Correspondence between the Committee and
the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee
to the Head of the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department
FCO
SPANISH PRESIDENCY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
As you know, the Committee recently visited
Madrid as part of its regular series of visits to countries holding
the EU Presidency. The Committee held discussions from which it
learnt a great deal. I have been asked to request answers to the
following questions, arising from those discussions:
1. Does the FCO consider there is an existing
legal competence for the EU to enter into an EU-wide extradition
Treaty provision with the United States, as appears to be envisaged
under the proposed EU/US Legal-Penal Co-operation Treaty? If such
a competence does exist, under which existing Treaty provision
is it provided?
2. What are the FCO's objectives for the
EU Council to be held at Barcelona on 15 and 16 March?
3. With the Convention on the Future of
Europe expected to start work on 1 March, what is the FCO doing
to secure UK representation on the Convention's Praesidium?
4. While in Madrid, the Committee learnt
that Spain intends to set up a "special EU working group"
to assist Northern Cyprus to achieve standards compatible with
EU membership, in the event that a satisfactory settlement to
the Cyprus problem, and an agreement on accession, are reached.
What stage have these plans reached; and what is the FCO's involvement
in them?
5. Does the Government accept the view expressed
to the Committee in Madrid that the present, agreed financial
perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy and for the Structural
Funds contain sufficient provision to enable the making under
existing criteria of payments from those funds to up to 10 new
member states acceding before 2007?
I would be grateful to receive a response to
these questions not later than 18 February.
Clerk of the Committee
January 2002
Letter from the Head of the Parliamentary
Relations and Devolution Department to the Clerk of the Committee
SPANISH PRESIDENCY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
You wrote to me on 22 January requesting answers
to the questions that arose from the Committee's recent visit
to Madrid. These are given below.
Q: Does the FCO consider there is an existing
legal competence for the EU to enter into an EU-wide extradition
Treaty provision with the United States, as appears to be envisaged
under the proposed EU/US Legal-Penal Co-operation Treaty? If such
a competence does exist, under which existing Treaty provision
is it provided?
A: Under existing Treaty arrangements, extradition
issues remain within the competence of EU Member States. However
Article 31 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU) does provide
for judicial co-operation in criminal matters, including the facilitation
of extradition between Member States.
Consideration of an EU/US Legal-Penal Co-operation
Treaty is at an early stage; no formal proposal yet exists. If
such a proposal were made it could be taken forward by means of
a third country agreement under Article 24, TEU. This would provide
for the Presidency to negotiate on behalf of the Council. A unanimous
decision by the Council would be required to open and conclude
negotiations. Article 38 of the same Treaty provides for Agreements
concluded under Article 24 also to cover matters falling under
Title VI of the Treaty (Provisions on Police and Judicial Co-operation
in Criminal Matters).
Q: What are the FCO's objectives for the EU Council
to be held at Barcelona on 15 and 16 March?
At the European Council in Barcelona, Heads
of Government will review progress on economic and social reform
undertaken as a result of proposals agreed at the Lisbon and Stockholm
European Councils. The Government is committed to this reform
process, with its strategic aim of making the European Union the
most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world,
with full employment by 2010.
The Government's objective for Barcelona is
to take stock of results to date, and to identify future priorities.
We would particularly like to see progress in the five areas identified
by the Spanish Presidency: transport and communication networks;
energy; education and training; labour markets; and financial
services. We support the Spanish approach and will be working
closely with them throughout their Presidency.
Barcelona will also consider progress made in
developing the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy. We believe
discussion should focus on agreeing an external dimension to this
strategy, and on preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development later in the year.
Q: With the Convention on the Future of Europe
expected to start work on 1 March, what is the FCO doing to secure
UK representation on the Convention's Praesidium?
The first meeting of the Convention on the Future
of Europe is scheduled to take place in Brussels on 28 February.
Sir John Kerr—former Permanent Under-Secretary
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—has been appointed
by Valery Giscard d'Estaing as Secretary-General of the Convention.
As such, he will attend meetings of the Praesidium, or Bureau.
He will work as the senior official on the convention and will
not represent the national interests of the UK.
There are two seats unfilled on the 12-person
Bureau. These are for the national parliamentarians, and will
be chosen by the national parliamentary delegates themselves,
through the network of participating political parties. Gisela
Stuart has made known her candidacy for one of those seats, and
is pursuing her campaign through political channels. Foreign Office
Ministers are supporting her campaign.
Q: While in Madrid, the Committee learnt that
Spain intends to set up a "special EU working group"
to assist Northern Cyprus to achieve standards compatible with
EU membership, in the event that a satisfactory settlement to
the Cyprus problem, and an agreement on accession, are reached.
What stage have these plans reached; and what is the FCO's involvement
in them?
Regarding Cyprus, the EU's objective is to see
a united island in the EU although, as agreed at Helsinki, a settlement
is not a pre-requisite for Cyprus' accession. The EU welcomes
the resumption of talks under the auspices of the UN and will
continue to support them. On the specific issue raised by the
committee, we are not aware of any plans by Spain for a "special
EU working group" on Northern Cyprus, although Spain is keen
during its Presidency to play a positive role on Cyprus.
The Commission paper of 30 January on the financing
of enlargement noted the fact that Northern Cyprus has so far
received no pre-accession funding. In the context of a settlement,
it envisaged EU funding totalling 206 million euros being committed
to Northern Cyprus in the first years of accession (probably 2004-06).
Q: Does the Government accept the view
expressed to the Committee in Madrid that the present, agreed
financial perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy and
for the Structural Funds contain sufficient provision to enable
the making under existing criteria of payments from those funds
to up to to 10 new member states acceding before 2007?
The financial of enlargement from 2002-06 was
agreed at the Berlin European Council in 1999 and set down in
the Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) in May of that year. A
total of 58 billion euros was agreed to finance enlargement between
2002-06, based on the assumption of an enlargement of six in 2002,
and on the assumption that new member states would not receive
direct compensatory payments for the agriculture. This amount
was allocated to each of the years 2002-06 as shown in Table 1.
The rising ceilings between 2002-06 reflects the need to phase
in structural funds and rural payments for the new member states
in line with the development of their administrative and financing
mechanisms.
Table 1: The financial perspective for enlargement
in the Inter-Institutional Agreement
|
| | ECU (billion)
| 1999 prices
|
| | 2002
| 2003 | 2004
| 2005 | 2006
|
| Ceilings | 6.45
| 9.0 | 11.6
| 14.2 | 16.8
|
The Commission has recently presented updated financing proposals
based on the revised scenario of an enlargement of up to 10 in
2004. Under the proposals, 2002-04 spending levels are shifted
forward two years as a result of the later enlargement and up-rated
by approximately 20 per cent to allow for four additional candidates.
In addition, the Commission proposes new enlargement expenditure
on nuclear safety and agricultural direct payments, neither of
which were agreed at Berlin. The Commission concludes that this
additional expenditure can be financed within the original overall
IIA enlargement financial ceilings for 2004-06, given that all
10 candidates would still need to be phased into structural funds
and rural development payments at 2002 starting levels in line
with their developing administrative capacity.
The Government welcomes the fact that the Commission has
put forward its proposals in view of the objective of meeting
the timetable for completion of enlargement negotiations with
those that are ready by the end of this year. It considers that
an enlargement of up to 10 new member states could be managed
within the ceilings of the Berlin financing agreement. The Government
is considering the details of the Commission's proposal and looks
forward to further discussion of it.
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
February 2002
| 
