Ports - European Scrutiny Committee Contents

1 Ports

Committee's assessment Politically important
Committee's decision(a) Not cleared from scrutiny; recommended for debate on the floor of the House (renewed decision reported on 3 September 2014)

(b) Not cleared from scrutiny; recommended for debate on the floor of the House, together with document (a)

Document details(a) Draft Regulation about a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports: (b) Amended draft Regulation about a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports
Legal baseArticle 100(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
Document numbers(a) (34955), 10154/13 + ADDs 1-5, COM (13) 296

(b) (36373), 13764/14

1.1 With the draft Regulation, document (a), published in May 2013, the Commission sought to establish a regulatory framework to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of all EU ports. We have considered the proposal several times, noted significant concern of the UK ports industry and recommended it for debate on the floor of the House before the Transport Council of 8 October. But, the Government refused that request and a debate by European Committee A on 3 September was adjourned without substantive discussion.

1.2 With the paper, document (b), the Presidency presented a revised text of the draft Regulation for the Transport Council to resolve the outstanding issues and to adopt a general approach at its meeting on 8 October.

1.3 The Government explains to us the substance of the general approach agreed by the Council and why it thinks this a relatively good outcome for the UK. However, the ports industry and Unite, on behalf of port workers, confirm that they remain opposed to the draft Regulation.

1.4 There have been problems in the scrutiny of this proposal because highly relevant Council documents were subject to Limité restrictions.

1.5 It is very regrettable that the Government did not arrange for this matter to be debated before the Transport Council. However, we recommend that both the original document and the new one be debated, not as an exercise in pointless retrospective scrutiny of Government activity in Council consideration of the proposal, but in order to determine the appropriate Government approach to trilogue negotiation of the Council's general approach. We emphasise again that, given the importance of the issues, the debate which we recommend should be on the floor of the House.

1.6 We recognise that on this occasion the Government made an effort to ensure that some Limité documents were available to us. But it remains a fact, which the Government seems incapable of understanding, that the Council, whether at Ministerial or working group level, is a legislature, as recognised by the frequent references to it and the European Parliament as the "co-legislators". As a legislature in a democratic society the Council should operate transparently, in particular abandoning the constant resort to Limité markings, and should be very vigorously urged to do so by any UK Government.

Full details of the documents: (a) Draft Regulation establishing a framework on the market access to port services and the financial transparency of ports: (34955), 10154/13 + ADDs 1-5, COM(13) 296; (b) Draft Regulation establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports (First reading): General approach: (36373), 13764/14, —.


1.7 Transport is a competence shared between the EU and Member States. Two sets of proposals by the Commission related to access to ports and transparency of port charges were both rejected by the European Parliament, in 2003[1] and 2006.[2]

1.8 With the first draft Regulation, document (a), published in May 2013, the Commission has sought to establish a regulatory framework to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of all EU ports and to contribute towards their ability to cope with increased demand in the transport and logistics sector. It wished to ensure that EU ports can become competitive in the context of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) strategy up to 2030 and beyond. It appeared that some 47 UK ports would be in scope of the Commission's proposal.

1.9 Our first reaction to this proposal, based on comments to us by the Government, was that there was a considerable question mark over the utility of the draft Regulation. In July, given that the Italian Presidency appeared to hope to reach a general approach on the dossier at the Transport Council on 8 October and the impending periods of recess, we recommended that the document be debated on the floor of the House. But, the Government refused our request for a floor debate and the draft Regulation was scheduled for debate by European Committee A on 3 September. However, that debate was adjourned, following criticism of the failure of the Government to include the latest Council working group version of the draft Regulation in the debate pack. There was also much strongly voiced criticism of the failure by the Government to schedule the debate on the floor rather than in General Committee.[3]

1.10 In September we considered this matter twice more, when we:

·  reiterated our recommendation that the proposal be debated on the floor of the House and regretted that the Government had not even rescheduled a European Committee debate in advance of the forthcoming Transport Council;

·  noted a hope that the Italian Presidency might not press the matter to agreement at that Transport Council;

·  noted how the use of the Limité restriction of revised texts of the proposed draft Regulation inhibited parliamentary scrutiny; and

·  emphasised to the Government that it would be wholly inappropriate to override the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution on this draft legislation so very important to UK interests.

