House of Lords London

European Union Committee SW1A 0PW www.parliament.uk/hleu

The primary purpose of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee is to scrutinise EU law in draft before the Government take a position on it in the EU Council of Ministers. This scrutiny is frequently carried out through correspondence with Ministers. Such correspondence, including Ministerial replies and other materials, is published where appropriate.

This edition includes correspondence from 4 June 2014 – 30 March 2015

EUROPEAN UNION SELECT COMMITTEE

CONTENTS

ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT(S) WITH ANDORRA, MONACO AND SAN MARINO: ADOPTION OF NEGOTIATING MANDATE (UNNUMBERED) ...... 2

ADOPTING THE LIST OF THE OTHER PERSONS WHOM THE COUNCIL PROPOSES FOR APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION (12777/14, 14163/14) ...... 3

BALANCE OF COMPETENCES REVIEW (UNNUMBERED) ...... 5

COMITOLOGY - ADAPTATION OF THE REGULATORY PROCEDURE WITH SCRUTINY (12539/13, 15882/13) ...... 8

CROATIA’S ACCESSIAON (UNNUMBERED) ...... 9

DEVELOPMENT FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, AND GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL: 12-16 DECEMBER (UNNUMBERED) ...... 10

DOUBLE MAJORITY VOTING (UNNUMBERED) ...... 14

ENLARGEMENT STRATEGY AND MAIN CHALLENGES 2014-2015 (14152/14, 14153/14, 14154/14, 14155/14, 14156/14, 14157/14, 14159/14, 14159/14) ...... 16

EU ENLARGEMENT: ALBANIA (UNNUMBERED) ...... 18

EU ENLARGEMENT: POST-ACCESSION MONITORING: BULGARIA AND ROMANIA (5711/15, 5712/15) ...... 19

EU JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS MEASURES (PROTOCOL 36) ...... 20

EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION PROPOSING TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EUCO 131/14) ...... 22

EUROPEAN CITIZENS' INITIATIVE: WATER AND SANITATION (8177/14) ...... 22

EUROPEAN UNION COMMITTEE REPORT ON 2013 – 14 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 27

EU-RUSSIA DEBATE (UNNUMUMBERED) ...... 27

1

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, DEFENCE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL AND GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL: 17- 19 NOVEMBER 2014 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 28

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE LED EU BUSINESS DURING ELECTION PERIOD (UNNUMBERED) ...... 30

HANDLING OF TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA (EEA) AGREEMENT (UNNUMBERED) ...... 32

INTERIM COMMISSIONER (UNNUMBERED) ...... 33

ITALIAN EU PRESIDENCY 1 JULY TO 31 DECEMBER 2014 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 34

LATVIAN EU PRESIDENCY 1 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 2015 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 34

LI COSAC IN ATHENS 15-17 JUNE 2014 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 35

NOTIFYING EUHR OF SCRUTINY TIMETABLE (UNNUMBERED)...... 36

PRE-COUNCIL EVIDENCE SESSIONS (UNNUMBERED) ...... 36

PROTOCOL 36 AND THE UK’S 2014 OPT-OUT DECISION (UNNUMBERED) ...... 38

SCRUTINY PERFORMANCE (1264214, 12859/14, 13257/14, 13281/14) ...... 43

SCRUTINY RESERVE OVERRIDES: JULY-DECEMBER 2013 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 47

SCRUTINY OVERRIDES REPORT: JANUARY-JUNE 2014 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 48

SCRUTINY RESERVE OVERRIDES: JULY-DECEMBER 2013 (UNNUMBERED) ...... 49

THE UK’S OPT-IN AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS (UNNUMBERED) ...... 50

WITHDRAWALS AND THE COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME 2015 (5080/15) ...... 51

ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT(S) WITH ANDORRA, MONACO AND SAN MARINO: ADOPTION OF NEGOTIATING MANDATE (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to update the EU Scrutiny Select Committee on the matter of proposed EU Association Agreements with Andorra, Monaco and San Marino. At the General Affairs Council of 16 December 2014, the Council adopted a mandate authorising the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Union and its member states, one or several Association Agreement(s) with these states. EU relations with Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are currently governed by a number of agreements, covering selective areas of the EU acquis and policies. In December 2010, the Council concluded that EU relations with these three states were “extensive but fragmented”, and there were still obstacles to an unimpeded movement of persons, goods and services. Following an EEAS

2 exploration, in early 2014 the Commission produced a draft Council Decision and negotiating Mandate for one or several Association Agreements. The UK is supportive of the principle of improving the framework for relations between the EU and these three states, including integrating them more closely into the internal market. This would represent a small but positive widening of the single market. On my instruction, officials in Brussels ensured that the UK’s policy positions on legal base, mixity, and Justice and Home Affairs were reflected in the negotiating mandate. This means that the mandate contains recitals confirming: — That the legal nature of the Agreement(s) shall be decided at the end of negotiations; — That the agreement does not confer on the Commission any additional powers over matters falling within Member State competence; — That the United Kingdom’s established Justice and Home Affairs provisions are to be reflected in the final association agreement(s). 31 December 2014

ADOPTING THE LIST OF THE OTHER PERSONS WHOM THE COUNCIL PROPOSES FOR APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION (12777/14, 14163/14)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office These documents and their explanatory memoranda were considered by the EU Select Committee at its meeting on 21 October 2014. On the substance of the nominations, there is little we can say now that the Decisions have been adopted. We welcome the commitment of President-elect Juncker and his Commissioners to establishing a new relationship with national parliaments. We also look forward to working closely with President Juncker, First Vice-President Timmermans, Lord Hill of Oareford and the rest of the College in pursuance of the recommendations made in our report on the role of national parliaments in the EU. On process, we are concerned that there was no opportunity to consider the appointment of the remaining members of the Commission ahead of the adoption of the first Council Decision on 5 September, given that the EM was not received until 25 September. Following the replacement of the Slovenian nomination for Commissioner, the second Council Decision was adopted on 15 October; the EM was received on 17 October. We were thus not able to scrutinise either Decision. We are aware that there is likely to be a third Council Decision this Friday (24 October) endorsing the Commissioners, along with their assigned portfolios. We would like to know whether you have any plans to enable us to scrutinise the latest proposed Decision ahead of the Council meeting? While we acknowledge that the Council’s consideration of the Decisions in question may have been substantially formal, the documents themselves remain subject to the normal scrutiny process, and Cabinet Office Guidance is clear that the Government should be flexible to ensure that the spirit of the scrutiny reserve resolution is respected (see paragraph 1.4). The Guidance also specifies that an EM can be sent to the scrutiny Committees where a document cannot be deposited (paragraph 1.5), which is what should have happened here. Yet, despite considerable notice of the deadline for the appointment of the new Commission, nothing was done to keep the Committee informed prior to adoption. We find it surprising that there is no reflection, let alone consideration, of this fact in your EMs. We look forward to your response. The adoption of the Decisions having taken place, we see little purpose in holding them under scrutiny and so clear them. 22 October 2014

3

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter dated 22 October 2014. I regret to read that the Committee were dissatisfied with the FCO’s approach to scrutiny of the two Council Decisions in question, and take note of the Committee’s concerns. As the Committee knows, I place great importance on effective parliamentary scrutiny of EU business. The nature of these decisions meant that the time between the issuing of a depositable document and its adoption at Council was unusually tight. My officials contacted your Clerks on 5 September to discuss handling and to seek a scrutiny waiver for the first Council Decision, given both Houses were in recess and the tight timetable for adoption. That request was declined in this instance. Therefore, an Explanatory Memorandum was submitted to Parliament as soon as possible. Although an Explanatory Memorandum could have been provided in advance of 5 September, detailing the names of some Member States’ nominated Commissioners, the full list of names was not publically available until 4 September, one day before the publication of the Council Decision. Moreover, the list of allocated portfolios was not available until 10 September. As the Committee will be aware, the internal organisation of the Commission is a matter for the President-elect of the Commission and not for the Council. If an Explanatory Memorandum had been submitted prior to 5 September, I would not have been able to offer any useful comment on the likely portfolios of the proposed Commissioners. I hope that the Committee found my comments on portfolio allocation in the Explanatory Memorandum produced on the first Decision helpful. With the second amending Decision, the timetable was again very tight with the Decision being adopted on the same day as its publication. As my officials had received no indication, at this stage, that the approach taken with the first Council Decision was unsatisfactory, an Explanatory Memorandum was again quickly submitted to Parliament. In this case it was also not possible to submit a useful Explanatory Memorandum in advance of 15 October because -- given the process in the European Parliament -- the name of the new Slovenian Commission nominee was only confirmed the day before the Decision’s publication. On 24 October, the European Council adopted the Council Decision, as amended, relating to the list of Commissioners, following the 22 October European Parliament vote on the Commission. This appointed the Commission to start office on 1 November. Finally, I wish to reiterate my regret that the Committee was dissatisfied with this approach. I have instructed my officials to discuss with your Clerks how this process can be improved ahead of the appointment of the next Commission. 30 October 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter, dated 30 October. This was considered at our meeting on 11 November. We have noted your regret at the course of events and we understand that it is difficult to provide detailed Explanatory Memoranda when events are moving swiftly. Nevertheless, the Government is still obliged to do so. If national parliaments are to have a role in the EU, the Government needs to offer timely information – particularly in relation to changes as significant as these. Before we draw this correspondence to a close, we would like to reiterate that our work would have benefited if you had given us insight into the negotiations surrounding the appointment of the Commission. In particular, we would have been grateful for your views on the Political Guidelines for the new European Commission that (then) President-Elect Juncker presented to the European Parliament on 15 July, and for the Government’s views of them. Given that President Juncker described them as akin to a political contract with the European Parliament, they are of considerable significance – yet neither of your EMs referred to them. Alongside this, we would have appreciated your views on the proposed reforms within the College of Commissioners, with groupings of Commissioners being led by Vice-Presidents (again, the EMs were silent on them). We remain of the view that this information could have been provided in good time before the final appointment of the Commission by the European Council. Even though that appointment has now taken effect, we would be grateful for your comments on these issues. I hope these comments will be helpful to your officials in understanding how to handle similar institutional change in the future. 4

We look forward to your response within the usual 10 days. 17 November 2014

BALANCE OF COMPETENCES REVIEW (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to update you on progress of the Balance of Competences Review. This follows my update to you on 22 May. I am pleased to inform you that the reports for semester three – covering Agriculture, Cohesion Policy, Competition and Consumer Policy, Energy, EU Budget, Fisheries, Fundamental Rights, Single Market: Financial Services and Free Movement of Capital, Single Market: Free Movement of Services, Social and Employment Policy, and Single Market: Free Movement of Persons - have today been published at https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences. The reports were written by departments leading on these particular policy areas. As with previous semesters, calls for evidence for semester three reports were open for three months from October 2013. We saw a high level of interest and received over 800 contributions, including from business groups, professional bodies, the Devolved Administrations, Crown Dependencies, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, think tanks and academics. The reports have undergone rigorous internal challenge to ensure they are balanced, robust and evidence-based. Evidence submitted (subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act) has been published alongside the reports on the gov.uk website to ensure transparency. With publication of the third semester, 25 of the 32 reports are now complete. By bringing all the evidence together in one place, the review enables people to judge for themselves how the current arrangements are working, as well as providing a valuable contribution to the wider debate on EU reform. The call for evidence period for semester four reports closed in July 2014. Reports in this semester cover: Economic and Monetary Policy; Education, Vocational Training and Youth; Enlargement; Information Rights; Police and Criminal Justice; Subsidiarity and Proportionality; and Voting, Consular and Statistics. The final reports are expected to be published by the end of 2014. I would like to thank you again for your continued interest in the Review and for submitting the European Union Select Committee’s previous relevant work as evidence, which we encouraged departments to draw on. I would also like to thank you for the separate piece of evidence the Committee has submitted on the fourth semester Subsidiarity and Proportionality report. If you would like to receive further updates or to discuss the published reports, I can arrange an informal briefing by officials. 22 July 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter of 22 July 2014 regarding the publication of the third semester reports under the Balance of Competences Review. In our letters to you of 10 September 2013 and 7 May 2014, we set out some observations on the first and second semester reports respectively. With regard to the third semester reports, which we have now had a chance to consider, we would like to make the following observations: — Our overall impression was that the reports offered useful background to a series of very complex policies. Specific issues to be covered by each report were, generally, clear from the outset. — As with earlier reports, we found those produced for the third semester to be largely balanced and evidence-based. We sensed a greater tendency, though, for the Government position or particular Government negotiation achievements to be highlighted. This was particularly noticeable in the reports on Energy, Budget, Agriculture, Free Movement of Persons and Competition and Consumer Policy. — In previous correspondence with you on the Review, we have expressed some frustration at the inconsistent reference to our own work. Regrettably, this

5

inconsistency is a feature of the third semester reports. On the one hand, the Fundamental Rights report included a variety of references, including nine references to our Report “The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment” (2008). On the other hand, two very obviously salient Reports were not mentioned in the respective reports: “Re-launching the Single Market” (2011) and “The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy” (2008). Somewhat surprisingly, our 2013 inquiry into EU Energy Policy was only referenced once in the Energy report. Evidence to our inquiry on the Consumer Rights Directive (2009) was cited in the Competition and Consumer report, but the Report itself was not. In that same report, the work of the House of Commons on the Common European Sales Law was referenced, but our own substantial scrutiny was not mentioned. — Each report acknowledged a wide range of stakeholder input, reflecting for the most part the balance of the debate. References within the narrative, though, were not in all instances as balanced. In the Fisheries report, for example, undue reliance was placed on the recommendations of a 2005 Green Paper by the Conservative Party. Similarly, while the range of stakeholders who submitted evidence to the Free Movement of Persons report was impressive, there was significant reference in Chapter 3 to evidence submitted by Demos and Open Europe, evidence which was closely aligned with the position of the UK Government. This is particularly surprising in the light of your explanation to us that one reason for the severe delay in publishing the report was the need to gather a stronger, more up-to-date, evidence base. We were struck by the paucity of academic contribution to the Fisheries and Agriculture reports, including the lack of any apparent reference in the Fisheries report to the views of experts on the international law of the seas. Finally, we considered that the positions of industry were given disproportionate attention in the Energy report. We would be grateful if these comments could be taken into account during the preparation of the fourth semester reports, the publication of which we await with interest. 22 October 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 22 October regarding the third semester reports of the Balance of Competences Review. Once again I am grateful for the Committee’s observations on this set of reports. I agree that the reports offer useful background to a number of complex policies. As you know the Review is the most extensive ever undertaken on the impact of EU membership on the UK and therefore provides a wealth of information to enable people to judge for themselves what works well and where there is room for improvement. I am pleased that various organisations are drawing on the reports and evidence to inform their own analysis. I am sorry to hear that you felt references to the Committee’s work by the respective lead Departments in the third semester reports were inconsistent. Throughout the Review, my officials have been encouraging the Departments responsible for drafting reports to take the Committee’s evidence into account appropriately. This includes the list of reports you provided most recently for the fourth semester, for which I am grateful. My officials have circulated your letter to officials in the appropriate Departments. I am glad to hear that you felt the stakeholder input reflected for the most part the balance of the debate. As you are aware, every report goes through a rigorous scrutiny process to ensure it reflects the full range of views in the debate and the evidence received. The call for evidence process is designed to ensure that this evidence is collected in a fair and transparent manner, whilst publication of the evidence alongside the reports allows those who are interested to consult the submissions underpinning the analysis. Again, I will ensure my officials share your comments with the appropriate lead Departments and they would be happy to put your Clerks in touch with report leads if you would like them to discuss these further. Departments are on track with the remaining fourth semester reports and these will be published shortly. These cover Economic and Monetary Policy, Education, Vocational Training and Youth, Enlargement, Information Rights, Police and Criminal Justice, Subsidiarity and Proportionality and Voting, Consular and Statistics. I hope you will find them of interest. I would like to thank the 6

Committee again for submitting its list of reports and for the written submission you contributed to the Subsidiarity and Proportionality report in particular. 4 December 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter of 18 December 2014, regarding the publication of the fourth and final semester reports under the Balance of Competences Review. This was considered at the European Union Select Committee’s meeting on 27 January, alongside the seven reports published in December. In our letters to you of 10 September 2013, 7 May 2014 and 22 October 2014, we set out observations on the first, second and third semester reports respectively. With regard to the fourth semester reports, which we have now had a chance to consider, our overall impression was that the reports offered useful background to a series of very complex policies. Specific issues to be covered by each report were, generally, clear from the outset. The EU enlargement report was drawn from, and reflected, a diverse evidence base, as did the Information Rights report. Similarly, the Subsidiarity and Proportionality Report covered the issues in a balanced and measured way. On the other hand, we found that some of the reports produced for the fourth semester were much less balanced; in particular, we are concerned at the range of the evidence-base used. The Police and Criminal Justice report in particular presented little evidence that might contradict the Government’s policy position. Given that we have published several reports on the issues covered, we are fully aware of the range of evidence that exists on these issues, which ought to have been referenced to produce a credible analysis. In particular, we note that there also a clear lack of evidence taken from academics in this report. The same can be said for the Voting, Consular and Statistics Report. We also sensed a greater tendency for the Government position or particular Government negotiation achievements to be highlighted. This was particularly noticeable in the report on Police and Criminal Justice, where almost no evidence was included in the analysis to counterbalance the defence of the Governments ‘case-by-case’ approach to opt-ins. We were surprised, for instance, to see that there was no reference to our reports on the opt-in decisions in respect of the draft Eurojust and CEPOL regulations. It was also a surprise to us that you cited evidence submitted to our inquiry into EU police and criminal justice measures: The UK's 2014 opt-out decision, but made no reference to the report itself, published in April 2013, or to our follow-up report, published in October 2013. Regrettably, this inconsistency in the referencing of our work is a feature of many of the fourth semester reports. In the Economic and Monetary policy report, use of our reports is uneven, with almost no reference to the reports published on the Euro Area Crisis (2012, 2014), Banking Union (2012), or Genuine Economic and Monetary Union (2014). In the Information Rights report, you make no reference to our report EU Data Protection law: a ‘right to be forgotten’?, which was published on 30 July 2014. In contrast, we note that the Enlargement report includes a significant variety of references, including 27 references to our report on The Future of EU enlargement (2013). As you will be aware, we took the unusual step of submitting evidence in response to the Subsidiarity and Proportionality review’s Call for Evidence. This reflected the specific parliamentary role under the Treaties in respect of subsidiarity. It is therefore disappointing that, while the report as a whole is balanced in tone, the Government appears to have taken no notice of the Committee’s evidence. In particular, we commented on the role of the Council, and it is disappointing that the report failed to engage in any critical assessment of this issue, and consequently lacks any useful conclusions on the point. We will be producing a short report looking at the Review of the Balance of Competences, to be published before the dissolution of Parliament, and we look forward to discussing the Review, along with forthcoming Council meetings, when we meet you on 10 March. 28 January 2015

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman I am writing to follow up on a couple of points regarding the costs of the Balance of Competences Review, as discussed at the evidence session on 10 March 2015. In my response I set out that with regards to the costs of the review overall, it was anticipated at the start of the review that most resources would be found from existing departmental budgets.

