ministerial conference or of the 2010 stock-take, the Commission having made it clear that at this
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 7
point it expected to propose further measures. In the first instance, we asked the Minister to write to us with his assessment of the conference and its outcomes.
1.13 We also asked the Minister to elaborate more fully on those aspects of the Communication (which he summed up very briefly in his Explanatory Memorandum) that he regarded as based on relatively weak evidence or alarmist analysis. As he said, preparedness undoubtedly needed to be built up in individual Member States before becoming effective at an EU level. But the case for developing a capacity for Member States to work together effectively seemed to us to be self-evident. No doubt the Commission’s timetable was unrealistic; time would tell: but, in saying that he supported “the drive from the Commission to achieve higher levels of resilient information infrastructure”, the Minister did not make clear whether his concern was over only the level of ambition of the Commission’s timetable, or over the Commission’s proposals for a greater role for the Commission in general and ENISA in particular. Nor, in saying what he thought the Commission’s long-term strategy was, did the Minister say what he thought about it. So we asked him to explain his views more fully about the best way ahead.
1.14 We also found it odd that the Minister made no mention of ENISA at all, given that it was the subject of prolonged discussion with his department in 2007–08.14 That discussion was about the proposal to which the Commission itself referred, i.e., the extension of its mandate until 2012. This was contentious because the independent evaluation in 2006 required by its statutes had revealed an unhappy state of affairs, at the heart of which was the Commission’s rejection of the review’s most important finding — that the decision, left to the Greek government during its then-Presidency, to locate ENISA on Crete, should be revisited. The Government of Greece maintained that the case against Crete was not soundly based and, at that time, was said to be “working hard to address the most obvious problems”. A year on, the Commission was now proposing an expanded role for it in developing a pan-European framework without, so far as we are aware, any indication that the agency is any more effective at doing its present job than it was when the critical review was produced. We therefore ask the Minister to bring us up to date on what had been done and to let us know if he considered that ENISA was up to the task that the Commission had in mind for it.
1.15 The Minister also suggested that he was unhappy with the Commission’s thoughts on this aspect of Internet governance (c.f. paragraph 1.10 above), which he said was “without any kind of EU-wide consensus in the arena of Internet security”. In 2006–07, we considered an earlier Commission Communication on Internet governance, which sought to assess the results of the second World Summit on the Information Society (which was held in Tunis in November 2005).15 It was designed to reach conclusions on the two unresolved issues — financial mechanisms and Internet governance. The latter was resolved via the creation of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. Last November, the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Vadera, told us that the UK, the EU and the US were all of one mind on “ensuring this multi-stakeholder process is a success”, and that security was likely to be one of the main issues to be addressed at the third IGF Forum, to be held in Hyderabad on 1–5 December
14 See headnote; HC 16–xxiii (2007–08), chapter 12 (4 June 2008). 15 See headnote; (27466) 8841/08: HC 41–xxi (2006–07), chapter 15 (9 May 2007).
8 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
2008 — which she described as “global dialogue on Internet governance and the future direction of the IGF at this crucial mid-way point in its 5-year life span”. There was, however, no mention of the IGF by either the Commission or the Minister. We therefore asked the Minister to explain more fully what he found wrong with the Commission approach, and why there was no mention of what otherwise seemed to be a key component in developing an effective international response to the threat in question.
1.16 In the meantime, we retained the document under scrutiny.
The Minister’s letter of 11 June 2009 1.17 In his letter, the Minister responds as follows:
Ministerial conference “The Committee requested that I report back on the Tallinn Ministerial Conference on protecting Critical Information Infrastructure which took place on the 27 and 28th April. I am happy to do so. I could not attend the event myself, and indeed very few Ministers were able to attend, but the UK was represented at official level. The event itself was a successful part of the drive to raise the political profile of the issues around protecting critical information infrastructure and I believe launched the issue as a discreet [sic] policy area within the EU.
“The discussion centred on the aims outlined in the Commission Communication: Protecting Europe from large scale cyber-attacks and disruptions: enhancing preparedness, security and resilience (8375/09). The Commission did not announce any new initiatives but Commissioner Reding attended and spoke forcefully in support of the Commission’s work in this area and emphasised its importance. The Communication received support from Member States, and the general consensus was that going forward, we should focus on identifying what the main priorities should be and how these can be delivered.
“The main outcomes of the conference (outlined below) indicate that action is required and the main need is to focus on enhancing coordination and cooperation amongst Member States and with industry to deliver enhanced infrastructure protection:
• “A clear and coherent strategy for the coming years, based first and foremost on strong coordination and cooperation among Member States, the private sector and all concerned stakeholders, is needed; and action to enhance preparedness, security and resilience of Critical Information Infrastructure across the EU should be accompanied by a thorough discussion on the future of EU policy towards Network and Information Security
• “Each Member State shall act domestically to enhance the protection of its own Critical Information Infrastructures as a necessary building block towards an enhanced EU preparedness
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 9
• “A joint EU exercise on Critical Information Infrastructure Protection should be organised and staged by 2010 (in line with the Commission’s action plan).
• “ENISA (European Network and Information Security Agency) has the potential to be a valuable instrument for bolstering EU-wide cooperative efforts in this field. However, the new and long lasting challenges ahead require a thorough rethinking and reformulation of the Agency’s mandate in order to better focus on EU priorities and needs
• “Dialogue between public authorities and the private sector should be stimulated to ensure responsibilities of Member States to protect their citizens as well as the practical constraints faced by businesses are well understood
• “Public and private sectors should be engaged at the EU level in developing an appropriate policy, economic framework and the incentives to support the uptake of security and resilience measures. An instrument serving to facilitate information sharing and dissemination of good practice between Member States would help to maximise the overall capability and level of expertise across the EU
• “Arrangements such as Public-Private Partnerships or a Forum of Member States are essential to ensure that understanding and information exchange is followed by concrete action at the strategic and tactical levels
“These outcomes are clearly a solid base from which to enhance network resilience and preparedness and you will note largely support the aims of the Communication. That is not to say that all of the elements of the Communication were accepted without question — particularly in relation to the reality of the timetable. The meeting concluded that we needed to address levels of preparedness and security that vary significantly across Member States by helping Member States build up resilience.
“It is very positive that the Commission continues to focus on engaging both the public and private sectors. This is a good basis for the next stage of policy development in prioritising the areas it believes are key to the broader objective of strengthening information systems in the EU. This will be taken as a discussion point at the 11 June Telecoms Council and I have written to you on that point.”
Evidence and future “The Committee has requested clarification on why I expressed concern regarding the evidence base of the Communication. As the Committee has stated, the case for developing a capacity for Member States to work together effectively is clearly self- evident. I would not deny this but would only say that the approach taken by the Commission smacks of hobbling [sic] together whatever evidence they can put their hands on and then interpreting it in a dramatic way. I therefore agree with you that we should not argue with the need for policy developments in this area but one of the issues going forward will be how to measure success and it does not auger well for meeting that challenge that this document is so light on analysis and relevant data. So
10 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
I would say my concern is more on the principles of better regulation and evidence- based decision making rather than what is proposed.
“A particular point of concern in this regard is the way in which the attacks on Estonia are presented as a watershed. Undoubtedly, the attacks had a severe impact, yet nevertheless Commission policy should not be determined by reference to one incident and an incident on which there is little information in the public domain as to what actually happened. Additionally, many different cost estimates and risk assessments — the basis of which is not always clear — have been cited when referring to the cost of loss or disruption of information systems. The UK approach to protecting critical infrastructure is based on broad risk analysis and a detailed understanding of the UK telecoms system to achieve a measured approach across the system as a whole, and I am hopeful that the Commission, having stated in the Communication that it will adopt a risk-based approach, will move away from broad-brush high-level risks and embrace a more targeted approach to analysis and measurement.”
ENISA “I think it is important to note that the Commission Communication really only deals with things that the Agency can do in the next two years — that is before its extended mandate expires. I have absolutely no problem with this. In recent years, ENISA has collated and analysed different approaches to resilience and is in a good position to share good practice on the ways of building and enhancing resilience in individual Member States. This seems a sensible way to extract the maximum value from the Agency and the quality of the work produced so far is of a standard that I believe, answers your question whether the Agency is ‘up to the task’.
“Your comments refer to the review of the Agency and where things stand. As you know, the Agency was extended by two years to tie in with the review of the Framework regulation for the Communications Sector. This was seen as an opportunity to review in depth the EU approach to Network and Information Security in its widest sense. The approach to CIIP (Critical Information Infrastructure Protection) is a more narrowly focused precursor to the development of that wider policy. Clearly, the review of the policy will include reaching a view on what should be done with ENISA. There may be an assumption in the Communication and elsewhere that the Agency should continue in a modified form. Indeed, one of the conclusions drawn at the Tallinn conference was that ENISA could be ‘a valuable instrument for bolstering EU-wide cooperative efforts in this field. However, the new and long lasting challenges ahead require a thorough rethinking and reformulation of the Agency’s mandate in order to better focus on EU priorities and needs’. I am not convinced that we should rush to conclusions on this point. It seems self-evident to me that you should decide on your policy objectives first and then review what instruments you might need to achieve them. The UK will make this point at the forthcoming Telecoms Council discussion referred to above.”
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 11
Internet Governance “As the Committee has noted in its response to the EM, I have expressed some concerns regarding the Commission’s proposals regarding the development of Principles and Guidelines for Internet resilience and stability at a global level. My concern here is not to query whether there are questions around internet security and resilience that need to be addressed at the global level — examples are the protection of undersea cables, the security of the domain name system and the protection of peering points — but rather that we do not want the Commission to have enhanced powers in this area.
“As your note makes clear, the whole issue of internet governance has been fraught and we have fully supported the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) process as a way of addressing global issues through gaining consensus on solutions; this process relies on the contribution of all stakeholders to build global consensus, including the contribution [of] individual EU member states. The Commission’s principal engagement in the IGF process is through working with Member States, the Council of Europe and European parliamentarians on preparations for a second regional forum, the European Dialogue on Internet Governance. We are happy with this process and I will wish to ensure through the development of the international element of the Communication that this does not become a ‘land grab’ by the Commission to buy them increased influence at UK expense in fora such as the IGF.”
Conclusion 1.18 We are grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response. His position is clear: that the Commission has a role in addressing levels of preparedness and security that vary significantly across Member States by helping Member States build up resilience; that it is very positive that the Commission continues to focus on engaging both the public and private sectors, as the next stage of policy development in prioritising the areas it believes are key to the broader objective of strengthening information systems in the EU; and that, while internet security and resilience needs to be addressed at the global level, he does not want the Commission to have enhanced powers in this area.
1.19 At the moment, that is not a live issue; but there is every reason not to take this for granted. Here and now, the Minister says, the Commission is preparing a European Dialogue on Internet Governance, which he wishes to ensure “does not become a “land grab” by the Commission to buy them increased influence at UK expense in fora such as the IGF.” We would like the Minister to write to us about the outcome of this exercise in due course, and in particular whether he then judges that the Commission is on the course that he prefers, or is showing any signs of wishing to acquire the sort of control that he opposes.
1.20 In the meantime we shall continue to retain the document under scrutiny.
12 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
2 Aviation security charges
(30645) Draft Directive on aviation security charges 9864/09 + ADDs 1–2 COM(09) 217
Legal base Article 80(02) EC; co-decision; QMV Document originated 11 May 2009 Deposited in Parliament 14 May 2009 Department Transport Basis of consideration EM of 17 June 2009 Previous Committee Report None To be discussed in Council Possibly 8–9 October 2009 Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Not cleared; further information requested
Background 2.1 Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 updated legislation establishing common standards for civil aviation security and creating a system of inspections.16 During conciliation before adoption of the Regulation the European Parliament requested that the Commission report on the principles of financing the costs of civil aviation security measures and on adoption of the Regulation the Commission undertook to do this.
2.2 In February 2009 the Commission published this Report and indicated that it would continue preparing a legislative proposal based on the assessment in it. The key themes of the Report were:
• the extent to which aviation security charges are linked to the cost of providing security;
• the transparency of this link where it exists;
• the impact of aviation security and its financing on competition between airports and between airlines; and
• the distribution of the costs of security between taxpayers and users. 17
2.3 In March 2009 Directive (EC) No 12/2009 on airport charges in general was adopted. However the question of security charges was not addressed during the negotiation of this Directive, as the findings of the Commission’s Report were still awaited.18
16 (26861) 12588/05: see HC 34–viii (2005–06), chapter 4 (2 November 2005), HC 34–xv (2005–06), chapter 2 (18 January 2006) and HC 34–xxi (2005–06), chapter 1 (8 March 2006) and Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee, 7 March 2006, cols 3–16. 17 (30429) 6074/09: see HC 19–xi (2008–09), chapter 14 (18 March 2009).
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 13
The document 2.4 The Commission now presents this draft Directive on aviation security charges which would require:
• airport managing bodies to provide each user annually with information on the components serving as a basis for determining the level of all security charges levied at an airport;
• Member States to undertake impact assessments for all new and current measures that are more stringent than the standard Community-wide requirements;
• Member States to ensure that security charges are used exclusively to meet security costs; and
• Member States to nominate or establish an independent body to ensure the correct application of these measures.
2.5 The Airport Charges Directive, Directive (EC) No 12/2009, sets out principles for how airports should set airport charges and their relationship with airports. It covers many of the same areas mentioned in the draft Directive, such as non-discrimination, consultation requirements, providing information about underlying costs and how charges are set and a right of appeal to a regulator. However, the draft Directive differs from the Airport Charges Directive in a number of ways, including that:
• the Airport Charges Directive only covers airports with an annual traffic of five million or more passenger movements, but there is no size threshold in this proposal; and
• the Airport Charges Directive allows multi-annual agreements whereas this proposal requires annual agreements.
The Government’s view 2.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 17 June the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Paul Clark) says that the Government welcomed the broad thrust of the Commission’s Report on aviation security charges and that the policy and operational implications of this draft Directive, including whether it conforms to the subsidiarity principle, are still being considered. But he says that the Government has concerns about some of the provisions in the draft Directive, including that it:
• appears to restrict Member States’ ability to swiftly put in place More Stringent Measures for aviation security, by requiring an impact assessment to be carried out first — the Government is committed to carrying out risk assessments of such measures and to completing impact assessments for new measures, but not where this would impede swift imposition when needed;
18 (28346) 5887/07 + ADDs 1–2: see HC 41–xi (2006–07), chapter 3 (28 February 2007), HC 16–ii (2007–08), chapter 4 (14 November 2007) and HC 16–iv (2007–08), chapter 22 (28 November 2007).
14 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
• proposes that the requirement for impact assessments for More Stringent Measures is retrospective, which the Government does not consider appropriate;
• proposes differences to the Airport Charges Directive, including the lack of an annual traffic threshold for airports that would be included in the scope of the new Directive;
• has a potential impact on small airports, including those in the Highlands and Islands;
• does not align with the provisions in the Airport Charges Directive on consultation and transparency of costs; and
• requires a separate security charge where there is none at present, which could be, given that a number of UK airports do not currently have separately identified security charges as these are part of general airport charges, an additional burden on airports.
The Minister adds that the Government will be seeking clarification from the Commission on the various issues and says also that it will be seeking the views of stakeholders to inform its negotiating position.
2.7 Finally, the Minister notes that the Commission’s impact assessment accompanying the draft Directive:
• says that the cost of aviation security has increased over recent years;
• estimates that in 2002 more than 90% of this cost was recovered through security charges or taxes levied on air passengers, airlines and cargo shippers;
• says that in 2007 these security charges yielded an estimated revenue of €1.6 billion in the Community; and
• considers security costs constitute 1% of the air fare.
The Minister says that the Government is still analysing the impact assessment and considering the financial implications for the UK.
Conclusion 2.8 Clearly, although the matter of aviation security charges has to be addressed, this draft Directive presents some problems. So before considering it further we should like to hear from the Government about developments on:
• its view of subsidiarity;
• More Stringent Measures;
• the differences between the Airport Charges Directive and this proposal;
• the potential impact on small airports;
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 15
• separately identified security charges;
• the Government’s analysis of the Commission’s impact assessment and of the financial implications of the proposal; and
• its consultations.
