1 Financial services, taxation and financial
assistance to Member States
Committee's assessment
| (a), (c)-(d), (h), (j)-(n), (q) Legally and politically important
(b), (e)-(g), (i), (o)-(p), (r) Politically important
|
Committee's decision | (b) For debate in European Committee B, decision reported 7 January 2015
(a) (c)-(d), (h)-(i), (l)-(r) Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested
(j) Not cleared from scrutiny but scrutiny waiver granted; further information requested; decision reported 4 February 2015
(e)-(g) Cleared from scrutiny
(k) Cleared from scrutiny, decision reported 19 November 2014
|
Document details | (a) Draft Directive about taxation of energy products and electricity
(b) Draft Regulation concerning the VAT rules for vouchers
(c) Draft Regulation about financial assistance for non-eurozone Member States
(d) Draft Directive about the fight against fraud using criminal law
(e) Commission Communication about tax fraud and evasion
(f) Commission Recommendation on aggressive tax planning
(g) Commission Recommendation about third country standards of good governance in tax matters
(h) European Central Bank Opinion on document (c)
(i) Draft Regulation about money market funds
(j) Draft Regulation about benchmarks used in the financial services sector
(k) Draft Regulation to make securities financing transactions more transparent
(l) Draft Regulation to improve the resilience of credit institutions
(m) Commission impact assessment for documents (k) and (l)
(n) Draft Directive about occupational retirement provision
(o) Draft Regulation about a "Controller of procedural guarantees" for those under investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office
(p) European Central Bank Opinion on document (i)
(q) European Central Bank Opinion on document (l)
(r) European Court of Auditors Opinion on document (o)
|
Legal base | (a)-(b) Article 113 TFEU, consultation, unanimity
(c) Article 352 TFEU; consent; unanimity
(d) Article 83(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
(e)-(h), (m), (p)-(r)
(i)-(l) Article 114 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
(n) Articles 53, 62 and 114(1) TFEU; co-decision;
QMV
(o) Article 325 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
Department
Document numbers
| HM Treasury
(a) (32715), 9270/11 + ADDs 1-3, COM(11) 169
(b) (33886), 9926/12 + ADDs 1-2, COM(12) 206
(c) (34077), 12201/12, COM(12) 336
(d) (34091), 12683/12 + ADDs 1-4, COM(12) 363
(e) (34548), 17637/12 + ADDS 1-16, COM(12) 722
(f) (34554), 17617/12,
(g) (34555), 17669/12,
(h) (34657), 5477/13,
(i) (35298), 13449/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 615
(j) (35328), 13985/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 641
(k) (35780), 6020/14 + ADD 1, COM(14) 40
(l) (35781), 6022/14 + ADDs 1-4, COM(14) 43
(m) (35829), 6860/14 + ADDs 1-3, SWD(14) 30
(n) (35944), 8633/14 + ADDs 1-5, COM(14) 167
(o) (36131), 10943/14 + ADD 1, COM(14) 340
(p) (36321), 12713/14,
(q) (36523), 15924/14,
(r) (36561), 16042/14,
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
1.1 At present we have a number of documents concerned with EU
economic and financial matters, including financial services,
taxation and financial assistance to Member States, which are
under scrutiny, pending either receipt of further information
from the Government or debates we have recommended.
1.2 The Government gives us now, in anticipation
of dissolution, an update on the position in relation to many
of these documents. It also informs about one document already
cleared from scrutiny.
1.3 We are grateful to the Government for the
information it now gives us.
1.4 However, in relation to the Commission Communication
about tax fraud and evasion and the two accompanying Recommendations,
it is true that the Government has drawn our attention to the
connection of the Communication with the draft Directive on exchange
of tax information and the mandate for negotiations with Norway
(but not with the draft Parent Subsidiary Directive). But, it
would have been helpful if examples such as these had been drawn
to our attention in a specific response on the Communication,
particularly informing us that the Government was not adopting
the Recommendations. This would have allowed us to clear these
documents from scrutiny long ago, which we now do.