7

With respect to staff costs, it is difficult to give an estimate of the cost of the entire review as each department had a different model for how they appointed staff/teams to work on the review and for project management. The PQ responses from departments on this, therefore, only provide a partial answer and cannot be scaled up across the total review. I explained during the evidence session that the PQ answer for the Foreign Office combined both the FCO central team spend and spend for the four FCO report teams. For the four FCO report teams, staff were largely drawn from existing resources contributing some of their resource to the reports at different times. A figure for FCO staff costs would, therefore, not be the whole picture but I can provide an estimate of the staff costs for the FCO central team which, along with the Cabinet Office, provided overall co-ordination for the review. The FCO central team costs cover the salaries of 5.5 full time staff for the period of the review September 2012 to end 2014 at an annual cost of approximately £221,500. The other point on which the Committee focused was printing costs. The Committee will be aware now that the printing costs supplied by Defra in their PQ answer were mistranscribed. These were in fact £13,000 for their four reports, rather than £130,000. Defra has now issued a correction. Given this adjustment, total printing costs were in fact lower than the figure which I quoted to you during the session. Departments have provided you with their estimates in the PQ answers supplied. We also had cost information from Williams Lea, which provided the majority of the typesetting and printing. Based on both these figures we estimate typesetting and printing cost at £130,000. It should be noted that Williams Lea provided the large majority of the printing for the review but a couple of departments chose to undertake printing in house for some reports. I would reiterate that departments provided appropriate levels of resource to their parts of this exercise, as with any other issue, and that the Government was very conscious of the need to ensure value for money throughout. 12 March 2015

COMITOLOGY - ADAPTATION OF THE REGULATORY PROCEDURE WITH SCRUTINY (12539/13, 15882/13)

Letter from Shailesh Vara MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, to the Chairman Your Committee has previously corresponded with the Minister for Europe on this proposal but, given the five instruments to which it relates are the policy responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, we have agreed to take over responsibility for scrutiny correspondence. I understand that your clerk has agreed to this arrangement. The Government continues to oppose the Commission’s omnibus approach in this area. So far it has argued successfully that for the five civil justice instruments concerned any changes should be made when each is subject to review. As a result negotiations on this proposal have stalled. It is unknown if/when negotiations will resume. Events have since moved on. You will be aware that the more recent proposal to revise the European Small Claims Procedure includes a change to the comitology procedure and, as the Justice Secretary has informed you separately, as this proposal also amends the European Order for Payment, during the negotiations the Council has decided to take the opportunity to amend the comitology procedure in that Regulation too. Action is being taken separately in two of the five Regulations covered in document 12539/13 therefore. At the time negotiations stalled, not all language versions had been issued and since then there has been no impetus to provide the final one. As the opt in period is calculated from the date of the last translation, it has yet to start. I recognise the point you made in your letter of 10 September 2013 that if the UK decided not to participate in this proposal there would be a real danger that we would be ejected from the Regulations concerned. I also realise that ejection from these measures would make it more difficult for UK citizens and businesses to bring or participate in cross-border court proceedings. Nevertheless, until such time as the opt-in period begins, or negotiations on the proposal resume, I see no need to send formal notification of the UK’s opt-in decision. I will write to you again if and when negotiations do resume or the last language version is issued.

8

9 February 2015

Letter from the Chairman to Shailesh Vara MP Thank you for your letter dated 9 February 2015. It was considered by the European Union Select Committee at its meeting of 17 March 2015. We note the Commission’s withdrawal of this proposal, and clear it from scrutiny. 18 March 2015

CROATIA’S ACCESSIAON (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman Following my letter of 7 January 2014 I am writing to provide a further update on progress concerning the technical adaptations to EU agreements, regulations and decisions and to the EU’s Third Country Agreements required by Croatia’s accession to the EU on 1 July 2013. In our previous correspondence, you agreed to a scrutiny waiver as a practical means to deal with the large number of technical adaptations expected. I undertook to update you with the details of adaptations that had been concluded under the terms of this waiver. I also committed to ensure that any adaptations that represented more than a purely technical change would be subject to normal scrutiny procedures and the submission of an Explanatory Memorandum. I have set out in Annex A [not printed] the agreements that have been amended under the terms of the scrutiny waiver since 1 January 2014. Negotiations on the outstanding agreements will continue into 2015. In my January letter, I informed you of five proposals for minor technical adaptations to amend EU Acts regarding Croatia’s EU accession. This was necessary for Acts that were adopted by the EU since 1 September 2012 which, when agreed, had not anticipated Croatia’s accession. I am pleased to say that the European Commission have confirmed that no further adaptations will be necessary. I also explained in my January letter, that I envisaged updating Parliament in June on items subject to the waiver. However, due to the relatively slow progress of the amendments (fewer than half of the 120 agreements expected to be amended have been completed) by the EU, I concluded that the Committee would prefer a more substantial return, such as this, later in the year. Since 1 January 2014, 31 amendments have fallen within the remit of the waiver. I hope you share my view that the scrutiny waiver is playing a valuable role in preventing Explanatory Memoranda on routine technical changes from taking up the Committee’s valuable time and resources. We can expect to see the remaining adaptations made gradually over at least the next 12 months. I would like to propose that items subject to this scrutiny waiver are added to the lists of those documents not deposited due to exemption arrangements which are sent regularly by the Cabinet Office to the clerks of your Committee. The Cabinet Office would make clear within that return where items had been exempted due to this scrutiny waiver. I hope you agree this alternative will be a more efficient and less bureaucratic process and I would be grateful if you could confirm whether the Committee would consent to this proposal. It would of course remain the case that before agreeing to amend an Act or Third Country Agreement, Government Departments would continue to ensure that a separate Explanatory Memorandum is submitted to your Committee, as per the normal scrutiny process, should any changes beyond purely technical adaptations to reflect Croatia’s accession be identified. 21 November 2014

9

DEVELOPMENT FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, AND GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL: 12-16 DECEMBER (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to inform you about the Development Foreign Affairs Council on 12 December, the Foreign Affairs Council on 15 December and the General Affairs Council on 16 December. My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I attended the respective Councils above. The Development Foreign Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council were chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council was chaired by the Italian Presidency. The meetings were held in Brussels. Neven Mimica, Commissioner for International Cooperation & Development, Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and Christos Stylianides, Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid & Crisis Management were in attendance for some of the discussions at the Development Foreign Affairs Council. Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations was in attendance for some of the discussions at the Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils.

DEVELOPMENT FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL A provisional report of the meeting and Conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/146213.pdf

POST-2015 AGENDA The Post-2015 development agenda was the main discussion item. The UK remains at the forefront of the post-2015 discussions, building on the Prime Minister’s co-chairing of the UN high-level panel. Ministers discussed the EU’s approach to intergovernmental negotiations on post-2015. High-level Council Conclusions have since been agreed and are in line with UK objectives, reflecting on the UN Secretary-General’s synthesis report and the EU’s collective commitment to spend 0.7% GNI on official development assistance. The Secretary of State made the case for a more simple, inspiring and relevant set of goals and targets, and called for a renewed EU commitment to 0.7% as soon as possible.

GENDER In response to the UK’s call for the EU to show greater ambition on women and girls, the Commission updated Ministers on progress on the current EU Action Plan on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. The UK strongly supported the Commission to take greater political leadership and deliver an ambitious Gender Action Plan 2016-20. High Representative and Vice- President Mogherini said that women and girls would be a personal priority and Development Commissioner Mimica committed to championing gender.

EBOLA FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE The Commission updated Ministers on the latest developments. Ministers discussed the practical issues around combating Ebola, agreeing on the importance of working with communities, and praising UK leadership. The Secretary of State reiterated the urgent need to maintain momentum in tackling the immediate crisis. It was also important to focus on the social and economic impacts of Ebola and on regional preparedness to prevent spread. The Secretary of State said Member States should work in partnership with lead nations and made the case for more healthcare workers and lab technicians for Sierra Leone.

MIGRATION, REFUGEES AND DEVELOPMENT Ministers discussed the inter-linkages between migration and development, and the need for consistency between the Union’s internal and external migration policies.

10

ADOPTION OF COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS The Council adopted conclusions on: the 2014 Annual Report on the EU's development and external assistance policies; the action plan on nutrition; and on the role of the private sector in development.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL A provisional report of the meeting and Conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/146293.pdf

SYRIA/IRAQ

High Representative Mogherini presented a draft EU strategy against ISIL, to be finalised in early 2015. The Foreign Secretary called for the strategy to be finalised and implemented rapidly. Immediate priorities were unblocking the EU Passenger Name Records (PNR) Directive; increasing support to the Syrian moderate opposition; and strategic communications to counter ISIL’s ideology. The Foreign Secretary said that Assad could not be a partner in the fight against ISIL. Several Member States agreed, including on the need for increased strategic communications to challenge ISIL’s ideology and tackle foreign fighters. Ministers agreed conclusions which expressed support to Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Syria, enhanced support for the moderate opposition and underlined the culpability of the Assad regime as well as that of ISIL / Da'esh, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups for atrocities and human rights violations, including the Assad regime’s use of chlorine as a chemical weapon: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/146257.pdf

There was broad support for the EU to do more to promote an inclusive political process in Iraq, including support for incorporating Sunni tribes into security structures, decentralisation and training the security forces. Some Member States called for a CSDP police training mission to Iraq. The Commission underlined the need to increase current funding to the crisis ahead of a UN appeal for over €7 billion in 2015. Member States agreed that Iran and Russia would be instrumental to progress, especially towards a broader political transition in Syria. A number of Member States called for greater influence over Gulf States and Turkey.

UKRAINE Ministers also discussed Ukraine. Ministers reaffirmed their desire to impose further restrictive measures in response to the ongoing illegal annexation of Crimea including a ban on EU investment in, and some exports to, Crimea. These measures have now been agreed.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA The High Representative debriefed Ministers on her recent trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Commissioner Hahn and agreed to engage with the Bosnia leaders on drafting a written commitment on reform. Commissioner Hahn reiterated his intention to coordinate International Financial Institutions and other donors on reform. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the visit by the High Representative and Commissioner Hahn, as well as the Conclusions endorsing a new EU approach on Bosnia, and stressed the importance of bringing the Stabilisation and Association Agreement into force upon agreement of the written commitment. Other Member States called for improved EU communications and highlighted that this initiative should not set a precedent for the region.

EBOLA The High Representative noted that EU Ebola Coordinator and Humanitarian Commissioner Christos Stylianides would be reporting to the December European Council on progress. Ministers agreed to continue to focus on the Ebola crisis in 2015.

11

LIBYA UN Special Envoy Bernardino Leon updated Ministers on the UN-led dialogue process, and gave his assessment that the political space for launching a negotiated solution was shrinking considerably. Leon called for more direct and compelling messages from the EU on the threat of an oil embargo; the need for aerial surveillance of military activity; and the need for "robust" monitoring when an agreement is reached. The High Representative concluded the discussion, reiterating that Libya and developments in the country had to remain in focus on the EU side. Political Directors were tasked to draft an EU 28 Statement giving a unified declaration of support to the UN-led process, which was subsequently issued. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/146327.pdf

OTHER BUSINESS — The High Representative announced her intention to restart the Belgrade- Pristina Dialogue on normalisation in January. — Two Member States called for EU action in response to the UAE designating several European moderate Muslim organisations as terrorist groups. — The Presidency debriefed the Council on the outcome of their informal meeting on Migration held on 27 November in Rome. — Council Conclusions on South Sudan were approved. — Council Conclusions on Central African Republic were approved. — Council Conclusions on Small Arms and Light Weapons were approved. — Council Conclusions on “AMICI” were approved. — The Council extended the implementation period for EU support to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the UN Security Council resolution 2118 (2013). The EU funds were initially granted in December 2013 and will be prolonged until 30 September 2015. — The Council allocated €3.5 million to support states in the Sahel region in conducting physical security and stockpile management activities to reduce the risk of illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. — The Council allocated € 990.000 for activities in support of the Hague Code of Conduct against ballistic missile proliferation. The funds will be used for information and communication, action to strengthen ballistic missile non- proliferation and outreach activities for the ‘universalisation’ of The Hague Code of Conduct — The Council endorsed the EU position on the rules of procedure of the Association Council with Ukraine and those of the Association Committee and of Sub-Committees, the establishment of two Sub-Committees, and the delegation of certain powers by the Association Council to the Association Committee in Trade configuration. — The Council adopted the EU position for the Stabilisation and Association Council with Serbia, to take place in Brussels on 17 December. — The Council adopted the EU position for the twelfth meeting of the EU- Morocco Association Council, to be held in Brussels on 16 December. — The Council approved the Operational Plan for the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) Mission EUCAP SAHEL Mali. EUCAP SAHEL Mali has been established as a civilian mission to deliver strategic advice and training for the Malian internal security forces, in coordination with international partners.

GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL A provisional report of the meeting and Conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/145844.pdf

12

ENLARGEMENT AND STABILISATION AND ASSOCIATION PROCESS The UK continues to be a strong supporter of EU enlargement, which has helped bring peace, prosperity and stability across the continent of Europe. We continue to support the future EU membership of all of the Western Balkans and Turkey, provided EU aspirant countries meet all the requirements of membership before accession. It is important to recognise that we cannot handle future enlargements as we have in the past, however. For this reason, I was pleased that the Conclusions agreed by the GAC acknowledged the importance of maintaining the credibility of and public support for the enlargement process. The Conclusions also noted how economic development in accession countries could help mitigate migratory pressures. These are issues that the Council will need to return to before further countries join the EU. Enlargement is one of the strongest drivers for reform in EU aspirant countries and, for that reason, I highlighted the need to strike the right balance between ensuring that conditionality is sufficiently rigorous whilst also ensuring there is visible progress to encourage those driving reforms in these countries. I highlighted Bosnia and Herzegovina as an important UK priority, where I wanted to see a new EU approach, building on the recent UK-Germany initiative, to inject momentum into Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU stalled accession process. On Turkey, I noted that our inability to agree steps towards opening negotiations on Chapters 23 and 24 (on rule of law issues) and on Chapter 17 (on economic and monetary policy) will be disheartening to those Turkish people who want to see the country move towards EU standards. On Macedonia, I would have liked to have seen a more forward looking approach. It is clear that the Macedonian government needs to do more to address slippages in Macedonia’s reform process. However these slippages are in part due to the absence of prospects for opening EU accession negotiations.

RULE OF LAW The GAC adopted Council Conclusions on the rule of law, establishing a political dialogue among Member States to promote respect for the rule of law within the EU. The regular dialogue complements existing procedures to safeguard EU values set out in Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty. It is a sensible and pragmatic outcome that Member States will be responsible for leading the discussions on the rule of law. The discussions will be held once per year with the first in 2015. The process of formal Member State dialogues on the rule of law will be reviewed in 2016 and the UK will make its views known on the relative merits of the discussion at that time.

EUROPEAN SEMESTER AND EUROPE 2020 MID-TERM REVIEW The GAC took note of the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey which outlines in broad terms the EU’s jobs and economic growth objectives for the year ahead, and the European Semester roadmap which sets out actions during the Latvian Presidency in the first half of 2015. The GAC also received details of progress on the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the EU’s ten-year plan for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

PREPARATION OF THE DECEMBER EUROPEAN COUNCIL The GAC prepared the 18 and 19 December European Council, which the Prime Minister attended. The December European Council agenda is expected to cover: economic policy, including further efforts to foster growth, jobs and competiveness; and external relations issues, such as Ukraine and Ebola. On economic policy, I noted the announcement of the Commission’s EU investment package and looked forward to examining further details including the draft legislation. I emphasised the importance of a rigorous and objective assessment of potential recipient projects and the critical role of the single market, trade and structural reform in generating the right environment for growth.

13

FOLLOW-UP TO THE JUNE EUROPEAN COUNCIL The GAC held its fourth discussion of the implementation of the ‘Strategic Agenda for the Union in times of change’ as agreed by Leaders at the June European Council this year, focussing on the subject: “The EU as a strong global actor”. Ministers reiterated support for the priorities outlined in June and the key role of Member States in setting the EU’s foreign policy.

FRIENDS OF THE PRESIDENCY ON IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EU The Italian Presidency presented their report summarising the four Friends of the Presidency Group on improving the functioning of the EU meetings held during its Presidency.

STRENGTHENING INTER-INSTITUTIONAL ANNUAL AND MULTI-ANNUAL PROGRAMMING

Following the discussion at the November GAC of the broad priorities for the Commission’s 2015 Work Programme (CWP), Commissioner Hahn presented further detail on the Commission’s programme next year. I welcomed the information received so far but pressed for more time for consultation with the Council in future years. GAC Ministers also considered the Presidency’s proposals for a high level Joint Declaration with the Commission and European Parliament on legislative programming in future years.