2.9 Meanwhile the document remains under scrutiny.
3 Use of Passenger Name Records for law enforcement purposes
(a) (30385) Draft Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name 5618/09 Records (PNR) for law enforcement purposes —
(b) (30651) Draft Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name 5618/1/09 Records (PNR) for law enforcement purposes (Articles 1–10) —
Legal base (a) Articles 29, 30(1)(b) and 34(2)(b) EU; consultation; unanimity Deposited in Parliament 27 January 2009 Department Home Office Basis of consideration Minister’s letter of 8 May 2009 and EM of 12 May 2009 Previous Committee Report (a) HC 19–xiii (2008–09), chapter 4 (1 April 2009) (b) None To be discussed in Council No date set Committee’s assessment Legally and politically important Committee’s decision (a) Not cleared; (b) Not cleared; further information requested
Background 3.1 Passenger Name Record (PNR) data is booking information held by airlines about their passengers which can be useful to law enforcement authorities in identifying potential risks. (This is different from Advanced Passenger Information (API) which is data derived from passports.) The proposed draft Framework Decision suggests a system for PNR data to be provided by carriers on flights into and out of the EU, for this data to be held by
16 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
Passenger Information Units, and for its use relation to terrorist offences and serious crime.
Previous scrutiny of the document 3.2 When we last reviewed this draft Framework Decision on 1 April (document a), we noted that the Presidency had significantly amended the text largely in line with findings made by the multi-disciplinary group on organised crime (MDG) under the French Presidency (and reported by the Committee on 28 January 2009).19 The Presidency had also incorporated some proposals on which no consensus had been agreed, including the retention period for PNR data and the use of sensitive personal information.
3.3 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 6 February 2009, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State at the Home Office (Meg Hillier) welcomed the re-draft of the Framework Decision. It had taken into account many of the Member States’ preferences and concerns relating to an EU PNR system which “brings with it the advantage of EU wide cooperation on issues such as combating terrorism and serious crime, minimising the burden on industry, and enabling the EU to set appropriate data protection standards on the use of PNR data”. She commented that the re-draft allowed for PNR data to be processed in relation to a wider remit of crimes as defined in the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant; for Member States to process PNR data in relation to intra- EU flights as well as other modes of transport if they chose; for Member States to process PNR data for other purposes such as combating illegal immigration if they chose; and for sensitive personal information contained within PNR to be processed. But the re-draft also obliged Member States to process PNR data for all international flights into and out of the EU within 6 years of the Framework Decision coming into force, which the Government opposed.
3.4 We took stock of these amendments but refrained from a full review until the negotiation positions of Member States on the new text had become apparent. We did, however, express considerable concern that the obligation to process PNR data for all flights into and out of the EU — i.e. collection of 100% of PNR data — greatly extended the scope of the Framework Decision; was in consequence a greater intrusion into passengers’ rights to privacy and data protection; and went against the evidence provided that speculative searches of all such flights was both impractical and unnecessary. We also expressed concern over the role given to the Commission in the Framework Decision in recommending protocols for the transmission of PNR data through comitology.
The Minister’s letter of 8 May 3.5 On 8 May the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, (Shahid Malik), wrote in response to our Report of 1 April. He informed us that there were “significantly differing opinions” among Member States on the need for 100% collection of PNR data and that it was “unlikely that this Article will remain as it is currently drafted”. As regards the Commission’s role in making recommendations regarding common protocols for the transmission of PNR data, he commented that the awaited redraft of
19 (29109) 14922/07, (30252) 16457/08; see HC 19–v (2008–09), Chapter 11 (28 January 2009).
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 17
Articles 11–20 “will hopefully include positive redrafting in this respect”. The Minister promised to keep us informed of developments in these two areas as negotiations progress.
The Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum of 12 May 3.6 A further revision of Articles 1–10 of the draft Framework Decision (document b) was deposited in Parliament in May. In his Explanatory Memorandum the Minister states that the revised draft introduces further changes to Articles 1–10, but draws our attention to only two as being significant.
3.7 Firstly, the definition of “serious crime” in Article 2 has been expanded to cover organised criminal offences as referred to in Article 2 of Council Framework Decision on the fight against organised crime (2008/841/JHA). Previously, “serious crime” had been defined by the crimes listed in Article 2 of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. He comments that the “Government welcomes this reference to 2008/841/JHA, as it represents a step forward in ensuring that both serious and organised crime are covered within the scope of the draft Framework Decision on the use of PNR for law enforcement purposes”.
3.8 Secondly, the Minister informs us that the re-draft of Article 5 on PNR data collection retains the same ambitious schedule for the 100% collection of PNR data within six years of the entry into force of the Framework Decision. Member States are, as before, required to ensure that the PNR data for 30% of all international flights into and out of the EU is collected within three years of the entry into force of the Framework Decision, and for 60% of all international flights into and out of the EU in the following three years. At the end of this six-year period, Member States are expected to ensure 100% PNR data collection. The Minister comments:
“… we do not believe it is necessary or proportionate. We instead advocate a targeted approach to the collection of PNR data on the basis of routes where there is the greatest opportunity for operational benefit. By 2013, the UK Government aims to collect PNR data on 100 million passenger movements per year which will account for about one third of all passenger movements.
“Based upon UK Government practical experience, the UK Government strongly believes that the final draft instrument should provide longer timeframes for Member States to increase their collection of PNR data and include stricter review clauses to ensure that the instrument can be easily amended if Member States believe it will be difficult to achieve 100% collection of PNR data.
“However it is important to note that at present the proposed 100% collection of PNR data remains an issue on which Member States opinions widely differ, and is therefore an issue that has yet to be resolved for the purposes of this Framework Decision.”
3.9 We also note, although the Minister makes no comment on them:
• that air carriers will be required to use the push method to transfer data to national authorities after two years, rather than three years, in revised Article 5(4) in document (b);
18 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
• that in relation to the period of data retention for PNR, the Presidency comments in a footnote to Article 9 in document (b) that “it is highly unlikely that a consensus can be reached among 27 delegations on an exact retention period”. (Document (b) obliges Member States to keep PNR data in an active database for three years and an inactive database for not more than seven years thereafter.);
• and that paragraph 5 of the Council’s Note attached to document (b) states that “AT [Austria] has also stressed the need for a further examination of the legal basis for this proposal in the light of the opinion of the Council Legal Service”.
Conclusion 3.10 We thank the Minister for his letter and Explanatory Memorandum setting out Presidency amendments to Article 1–10 of the Framework Decision, as contained in document (b).
3.11 The offences for which PNR can be used should be set out as precisely as possible in the Framework Decision. We therefore welcome the additional clarification that “serious crime” also covers “conduct related to a criminal organisation” as defined in Article 2(a) and (b) of the Framework Decision on the fight against organised crime and, more specifically, as implemented by Member States as specific criminal offences under national law.
3.12 We note the Minister’s comments both in his letter of 8 May and Explanatory Memorandum of 12 May about the differences between Member States on the Articles on 100% PNR collection and the Commission’s role in making recommendations regarding common protocols for the transmission of PNR data. We very much hope that these provisions will be diluted or positively redrafted, as he suggests.
3.13 But we voice our concern again at the scope of this Framework Decision being extended to 100% PNR data collection, for the same reasons as set out in our last Report. It appears from the Explanatory Memorandum, however, that the Government’s position (as quoted above) is that the Framework Decision should allow for longer timeframes within which to reach 100% PNR data collection, with a review clause to be used if this goal proves impossible, as the Government predicts. We would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister why 100% PNR data collection should even be a goal of this instrument, given, as the Minister says himself, that it is neither “necessary” nor “proportionate”, and in our view could thereby upset the balance between a legitimate and illegitimate restriction on passengers’ rights to privacy and data protection.
3.14 We would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether there is strong support from Member States for air carriers to be obliged to use the push method to transfer PNR data to national authorities after two years from entry into force of the Framework Decision, as appears from revised Article 5(4) of document (b).
3.15 We note the Presidency’s comment that it is highly unlikely that consensus will be achieved on the period of retention of PNR data. In her Explanatory Memorandum of 6 February, the Minister stated that the Government was “currently discussing the
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 19
impact of the proposed data retention periods with our technical experts”. We would be grateful to know the outcome of these discussions, and the Government’s view on what would be an appropriate period of retention by national authorities both in the EU and in third countries.
3.16 We would be grateful for clarification of what issues have arisen over the legal basis of this Framework Decision.
3.17 In the meantime, we keep both documents (a) and (b) under scrutiny.
4 Legal framework for setting up European Research Infrastructure Consortia
(29896) Draft Council Regulation on the Community legal framework for a 12259/08 European Research Infrastructure (ERI) COM(08) 467
+ ADDs 1–2 Commission staff working documents: impact assessment and summary of assessment
Legal base Articles 171 and 172 EC; consultation; QMV Department Business, Innovation and Skills Basis of consideration Ministers’ letters of 19 May and 17 June 2009 Previous Committee Report HC 19–ii (2008–09), chapter 5 (17 December 2008) Discussed in Council 29 May 2009 Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Cleared
Previous scrutiny of the document 4.1 When we considered this draft Regulation last October,20 we noted that “clean rooms” for nano-electronics research and powerful irradiation facilities to enable scientists to do advanced R&D on materials are examples of European Research Infrastructures (ERIs). We also noted that, in some cases, Member States may wish to get together in European Research Infrastructure Consortia (ERICs) to provide such facilities. But, in the Commission’s view, neither international nor Community law provides a satisfactory legal framework for ERICs and nor does the domestic law of the Member States.
4.2 So the Commission proposed this Regulation last July. It sets out, for example, an approval process for applications to become an ERIC and says what ERICs should include in their statutes about the work they will do and how they will be run. The Commission
20 See HC 16–xxxiii (2007–08), chapter 3 (29 October 2008).
20 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
also proposed that Member States should give ERICs exemption from VAT and excise duties.
4.3 The Government told us that it welcomed the draft Regulation. It was opposed only to the proposed requirement for Member States to give ERICs tax exemption.
4.4 We agreed with the Government that establishing a legal framework along the lines proposed in the draft Regulation would probably be useful. We also shared the Government’s view about the provisions on VAT and excise duty.
4.5 In his letters of 30 November and 12 December 2008, the Minister of State at the then Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Lord Drayson) provided us with progress reports on the negotiations. Because of the importance of the provisions on tax exemption, we decided to keep the draft Regulation under scrutiny until the position was clearer.21
The Minister’s letter of 19 May 4.6 In his letter of 19 May, the Minister told us that, at the UK’s insistence, the Council’s VAT Committee had examined the question and had concluded unanimously that Consortia which met the criteria for ERIC status would qualify as “international bodies” for VAT purposes and for tax exemption. Subsequently, the Research Working Group had agreed with the UK’s proposal that it should be for the tax authorities of the host country to decide whether to grant tax exemption. At COREPER on 13 May, the UK obtained agreement to an amendment which would reflect this position. Accordingly, the Government intended to support a political agreement to the amended Regulation at the Competitiveness Council on 29 May.
The Minister’s letter of 17 June 2009 4.7 In his letter of 17 June, the Minister for Science and Innovation at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Drayson) confirms that the Government took part in the agreement on 29 May. He explains that:
“all parties concerned had made considerable efforts to craft a text which would be acceptable to the UK and meet the concerns voiced, not least by the Scrutiny Committees. It was clear at Council that the tax elements of this revised text commanded unanimous support … . Against this background, and given that the substance of the text was acceptable to us, the Government felt that a failure to support the final proposal would not have been easily understood by our partners, would have endangered overall agreement and could have led to further discussions on the tax issue with potentially unacceptable language for the UK. We therefore decided to agree to the text at Council; I apologise for the fact that, due to time constraints this meant that we had to do so before it had fully cleared scrutiny.”
21 See HC 19–ii (2008–09), chapter 5 (17 December 2008)
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 21
Conclusion 4.8 If it had not been for the Whitsun Recess, we should have met on 27 May and cleared the amended text of the draft Regulation at that meeting. In the light of the Minister’s explanation, we can understand why the Government decided to take part in the Council’s agreement of the amended text on 29 May even though we had not been able to clear it by then. In the circumstances, we are now content formally to clear the document from scrutiny.
5 Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the South African Development Community States
(a) (29973) Draft Council Decision on the signature and provisional application 13314/08 of the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the + ADDS 1–13 European Community and its Member States and the SADC EPA COM(08) 562 States
(b) (29979) Draft Council Decision concluding the Interim Economic Partnership 13386/08 Agreement between the European Community and its Member + ADDS 1–13 States and the SADC EPA States COM(08) 565
Legal base Articles 133, 181 and 300 EC; QMV; co-decision Department International Development Basis of consideration Minister’s letter of 11 June 2009 Previous Committee Report HC 19–vii (2008–09), chapter 7 (11 February 2009) and HC 16–xxxi (2007–08), chapter 5 (15 October 2008); also see (29043) 14498/07 and (29155) 14968/07: HC 16–xxi (2007–08), chapter 13 (14 May 2008) Discussed in Council 24 April 2009 Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Cleared (reported to the House on 11 February 2009); further information requested
22 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
Background 5.1 The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries, which began in 2002, aimed at redefining the trade regime between the two groups of countries, thereby replacing the long-standing Lomé system of preferential access to the European market for the ACP from 2008. The EPAs are intended to be in conformity with WTO rules, which require that barriers to trade be dismantled on both sides, introducing an element of reciprocity into trade relations between the EU and the ACP states for the first time. This gave rise to concern that extensive market opening in these countries to the EU could create strong adjustment pressures, while European suppliers would be only marginally affected by free market access for ACP goods and services. The deadline for negotiation was 31 December 2007.
5.2 The Commission’s aim was always “full” EPAs — which include provisions on trade- related areas, trade-related rules and trade in services and include appropriate links to development cooperation, as well as trade in goods — in accordance with what is outlined in the Cotonou Agreement and the Commission’s negotiating mandate. But not all of the six ACP negotiating regions were likely to conclude a full EPA by the set deadline; so, for these regions, the Commission decided to pursue basic “trade in goods agreements”, which provide for duty free/quota free access and simplified Rules of Origin.
5.3 Our earlier Reports set out our consideration of the process in greater detail, concluding with a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Departments for International Development and Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Mr Gareth Thomas) outlining the general situation as of the end of April 2008.22
The Council Decisions 5.4 These two proposals are for:
— a Council Decision authorising the signature, on behalf of the Community, and provisional application of an Agreement between the EC and its Member States on the one hand, and the SADC EPA states on the other; and:
— a Council Decision authorising the formal conclusion, on behalf of the Community, of an Agreement between the EC and its Member States on the one hand, and the SADC EPA states on the other
5.5 “SADC EPA states” refers to Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique, countries within SADC that have completed interim EPA negotiations. Of these, the first four are members, along with South Africa, of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). In this Agreement, for some purposes the “SADC EPA states” act collectively and for others they act individually.
5.6 The Commission and SADC EPA states initialled the IEPA on 23 November 2007, which enabled their inclusion in the EPA Market Access Regulation adopted by the
22 (29043) 14498/07 and (29155) 14968/07: HC 16–xxi (2007–08), chapter 13 (14 May 2008): see headnote.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 23
Council of Ministers on 20 December 2007 (which provides for duty-free, quota-free access for all SADC EPA states’ exports to the EU, commencing 1 January 2008).
5.7 The Commission has issued these proposals together as they both concern the formalities necessary to agree formally and give effect to the same international agreement, namely the Agreement establishing an interim Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and its Member States and the SADC EPA states (the IEPA). The two step process is not unusual — the EC Treaty expressly allows the Community to apply international agreements provisionally, prior to their formal conclusion, as the formal conclusion process can be lengthy.
Previous consideration 5.8 The details of the IEPA are set out in our previous Report. In his accompanying 10 October 2008 Explanatory Memorandum, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) said that the UK had consistently stated that EPAs should help provide a strong framework for long term development, economic growth and poverty reduction, and had centred its policy on the principles set out in the DFID/DTI Position Paper of 2005.23
5.9 This Agreement broadly aligned with these principles, which included the belief that: ACP countries should be able to decide the scope of issues covered within their IEPA; they should have flexibility over their market opening; EPAs should provide them with duty and quota free market access into the EU with improved Rules of Origin; they should benefit from effective safeguards to protect their markets when required; and EU partners should provide ACP countries with effective development assistance to benefit from new trade opportunities while ensuring aid is not made conditional on signing an EPA. The initialling of this ‘goods-only’ agreement had thus enabled SADC EPA states to secure market access into the EU while allowing more time to work with other African neighbours to negotiate a regional EPA covering other trade issues such as services.