1.5 As for the other documents we maintain the
decisions we have already made in relation to them.
Full details of
the documents: (a) Draft
Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community
framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity:
(32715), 9270/11 + ADDs 1-3, COM(11) 169; (b) Draft Council Directive
amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added
tax, as regards the treatment of vouchers: (33886), 9926/12 +
ADDs 1-2, COM(12) 206; (c) Draft Regulation establishing a facility
for providing financial assistance for Member States whose currency
is not the euro: (34077), 12201/12, COM(12) 336; (d) Draft Directive
on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests
by means of criminal law: (34091), 12683/12 + ADDs 1-4, COM(12)
363; (e) Commission Communication: An Action
Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion:
(34548), 17637/12 + ADDS
1-16, COM(12) 722; (f) Commission Recommendation
of 6.12.2012 on aggressive tax planning: (34554),
17617/12, ; (g) Commission Recommendation
of 6.12.2012 regarding measures intended to encourage third countries
to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters:
(34555), 17669/12, ; (h) ECB
Opinion on a draft Council Regulation establishing a facility
for providing financial assistance for Member States whose currency
is not the euro (CON/2013/2): (34657), 5477/13,
; (i) Draft Regulation
on Money Market Funds: (35298),
13449/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 615; (j) Draft Regulation on indices
used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts:
(35328), 13985/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 641; (k) Draft Regulation
on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions:
(35780), 6020/14 + ADD 1, COM(14) 40; (l) Draft Regulation on
structural measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions:
(35781), 6022/14 + ADDs 1-4, COM(14) 43; (m) Commission Staff
Working Document: Impact Assessment accompanying the draft Regulation
on structural measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions
and the draft Regulation on reporting and transparency of securities
financing transactions: (35829), 6860/14 + ADDs 1-3, SWD(14) 30;
(n) Draft Directive on the activities and supervision of institutions
for occupational retirement provision (recast): (35944), 8633/14
+ ADDs 1-5, COM(14) 167; (o) Draft Regulation amending Regulation
(EU, Euratom) No. 883/2013 as regards the establishment of a controller
of procedural guarantees: (36131), 10943/14 + ADD 1, COM(14) 340;
(p) European Central Bank Opinion of 22.052014 on a draft Regulation
on money market funds: (36321), 12713/14, ; (q) European
Central Bank Opinion of 19.11.2014 on a draft Regulation on structural
measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions: (36523),
15924/14, ; (r) European Court of Auditors' Opinion No.
6/2014 concerning a draft Regulation amending Regulation (EU,
Euratom) No. 883/2013 as regards the establishment of a controller
of procedural guarantees: (36561), 16042/14, .
Background
1.6 We consider a steady stream of documents concerned
with EU economic and financial matters, including financial services,
taxation and financial assistance to Member States. This chapter
concerns a number of these documents which are under scrutiny,
pending either receipt of further information from the Government
or debates we have recommended. It also covers information on
one document already cleared from scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 10 March 2015
1.7 The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David
Gauke) writes now, in anticipation of dissolution, to update us
on the position in relation to these documents, as in the following
paragraphs.
Draft Directive about taxation of energy products
and electricity, document (a)
1.8 Directive 2003/96/EC, the Energy Taxation Directive,
which came into effect in January 2004, provides an EU framework
for taxation of energy products and electricity. In April 2011
the Commission presented this draft Directive to revise the Energy
Taxation Directive. We have shared the Government's concerns about
aspects of the proposal and have noted difficult negotiations
about its content. The Minister reminds us now that the Commission
has indicated, in its 2015 Work Programme, that it intends to
withdraw the proposal.