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The GAC considered a Commission proposal to amend the composition of the Committee of the Regions, which would reduce the number of members from 353 to 350 as stipulated in the Treaties. The Council agreed a revised procedure to appoint 350 members when the current Committee’s term of office expires in January 2015. I am writing in similar terms to Mr William Cash MP, Chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and Richard Ottaway MP, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, copying to the Clerks of the respective Committees, Les Saunders at the Cabinet Office, Sophie Warner-Fog, Pavan Chima and Faisal Moosa, Departmental Scrutiny Co-ordinators, and Una Ryan, FCO Select Committee Liaison Officer. I am placing a copy of this letter in the library of the House. I will continue to update Parliament on Foreign and General Affairs Councils as and when future meetings are held. 19 December 2014

DOUBLE MAJORITY VOTING (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Article 16 of the Treaty on the European Union has caused, as of I November, a change in the voting system used in the Council. As you can expect, this is of great interest to us. Now that a qualified majority is at least 55% of members of the Council, represents at least 15 Member States and at least 65% of the population of the European Union, we would welcome your views on these changes, and on the transitional arrangements in use until 31March 2017. What analysis have you conducted on the likely impact of this change? How it will impact the United Kingdom in the course of its negotiations and discussions in the Council? Further to this, as the new system comes into use, we would welcome regular updates following Council meetings on how it is changing voting behaviour within the Council and how it is impacting what the UK is seeking to achieve in Europe. 17 November 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 17 November concerning the changes to the voting system used in the Council of Ministers under Article 16 of the Treaty of the European Union. 14

As you note, on 1 November the previous system of weighted votes in the Council was replaced by a new double majority voting system. Under a standard proposal from the Commission or High Representative, a qualified majority now requires at least 55% of the members of the Council (i.e. 16 out of 28), and that these member states represent at least 65% of the EU’s total population. This compares to the previous system of weighted votes where a qualified majority required 260 out of 352 votes from a majority of the member states (at least 15 out of 28), and that those member states represented at least 62% of the EU’s population. The new rules are simpler and more transparent than the previous arrangements and will generally benefit the UK. The UK’s share of votes in the Council will increase, as will the voting power of all the larger member states. Germany, France and the UK now amount to 41.52% of the EU population, compared to 24.72% of the weighted votes under the previous system. The value of the UK finding agreement with other large member states will therefore rise. The new arrangements also make it slightly more difficult to achieve a qualified majority (requiring one additional member state and 3% more of the EU’s population) and therefore easier to achieve a blocking minority. Transitional arrangements remain in place until 31 March 2017 allowing a member state to request use of the previous voting procedure if they prefer. The Treaty requires that “in that case” the old rules will apply. It remains to be seen how frequently the transitional arrangements will be requested by other member states. It is possible that, at least at the beginning of the interim period, most member states will not routinely invoke the transitional arrangements. The Government will consider closely the implications for each dossier conscious that in general our voting power has been increased by the new arrangements. 3 December 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter of 3 December. This was considered by the European Union Select Committee at its meeting on 13 January. Aside from the questions below, we take note of your comments and look forward to discussing this with you further when we meet with you in March. Your letter does not address the potential ramifications of these changes to the respective positions Eurozone and non-Eurozone member states. What assessment have you made of this issue? What impact will this have on the UK? We look forward to a response within the usual 10 working days. 20 January 2015

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 20 January, responding to mine of 3 December. Under the new voting arrangements Eurozone Member States would in theory have an inbuilt majority, were they to caucus. We have seen no evidence of such action so far, indeed there are few signs that policy differences between different members of the Eurozone are diminishing. However we shall remain vigilant for any evidence of caucusing and will invoke the transitional arrangements if we judge it necessary. The government is alive to the risk that the interests of the United Kingdom and other Eurozone ‘outs’ could be overlooked or ignored in negotiations about banking union. That is why Ministerial colleagues at HM Treasury were so active in discussion about the Single Supervisory Mechanism and Single Resolution Mechanism and negotiated outcomes which protected our interests. As I set out in my letter of 3 December the transitional arrangements remain in place until 31 March 2017. Looking further ahead this question is part of the wider Fairness strand of the government’s EU reform work, ensuring that the interests of those inside and outside the Eurozone are protected. 5 February 2015

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter of 5 February. This was considered by the European Union Select Committee at its meeting on 24 February.

15

We take note of your comments, and may return to this issue as the new voting system comes into use in the Council. We do not expect a response to this letter. 24 February 2015

ENLARGEMENT STRATEGY AND MAIN CHALLENGES 2014-2015 (14152/14, 14153/14, 14154/14, 14155/14, 14156/14, 14157/14, 14159/14, 14159/14)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Many thanks for your Explanatory Memorandum, dated 20 October 2014, covering the above documents, which was considered by the EU Select Committee on 11 November 2014. We note that you have broadly endorsed the Commission’s assessment of recent progress towards enlargement, and are grateful for your assurance that you will keep Parliament updated in coming weeks. On this basis, we are content to clear the documents themselves from scrutiny. At the same time, we note that the Communication does not take account of more recent developments, including President Juncker’s “Political Guidelines for the next European Commission”, which were published on 15 July. You will be aware that Mr Juncker stated: “The EU needs to take a break from enlargement so that we can consolidate what has been achieved among the 28. This is why, under my Presidency of the Commission, ongoing negotiations will continue, and notably the Western Balkans will need to keep a European perspective, but no further enlargement will take place over the next five years.” In light of Mr Juncker’s statement, as well as other recent developments, most notable of which is the continuing crisis in Ukraine, what further light can you shed on the UK’s goals ahead of discussion of the enlargement package at the December General Affairs Council? Has the Commission’s policy on enlargement changed, or do you regard Mr Juncker’s words as simply a statement of fact? What is your assessment of the political impact of this change in emphasis upon enlargement countries, particularly given recent events in Ukraine, and concerns over the reluctance of some enlargement countries to align themselves with EU actions in respect of Russia? The Serbian government has set a target date of 2020 for EU membership: do you regard this as realistic? We maintain our support for the second Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) being launched. How is the €11.7 billion funding being aligned with the three ‘pillars’ of public administration reform; economic governance and competitiveness; and the rule of law and fundamental rights that are identified as challenges to the enlargement agenda? In our 2013 report on The Future of EU Enlargement we warned of the “the risk of Turkey’s enlargement process stagnating owing to accession fatigue and a lack of EU-leverage in order to promote further reform and rebuild momentum”. It could be suggested that this is now a risk for all enlargement countries. What steps are you taking, with the Commission and other Member States, to ensure that, in the very least, the existing momentum towards accession is maintained, and that the progress that has already been made is not wasted? I look forward to your response within 10 working days. 17 November 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 17 November responding to my Explanatory Memorandum of 20 October on the above Communication and Documents. You raised a number of important points. You note that the Annual Enlargement Package does not explicitly take into account Commission President Juncker’s statement that the EU will “take a break from enlargement” to consolidate achievements and that “no further enlargement will take place over the next five years”. The Government regards Mr Juncker’s words as a statement of fact, not a shift in policy. Experience of previous enlargements suggests that it is very unlikely that the frontrunners, Montenegro and Serbia, would be ready to accede before the early 2020s. Major challenges remain in enlargement countries, notably around the rule of law, tackling organised crime and corruption, and improving economic governance. The Government is committed to 16 upholding conditionality very strictly and will carefully consider progress towards the Copenhagen Criteria and implementing the acquis. This is in line with the added rigour with which the EU is assessing aspirant countries, notably under the “New Approach” to rule of law conditionality. The Government is ready to wait as long as necessary for enlargement countries to demonstrate a sufficient track record of reform. The accession process is long and arduous, and we should recognise that many aspirant countries embark on their EU path from a lower starting point compared with countries from previous enlargement rounds. It is therefore also important to provide these countries with every available assistance through our own UK technical assistance programmes and through the EU’s Instrument for Pre-Accession. We believe it will be important for aspirant countries and their citizens to be able to see visible progress along the way, to ensure support for EU accession is maintained during difficult reforms. Looking ahead, there may also be scope to make the enlargement process more objective, more consistent, and more transparent – and we know Sweden has undertaken useful research in this regard. The Balance of Competences report on EU Enlargement, which I look forward to sharing with the Committee in the near future, may be of interest to you in respect of future challenges in the accession process. You asked how recent events in Ukraine are impacting, or will impact UK enlargement goals. There has been no change in the Government’s policy. We have consistently made clear our position that any European country that meets the criteria should be able to apply for EU membership; this includes Ukraine, if that is what the people of Ukraine want. Some aspirant countries, for instance Montenegro, have aligned their foreign policy with the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy in respect of Russia better than others. The alignment of Serbia, for instance, has been disappointing in recent times and we continue to raise this with Serbia on a regular basis. In terms of current steps the Government is taking to ensure that the existing momentum towards accession is maintained by enlargement countries, I will address this country-by-country. With regard to Albania, we will be pressing for the Council to reiterate the need for judicial reform and action against Organised Crime threats. In Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the UK has launched, jointly with Germany, an initiative aimed at galvanising the currently stalled accession process, which focuses attention on desperately-needed socio-economic and institutional reform. In Kosovo, now that the formation of a government in Pristina appears to be imminent, we will be pressing for increased momentum towards signature of Kosovo’s Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), in particular on the EU-facilitated Kosovo-Serbia dialogue. In Macedonia, although we support the Commission’s sixth recommendation to begin discussions on a negotiating framework, we will be pressing for progress to tackle the lack of political dialogue, politicisation of institutions and concerns about media freedom. The Government is continuing to work closely with Montenegro to offer encouragement as well as practical advice and support, particularly on rule of law reforms. I was delighted that Deputy Prime Minister Markovic visited the UK on 10 November to sign a bilateral MoU focused on cooperation against organised crime and corruption. This is a welcome sign of Montenegro’s commitment to make progress in this area. The UK is also working closely with Serbia on rule of law issues and enjoying a good level of cooperation. We provide significant UK support, including FCO-funded projects supporting reform of the Judicial Academy and Prosecutor’s Office. We are also continuing to stress the importance of progress on normalisation of Serbia’s relationship with Kosovo. On Turkey, we are pressing EU partners to support the Commission’s call to update and communicate to Turkey the opening benchmarks for the rule-of-law negotiation chapters 23 and 24 as a modest and technical measure to give impetus to EU-Turkey dialogue on governance and fundamental rights. Lastly, Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA II) assistance will be provided in line with the enlargement policy framework which is guided by the Commission’s Enlargement Strategy. We welcome the fact that this reflects the ‘fundamentals first’ approach adopted by the Commission, closely linked to the Copenhagen Criteria and the conditionality of the Stabilisation and Association Process. There will also be a stronger reinforced link between financial assistance and policy priorities, with country strategies guiding programme activity and with an emphasis on good governance, the rule of law and the fight against organised crime and corruption. I look forward to updating you further in due course. 2 December 2014

17

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP. Many thanks for your letter of 2 December, which was considered by the European Union Select Committee at its meeting on 13 January 2015. We note your response, and appreciate your comprehensive and helpful reply. 14 January 2015

EU ENLARGEMENT: ALBANIA (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to update the Committee on the issue of EU candidate status for Albania following our explanatory memorandum of 16 June. I had hoped to provide the Committee with an unqualified statement of the Government’s position sooner than that and before the General Affairs Council (GAC). In practice this was not possible. In the first place this was because it was essential to take into account the Commission’s latest progress report on Albania which was only published on 4 June. On that basis, the Government has carefully considered the question of Albanian candidate status, closely scrutinising the European Commission’s recommendation and carrying out our own analysis of the progress Albania had made. As you will appreciate, this is not a clear-cut issue, but one where a considered and thorough judgement of progress was required, and the full range of British interests needed to be factored in. As a result, the Government did not reach a formal view until very close to the GAC which did not leave time to update the Committee in advance. As I have said, I regret this state of affairs, but I can reassure the Committee that it was in no way the product of bad faith but simply the short time frames in which this finely balanced decision needed to be taken, and the need for appropriately thorough discussions within government, and intense negotiations with EU partners. The UK supported the granting of candidate status at the GAC, on the condition that clear and tough conditionality was set for the next stage leading up to the opening of accession negotiations. Several factors played an important part in this: — Albania has made noticeable progress in the fight against organised crime and corruption, with increases in investigations and prosecutions, drug seizures, and the dismissal of corrupt officials. Our judgement was that these efforts met the bar that had been set in December. — Candidate status is a largely symbolic step. It does not change Albania’s relationship with the EU or its Member States, and there is no automaticity to the next stage, of opening accession negotiations. Granting candidate status acknowledges reforms to date, and also gives Albania a boost to its efforts to tackle the wide-ranging reforms needed for the next stage. — Blocking candidate status would not have increased our ability to encourage Albania to tackle organised crime and corruption, or do anything to reduce migratory pressures on the UK from Albania. And given Albanian’s progress it would have been a clear departure from our ‘strict but fair’ approach to conditionality. This might have impacted on our position as partner of choice on key reform areas, and undermined our efforts to have UK priorities reflected in Albania’s reform plans. I hope it is clear from this that we consider that Albania still has much to do, including in the areas described above. All subsequent decisions on Albania’s European path will also be decided by consensus. The GAC agreed to candidate status on 24 June, and its conclusions reflect UK priorities for the next stage of reforms which the Albanian government will need to undertake. In particular the conclusions: — Set out the need for Albania to implement its anti-corruption strategy and to increase investigations, prosecutions and convictions on organised crime and

18

corruption, in particular on immigration crime, drug smuggling and human trafficking. — State clearly that Albania needs to reduce migratory pressure on the EU by fulfilling the visa roadmap and reducing unfounded asylum claims. I should also inform the Committee that during the same discussion I reiterated the UK’s position that the EU needs to give thought now to how best to approach transitional controls on free movement of persons in future enlargements to ensure that public trust in the system is restored. We look forward to returning to this issue with partners during the annual enlargement discussions in December. 27 June 2015

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter of 27 June 2014. We are pleased that the decision to support Albania’s candidate status was taken by the Government in the General Affairs Council. The report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Albania’s Progress in the Fight Against Corruption and Organised Crime and in the Judicial Reform (Document 10582/14) and the accompanying explanatory memorandum were cleared for information at the Chairman’s sift on 23 June. We support the position of clear conditionality on future negotiations, in line with the recommendations of our report on The Future of EU enlargement, published in March 2013. We also reiterate the conclusion that the EU must resist watering down of criteria, and should apply them rigorously in negotiating future enlargement. We note that although it could be considered that candidate status is in part also a symbolic step, it triggers increased access to EU institutions, certain Council meetings and further access to funds for achieving reforms under the Investment for Pre-Accession Assistance funds. We emphasise that the provision of timely information is crucial to our continuing scrutiny of the Government and of enlargement decisions. We look forward to receiving regular updates as negotiations progress. We would ask that the recommendations of our report are considered ahead of the annual enlargement discussions in December. 8 July 2014

EU ENLARGEMENT: POST-ACCESSION MONITORING: BULGARIA AND ROMANIA (5711/15, 5712/15)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Many thanks for your Explanatory Memorandum, dated 13 February 2015, on the above documents, which was considered by the EU Select Committee on 10 March 2015. We welcome your agreement that the Commission should “recognise when significant progress has been made”, and share your concern that a relentlessly critical approach could “further reinforce the belief held by both countries that CVM is a moving target which cannot be fully met”. We also agree that the CVM should remain in place until the benchmarks are met—though this proposition begs a number of questions. First, it is not clear to us how either state can demonstrably “meet” the current benchmarks, which are drafted in the broadest and most aspirational terms—for example, Benchmark 4 in respect of Romania reads: “Take further measures to prevent and fight against corruption, in particular within the local government.” Do you consider that these benchmarks, which date back to 2007, are still appropriate, given the progress that Romania in particular has made? Will there come a point, if the situation in Romania continues to improve, when more achievable and measurable benchmarks are required, so as to avoid the perception that their fulfilment is a “moving target”? We also note that the Decisions that originally established the CVM stated that they “should be repealed when all the benchmarks have been satisfactorily fulfilled”. The very different trajectories taken by Bulgaria and Romania in the last two years raise the possibility that Romania may reach this point significantly before Bulgaria is ready to do so. Do you agree that this is a possibility? If it is, 19 would the Government support terminating the CVM for Romania, while keeping it in place for Bulgaria? Finally, we note that the Commission reports, with their respective annexes, are separate documents, albeit published together, while your Explanatory Memorandum covers both reports, treating them in effect as a package. We believe that this approach, given the divergent trajectories of the two countries, is no longer appropriate, and risks blurring the differences between the specific challenges they face. We would be grateful therefore for an undertaking that in future separate Explanatory Memoranda will be provided for each CVM report. I look forward to receiving your answers to these questions within 10 working days. In the meantime the Committee has agreed to clear the two documents from scrutiny. 11 March 2015

EU JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS MEASURES (PROTOCOL 36)

Letter from the Chairman to Baroness Stowell of Beeston, Leader of the House of Lords The European Union Select Committee, at its meeting on 11 November, discussed the Government’s proposals for a debate on its decision to opt back into 35 EU Justice and Home Affairs measures. On behalf of the Committee I am writing to express our dismay at the way this has been handled, and at the same time to explain why we have tabled an amendment, in my name, to the Government’s motion. You will be aware that the Government has made repeated undertakings that both Houses will be given an opportunity to vote on the final list of measures which the UK will opt back into. On 15 October 2012 the Home Secretary made this statement to the House of Commons: “I hope that today I have conveyed to the House the Government’s full commitment not only to holding a vote in this House and the other place on the 2014 decision but on the importance we will be according to Parliament in the process leading up to that vote.” In May 2014 this undertaking was repeated by Lord Faulks, during a debate in the House of Lords: “The Government have been clear throughout this process that Parliament will be given a vote on the final list of measures that the Government apply to rejoin, and I am happy to repeat that commitment today.” It is clear to us that the motion debated in the House of Commons on 10 November, confined as it was to approval of the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, was inconsistent with these undertakings. This was confirmed by the Speaker’s ruling that a vote on the draft Regulations was not a vote on the European Arrest Warrant (or indeed the other important measure not covered by the draft Regulations, including the Europol and Eurojust Decisions). We were therefore astonished when, on 10 November, an essentially identical approval motion was tabled in this House. The revised motion, tabled late on 11 November, is of course an improvement, in that it includes explicit reference to the full package of 35 measures. We welcome this change. At the same time, I should emphasise that the revised motion is fundamentally illogical: it suggests that a major decision (endorsing the decision to opt in to all 35 measures), is somehow implicit in a lesser decision (to approve Regulations transposing just 10 of those measures into domestic law). This is a profoundly unsatisfactory approach to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. While we are deeply disappointed by the way the Government has handled this issue, we of course support the decision to opt back into the 35 measures. Indeed, we are confident that the House, if given a proper opportunity for an informed debate, would have listened to the overwhelming arguments in support of the opt-in and would have voted to support the Government’s position. But that debate should have been held openly and with due warning. What has been proposed instead falls far short of what was promised and what is needed, and the Committee has accordingly agreed that I should table a non-fatal amendment expressing regret at the Government’s actions. 12 November 2014

Letter from Baroness Stowell to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 12 November. 20