5.10 The Minister noted a number of positive features (see our previous report). But he also noted a number of concerns raised by the SADC signatories and South Africa — SACU’s biggest and most influential member, who had chosen not to initial the IEPA — which he intended to pursue in the Development Working Group (ditto). These included some measures not required for WTO compatibility (e.g. MFN clause and standstill clause), what he regarded as an over-ambitious timetable regarding commitments to broaden the scope of the Agreement (on services and investment) and the potential damage to the aim of regional integration through South Africa’s non-participation. He said that he would monitor these and lobby the Commission as necessary. Given these concerns and the fact that discussion on the concluded SADC IEPA had not been held so far in the Working Groups, he thought it possible that he might need to come back to the Committee with further developments and advice. The Committee nonetheless drew all this to the attention of the House, because of the widespread interest in the EPA process, and also to the attention of the International Development Committee, so that they might
23 Which is reproduced at the Annex to chapter 1 of our First Report: see HC16–i (2007–08), chapter 1 (7 November 2007).
24 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
be aware of the elements of the EPA and the Minister’s concerns; and in the meantime retained the documents under scrutiny.24
The Minister’s letter of 29 January 2009 5.11 The Minister provided the following update:
Regional Integration issues — Border administration: concerns over regional integration as South Africa is not party to the interim EPA (IEPA), the most pressing relating to the mis-match in tariffs between the SADC states and SACU (South African Customs Union). The main challenge to maintaining coherent regional trade regimes was to harmonise tariffs between South Africa and other countries in SADC. The Commission had presented South Africa with a range of options that would enable this and dialogue was ongoing.
Regional Integration issues — Content: EPA rules on sourcing of materials meant that inputs from South Africa which fell under the exclusion list could not be used in goods exported to the EU from SADC. The Commission had informed him that these items were not indefinitely excluded. However, his understanding from regional governments was that there was not yet clarity on dates and how future sourcing of inputs from South Africa would be managed. He was monitoring the situation closely and would, if necessary, push for greater flexibility from the Commission.
Country Government Views: Angola, South Africa and Namibia were the only governments in the region to express opposition to the terms of the interim EPA. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland had been generally supportive but had expressed concerns about the impact of the Interim EPA on regional integration.
Namibia had signalled its intention to sign but had also raised concerns, some of which echoed those of South Africa. Recent Commission updates said that progress has been made on the most contentious issues. On balance, it appeared that Namibia was likely to sign, but with the expectation that their concerns would be addressed in the move towards a regional EPA.
Engagement with South Africa was ongoing, but progress had been slow in the light of “current domestic pressures”; the Minister would do all he could to encourage both the Commission and key negotiating partners to reach agreement on outstanding issues.
Future Regional Engagement: The Trade Commissioner was to visit the Southern African region in February to help progress discussions on the regional EPA. And the Commission had outlined plans to hold a seminar in early 2009, once the Interim EPA had been signed, to promote constructive discussion with countries in the region on difficult or sensitive issues that were not fully resolved within the Interim EPA but were to “be seriously considered in the regional agreement.”
24 HC 16–xxxi (2007–08), chapter 5 (15 October 2008); see headnote.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 25
In sum, the Minister described the SADC region as complex and containing countries with quite divergent interests; while a number of concerns had yet to be resolved, structures were in place to work towards their resolution.
5.12 Though we felt that it was plain that there had been little, if any, concrete progress regarding any of the Minister’s major concerns, there were at least indications that the Commission was beginning to address them, and it would not be possible for them to do so were the IEPA to remain unsigned. We therefore cleared the documents, and again drew this to the attention of the International Development Committee, and asked the Minister to write before the summer recess with a further update.25
5.13 The Council Decisions were subsequently endorsed, with a list of desiderata concerning subsequent discussions with the SADC countries, by the European Parliament in its resolution of 25 March 2009, 26 and adopted by the Council on 24 April 2009.
The Minister’s letter of 11 June 2009 5.14 The Minister sets out the current position as follows:
State of play of the Interim EPA “The visit by Trade Commissioner Ashton to the SADC region in February was positively received. Following the visit, a meeting was held on 9–12 March between senior officials in the region and the Commission, at which agreement was reached on issues including export taxes, infant industry safeguards, quantitative restrictions, free circulation of goods and tariff alignment to preserve the South African Customs Union (SACU).
“The Interim EPA was signed on 4 June by Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. Mozambique is expected to sign shortly, and Namibia is expected to sign towards the end of 2009.
“Following these discussions, the Commission produced two Joint Declarations and an accompanying legal text. The declarations accompany the legal text of the Interim EPA and are intended to give assurances to the SADC signatories that specific modifications will be made to the Agreement. The first declaration sets out the position on tariff alignment, such as that the tariffs under the SADC EPA align with those of the South African Customs Union. Ensuring that tariff regimes are harmonised across the region is critical to regional trade. The second declaration sets out the commitment to regional integration and the region’s commitment to concluding the full EPA negotiations.
“The new legal texts, to be included in the full EPA, will cover the areas referred to above, where agreement has been reached. This means that the agreed changes
25 HC 19–vii (2008–09), chapter 7 (11 February 2009); see headnote. 26 See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009–0179+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN for the full text of the European Parliament resolution.
26 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
detailed in these legal texts do not change the terms of the Interim EPA text, but only become effective once the full EPA is signed.
Namibia’s position “Namibia has requested that the legal text detailing changes to be included in the text of the full regional EPA be included as an addendum to the Interim EPA. The Commission has stated that it cannot give such assurances as the interim EPA would have to be re-submitted to the European Council; Namibia has cited this as the main reason for not signing.
“While it appears that Namibia will not sign in the short term, the EU is an important market for its agricultural exports (especially beef and grapes). Failure to sign the EPA could ultimately lead to the Commission revoking Namibia’s Market Access Regulation, which provides countries that have signed an EPA provisional duty-free, quota-free access to the EU. Discussions are ongoing.
“We will continue to support the SADC region in its ambition to sign the full regional EPA and encourage the Commission to be as development focused and transparent as possible in its negotiations with SADC states.”
Conclusion 5.15 We are grateful to the Minister for this further information, which is reassuring as far as it goes. But we find it odd that he makes no mention at all of South Africa. We should accordingly be grateful for a further update in the autumn, to include an indication of where South Africa — a key factor — then is in the equation.
5.16 In the meantime, we are again reporting this further information to the House because of the widespread interest in these issues.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 27
6 Cross-border healthcare
(29786) Draft Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross- 11307/08 border healthcare COM(08) 414
+ ADDs 1–2 Commission staff working documents: impact assessment and summary of impact assessment
+ ADD 3 Commission staff working document: Towards a renewed social agenda for Europe — citizens’ well-being in the Information Society
Legal base Article 95 EC; QMV; co-decision Department Health Basis of consideration Minister’s letter of 16 June 2009 Previous Committee Report HC 16–xxviii (2007–08), chapter 2 (22 July 2008); HC 16–xxx (2007–08), chapter 7 (8 October 2008); and HC 19–xix (2008–09), chapter 12 (10 June 2009) Discussed in Council 9 June 2009 Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Cleared (decision reported on 21 October 2008). Further information awaited
Previous scrutiny of the document 6.1 In July 2008, when we first considered this draft Directive,27 we noted that the European Court of Justice has consistently ruled that patients who go to another Member State for healthcare are entitled to reimbursement of the cost by their home Member State if they would have been entitled to the treatment in the home State. The Court’s judgments have, however, left a good deal of uncertainty. So the Commission proposes this draft Directive to clarify the rights and duties of patients, Member States and health providers.
6.2 We agreed with the Government and the Commission about the desirability of EC legislation to clarify the law on patient mobility. Because of its importance, we recommended the draft Directive for debate in European Committee C. The debate was held on 21 October 2008.
6.3 Subsequently, the then Minister of State at the Department of Health (Dawn Primarolo) sent us further information and progress reports on the negotiations.28 In particular, she provided the text of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament when it gave the draft Directive a first reading on 23 April 2009. She told us that the Government welcomed most of the amendments but had not reached a view about a few of
27 See HC 16–xxviii (200–08), chapter 2 (22 July 2008). 28 See HC 19–xix (2008–09), chapter 12 (10 June 2009).
28 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
them, such as the European Parliament’s proposal that organ transplantation should be excluded from the scope of the Directive and the proposal for the establishment of a European Patents’ Ombudsman to consider and, if appropriate, mediate on patients’ complaints about prior authorisation, reimbursement or harm .
6.4 In the Conclusion to our report of 10 June 2009, we said that we shared the Government’s view that many of the European Parliament’s amendments are welcome. We explained why we are sceptical, however, about the European Parliament’s proposal for legislation to establish a European Patient’s Ombudsman. It seemed to us that, in principle, any “European” Ombudsman should be concerned solely with the actions of European institutions and should not have power to investigate the actions of national or regional governments. Moreover, the European Parliament proposes that complainants should not have access to the European Patients’ Ombudsman until “all the complaint options within the relevant Member State have been exhausted”.29 In effect, therefore, the European Ombudsman would be a court of appeal against the findings and conclusions of the national ombudsmen for health services; this, too, appeared to us to be objectionable in principle. We asked for the Minister’s comments on these points and to know if she had consulted the UK’s Health Services Ombudsmen about the proposal. We also asked her for further progress reports on the negotiations and to tell us the Government’s conclusion on the European Parliament’s proposal for the exclusion of organ transplantation from the scope of the Directive.
The Minister’s letter of 16 June 2009 6.5 We congratulate Gillian Merron on her appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Health and thank her for her letter of 16 June responding to the questions we put to her predecessor.
6.6 The Minister tells us that, when the Health Council discussed the draft Directive on 9 June, most Member States (including the UK) were agreed that good progress has been made in the negotiations so far. There are, however, two important questions on which opinions are divided:
• whether some types of healthcare provider (such as private providers not contracted to the State system) should be excluded from the scope of the Directive; and
• whether to delete the provisions in Chapter 4 of the draft Directive on healthcare cooperation between Member States and the provisions on the use of comitology to specify the details of such cooperation.
6.7 The Minister says that she believes our concerns about the European Parliament’s proposal for a European Patients’ Ombudsman are valid. She will seek clarification of the proposal and will consult the UK Health Services Ombudsman before the amendment is discussed by the Council.
6.8 The Health Commissioner (Androulla Vasilliou) told the Council on 9 June that it might not be possible to exclude organ transplantation from the scope of the Directive
29 European Parliament amendment 92.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 29
because transplantation comes within the definition of healthcare used by the European Court of Justice. But the Commissioner has asked Commission officials to consider the question in more detail and the Government looks forward to hearing the conclusions of that work.
6.9 Finally, the Minister says that she will provide us with further progress reports on the negotiations.
Conclusion 6.10 We are grateful to the Minister for her helpful letter. We look forward to receiving further progress reports. In particular, we ask to be kept fully informed about the consideration and discussion of:
• the proposal for a European Patients’ Ombudsman;
• the cooperation and comitology provisions; and
• whether organ transplantation and some types of healthcare provider should be excluded from the scope of the Directive.
7 Common Foreign and Security Policy
(30691) Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the 10665/09 main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP (point G, paragraph 43 of + CORs 1–2 the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006) — 2008 —
Legal base Article 21 EU; unanimity Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office Date deposited 15 June 2009 Basis of consideration EM of 15 June 2009 Previous Committee Report None: but see 29672 —: HC 16–xxii (2007–08), chapter 12 (21 May 2008), HC 16–xxv (2007–08), chapter 11 (25 June 2008); and (30250) 16686/08 and (30355) 17104/08: HC 19–v (2008–09), chapter 2 (28 January 2009) Discussed in Council 15 June 2009 General Affairs and External Relations Council Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Cleared
30 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
Background 7.1 Under Article 21 EU, the European Parliament is to be consulted on the main aspects and basic choices of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and kept regularly informed by the Presidency and the Commission of the development of this policy. In line with these requirements, the Council submits an annual report to the European Parliament.
The 2008 Annual Report
This 95 page report covers the year 2008 and also looks at perspectives for future action. It complements the chapter on external relations of the annual report on the progress of the EU presented to the European Parliament in application of Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, which includes the broad priorities of the EU’s external relations. It is set out under six headings: — Addressing Threats and Global Challenges
— Building Stability in Europe and Beyond
— Contribution to a more effective Multilateral Order
— Fostering Partnerships Across the World
— More Effective, Capable and Coherent
— Looking ahead at 2009
7.2 Annex I of the report lists 18 pages of Legal Acts carried out in the CFSP area, Annex II lists the appearances of representatives of the Council before the European Parliament and Annex III the commitment appropriations of the 2008 CFSP budget (which is reproduced at the Annex to this chapter of our Report).
7.3 The report is fully summarised and analysed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Chris Bryant) in his Explanatory Memorandum of 15 May 2008.
7.4 The Minister notes that CFSP objectives were pursued in cooperation with multilateral actors, in particular the UN, NATO and Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), but also increasingly with other regional bodies such as the African Union, and that the EU also continues to work bi-laterally with strategic partners such as the US, Russia and China on a broad spectrum of international issues.
7.5 The Minister also draws attention to the coverage in the report of the EU’s response to major security challenges, including the fights against terrorism, radicalisation and proliferation.
7.6 The Minister further notes that, in 2008, key actions detailed in the report that led to legislative actions — Joint Actions, Council Decisions, Common Positions, Council Regulations amending these — were submitted to the Committee by the Foreign and
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 31
Commonwealth Office, along with135 Explanatory Memoranda, in order to facilitate their scrutiny.
7.7 The Minister “highlight[s] the continued success of the EU” in the following areas:
Non-Proliferation “As detailed in this report, in 2008, the Council was active on advancing its efforts to Counter Proliferation. This is demonstrated by the agreement of Joint Action in support of the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Landmines and on their Destruction and the adoption of the Common Position defining legally binding common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment.
“The UK promotes Non-Proliferation because it helps save lives and underpins high standards of human rights observance and development. It does this by regulating the global arms trade in a way that will facilitates the legitimate and responsible export of conventional arms and prevents irresponsible arms trading.
Regional Conflicts, Conflict Prevention and Situations of Fragility “In 2008 the Council agreed to a number of measures designed to enhance security and stability in the world.
“The Council was instrumental in the international community’s response to the conflict between Georgia and Russia in August 2008. The EU, led by the Presidency, brokered a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia, and the Council agreed to launch the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire. This mission has undertaken over 3,600 patrols and continues to play a key role in defusing tensions in disputed areas. The Council condemned Russia’s decision to recognise the independence of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and continues to make clear its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders. The Council’s unity in delivering these messages continues to make a valuable contribution to wider international efforts to find a durable and stable solution to the conflict in Georgia, which the UK supports.
“ESDP missions continue to be active in the world, 2008 saw the launch of the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic (EUFOR Tchad/RCA);the extensions of the mandates of the two ESDP missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the EU advisory and assistance mission for security reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (EUSEC RD Congo) and the EU Police Mission for the DRC (EUPOL DR Congo);
“The mission in the Republic of Chad has now ended and the Government awaits its final report, which will in turn be passed on to the Committees. The missions in the DRC have had an impact, and the Government continues to support their continued efforts, particularly in the areas of Security Sector Reform.
32 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
“In the Middle East the mandates of the missions in the Palestinian territories were extended. Despite the continued closure of the border crossing at Rafah, the EU Border Assistance Mission to the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) stands ready to deploy at short notice should the political and security situation allow. The UK welcomes the expansion of activities of the EU Police Mission in the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) into the Rule of Law area.
“The ESDP mission in Kosovo is the largest EU civilian mission to date, covering police and the entire rule of law spectrum. We encourage increased engagement with Kosovo and fully support the EUSR (who is double-hatted as the head of the International Civilian Office) in his mission. The Government welcomes greater EU engagement in Kosovo and in particular EULEX’s deployment throughout Kosovo and its declaration of full operational capability on 6th April 2009.
“In 2008 the Council decided to double the size of the EU Police mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) and this is being taken forward into 2009. The Government welcomes this commitment to support reform and stabilisation of Afghani governance. In 2009 the EU will strengthen its engagement in Afghanistan in particular through increased efforts on rule of law, (including through EUPOL Afghanistan,) support for improved governance, and assistance in preparation of elections.
“In December 2008 the EU launched its first naval maritime operation to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. Operation ATALANTA aims to protect World Food Programme humanitarian deliveries and to deter and disrupt pirate attacks on other vulnerable shipping. The UK is providing the Operation Commander and the Operation Headquarters. The Royal Navy also provided HMS NORTHUMBERLAND for the first period of the mission. In addition to ensuring the safe delivery of essential humanitarian supplies, counter piracy measures are vital to protect the Horn of Africa which is a key global economic artery. We are engaged with the international community, particularly through the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) in taking forward work on military coordination, working with the shipping industry, Somali information strategies and regional capability development.