Draft Regulation concerning the VAT rules for
vouchers, document (b)
1.9 The 2006 Principal VAT Directive consolidated
the legislation governing value added taxation in the EU. In order
to ensure smooth operation of the single market and equal treatment
for all businesses trading across the EU, the Directive lays down
rules to ensure a consistent approach to the questions about how
much VAT to charge, when it should be declared and to which tax
jurisdiction the tax should be paid. However, vouchers can present
difficulties in relation to all these questions. In May 2012,
after a lengthy period of consultations, the Commission issued
this draft Directive to amend the Principal VAT Directive, in
order to clarify and harmonise the rules on the VAT treatment
of vouchers.
1.10 In January we recommended this proposal for
debate in European Committee B, a debate which is yet to take
place. The Minister tells us now that:
· there
have been no further Council working group meetings since he last
updated us, on 18 December 2015; but
· the
possibility remains that this file will be put to the ECOFIN Council
in the coming months, although this is looking doubtful at this
stage.
Draft Regulation about financial assistance for
non-eurozone Member States and an European Central Bank (ECB)
Opinion on the proposal, documents (c) and (h)
1.11 Council Regulation (EC) 332/2002 established
a medium term financial assistance facility for non-eurozone Member
States, known as the EU balance of payments facility. In
June 2012 the Commission presented this draft Regulation seeking
to develop the facility. In its Opinion the ECB showed itself
broadly supportive of the draft Regulation. Previously we have
been told of delays in Council consideration of the proposal and
have noted that if adopted in would engender the need for a UK
Act of Parliament.
1.12 The Minister tells us that:
· since
the ECOFIN Council in December 2013, there have been no further
discussions on the reform of the EU balance of payments facility;
and
· whether
negotiations recommence is a matter for upcoming Presidencies,
and there is currently no indication that this might be the case.
Draft Directive about the fight against fraud
using criminal law, document (d)
1.13 EU institutions and Member States share responsibility
for countering fraud affecting the financial interests of the
EU. The proposed Directive aims to enforce these responsibilities
by harmonising fraud related criminal offences and sanctions.
Issues with the proposal have included questions as to the possibility
of Justice and Home Affairs opt-in by the UK and encroachment
on Member State competence on tax matters.
1.14 The Minister tells us that:
· there
have been no substantive developments on the draft Directive since,
in February, he last updated us;
· trilogues
with the European Parliament continue, and there has been no substantive
agreement as yet on a compromise text;
· the
Government regularly attends working group meetings following
trilogues to shape the Presidency's negotiating position;
· agreement
between the Council and the European Parliament does not seem
imminent; and
· the
likely timeframe for adoption will be clearer once the Latvian
Presidency has concluded at the end of June.
Commission Communication about tax fraud and evasion
and two Commission Recommendations, on aggressive tax planning
and about third country standards of good governance in tax matters,
documents (e)-(g)
1.15 Although taxation is very largely a Member State
competence (the major exception being common rules on VAT), there
is some provision, legislative and administrative, for cooperation
in tackling tax fraud and evasion. In December 2012, in this Communication,
the Commission presented an Action Plan to strengthen the fight
against tax fraud and tax evasion. The Communication was accompanied
by two Commission Recommendations. The first, on aggressive tax
planning included measures on double non-taxation, such as providing
a tax exemption on income from third countries in double taxation
conventions and a common general anti-abuse rule. The second,
regarding measures intended to encourage third countries to apply
minimum standards of good governance in tax matters, proposed
minimum standards of good governance in tax matters. It also suggested
using criteria to identify third countries that are non-compliant
in respect of standards.
1.16 When we last considered these documents, in
June 2013, we noted that we still awaited information about the
outcome of the examination of the Commission's proposals by the
Council's technical experts. So the documents remained under scrutiny.