The Government is committed to parliamentary scrutiny of our decision to opt back into 35 EU Justice and Home Affairs measures and has been clear throughout that Parliament should play a full and active role in the process. Today’s debate will be the third such debate on a Government motion in the House of Lords this year (following those held on 8 May and 17 July). You will be aware, of course, that our intention to seek to rejoin almost all of the measures in question – including the European Arrest Warrant – has already been endorsed by the House, in the debate and decision that took place on 23 July 2013. On 17 July this year, the House debated the full package of measures, set out in Command Paper 8897, that has now been agreed ‘in principle’ with the European Commission and other Member States. This debate was on an amendable and divisible motion. We have nonetheless committed to further scrutiny of this matter before formally seeking to rejoin measures. We had hoped to consider this matter much earlier in the year, but this was not in the end possible until political agreement had been reached with all other Member States. Spain – the one remaining Member State blocking the deal – has only now formally lifted its reservation in Brussels and we have very little time remaining to complete arrangements in Brussels and ensure that we can transpose those measures which are not yet fully transposed in our domestic law on 1 December. That is why we deem it important that both Houses complete the necessary legislative steps as soon as possible, and why we are now asking the House to approve the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol 36) Regulations 2014 and endorse the final package of 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin. On this occasion, we have amended the normal motion for approving affirmative instruments – an option not available to us in the House of Commons – to make specific reference to the package of 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin, so as to put beyond doubt that the Government see tonight’s debate and decision as a debate and decision on the whole package of 35 Justice and Home Affairs measures, as the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary made clear in the House of Commons last week. We have agreed a package of 35 measures that operate together coherently. The deal reached is a single, intertwined decision that cannot be unpicked. As a result we are asking Parliament to consider this as a package and take a single decision. That is why the motion before the House takes the form it does. I hope that the explicit reference to the full package of 35 measures in the motion will be welcomed by the House, as it has been by your Committee. I hope also that this letter helps to clarify our position, which Ministers will set out in the House this evening, and that you will consider further the need for your amendment to the Government’s motion. 17 November 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Baroness Stowell Many thanks for your letter of 17 November, providing further explanation of the Government’s handling of parliamentary scrutiny of the UK opt-in to 35 Justice and Home Affairs measures. I am not persuaded by the arguments in your letter, for reasons which I touched on briefly in my speech last night. But the substantive issue has now, thankfully, been settled, at least so far as the House of Lords is concerned, and I see no need to rake over the deficiencies of the process any further. The level of dissatisfaction across the House with the Home Office’s handling of parliamentary scrutiny of the opt-in decision was very evident in last night’s debate. I trust this point has been taken on board, and that we can now move forward on the basis of open and constructive dialogue between committees and Government departments. In light of the remarks of Lord Faulks in winding up the debate, I am copying this letter to all participants. 18 November 2014

21

EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION PROPOSING TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EUCO 131/14)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office This document and your EM were considered by the Select Committee at its meeting on 9 September 2014. We note the Government’s reasons, as set out in the EM, for voting against Mr Jean-Claude Juncker’s nomination as President of the European Commission. This is now a matter of history, and we see no reason either to hold the document under scrutiny or to push for further explanation of the Government’s clearly stated position. We accordingly agree to clear the document from scrutiny. We also note paragraph 27 of the European Council conclusions, which refers to UK concerns over “the future development of the EU”. The paragraph continues as follows: “Once the new European Commission is effectively in place, the European Council will consider the process for the appointment of the President of the European Commission for the future, respecting the European Treaties.” We would be grateful for an explanation of the thinking behind this commitment. In particular, what form do you expect this consideration to take, and how quickly do you expect it to be completed? What outcome will the UK Government seek from the process, and, if the process for appointing the President of the Commission is to be changed, do you expect this to be by means of political agreement within the European Council, or will amendment to the Treaty on European Union be required? We look forward to a reply from this letter within the usual 10 working days. 10 September 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman As the Committee will be aware, the Government, along with Hungary, raised concerns about the principles behind the so-called Spitzenkandidaten process by which nominees for the position of President of the European Commission were put forward. Following the European Council meeting in June, Member States agreed by unanimity that the process of appointment should be reviewed to ensure that processes to nominate the Commission President are in line with the Treaties. The form for this consideration is yet to be determined and, as agreed by the European Council, this will not occur until after the new Commission is in place. This, along with the timeframe, will need to be determined by Member States and the new President of the European Council. The outcome that the UK will seek from this consideration will of course depend on the scope set for the review by Member States. However, our position is clear, the Government believes that, in line with the Treaties, it is for the European Council to propose the President of the European Commission to the European Parliament. Furthermore, we believe that the European Council should be able to choose from a wide selection of qualified, experienced and diverse candidates. Because the Government position is rooted firmly in the current Treaties, we believe that an outcome can be reached by political agreement, without further treaty change. 7 October 2014

EUROPEAN CITIZENS' INITIATIVE: WATER AND SANITATION (8177/14)

Letter from the Chairman to Dan Rogerson MP, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the above Communication was considered by our Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy Sub-Committee at its meeting on 2 July 2014. In light of the Commission’s Communication and the European Citizens’ Initiative’s call for Member States to ensure that all inhabitants enjoy the right to water and sanitation, we welcome the steps that you have already taken to recognise the rights associated with these most basic of necessities and would urge you to continue to work in this area. We also welcome the Commission’s 22 commitment to press for universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a priority area for future Sustainable Development Goals. Given that this is the first ECI to have merited a response from the Commission, and that it reflects a clear desire for greater action on the part of citizens from across the EU, we would welcome your views on the general principle of the ECI and whether you consider that in this case it has fulfilled its aims. Moreover, we would welcome your views on whether you consider the Initiative and the associated processes to be accessible and easily understandable to the citizens at whom it is aimed. You do not comment directly on the statements by the Commission in the Communication setting out its analysis of the acknowledgment in international law of a right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The implication of the section of your EM headed “Fundamental Rights Analysis” is that you do not agree with the Commission’s view. We note your argument that the rights covered by the Communication are neither free-standing rights nor rights under customary international law, but we would welcome a clearer explanation from you as to the precise status of these rights. In particular, we would be interested in your views on the statements quoted by the Commission from (i) UN Resolution 64/292 and, (ii) at European level, from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to the effect “that access to water must be recognised as a fundamental human right because it is essential to life in earth and is a resource that must be shared by mankind”. In light of the Commission’s non-legislative commitments we would be interested to hear your views on how innovative approaches for development assistance are to be stimulated in practice and whether you have any plans to promote the sharing of best practices with other Member States and in doing so to identify new opportunities for cooperation. We will retain the communication under scrutiny and look forward to your response within 10 working days. 7 July 2014

Letter from Dan Rogerson MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 7 July in response to the Explanatory Memorandum (EM), regarding this European Citizens’ initiative (ECI). I welcome your interest in this initiative. On the general principle of the ECI, we believe that when citizens request action from national and European institutions, it is a positive sign of a healthy democratic process. We welcome this example of citizens directly holding the EU to account. The European Commission responded to the “Right2Water” initiative in its March 2014 Communication1. As the Commission progresses with actions proposed in section three of its Communication, we will want to be sure it respects subsidiarity, so that action is taken at EU level only where it could not be more effectively achieved at national or sub-national level. On the question of accessibility and clarity of the process, the European Commission has made available a “Guide to the European Citizens’ Initiative”2 that outlines the process. Their website3 also provides information on which stage each initiative is currently in as well as guidance for those wishing to start a new initiative. Information on which initiatives were refused and why can also be found on the European Commission’s website. You requested an explanation of our position on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation. Our legal position, in line with the statement by the Attorney General in 2012, is that we recognise the right to water and sanitation as a component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We do not recognise it as a freestanding right and seek to avoid the development of customary international legal rights or the expansion of existing Covenant rights. Several innovative approaches for development assistance are being taken. The UK government is committed to supporting the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). As part of our efforts to help meet the water and sanitation goals we have pledged to support 60 million people to gain access to sustainable Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) by the end of 2015 and we are on-track to meet this commitment. The Department for International Development (DFID) places a strong emphasis on using robust evidence to inform our policy and programming. By better understanding the evidence base we can make innovations that lead to better impacts. For example,

1 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/com_r2w_en.pdf 2 : http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/files/guide-eci-en.pdf 3 http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome 23 the DFID funded Cochrane Review Interventions to improve water quality and supply, sanitation and hygiene practices, and their effects on the nutritional status of children4, work carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, showed for the first time a statistically significant link between WASH interventions and under nutrition. Several high impact DFID nutrition interventions, notably in Yemen, Nigeria and Zambia, now include a strong focus on hand washing with soap and water particularly by child-carers at critical times. Given the importance of inter- sectoral linkages, we support the Commission’s proposal, in the Communication, to move towards more integrated programming in their 2014-2020 financial framework (pg. 11). In terms of international fora for sharing innovation and best practice, the Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) Partnership, launched in 2010, brings together developing countries, donors, multilateral agencies, civil society and other development partners to work towards universal access to sanitation and water, through coordinated action at the global and national levels. The UK is an active member of SWA, as are a number of other EU Member States. DFID also shares best practice with the European Commission and other Member States through the EU Water Experts’ Group and the EU Water Initiative, which is designed to mobilise and coordinate all available EU resources (human & financial) to achieve the water-related MDGs in partner countries. The greatest innovation, of course, takes place at country level where suppliers and public authorities can respond to WASH needs in their particular context. As donors we need to consistently consider how we can financially support innovative approaches and work with national and local governments to improve the enabling environment for sustainable WASH provision. The Commission allude to this in their Communication. 17 July 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Dan Rogerson MP Your letter of 17 July 2014 on the above dossier was considered by our Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy at its meeting of 10 September 2014. We welcome your support for the general principle of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) and share your view that direct methods of holding the EU to account are to be applauded. We consider your resolve that the Commission respects the principle of subsidiarity in enacting its response as sensible. We view the European Commission’s publication “Guide to the European Citizens’ Initiative” as a positive step in opening up the process and we would be interested to know the lengths that you are going to in publicising and encouraging UK citizens to take part. If the Initiative is to fulfil its aims, we are of the opinion that Member States should take a leading role in its promotion. We are grateful for your clarification on the precise status of the right to safe drinking water and sanitation and note that you consider it as a component of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The examples you provide of DFID’s inter-sectoral approach to overseas nutrition interventions is encouraging and we would urge you to continue placing an emphasis on improving access to clean water and sanitation in development projects wherever appropriate, whilst remembering that the Initiative urges action both within the European Union and through overseas development projects. We are encouraged by the numerous ways in which innovation and best practice is being shared at an international level and welcome your acknowledgement that the greatest innovation takes place at a country level when suppliers and public authorities are given the resources to work together. We will retain the communication under scrutiny and look forward to your response by 6 October 2014. 10 September 2014

Letter from Dan Rogerson MP to the Chairman Thank you for your further letter of 10 September on this Explanatory Memorandum regarding this European Citizens’ Initiative. The Committee asked what measures the UK is taking to encourage UK citizens to take part in European Citizens’ Initiatives. The Government warmly welcomes the Committee’s support for encouraging citizens to hold the EU institutions to account: this is as important at the European level as it is at the national, regional and local level, if our democracy is to function effectively. The

4 http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD009382/the-effect-of-interventions-to-improve-water-quality-and-supply-provide-sanitation- and-promote-handwashing-with-soap-on-physical-growth-in-children 24

Government provides all the necessary infrastructure to enable citizens to engage with Initiatives when they are started, including ensuring that any differences between the way Initiatives are administered here and in the rest of the EU do not hamper UK citizens from participating. Our commitment to reform the EU so that it is more democratically accountable is also reflected in other proposals we are advocating to our European partners. National parliaments are the institutions with which people identify and it is through them that voices of people across the EU can be heard. Enhancing the role played in EU decision making by national parliaments, as well as national governments, is an effective way of tackling the sense of distance that people feel about the European Union, and what it does. A growing number of other Member States agree with our position, which we will continue to champion. I remain grateful for your interest in this initiative. 1 October 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Dan Rogerson MP Your letter of 1 October 2014 on the above dossier was considered by our Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy at its meeting of 15 October 2014. We are pleased to hear that you consider the active participation of European citizens in holding EU institutions to account as positive. In our letter of 10 September we asked what measures you are taking to encourage UK citizens to take part in the various European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs). It is good to hear that you provide the “necessary infrastructure” to enable citizens to engage with the Initiatives and we would welcome a clearer articulation of what this entails. Moreover, we would welcome further details on specific measures that are being taken to publicise the ECI programme more widely so that UK citizens are aware of their ability to petition the Commission to initiate legislation. Your comments concerning the role of national parliaments are encouraging. As you will recall, in our report on the Role of National Parliaments which was published earlier this year, we recommended that the Commission recognise a “Green Card” style agreement which would allow national parliaments to come together on areas of interest and petition the Commission to initiate legislation. The agreement would operate along the same lines as the ECI which binds the Commission to respond positively with a legislative proposal or negatively with an accompanying explanation. The existing ECI structure has the potential to increase public engagement with EU Institutions further; your role in publicising this structure is of the utmost importance. We will retain the communication under scrutiny and look forward to your response within 10 working days. 16 October 2014

Letter from Dan Rogerson MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter dated 16 October 2014 with further points on the above document. You asked for further details about what is meant by the ‘necessary infrastructure’ to enable citizens to engage with European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs). The Government provides all the resource necessary to meet the requirements of Regulation No 211/2011, this primarily entails providing staff resource to verify signatures collected in the UK and to liaise with the European Commission and ECI organisers. You also asked for further details about specific measures being taken to publicise the ECI programme more widely. The European Commission leads on promoting the ECI and the Government informs organisations with an interest in the ECI in the most cost effective way, by directing them to the European Commission website. This has a wide range of information about how to start an initiative, as well as how to support initiatives started by others. The European Commission will be reviewing the effectiveness of the ECI regulation and member states will be asked to feed into this in the first quarter of 2015. This will be an opportunity to consider whether we would want to change the way we publicise the ECI process to UK citizens in future. Like the Committee, the Government is clear that ability for citizens to hold to account the institutions that govern them is vital for democracy to function transparently and effectively. This is especially important at the European level today: the low turnout at the last European Parliament elections clearly highlights the disengagement that many voters feel from the EU and what it does. As this is the first ECI to have triggered a Commission response, it is not yet clear whether the ECI is an 25 appropriate channel to address disengagement. What the Government is clear about, however, is how much national parliaments have the potential to tackle this challenge. Voters understand more clearly the way that they have influence over their national parliaments including through the ballot box, constituency surgeries and corresponding with their MPs. These are readily understood democratic levers for many citizens. Involving national parliaments more in EU decision-making works with the grain of what people are already familiar with and are essential to ensure respect for the principle of subsidiarity. It is likely to make a greater, faster and more resource-efficient contribution to tackling the problem of democratic accountability at the EU level. That is why the Government will continue to focus its efforts on the role of national parliaments in the EU, more than other initiatives. We have already made good progress in this area. Firstly, we are arguing for a strengthening of the existing powers of national parliaments over EU affairs. We welcome your recommendations that changes should be made to the Yellow and Orange card system, which might include lowering the number of parliaments needed to trigger a yellow or orange card process, lengthening the deadlines within which parliaments must register concern that could lead to a card process being started, or extending the scope to proportionality as well as subsidiarity. Secondly, a majority of national parliaments in the EU has recently requested Jean-Claude Juncker to set up a working group to consider how to strengthen the role of national parliaments in EU decision making. Some Member States advocate instituting a Green Card (the right for groups of national parliaments to petition the Commission to initiate or repeal legislation), while others, including this coalition government, have argued for a Red Card - the right for groups of national parliaments to block legislation. We believe that the working group should be set up, and that these sorts of new powers, as well as the strengthening of existing mechanisms, should be agreed in that group. I trust that I have now addressed all of your points on this document sufficiently. 29 October 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP I am writing to you in response to a letter of 29 October 2014 received from Dan Rogerson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management, on the above dossier. I copy this letter to him, and thank him for his responses to my earlier letters. The general issues that were raised around the European Citizens’ Initiative were considered by the European Union Select Committee at its meeting of 25 November 2014 and it is clear that these issues are best addressed now to you. We note that support for the European Citizens’ Initiative in earlier exchanges has been expressed, but it appears from the latest letter that the Government has done only the bare minimum required by Regulation No 211/2011 to promote the ECI. This contrasts with the Government’s strong support for domestic e-petitions, as set out in the 2010 Coalition Agreement. The Government facilitates such e-petitions by means of the website http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/. Have you considered using this site to promote the ECI? If not, why not? We note also that a review will be undertaken by the Commission in early 2015. Do you intend to contribute to this review? If so, what issues will the Government’s submission cover? Finally, we note the comments on the democratic deficit and your suggestion that the solution lies with national parliaments. While we welcome the fact that “the Government will continue to focus its efforts on the role of national parliaments in the EU”—an agenda this Committee continues to pursue very actively—we suggest that there is no single means of rectifying the perceived democratic deficit in the EU. We urge you not to rule out a more nuanced and multi-faceted approach, in which the ECI may play a part. Given that Mr Rogerson has addressed the substantive policy issues raised in the Communication, we are satisfied that this item can now be cleared from scrutiny. At the same time, we look forward to your response to the more general questions raised above in the usual 10 working days. 26 November 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 26 November on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) and the democratic deficit in the EU.

26

The European Commission promotes the ECI with individual initiatives under the ECI of course being promoted by their respective organisers. As it is a relatively new mechanism, the Government’s approach to the ECI Regulation since its implementation in 2012 has been to focus on administering the central requirements of the Regulation in an efficient and light touch manner. With regards to the European Commission’s review of the implementation of the ECI regulation, the scope of the review has only recently been communicated to Member States and the Government is currently considering its own contribution. As part of preparing this contribution the Government will also reflect on its own implementation of the ECI over the last three years as well as future implementation – including thinking about how best to promote the ECI. The Government expects to feed into this review by February 2015 and the European Commission will publish the review in April 2015. I agree that we need to take a multi-faceted approach to democratic accountability, and there is a place for the ECI alongside measures that address the democratic deficit. These measures also include recommendations to change or add to the yellow and orange card system, and the proposed working group on strengthening the role of national parliaments. 15 December 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter of 15 December 2014. The European Union Select Committee considered it at its meeting on 10 February 2015. We note your comments and may return to this issue in due course, in light of the results of the Review of the ECI, but for now we are satisfied that this correspondence can be drawn to a close. 11 February 2015

EUROPEAN UNION COMMITTEE REPORT ON 2013 – 14 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman Thank you for sending me a copy of the European Union Committee’s report on its work in 2013- 14. I am pleased to note the recognition of an improvement in the Government’s performance on scrutiny, for example on overrides, as a result of the positive engagement between Departments and your secretariat. I also welcome the fact that the report will be debated tomorrow, with Lord Wallace of Saltaire representing the Government – this is an excellent opportunity to highlight the important work that your Committee does. I look forward to reflecting on the debate and will write further with my observations on the report in due course. 22 July 2014

EU-RUSSIA DEBATE (UNNUMUMBERED)

Letter from the Chairman to Baroness Stowell of Beeston, Leader of the House of Lords I would like, first, to thank you for your brief remarks, while answering questions on Monday’s repeated statement, on the European Union Committee’s recent report on EU-Russia relations. You will have registered at the same time the cross-party support for a debate, before the end of the Parliament, on the important and urgent issues raised in the report. I understand that Lord Tugendhat, who chairs our External Affairs Sub-Committee, will today table a motion to take note of the report in House of Lords Business. This signals our feeling that, in this instance, an early debate would be desirable. I appreciate that business scheduling this late in the session is rather complicated and unpredictable, but I hope you will be willing to put our suggestion that time be found to debate the report to the usual channels. UK and EU relations with Russia have reached a critical phase, and it would be disappointing to have to wait three months or more for a debate.