Sanctions and Human Rights “Respect for human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law underpinned the application of EU restrictive measures. In the cases of Belarus and Zimbabwe, sanctions were applied as levers to enact change, responding to the steps taken by the respective authorities regarding the state of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Government welcomed the flexible use of sanctions in these cases. Suspending the travel ban on certain Belarus officials following positive steps taken by their government, contrasted with the addition of further individuals and entities to Zimbabwe sanctions following flagrant breaches of human rights and democratic principles.
“Sanctions were also targeted against Iran in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1737 adopted on 27 December 2006, Resolution 1747 adopted on
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 33
24 March 2007 and Resolution 1803 adopted on 3 March 2008. The EU has robustly implemented the UN Resolutions, strengthening provisions in some areas, especially on financial vigilance. The Government welcomed these measures and continues to support targeted multilateral sanctions against Iran in order to constrain the regime’s ability to finance and develop nuclear and missile programmes.
“On 3 September 2008, the European Court of Justice found that the EC Regulation breached the fundamental rights of Kadi and Al Barakaat, in particular because they were denied both information and the right to effective review. The EU addressed these defects, by providing to Mr Kadi and Al Barakaat narrative summaries of reasons for their listing, giving them an opportunity for comment, and considering the basis for their listing. Following this process, a Commission Regulation was published on 2 December 2008, re-listing Mr Kadi and Al Barakaat. The assets freeze against Mr Kadi and Al Barakaat therefore remained in place at EU level. This is a significant ruling and we continue to work with our international partners to address the due process issues raised by the court’s judgment.
“The EU imposed autonomous sanctions against Comoros following a coup, but these were lifted after positive political developments. Sanctions against Rwanda were also lifted, in line with UN Security Council resolution 1823. All other sanctions regimes (including measures imposed on the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Somalia) were extended, and we will ensure that these measures are kept under constant review
CFSP Budget “The UK welcomed the significant increase in the CFSP budget in 2008. Almost 90% of the CFSP budget funded the continued growth, both in quality and quantity, of ESDP missions. The year saw the launch of the largest civilian mission to date, EULEX Kosovo, which reached Initial Operational Capability on 9December 2008, the launch of EU Security Sector Reform mission in Guinea Bissau and the monitoring mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia. The UK continues to push for stricter budget discipline and greater prioritisation of activity from this budget. We do this in working groups in Brussels, working with the Commission and other Member States.
“The current EU Financial Perspective (2007–13) allocates €1.74 billion from the EC budget to the CFSP Budget. This was agreed at the European Council on 15–16 December 2005. The UK contributes approximately 17% to the CFSP Budget; this equates to €295.8 million over the seven years.
“The CFSP budget for 2008 was €285 million. This increase from the 2007 budget (€159.2 million) was partly due to the launch of EULEX Kosovo, which had a budget of €120 million. For 2009, the CFSP budget has been set at €243 million. The budget is set to increase until the end of the Financial Perspective.”
7.8 Finally, the Minister notes that the report is due to be adopted at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 15 June 2009 and then transmitted to the European Parliament in line with the inter-institutional agreement.
34 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
Conclusion 7.9 As the Minister notes, the Committee is familiar with much of the content of this Report via the legislative actions submitted to it by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, along with the 135 Explanatory Memoranda to which he refers. This is testimony to the level of activity now engendered by the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (though it should be noted that the Committee considers over one thousand documents each year). But sheer volume of Explanatory Memoranda does not necessarily constitute effective scrutiny.
7.10 Earlier this year, as a result of our dissatisfaction regarding the “upstream” scrutiny of CFSP and ESDP — i.e., the points at which policy decisions are taken that then result in the legislative actions to which the Minister refers — we took evidence from the then Minister of Europe (Caroline Flint). This had been preceded by our dissatisfaction over the Government’s failure to notify the Committee, during the formative stage, of changes of policy towards the extant restrictions on the leadership of two of the most egregious regimes in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; and over the Government’s failure, despite repeated requests from the Committee, to deposit ahead of adoption the revision of the EU’s European Security Strategy — which the Committee then discovered had been adopted along with two important declarations and a statement on various aspects of international security and European Security and Defence Policy, which the then Minister for Europe acknowledged would form the “frame of reference for future EU action”.30 The Committee’s dissatisfaction had been aggravated because it had been assured by the Foreign Secretary in May 2008 that the Government was “ committed to the principle of upstream scrutiny” and recognised “that, for scrutiny to be effective, your Committee needs to be able to examine the EU policy-making process at the earliest possible stage”, and that he supported “being as open as possible regarding the context of the Conclusions and the general position that the UK will be taking in Council.”
7.11 In that evidence session on 4 February,31 and in subsequent correspondence with the Committee, the then Minister of Europe has taken the view that such “Non- legislative EU documents are not covered by the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution” and that the Government is “therefore not required to obtain scrutiny clearance prior to adoption in the Council of Ministers”. The Committee’s view is that such documents are the equivalent of Commission Communications, which likewise constitute “frames of reference for future EU action”, should accordingly be deposited and, under Standing Order No. 143, can be deposited if the Minister so desires. Our exchanges with the then Minister conclude in her informing the Committee that scrutiny was “a priority” and that the message she had delivered to senior managers and other FCO officials was of “the importance to me and my Ministerial colleagues of attention to the scrutiny process”; and our noting that:
30 (30250) 16686/08 and (30355) 17104/08: HC 19–v (2008–09), chapter 2 (28 January 2009): see headnote. 31 Published as HC 231.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 35
— what the Committee needs above all is not to be taken by surprise when it is presented with a piece of draft legislation, or a declaration or statement of some sort that will then determine future Joint Actions, Common Positions etc;
— the initiative must lie with the FCO, since by definition the Committee cannot know what is under discussion, particularly with regard to such declarations or statements;
— it is here that, in line with the Foreign Secretary’s and the then Minister for Europe’s own assurances, the possibilities lie for more constructive and imaginative thinking, and where the Committee looks to the FCO to be as forthcoming as possible when future declarations, statements and the like are in gestation.
7.12 We draw these exchanges to the attention of the House not only so that they, but also so that the new Minister for Europe, may be aware of them.
7.13 We now clear the document.
Annex: CFSP budget 2008 — commitment appropriations
Actions decided by the Council in 2008 €:
19.0301: Monitoring and implementation of peace and security 2008/736/CFSP (EUMM Georgia — 19.0301) 31,000,000.00
2008/759/CFSP (EUMM Georgia — 19.0301) 4,000,000.00
2008/862/CFSP (EUBAM Rafah — 190301) 2,500,000.00
19.0302: Non-proliferation and disarmament 2008/113/CFSP (International Tracing Instrument — 19.0302) 299,825.00
2008/230/CFSP (EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports — 19.0302) 384,000.00
2008/307/CFSP (WHO — 19.0302) 2,105,000.00
2008/314/CFSP (IAEA IV — 19.0302) 7,703,000.00
2008/368/CFSP (UNSCR 1540 II — 19.0302) 475,000.00
2008/487/CFSP (Mine Ban Convention — 19.0302) 1,070,000.00
2008/588/CFSP (CTBTO III — 19.0302) 2,316,000.00
2008/858/CFSP (BTWC) 1,400,000.00
36 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
19.0303 Conflict resolution and other stabilisation measures 2008/124/CFSP (ESDP rule of law mission Kosovo — 19.0303) 120,000,000.00
2008/450/CFSP (JCC 2008 — 19.0303) — 223,000 215,000.00
2008/480/CFSP (EUJUST LEX Iraq — 19.0303) 7,200,000.00
2008/491/CFSP (EUSEC Congo — 19.0303) 8,450,000.00
2008/901/CFSP Independent International Fact-finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia 1,600,000.00
19.0304 Emergency measures
19.0305 Preparatory and follow-up measures Preparatory measure Georgia — 19.0305 470,000.00
Global commitment audits 420,000.00
Evaluations 160,000.00
19.0306 European Union Special Representatives 2008/106/CFSP (EUSR Moldova — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 1,310,000.00
2008/107/CFSP (EUSR Central Asia — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 1,100,000.00
2008/108/CFSP (EUSR Great Lakes — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 1,370,000.00
2008/110/CFSP (EUSR Sudan — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 2,000,000.00
2008/123/CFSP (EUSR Kosovo — 19.0306) 380,000.00
2008/129/CFSP (EUSR FYROM — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 645,000.00
2008/130/CFSP (EUSR Bosnia and Herzegovina — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 2,900,000.00
2008/131/CFSP (EUSR Afghanistan — 19.0306) (prolongation 3 months) 975,000.00
2008/132/CFSP (EUSR South Caucasus — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 2,800,000.00
2008/133/CFSP (EUSR Middle East — 19.0306) (prolongation 12 months) 1,300,000.00
2008/481/CFSP (EUSR Afghanistan — 19.0306) 678,000.00
2008/612/CFSP (EUSR Afghanistan — 19.0306) 2,300,000.00
2008/760/CFSP (EUSR Georgia — 19.0306) 390,000.00
2008/898/CFSP EUSR African Union 1,850,000.00
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 37
19.0307 Police Missions 2008/112/CFSP (SSR Guinea Bissau — 19.0307) 5,650,000.00
2008/134/CFSP (EUPOL COPPS — 19.0307) 5,000,000.00
2008/482/CFSP (EUPOL COPPS — extension of mandate — 19.0307) 1,000,000.00
2008/485/CFSP (EUPOL RD Congo — 19.0307) 6,920,000.00
2008/643/CFSP (EUPOL Afghanistan — 19.0307) €64.000.000 45,000,000.00
2008/ /CFSP EUPOL COPPS 6,200,000.00
2008/890/ CFSP EUPM BiH €12.400.000
8 Presidency report on European Security and Defence Policy
(30693) Presidency Report on European Security and Defence Policy 10748/09 ––
Legal base — Deposited in Parliament 16 June 2009 Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office Basis of consideration EM of 15 June 2009 Previous Committee Report None; but see (30250) 16686/08: HC 19–ii (2008–09), chapter 8 (17 December 2008) and HC 19–v (2008– 09), chapter 2 (28 January 2009) Discussed in Council 18–19 June 2009 European Council Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Cleared
Background 8.1 At their 1998 summit meeting in St Malo, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and former President Chirac proposed that the European Union should have “the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces”: in particular, the military capacity to take on humanitarian tasks, rescue, peace-keeping and the tasks of combat
38 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
forces in crisis management (as listed in Article 17.2 EU, known as Petersberg tasks).32 These proposals were adopted at the Cologne European Council in June 1999.
8.2 At the 1999 NATO Washington Summit and, subsequently, the December 2000 Nice European Council, both organisations agreed that the EU would act only where NATO as a whole was not engaged. NATO also agreed at the Washington summit to support ESDP with the so-called “Berlin-plus” arrangements, whereby the EU can call on key NATO facilities in order to run its own military operations. The Helsinki European Council in December 1999 set Member States a military capability target known as the Headline Goal — deploying 50–60,000 troops, capable of conducting the full range of Petersberg Tasks, within 60 days, sustainable for up to a year, with air and naval support as necessary, before the end of 2003. From the likely scenarios envisaged, the EU Military Staff (EUMS) generated the “Helsinki Headline Catalogue” which specifies which capabilities are required in each of 144 capability areas. Member States aimed to address these shortfalls through the November 2001 European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP).
8.3 Notwithstanding the findings of the first phase of ECAP in May, the June 2003 Thessaloniki European Council confirmed that ESDP was operational across the full range of Petersberg tasks, albeit limited and constrained by recognised capability shortfalls.
8.4 The June 2004 European Council then approved a new Headline Goal 2010, which focuses on the qualitative aspects of capabilities — interoperability, deployability and sustainability — as the basis of Member States’ work on meeting capability shortfalls in the medium term.
8.5 At the same time, the December 2003 European Security Strategy identified, in place of large-scale aggression against any Member State, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure and organised crime as “new threats which are more diverse, less visible and less predictable”. This and the EU’s Headline Goal 2010 aspirations led in 2004 to the Battlegroups initiative — each Battlegroup based on a combined arms, battalion-size force (1,500 troops) reinforced with combat support and combat service support; sustainable in the field for 30 days, extendable up to 120 days; capable of standalone operations or for the initial phase of large operations; employable across the full range of both the Petersberg tasks and those identified in the European Security Strategy; designed specifically, but not exclusively, to be used in response to a request from the UN.
8.6 At the 2004 Capability Commitment Conference, Member States made an initial commitment to the formation of 13 battlegroups. Four member states (UK, France, Italy and Spain) provided their national battlegroups at an early stage of the programme, and in 2006 a German-French battlegroup with contributions from Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain had achieved partial operational capability for evacuation and extraction. From January 2007, the EU was to have the full operational capability to undertake two
32 The “Petersberg tasks” constitute an integral part of ESDP and are set out in Article 17 EU. They cover: humanitarian and rescue tasks; peace-keeping tasks; tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. These tasks were set out in the Petersberg Declaration adopted at the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union (WEU) in June 1992. On that occasion, the WEU Member States declared their readiness to make available to the WEU, but also to NATO and the European Union, military units from the whole spectrum of their conventional armed forces
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 39
battlegroup-size rapid response operations, including the capability to launch both operations almost simultaneously.
8.7 The EU’s civilian crisis management capability, or civilian ESDP, has developed in tandem, principally since the Helsinki European Council in December 1999. The June 2000 Feira European Council listed four priority areas in which the EU should acquire civilian capabilities — police, the rule of law, civil administration and civil protection — with the goal by 2003 of a police force of up to 5,000 personnel contributing to international missions across the range of conflict prevention and crisis management operations. The December 2004 European Council endorsed a Civilian Headline Goal 2008 which envisages the deployment of civilian ESDP capabilities within 30 days of the decision to launch a mission (e.g., to help with security sector reform and support to disarmament and demobilisation processes) while the December 2005 European Council agreed on a concept for setting up and deploying civilian response teams with the initial goal of a pool of up to 100 experts by the end of 2006 (for early assessment of a crisis situation, support for the establishment of civilian ESDP missions and support to an EU special representative or an ongoing civilian operation; mobilised and deployed within five days of a request).
The ESDP Presidency report 8.8 Each Presidency submits a report on European Security and Defence Policy to the European Council (in December or June) recording: significant developments over the six months of each Presidency; referring where appropriate to activities undertaken in earlier months; highlighting progress in specific areas; and drawing attention to others where further work is needed.
The Czech Presidency report 8.9 The report is a record of ESDP developments during the Czech Presidency in the first half of 2009. The main sections of the report are EU Operational Activities, Lessons Learned, Development of Civilian and Military Capabilities, Civil-Military Coordination, Human Rights, Gender and Children’s Issues, EU Training and Exercises, and Cooperation with International Organisations and third states.
8.10 The report also covers the EU Satellite Centre; EU Institute for Security Studies, Security Sector Reform, Conflict Prevention and ESDP information to the European Parliament.
8.11 As is customary, the report concludes with a mandate from the Council for the incoming Presidency. This prioritises areas for the Czech Presidency to take forward over the next six months.33
33 Reproduced at Annex 1 of this chapter of this Report.
40 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
The Government’s view 8.12 The Report is helpfully and comprehensively summarised and analysed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Chris Bryant) in his Explanatory Memorandum of 15 June 2009.
8.13 The Minister welcomes the Report as a comprehensive description of progress and achievements in ESDP under the Czech Presidency, with regard to which “the UK has continued to take a leading role in developing ESDP to ensure that it remains in line with our objectives of having a more capable, coherent and active policy that remains supportive of and complementary to NATO.”
8.14 The Minister then looks at a number of the particular aspects as follows:
Developing Civilian and Military capabilities “There has been progress in developing both Civilian and Military capabilities. The UK welcomes the substantial progress in the field of force generation, which has resulted in an increase in applications and an increase in staffing levels in key missions, namely EUPOL Afghanistan. This increase is vital to the successful delivery of mission mandates.
“Following the November 2008 GAERC commitment (reiterated in December European Council), the Czech Presidency has pursued work in developing National Strategies on civilian capacities. A seminar is taking place on 11 June 2009 to share best practice among Member States on the recruitment, selection and training of candidates for international civilian missions. The UK welcomes this opportunity for all Member States to build civilian capacity to deliver stability in crisis situations, especially as each Member State will have a different way of developing their capabilities (as recognised by the development of National Strategies). The UK is looking to continue to second highly qualified individuals to civilian missions and make available the 1000-strong UK civilian standby capacity as outlined in the National Security Strategy.
