6 EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement
| (a)
(35813)
6634/14
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(14) 70
(b)
(35825)
—
—
|
Draft Council Decision on the signing of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Singapore.
Draft Council Decision on the signing of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Singapore, with the exception of matters related to readmission. Draft Council Decision on the signing of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Singapore, as regards matters related to readmission.
|
| Legal base | (a) Articles 207 and 212(1), in conjunction with Article 218(5) of the TFEU; QMV
(b) Articles 9, 100, 191(4), 207 and 212 in conjunction with Article 218(5) TFEU; QMV
Article 79(3) in conjunction with Article 218(5) TFEU; QMV
|
| Document originated | (a) 17 February 2014
(b) —
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (a) 20 February 2014
(b) 26 February 2014
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 7 March 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (34881) 8949/13: HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter 21 (17 July 2013) and (35238) 12843/13 and (35367) —: HC 83-xix (2013-14), chapter 10 (30 October 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
6.1 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 7 March 2014, the Minister
for Europe (Mr David Lidington) notes that on 14 October 2013
the EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was
initialled in Singapore by representatives of Singapore and the
European Commission; and that the most recent language version
of the text was issued on 18 February 2014.
6.2 The Minister explains that the wider purpose
of the PCA:
"is to enhance cooperation between the EU and
its Member States and Singapore in a range of areas including
health, the environment, climate change, energy, education and
culture, labour, employment and social affairs, science and technology,
and transport. It also addresses illegal migration, money laundering,
illicit drugs, organised crime and corruption. The PCA also contains
a Joint Declaration in support of developments at the international
level on a new global standard of automatic exchange of information
for tax purposes."
6.3 The Minister recalls that negotiations between
the EU and Singapore began in 2005, but "stalled in 2006
over a tax cooperation clause". The Minister continues thus:
"Negotiations resumed in March 2011 following
progress on an EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In early
2013 Singapore accepted the legal and institutional link between
the PCA and the FTA/other agreements and the related non-execution
mechanism. The agreed language ensures the possibility for the
EU to suspend the PCA and/or the FTA in cases of a material breach
of the essential elements. However during negotiations, Singapore
requested a positive, explicit statement on the compliance of
its domestic laws and practices with the essential elements. The
EEAS rejected this request. The compromise was a side-letter on
the non-execution mechanism which sets out that, at the time of
signature, neither party are aware, based on objectively available
information, of any of each other's domestic laws, or their application,
which could lead to the invocation of the non-execution mechanism.
The side letter will be an integral part of the PCA."
6.4 The Minister also notes that the PCA also
contains provisions on cooperation in the tax area:
"In view of the developments at the international
level on a new global standard of automatic exchange of information
for tax purposes, the EU has proposed that, at the time of signature
of the PCA, both sides sign a Joint Declaration on this issue.
While not an integral part of the PCA, the Joint Declaration shall
express a firm political commitment on the intention of both sides
to adhere to the new standard in their bilateral relations."
6.5 On the format of the proposed Council Decisions,
the Minister says:
"The original Commission proposal of 18 February
2014 for a Council Decision on signature of the Singapore PCA
was contained in one Decision, which we are attaching to this
EM. We welcome the subsequent revised proposal of 24 February
2014 to split this proposal into two Decisions which supersedes
the previous document: one Decision concerning signature of the
entire agreement with the exception of matters related to readmission
(a JHA matter) and a second concerning signature of the PCA with
regard to matters related to readmission. Further detail on the
JHA content of this PCA is contained below."
The Government's view
The PCA
6.6 The Minister describes the establishment
of the PCA as a necessary precursor to the conclusion of an FTA
(Free Trade Agreement) with Singapore. He continues as follows:
"Singapore is a strong supporter of the multilateral
trading system and already has a number of FTAs, covering the
majority of its trade including with the US and with China. The
EU-Singapore FTA, the first EU FTA with an ASEAN country, was
initialled on 20 September. Negotiations for the investment chapter
began at a later date and are close to completion. Once the Investment
Chapter is complete we expect that the FTA will proceed to signature
and it is expected to be ratified by the European Parliament during
2014.