The new document

1.11 On 2 October the Presidency published a paper, document (b), setting out the background to consideration of the ports proposal by the Council and the European Parliament, the issues that remained outstanding, and invited the Transport Council to examine a revised text of the draft Regulation, as set out in the Annex to the document, to resolve the outstanding issues, and to adopt a general approach at its meeting on 8 October.

The Government's position for the Transport Council

1.12 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 7 October on the new document the Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes), tells us, as follows, of the background to the Presidency's proposals, progress made in improving the original text, document (a), outstanding issues, European Parliament consideration, the view of the UK ports industry, the Government's own views on subsidiarity and the policy and financial implications and its consultations.


1.13 The Minister first tells us that:

·  examination of the proposal by the Shipping Working Group began in October 2013, during the Lithuanian Presidency, with two meetings which considered the Commission's impact assessment;

·  the proposal was not a priority during the Greek Presidency;

·  however between February and April 2014 several meetings were dedicated to the proposed Regulation; and

·  only Chapters I (Subject Matter, Scope and Definitions) and Chapter II (Market Access) were examined article-by-article, with Chapter III (Financial Transparency and Autonomy) and Chapter IV (General and Final Provisions) being discussed in more general terms.

1.14 In relation to the Greek Presidency discussions the Minister tells us that:

·  the majority of Member States supported the general objectives of the proposal towards the provision of quality and efficient port services, the creation of legal certainty, the achievement of a level playing-field and to attract investment, by improving market access and transparency of financial relations;

·  several Member States welcomed the Commission's approach and stated their willingness to improve the drafting of the proposal in order to make it more balanced and proportional to the already competitive nature of the sector (for example, in consideration of competition from third countries) and to provide the necessary flexibility in order to recognise the unique characteristics of ports across the Continent, in terms of size, function, operation and diverse local conditions;

·  in the view of some Member States, however, the proposal did not fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in respect to the diversity of the seaports in the EU;

·  closely linked to this question of subsidiarity was the issue of the legal form of the proposal, as some Member States argued that a Directive would leave more room for flexibility;

·  as regards the scope of services covered, given that cargo-handling and passenger services were excluded from Chapter II (Market Access), doubts were expressed over the remaining added value of that Chapter;

·  but a large number of Member States at the time proposed additional exclusions of port services, especially those that had a significant safety element associated with them, such as pilotage, and dredging (which is not a service provided directly to ships);

·  some Member States were concerned that the diversification of the sector had not been properly taken into account, especially as regards smaller seaports covered by the TEN-T guidelines Regulation and competitive, unsubsidised ports;

·  it was suggested that either only seaports which are part of the TEN-T core network (that is, mostly larger ports), or any TEN-T seaport that receives public funds, be included in the scope;

·  many Member States asked for more flexibility on the procedural framework when ensuring compliance with the minimum requirements for the provision of port services, and on the possibilities to limit the number of providers and, especially, in the case of a single provider;

·  in addition, for the limitation of the number of port services it was proposed to add in considerations of safety, security and environmental sustainability;

·  although Member States supported the principle of consulting the port users and relevant stakeholders, the majority of Member States expressed concerns about the risk of creating additional administrative burdens and about the effective functioning of the supervision mechanism;

·  several Member States expressed wider concerns about the impact of the proposed Regulation on the autonomy and commercial freedom of ports;

·  this was particularly relevant for the provisions on port infrastructure charges and the consequences for contracts already concluded;

·  a broad majority of Member States was opposed to the proposed right of the Commission to harmonise port infrastructure charges through Delegated Acts; and

·  some Member States pointed out that it was important to clarify the State Aid regime in ports and, furthermore, that the proposal should be read and re-evaluated in conjunction with the new Directive on concession contracts (Directive 2014/23/EU).

1.15 The Minister continues that the Italian Presidency:

·  included the proposal among its priorities, indicating that it planned to seek a general approach at the forthcoming Transport Council of 8 October;

·  held 11 Shipping Working Group meetings to discuss the dossier, and produced a number of compromise proposals;

·  these were issued under a Limité marking and were, therefore, not publicly available at the time; but

·  following a request by the Government the Limité marking has been lifted on three of these documents, which would be sent to us in their public form.