“The UK remains fully committed to ESDP missions and in building civilian capabilities. Due to the projected increase in assessed peacekeeping contributions caused by changes in exchange rates and an increase in peacekeeping activity through the UN and the EU, the UK has had to undertake a prioritisation exercise to focus remaining resources for discretionary expenditure on countries where the risk and impact of conflict is greatest. Departments have found £71 million in new money to mitigate the worst effects of this but the UK has had to make some cuts to the number of secondees in EU Civilian missions. The quality of secondees continues to be extremely high and commended by Head of Missions.
EU and NATO “The UK welcomes the progress made by the Czech Presidency on improving relations between the EU and NATO. The EU-NATO Capability Group met in Defence Policy Directors format for the first time at this elevated level in April, to
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 41
discuss amongst other areas, harmonising defence planning and improving the availability of helicopters to both organisations. The Presidency also facilitated a meeting of the EU NATO Capability Group at national expert level, where Unmanned Aerial Vehicles were discussed. This step is again welcomed by the UK as key in increasing transparency as well as reducing duplication between the two organisations.
“In close cooperation with the EU Military Staff, progress has been made on taking forward lessons learned from the Headline Goal Process which has resulted in ongoing work to improve the process and increase the commonality with the NATO planning process. We look forward to further progress in this area, notably finalisation of the shared Information Gathering tool and the Defence Planning Toolbox within the forthcoming Swedish Presidency.
“Progress in the Interoperability Study, effectively coordinated under the Czech presidency, is encouraging, and the final report and recommendations for improvement of this vital facet of operations are awaited with interest in November 2009. The update of the Force Catalogue 2009 to encompass those contributions made by eight Member States by means of submitting the same response to the EU and NATO Defence Planning Questionnaires is positive in increasing transparency between the two organisations. We look forward to a report outlining the effects on existing capability shortfalls during the Swedish Presidency.
“The UK warmly welcomed continued work on improving the availability of helicopters. This area provides a good example of how the EU, through the European Defence Agency (EDA), and NATO can work together to deliver concrete capability solutions to critical shortfalls, offering a model for possible further collaboration in other capability areas. The EDA continues to lead on training for crews who will be deployed for operations as a result of the Initiative, the first helicopters and crews are expected in theatre this year. The UK welcomes the positive role being played by the EDA in delivering this mission essential training.
“The UK strongly supports continued implementation of the new EU Crisis Management Planning Directorate (CMPD) which will bring together civilian and military strategic level planners, fostering greater civilian and military coordination. This is an important element of the Comprehensive Approach, taking account of the civilian and military dimensions of conflict management.
“The CMPD will be formed by merging elements of the Council Secretariat and the EU Military Staff. The CMPD will work with the rest of the EU Military Staff (EUMS) and the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) to produce options papers and the early planning documents ahead of the launch of an ESDP mission.
Countering piracy “… countering piracy remains a key priority. EU anti-piracy operation ATALANTA launched on 8 December, reached full operational capacity on 13 January. The operation, commanded from Northwood originally commanded by British Rear
42 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
Admiral Phil Jones, now by British Real Admiral Peter Hudson, is ensuring the safe passage for World Food Programme ships bringing humanitarian assistance to Somalia, and deterring acts of piracy against international shipping.
“The EU operation is currently scheduled to last until 13 December 2009. The estimated common cost for one year of the operation, to be met by all of the EU Member States is €8.3 Million. Other costs will be met by the participating nations. These ‘common costs’ are paid through contributions by member states to a financial mechanism ‘ATHENA’ based on GDP. The UK’s contribution is £1.29m
“The UK has confirmed that in the event that the EU decides to extend the mission beyond December 2009, that the UK would be happy for the OHQ to remain at Northwood under UK command.
“ATALANTA is already regarded as a success for ESDP. However, the UK continues to press through the EU the view that piracy is a symptom of wider issues and requires a comprehensive approach to tacking piracy at its root. The UK, with the support of the International Maritime Organization, is leading a Working Group addressing activities related to military and operational information coordination, including taking forward work on regional capacity building.
“However, coordination between international naval forces is already considered effective, notably between Op ATALANTA, NATO and the US-commanded Combined Maritime Forces, but also with many other national navies deployed in the region, resulting in an unprecedented amount of multi-national cooperation.
“The UK welcomes the fact that EULEX Kosovo has now reached Full Operating Capability, with 1713 international staff, and is active in all areas of the mandate. Monitoring, mentoring and advising activities have provided insights into strengths and weaknesses in the law enforcement and justice area in Kosovo and identified pointers to where EULEX can improve the situation. The security situation is mainly stable, with some protests in the North.
EUMM Georgia “The UK applauds the work of EUMM Georgia, in particular its confidence building activities and concluding the Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgian Ministries of Defence and Interior and in the establishment of the Incident Prevention Mechanism. The mission has not been able to fully implement its mandate throughout Georgia as there is still no access to South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Russia continues to reinforce its presence in the breakaway regions. It has also failed to fully comply with the 6-point Agreement made in August 2008. HMG continues to strongly support the presence of the mission in Georgia as a vital instrument to build confidence among the parties in Georgia and to monitor the ceasefire following the hostilities in 2008.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 43
Palestinian Territories “UK welcomes progress in the missions in the Palestinian Territories. The new British Head of Mission to EUPOL COPPS is taking forward the new comprehensive Action Plan and expansion of the Rule of Law section, both required for the further development of policing and justice in the Palestinian Territories. The EU demonstrated its ability to respond quickly to conflict, with the rapid re-building of EUBAM Rafah in January 2009 following the Gaza conflict.”
8.15 The Minister then turns to Operational Activities:
Western Balkans
Bosnia-Herzegovina “Following the successful reconfiguration of Operation ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in 2007 the European Union force (EUFOR) numbers some 2,200 troops on the ground, backed up by over-the-horizon reserves. Within its overall mandate, its operational priorities remain the maintenance of the secure and safe environment, the transfer of the remaining Joint Military Affairs task to the relevant national authorities, supporting and monitoring implementation by the BiH authorities of those Joint Military Affairs tasks already transferred, and support for the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina as regards training.
“On 18 May 2009 the Council assessed operation ALTHEA and approved the recommendations made in the Secretary-General/High Representative’s six-monthly report on the operation. The Council noted that, despite the challenging political environment, the security situation in Bosnia-and-Herzegovina (BiH) remained stable. The Council welcomed the positive contribution of the force to the safe and secure environment in BiH, and added that the EU-led force (EUFOR) continued to provide reassurance and remained ready to respond to possible security challenges throughout the country.
“The Council approved, for planning purposes, the Concept, and the Provisional Statement of Requirements, for a possible evolution of Operation ALTHEA towards a non-executive capacity-building and training operation, in the light of advice and conclusions of relevant Council bodies. The Council reconfirmed that it would keep this planning work under regular review so that a decision on the future of the operation could be taken once the necessary conditions had been met.
“The Council reiterated that approval of the Concept does not prejudge a political decision on the possible evolution of Operation ALTHEA which would need to take political developments, including the future role of the EUSR, into account.
“The EU Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM) has continued to promote and support the reform of the BiH police services. The Mission has continued to monitor the implementation of the two police reform laws adopted in 2008. It has continued its action on concrete capacity building at State level and
44 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
country-wide harmonization of all laws pertaining to law enforcement agencies and police officials.
“With the assistance of EUPM, the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA) has made progress in implementing sustainable policing arrangements for the targeting of organised crime networks and bringing to justice key figures allegedly involved in serious criminal offence. EUPM has also supported the emergence of a track-record of achievements in the fight against organised crime, in particular by assisting with the in-depth analysis of crimes, using advanced investigative techniques and intelligence.
“EUPM has further developed effective mechanisms for coordination between the law-enforcement agencies and the judiciary, particularly as regards relations between police and prosecutors.”
Kosovo “The EULEX KOSOVO Mission as set out in the Joint Action adopted by the Council of the European Union of 4 February 2008, has reached full operational capability on 6 April 2009. With approximately 1700 international personnel deployed across Kosovo, the mission has been able to take forward its activities to a larger extent.
“In accordance with its programmatic approach, EULEX KOSOVO has conducted monitoring, mentoring and advising activities aimed at improving the performance of the competent Kosovo institutions, judicial authorities and law-enforcement agencies.
“The Mission has, in parallel, retained certain executive responsibilities as per its mandate. The Mission has in particular reviewed the backlog of sensitive investigations pertaining to war crimes, terrorism, organised crime, corruption, inter-ethnic crimes, financial/economic crimes and other serious crimes. Prosecution and adjudication over these cases have also ensued allowing EULEX Judges and Prosecutors to conduct their first trials and issue their first rulings, including in the Mitrovica Court. Adjudication of civilian/property cases have also started to take place. EULEX KOSOVO has also provided an effective security response as second security responder in support of Kosovo police services in case of challenges to law and order. EULEX Kosovo has ensured a 24/7 presence at the Gates in Northern Kosovo leading to a significant decrease in smuggling of goods. The purpose of the presence is to register trade in order to increase the collection of revenues.”
Eastern Europe and South Caucasus
Georgia “Building on its timely and effective deployment to Georgia on 1 October 2008, EUMM Georgia has been successful in contributing to greater security and stability in Georgia and in the Southern Caucasus under the terms of the Six Point Plan of 12 August and the Implementation Agreement of 8 September 2008. EUMM’s
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 45
engagement is part of a broader EU and international approach to the region as exemplified by the Geneva process. EUMM’s presence on the ground makes armed conflict in Georgia less likely, as acknowledged by both Georgia and Russia. The Mission has since its deployment conducted nearly 3600 patrols, by day and night. Nevertheless, frequent incidents still are a reminder that the situation in the vicinity of the Administrative Boundary Lines (ABL) remains volatile. EUMM has investigated a number of incidents and provided neutral and unbiased assessment — not only towards authorities but also vis-à-vis the wider public and media.
“Since its deployment, EUMM has made decisive progress in all four tasks of its mandate: stabilisation, normalisation, confidence building and informing EU policy. A majority of the IDPs from the August conflict could return to their homes and villages. EUMM has initiated confidence building measures which aim at undercutting the link between incidents and conflict, in particular the conclusion of Memoranda of Understanding with the Georgian Ministries of Defence and Interior and in the establishment of an Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM). Nevertheless, under present circumstances, further progress towards the fulfilment of the mission’s mandate will remain important for the normalisation of the situation and for the stability of the region.
Border Support Team “The Border Support Team in Georgia has continued its activities within the office of the EUSR for the South Caucasus. The team has carried on assisting the implementation of the border management strategy focusing on the inter-agency cooperation within Georgia.
Moldova-Ukraine “The EU Border Assistance Mission to the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM Moldova-Ukraine, which is a European Commission activity staffed to a large extent by seconded experts from EU Member States, has continued its activities. EUBAM Moldova-Ukraine assists the governments of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine in areas involving border, customs and fiscal matters, including through monitoring activities.”
Asia
Afghanistan “The EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) has made substantial progress in the implementation of its mandate, at tactical, operational and strategic levels over the last six months.
“The Mission is deployed in Kabul and in 16 provinces of Afghanistan, accommodated in Provincial Reconstruction Teams and Regional Commands. Preparations for deployment to two Eastern provinces are ongoing.
46 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
“The Mission has been in the lead in some of the key aspects of police reform, like the anti-corruption strategy for the Ministry of Interior, in intelligence-led policing and criminal investigations. The Mission has also increased its work on the linkages with the broader Rule of Law sector, in particular in the areas of cooperation between police and the prosecutor’s office, in assisting in drafting key legislation and mentoring of key interlocutors in both the Attorney General’s Office and Supreme Court. EUPOL has also taken a very active part in the international efforts to strengthen Kabul City Police and Kabul City security. The Mission has also continued to work on the general aspects of police reform, on border police (in particular at the international airports), as well as on gender and human rights.
“A large Train the Trainers programme has been launched, which includes training of the Afghan police on its role and performance during the upcoming elections. The purpose, through a multiplier effect, is to train 35 000 police officers by the 2010 parliamentary elections. Additional training activities have also been conducted throughout Afghanistan, in the Mission’s main areas of focus. In carrying out these activities, specific attention has been given to reinforcing the coherence of actions between Kabul and the PRTs.
“The Mission has continued to strengthen effective coordination with other EU actors, European Commission, EUSR, as well as with international partners, in particular UNAMA and the US, within the framework of a restructured International Police Coordination Board.
“The decision to progressively double the number of Mission personnel is being implemented.”
Middle East
Palestinian Territories “The EU Police Mission in the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) has continued its action to assist the Palestinian Civilian Police in establishing lasting and effective policing arrangements.
“The Mission has, since July 2008, set up its Rule of Law section to assist the Palestinian criminal justice system. A total of 17 judicial experts have been deployed to the Mission in September 2008. Following the renewal of the Mission’s mandate for two additional years in December 2008, and the arrival of a new Head of Mission in January 2009, the Mission has produced a comprehensive Assessment of the PA criminal justice system.
“Based on these findings, the Mission has, together with local and international counterparts, developed an Action Plan for the criminal justice that will include proposed actions in support of the penitentiary, courts, General Prosecutor’s Office, the High Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice. The Action Plan will enter implementation during the summer 2009.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 47
“The Council agreed to take work forward on addressing further action in the broader rule of law in the Palestinian Territories. EUPOL COPPS activities in this area will enhance synergies with Community action in this field.
Rafah “The EU Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) suspended its operations after the closure of the Rafah Crossing Point at the time of the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in June 2007 while maintaining its operational capability to redeploy at short notice.
“The Council confirmed the EU’s readiness to redeploy at the Rafah Crossing Point, as soon as political conditions allow. The Council underlined that since the closure of the Rafah Crossing Point the mission has maintained its operational capability. The Council reiterated its commitment to EUBAM Rafah, to the Agreements concluded and to the region, in particular the population of Gaza. It underlined the importance of the implementation of the Agreement on Movement and Access by all parties.
Iraq “The EU is confirming and enhancing its engagement to reinforce the rule of law in Iraq and to promote human rights. In this line, the EU has decided to extend the Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX) from July 2009 to June 2010, including a pilot phase with in-country activities from July 2009 onwards.
“The Mission has facilitated training interventions provided by the Member States for senior police officers, prosecutors, judges and prison governors. So far, more than 2100 Iraqis have participated in EUJUST LEX courses. Also during the extension period, these courses will continue.
“In addition, the Mission began to conduct preliminary activities in the area of the rule of law on Iraqi territory in May 2009, progressively and on an experimental basis, where security conditions permit.
“In-country activities will include training, strategic advice and mentoring. The areas have been identified also on the basis of an evaluation of the needs of the justice and the rule of law sector in Iraq.
Africa
Somalia “During the last six months, Operation ATALANTA has demonstrated its ability to act effectively against piracy. All World Food Programme and African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) shipments protected by EUNAVFOR warships have arrived safely. Operation ATALANTA has also contributed to the protection of other vulnerable vessels sailing in the Gulf of Aden and off the Somali coast.
48 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
“Coordination with the maritime community has been instrumental in promoting widely self-protection measures and best management practice to deter piracy. The development of the Atalanta’s Maritime Security Centre-Horn of Africa inside the EU OHQ has provided an innovative and powerful interface to liaise and communicate with the international merchant community. Besides, the EU has established 10 cooperative frameworks and arrangements which enable Operation Atalanta to cooperate effectively with other naval forces and assets deployed in the region. This comprehensive approach has contributed to a significant disruption of attacks in the Gulf of Aden. An increasing number of suspected pirates have been captured by Atalanta. Operation ATALANTA has also enjoyed broad media coverage.
“However, in spring 2009, piracy acts have occurred further south in the Somali Basin. In May the Council expressed its concern at the surge of piracy acts occurring at distances increasingly remote from the coastlines of East Africa, requiring an expansion of the initial area of operation; which makes it necessary to meet the growing need for maritime surveillance. It demonstrated the need to keep adjusting the EU response to piracy activity and the importance of maintaining a high degree of cooperation with other actors.
“In this regard, the EU has participated actively in the work of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia and in its working groups. The main efforts have related to the improvement of military and operational exchange of information and to the legal aspects of counter-piracy operations.