The Minister tells us now that:
· he
has informed us about the outcome of the examination as the Commission's
plans for specific proposals have become clearer, for example,
on the amendments to the Parent Subsidiary Directive, the amended
Directive for Administrative Cooperation (concerning exchange
of tax information) and the Commission's proposed mandate for
negotiating a VAT Administrative Cooperation Agreement with Norway;
· looking
forward, the Commission will publish in June a report on Member
States' progress on implementing the two Recommendations;
· the
Government's objective throughout to tackle tax fraud and evasion
internationally has been through automatic exchange of tax information,
on which it has rapidly secured agreement to implement in the
EU through the Directive on Administrative Cooperation;
· it has
previously said it will not adopt the Recommendations as they
stand; and
· the
Government continues to do that on the basis that the it believes
the UK has met the objectives in the two Recommendations, but
does not agree with the specific methods and actions that the
Commission proposed.
Draft Regulation about money market funds and
an ECB Opinion on the proposal, documents (i) and (p)
1.17 Money market funds (MMFs) are open-ended funds
that invest in short-term debt securities such as treasury bills
and commercial paper. They take one of two forms constant
net asset value (CNAV) MMFs, which seek to maintain a fixed value
of units in the fund so that the redemption values of investors'
holdings do not change, and variable net asset value (VNAV) MMFs,
which have a floating unit value that fluctuates with changes
in the value of the underlying assets. This draft Regulation would
introduce rules specific to MMFs. It would deal with investment
policies, risk management, valuation rules, CNAV MMFs and external
support. The ECB has published this Opinion on the Draft Regulation,
seeking to influence negotiation of the text.
1.18 When in February we last considered the proposal
we looked forward to hearing about further consideration of the
proposal, whether under the Latvian Presidency or subsequently,
and for the Government's assessment of any text that might be
nearing agreement by the Council. However we reminded the Government
that we wished to hear also how the ECB Opinion was playing into
the negotiation. Meanwhile the documents remained under scrutiny.
1.19 The Minister tells us now that:
· negotiations
on the draft Regulation have not progressed under the Latvian
Presidency;
· however,
the European Parliament is due to vote in Plenary on the text
proposed by the ECON Committee in April, which may put pressure
on the Latvian Presidency to restart discussions;
· if discussions
do resume, it is likely that the Presidency will seek views on
the ECON Committee's proposed compromise, which deletes the Commission's
proposed capital buffer for CNAV MMFs and replaces it with a regime
that seeks to preserve some of the utility of CNAV MMFs while
dealing with financial stability risks;
· the
ECON Committee's proposals are consistent with the ECB Opinion,
for example on clarifying when sponsor support can be given, the
impact on securities markets and market concentration and in refining
the internal ratings system, which the Government welcomes;
· views
in the Council on the appropriate treatment of CNAV MMFs have
been polarised;
· it is
not yet clear whether Member States will support a compromise
which builds on the ECON Committee's proposals; and
· if progress
is made in this direction, however, there is a chance that discussions
could progress quickly, especially since the European Parliament
is likely to be in a position to begin trilogue discussion by
April.
Draft Regulation about benchmarks used in the
financial services sector, document (j)
1.20 This draft Regulation concerns indices used
as benchmarks in financial instruments, financial contracts or
to measure the performance of investment funds. It seeks to improve
governance of the benchmark process, prevent conflict of interests
of benchmark administrators and contributors, enhance the quality
and accuracy of input data and methodologies used by administrators
and ensure adequate protection for consumers and investors using
benchmarks. On the basis of our recommendation the House of Commons
issued a Reasoned Opinion on this proposal (in November 2013),
challenging the supposed benefits of EU level action.
1.21 In February the Government told us of a new
compromise text tabled by the Latvian Presidency, which contained
significant improvements over the previous version and which it
wished to support in a General Approach. We welcomed the improvements:
the focus on a limited number of "critical benchmarks"
and the reduced role for the European Securities and Markets Authority
in favour of national supervisory authorities. Although we found
it premature to clear the document from scrutiny we granted a
scrutiny waiver to enable the Government to support a General
Approach in the Council in line with the improvements in the compromise
text.