27

I look forward to hearing from you. 25 February 2015

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, DEFENCE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL AND GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL: 17- 19 NOVEMBER 2014 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to inform you about the Foreign Affairs, Defence Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils to be held on 17- 19 November. The Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 17 November and the Minister for Reserves, Mr Julian Brazier MP, will attend the Defence Foreign Affairs Council and the European Defence Agency Steering Board on 18 November. The General Affairs Council (GAC) will be held on 18 November. The Minister for Communities and Local Governments, the Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will attend the GAC Cohesion discussion on 19 November. The FAC and Defence FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the GAC will be chaired by the Italian Presidency.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL UKRAINE Ukraine will be the main topic for discussion at the Foreign Affairs Council. Ministers will discuss how best to respond to recent developments, and in particular continued provocative action by Russia, including recent troop movements near the border, Russia’s refusal to disavow the illegitimate separatist “elections” on 2 November, and continued despatch of “humanitarian” convoys into Ukraine in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary will make clear that Russian actions are unacceptable, that Russia must contribute to the de-escalation of tensions and fulfil its commitments made in the Minsk Agreements and elsewhere. He will stress to partners the importance of Russia facing consequences for its actions. We expect Ministers to agree robust Council Conclusions making clear that the EU will continue to respond to actions that escalate tensions, signal that the EU and Member States have not forgotten Crimea and to send messages to the Government of Ukraine on the importance of accelerating the pace of reform and communicating a clear vision of the future, particularly to those in the east. The Conclusions should reaffirm our commitment to supporting Ukraine, whilst making clear that such support remains conditional upon progress against reform. We also want Conclusions to reaffirm the EU and Member State’s commitment to the Association Agreements with Georgia and Moldova in addition to Ukraine.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Over lunch, Ministers will discuss Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The Foreign Secretary and German Foreign Minister Steinmeier will brief EU partners on the new BiH initiative that they launched on 5 November at the Aspen Institute Conference in Berlin and discuss next steps on the implementation of the initiative.

EBOLA The new EU Ebola Coordinator, Commissioner Christos Stylianides, is likely to update Ministers following his visit to the region. The UK welcomes his appointment, and is clear that there remains an urgent need for a rapidly increased response across all the affected countries. We expect the new Coordinator to encourage all Member States to deliver on the commitments made at the October European Council.

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS/GAZA The UK is deeply concerned at the rising tensions in Jerusalem, recent settlement announcements, and the lack of progress towards a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza. The FAC will be an important opportunity to urge the parties to work together to deescalate the situation, to express the EU’s

28 deep concern at the settlement announcements, and to urge the parties to reach a deal that addresses the underlying causes of the Gaza conflict. Defence Foreign Affairs Council The FAC will be followed the next day by the European Defence Agency Steering Board and a meeting in Defence Ministers format. Ministers will discuss the European Defence Agency Budget for 2015, Military CSDP operations, the security situation in the broader European Neighbourhood and the outlook for CSDP with a focus on the June 2015 European Council. Ministers will also discuss what further contribution the EU can make towards a lasting political settlement.

GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 18 November is expected to focus on: the European Council on 18 and 19 December 2014; the Rule of Law initiative; the follow-up to the Strategic Agenda for the EU agreed at the June European Council; and strengthening inter-institutional annual and multiannual programming. Under Any Other Business, the GAC will receive an update of the Friends of the Presidency group on the Better Functioning of the EU.

PREPARATION OF THE DECEMBER EUROPEAN COUNCIL The GAC will have an initial discussion of the 18 and 19 December European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. A draft annotated agenda for the European Council has just been circulated. At this stage the meeting looks likely to cover: further efforts to foster growth, jobs and European competitiveness; and external relations issues.

RULE OF LAW The GAC will hold an exchange of views on whether there is a need for, and the possible shape of, measures to better protect the rule of law within the EU. This will be based on an Italian Presidency discussion paper.

FOLLOW-UP TO THE JUNE EUROPEAN COUNCIL The GAC will hold its third discussion of the implementation of the ‘Strategic Agenda for the Union in times of change’ as agreed by Leaders at the June European Council this year. The focus at this GAC will be the chapter on energy union and climate policy.

STRENGTHENING INTER-INSTITUTIONAL ANNUAL AND MULTI-ANNUAL PROGRAMMING The Italian Presidency will hold discussions on suggestions for ways the Council could improve its working with the Commission and European Parliament on inter-institutional annual and multi-annual programming for 2015 and future years.

POSSIBLE ITEM ON PROTOCOL 36 TO THE TREATIES The UK will update the GAC on the progress of the UK’s parliamentary procedures.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS The Presidency will debrief the Council on the third meeting of the Friends of the Presidency Group on improving the functioning of the EU which took place on 7 November 2014.

GAC COHESION DISCUSSION On 19 November the General Affairs Council will consider cohesion policy. The Council will adopt Conclusions on the Sixth Report on economic, social and territorial cohesion (the ‘Sixth Cohesion Report’), with which the UK is content. The Cohesion Reports are prepared triennially by the Commission in accordance with Article 175 of the Treaty. There will be a policy discussion on cohesion policy and the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy. This is part of a broader exercise by the Italian Presidency, seeking views on the contributions of a wide range of policy areas to the Europe 2020 goals. Cohesion policy can play a

29 role in improving the business environment and catalysing structural reforms, especially through the full application of macro-economic conditionalities in line with the Regulations. Under AOB there will be a discussion of the treatment of operational programmes not adopted by the end of 2014. 14 November 2014

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE LED EU BUSINESS DURING ELECTION PERIOD (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to make the Committee aware of EU business that is subject to scrutiny and may be affected by the forthcoming election period.

ITEMS WHICH I HOPE CAN BE CLEARED BEFORE RECESS DUE TO THEIR URGENCY AND IMPORTANCE: Bosnia & Herzgovina (BiH) Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA): An Explanatory Memorandum was sent to the Committee on 11 February 2015. On 16 March the Foreign Affairs Council will discuss this item. We have succeeded in putting the EU reform agenda back at the heart of the political debate at all levels of government in BiH; BiH has now delivered preconditions set by the new EU initiative in order to bring into force the SAA, and it is important to capitalise on this momentum to move forwards to the next stage of the strategy – defining and implementing a detailed reform agenda. If we are perceived to stall this item, this could be extremely damaging at a time when BiH faces the possibility of increasing political instability, and it would undermine the UK’s credibility as the co-creator of the new EU strategy. Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) Progress Reports for Romania and Bulgaria: An Explanatory Memorandum on these items was submitted on 13 February 2015. The Council is scheduled to vote on adoption of this report via Council Conclusions at the 17 March General Affairs Council. The CVM sets the benchmarks for judicial reform, corruption and organised crime; agreeing these items will be important to demonstrating our support for these benchmarks in EU enlargement. If we are unable to agree this item, it would substantially weaken our hand in pressuring Bulgaria and Romania to deliver reforms required. EU regional strategy for Syria and Iraq as well as the Da'esh threat: An Explanatory Memorandum on this item was submitted to the Committee on 25 February 2015. This Joint Communication document is due to be endorsed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 March. At the August European Council and October Foreign Affairs Council the EU was tasked with developing this important strategy. It is imperative that the EU acts swiftly and collectively in its efforts to tackle ISIL and the situations in Iraq and Syria. It is therefore essential that the Joint Communication can be endorsed at the March Foreign Affairs Council so that the EU and Member States can push forward with implementation of the strategy. Measures to Combat Terrorism: An Explanatory Memorandum was sent to the Committee on 27 February 2015. This item is due for discussion in Brussels on 17 March and will be adopted by written procedure soon afterwards. Counter-terrorism is a high priority and thorough upkeep of this restrictive measures regime is a leading example of best practice and implementation of the UK’s Smarter Sanction policy. The latest review of this regime recommended delisting two entities; it is important that we do not delay this longer than necessary. Ukraine Association Agenda: An Explanatory Memorandum was sent to the Committee on 4 March. The Foreign Affairs Council is due to agree this item on 16 March. The wider Associate Agreement has been agreed and it is essential that the UK is able agree to this politically important item in order to demonstrate our support for the agreement.

ITEMS WHICH MAY REQUIRE DECISIONS DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ELECTION PERIOD, WHERE UNFORTUNATELY NO DOCUMENT IS YET AVAILABLE TO BE DEPOSITED FOR SCRUTINY:

EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy: This Action Plan was submitted for scrutiny in 2012 and adopted by Council Conclusions. Negotiations on a new Action Plan are expected to be 30 completed by June and adopted at the June Foreign Affairs Council by Council Conclusions. As a leading supporter of the Human Rights and Democracy strategy, it is important that the UK is able to agree this item in Council. EU-Australia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement: On 16 June 2011 I wrote to the Committees advising that negotiations were to begin for a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Australia. The EU and Australia are keen to establish their relationship on a more robust footing. A Framework Agreement will enable the EU to proceed with Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations which both sides are keen to agree. After a stall, negotiations were reopened in August 2014 under a new Australian government and EU Member States agreed the text in principle on 25 February 2015. The agreement will now be initialled at the next senior bilateral. The text will then go through inter-service consultation before a draft Council Decision is issued authorising formal signature of the Agreement. The UK is a strong advocate of an EU-Australia partnership and it is important to our bilateral relationship that we are able to demonstrate this support by agreeing this decision. EUBAM Libya: The current mission mandate and budget expire on 21 May. Without a mandate, a mission would no longer have the legal authority to operate and would have to suspend activities. We expect Council discussion on this issue to take place in April. The UK is supportive of a down-sized mission and physical presence; should the final proposal reflect this, it will be important that the UK is able to agree the item. EUBAM Rafah: Both the mandate and budget for this item will expire on 30 June. A Council Decision would need to be adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council due to take place in June for this border assistance mission to continue. The Foreign Secretary and his French and German counterparts wrote to Baroness Ashton on this matter in October 2014 to stress the importance of EUBAM’s reactivation. An extension would be in line with our policy for the Middle East Peace Process, and it is therefore important that the UK is able to agree to this item. EUCAP Sahel Niger: The budget for this item is due to expire on 15 July. The mandate for this mission expires on July 2016, so the forthcoming budget is to enable continuation of activities under the existing mandate. A Council Decision on the budget would need to be adopted at the Foreign Affairs Council due to take place in June. EU-CELAC Joint Action Plan: This Joint Action Plan is due to be agreed between the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) as the main deliverable for the EU- CELAC Summit on 10-11 June. We expect the item to be discussed in Council in May. Agreeing this item would allow us to build a stronger partnership with the region on important UK priorities including education, climate change, migration and reducing the flow of illegal drugs. The text is still under negotiation with the 33 CELAC countries, so a suitable draft is not yet available. EU-Central Asia Strategy: Taking into account the Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Central Asia Strategy, a revised strategy is expected to be adopted at the June Foreign Affairs Council. This is a Latvian Presidency priority and it is important that the UK is able to agree this item given our bilateral interests in the region. EU-Kazakhstan Enhanced PCA: This agreement was initialled in January 2015. We expect a Council Decision on signature and provisional application will be presented to the Council in May 2015. With the Eurasian Economic Union having been established in January 2015, the UK is supportive of Kazakhstan diversifying its political and economic relations with this EU agreement being signed as soon as possible. EULEX Kosovo: Although the current mandate expires in June 2016, the current budget will expire for the rule of law mission on 14 June 2015. In order for the mission activities to continue, a Council Decision on the budget would need to be adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council due to take place in May. EU-New Zealand Partnership and Cooperation Agreement: I wrote to the Committee on 9 May 2012 advising that negotiations were to begin on an EU-New Zealand Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. On 17 May 2012, you replied and I answered your queries in my letter dated 12 June 2012. Negotiations on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement were concluded in 2014, after five rounds. Progress then stalled for several months due to the change of Commissioners and the New Zealand General Election. The UK agreed in November 2014 that we were content for the document to be initialled and it will be initialled at the next senior level bilateral. The PCA is a mixed Agreement between the EU, its Member States and New Zealand. It does not contain provisions relating to trade, since New Zealand wish to conclude a separate Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU. We are supportive of New Zealand’s efforts to agree an FTA in due course. Once initialled, 31 the text will then go through inter-service consultation before a draft Council Decision is issued authorising formal signature of the Agreement. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have previously told their counterparts that the UK will do all it can to support this agreement in Brussels. Delaying this agreement will have implications for the bilateral relationship. EUPOL Copps: Both the mandate and budget for this item are due to expire on 30 June. In order to avoid a gap in the mission, a Council Decision would need to be adopted at the Foreign Affairs Committee due to take place in June. EUSEC DRC: The existing mission will end in June 2015. CSDP will continue in the form of micro mission, under the same name, but it is a new mission. The Council Decision for the establishment and for the launch will need to commence prior the expiration of the current mission in June. We do not expect to receive a draft for this until the dissolution period has begun. EUSR BiH: The current mandate for this position is due to expire on 30 June. We expect that this item to be discussed in Council in May. In line with our support for the SAA, it will be important that we are able to agree this item in Council. Restrictive Measures: (Burma, expire 30 April; DPRK, expire 22 April; Guinea-Bissau, expire 30 May, South Sudan, expire 12 July; Syria, expire 31 May, Ukraine Tier III, expire 22 July) Decisions for these measures will need to be taken as failure to renew these measure before they expire could put the UK in potential breach of its UN and EU obligations. I will deposit these items with Explanatory Memorandums after adoption. My officials will work closely with the Committee Clerks to clear as much business as possible ahead of dissolution and keep you well informed of developments during and after the dissolution period. 4 March 2015

HANDLING OF TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA (EEA) AGREEMENT (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to you to seek your agreement to exemption from Parliamentary Scrutiny for an increasing volume of Council Decisions on technical amendments to the EEA agreement. The European Economic Area (EEA) agreement allows the EEA-EFTA states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to participate in the single market on the understanding that they adopt relevant EU acquis. All new EU acquis is dynamically brought into the EEA Agreement to ensure the homogeneity of the single market. However, relevant acquis are not automatically adopted by the EEA-EFTA states and must be extended via a legal act. There are normally 300-400 such files per year. Many of these files are routine, technical adjustments, updating the EEA Agreement to conform to new EU legislation. Not all files require the same level of involvement across institutions. Many technical adjustments can be agreed without Member State involvement. But others, especially those with budgetary implications, have to be agreed by Council. Files that require Council’s approval include extensions to the EEA-EFTA states to allow their participation in EU programmes (such as Horizon 2020). In these cases, according to current UK Parliamentary procedure, the files must be submitted for Parliamentary scrutiny even where they do not contain substantive policy changes from their original form. There is currently a backlog of files for incorporation. This is broadly the result of long running disputes between the EU and the EEA about whether certain legal acts are in the scope of the EEA agreement. This has stalled the incorporation of routine files with a negative impact on the functioning of the single market. This has been noted as a concern for several years, and is a key issue for the EU in the six-monthly EU/EEA Council Conclusions. To address this issue, there is now a proactive push from the Commission and EEAS to tackle the backlog. At the start of 2014 the backlog numbered around 600 files. In order to tackle this backlog as well as the usual volume of files, the EEA and EEAS agreed to aim to clear around 600 acts in 2014 and around 500 in 2015, a significant increase in the number of files handled in the coming 24 months. We estimate that this will translate to approximately 50 additional files per year requiring Council agreement, roughly double the current volume. The files cover policy areas across Government departments, as they touch on all aspects of the single market in which the EEA-EFTA states participate. 32

There is a risk that the volume of files requiring Parliamentary scrutiny will overwhelm current processes and timetables. I hope you agree that applying a scrutiny waiver to any files which are purely technical amendments to existing protocols is the best solution to mitigate this risk. This would help to streamline the scrutiny process and manage workloads both within Government and within the committees with minimal risk to UK political interests in Europe. I judge that very few (if any) of these files raise significant policy implications for the UK given that their purpose is limited to bringing existing agreements up to date with decisions already taken by the EU and subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny, or extend them to EEA-EFTA states. We can manage these items in the same way that we have done with the Croatia accession files. If you agree to this approach the Foreign Office together with the Cabinet Office will track activity and at regular intervals send a report to you with a summary of the documents processed under the waiver, as with the Croatia accession exemption category. 16 September 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2014. The European Union Select Committee considered it at its meeting on 9 December. Following consultation with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, we are happy to grant a scrutiny waiver on the following conditions: — In any document in which a Title V opt-in is, or may be, invoked, the deposit will be automatic. — Any document which has significant policy implications for the UK should be deposited automatically – if there is any doubt on this, the Clerk of the Committee should be consulted. — A regular (six monthly) update should be provided to the Committee, detailing the documents processed under the waiver. We do not expect a response to this letter, and look forward to an update in six months’ time. The Committee may reconsider this waiver at this juncture. 10 December 2014

INTERIM COMMISSIONER (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I am writing to inform you of the appointment by the Council of four interim Commissioners for the remainder of this Commission’s term. Following May’s European Parliamentary elections, four of the Commissioners who were elected as MEPs decided to take up their seats in the European Parliament at the end of June. In compliance with the Code of Conduct for Commissioners, these four Commissioners had to resign as Commissioners upon taking up their role as MEPs. Their relevant national governments then nominated four interim candidates to take their place. These are: — Mr Jyrki Katainen (Finland) – who will take on Mr Olli Rehn’s Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro portfolio; — Mr Jacek Dominik (Poland) - who will take on Mr Janusz Lewandowski’s Financial Programming and the Budget portfolio; — Mr Ferdinando Nelli Feroci (Italy) – who will take on Mr Antonio Tajani’s Industry and Entrepreneurship portfolio; and — Ms Martine Reicherts (Luxembourg) – who will take on Ms Viviane Reding’s Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship portfolio. In line with the EU Treaties, the European Parliament was consulted about the interim Commissioners. The four candidates had individual EP committee hearings. On 16 July the European 33

Parliament voted 421 in favour, with 170 against and 21 abstaining, for the Council to appoint the interim Commissioners. The UK supported this decision to ensure that there were no gaps in these key portfolios, and to help ensure a smooth transition from this Commission to the next. 25 July 2014

ITALIAN EU PRESIDENCY 1 JULY TO 31 DECEMBER 2014 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman In line with our commitment to proper scrutiny of EU business, the Government has promised to keep Parliament informed on issues relating to each EU Presidency programme. I attach [not printed] a summary of the Italian priorities for their Presidency of the Council of the European Union, as well as a provisional calendar of Ministerial meetings and key events. I have also placed a copy of the summary in the library of the House, in the interest of informing all members. As always, I very much look forward to hearing your views and engaging with you on the key issues. The Italians have set out three broad areas for their Presidency: Growth, Migration and Mediterranean (encompassing foreign policy). There is a good degree of alignment between the UK’s priorities and those of the Italian Presidency, particularly on policies aimed at promoting growth. The Italians will seek to promote initiatives to boost growth and investment, including support for SMEs. Other priorities that we share include deepening the Single Market and Better Regulation. The Italians will also want to make significant progress on TTIP negotiations, an ambition that we support. Under the migration agenda, we expect the Italians to push for a more coordinated EU response to the large influx of migrants from the Near East and Africa that are crossing the Mediterranean Sea. They are keen to increase financial support for search and rescue operations and discuss options for burden sharing. We will continue to stress to them the importance of practical cooperation and action in countries of origin and transit. On foreign policy, the Italians are likely to focus on the Mediterranean neighbourhood, particularly on Syria, Libya and Egypt. Like us, they are pro-EU Enlargement, and strong supporters of Albania and Serbia. We would also expect them to take a leading role on Ukraine should the crisis deepen. We will support the Italians across the full range of our shared Western Balkans policy priorities. I will of course be happy to provide your Committee with more information on any of these issues or the Presidency priorities, and I and my officials stand by to assist with an informal briefing session. 24 June 2014

LATVIAN EU PRESIDENCY 1 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 2015 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman In line with our commitment to proper scrutiny of EU business, the Government has promised to keep Parliament informed on issues relating to each EU Presidency programme. I attach a summary of the Latvian priorities for their Presidency of the Council of the European Union, as well as a provisional calendar of Ministerial meetings and key events. I have also placed a copy of the summary in the library of the House, in the interest of informing all members. As always, I very much look forward to hearing your views and engaging with you on the key issues. The Latvians have set out three broad areas for their Presidency: Competitive Europe, Digital Europe and Global Europe (covering EU-US relations, the Eastern Partnership and Central Asia). There is a good degree of alignment between the UK’s priorities and those of the Latvian Presidency, particularly those based around supporting growth and making European economies more competitive. The Latvians plan to work quickly on the €315bn Juncker investment package. Other priorities that we share include deepening the single market, better regulation and services liberalisation.

