First Report of Session 2013-14 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


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 baseArticles 42 and 43(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs
Basis of considerationMinister'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 CouncilNot applicable
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared (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


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 17 May 2013