Documents considered by the Committee on 18 March 2015 - European Scrutiny Contents


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).


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 27 March 2015