34

Under the digital agenda, Latvia will look to seize the opportunities provided by digital technologies as the basis for EU’s competitiveness and growth. They will emphasise building trust in the Digital Single Market by advancing the Data Protection package as well as EU cyber security strategy. The Latvian Presidency prioritises work on three main external relations priorities. Firstly, strengthening EU-US relations primarily by making significant progress on TTIP but also in areas such as energy security, climate change, cyber security and data protection. Secondly, the Eastern Partnership with an EaP summit on 21-22 May the centrepiece, focusing on the implementation of the Association Agreements with the Eastern Partnership countries. Finally, Latvia plans to refresh the EU’s strategy on Central Asia looking at security cooperation and regional development. I will of course be happy to provide your Committee with more information on any of these issues or the Presidency priorities, and I and my officials stand by to assist with an informal briefing session. 5 January 2015

LI COSAC IN ATHENS 15-17 JUNE 2014 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office In the light of the recent public debate on the potential leadership of the next European Commission, and ahead of the Committee’s session with you on Monday afternoon, I wanted to bring to your attention comments made at the LI COSAC in Athens on 15-17 June 2014. On 16 June the Chairpersons of the European Affairs Committees from of national parliaments negotiated the conclusions and contributions of the conference. I attach [not printed] a copy of the final versions of both for your reference. One point of debate was a discussion of the experience of the Spitzenkandidaten. The revised draft contributions of the LI COSAC, circulated by the Presidency only on the morning of 16 June, incorporated an amendment by the European Parliament, to the effect that “the experience of ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ to address European issues during the election campaign was successful”. Both Sir William Cash and I recognised that was a matter of some debate, and we tabled a joint amendment to replace the new text with the following neutral wording: “there were ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ to address European issues during the election campaign”. A range of views were expressed during discussion of our amendment, which was eventually agreed without a vote, as a fair and factually accurate compromise. However, I would like to emphasise that the LI COSAC, in agreeing this amendment, did not express a view on the success or otherwise of the Spitzenkandidaten experience—despite the exchanges during Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday, I would not wish you to be under the impression that the national parliamentary delegations present at COSAC agreed that the experience was unsuccessful or unacceptable. 20 June 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for sharing with me the final version of the negotiated conclusions and contributions of the recent COSAC meeting in Athens. I am grateful for the interventions that you and Sir William Cash made in those discussions to amend the text of the conclusions on Spitzenkandidaten. Across the continent, voters have stayed at home, or voted in record numbers for populist, anti-EU parties. The argument that you could increase engagement by asserting that the political group whose parties won the most seats should choose the Commission president was manifestly wrong. Moreover, the so-called Spitzenkandidaten process has no clear basis in EU law. The Treaties are clear that it is the accountable, elected heads of government in the European Council that propose who runs the European Commission, taking into account the European Parliament elections. 26 June 2014

35

NOTIFYING EUHR OF SCRUTINY TIMETABLE (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman As you know, Government is committed to ensuring that scrutiny runs as smoothly as possible, and this starts in Brussels. I am writing to inform you that I have written to High Representative Federica Mogherini concerning scrutiny during the Latvian Presidency of the European Council. As I wrote to Baroness Ashton during the Italian Presidency, I have emphasised the importance of providing documents well in advance to ensure sufficient time for UK parliamentary scrutiny. And on documents where timetables are known, such as mission renewals, I have set out clearly the dates by which we would need to receive documents from the EU in order to allow for scrutiny. As you know my scrutiny co-ordinators regularly run scrutiny workshops in UKRep and I have also offered a briefing to officials in the EEAS to continue to strengthen understanding of the UK scrutiny system. 15 December 2014

PRE-COUNCIL EVIDENCE SESSIONS (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office I am writing to thank you for your attendance at Monday’s Pre-Council evidence session with the European Union Committee of the House of Lords. We found this pre-Council meeting rewarding and useful, notwithstanding the current uncertainty over some of the issues under discussion. We would like therefore to invite you to speak to us ahead of future Council meetings, should the parliamentary calendar permit, and I would be grateful if you could confirm that you are content for Committee staff to plan accordingly. Along with the above invitation, I would ask that you write to the Committee following this week’s Council meetings, to inform them of the progress of negotiations and to share your views on how their input has informed the negotiations of various dossiers and issues. Your view on each of the agreements reached would also be welcomed by the Committee. 26 June 2014

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP As you know, the Committee’s report on The Role of National Parliaments in the EU recommended the introduction of pre-European Council meeting with the Minister for Europe. We accordingly planned to meet you today (21 October) to discuss the forthcoming European Council on 23/24 October. This request was first passed on to your officials in July, and was expressly repeated in early September. We are therefore displeased to learn that your office contacted the clerks a month later, on 10 October, to tell them that your diary would not allow us to hold a pre-Council meeting with you. In the circumstances, I decided to cancel our scheduled meeting last week (15 October) in order to give the Committee an opportunity to discuss this apparent disregard for our work. I did not take this decision lightly. We have now discussed this issue. We are clear that pre-Council evidence sessions will contribute far more to our scrutiny work than post-Council sessions, particularly given that Her Majesty’s Government is in any case required to report back to Parliament following a European Council. If a political dialogue is to take place between national parliaments and the EU institutions, a genuine political dialogue with Government Ministers is equally important. Your response to our report on The Role of National Parliaments in the EU paid lip-service to the importance of upstream engagement by national parliaments; if that engagement is to mean anything, the Government itself must play its part.

36

Member State Governments sometimes claim that legislation has been imposed upon them during Council meetings. We seek to avoid this situation by airing the issues to be discussed in the Council, ahead of time, publicly. Failure to embrace such openness risks playing into the hands of those who would present the EU as an alien and secretive institution. I also remind you that many other national governments and parliaments appear willing to discuss European Council meetings in public and in advance. As the evidence in our report on The Role of National Parliaments states, your counterpart in France regularly debates the European Council with our equivalent committee, and professes to find it useful that he is able to negotiate with the support of his parliament. We hope this would be the case for you. Elsewhere, the Oireachtas, and the national parliaments in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Netherlands and Lithuania all focus their efforts on Pre- Council Scrutiny. In no sense do we seek to mandate Ministers’ actions in the Council. Rather, we seek to promote the transparency and accountability of EU decision-making, by means of a continuing frank and honest dialogue. In pursuit of these aims, I formally invite you to appear before the Committee on 11 November, ahead of the General Affairs Council, and on 16 December, ahead of the European Council, both at 4pm. I hope this advance notice will give your office sufficient time to coordinate your diary with the committee clerks. I look forward to your response within 10 working days. 22 October 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 22 October on this topic. Firstly, I want to apologise for the delay in the resolution of this matter. As you know, I place great value on my relationship with you and your Committee and so I want to give such requests the consideration that they deserve. Also, I note that officials were in regular contact with the Committee’s Clerks in the intervening period. In the week leading up to a European Council there are intensive negotiations in a number of different fora. As I mentioned in response to the Committee’s questions about Ukraine in June, at the very time I was with the Committee the then Foreign Secretary was in Brussels at the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC). In the course of a typical pre-Council week negotiations are ongoing at Councils, perhaps the General Affairs Council (GAC), the FAC, and ECOFIN. There are also official level negotiations amongst Permanent Representatives at COREPER, between Leaders’ Sherpas and bilaterally. The shape and likely outcome of those negotiations can shift considerably over the course of a week, and of course at the European Council itself. It is often not clear a week in advance what might be the key issues at any Council meeting. I judge that the information I would be able to give the Committee would be at best partial. In addition, I would need to avoid giving any information that prejudiced our national negotiating positions. I welcome the intention behind this request - to better engage with Government on the EU – and I value the expertise and experience that your Committee brings to bear on European issues. As you know, I am a firm believer that national parliaments should have closer involvement in EU decision- making. My officials are working hard on this and I know they have had productive discussions with your Clerks about where there are opportunities to work together. To this end, I would suggest that we schedule two meetings between now and May 2015 as an experiment on which we might take stock after the General Elections: one in early December during which in addition to looking ahead to the GAC/European Council we might discuss any other topics of interest to the Committee such as next steps on strengthening the role of national parliaments; and a second in early March. I am afraid that it would simply not be possible to hold evidence sessions in advance of every General Affairs Council/European Council. 4 November 2014

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman I write further to my letter of 4 November and subsequent correspondence between the Committee Clerks and my office. 37

I am pleased to confirm that I can accept your invitation to meet the Committee on 9 December at 4pm and on 10 March at 4pm. I regret that I am unable to attend a meeting with the Committee on 11 November due to diary commitments. In any case, and as we discussed, the agenda for the November GAC is not currently extensive and consideration of the December European Council agenda is likely to be cursory at this stage. 6 November 2014

PROTOCOL 36 AND THE UK’S 2014 OPT-OUT DECISION (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from Karen Bradley MP, Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime, the Home Office, to the Chairman Thank you for your two Explanatory Memoranda of 3 November 2014 which were considered by the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the European Union at a meeting on 26 November 2014. These two draft Decisions are of course of critical importance to the Government’s application to opt back in to the 35 measures listed in the Annex to the first Decision. Our Clerk was informed by your officials last night that the Decisions are to be adopted tomorrow, 27 November, and published in the OJ the following day. You will of course be aware, not least from the amendment I tabled to the Government motion on 17 November, of the views not just of this Committee but of all the members who spoke in that debate about the Government’s handling of Parliamentary involvement in the whole saga of the block opt-out and subsequent opt-in. Nevertheless, we support the adoption of these two Decisions, and have decided to clear them from scrutiny. There remain the two Decisions which will actually authorise the Government’s opt in to the 35 measures: a Council Decision in relation to the 6 Schengen measures, and a Commission Decision in relation to the remaining 29 non-Schengen measures. Until yesterday we had not heard from Ministers even about their existence, but were left to deduce this from the Treaties. Yesterday afternoon the Home Secretary gave me a hard copy of the draft Council Decision. It was not however accompanied by an EM. Although the Sub-Committee have seen it for information, they have not seen it for scrutiny, let alone for clearance from scrutiny. The draft Council Decision is dated 19 November 2014. Paragraph 1.5 of the Cabinet Office Guidance on Scrutiny requires documents to be deposited in Parliament within 48 hours of circulation by the Council. We are therefore astonished that the draft Decision has not been deposited, and request that that it be deposited immediately. Ministerial agreement to the draft Decision at tomorrow’s Transport Council will then be treated as a scrutiny override. We have not seen any text of the draft Commission Decision. We accept that, since Member States are not involved in its adoption, it is not for formal deposit or scrutiny. We nevertheless feel that it would have been appropriate to let the Committee see it in draft, especially in view of the repeated assurances we have received from Ministers about the importance they attach to the Parliamentary scrutiny process. As in the case of any other scrutiny override, Ministers will have to explain to the House why the Committee was never even given the opportunity to scrutinise the draft Council Decision, let alone clear it from scrutiny. The Cabinet Office guidance provides: “Subject to any wishes expressed by the Committee, statements may be either written or oral but are usually written.” On this occasion, we would like an oral statement to the House as soon as possible after these Decisions are adopted on 1 December. 26 November 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Karen Bradley MP Thank you for your letter of 26 November and your ongoing work on this important matter. I am very pleased to be able to inform you that the processes required to confirm the UK’s participation the 35 police and criminal measures were concluded on 1 December without any issues. I was extremely grateful that your Committee cleared the Transitional and Financial Consequences Decisions from scrutiny given these two Decisions were critical finalising the UK’s participation in the 35 measures. Both Decisions were approved by other Member States and adopted at the Transport

38

Telecommunications and Energy (TTE) Council on 27 November. The UK voted in favour of the Financial Consequences Decision, but did not have a vote on the Transitional Decision. As you point out, a Council and a Commission Decision were also required to give effect to the UK’s application to rejoin the package of measures approved by Parliament, and agreed with all other Member States. The Government has been transparent about the processes required to formally rejoin measures and set out details of these in Command Paper 8671: Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Government voted, via the written procedure, to approve the adoption of the Schengen Council Decision in order to ensure that it entered into force on 1 December without an operational gap occurring. This followed extensive Parliamentary consideration of this matter in both Houses of Parliament. Whilst I apologise for the fact that this involved a breach of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution, this technical Decision did no more than approve the UK’s participation in the Schengen measures that had already been endorsed by Parliament. Given unanimity was required for the measure to pass, the Government had to vote to approve this Decision to ensure that the package of measures could come into operation as soon as possible, to avoid a legal vacuum which could have arisen, to allow negotiations to conclude, and in order to conclude an advantageous package deal with other Member States. I accept that this document was not deposited with Parliament within the normal timescales, and for that oversight I apologise on behalf of the Government. This document has now been deposited and the Government has provided an Explanatory Memoranda to accompany the Decision. The Government did not receive a copy, either finalised or in draft form, of the Commission Decision approving the UK’s application to rejoin the 29 non-Schengen measures before it was adopted on 1 December and as a result we were unable to provide a copy to Parliament. As expected this Decision contained no more than a short provision approving the UK’s application to rejoin the 29 non-Schengen measures already agreed by both Houses of Parliament and full details of all of these measures are included in Command Paper 8897: Decision pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As you acknowledge in your letter, there is no requirement for this document to undergo formal scrutiny, or for it to be deposited in Parliament. Nevertheless, the Government will provide it alongside an Explanatory Memoranda for your Committee’s consideration. Finally, the Government will arrange for a Written Statement to be made to the House on this matter. Whilst I note your request for an Oral Statement the Government believes that this is not justified given the extensive hours already debated to scrutiny of the 2014 Decision in both Houses. 4 December 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Karen Bradley MP Thank you for your letter of 4 December, in which you declined the Committee’s request for an oral statement on the scrutiny override that occurred on 1 December. Paragraph 6.2.12 of the Cabinet Office’s scrutiny guidance for departments states: “The Scrutiny Committee(s) may request the Minister to make either an oral or written statement to the House. The Minister’s letter should therefore offer such a statement.” Paragraph 6.4 states: “Subject to any wishes expressed by the Committee, statements may be either written or oral but are usually written” (my underlining). It is therefore clear that the decision on whether a statement regarding a scrutiny override should be oral or written rests with the Committee, not the Government. The Committee does not seek an oral statement lightly—indeed, we are not aware of any previous occasion on which the House of Lords EU Committee has made such a request. I therefore urge you to reconsider your position and to confirm that an oral statement will be made to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I expect a reply to this letter no later than 12noon on Monday 8 December. The Select Committee will meet to consider your reply, and any further steps that are required, on Tuesday 9 December. 4 December 2014

39

Letter from Karen Bradley MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 4 December. I note what you have said about the Committee’s request for an oral statement on the scrutiny override that took place on 1 December. The Government has carefully considered the Cabinet Office guidance and has committed to providing a written statement. That remains our intention. We have noted the wishes of the Committee on their preferred format of the statement, but given the extensive Parliamentary debate on this matter - and the clear endorsement of both Houses of Parliament of the content of this Decision - we respectfully disagree on the necessity of providing an oral statement. In the meantime, as already indicated, a written statement will be laid in Parliament this week. 8 December 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Chris Grayling MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Ministry of Justice and Theresa May MP, Secretary of State, Home Office I am writing in response to the letter from Karen Bradley, dated 8 December 2014, in which she again refused my request for an oral statement explaining the Government’s decision on 1 December 2014 to over-ride the parliamentary scrutiny reserve in respect of Council Decision 2014/857/EU (the Council Schengen Decision). I very much regret that the Government, notwithstanding Cabinet Office guidance, refused the Committee’s wholly reasonable request for an oral statement. It is therefore all the more deplorable that on 10 December, having refused an oral statement, the Government also failed in its clear duty to make a proper written statement to Parliament on this serious failure in the scrutiny process. I draw your attention to the relevant passage, from paragraph 6.4 of the Cabinet Office guidance: Where Ministers make a more general statement on the outcome of the Council concerned it may be appropriate to include a passage on scrutiny aspects” (my emphasis). The Decision was adopted by written procedure, so there was no meeting at which the over-ride occurred, but instead of publishing a free-standing written statement the Government decided to annex the explanation of the over-ride to a written statement describing the outcome of Justice and Home Affairs Council, which took place on 4-5 December. This was not “the Council concerned”, but an unrelated meeting. This latest breach of Cabinet Office guidance is entirely of a piece with the Government’s attempt on 10 November 2014 to present agreement to the Draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014 as embodying agreement to the entire package of 35 measures subject to the UK opt-in under Protocol 36. As I said in the House of Lords debate on 17 November: Instead of encouraging a frank debate and a clear vote on their decision, [the Government] have resorted to undignified and ultimately self-defeating procedural dodges. It now seems that, despite the controversy last month, a failure to learn from its mistakes can be added to the list of the Government’s shortcomings. Nor is the content of the written statement satisfactory: it contains no explanation of the delay in depositing the Council Schengen Decision, which, though dated 19 November, was not deposited until 4 December; nor does it offer an apology, or even an expression of regret, for the completely avoidable over-ride of the scrutiny reserve.

OVERVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF THE UK OPT-OUT It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this latest mis-handling of parliamentary scrutiny is symptomatic of a fundamental failure in your Departments, despite the protestations of Ministers, to understand and respect the principles of transparency and accountability. To underline this conclusion, I outline below some of the shortcomings in the scrutiny process over recent months. In July 2013, when the Government set out in Cm 8671 its decision to exercise the United Kingdom’s block opt-out and to opt back in to 35 of those measures, it was clear that three Decisions would be necessary: 40

— A Council Decision, to be adopted before the end of November 2014, extending the application of the 35 measures a little way beyond the end of November 2014, to avoid a gap, however small, during which those measures did not apply to the UK; — A Council Decision, to be adopted on or soon after 1 December 2014, authorising the UK’s opting back in to the Schengen measures; — A Commission Decision, also to be adopted on or soon after 1 December 2014, confirming, as required by Article 331(1) TFEU as applied by Article 4 of Protocol 21 to the Treaties, applied in turn by Article 10(5) of Protocol 36, “that the conditions of [UK] participation have been fulfilled.” Once the UK had been allocated EU funds for projects evaluating possible participation in the Prüm Decisions, it was inevitable that a fourth Council Decision would be adopted before the end of November 2014 requiring the UK to repay those funds if it decided not to participate in the Prüm Decisions. By July 2014 it was clear from Cm 8897 which were the 35 measures the UK wished to opt back into. This gave the Government a minimum of four months in which to formulate plans for dealing with these four Decisions, and to determine the timetable for scrutiny by Parliament.

THE DECISIONS ON TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND ON FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES The two draft Decisions to be adopted before the end of November – the Decisions on Transitional Arrangements and on Financial Consequences – were published by the Council on 29 September 2014 as documents 13683/14 and 13680/14. They were deposited by the FCO on 2 October 2014 – a day later than required by the Cabinet Office Guidance. The Guidance requires EMs to be deposited “no later than 10 working days” thereafter, i.e. by 16 October. Despite repeated reminders, the EMs were received late on 3 November, i.e. 18 days late. The draft Decisions were considered by our Home Affairs Sub-Committee and cleared from scrutiny on 26 November, the day before their adoption. It was not possible for the Commons Scrutiny Committee to consider and clear them in time, and this gave rise to a further over-ride.

THE COUNCIL SCHENGEN DECISION The Council Schengen Decision was issued in draft by the Council, as document 13146/14, on 19 November. It should have been deposited within two days (i.e. by 21 November), in which case it could have been considered and cleared from scrutiny at the meeting on 26 November. But it was never deposited, and instead, on 25 November, the same day as the written procedure for adoption was launched, the Home Secretary personally gave me a hard copy. The following day, 26 November, I wrote to Karen Bradley, reminding her that the Cabinet Office Guidance required deposit within 48 hours of publication, and requesting immediate deposit of the document. On 1 December the Decision was formally adopted and published in the Official Journal. Only on 4 December was the Decision deposited and an Explanatory Memorandum received. It was never deposited in draft form. The Guidance does not give Departments 10 days to provide an EM; it says “no later than 10 days”. In cases of urgency a shorter time may be appropriate. For a short draft Decision, anticipated for many months, there should have been no problem in depositing an EM before the Committee meeting on 26 November, which would have allowed the document to be cleared at that meeting, so avoiding a wholly unnecessary over-ride.

THE COMMISSION DECISION On 18 November Coreper officials told the Committee, during a visit to Brussels, that the Commission Decision on the conditions of UK participation would be “an internal Commission document”. The Clerk pointed out that it was important legislation which would surely be published in the L series of the OJ. Even though it would not require formal scrutiny, it was important that the Committee should see it before its adoption. In a joint letter to me dated 26 November you said that a draft of the Decision was “not yet” available. It was not seen by the Committee until it had been adopted and published in the OJ, as 41

Decision 2014/858/EU, on 1 December. In a letter to me dated 4 December Karen Bradley said that the Government had not received a copy of it, either finalised or in draft, before its adoption. It is difficult to understand why it was not possible for the UK Government to obtain a draft copy of the Decision before adoption. The EM on the Decision was not received until 9 December. It says nothing about the legal base of the Decision, its purpose or why it was required. Instead it asserts that the Decision “simply gives effect to the decision by the Government to rejoin the non-Schengen elements of the package of 35 measures”. This is incorrect: as stated above, the Decision was required by Article 331(1) TFEU as applied by Article 4 of Protocol 21, applied in turn by Article 10(5) of Protocol 36, for the Commission to certify “that the conditions of [UK] participation have been fulfilled.”

CONCLUSION The saga of the UK opt-out is now complete, and, in recognition of the inevitable, we have cleared the outstanding Decisions (the Council Schengen Decision and the Commission Decision on the conditions of UK participation) from scrutiny. At the same time, the handling of parliamentary scrutiny of the UK opt-out has seen the same mistakes and oversights, time after time. It seems inconceivable that these can have come about by accident—it seems more likely that they are the result of a deliberate political decision not to facilitate proper parliamentary scrutiny. I would therefore be grateful for your considered explanation of the many and manifest failures of scrutiny process outlined in this letter, and of your Departments’ disregard of the Government’s own Scrutiny Guidance. Finally, I would be grateful if you could also outline the measures that you will be taking in order to ensure that your Departments support parliamentary scrutiny of EU matters more effectively in future. The Committee reserves the right to call you to appear before it in early 2015 if these measures are not satisfactory. 16 December 2014

Letter from Chris Grayling MP and Theresa May MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 16 December regarding Parliamentary scrutiny of the 2014 opt-out decision. We begin by addressing your Committee’s request for an oral statement on the override of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution in respect of the Schengen Council Decision. We regret that this was necessary for the reasons previously set out to your Committee, but this Decision did no more than give effect to the decision – endorsed by both Houses of Parliament – to rejoin the six Schengen measures. As required by the Cabinet Office guidance, the Government took note of the wishes of the Committee on the format of the statement explaining the reasons for this override. However, given the extensive Parliamentary debate on this matter on the floor of both Houses, the Government respectfully disagreed on the necessity of an oral statement. That is why on 10 December a written ministerial Statement was made in both Houses of Parliament. We have carefully considered your technical point regarding the Government’s decision to combine a written statement on the scrutiny override with the written statement on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 4-5 December. The Government considers that this was an appropriate and transparent statement to Parliament and does not accept that this constitutes a breach of the Cabinet Office guidance. The guidance does not include any requirement for a statement to be free- standing and is silent on matters of format. With regards to the content of the written statement, we note the Committee’s comments regarding the delay in depositing the Schengen Council Decision and we sincerely apologise for this. Ministers are committed to the scrutiny processes and do not override them lightly. However, the circumstances were such in this case that an override was necessary in order to deliver on a significant and successful negotiation in the UK’s national interest by implementing important measures endorsed by both Houses of Parliament. As we have previously stated, the Government did not receive a copy of the Commission Decision, either finalised or in draft, as this was produced through the normal internal European Commission procedures in which the UK has no formal role. These were completed on 1 December 2014 and the Decision was published in the Official Journal on the same day. We appreciate your Committee would 42 have liked to have received this before 1 December but this was not a matter that the Government could control. We are grateful that your Committee has now cleared the Schengen Council Decision and Commission Decision from scrutiny and we hope the information provided in the Explanatory Memoranda was helpful in reassuring your Committee that both Decisions did no more than give effect to the decision of the Government to rejoin measures. We can confirm that the legal base for the Commission Decision is Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the Treaties and that it is correct that the Decision gives effect to the decision by the Government to rejoin the non-Schengen elements of the package of 35 measures under this Article of Protocol 36. Article 331(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, as applied by Article 4 of Protocol 21, contains the procedure to be followed in adopting this Decision (in procedural terms this is akin to a post-adoption opt-in to a post-Lisbon measure). We recognise the Committee’s strength of feeling on these matters and are content for Ministers from our Departments to appear before you in January to explain the Government’s position in more detail and allow Committee members to put their concerns to Ministers directly. We hope this will go some way to confirming that the Government takes its scrutiny obligations very seriously. 12 January 2015

Letter from the Chairman to Chris Grayling MP and Theresa May MP Thank you for your letter of 12 January in relation to Protocol 36 and the UK’s opt-out decision. This was considered by the European Union Select Committee at its meeting on 27 January. We note your sincere apology for the delay in depositing the Schengen Council Decision (document 13146/14). We also note, however, that your claim that an override was necessary “in order to deliver on a significant and successful negotiation” is without foundation, in that the override in this case was of your making, and could have been avoided simply by depositing the Decision in a timely fashion. I asked you to outline how your Departments intend to improve their handling of scrutiny procedures. You have not responded on this point, and I therefore ask, once again, what steps you plan to take to remedy the difficulties your Departments appear to encounter in following the agreed Cabinet Office guidance on parliamentary scrutiny of EU matters? I would be very happy for staff of the Committee to assist in briefing your officials on parliamentary scrutiny issues, if this would be useful. 28 January 2015

SCRUTINY PERFORMANCE (1264214, 12859/14, 13257/14, 13281/14)

Letter from Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office, Paymaster General, to the Chairman I would like to apologise for the very late submission of 4 Cabinet Office EMs on procurements issues (12642/14, 13257/14, 13281/14 and 12859/14). I appreciate that the delay falls well short of Committee expectations. Unfortunately three of the proposals were adopted before you could examine the EMs and will therefore be recorded as scrutiny overrides. Unfortunately, my office did not receive the EMs for clearance until after the deadline set by the Committee. When they were received, the advice accompanying them did not flag up that they were overdue, which resulted in a further avoidable delay. My office have spoken to the team involved, and understand that the delay on their side was in part due to a clutch of Commission proposals arriving at once, with the 10 day deadline attached. Due to that, and the fact that the team had not previously seen the details of the paper, it took them longer than usual to assess and summarise these in a way that would be useful to the Committee. Please accept my assurances that there will be no reoccurrence of this incident on any future EMs associated with my Department. The team concerned has instigated a lessons learned review to ensure that we better manage this process in future and prevent these sort of delays from happening again. My office has also reviewed the management of scrutiny business and my Parliamentary-business manager will act as a focal point within my office to keep track of Cabinet Office scrutiny business. All Cabinet Office outstanding business recorded in Commons Remaining Business and Lords Progress of

43

Scrutiny documents is being reviewed with heads of policy teams with a view to ensuring updates are provided where required. My officials will also be holding a workshop on procedure to ensure better handling in the future. On further examination since submitting the EMs, I am advised that the decisions in documents13257/14 and 13281/14, regarding the accession of New Zealand and Montenegro to the Government Procurement Agreement were agreed in Council on 13 October. And the Decision in document 12589/14 was adopted on 21 October. Whilst the Commission proposals for New Zealand and Montenegro were released on 16 September 2014, while Parliament was in recess and the decisions were taken by the Council on the day that Parliament returned from its summer break my EMs failed to note this and nor was I asked to account for the Scrutiny overrides until now. Officials have advised me that there was little prospect of these decisions being postponed to a later Council, (and if it had been possible would have caused knock-on delay to the progress to GPA accession of New Zealand and Montenegro). But I am concerned that the option of recording a UK abstention at the Council was not fully understood and I have asked officials to ensure that this option is one that is fully explored where possible in the future. On the policy position the UK has consistently supported open public procurement, and the extension of the GPA. You may recall that the government submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on 7915/13 + ADD 1 and 7919/13 + ADD 1 in May 2013 concerning the proposed amendment to the Government Procurement Agreement, which both Committees cleared from scrutiny in June 2103. That EM stated; “The UK Government agrees with the aims of the GPA in principle, [...] This stems from our policy of supporting fair and open markets, value for money, probity and transparency in public procurement, support for growth in the global economy, and in guarding against protectionism in the current economic climate. The new GPA protocol should provide a further opening of markets and new opportunities for UK firms, and is a positive step forward in the global trade agenda” The accession of New Zealand and Montenegro is consistent with the policy position set out in that earlier EM, and the UK has encouraged the Commission to achieve a satisfactory negotiation with these states. It would therefore have appeared to be inconsistent with our wider GPA policy position, and not readily understood by other parties, if the UK had opposed or even abstained from the Council decisions on Montenegro and New Zealand. With respect to 12859/14, in support of the EU-Japanese Free Trade negotiations, the Council adopted a position on 21 October. Officials took the view that this fell within the parameters of previously-cleared matters and in particular EMs 7915/13 & 7919/13, from May 2013, and that no separate scrutiny clearance was necessary for this decision. However, this was clearly wrong. The final EM of the current tranche (11642/14) concerns a Commission staff working document, and is not subject to any specific Council decision. I hope this goes some way to addressing the concerns which your Committees will rightly have about the handling of these proposals. Of course if there are any further concerns or queries I will be very happy to address them. 24 November 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Francis Maude MP We considered your letter of 24 November at the meeting of the European Union Select Committee on 9 December 2014. We are deeply concerned by this failure to adhere to the scrutiny reserve resolution on four EU procurement documents and find it unacceptable that this failure has led to three overrides of the resolution. We retain all four documents under scrutiny. We note your apology but are concerned that such a failure can occur in the Cabinet Office, particularly when you are tasked with the central coordination of the deposit of EU documentation before Parliament. Your own guidance says that EMs are to be deposited with ten days of the EU document being deposited. These four EMs were deposited 42, 28, 28, and 35 days after the documents were deposited. It is becoming increasingly clear that there are systemic issues in both Ministers’ and officials’ understanding of the scrutiny of European documents across Whitehall, although no other

44

Department has incurred similar delays in depositing EMs. A disregard for Parliament’s role in scrutinising draft EU policy is the consequence. We are fortunate in the House of Lords that I, as Chairman of the Committee, have the ability to conduct sifts of documentation each week and to clear them from scrutiny. If we had been consulted, we might have been in a position to advise your officials accordingly. It is absolutely unacceptable that officials in your department decided that no separate scrutiny clearance was necessary for Doc (12859/14); this indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the scrutiny reserve resolution.

We therefore invite you to give evidence to us on 20 January 2015, at 4 pm, to explain how these breaches of scrutiny procedures in the Cabinet Office occurred, and to set out the steps you have taken to ensure they do not occur again. This will also give us an opportunity to discuss with you the Cabinet Office guidance, which has yet to be properly updated, despite acquiring a total of 23 annexes. We also note that you have yet to make any statement, oral or written, to Parliament on the overrides that have taken place, as you are obliged to under paragraph 6.2.12 of the Cabinet Office guidance – we request that you do so at the earliest possible convenience. We look forward to your statement and response to this letter within 10 days, and to your appearance before us in January. 10 December 2014

Letter from Francis Maude MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 10 December in reply to mine of 24 November. Like you I very much regret the serious failures of process in each of the cases you have written about which led to three scrutiny overrides. When I was advised about these scrutiny breaches I asked my Private Office to work closely with the European & Global Issues Secretariat (EGIS) to see how the management of the Cabinet Office business could be improved. I should perhaps note, that whilst EGIS sits within the Cabinet Office, their scrutiny coordinating function is mainly in support of the Minister for Europe, who takes the lead role in managing the Government’s relationship with Parliament on EU business, including working closely with your Committee. Indeed, I am aware that when Mr Lidington appeared recently before your Committee to discuss EU issues ahead of the December European Council, you voiced concerns about some scrutiny failings across Government more generally. I understand also that you took evidence from Jo Swinson in October about another serious scrutiny failure in BIS. The steps I have asked to be taken in the Cabinet Office will follow closely those taken in BIS and will include a scrutiny workshop for my Private Office and support teams working with those Cabinet Office policy teams who deal with EU business. I hope this will improve understanding of the scrutiny process across the department and will ensure the expectations of the Cabinet Office Ministerial team are properly understood. I am aware that the issues arising from the BIS scrutiny failing and Jo Swinson’s letter to the Minister for Europe setting out steps they took to improve scrutiny management has been circulated across Government. It has been discussed by senior officials at a meeting chaired by the Cabinet Office. I am also aware that the next meeting of Whitehall Scrutiny Coordinators to be held early in the New Year will also discuss lessons learned from recent scrutiny failures across Government, and in particular whether central guidance can be improved. In that context officials in EGIS will explore further with your office how scrutiny guidance and good practice messages can be improved and strengthened. Please let me know if the Committee still wishes for me to give evidence on the further improvements I have asked to be implemented. I will, of course, also table a written Ministerial Statement about these overrides once Parliament returns. 5 January 2015

45

Letter from the Chairman to Francis Maude MP Thank you for your letter of 5 January. This was considered at the meeting of the European Union Select Committee on 13 January. We believe that you are dealing with the problems with your Department’s scrutiny processes sensibly, and are content for you not to appear before the Committee on 20 January. We will, however, maintain an interest in the changes you propose to your Department and its handling of EU affairs. In the light of this, we offer the services of our Committee staff to assist in the workshops being run for your private office and teams who deal with EU business. We would be grateful for your officials to follow this up with our clerks. We continue to be concerned with the handling of European scrutiny across Government, and may seek to meet with Ministers and officials to discuss this before the dissolution of Parliament. We note with interest the meeting of the Whitehall Scrutiny Coordinators taking place in which the lessons learned from recent scrutiny failures across Government will be discussed. We ask to be updated as to the outcome of the meetings; and on the action being taken by the coordinators to resolve the issues with current scrutiny practices. 14 January 2015

Letter from the Chairman to Francis Maude MP Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) of 13 November 2014 and your letter of 24 November 2014 regarding the above proposal. This was considered by the EU Internal Market, Infrastructure and Employment Sub-Committee at its meeting of 26 January 2015. We welcome your apology and explanation regarding the late submission of the EM on the Commission’s Annual Public Procurement Implementation Review. As your letter clearly describes the steps that you have taken within your department to prevent a similar delay in future, we have decided to clear this document from scrutiny. We wondered whether the workshop on procedure planned for staff had taken place and whether it was found to be useful. 28 January 2015

