1 Reform of the Common Agricultural
Policy
| (a)
(33259)
15396/11
COM(11) 625
(b)
(33261)
15425/11
COM(11) 627
(c)
(33258)
15397/11
COM(11) 626
(d)
(33257)
15426/11
COM(11) 628
| Draft Regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy
Draft Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
Draft Regulation on establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)
Draft Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy
|
| Legal base | Articles 42 and 43(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 2 April 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | (a) HC 42--xlii (2010-12), chapter 2 (23 November 2011)
(b) HC 428-xlii (2010-12), chapter 3 (23 November 2011)
(c) HC 428-xlii (2010-12), chapter 19 (23 November 2011)
(d) HC 428-xlii (2010-12), chapter 18 (23 November 2011)
(a)-(d) HC 86-xx (2012-13), chapter 16 (21 November 2012) and HC 86-xxxii (2012-13), chapter 9 (13 February 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported on 31 January 2012; for debate on the Floor of the House[1]
|
Background
1.1 In the light of its proposal for the Multi-annual Financial
Framework (MFF) for 2014-20, which established the budgetary framework
and main orientations for the CAP, the Commission put forward
in October 2011 a number of documents relating to its future.
These included an over-arching Impact Assessment,[2]
which was accompanied by these four draft Regulations setting
out detailed proposals dealing with specific aspects of the CAP.
We reported these to the House at some length on 23 November
2011, when we recommended the over-arching Impact Assessment for
debate in European Committee A, together with documents (a) and
(b); and, although we were content to clear documents (c) and
(d), we did identify these as relevant to that debate (which subsequently
took place on 31 January 2012).
1.2 Since then, we have reported to the House
on two further occasions — on 21 November 2012, in advance
of the Agriculture Council on 28-29 November, when the Cypriot
Presidency had planned to achieve partial general agreement, and
on 13 February 2013, following a vote in the European Parliament's
Agriculture Committee. We also received — but did not report
to the House — a letter of 7 March from the Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (Mr Owen Paterson),
setting out subsequent developments, and outlining the position
which the UK proposed to take at the Council on 18-19 March, when
the Presidency would be seeking a mandate for the trilogue negotiations
with the European Parliament and Commission.
Minister's letter of 2 April 2013
1.3 We have since received from the Secretary
of State a letter of 2 April 2013, confirming the outcome of the
European Parliament vote, and outlining the agreement reached
by the Council in 18-19 March.
1.4 The Minister describes the first of these
as mixed. On the one hand, text which enabled farmers to be paid
twice for undertaking the same environmental activities was removed,
the Commission's 'Greening' proposals were made voluntary, and
an earlier vote by its Agriculture Committee to block transparency
amendments was reversed. However, in other areas, the Parliament
voted through amendments which represented a significant step
backwards on CAP reform, reducing the level of market orientation
of agriculture and increasing the budgetary pressures for old-style
market support payments. In particular, coupled support payments
were extended to a wider range of sectors (including tobacco),
and the amount which may be spent on such support increased up
to 18% of Member States' national ceilings. In addition, a UK
proposal to add clarity on the regional implementation of the
CAP within a Member State was rejected.
1.5 The Minister's says that the Government's
approach in the Council was therefore mindful of these potentially
damaging outcomes, but he reports that the mandate which the Presidency
succeeded in securing for the trilogue negotiations contained
many of the UK objectives, including a number of importance to
the Devolved Administrations. However, there are also several
outstanding issues for the UK which may require further engagement
during the 'trilogue' process, and these (together with an account
of the other major elements agreed by the Council) are set out
at the Annex to this chapter.
1.6 Looking ahead, the Minister says that formal
'trilogue' negotiations were due to begin on 11 April, the Presidency's
aim being to conclude these in mid-June, in order to keep its
aim of securing a final agreement in late June on track. He adds
that, whilst the outcome of March Council was in the main positive,
the UK is under no illusion as to the scale of the challenges
it will face during the 'trilogue' process, where compromises
will be sought by the Presidency, Parliament and Council to secure
a final agreement. It will therefore be necessary to monitor
developments very closely, not only to try and secure further
important amendments on issues such as double funding, sugar,
coupled support and internal convergence, but also to defend the
amendments which have successfully been secured, for example on
market reforms under the CMO Regulation. Officials are now working
closely with UKRep to identify the most effective approach for
influencing the 'trilogue' process, where the UK negotiating lines
will remain consistent with what has already been cleared through
the scrutiny process.
Conclusion
1.7 As we have noted, these documents have
already been cleared either by virtue of our Report of 23 November
2011 or the debate in European Committee on 31 January 2012, but
we have since then reported the progress of the negotiations to
the House on 21 November 2012 and 13 February 2013. We have therefore
considered carefully how we should deal with the documents at
this stage.
1.8 On the one hand, we have stressed that,
having already cleared them, we have no wish to constrain the
Government's negotiating flexibility or to invoke the scrutiny
reserve. On the other hand, these proposals are clearly of major
financial and political importance, and we feel it would be wrong
for the House not to have a further chance to consider them before
the completion of the trilogue negotiations, bearing in mind that
the Secretary of State's statement on 26 March about the outcome
of the March Council was a written one.[3]
Consequently, notwithstanding the debate which took place in
January 2012, we are — exceptionally — recommending
that these documents should be the subject of a further debate
(and moreover that we see considerable merit in this taking place
on the Floor of the House). In doing so, we would again like
to make clear that our purpose is to enable Members to question
the Government, and that we do not intend that our recommendation
should in any way inhibit the Government's freedom of action in
connection with the trilogue negotiations.
1 See para 1.8 below. Back
2
(33267) 15640/11: see HC 428-xlii (2010-12), chapter 1 (23 November
2011). Back
3
HC Debs, 26 March 2013, Cols. 88-90 WS. Back
|
