2 Subsidiarity and proportionality
| (35242)
13002/13
COM(13) 566
| Commission Report: Annual Report 2012 on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (20th report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2012)
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 18 December 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-xxv (2013-14) chapter 2 (18 December 2013), HC 83-xx (2013-14) chapter 5 (6 November 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate on the floor of the House (decision reported 6 November 2013)
|
Background and previous scrutiny
2.1 In our Twenty-eighth Report,[6]
we reported on a letter of 16 December from the Minister for Europe
(Mr David Lidington). In that letter the Minister confirmed that
the current document and the 2012 Annual Report on relations between
the European Commission and national parliaments[7]
had been scheduled for debate on the floor of the House on 7 January
2014. He also provided further information on the three areas
which were the subject of questions we had raised in our Twenty-second
Report[8] concerning supporting
Parliament's role in subsidiarity control, subsidiarity reform
initiatives and deficient subsidiarity assessments in the some
of the Government's Explanatory Memoranda.
2.2 In our conclusions to the Report, we thanked
the Minister for his response but noted that it was partly reiterative
in referring to past policy statements and practice rather than
updating us on fresh progress and thinking on the issues of concern
to us. We noted, as an example, that we had been given no indication
of what degree of progress had been made on subsidiarity reform
initiatives in terms of engaging a wider group of Member States
and the EU institutions themselves. We also noted that given
the persistence of poor quality Explanatory Memoranda, more targeted
steps could be taken to address their improvement, specifically
in relation to those proposals which are of concern. We hoped
that the Minister would take the opportunity to respond to these
points in the course of the debate due to take place on 7 January.
Minister's letter of 18 December 2013
2.3 The Minister writes to correct his letter of
16 December. He says:
"As my office has explained to your clerks,
this was a draft letter which was issued in error. This letter
is therefore the formal response to your Committee's 6 November
report on the Commission's 'Annual Report 2012 on subsidiarity
and proportionality'. I understand that your Committee considered
the previous version of this letter today and I can only repeat
my team's apology for this administrative failure.
As we discussed earlier, your report of 6 November
recommends that the Commission's 'Annual Report 2012 on subsidiarity
and proportionality' and the linked 'Annual Report 2012 on relations
between the European Commission and national parliaments' be debated
on the floor of the House. As I said on the telephone we agree
very much on the importance of these subjects.
However, given that both of these Commission
documents are issued annually by the Commission, were not recommended
for debate last year, and contain no specific commitments for
legislation or action in this area, we feel that they should be
debated in a European Committee. These documents do not constitute
decision points. A European Committee setting, with its question
and answer format plus additional time available for debate, will
give the Committee and the Government the fullest opportunity
to discuss these reports."
2.4 The Minister then provides the same information
in relation to Government supporting Parliament's role in subsidiarity
control, subsidiarity reform initiatives and the problem of deficient
subsidiarity assessments in some of the Government's Explanatory
Memoranda as was provided in the letter of 16 December.
Conclusion
2.5 We note the Minister's apology for the
administrative error in sending this Committee the "draft"
letter of 16 December. We point out, for the record, that the
letter was not "draft" from our perspective as it was
complete with the Minister's signature.
2.6 We are surprised by the apparent Ministerial
change of heart over the forum for the debate which apparently
took place between 16 and 18 December. We take very seriously
the downgrading of our recommendation that this document be debated
on the floor of the House, which strikes us as inconsistent with
the emphasis that the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the
Prime Minster placed last year on the role of national parliaments
within the EU.
2.7 It was our intention to question the Minister
in person on 7 January on these events and on the criteria which
he applied to override a recommendation of this Committee for
a debate on the floor of the House. However, as the evidence
session was curtailed by the Urgent Question on the recent European
Council which required the Minister's attendance, this was not
possible.
2.8 So we ask the Minister to be prepared to address
in the course of the debate in European Committee why his reasons
for not agreeing to a debate on the floor of the house should
override the significant political interest we consider is attached
to the document, particularly in light of the recent rejection
by the Commission of the Yellow Card raised by national parliaments
on the proposal for a European Public Prosecutor's Office.
6 See headnote: HC 83-xxv (2013-14) chapter 2 (18
December 2013). Back
7
(35421) 12989/13: HC 83-xx (2013-14) chapter 4 (6 November 2013). Back
8
See headnote: HC 83-xx (2013-14) chapter 5 (6 November 2013). Back
| 