Letter from Francis Maude MP to the Chairman Thank you for your letters of 14 and 28 January regarding the recent lapses in scrutiny handling. I have also seen your letter of 5 February to Jo Swinson about scrutiny performance issues. Scrutiny performance was recently discussed at a meeting of senior officials in the Cabinet Office, and again at a meeting of Whitehall scrutiny coordinators which the Cabinet Office Parliamentary Clerk attended. All departments were asked to look closely at their internal procedures to ensure that the right training and processes were in place to meet the Government's obligations to Parliament. Both meetings heard about the types of performance issues that had occurred recently and discussed a range of approaches to address them. BIS recently held an EU training event at which Jo Swinson gave a personal perspective on the importance of getting scrutiny right; and BIS and FCO recently issued high level messages at Director level about the importance of scrutiny. All departments were encouraged to follow these examples. It is important not only for all departments to establish training programmes and guidance products, but to embed scrutiny in staff handovers and inductions and ensure they have rigorous systems for tracking issues under scrutiny to ensure continuity of handling. We also need ensure central guidance is up to date. These activities will also be strengthened as part of a wider drive to better develop and coordinate EU skills across Whitehall. For example, in the Foreign Office, the Diplomatic Academy will from April, include scrutiny learning materials accessible to all FCO staff in London and all HMG staff in our Embassies. FCO officials also visited UKRep last week to deliver the regular scrutiny workshop to raise awareness and ensure strong engagement between Brussels and London. Both Whitehall meetings and the UKRep visit also discussed the arrangements for scrutiny during the forthcoming dissolution, following a meeting your Clerk had with FCO and the Cabinet Office officials to establish a clear understanding of how scrutiny processes will be adapted during this period. At the meeting of scrutiny coordinators, departments discussed previous successful workshop events hosted by the Scrutiny Committees and recalled that the Clerks had attended a previous meeting of the Whitehall network. These are seen as a good way to improve the way we work together to share

46 key messages and drive up standards. FCO Officials will follow up on both ideas with the Clerks of both Committees to see if something similar can be arranged in the coming months. My officials recently contacted the Clerks of both Scrutiny Committees with an invitation to support the scrutiny workshop that is being arranged here in the Cabinet Office. 20 February 2015

Letter from the Chairman to Francis Maude MP Thank you for your letter of 20 February. This was considered at the meeting of the European Union Select Committee on 10 March. Thank you for the efforts you have made in remedying the problems. As a Committee we will continue to monitor scrutiny performance in the new Parliament, but for now, we are happy to draw this correspondence to a close. 11 March 2015

SCRUTINY RESERVE OVERRIDES: JULY-DECEMBER 2013 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from Tom Scholar, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on European and Global Issues, to the Chairman I enclose [not printed] the latest list of scrutiny overrides as agreed between our offices. I hope the commentary on each override is helpful. Of the 20 items listed, 18 were overrides in the House of Lords, continuing the overall downward trend in scrutiny overrides during the last three years. Our observations on the overrides are summarised below. — CFSP Restrictive Measures: There were 15 such overrides on this occasion, including 7 addressed to Iran. — A political decision to support a negotiated text: — Directive on rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of competition law. This was an override where Jo Swinson MP, PUS for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs, BIS to a position reached by COREPER on 18 October, supported a general approach in the absence of clearance arguing that to have abstained would have created a blocking minority for a measure the UK supported. Whilst appreciating that the proposal had been fast-moving the Committee observed that it might have been possible to have written earlier to avoid an override but did not pursue the circumstances of the override further with the Minister. — Internal handling error: Where there were two overrides: — Regulation on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Tribunals. The Committee interpreted the Government’s support in the Council to the position reached in COREPER, and the willingness of the Council to work with the EP to reach an early agreement, as political agreement and therefore an override. Lord Green, Minister of State for Trade and Investment, BIS, took the opposing view. However, he did acknowledge that the Committee should have been updated ahead of the Council on the direction of travel in negotiations and accepted that the Committee would record an override in this case. — Decision relating to the Rules of Procedure of a Committee set up under the EU/Moldova Agreement. This proposal, which resulted in the DEFRA override, was deposited in error by the Cabinet Office as it was a proposal in a category the Committee has previously exempted from automatic scrutiny, and where practice has shown that, when consulted on handling of similar previous proposals, your Clerk has usually supported non-deposit. David Heath MP, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, sent a letter to the Committee about the need for a decision which coincided with the summer recess period. The proposal was cleared by the Committee without any follow-up. I hope this information continues to be helpful to the Committee.

47

8 July 2014

SCRUTINY OVERRIDES REPORT: JANUARY-JUNE 2014 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from Tom Scholar, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on European and Global Issues, to the Chairman I enclose the latest list of scrutiny overrides as agreed between our offices. Of the 25 items listed, 23 were overrides in the House of Lords. Our observations on the overrides are summarised below. — CFSP Restrictive Measures: There were 21 such overrides in the House of Lords on this occasion, including 11 addressed to Ukraine and 5 addressed to Iran.

A POLITICAL DECISION TO SUPPORT A NEGOTIATED TEXT: — Council and EP Directive on Trade Secrets: The European Union Committee held the proposal under scrutiny and wrote to Viscount Younger, Minister for Intellectual Property, on 16 January 2014 to await updates. The Minister wrote on 30 April about the quickening of the pace of negotiations and an expectation that the UK would support a General Approach at the 20 May Council. He wrote further on 3 June to explain the reasons the Government had supported the General Approach in the absence of scrutiny clearance. The Committee was concerned about scrutiny handling but in further correspondence the Minister explained that adoption coincided with prorogation and Whitsun recess and that it had not been clear at an earlier stage that the text would be in a condition for a General Approach to be supported at the May Council.

INTERNAL HANDLING ERROR: — Council and EP Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings: The proposal had remained under scrutiny in the European Union Committee since early 2013 and you wrote to the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs, BIS in June 2013 to await updates. However, The Minister (Jenny Willott MP) wrote to the Committee on 4 June 2014 to advise that the UK would want to support a General Approach at Council on 6 June given that many of the UK’s negotiating interests had been secured. The Committee was concerned at this handling lapse and The Minister (Jo Swinson MP) appeared before the Committee on 15 October to give evidence on the circumstances of the override, where she acknowledged the scrutiny failure. Following the evidence session, the Minister wrote to the Minister for Europe (a copy of which was enclosed with her letter to you of 30 October), setting out a number of improvements to internal scrutiny processes. This correspondence has been circulated to all departments, and the issue was discussed at a meeting of senior officials chaired by the Cabinet Office. I hope this information continues to be helpful to the Committee. 17 December 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Tom Scholar We thank you for the explanation given for the overrides in the first half of 2014. Whilst we appreciate the information you have provided, could you explain why there was a delay in it being sent to the Committee? We look forward to seeing the statistics for July – December 2014 before the dissolution of Parliament. 14 January 2015

Letter from Tom Scholar to the Chairman Thank you for your letter of 14 January. I am sorry for the delay in sending the report. We started work on it in July, in the normal way, but we took longer than usual – and longer than we should have 48 done – to prepare the detailed analysis and commentary. There was no specific reason for this, beyond the pressure of other business. But clearly we should have treated this work as a priority, and I hope you will accept my apologies. I have asked my team to ensure that the report for July – December 2014 is produced swiftly, and we are in contact with your clerk to agree which items should feature in it. We will ensure that you receive the final report in good time before the dissolution of Parliament. 26 January 2015

Letter from the Chairman to Tom Scholar Thank you for your letter of 26 January 2015. The European Union Select Committee considered it at its meeting on 24 February 2015. We have also considered the response from the Rt Hon Baroness Anelay of St Johns DBE to my question for written answer on the number of overrides for July to December 2014. We accept that there have been an unusually high number of fast moving CFSP-related issues in the second half of 2014, particularly in light of events in Ukraine, Syria and Iran, and that this has contributed to the increase in the total number of overrides. But we are concerned that there has also been a significant increase in non-FCO overrides, many of them avoidable, in the same period: there were eleven such overrides in the second half of 2014, compared with between two and four in each of the four preceding six-month periods. We have taken up the overrides as they have occurred with the relevant Ministers and Departments, and have been pleased to see that many Departments (but not all) are taking steps to prevent avoidable overrides in future. Given your role in the Cabinet Office, what steps have you taken to ensure that the number of scrutiny overrides will be minimised moving forwards? What steps is the Cabinet Office, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, taking to ensure that this issue is addressed across Government before the start of the new Parliament? 24 February 2015

SCRUTINY RESERVE OVERRIDES: JULY-DECEMBER 2013 (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman I enclose the latest list of scrutiny overrides as agreed between our offices. I am also aware that Baroness Anelay confirmed these figures in the Government’s written reply to your usual question to publicise the figures (HL 4496). Of the 49 items listed, 45 were overrides in the House of Lords. Observations on the overrides are summarised below. — CFSP Restrictive Measures: 36 of the 45 overrides in the House of Lords were in this category, including 16 addressed to Ukraine/Crimea. — A political decision to support a negotiated text: An override occurred in 2 cases.FCO: Council Decision to sign and provisionally apply the Ukraine Association Agreement. I wrote to you about the circumstances of the override on 25 September explaining that on 2 September following a series of trilateral (EU-Ukraine-Russia) meetings a deal was brokered in which the EU proposed to delay the provisional application of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area Agreement (DCFTA) of the Association Agreement until 31 December 2015. This required a new Council Decision to be agreed quickly to allow the provisional application of the non DCFTA elements of the Agreement to remain on schedule to be introduced by 1 November as planned. I explained the political importance of an early decision as Russia had already sought to misinterpret the agreement and imply that the 12 September deal applied to the Association Agreement in its entirety and not just the DCFTA. — HM Treasury: Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the European Communities' own resources. The proposal is linked to wider EU budget discussions. David Gauke MP, Financial Secretary, wrote on 11 49

December with an update on the rapid developments with the Draft EU Budget 2016 and Draft Amending Budgets. A further update on 9 February 2015 confirmed that the proposal had been adopted by written procedure. The proposal remains under scrutiny and I am aware that the Financial Secretary will be appearing before your committee on these issues.

HANDLING ERRORS: WHERE THERE WERE 7 CASES. — Cabinet Office: 3 overrides: where the late submission of EMs on three EU procurement proposals contributed to the overrides in each case. — FCO: 2 overrides: On EUCAP Nestor, where the proposal had not been deposited earlier as FCO officials had sought, and been provided with, a waiver to exempt the proposal from scrutiny. However, an error occurred when officials belatedly noticed that the proposal also contained a provision to extend the mandate until December 2016. Secondly on EUMM Georgia where a misunderstanding with the Clerks on the timetable for Lords Scrutiny Sub-Committee meetings contributed to the override. — Home Office: 1 override: resulting from the late submission of an EM on a Decision relating to the UK’s 2014 JHA opt-out. — MOJ: 1 override: where it was not recognised that a political agreement on the text of the Council decision, subject to the assent of the European Parliament, on Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court would be recorded as an override. I recently wrote to Ministerial colleagues about scrutiny in the run up to the dissolution and chaired a meeting of Ministers where scrutiny issues were discussed. And at official level, Tom Scholar, Head of EGIS, Cabinet Office also recently chaired a meeting of senior officials to discuss scrutiny performance issues and preparations for scrutiny during the dissolution of Parliament. Departments were encouraged to draw on a range of best practice ideas adopted across departments. The importance of working closely with your Committee as we approach the dissolution was also stressed, i.e.by providing updates on as many outstanding issues as possible, and alerting your Committee to business that may progress to decisions during the period where we will see scrutiny interrupted. These issues were also discussed recently by the network of departmental scrutiny coordinators. I have seen Francis Maude’s letter of 20 February to you about scrutiny performance issues and that letter set out the range of activity undertaken to respond to recent concerns more fully. One of the ideas he commented on is for joint meetings of scrutiny coordinators and the Committee clerks to be arranged as a good way of working together to share key messages and drive up standards. FCO Officials will follow up on this idea with the Clerks of both Committees as a way of addressing scrutiny performance issues going forward. Finally, I have also seen your letter of 24 February to Tom Scholar about these issues and I hope my remarks can be taken as a reply to that letter too. I hope this information continues to be helpful to the Committee. 5 March 2015

THE UK’S OPT-IN AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS (UNNUMBERED)

Letter from the Chairman to Chris Grayling MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Ministry of Justice and Theresa May MP, Secretary of State, Home Office As you will be aware, on 28 July the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee launched an inquiry into the Government’s policy on the application of the UK’s opt-in arrangements with regard to International Agreements. The call for evidence closed on 30 September, but so far, despite repeated invitations, the Government has failed to submit any evidence to the inquiry. A month has now passed since the call for evidence closed, but your officials have been unable to provide any indication of when any evidence will be forthcoming. Instead we have been informed that the evidence cannot be produced until the Government has considered the ramifications of the Philippines judgment (case C-377/12). Judgment in the case was given on 11 June, almost two months before our inquiry was launched, and we cannot understand why consideration of the judgment is still being used, a further three months later, as an excuse for the Government’s failure to provide written 50 evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. It is unacceptable that Select Committee work should be impeded in this way. We have now begun taking oral evidence, in the absence of any Government evidence, and you have been invited to appear at the Sub-Committee’s meeting on 10 December. I invite you to confirm that you will be able to appear on this date, and also to receiving an assurance that the Government’s written evidence will be available in good time before your appearance. It would be most unfortunate if we were to be obliged to report that the Government had failed to co-operate with a parliamentary inquiry into this important issue. I look forward to your reply within 5 working days. 30 October 2014

Letter from the Chairman to Chris Grayling MP and Theresa May MP I am writing to you to, following my letter of 30 October. We asked for a response within 5 working days. Since then, almost a full calendar month has passed and we have not had a reply and have had no evidence submitted by the Government. At our meeting on Tuesday (25 November), we had a constructive conversation in which you both acknowledged the importance of providing this evidence. The Committee will be considering this issue on Wednesday 3 December and I ask that a response to the letter of 30 October is given by then. The Committee will also expect to hold an oral evidence session with you both on 10 December, as outlined in my previous letter. I look forward to your reply in the next 3 working days. 27 November 2014

WITHDRAWALS AND THE COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME 2015 (5080/15)

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office I am writing to you with a copy of the accompanying Corrigendum to highlight the changes in the above Explanatory Memorandum, deposited to your Committee on 14 January 2015. Since depositing the Explanatory Memorandum I have been informed by colleagues at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about a factual inaccuracy with regard to two specific proposals in the Commission’s 2015 Work Programme, namely: Clean Air Package and the Circular Economy Package. The Commission Work Programme did not propose to withdraw the Clean Air Package - but to modify it as part of the legislative follow up to the 2030 energy and climate package. The Circular Economy Package will be withdrawn and replaced with a broader and more ambitious proposal. As currently drafted, the EM suggests that both proposals have been identified for withdrawal and that the UK is content with their withdrawal or modification. I have been notified that this does not fully reflect the Government’s policy. I apologies for this alteration, which has been caused by an oversight during the expedited cross- Government clearance process for the document over the Christmas period. I appreciate your Committee has already sifted this document but I hope this version reaches you in time for your further discussions with the Committee members. 23 January 2015

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP Thank you for your explanatory memorandum of 14 January 2015. The European Union Select Committee considered it at its meeting on 10 February. For now, our questions are for the European Commission and we have written to President Juncker under the political dialogue today. I enclose a copy of this letter for your information. We have also cleared this item from scrutiny, and look forward to scrutinising the initiatives in detail as and when the Commission brings them forward. 51

11 February 2015

Letter from the Chairman to David Lidington MP I am writing to draw your attention to a widespread misunderstanding of the process by which Commission proposals are formally withdrawn. This issue, which has become topical since the appearance of the Commission Work Programme for 2015, was discussed by the Select Committee at its meeting on 24 February. The Work Programme outlines the Commission’s plans to withdraw a number of proposals—and we have written to President Juncker warmly welcoming this emphasis. But it now appears that some Departments are interpreting the publication of the Work Programme as itself constituting formal withdrawal of the relevant proposals. In fact, the Work Programme makes it clear that the Commission will consult on several of its proposed withdrawals, so unless Departments’ misunderstanding of the Work Programme’s status is corrected it could lead to confusion over the status of several documents currently under scrutiny. We understand that the College of Commissioners yesterday considered the list of proposed withdrawals, and I would be grateful if you could inform us of the outcome of that meeting. I would also be grateful if you could confirm that we will receive notification from Departments in respect of all formal withdrawals, by means of a letter citing any relevant Commission decision. I look forward to your reply within 10 working days. 26 February 2015

Letter from David Lidington MP to the Chairman I am grateful for your letter of 26 February, bringing this matter to my attention. I am aware that Lord de Mauley and George Eustice have written to you to apologise, to clarify their position, and to emphasise that there was no intention to mislead Parliament. Following its meeting on 25 February to which you refer, the College of Commissioners adopted the decision to withdraw 73 of the 80 measures in Annex II of the Work Programme. The withdrawal of 73 Commission Proposals was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) on 7 March. I attach the relevant extract. Annex II of the 2015 Work Programme states that, of the seven remaining measures: — Three proposals will be modified, rather than withdrawn (item 37 – Proposal for a Directive on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants and amending Directive 2003/35/EC; item 50 – Proposal for a Regulation establishing rules on the access of third country goods and services to the European Union's internal market in public procurement and procedures supporting negotiations on access of European Union goods and services to the public procurement markets of third countries; and item 60 – Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law); — Three will be withdrawn if the co-legislators fail to reach agreement within the next six months (item 14 – Proposal for a Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council [Official controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007; item 53 – Proposal for a Directive on the dissemination of Earth observation satellite data for commercial purposes; and item 58 – Proposal for a Directive amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding); and — One will be evaluated – with the Commission calling on the co-legislators to put negotiations on hold (item 12 – Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 as regards the aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in the educational establishments).

52

The Government welcomes the volume and variety of the Commission’s withdrawals. This represents a step-change compared to previous years and reflects the new Commission’s determination to reprioritise its work, to focus on jobs and growth and to cut red tape. You proposed that some clarity around Commission withdrawals would be helpful. I can confirm that withdrawals take effect once published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) and therefore as Government we should inform Parliament of withdrawals only when that has occurred. I will ask my officials to circulate this letter to the cross-Government EU Scrutiny Co-ordinators Network so that officials are aware of the process and correct terminology. 11 March 2015

53