6 The EU and the Arctic Region
| (30227)
—
COM(08) 763
| Commission Communication: The European Union and the Arctic Region
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 22 March 2010
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 19-viii (2008-09), chapter 1 (25 February 2009) and HC 5-vii (2009-10), chapter 9 (20 January 2010)
|
| Discussed in Council | 8-9 December 2009 General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported 22 April 2009); further information provided
|
Previous scrutiny
6.1 We cleared the Commission's Communication: The European
Union and the Arctic Region from scrutiny in April 2009. We
noted that the Communication was to be followed by a more detailed
Communication on the Arctic. But we felt that sufficiently major
policy issues were already raised in this Communication for a
debate in the European Committee to be warranted. We asked that
the Community's competence to make recommendations in all of the
areas covered by the Communication be covered during the debate
as well.[16] The debate
took place on 21 April 2009.
MINISTER'S LETTER OF 9 DECEMBER 2009
6.2 Nothing more was heard until the present Minister for
Europe (Chris Bryant) wrote to the Committee on 9 December 2009,
with his views on the Council Conclusions on the EU and the Arctic
adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 December. In responding
to him, the Committee noted that the further Commission Communication
had not materialised; instead, a substantive set of Council Conclusions
had been adopted which, as the Minister said, constituted "a
set of overarching principles and actions which the Commission
can begin to develop in collaboration with Member States."
6.3 The Minister also noted the Government's
continued support for the EU "in its efforts to become more
engaged on the Arctic" and considered that the Commission
"has a valuable role to play in many areas as outlined in
the Council Conclusions." The Minister also said that, at
the same time, he had "striven to ensure that, where competency
is reserved or shared, UK interests are protected [and] also sought
to ensure that our bilateral and multilateral relationships with
the Arctic States and the Arctic Council are unaffected."
But he did not explain where he believed such competency was reserved
or shared, how UK interests were protected or how he had sought
to ensure that these relationships would be unaffected.
6.4 The impression left with the Committee was
that an important stage in the parliamentary scrutiny of this
significant area of developing EU policy had been passed over,
by virtue of there being no further Commission Communication but
instead the adoption of very substantive Conclusions setting out
the way forward.
6.5 The Committee accordingly asked the Minister
for an explanation of why a further Communication had not been
issued by the Commission and why it had not been given a chance
to scrutinise the Council Conclusions before they were adopted.
MINISTER'S LETTER OF 7 JANUARY 2010
6.6 The Minister responded by a letter of 7 January
2010. While he said he understood the Committee's frustration
that the Commission decided not to proceed with a further Communication,
the Minister said:
"this was entirely their decision and we could
not oblige them to do so. However, the decision by the Council
to proceed with a second set of Conclusions does, I believe, provide
a platform to take this policy forward and, importantly, ensure
that the Council and Member States remain fully involved in the
process."
6.7 With regard to the competence of the EU institutions
to act the Minister said:
"The Council Conclusions deal with matters of
both reserved (such as fishing) and shared competence (for example
environment, transport, energy). We have sought throughout this
process to ensure that the Conclusions do not impinge upon UK
bilateral relations or allow any form of Commission 'competence
creep.' My officials were also able to ensure that the Council
Conclusions did not contain any inappropriate specific commitments,
especially spending commitments. We believe that the Conclusions
provide an operational framework for the Commission's work in
the Arctic over the next 18 months, until June 2011, at which
stage the Commission has been tasked to provide a progress report
to the Council. This will help ensure engagement with Member States
and adequate oversight. It should also address concerns raised
in the April 2009 debate and emphasises the fact that the Conclusions
are of course a Council not a Commission text."
6.8 The Minister went on to "stress that
bilateral and multilateral relations will not be affected",
as follows:
"The UK will be able to continue our excellent
relationships with the Arctic States, such as our memorandum of
understanding with Canada, our close working relationship on Polar
issues with Norway and our ongoing work as a Permanent Observer
at the Arctic Council."
6.9 We did not consider that the Minister's answers
on process and substance were adequate, and asked him to appear
before us at an evidence session.[17]
He did so on 24 February. During his evidence, he offered to write
to the Committee with a list of the areas in which the Commission
was competent to act in the EU's policy on the Arctic. We followed
him up on his offer, asking for clarification of which elements
of the EU's Arctic policy fell under the CFSP; which fell under
the exclusive competence of the Commission; and which fell under
shared competence between the Member States and the Commission,
or supporting/complementary competence. We also asked the Minister
to confirm whether UK bilateral interests were affected, and whether
subsidiarity issues were raised.
Minister's letter of 22 March
6.10 In a letter of 22 March the Minister confirms
that:
a) no competences fall within the remit of the
CFSP;
b) the only areas of exclusive competence covered
in the Council Conclusions on the Arctic are:
i) relevant trade issues, for example the ban
on the import of seal products with the allowances for the traditional
activities of indigenous peoples; and
ii) external fisheries;
c) there are however a number of areas where
the EU and Member States (not just those Member States who are
Arctic Council Members) have shared competence. The Council Conclusions
make clear that these are all areas where the Commission and Member
States should work collaboratively to formulate policy:
i) environment (most importantly issues relating
to sustainable development, Pollutants and Climate Change);
ii) transport;
iii) energy; and
iv) research;
d) he does not believe that the Council Conclusions
deal specifically with any areas that are of supporting or complementary
competence;
e) he does not believe that any subsidiarity
concerns arise.
6.11 In relation bilateral and multilateral relationships
with the Arctic States, the Minister informs us that the UK continues
to maintain strong bilateral relationships with all eight Arctic
States. The Government's position as a State Observer to the Arctic
Council remains unaffected by the EU's involvement. On a multilateral
basis the UK is involved with the Arctic States in a large number
of international agreements and networks. The UK is also a key
player in a wide range of international organisations including
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International
Maritime Organisation, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation,
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora. The UK has been heavily involved in,
and made a significant contribution to, the International Polar
Year, one direct consequence of which was the Memorandum of Understanding
between the UK and Canada on polar research and monitoring cooperation.
Conclusion
6.12 We thank the Minister for his explanation
of where competence lies in the EU's policy on the Arctic. This
will be a useful guide for us when scrutinising the development
of this policy.
16 See headnote: HC 19-viii (2008-09), chapter 1 (25
February 2009). Back
17
To be published as HC 392-i. Back
| 