“As concerns the judicial treatment of suspected pirates captured by EUNAVFOR warships, the Transfer Agreement concluded in the form of the exchange of letters between the EU and Kenya on 6 March 2009 represents a breakthrough as it ensures the necessary continuum between military action and subsequent prosecution. Efforts are being pursued also to conclude arrangements with Tanzania and Seychelles. The European Commission adopted a decision on a 1.75 million EUR assistance programme, under the Instrument for Stability, with the aim to provide targeted support to the trial and related treatment of piracy suspects in Kenya.
“Following contract signature on 15th May between EC and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the latter started immediately implementing the jointly developed programme, which will last over a period of up to 18 months.
“Atalanta’s contribution to countering piracy has been evidenced by its achievements over the last 6 months. However, piracy is likely to remain a serious threat beyond Atalanta’s current end date. As commonly acknowledged, it is only ashore that root causes of piracy can be addressed. The pledges made at the Brussels Conference on Somali Security on 23 April 2009 constitute a promising step towards the establishment of the efficient Somali National Security Force and the civilian Somali Police Force. Measures and options are being studied and developed on further possible contributions to the security sector in Somalia by relevant EU actors.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 49
Chad/RCA (Central African Republic) “Following the successful transfer of authority between EUFOR Tchad/RCA and MINURCAT on 15 March 2009, the Council welcomed the fulfilment of EUFOR’s mandate and underlined the exemplary cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations during the conduct phase of operation. It stressed that this cooperation could serve as a basis for future collaboration.
“Throughout its mandate, EUFOR made a tangible contribution towards facilitating the activities of humanitarian workers, protecting civilians in danger, in particular refugees and displaced persons affected by the neighbouring crisis in Darfur, and protecting the staff of the United Nations.
“The operation was underpinned by an active, coordinated and coherent military information campaign, targeted at all stakeholders. It aimed in particular to reassuring the actors in theatre that there would be a smooth transition to a UN follow-on operation with no security vacuum.
“EUFOR’s redeployment did not mark the end of the European Union’s involvement in Chad, the Central African Republic or the region as a whole. Around 2 000 troops from European countries who served under EUFOR are currently under the MINURCAT banner, which further underlines European support to UN peacekeeping operations. Moreover, the European Union has remained active at a political and diplomatic level in Chad, the Central African Republic and especially Sudan. The European Union also continues to be active in the region in the field of humanitarian and development activities as a strategic donor.
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) “Restoration of governance in general and defence reform in particular have remained central factors in creating conditions for lasting stability in DRC.
“EUSEC RD Congo has continued its work in providing advice and assistance for security sector reform, in close coordination with other relevant actors, with the aim of contributing to the Congolese efforts to restructure and reform the Congolese army, including via a number of practical activities. EUSEC RD Congo has also continued to provide support to the EUSR for the African Great Lakes Region.
“As regards the modernisation of the military administration, on 29 December 2008 EUSEC RDC completed the Census of the FARDC. By this date, approximately 130 000 military personnel had been indentified. The results of the census were presented to the Congolese authorities in January 2009. The chain of payments project has now been extended to all army personnel at the request of the Congolese authorities.
“To complement in a coherent manner its primary advisory role in the reform of the army, EUSEC implemented or supervised projects in areas such as gender, human rights, health and infrastructure, financed or initiated by Member States and/or the EC. On 18 May the Council underlined that these projects currently play a
50 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
determining role in increasing the visibility and the credibility of actions undertaken at the strategic level.
“EUSEC will continue to assist in the organisation of the FARDC administration. Supporting with specific EUSEC expertise the accelerated integration of the CNDP and other armed groups into the FARDC remains a short-term priority.
“The EUSEC mandate expires on 30 June 2009. A no-additional-cost extension of the mission’s mandate for 3 months, until 30 September 2009, has been agreed in principle, and work on a revised general concept for the mission has started.
“EUPOL RD Congo continues to support the efforts to reform the Congolese National Police (CNP), in particular through the Police Reform Monitoring Committee (Comité de suivi pour la réforme de la police, CSRP). The Mission also continues to facilitate links between the police and the various stages of the judicial system with the help of its justice interface. EUPOL RD Congo is also involved in more operational activities such as supporting the creation and development of the Police de Recherche et d’Intervention (PRI), the development of a Command and Control Centre for the PNC or supporting the Inspection Générale d’Audit (IGA). Moreover, EUPOL and EUSEC work in close cooperation to assist the overall Security Sector Reform efforts in the DR Congo.
“The Mission has established a presence in the east of the country (Goma and Bukavu) and is closely following the way in which the security situation in the region is developing. In order to fulfil its objectives, the mission’s mandate is to be extended for an additional 12-month period until 30 June 2010, and will be equipped with a Project Cell to deliver small actions in support of its mandate.”
Guinea Bissau “The EU SSR Guinea-Bissau Mission provides local authorities with advice and assistance on SSR with respect to military, police and justice in order to contribute to creating the conditions for implementation of the National SSR Strategy. The mission cooperates closely with other EU, international and bilateral actors with a view to facilitating subsequent donor engagement.
“The EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU Mission was launched on 16 June 2008 for an initial period of twelve months and subsequently extended for six months, i.e. until November 2009. The rationale of the extension is to fully accomplish the mission’s mandate, to further explore the capacity and the commitment of the new government to carry forward the reform process and to assess the willingness of the International Community to support it.”
8.16 The Minister then considers the area of Capabilities in greater detail:
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 51
Development of Civilian Capabilities
Civilian Headline Goal 2010 “In January 2009, the PSC approved a Civilian Capability Improvement Plan, in accordance with the Civilian Headline Goal (CHG) 2010 and in line with the Declaration on strengthening capabilities adopted by the Council and endorsed by the European Council in December 2008.
“In accordance with this Improvement Plan, implementation of the CHG 2010 in the first semester of 2009 focused on the following main issues:
a) Development of the Goalkeeper software environment (Civilian Capability Management Tool);
b) Reflection on national strategies facilitating the deployment of civilian personnel for ESDP. a) Development of the Goalkeeper software environment
“The Secretariat continued the development and implementation of a software environment called Goalkeeper. A road map for the Goalkeeper development was established by the Secretariat. Two Goalkeeper applications were released on-line, dealing with training and conceptual development. Goalkeeper will ultimately be a user friendly tool, consisting of the following applications: generation of job descriptions for mission personnel, the keeping of national rosters of potentially available personnel, training and conceptual development and possibly the generic forward planning of equipment and services for civilian ESDP missions. Goalkeeper should improve and streamline the work in the above areas and also help to foster the establishment and implementation of national strategies to facilitate the deployment of mission personnel, and encourage the exchange of best practices. b) Reflection on national strategies
“In light of the increasing numbers of ESDP missions, Member States face the need to establish structures in order to identify and deliver the necessary resources effectively and efficiently. The challenge therefore is to ensure that Member States have policies and structures in place that allow them to generate the necessary capabilities across the different Ministries and Services involved, and to sustain such efforts over time. Some Member States have already begun to proceed in this direction by establishing national strategies or action plans or by taking other measures.
“A seminar on national strategies facilitating the deployment of civilian personnel for ESDP took place in June 2009. This seminar convened high-level representatives of Members States from key Ministries involved in Civilian Crisis Management to study facilitating measures in different areas, and proposed a roadmap aimed at the implementation of such measures.
52 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
“A joint Presidency/Secretariat document ‘Operational aspects of Civilian ESDP capabilities — follow up to Gymnich in Hluboka’ was discussed by PSC on 13 May 2009. The document presented an inventory of some key operational aspects of civilian ESDP apart of issues tackled at technical level in the traffic lights document and suggested ways to better match political ambition with ESDP action and civilian crisis management resources. A tight time-schedule was set up to come up with practical solutions.
“Substantial progress has been recently made in the field of force generation, notably in human and financial resources and provision of equipment. Improved procedures have been put in place as far as selection of staff, calls for contribution and standardized job descriptions are concerned.
“Two calls for deployment were made for a total of 12 Civilian Response Teams (CRTs) experts as temporary reinforcements to EUBAM Rafah. An availability inventory for the CRT pool of experts is underway. A secure website was presented in early 2009. This website will be made available to ongoing ESDP missions, members of ESDP fact-finding and planning teams, as well as Member States’ experts responsible for civilian ESDP and includes a CRT Handbook which draws on EU crisis management procedures and other documents that provide the basis for planning and conducting ESDP missions in general.
Development of Military Capabilities “Progress was made by Member States in the development of military capabilities following the decision of EU Member States Defence Ministers in November 2008 to launch, in varying configurations, a number of specific operational initiatives, and the Declaration on Strengthening Capabilities adopted by the European Council in December 2008. A Presidency Report on Progress in Military Capabilities reviewing the progress on capabilities development since Defence Ministers’ Military Capabilities Commitments of November 2008 was noted by the GAERC in May.
“In May, the Council noted the Force Catalogue 2009, which reflected revised contributions from nine Member States. The EUMS is conducting an analysis of these contributions in accordance with the Capability Development Mechanism in order to identify whether the changes in the MS contributions to the EU Force Catalogue have significantly impacted on the identified military shortfalls in the HLG 2010 process. This analysis is to be finalised by summer 2009.
“As a follow-on of the initial Capability Development Plan (CDP), agreed in July 2008, work on the first group of twelve selected CDP actions has started. The European Defence Agency (EDA) and the EU Military Committee (EUMC) agreed to divide the lead for these twelve actions between them. These actions were addressed by them either through EDA’s Integrated Development Teams and Project Teams or through dedicated workshops with Member States. These workshops aimed at reaching a common understanding of the scope of these actions and identifying the relevant military requirements. This contributes to the implementation of the Methodology for Measuring Progress and Reviewing Priorities.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 53
“Following the Report on Lessons Identified from Headline Goal 2010, work to improve the EU military capability development process has been conducted. In this regard, the First Lessons Learned Report on the HG 2010 Process has been discussed with a view to being finalised in June 2009.
“As foreseen in the Framework for EU military conceptual documents, the EUMC has conducted a review of a number of military concepts such as the Special Operations and the Military Rapid Response concepts.
“An EUMC’s Interoperability Study is being conducted, with its final report planned for November 2009. Workshops were held in early 2009 with subject matter experts from Member States and relevant organisations and bodies such as NATO, the Multinational Interoperability Council and FINABEL. This work is being conducted in connection with the Lessons Identified from the Headline Goal 2010.
“The implementation of the EU Operations Wide Area Network (EU OPSWAN) has been progressing satisfactorily. Initial accreditation and operational services for SECRET EU were provided to the EUMS and the OHQs in France, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom and Greece. The FHQs in Sweden and Germany are being accredited to OPSWAN. The FHQ in Italy is to be connected next year. Work also proceeded on other improvements to the secure exchange of information.
Rapid Response “The revised Military Rapid Response Concept was agreed by the EUMC in January 2009 and noted by the PSC in April. It newly defined the military rapid response time as a period from 5 to 30 days from the approval of the Crisis Management Concept to the moment when operations commence in the Joint Operations Area.
“With a view to ensuring the overall coherence with all concepts related to rapid response, the EUMC has launched work to update the Air and Maritime Rapid Response concepts and to examine the possible need for a Land Rapid Response concept. Maritime and Air Rapid Response workshops and Information Conferences were held in March and April.
“A Battlegroup Coordination Conference was held in April, at which Member States’ offers were able to fill the stand-by periods up to 2011. Member States were encouraged to fill the vacant slots from 2012 onwards.
Organisation Development “The final report on post-Wiesbaden measures was agreed by the EUMC in April. This report underlines that these measures have generated significant improvements in particular in the EU’s ability to undertake early military planning in support of informed decision-making.
54 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
European Defence Agency (EDA) “EDA has intensified work on the practical implementation of its strategic framework completed at the end of last year:
— Capability Development Plan (CDP): Nine out of the first tranche of twelve CDP priority actions have been taken forward by the Agency. For most of the nine actions, related Strategic Context Cases for collaborative projects within the EU have been developed.
— European Defence Research and Technology (R&T) Strategy: Work has continued on identifying cross-links between common R&T priorities and CDP priorities, with a view to defining key technologies directly linked with CDP needs. Integrated roadmaps for transversal collaborative projects have been developed for four areas (with Maritime Mine Counter Measures, CBRN, Counter Man-portable Air-defence Systems (MANPADS) and Counter Improvised Explosive Devices). The implementation of the two Defence R&T Joint Investment Programmes on Force Protection and on ICET (Innovative Concept and Emerging Technologies) has been providing useful experience.
— European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB): (i) work on identifying key industrial capabilities to be preserved or developed in Europe has been launched in the area of Future Air Systems, considering the European supply chain as a whole and not just focusing on Europe’s major aerospace companies; (ii) the implementation of the Code of Conduct on Defence Procurement through the Electronic Bulletin Board on “Government Contracts” was considered on the whole positive, with an increase in cross- border awarded contracts; (iii) all subscribers to the Defence Procurement Regime will apply the Code of Conduct on Offsets adopted last October (25 participating Member States plus Norway) from 1 July this year — and the Reporting and Monitoring System for the Code was approved.
— European Armaments Cooperation Strategy: A roadmap describing the application of the Guide to conduct programme preparation, education, best practice and standardisation was approved.
“The Agency continued to generate collaborative initiatives aimed at addressing the key EU shortfalls — including in the CDP priority areas:
— Momentum has been maintained on improving helicopters’ availability. Concerning the short-term activity (training), EDA has been preparing for the launch — in 2010 — of the European Programme for Helicopter Tactics Training. Its content will be shaped by the outcome of the two EDA studies (addressing urgent operational training for crews in pre-deployment, and landscaping the needs and capabilities available in Europe) and the EDA- supported multinational exercise. As for the medium term, a menu for upgrading existing helicopters has been developed, with initial focus on Mi- Helicopters. For the longer term — beyond 2020 — the ad hoc project on the
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 55
“Future Transport Helicopter”, based on a Franco-German initiative, has been established within the Agency’s remit.
— Work on developing a European Air Transport Fleet (EATF) has progressed. The initiative was widened from an initially envisaged fleet into a framework for military air transport-related aspects with modular participation. The skeleton of the Letter of Intent was developed with a view to the signature of the latter next November.
— The European Third Party Logistics Support (TPLS) Platform was established, for a nine-month trial phase, with the aim of providing a solution for improving awareness on existing options for contracting services in support of Crisis Management Operations.
— The MUSIS (Multinational Space-based Imaging System) ad hoc project related to the second generation of military earth observation satellites was established under the Agency’s remit.
— A new EDA Project Team was established to address military requirements for Space Situational Awareness (SSA) in order to deliver a Common Staff Target (CST) no later than mid-2010.
— Work has developed towards the establishment of a European Satellite Communication Procurement Cell, in the dedicated Ad-Hoc Project Group.
— Work has continued on the definition of military Maritime Surveillance requirements, with focus on Networking. Furthermore, the Agency has started to prepare, in close consultation with, notably, the European Commission, the nomination of a ‘Wise Pen’ for producing a ‘Maritime Surveillance ESDP think piece’ in order to contribute to an EU integrated approach.
— In order to address the European shortfall in biological detection, identification and monitoring, a new project (Biological Equipment Development and Enhancement Programme — Bio EDEP) was established in EDA, with the aim of providing the forces of those Member States participating in this project with robust and reliable integrated biological detection, identification and monitoring capabilities by 2015.
“The Agency was tasked to prepare, working together with the European Commission, a framework for maximising complementarity and synergy between defence and civilian security-related research activities, and the content of a coordinated programme (e.g. in the situational awareness domain).
“EDA has intensified its working relationships with the Commission and other relevant bodies, including OCCAR (Organisation conjointe de coopération en matière d’armement), the European Space Agency and NATO, in accordance with the Joint Action establishing EDA and in consultation with the participating Member States.
56 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
“In particular, on the basis of a Steering Board Directive to the Head of the Agency (with agreed principles), EDA initiated the negotiations of an Administrative Arrangement (AA) with OCCAR, with a view to submitting the draft for the Council’s approval next November. The Council endorsed the Steering Board recommendation to take forward work on the establishment of a Security Agreement between the EU and OCCAR, with the objective of it being available in time for the approval of the draft AA between the Agency and OCCAR.
“EDA was collaborating with the Council General Secretariat on the identification of Information Exchange Requirements (IERs).