1.22 The Minister tells us now that:
· the
Government expects trilogues to begin in April;
· as with
Council negotiations, the major issues are likely to be the scope
of the proposal, the treatment of third-country benchmarks and
the definition and treatment of critical benchmarks; and
· a political
agreement may be reached by June.
Draft Regulation to make securities financing
transactions more transparent and the Commission's impact assessment,
documents (k) and (m)
1.23 In January 2014 the Commission presented this
draft Regulation aimed at increasing transparency of certain financial
transactions outside the regulated banking sector. The purpose
was is to prevent banks from attempting to circumvent the rules
contained within a draft Regulation, document (l), on improving
the resilience of EU credit institutions by shifting parts of
their activities to the less-regulated shadow banking sector.
In November 2014 the Government reported to us helpful developments
on the issues and told us that the Presidency was expected to
seek agreement on a General Approach shortly. On the basis of
those improvements we cleared the document from scrutiny. (However,
we kept the Commission's impact assessment under scrutiny because
it also related to the draft Regulation on EU credit institutions,
which had not yet been cleared).
1.24 The Minister tells us now that:
· a
General Approach was reached by the Council shortly after we cleared
it;
· the
European Parliament's consideration of the proposal is ongoing;
· there
are limited points of divergence in the ECON Committee, and discussions
so far have been broadly in line with the final Council agreement
that the Government supported; and
· it is
currently expected that trilogues will commence in April and it
may be possible for political agreement to be achieved under the
Latvian Presidency.
Draft Regulation on measures improving the resilience
of EU credit institutions, the Commission's impact assessment
and an ECB Opinion on the proposal, documents (l), (m) and (q)
1.25 With the draft Regulation the Commission proposed
structural measures to improve the resilience of EU credit institutions,
with two main elements:
· a
ban on proprietary trading by certain categories of credit institution;
and
· a requirement
for competent authorities to review credit institutions falling
into certain categories and to determine whether to require them
to separate their deposit taking activities from their trading
activities.
1.26 When we last considered this proposal we reminded
the Government that we do not accept its view that an opt-in choice
exists irrespective of whether the Commission has chosen a JHA
legal base for a proposal if it believed in this case
that there was a JHA issue it needed to seek a JHA legal base.
On the substance of the draft Regulation we said that we would
await news of how Council negotiations were developing and meanwhile
the documents remained under scrutiny. As for the ECB Opinion,
in December 2014 we noted the Government's reservations and ask
it to inform us about how the Opinion was playing into Council
negotiation of the draft Regulation, as it updated us on that
negotiation.
1.27 The Minister tells us now that:
· the
Latvian Presidency has held Council working groups on 19 January
and 13 February, at which it presented and elaborated on a concept
paper on the separation process;
· Member
States discussed the principles that should be incorporated into
such a process, including predictability, following a risk-based
approach to assessment and applicability and enforceability;
· the
Commission has also presented analytical work on how certain metrics
on assets and trading activities could be used to categorise banks
in terms of their potential systemic risk;
· a further
working group was scheduled for 13 March;
· the
Presidency has indicated that it is aiming to reach a General
Approach by the ECOFIN Council in May, which would form the basis
for trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament; and
· on the
basis of current negotiations, the Government's assessment is,
however, that reaching a broad compromise in the Council currently
looks unlikely.
1.28 On the ECB Opinion the Minister says that:
· the
Bank's criticism of the Commission's proposed derogation (principally
aimed at accommodating the UK in its application of the Banking
Reform Act) in Article 21 is primarily based on concerns about
the effectiveness of the Single Supervisory Mechanism and its
own ability to apply legislation in a consistent manner;
· the
ECB is also concerned about precedent;
· however,
the ECB's concerns have been tempered in the wider discussions
by the clear willingness of the majority of Member States to seek
an accommodation for the UK, as set out in the Italian Presidency's
progress report on the dossier;
· several
ECON Committee MEPs across political groups also recognise that
the regime the UK has established is clear and robust;
· how
that accommodation can best be framed in the Regulation is the
subject of many ongoing discussions the Government is having with
the Commission, the Presidency and other Member States, and it
remains committed to achieving a satisfactory outcome.