Progress made in improving the original text

1.16 The Minister says that amended draft Regulation, in document (b), reflects the substantial progress made during these discussions, including:

·  removal of dredging and, optionally, pilotage from the access to service provisions, while effectively retaining coverage of these under the requirements associated with financial transparency;

·  reversion to the exclusion of cargo-handling and passenger services from Chapter II;

·  recognition of the UK's open port duty to make it explicit that this requirement does not constitute a Public Service Obligation;

·  allowance of a broader range of justifications for ports to decide for themselves how their internal services should be provided;

·  (subject to confirmation at the Transport Council) extension of the competitive market exemption provisions in the Utilities Directive to key provisions in Articles 6, 7 and 9;

·  relatively simpler procedural requirements for the choice of providers of port services where their number is limited (Article 7);

·  deletion of the power of Delegated Acts for the Commission on charge modulations (Article 14);

·  formal recognition that confidential commercial discounting of port charges will continue to be permitted provided that standard charges are posted and criteria for their variation are relevant, transparent, objective and non-discriminatory;

·  less prescriptive requirements at Article 15 for consultation with port users and other stakeholders, which had risked introducing added costly administrative burdens in addition to the arrangements that ports already have; and

·  removal of reference to an independent supervisory body and greater flexibility and discretion for Member States on complaints-handling (Article 17).

1.17 The Minister adds that negotiations were continuing to ensure that these successes remain in any text adopted under a general approach at the Transport Council on 8 October.

Outstanding issues

1.18 The Minister says, that as the Presidency notes in the new document, there are a number of outstanding issues to be discussed by the Council, including:

·  the competitive market exemption provisions as noted above;

·  maintaining the optional exclusion of pilotage from Chapter II (Article 11a); and

·  exclusions for the smallest ports in the comprehensive TEN-T network (Article 12).

European Parliament consideration

1.19 The Minister tells us that:

·  the European Parliament Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN), began its consideration of the proposal in 2013;

·  the Rapporteur completed his draft report on 5 November 2013;

·  however, consensus within TRAN could not be reached on key issues, in particular, on the scope of the Regulation and the market access chapter, and it was unable to vote on the report before the European Parliament elections; and

·  no timetable has yet been set for the new European Parliament to resume consideration of the proposal, although the Government expects work to begin early in the new year.

The view of the UK ports industry

1.20 The Minister says that:

·  the UK ports industry has consistently opposed this proposal;

·  however, it recognises that the Government cannot unilaterally block it and has therefore urged the Government to continue negotiations to minimise the burdens on the industry; and

·  to that end the Government has worked closely with the industry towards achieving the best possible outcomes for the sector.

1.21 The Minister then summarises the industry's key concerns and the extent to which they have been met in negotiations, as follows:

·  the possibility that the UK 'open port duty' could be construed as a public service obligation under Article 8, thereby bringing additional services into the scope of Article 13 (charges) — the Government has been successful in achieving recognition of the UK's open port duty through a strong recital (set out at footnote 26 in the document) that makes explicit that such a requirement does not constitute a public service obligation;

·  Article 9.3 would preclude an internal operator (one providing a particular service at one or more of its own ports) from providing the same service at other operators' ports — the competitive market exemption, if secured, would apply to this requirement in respect of UK ports;

·  pilotage — subject to confirmation at the Transport Council, Member States would have the option to remove pilotage from the access to service provisions. The precise provisions on pilotage remained a matter under discussion and would need to be resolved by the Council, but it was likely that key concerns of the ports industry and of pilots would be met;

·  dredging — subject to confirmation by the Transport Council, dredging would be excluded from the access to service provisions, but still within scope of financial transparency;

·  the requirement in Article 14 for infrastructure charges to be "relevant, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory" — the industry's concern is that this represents a serious limitation on ports ability to conduct commercial negotiations on normal business terms with their customers. This has now been addressed through a clear recital (set out at footnote 37 in the document) confirming that confidential discounting would continue to be allowed;

·  the definition of port infrastructure charge — the industry was concerned that the proposed definition was so wide that it applied to any charge that a port may raise, meaning that ports' would be unfairly discriminated against, particularly where non-port neighbours are able to offer such services without any form of regulation.  This concern should be very significantly reduced in the light of the revised drafting of Article 14 and the recital on confidential discounting;

·  the obligation under Article 17 to have an independent regulatory structure for handling complaints — the industry considers that this would interfere with the commercial freedom and business judgement of ports. The Government successfully secured the removal of the requirement for a new independent supervisory body, and the requirement in the text is now for "an effective mechanism … to handle complaints arising from the application" of the Regulation. This should ensure that complaints-handling could be compatible with the devolution settlement, and avoid the need to create any new regulatory body. The UK has long experience of playing such a role on port charges through the mechanisms under Section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964, which have operated successfully, and the Government would expect to apply similar proportionate arrangements to handle any complaints related to this Regulation;