"The signature of the PCA and the FTA are key
to strengthening the EU's and Member States' relationship with
Singapore and more widely the EU's role in South-East Asia. The
PCA will establish a fully coherent modernised bilateral framework
for cooperation between the EU and its Member States and Singapore
in a range of issues. Increased EU/MS-Singapore cooperation is
strongly in UK interests. The UK has a close and historic bilateral
relationship with Singapore, with a significant flow of high level
visits in both directions. A PCA will support our wider prosperity
objectives with Singapore. The EU is Singapore's second largest
trading partner after Malaysia and around three-quarters of Singapore's
inward investment into Europe goes to the UK. Singapore also remains
the UK's largest export market in ASEAN by a large margin. It
is the only one of the major ASEAN countries with which we have
an overall trade surplus, amounting to over £1 billion in
2012. Over 700 UK companies are based in Singapore and in 2012
the UK was the third largest foreign direct investor in Singapore.
Singapore is also an important investor in the UK, primarily through
the sovereign wealth funds, GIC and Temasek. Inward investment
from Singapore was worth £22 billion in 2012. We are also
cooperating more closely with Singapore on security issues, in
particular cyber security, counter-proliferation and maritime
security."
JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS IMPLICATIONS
6.7 The original Commission proposal for a Council
Decision on signature having been published on 18 February 2014,
the Minister continues thus:
"A revised proposal has now issued for the Council
Decision to be split into two separate Decisions, following established
recent precedents agreed by the Council in the case of draft Council
Decisions on the conclusion of the Framework Agreements with Indonesia[11]
and the Republic of Korea.[12]
Accordingly, there are now two draft Decisions: one that concerns
signature of the entire Agreement as it relates to non-JHA matters
and a second Decision concerning signature of the Agreement as
it relates to JHA matters, in this case readmission. As we have
not yet made this decision, we have pushed for the text in the
preamble of the draft proposal for a split Decision, which suggests
(at paragraph 4) that the UK will not take part in the adoption
of this decision (i.e. that we have already taken our opt-in decision);
to be square bracketed until the UK has made its opt-in decision.
"The Decision relating to the re-admission provisions
provided for in Article 19(5) of the Agreement cites a Title V
legal base (Art 79(3) TFEU). Protocol 21 therefore applies to
this Decision and it is open to the UK to decide whether to opt
in to the Decision in which case it would participate as part
of the EU. In light of this, Government is at present considering
whether to opt-in to this Decision. In considering the opt-in
decision, we will consider whether the readmission provision falls
in an area of shared or exclusive EU or Member State competence,
and the benefits of signing up to an EU agreement on re-admission
weighed against signing up to these commitments in our own right
(where we are able to do so). The PCA also touches on other JHA
policy areas, for example: Article 5 — Cooperation in combating
terrorism; Article 19 — Migration (there are provisions
other than just the readmission agreement); Article 20 —
combating organised crime; Article 21 — cooperation in combating
money laundering and terrorist financing; Article 22 — cooperation
against illicit drugs. We are, as a result, considering whether
additional Title V legal bases should be cited in the JHA Decision
to cover these provisions and will inform the Committees in due
course."
THE UK OPT-IN
6.8 The Minister then points out that, the last
language version of the original Council Decision having been
published on 18 February 2014, the UK has until 18 May to notify
the Council of its opt-in decision, and says.
"The 8-week period for the enhanced scrutiny
of the opt-in decision commenced on 18 February (the publication
of the last language version). The Committee therefore has till
15 April to issues its view on whether the Government should opt-in.
I apologise for the delay in informing you of this."