1.29 The Minister also tells us that:
· the
ECON Committee rapporteur for this matter, Gunnar H½kmark,
published his report on the Commission proposal on 6 January with
an amendment deadline set for 30 January;
· over
800 amendments were submitted;
· the
report diverges from the original proposal by making separation
optional (supervisors could instead enhance supervision or apply
increased capital requirements if they wished), but it also reformulates
the proposed derogation into an exemption aimed at achieving the
same effect;
· the
ECON Committee had an exchange of views on the proposal on 21
January and then on 23 February; and
· MEPs
will now consider and discuss the raft of amendments with a view
to voting on them in late March.
1.30 The Minister concludes that given the divisions
in both the Council and the European Parliament on some of the
fundamental elements of the Commission proposal, such as the separation
process, it currently looks unlikely that there will be a Council
General Approach or trilogues by May, although the Government
expects the Latvian Presidency to continue to push for this.
Draft Directive about occupational retirement
provision, document (n)
1.31 Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision,
or IORPs, more commonly known as occupational pension funds, are
collective schemes which manage financial assets on behalf of
employers in order to provide retirement benefits for their employees.
The 2003 IORP Directive sets out a minimum harmonisation framework
for occupational pension schemes and their supervision, including
rules which oblige occupational pension funds to invest their
assets prudently, in the best interest of members and beneficiaries.
This draft Directive to recast (revise) the IORP Directive is
confined to new rules on the governance of schemes and the information
that schemes should provide to their beneficiaries.
1.32 Both we and the Government have been concerned
about the lack of justification for the proposal, subsidiarity
issues and the practical consequences of the measure. In December
2014 the Presidency presented an extensively amended version of
the draft Directive for adoption as a General Approach and the
UK was the only Member State not to support the compromise. We
looked forward to hearing about the outcome of the Government's
discussions with stakeholders about the Presidency compromise
text adopted as the Council's General Approach. Meanwhile the
document remained under scrutiny. We also said that we presumed
that, whilst it would take any opportunity to improve the text,
against the possibility that the draft Directive might actually
be enacted, the Government would strive to reinforce doubts in
the European Parliament about any need at all for this proposal.
1.33 The Minister tells us now that:
· the
European Parliament's ECON and Employment and Social Affairs Committees
are expected to have their first exchange of views in March;
· consideration
of first draft reports are expected in July, with final consideration
by the committees expected in October and possible first reading
votes in November or December; and
· if this
timetable works out, the Government expects trilogue negotiations
to begin in December or January 2016.
Draft Regulation about a "Controller of procedural
guarantees" for those under investigation by the European
Anti-Fraud Office and a European Court of Auditors Opinion on
the draft Regulation, documents (o) and (r)
1.34 The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was established
to enhance the effectiveness of action to combat fraud and other
illegal activities detrimental to the EU's interests. With this
draft Regulation the Commission proposes amendments to the Regulation
which governs OLAF's management of its investigations, to further
strengthen the procedural guarantees set out in that Regulation.
To achieve this, the Commission proposes introduction of a Controller
of Procedural Guarantees, charged with:
· reviewing
complaints lodged by those under investigation about violation
of their procedural guarantees; and
· authorising
OLAF to conduct certain investigative measures in relation to
members of EU institutions.
1.35 In July 2014 we heard that the Government regards
a Controller of Procedural Guarantees, a concept which has been
rejected previously by the Council, as unnecessary. We hoped that
negotiation of this premature proposal would be postponed until
the need for some change, if any, to the OLAF Regulation became
clearer. In January we considered this European Court of Auditors
Opinion on the draft Regulation, which supports the proposal for
a Controller of Procedural Guarantees and makes several suggestions
for enhancing the text. We shared the Government's continued opposition
to the proposal and noted that its concern was shared by the majority
of other Member States. As for the European Court of Auditors
Opinion we asked the Government to tell us how it was playing
into Council consideration of the draft, if and when resumed.