·  small ports — although it has not been possible to limit the application of the Regulation to ports in the TEN-T core network, the extent of application to ports in the comprehensive network remained under discussion approaching the Transport Council, with a proposal that this should be limited to those handling more than 0.1% of EU cargo over a three-year period, which could exclude 19 UK ports from certain market access and transparency provisions; and

·  State Aid — although State Aid is within the remit of the Commission's Competition Directorate-General and is not directly the subject of this proposed Regulation, the Government has made clear that it wishes to see progress on clearer and more robust application of State Aid rules, which the financial transparency rules under Article 12 should complement.

The Government's own views on subsidiarity and the policy and financial implications and its consultations

1.22 The Minister says that the Government continues to believe that problems specific to individual countries are generally best addressed at national level, whilst accepting that the objective of fair competition for ports within the single market is a desirable objective and that the proposal may therefore add value to other Member States.

1.23 As for policy implications the Minister comments that:

·  the Government understands the aims of the Commission proposal;

·  there is real value in driving forward greater, customer aligned, port efficiency to deliver the right climate for investment and consequent developments to meet future capacity needs;

·  it has been clear from the outset, however, that the proposal presented some significant challenges to UK ports, not least in attempting to regulate in an area that already operates in a strongly competitive, market-led, customer-focused environment; and

·  the proposal could add unnecessary administration and financial burdens and may have a perverse effect of damaging a market that is already meeting the objectives of the Commission's proposal.

1.24 The Minister tells us that:

·  there has been no prospect of a sustainable block in Council that might ensure this proposal does not proceed any further;

·  concerns among Member States have been related to often diametrically opposed positions with a number, for example, arguing strongly that the proposed Regulation does not go far enough;

·  therefore, in negotiations, the Government, taking account of the UK industry concerns, has worked closely with the Commission, the Presidency and other Member States at both Ministerial and official level to seek sensible and workable solutions that can, as far as possible, ensure that the highly efficient, competitive and liberalised UK port sector is not adversely affected by measures intended to address failings elsewhere;

·  both the Italian Presidency and the Commission have recognised the unique situation of the UK port sector and the vigorous, market-led and highly liberalised approach that the UK has developed over the last twenty years;

·  furthermore, the Commission and the Presidency have indicated on several occasions their willingness to work with the Government to reduce, if not remove, those elements of the proposal that have the potential to cause such administrative and financial stress;

·  these discussions have led to significant improvements to the text in key areas, although these may still be dependent on further negotiations and agreements; and

·  these discussions were continuing, including a positive and constructive Ministerial discussion with the Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas on 7 October, in which the Commissioner reaffirmed his appreciation of the unique position of UK ports.

1.25 The Minister continues that:

·  the Government has maintained its view that there should be a route for demonstrably competitive market based ports sectors (together with their services) to be exempted from the additional control disciplines being sought by the Commission's proposal;

·  as a result of intensive UK engagement, the current text includes an exemption route from key parts of Chapter 2 (access to port services) using the existing Utilities Directive process for a competitive market exclusion;

·  competitive ports, like those in the UK, should be able to demonstrate they operate above this bar and so not be exposed to the processes in the Regulation; and

·  as long as this stays in the text, it is a considerable achievement — ensuring that the exemption route remains within the text would be a focus of the Government's negotiations at the Transport Council.

1.26 The Minister, noting that a Council general approach will not be the final development in negotiations and that consideration of the proposal is yet to be completed in the European Parliament, says that:

·  discussions will be necessary between the European Parliament and the Council before the Regulation is finally adopted; and

·  the Government will play an active part in this, and will continue to work with the Presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament to prevent the significant improvements that have already been achieved in Council consideration from being lost in future negotiations.

1.27 The Minister adds that the Government is very conscious that the proposal remains under scrutiny in both Houses, and has made it clear to both the Italian Presidency and the Commission that it does not intend to breach parliamentary scrutiny.