“The Presidency organised two conferences on topics related to the EDA: first of them entitled ‘Increased Role of SMEs in the European Defence and Security Supply Chains’ was held in Olomouc on 27 — 28 May 2009, the second one on ‘European Education and Training in Armaments Cooperation — The Way Ahead’ was conducted on 15-16 June in Prague. A Czech Presidency seminar organised in cooperation with EDA took place in Olomouc on 4 -5 June 2009 and its topic was ‘Harmonisation of Military Airworthiness’.
Civil-Military Coordination “Work regarding the identification of information exchange requirements within the four-step methodology noted by the PSC is nearing finalisation.
“Work has progressed with regard to developing Network Enabled Capabilities (NEC) in support of ESDP. In this context, the importance was emphasized, with a view to implementing the NEC concept, in support of CMCO, that work be taken forward in a gradual and incremental manner with adequate commitment at senior level in the EU institutions and Member States.
“As part of preliminary work on a study for implementation of NEC in support of ESDP, a supporting workshop “NEC from a civilian perspective” was held in Council premises on 26 May 2009.
ESDC and Training “The annual EU Training Programme has been developed and made available via an internet application (Schoolmaster).Training activities in the field of ESDP of the various EU training actors have been evaluated through the regular Comprehensive Annual Report on Training relevant to ESDP (CART 2009).
“The European Security and Defence College (ESDC) continued to conduct its standard training activities supported progressively by its Internet-based Distance Learning (IDL) System. In June, the ESDC concluded its fourth ESDP High Level Course. Furthermore, two ESDP Orientation Courses took place in Brussels, one in February 2009 and the second one in March 2009. In March 2009, a first joint ESDC/CEPOL seminar took place on EU decision making and mission planning.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 57
“Following the conduct of pilot activities in autumn last year, the ESDC Steering Committee decided in March 2009 to organise regular courses on Security Sector Reform (SSR) and on mission planning at strategic level in the future. It was also decided that the college will address high-ranking staff and decision-makers with a second pilot ESDP Leadership and Decision-Making Seminar organised in Brussels.
“The ESDC continued its fruitful cooperation with other training actors. Initial ideas have been presented to further increase this cooperation in line with the ESDC Steering Committee recommendations approved by the Council in December 2008.
“As regards the “European initiative on the exchange of young officers inspired by Erasmus” of November 2008, significant progress has been presented by the SG/HR in May in his report to Defence Ministers. An Implementation Group was established in the framework of the ESDC Executive Academic Board and had its first two meetings in Brussels on 19 February 2009 and in Brno on 21 and 22 April 2009. The latter was conducted in the form of a working seminar organised by the Czech Presidency. The Implementation Group focused first on a set of “Quick Wins” and the timelines for the development of the initiative. In parallel, and with the support of the University of Liège, work started on a detailed stocktaking aiming at creating an analysis of the different national military educational systems, including the situation on existing exchanges between military academies of Member States. Finally, other actions have been identified including the Presidency’s proposal to look into the EU Lifelong Learning Programme for 2007-2014 with the aim of exploring the potential offered by existing EU programmes, including their financial resources.
“As regards the future format of the ESDC, work is ongoing on the elaboration of a new Council Decision evolving the European Security and Defence College in line with the ESDC Steering Committee recommendations approved by Council in December 2008. ´
“All on-going ESDP Missions have continued with their regular training activities in the area of civilian crisis management. Particular attention has been paid to the training for EULEX Kosovo personnel in connection with its gradual deployment to Kosovo. While Member States are responsible for pre-mission mission specific training, the EULEX Training Team has been organising a short in-mission induction training as well as follow-on in-service training. The induction training plays a crucial role in addressing the possible gaps of training provided to different groups of civilian personnel prior to their deployment to Kosovo. For this reason a significant effort was made by EULEX Training Team in this area.”
Exercises “The European Union Exercise Programme 2010 to 2014 was approved by the Council on 9 June 2009. This five-year programme aims to provide a significant basis for the training and reinforcement of the EU’s capabilities to manage crises, aiming to reflect the different training needs of the various ESDP instruments involved.
58 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
“The Council welcomed the successful conduct of the exercise CME 08 and the fact that the majority of its objectives were achieved. The comprehensive evaluation process for the EU Crisis Management Exercise CME 08 was successfully concluded. The exercise was a complex undertaking, with the key focus of exercising the EU’s comprehensive approach to crisis management, involving a wide array of instruments, civilian and military.
“Final preparations are under way for the conduct of the fourth EU Military Exercise MILEX 09, scheduled to take place from 17 to 26 June 2009. The OHQ at Larissa will be activated during the exercise for the first time which will enable it to reach its full operational capability as one of the five national OHQ’s contributed to the Force Catalogue.
“The preparatory work for the EU crisis management exercise CME 09, which will involve the EU Operations Centre and the CPCC in the context of an appropriate scenario requiring EU rapid response to the crisis, has continued. The main planning meeting is planned to take place from 29 June to 1 July 2009.”
Cooperation with International Organisations, Mediterranean Partners and Third States
European Union-United Nations “EU-UN Cooperation in crisis management is an important component of ESDP.
“On 18 May 2009 the Council welcomed the further progress in implementation of the 2007 Joint Statement on UN-EU Co-operation in Crisis Management through a series of concrete steps taken, inter alia, in the field of reinforced dialogue (including regular consultations between the PSC and senior UN officials), on SSR, African peacekeeping capabilities, and the multidimensional aspects of peacekeeping.
“The Council also noted that consultations continued in other areas of cooperation between the two organisations, such as early warning, training and exercises, planning and arrangements between the EU and UN for transition between operations and encouraged these efforts to be developed further.
“Following the successful transition from EUFOR Tchad/RCA to MINURCAT, close cooperation and coordination also continued between the two organisations in other theatres of operation in which they are both engaged, notably Kosovo, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Somalia and Georgia.
“On 21 May 2009, the Presidency organised a seminar on “Enhancing EU-UN cooperation in Crises Management: Focus on Security Sector Reform” in New York.
“The agenda of EU-UN co-operation in crisis management was discussed by the relevant EU committees.
“The regular meeting of the EU-UN Steering Committee will be held on 24 and 25 June.”
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 59
European Union-NATO “The Council in May recalled the objective of strengthening the EU-NATO strategic partnership, in a spirit of mutual reinforcement and respect for their decision-making autonomy. It noted NATO’s statement in the Strasbourg-Kehl Summit Declaration concerning the importance of a stronger and more capable European defence and welcoming the EU’s efforts to strengthen its capabilities and its capacity to address common security challenges. The Council particularly stressed the importance of efficient operational cooperation between the EU and NATO, in particular concerning theatres in which the two organisations are both committed. In this context, the close dialogue between the SG/HR and NATO SG was welcomed. Berlin plus arrangements have proven to be effective and efficient, as demonstrated by Operation ALTHEA. The Council reiterated the necessity to continue to further exploit the approved framework for association of non-EU European Allies with the ESDP, in accordance with EU procedures.
“The need for continued cooperation with NATO regarding the development of military capabilities was underlined by the Council. In this regard, it welcomed the efforts to make the best use of the EU-NATO Capability Group, within the agreed framework, where requirements overlapped. The EU-NATO Capability Group has contributed to transparency between the two organisations in accordance with the Capability Development Mechanism (CDM). With the participation of senior policy-makers from the capitals, as envisaged by the CDM, the Capability Group discussed issues regarding the coherence of capability planning processes and operational availability of helicopters, supported with a number of non-papers delivered in advance by several nations to all Member States. A single issue meeting with national experts was dedicated to unmanned aerial vehicles.
“Before the Capability Group meetings, all Member States discussed in detail the agenda items and were briefed accordingly after these meetings. As recognised by the Council, in order to continue improving coherence, mutually reinforcing development of military capabilities and transparency, further efforts are needed to ensure effective working methods of the Capability Group, while the participation of all the EU Member States would further facilitate exchange of information in the field of military capabilities.
“Cooperation between EU and NATO has continued to be fostered on coherent capabilities development where requirements overlap. The Council noted with satisfaction that staff-to-staff technical contacts between EU and NATO experts were established in order to advance the development of a common Information Gathering tool accessible to all Member States, based on the NATO Defence Planning Automated Software System under specific conditions relating to the decision-making autonomy of both organisations.
“In May the Council welcomed continuing efforts to ensure transparency and coherence between the EU and NATO, including through PSC-NAC meetings, EU and NATO Military Committee meetings as well as meetings with non-EU European NATO members and other candidate countries to the EU. The Council also
60 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
welcomed the regular staff to staff meetings on issues of common interest and underlined the importance for the PSC to continue being regularly informed.
EU-Africa — Partnership on Peace and Security “The political dialogue continued with regular meetings between the EU and Africa at various levels, including the intervention of the AU Commissioner for Peace and Security Lamamra to the EU PSC, on a number of issues, including inter alia on the new Somali Government and the Somali Security Sector. A joint EU/AU-ECCAS mission took place to monitor the security situation in the Central African Republic in close connection with the MICOPAX (Mission de consolidation de la paix en RCA). The initiating seminar on the support to AU mediation capacity was held in March in Addis Ababa. Consultations were held inter alia on EU-AU support to the new Somali Government and the Somali Security Sector. These actions were complemented by a joint EU-AU-UN roundtable, organised in New York pursuant to UNSCR 1325 and 1820, and the AU-EU Task Force meeting in Brussels.
“Regarding the reinforcement of the APSA, the EuroRecamp-Amani Africa cycle continued with the Contributors Conference, the Initiating Planning Conference and the Senior Decision-Makers Seminar. Furthermore, a joint study to prepare for a European support programme for African Training capabilities, including through defining early deliverables in the field of civilian and police training, was launched in February. The EU has provided requested expertise to the Strategic Planning Management Unit.
“With the recent agreement on the terms of reference between the AU and a donors’ representative, a comprehensive mapping of the overall APSA capacity building needs and gaps will be conducted.
“Finally, the Common Interactive Watch and Anticipation Mechanism endorsed by the EU-AU Ministerial Troika of 20 November 2008 has been taken forward: a meeting between the EU and the AU in Ispra (Joint Research Centre) has built upon ongoing technical cooperation and training activities.
“Building on the report from AU/UN Panel chaired by Mr. Prodi, discussions on predictable, flexible and sustainable funding for African-led Peace Support Operations continued in the AU-EU Joint Expert Group.
Cooperation with EUROPOL “Work on mechanisms for cooperation between civilian ESDP missions and EUROPOL continued following the signing on 18 July 2008 of an arrangement between the Secretary-General/High Representative for the CFSP and the Director of EUROPOL on the exchange of strategic information, leading to the implementation of the exchange of strategic data between EUROPOL and ESDP Missions through GSC in March 2009. The Council subsequently invited Member States, in close cooperation with EUROPOL and the Council General Secretariat, to examine ways of exchanging personal data. This exchange process, between EULEX and EUROPOL through a number of supporting EUROPOL National Units, is nearing
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 61
finalisation. The Council also invited the Council General Secretariat and EUROPOL to conduct a joint assessment of the implementation of the mechanisms which is to be conducted during June 2009.
Cooperation with Third States “The European Union continued the close cooperation in ESDP crisis management with the non-EU European NATO members and countries which are candidates for accession to the EU, and with Canada, the United States, Russia, Ukraine and other third states. Non-EU European NATO members and countries which are candidates for accession to the EU met regularly with the PSC and the EUMC regarding the development of European Union military operations.
“Dialogue and cooperation with Mediterranean partners in the area of ESDP has continued. Several of them have participated in operations and training activities run by the European Union.
“An informal meeting was held between members of the PSC and non-EU NATO members and countries which are candidates for accession (Canada, Croatia, FYROM, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and the United States) in Brussels on 17 March 2009. That meeting took place fully respecting the modalities agreed by the PSC on 3 October 2008.
“Many third-country participants also took part in two ESDP Orientation Courses organised by the European Security and Defence College in Brussels from 2 to 6 February and from 2 to 5 March 2009.
“Several third states continued to take part in the ALTHEA military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Albania, Chile, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Switzerland and Turkey). Albania, Croatia and Russia participated in the EUFOR Tchad/RCA operation.
“In the context of ATALANTA several third states have announced their willingness to participate. Norway is already involved and will contribute to ATALANTA with naval assets.”
Conclusion 8.17 Although this report raises no questions per se, we are reporting it to the House because of the widespread interest in European Security and Defence Policy.
8.18 Elsewhere in this Report we consider the annual report of the Council to the European Parliament on Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), where we summarise recent discussion with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning scrutiny of CFSP and EDSP issues.34
8.19 In the meantime, we now clear the document.
34 See chapter 7 of this Report.
62 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
Annex 1: Mandate for The Swedish Presidency “On the basis of this report and taking into account the European Security Strategy, the incoming Presidency, assisted by the Secretary-General/High Representative (SG/HR) and in association with the Commission, is asked to continue work on developing the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), and in particular: ¾ To prepare decisions on current and future missions and operations, civilian as well as military and to ensure their effective implementation and lessons learned processes; ¾ To continue to develop civilian capabilities in the comprehensive framework of the Civilian Headline Goal 2010, notably to ensure follow-up to the initiatives on the enhanced effectiveness of civilian crisis management on the basis of key operational aspects outlined in the document “Operational aspects of Civilian ESDP capabilities-follow up to Gymnich in Hluboka”, and taking into account the priorities in the “Traffic Lights” paper; ¾ To continue work on contributing personnel in line with the commitments made at the European Council of December 2008 as well as building upon the findings of the seminar on national strategies on 11th of June 2009; ¾ To explore synergies between ESDP and Justice and Home Affairs, including by highlighting the mutual operational benefit in the fight against organised crime, developing information sharing between ESDP missions and EUROPOL and by strengthening the involvement of JHA ministers and relevant national authorities; ¾ To continue to enhance and strengthen mission support to enable the European Union to respond adequately to crises, including by using preparatory measures, improving the timely provision of equipment by developing work on framework contracts and work on a warehouse concept; ¾ To make further progress on the arrangements for planning in order to ensure rapid deployment of personnel and equipment, including a review of the concept of CRT in order to make it more usable and comprehensive in terms of personnel categories; ¾ To promote the development of civilian lessons learned processes through adoption of the Annual Report on Lessons Learned in November 2009, in view of achieving continuous learning; ¾ To continue on-going work within the context of military Headline Goal 2010. Encourage the European Defence Agency (EDA), in close cooperation with the European Union Military Committee (EUMC), to take forward the work on the agreed actions from the Capability Development Plan; ¾ To support EDA’s efforts to generate and develop cooperative projects and programmes in the fields of capability, research and technology and armaments; and to encourage the agency, in close cooperation with the European Commission, to work towards increased synergies between defence and civilian security-related research activities; ¾ To support the implementation of strategies adopted: the European Defence Research and Technology Strategy, the European Armaments Cooperation Strategy and the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base Strategy.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 63
¾ To follow up, on the basis of a proposal of the Head of the Agency, the establishment of a three-year financial framework and a budget for 2010 for EDA; ¾ To prepare Council decisions for approving the draft EDA/OCCAR administrative arrangement, on the basis of a proposal by the Head of the Agency, as well as an EU/OCCAR security agreement; ¾ To explore possible synergies and coherence between the EU civilian and military capability development processes; ¾ To promote increased usability and flexibility of the EU Battlegroups as instruments for crisis management; ¾ To support a close and transparent cooperation between civilian and military actors/systems in the field of maritime surveillance; ¾ To strengthen training in the field of ESDP, encompassing both civilian and military dimensions, in particular through the European Security and Defence College (ESDC) and taking into account national activities as well as the Community instruments; ¾ To continue to support the initiative of promoting the exchange of young officers inspired by Erasmus; ¾ To continue to promote an EU comprehensive approach to conflict prevention and crisis management in ESDP, in line with ESDP agreed guidelines and commitments, and to ensure the effective implementation of human rights aspects; ¾ To take forward work on the basis of the document “Implementation of UNSCR 1325 as reinforced by UNSCR 1820 in the context of ESDP”, especially in relation to training; ¾ To take forward work to develop the EU capacity on mediation and dialogue, within the broader context of CFSP and as part of the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the EU Conflict Prevention programme; ¾ To develop the work on the ESDP contribution to Security Sector Reform (SSR), in particular through the establishment of a pool of experts and by taking forward work on training initiatives and an EU assessment tool for SSR; ¾ To take forward work on an Action Plan for security and development as a follow-up to the Council Decision of November 2007; ¾ To take forward work on climate change and security as a follow-up to Council Decision of December 2008; ¾ To continue to implement the European Union exercise programme, including post exercise reporting of MILEX 09, planning and conduct of CME09, and the start of planning for CME/CMX 10 and for MILEX 10 exercises; ¾ On the basis of the “Joint Statement on EU-UN Cooperation in crisis management”, continue to promote consultations and cooperation with United Nations in the field of crisis management; ¾ To enhance the EU-NATO strategic partnership in crisis management, to ensure effective and practical coordination where the two organisations are engaged in the same theatre; to ensure the mutually reinforcing development of capabilities where requirements overlap, including through exchange of information in the EU-NATO Capability Group; to continue the implementation of the existing framework of cooperation between the EU and NATO;
64 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
¾ On the basis of the Africa-EU Joint Strategy and the Action Plan (2008–2010), continue to strengthening the strategic partnership between the EU and Africa, including the African Union (AU), in the area of African capabilities for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts; ¾ To maintain close cooperation and dialogue on crisis management also with other key partners, in particular the OSCE, the States that are candidates for accession to the EU, the non-EU European NATO-members, Canada, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United States and the Mediterranean partners of the Union for the Mediterranean; ¾ To take forward the dialogue and cooperation with NGOs and civil society in the framework of crisis management and conflict prevention.