Meanwhile both the documents remained under scrutiny.
1.36 The Minister tells us now that there has not
been Council consideration of the proposal since September 2014,
but the Government will continue to work with other Member States
in Council to prevent the Commission from pursuing this unhelpful
proposal.
Previous Committee Reports
Thirty-fifth Report HC 428-xxxi (2010-12), chapter
6 (29 June 2011), Fifty-fourth Report 428-xlix (2010-12), chapter
8 (1 February 2012), Sixty-third Report HC 428-lvii (2010-12),
chapter 5 (18 April 2012), Eleventh Report HC 86-xi (2012-13),
chapter 14 and chapter 15 (5 September 2012), Twelfth Report,
HC 86-xii (2012-13) chapter 10 (12 September 2012), Sixteenth
Report HC 86-xvi (2012-13), chapter 11 (24 October 2012), Twenty-seventh
Report HC 86-xxvii (2012-13), chapter 3 (16 January 2013), Thirty-first
Report HC 86-xxxi (2012-13), chapter 5 (6 February 2013), Thirty-fifth
Report HC 86-xxxv (2012-13), chapter 13 (13 March 2013), Thirty-ninth
Report HC 86-xxxviii (2012-13), chapter 7 (17 April 2013), Fifth
Report HC 83-v (2013-14) chapter 8 (12 June 2013), Thirteenth
Report HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 18 (4 September 2013), Eighteenth
Report HC 83-xvii (2013-14), chapter 5 (16 October 2013), Nineteenth
Report HC 83-xviii (2013-14), chapter 12 (23 October 2013), Twentieth
Report HC 83-xix (2013-14), chapter 4 (30 October 2013), Twenty-second
Report HC 83-xx (2013-14), chapter 13 (6 November 2013), Twenty-third
Report HC 83-xxi (2013-14), chapter 5 (20 November 2013), Thirty-eighth
Report HC 83-xxxv (2013-14), chapter 5 and chapter 6 (5 March
2014), Thirty-ninth Report HC 83-xxxvi (2013-14), chapter 10 (12
March 2014), Forty-first Report HC 83-xxxviii (2013-14), chapter
7 (19 March 2014), Forty-seventh Report HC 83-xlii (2013-14),
chapter 12 (30 April 2014), Fiftieth Report HC 83-xlv (2013-14),
chapter 6 (14 May 2014), First Report HC 219-i (2014-15), chapter
13 (4 June 2014), Second Report HC 219-ii (2014-15), chapter 5
(11 June 2014), Sixth Report HC 219-vi (2014-15), chapter 3 (9
July 2014), Eighth Report HC 219-viii (2014-15), chapter 8 (16
July 2014), Ninth Report HC 219-ix (2014-15), chapter 14 (3 September
2014), Thirteenth Report HC 219-xiii (2014-15), chapter 20 (15
October 2014), Fifteenth Report HC 219-xv (2014-15), chapter 8
and chapter 9 (22 October 2014), Eighteenth Report HC 219-xvii
(2014-15), chapter 2 (5 November 2014), Twentieth Report HC 219-xix
(2014-15), chapter 5 (19 November 2014), Twenty-second Report
HC 219-xxi, (2014-15), chapter 8 (26 November 2014), Twenty-fifth
Report HC 219-xxiv (2014-15), chapter 7 (10 December 2014), Twenty-seventh
Report HC 219-xxvi (2014-15), chapter 6 (17 December 2014), Twenty-eighth
Report HC 219-xxvii (2014-15), chapter 2, chapter 7, chapter 8
and chapter 9 (7 January 2015) and Thirty-second Report HC 219-xxxi
(2014-15), chapter 10, chapter 11 and chapter 12 (4 February 2015).
|