1.28 Turning to impact assessments and consultations the Minister reminds us that the Commission's own impact assessment indicated that by adopting its preferred policy option (regulated market access, price supervision of monopolies, confinement of in-house operators, port user committee, separation of accounts and autonomy in setting transparent infrastructure charges) there was a potential to save €1 billion (£854 million) annually in port costs, to lead to increased port activity and to create more than 2,000 jobs within the whole of the EU. He tells us that:

·  the Government does not, however, necessarily accept that these estimates were realistic, as they rested on extremely optimistic assumptions about the likelihood of savings of such an order being secured and an overly pessimistic view of the current commercial constraints on the ports sector overall;

·  it is continually seeking views in order to identify the potential costs and benefits;

·  it acknowledges that, despite the improvements to the text, the Regulation would introduce some further administrative burdens and restrictions on the industry which would not necessarily accord with the Government's better regulation principles; and

·  the regulatory impact of the present text would, nevertheless, be significantly reduced from that of the original Commission proposal.

1.29 The Minister continues that:

·  as part of the Government's Impact Analysis Checklist, on which we reported on 20 November 2013, a targeted consultation was carried out to seek initial views from industry on how the Commission's proposal would affect them;

·  the response from industry set out its deep concerns about the way the Commission proposal would introduce an added level of bureaucracy and regulation into a market sector that operated in a fully liberalised and competitive environment;

·  while the UK ports industry recognised the ambition of the Commission to address wasteful inefficiencies that had the effect of distorting fair competition in some of the Continental ports, it regarded the proposal as an inappropriate and unnecessary vehicle to achieve those aims;

·  since the Impact Analysis Checklist was provided to us, industry has been closely involved in regular discussions that have helped inform the Government's negotiating position by clarifying the likely impacts on the port sector;

·  in August a wider stakeholder meeting, involving representatives from a wider range of port operators, took place to seek a wider view on the proposal, as it stood at the time, following most recent working group negotiations and in consideration of the Italian Presidency's determination to reach a general approach at the October Transport Council;

·  the Government has kept the UK ports and shipping industry informed of developments and continues to seek their expertise and industry-wide knowledge;

·  considerable stakeholder engagement has taken place both at ministerial and official level — there have been over 14 working groups, stakeholder meetings and direct discussions with senior managers in the UK port sector as well as discussions at Ministerial level, including discussions with the UK Major Ports Group and British Ports Association, most recently on 6 October;

·  ministers and officials have also met with trade union representatives — they were, and remain, concerned at potential impacts on members' terms and conditions, but were reassured that exclusions and exemptions in the present text represent steps in assuaging such important concerns; and

·  in addition, ministerial meetings have taken place with Members with a particular interest in the proposal, which have provided a useful exchange of ideas and have been helpful in honing the Government's strategy.

The Minister's letter of 13 October 2014

1.30 The Minister writes now about the outcome of the Transport Council. He first thanks us for our account of 10 September of discussions with the Italian Transport Ministry in Rome. But he tells us that, despite assurances we received then and despite the Government's own representations to the Presidency, it did present a text to the 8 October Transport Council with a view to securing a general approach.

1.31 The Minister then reports that:

·  the Government was, however, able to secure its central negotiating aim, the competitive market exemption to protect ports from unnecessary burdens which could be imposed by the Regulation;

·  this was achieved despite the Commission's original preference for limiting the competition test to port services only, rather than to the ports sector as a whole;

·  the UK ports sector was also concerned about pilotage being within the scope of the Regulation; and

·  at the Council the Government was able to support Presidency compromise texts that ensure Member States would have the discretion to exclude pilotage from the market access chapter (subject to notification to the Commission) and that a number of smaller ports would be excluded from some of the requirements in the Regulation that would have been disproportionate for them.

1.32 The Minister comments that the general approach text agreed by the Council reflects this progress, saying that, in essence, the UK would be exempt from key elements of the Regulation and other parts would be implemented at the discretion of Parliament. He explains that the text now:

·  reduces the scope — dredging, as well as cargo-handling and passenger services, are effectively excluded from the market access chapter, thus reducing regulatory burdens on the UK port sector;

·  increases national discretion — for example to exclude pilotage from the access to services chapter and to determine complaints-handling arrangements, including where devolved;

·  provides for a competitive market exemption covering the most potentially burdensome parts of the Regulation — given the highly competitive nature of the UK ports sector the Government expects to make an early, and successful application for such an exemption;

·  simplifies the compliance requirements for the smallest TEN-T comprehensive network ports;

·  protects commercial discounting — free negotiations on confidential commercial discounts (for both ports and shipping lines, an essential feature of the effectiveness of this market) would be able to continue;

·  imposes less bureaucracy — much simplified rules for procuring port services and for consultation with port users and others; and

·  nevertheless still secures better financial transparency where continental EU ports receive public funding.

