6Strategic Agreements with Australia and New Zealand
|
Committee’s assessment |
Legally important |
|
Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested |
|
|
Document details |
(a) Joint Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States of the one part, and Australia, of the other part; (b) Joint Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part |
|
Legal base |
Article 37 TEU and Articles 207, 212(1), 218(6)(a) and the second subparagraph of 218(8) TFEU (both); unanimity; EP consent |
|
Department |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office |
|
Document Numbers |
(a) (38325), 14996/16, JOIN(2016) 51; (b) (38326), 14997/16, JOIN(2016) 54 |
Summary and Committee’s conclusions
6.1These proposals would enable the EU to conclude (ratify) high level agreements with Australia and New Zealand designed to strengthen cooperation across a wide spectrum of policy fields including human rights, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against terrorism; cooperation on economic and trade matters, health, the environment, climate change, energy, education, culture, labour, disaster management, fisheries and maritime affairs, transport, legal cooperation, combatting money laundering and terrorist financing, organised crime and corruption. These are precursors to trade agreements.
6.2The Committee has already considered proposals enabling the EU to sign and provisionally apply these agreements. It raised no policy issue but drew the attention of the House to these proposals as:
“another example of the Government glossing over the issue of competence, and in particular whether it is the EU or the Member States exercising shared competence. The Government takes this approach to the extent of refusing even to disclose the UK’s own view of competence. This against a background where there is clear evidence from the Singapore and Canada agreements that the Commission is actively seeking to limit Member State involvement in international agreements.”
Since which time the need for transparency has been confirmed by the Secretary of State for International Trade33 and supported by the Advocate General of the Court of Justice.34
6.3The Committee also considered the then Minister’s agreement to these earlier proposals was an unjustified override of scrutiny.
6.4The Explanatory Memoranda each indicate that these agreements are precursors for future trade agreements with the EU. We ask the Minister (Sir Alan Duncan) whether he considers that they will help or hinder future trade agreements between the UK and Australia and New Zealand and to explain his opinion. We also ask whether there has been any progress in scoping such agreements.
6.5The Government consistently assert that its policy is that, normally, the Member States should exercise shared competence35 to enter into international agreements. We agree with this approach and consider that it should be implemented by transparency as to the extent to which the EU is exercising competence. We therefore ask what steps the Minister intends to take, either by seeking amendment to the legal text or by a minute statement, to clarify that the EU is only exercising competence to conclude these agreements to the extent that it has exclusive competence.
Full details of the documents
(a) Joint Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States of the one part, and Australia, of the other part: (38325), 14996/16, JOIN(2016) 51; (b) Joint Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part: (38326), 14997/16, JOIN(2016) 54.
The Explanatory Memoranda of 15 December 2016
6.6The Minister has provided separate Explanatory Memoranda for each agreement in substantively similar terms. The only significant difference is that New Zealand and the EU issued a statement with the signature of the Agreement indicating that future focus would be on the completion of the preparation processes that should lead to the launching of the negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement.
6.7Each state is considered to be a “likeminded” partner of the UK in foreign and security policy.
6.8The only other policy implication provided is the familiar mantra that until the UK exit negotiations are concluded the UK remains a Member of the EU and the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.
Previous Committee Reports
None but see, in respect of the signing and provisional application of these Agreements; Fourteenth Report HC 71-xii (2016–17), chapter 7, (19 October 2016) and Third Report HC 71-ii (2016–17), chapter 7 and chapter 8, (25 May 2016).
33 Evidence to the European scrutiny committee of 26 October 2016, Q 45.
34 In her opinion in case 2/15 on the Singapore Free Trade Agreement,
35 Shared competence can be exercised by either the EU or the Member States, the choice is political.
23 January 2017