COURT CASE C-377/12
6.9 The Minister notes that the Commission's
EM on the original Council Decision refers to the on-going consideration
by the Court of Justice of the EU (Court Case C-377/12) of Council
Decision No. 2012/272/EU on the signature of the Philippines PCA:
"In that case, the Commission has asked the
Court to annul that decision insofar as the Council added the
legal bases relating to readmission (Article 79(3) TFEU), transport
(Articles 91 and 100 TFEU), and the environment (Article 191(4)
TFEU). The UK intervened in support of the Council, along with
Germany, Austria, Ireland and Greece; the Court is not expected
to rule on this case until later this year. The Commission has
stated in its Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposed
Council Decision on the Singapore PCA that "as long as this
case is pending, the procedure for conclusion of this Agreement
cannot be finalised". While we cannot conclude the PCA until
the case is decided, there does not appear to be any legal impediment
preventing signature of the PCA itself."
OTHER LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES
6.10 The Minister comments thus:
"The original Council Decision cited Articles
207 (Common Commercial Policy) and 212(1) (Economic, financial
and technical cooperation with third countries), in conjunction
with Article 218(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU). The legal bases for the revised split Decisions,
cite Articles 91 and 100 (Transport), 191(4), (Environment), 207
and 212 in conjunction with Article 218(5) TFEU for the first
Decision and Article 79(3) in conjunction with Article 218(5)
TFEU for the second Decision concerning readmission. We are consulting
the relevant Government departments to confirm that they are content
with the proposed legal bases."
TIMETABLE
6.11 The Minister says:
"The timetable for adoption is not yet finalised.
Following the scrutiny of the draft Decisions by Member States,
the EEAS has proposed to adopt the Decisions in April 2014 in
order that the EU's High Representative and the Singaporean Government
can sign them at the Shangri La dialogue in May 2014. This timetable
does not respect the UK's right under Protocol 21 to decide within
three months whether to opt in to this Decision or not. We are
working with UKREP and with the Council to revise this and to
ensure that the UK's rights under Protocol 21 are respected. Following
signature, the PCA will need to be ratified by all 28 of the EU's
Member States, and the Singapore Government, and concluded by
the EU before it can enter into force."
Conclusion
6.12 The Minister demonstrates clearly the
importance of this PCA to both EU and UK interests. As with other
counterparts, our outstanding concerns relate to the opt-in aspects
of the PCA.
6.13 On the question of the separation of
the initial proposal into two Council Decisions, we repeat what
we said in the context of the EU Framework Agreement with Indonesia:
"On process, we welcome the decision to split
the Decision to conclude the Agreement into two Council Decisions,
one concerning JHA measures — a readmission provision —
to which the UK's opt-in applies; the other concerning non-JHA
measures, which includes new legal bases in the field of environment
and transport. This approach provides for greater legal certainty
about the UK's participation in JHA measures, something for which
this Committee has called since early in this Parliament."
6.14 We note what the Minister says about
the timetable for the opt-in process in relation to the draft
Council Decision relating to readmission (the JHA Decision) and
that we have until 15 April to express a view on whether the UK
should opt-in to that Decision. However, before we can exercise
our scrutiny and express any view, we request the Minister to
confirm:
a) how likely it is that other Title V legal
bases will be added to the draft Decision prior to adoption to
reflect other EU JHA obligations (noting that the Government says
it is still considering its position on this);
b) if the Title V legal bases are not so cited,
whether the Government intends to pursue its policy of asserting
the application of the opt-in Protocol in their absence; and
c) when the Government will be able to give
us an indication of its view on whether to opt into the JHA Decision
or not, prior to 15 April.
6.15 While we support the Government in its
efforts to ensure that the three month opt-in period is respected
in respect of the Title V legal base cited in relation to readmission,
we repeat our view that:
· we
do not consider the opt-in Protocol would apply in the absence
of the other Title V legal bases and will not therefore opine
on those aspects of the purported opt-in decision; and
· we
expect the Government to succeed in adding those legal bases to
the JHA Decision, given the contents of the agreement.
6.16 In the meantime, the documents remain
under scrutiny.
11 See (34881) 8949/13: HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter
20 (17 July 2013) for the Committee's consideration of this PCA. Back
12
See (35238) 12843/13 and (35367) -: HC 83-xix (2013-14), chapter
10 (30 October 2013) for the Committee's consideration of this
PCA. Back
| 