1.33 The Minister continues that:

·  in the run-up to the Council, officials constantly monitored the position of other Member States;

·  the Government was fully aware that the UK ports industry would have liked to see the Regulation halted altogether in the Council;

·  the Government's assessment continued, however, to indicate that there was no possibility of a blocking minority developing;

·  in the event, no Member State indicated an intention to vote against the proposal in the discussion by the Council;

·  Spain changed its previous position to support the general approach and Lithuania did not speak — although the post-Council voting record shows that it formally recorded a vote against; and

·  the Government lodged its abstention given the parliamentary scrutiny reserve.

1.34 The Minister explains further that:

·  officials were instructed to speak to a number of landlocked Member States prior to and in the margins of the Transport Council to ascertain whether they would be amenable to voting against the draft Regulation;

·  due to the unexpected speed at which the Council reached agreement on a general approach, officials were only able to speak with some of these countries; but

·  it remained entirely clear, especially after it became apparent that Spain would vote for the proposal, that there was no appetite among such Member States to either abstain or vote against the proposal and no blocking minority would be possible.

1.35 The Minister continues that:

·  overall, he believes that the outcome the Government has achieved marks considerable success in demonstrating that the UK can and will protect its competitive industries from unnecessary interference;

·  work will now move to the European Parliament, but it is unlikely to start its deliberations in earnest until early 2015;

·  the European Parliament could block the Regulation and he will be in discussion with MEPs during their consideration of this matter;

·  he will be watching the process carefully and would welcome any assistance we can provide in ensuring that MEPs are fully aware of the already highly competitive nature of the UK's port sector; and

·  he wishes to extend his personal thanks to us for our support in contributing to a successful outcome for the whole UK ports sector — the UK ended in a far better place than predicted by many.

1.36 Finally, the Minister tells us that, following a request by the Government and as noted in his Explanatory Memorandum of 7 October, the Limité marking has been lifted on three earlier Presidency texts of the draft Regulation, two of which he sent us on 5 and 10 September.[4] He also notes that the final Presidency compromise text was published without a Limité marking and formed the basis of his Explanatory Memorandum.

The Minister's other letters

1.37 With letters of 5, 10 and 26 September the Minister sent us four Limité documents, which were successive iterations of the Presidency text for working group discussion. But, as we noted on 10 September, we cannot report on the content of Limité documents. This, of course, greatly inhibits full scrutiny. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the Minister made an effort to have Limité markings lifted, with, as he notes in his letter of 13 October, some, albeit late, success.

The views of the ports industry and Unite

1.38 As the Minister notes in his Explanatory Memorandum both the ports industry and Unite are opposed to this draft legislation. Following the 8 October Transport Council the UK Major Ports Group and the British Ports Association issued the annexed statement maintaining their opposition to the proposal and Unite have confirmed to us that it also remains opposed to the proposal.

Previous Committee Reports

(a) Sixth Report HC 83-vi (2013-14), chapter 2 (19 June 2013), Twenty-third Report HC 83-xxi (2013-14), chapter 9 (20 November 2013), Fifth Report HC 219-v (2014-15), chapter 2 (2 July 2014), Tenth Report HC 219-x (2014-15), chapter 1 (3 September 2014) and Twelfth Report, HC 219-xii (2014-15), chapter 2 (10 September 2014).

(b) None.

1   (22185) 6375/01 (22187) 6390/01 (23326) 6593/02: see Seventh Report HC 152-vii (2001-02), chapter 7 (21 November 2001), Twenty-eighth HC 152-xxviii (2001-02), chapter 2 (8 May 2002) and Thirty-second Report HC 152-xxxii (2001-2), chapter 14 (12 June 2002).  Back

2   (26039) 13681/04: see First Report HC 38-i (2004-05), chapter 10 (1 December 2004), Ninth Report HC 34-ix (2005-06), chapter 4 (9 November 2005) and Twentieth Report HC 34-xx (2005-06), chapter 6 (1 March 2006). Back

3   See Gen Co Debs, 3 September 2014, cols. 3-16. Back

4   The public form of these documents can be seen at http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12026-2014-INIT/en/pdf, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12705-2014-INIT/en/pdf andhttp://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13238-2014-INIT/en/pdf.  Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 21 October 2014