9 Financial services
(30037) Draft Directive on the taking up, pursuit and prudential 14201/08 supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, + ADDs 1–2 amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing COM(08) 627 Directive 2000/46/EC
Legal base Articles 47(2) and 95 EC; co-decision; QMV Department HM Treasury Basis of consideration Minister’s letter of 18 June 2009 Previous Committee Report HC 16–xxxv (2007–08), chapter 3 (12 November 2008) and HC 19–xiv (2008–09), chapter 7 (22 April 2009) To be discussed in Council Not known Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Clear
Background 9.1 Directive 2000/46/EC, known as the Electronic Money Directive, established a regulatory regime for e-money35 issuers across the Community and was a response to the emergence of new pre-paid electronic payment products. It was intended to create a legal framework for the e-money market to deliver its full potential. Whilst ensuring an adequate level of prudential supervision, it aimed to encourage new market entrants to the e-money market, so as to promote competition between non-banks and banks.
9.2 In July 2006 the Commission published a review of the Electronic Money Directive which concluded that the European e-money market had not developed as originally
35 Electronic money or e-money is defined by the Directive as monetary value as represented by a claim on the issuer which is stored on an electronic device, issued on receipt of funds of an amount not less in value than the monetary value issued and accepted as means of payment by undertakings other than the issuer.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 65
anticipated. Further to that review, the Commission proposed, in October 2008, this draft Directive to amend the legislation relating to e-money. The draft Directive would clarify the definition of “electronic money” to ensure legal certainty, with a technologically neutral, simpler definition being proposed, and provide for a new prudential regime, ensuring greater consistency between the prudential requirements of e-money issuers under the revised Electronic Money Directive and prudential requirements of payment institutions under the Payment Services Directive, Directive 2007/64/EC. The main elements of the new prudential rules include:
• an initial capital requirement of €125,000, enabling market access for smaller players, down from €1 million in the present Directive;
• a new formula to determine ongoing capital for e-money issuers in addition to the three methods established by the Payment Services Directive;
• removal of restrictions on mixed business;
• safeguarding requirements for e-money issuers in line with safeguarding requirements for payment institutions under the Payment Services Directive;
• redeemability requirements to ensure customers have the right to redeem funds at all times;
• an updated waiver regime, under which small entities would be able to obtain a derogation for some of the prudential requirements, aligned with that of payment institutions under the Payment Services Directive;
• updated anti-money laundering rules for e-money issuers, including alignment with Payment Services Directive provisions; and
• amendments to the Capital Requirements Directive to change the status of e- money issuers.
9.3 When we considered this proposal, in November 2008, we said that any proposal to improve a regulatory regime was important and, potentially, welcome and we noted the Government’s support, albeit nuanced, for the draft Directive. However we added that before considering the matter further we wanted to hear about the outcome of the Government’s planned public consultation, any technical changes it was proposing and the likely outcome on them. When we considered the matter again in April 2009, on the basis of further information from the Government, we noted that:
• we could only be told of the emerging conclusions of the consultations, since they did not end until a week before our consideration, and of the Government’s aspirations for a final compromise text of the draft Directive, rather than to what extent they had been achieved; and
• the “negotiating” version of the Government’s impact assessment, published with its consultation document, seemed to show, for the Government’s preferred option “Accept the Commission proposal but push for specific amendments”, that the negative monetised benefits would be offset by non-monetised benefits.
66 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
On that basis we kept the document under scrutiny and asked for confirmation that:
• the final outcome of the Government’s consultations matched the general support of stakeholders that was emerging during the process;
• the final compromise text was likely to meet the Government’s key priority, as expressed in the impact assessment, of a proportionate prudential regime; and
• the Government believed, with reason, that the non-monetised benefits of the proposal will outweigh the negative monetised benefits.36
The Minister’s letter 9.4 The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Myners) first confirms that the outcome of the Government’s consultations (by way of a formal written consultation process, and informal meetings with stakeholders) aligned with the general support already expressed by stakeholders, as described in his letter to us of 2 April 2009.37 He continues that:
• twelve responses were received from a cross-section of interested stakeholders, including e-money issuing banks, the trade associations representing e-money institutions, and end-user representative groups;
• respondents broadly supported the Government’s approach set out in the consultation paper;
• in general, respondents felt that the Commission’s proposal to replace the Electronic Money Directive was a step in the right direction;
• however, they believed that certain aspects of the Commission’s proposal needed to be refined to ensure a more proportionate and targeted regulatory regime for the issuance of e-money and supported the Government’s proposals set out in its consultation;
• the majority supported the proposal to base the definition of “outstanding e- money” on float (that this total issued, and un-drawn, e-money at a point in time) instead of payment volume, holding that a float-based definition would better reflect the risk exposure of the e-money holder to the authorised non-bank e- money issuer (e-money institution);
• the majority supported the proposal to refine the proposed prudential regime by adopting a float-based method of calculating own funds (ongoing capital requirements) and considering the waiver regime for small e-money issuers in parallel with changes made to the overall prudential regime (with a view to ensuring that small businesses are not disadvantaged by the overall package of provisions set out in the proposed text);
36 See headnote. 37 Ibid.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 67
• while the majority of respondents supported the Commission’s objective to revise the Electronic Money Directive requirements on e-money issuers to redeem e- money, they believed that there should be a balance between the rights of users to redeem outstanding e-money balances and the interests of e-money issuers, in particular, in relation to the costs associated with processing redemptions; and
• respondents felt that without this balance there could be a risk that certain business models might become unviable, causing certain e-money issuers to withdraw or for certain products to be withdrawn, from the market. 38
9.5 The Minister tells us that the final compromise on the text of the draft Directive was reached at the ECOFIN Council of 5 May 2009, on the basis of a first reading agreement with the European Parliament. But he notes that the Government has maintained a parliamentary scrutiny reserve on this compromise. The Minister comments that the compromise meets the Government’s priorities of ensuring that the UK and Community e-money markets are open, competitive, innovative and efficient and that the regulatory regime for e-money issuance, including redeemability requirements, is balanced and proportionate, whilst ensuring appropriate consumer protection. He says that the agreed text includes:
• an amended definition of e-money that offers clarity on which products would fall in and out of the scope of the e-money regime;
• a definition of “average outstanding e-money”, which is based on float;
• a reduction of initial capital for e-money institutions from €1 million to €350,000;
• provision allowing e-money institutions to use a float-based method when calculating on-going capital (own funds) under which they would have to hold at least 2% of the average outstanding e-money;
• provision allowing competent authorities to vary the calculated amount by 20%;
• calculating the waiver threshold (under which small businesses that operate domestically may be waived from the full requirements of the Electronic Money Directive) to be calculated on the basis of the total business activities of the e- money institution generating an average of less than €5 million of outstanding e- money;
• a new requirement to safeguard user funds in order to protect e-money holders in the event that the e-money institution becomes insolvent — these funds to be safeguarded in sufficiently safe, secure and low risk assets, over which the competent authority has scrutiny, or to be subject to a robust insurance policy;
• a provision enabling e-money institutions to conduct other payment services;
• a clarification of the rights of e-money holders to redeem e-money and the circumstances in which e-money institutions may charge redemption fees;
38 A summary of responses to the consultation can be seen at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_payment_index.htm.
68 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
• provision for increased anti-money laundering thresholds for re-loadable and non re-loadable e-money products; and
• amendments to the treatment of e-money institutions for the purposes of the Capital Requirements Directive.
9.6 On costs and benefits the Minister comments that the Government does believe that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the costs, telling us that:
• the impact assessment sets out the costs to business under the Electronic Money Directive and the projected wider benefits through reduced costs of compliance with the proposed new regime;
• as updated the impact assessment indicates that the estimated present value total costs to be in the region of £83.40 million;
• adopting the proposed new approach could mean that e-money issuers could benefit from a one-off reduction of unit cost of £700,000 and a £200,00 annual reduction, resulting from initial capital requirements falling from €1million to €125,000 and basing ongoing capital calculations on 1.5% of float; and
• it is estimated that the total benefits would be between approximately £160 million and £470 million.
Conclusion 9.7 We are grateful to the Minister for this account of developments on the draft Directive and note the Government’s positive assessment of the compromise text now ready for final adoption. We have no further questions to raise and clear the document.
10 Implementation of the Directive on reception standards for asylum seekers
(29216) Commission Report on the application of Directive 2003/9/EC 15802/07 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum COM(07) 745 seekers
Legal base — Department Home Office Basis of consideration Minister’s letter of 14 January 2009 Previous Committee Report HC 16–vii (2007–08), chapter 9 (9 January 2008) To be discussed in Council No date fixed Committee’s assessment Politically important Committee’s decision Cleared
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 69
Previous scrutiny of the Report 10.1 When we considered this Report in January 2008, we noted that the Council had adopted four Directives on asylum.39 One of them — the Reception Standards Directive of 2003 — sets minimum standards for the assistance asylum seekers should receive while their applications are being considered. Member States may introduce or retain higher standards if they wish. The standards cover such things as the applicant’s rights to information, documents, free movement, education, health care and access to the labour market.
10.2 The Directive requires the Commission to evaluate the implementation of the Directive and report its findings by 6 August 2006. In the event, the Commission did not publish the Report until November 2007, over a year late. It gave no explanation for the delay.
10.3 The Commission found that the Directive had been transposed satisfactorily in the majority of Member States but identified some failures. It asserted that some of the UK’s arrangements were not compliant (for example, it said that the UK did not apply the Directive to asylum seekers kept in detention centres).
10.4 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 14 December 2007, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State at the Home Office (Meg Hillier) rejected the Commission’s criticisms and questioned the accuracy of nearly all the Report’s references to the UK. She said that the Government would take up the points with the Commission.
10.5 We welcomed the Minister’s frank and robust assessment of the Commission’s Report. We asked her to tell us what response she received from the Commission and to obtain an explanation for the Commission’s failure to comply with the statutory timetable for the production of the Report. We decided to keep the document under scrutiny pending the Minister’s reply.
The Minister’s letter of 14 January 2009 10.6 On 18 June, we received a reply to our questions. It was written by the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration at the Home Office (Mr Phil Woolas) and was dated 14 January 2009. Neither we nor the Home Office can explain why we did not receive the letter last January.
10.7 The Minister apologises for the delay in providing the information for which we had asked. He says that the Government had told the Commission its concerns about the Report’s inaccuracies and that:
“The Commission’s position is that they have noted our concerns but will not issue a corrigendum at this stage, as they do not perceive any substantial implementation problems in the UK (if they did, they would start infraction proceedings against the UK). We are also aware from discussions that other Member States have had similar concerns about the accuracy of information in the Report.”
39 See HC 16–vii (2007–08), chapter 9 (9 January 2008).
70 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
10.8 In response to our question about the reason for the Commission’s failure to meet the statutory timetable for the production of the Report, the Minister tells us that, according to the Commission, the delay:
“was because the Commission at first put the report forward as a Commission Staff Working Document which could be issued in English only. However, the Commission then decided that it should be issued as a Communication meaning that it required translation into 22 languages which took additional time.”
Conclusion 10.9 Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that the Commission’s Report contained inaccuracies. In our view, such evaluations are devalued if they contain factual errors. It is also unsatisfactory, in our view, that the Commission has not issued a correction. We suggest that the Government should seek an assurance from the Commission that, in future, it will send Member States the drafts of factual reports and that any necessary corrections will be made before publication.
10.10 In our view, the reason for the delay in producing the Report reflects poorly on the Commission’s administrative competence.
10.11 We have no further questions to put to the Minister and we now clear the Report from scrutiny.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 71
11 Documents not raising questions of sufficient legal or political importance to warrant a substantive report to the House
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
(30672) Draft Council Decision on the signature and provisional application 10463/09 on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement on COM(09) 221 Scientific and Technological Cooperation between the European Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
(30673) Draft Council Decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European 10465/09 Community of the Agreement on Scientific and Technological COM(09) 222 Cooperation between the European Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
(30705) Draft Council Regulation extending the definitive anti-dumping duty 9901/09 imposed by Regulation (EC) No.1174/2005 on imports of hand pallet COM(09) 220 trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.
(30706) Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1212/2005 10059/09 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain COM(09) 233 castings originating in the People’s Republic of China.
Department for Energy and Climate Change
(30571) Commission Communication on the Renewable Energy Progress 9211/09 Report: Commission Report in accordance with Article 3 of Directive + ADD 1 2001/77/EC, Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/30/EC and on the COM(09) 192 implementation of the EU Biomass Action Plan, COM(2005)628.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(30650) Draft Council Directive on animal health conditions governing intra- 10158/09 Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and COM(09) 227 eggs for hatching (codified version).
(30657) Draft Council Decision concerning the non-inclusion of 10255/09 diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the COM(09) 240 withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance
72 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
(30658) Commission Report on the SAPARD Annual Report — 2007. 10318/09 + ADD1 COM(09) 231
(30659) Commission Report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 10329/09 No.814/2000 on information measures relating to the common + ADD1 agricultural policy. COM(09) 237
(30661) Draft Council Decision concerning the non-inclusion of bifenthrin in 10260/1/09 Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of COM(09) 241 authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance.
(30662) Draft Council Decision concerning the non-inclusion of paraffin oils 10261/09 CAS 64742-46-7, CAS 72623-86-0 and CAS 97862-82-3 in Annex I to COM(09) 246 Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing those substances.
(30663) Draft Council Decision concerning the non-inclusion of paraffin oil 10263/09 CAS 8042-47-5 in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the COM(09) 245 withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance.
(30668) Draft Council Directive amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to 10254/09 include tetraconazole as active substance. COM(09) 242
(30669) Draft Council Decision concerning the non-inclusion of metam in 10258/09 Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of COM(09) 243 authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (Text with EEA relevance).
(30675) Draft Council Decision concerning the non-inclusion of triazoxide in 10257/09 Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of COM(09) 244 authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance.
(30676) Commission Communication on agricultural product quality policy. 10359/09 COM(09) 234
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 73
HM Treasury
(30677) Draft Council Regulation laying down the weightings applicable from 10437/09 1 July 2008 to the remuneration of officials, temporary staff and COM(09) 253 contract staff of the European Communities serving in third countries.
74 European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09
Formal minutes
Wednesday 24 June 2009
Members present:
Michael Connarty, in the Chair
Mr Adrian Bailey Mr David Heathcoat-Amory Mr David S Borrow Keith Hill Mr William Cash Angus Robertson Jim Dobbin Mr Anthony Steen Mr Greg Hands
1. Scrutiny of Documents
Draft Report, proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1.1 to 11 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report, be the Twenty-third Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 1 July at 2.30pm.
European Scrutiny Committee, 23rd Report, Session 2008–09 75
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 Standing 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 Michael Connarty MP (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Chairman) Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour/Co-op, West Bromwich West) Mr David S. Borrow MP (Labour, South Ribble) Mr William Cash MP (Conservative, Stone) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Ms Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Jim Dobbin MP (Labour, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Greg Hands MP (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham) Mr David Heathcoat-Amory MP (Conservative, Wells) Keith Hill MP (Labour, Streatham) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Mr Lindsay Hoyle MP (Labour, Chorley) Mr Bob Laxton MP (Labour, Derby North) Angus Robertson MP (SNP, Moray) Mr Anthony Steen MP (Conservative, Totnes) Richard Younger-Ross MP (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)