Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence


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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 16 October 2002