15 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 9 July 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), HC 86-xxxii (2012-13), chapter 9 (13 February 2013) and HC 83-i (2013-14), chapter 1 (8 May 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | Not applicable
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported 1 February 2012)
|
Background
15.1 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,[44]
which was accompanied by these four draft Regulations setting
out detailed proposals dealing with specific aspects. 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).
15.2 Since then, we have reported to the House
on three 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, on
13 February 2013, following a vote in the European Parliament's
Agriculture Committee, and on 8 May 2013, following the agreement
reached in the Council on the Presidency's negotiating mandate
for the forthcoming trilogue discussions.
15.3 On that last occasion, we noted that these
documents had already been cleared either by virtue of our Report
of 23 November 2011 or the debate in European Committee on 31
January 2012, and that we had no wish to constrain the Government's
negotiating flexibility or to invoke the scrutiny reserve. On
the other hand, we commented that these proposals were clearly
of major financial and political importance, and that we felt
it would be wrong for the House not to have a further chance to
consider them before the completion of the trilogue negotiations.
Consequently, notwithstanding the debate which took place in
January 2012, we decided — exceptionally — to recommend
that these documents should be the subject of a further debate,
stressing that our purpose was to enable Members to question the
Government, and that we did not intend in any way inhibit the
Government's freedom of action in connection with the trilogue
negotiations. That debate took place on the Floor of the House
on 18 June 2013.
Minister's letter of 9 July 2013
15.4 We have since received from the Secretary
of State a letter of 9 July 2013, setting out the outcome of the
Agriculture Council on 24-25 June, where a political deal on the
reform was agreed in principle. He describes that deal as being,
overall, an acceptable outcome, even though it was not the genuine
reform which the UK had hoped for. He says that the Government
fought hard to secure a package that is an improvement on the
original proposals, and that it also worked closely with its allies
to stop a whole raft of regressive proposals harmful to UK farmers
from being adopted. As a consequence, the deal helps to provide
greater certainty for farmers and paying agencies, and a start
can now be made on the essential process of designing the next
CAP programme. The main negotiated outcomes under each of the
four proposals are set out in Annex A.
15.5 The Minister notes that the European Parliament's
Agriculture Committee has informally indicated its support for
the package, and put aside those elements of the CAP regulations
which are affected by the Multiannual Financial Framework, and
he says that they now need to return to consider these. Once that
has been done, the Parliament will vote on the package in plenary
session before final agreement at an Agriculture Council meeting
in the autumn. Whilst these steps are being carried out, the Government
await the legal texts for checking, and will also work closely
with the Presidency, Commission and European Parliament on transitional
regulations for 2014, as well as the CAP implementing legislation
which will add more detail to the main package.
15.6 The Minister also says that, in England,
he will be working closely with stakeholders to ensure the CAP
is implemented in a way which strikes a balance between environmental
benefit and simplicity of implementation, without impacting unduly
on farmers. He adds that he is determined to learn the lessons
of previous governments who, to the detriment of farmers, sought
to implement CAP reform to an unrealistic time frame and in an
over-complicated manner.
Conclusion
15.7 We have already reported several times
at some length on the unfolding negotiations on these proposals,
which have been the subject of debates both in European Committee
and on the Floor of the House, and, even though the Minister gave
an account of the most recent proceedings in the Agriculture Council
in his written statement of 1 July, we think it right to draw
the outcome of that meeting to the attention of the House in somewhat
greater detail. The proposals themselves have been cleared by
virtue of the earlier debates.
44 (33267) 15640/11: see HC 428-xlii (2010-12), chapter
1 (23 November 2011). Back
|
