COMITOLOGY (9087/04)
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The proposal is currently held under scrutiny
in Sub-Committee E (Law and Institutions). As you may know the
proposal was put on the backburner on the conclusion of the Constitutional
Treaty but the rejection of that Treaty by the French and the
Dutch caused the matter to be put back on to the order of business
and during the UK Presidency the Government took the opportunity
to reignite discussion of the Commission's proposal.
Your predecessor wrote to the Committee on 21
November 2005[139]
advising that a "Friends of the Presidency" Group had
been established and that discussions were being taken forward
in that context. I replied on 8 December 2005 expressing the interest
of the Committee in hearing the outcome of the work of that group.
We note that in its recent paper, "Institutional
improvement based on the framework provided by existing Treaties",
the French Government have taken the view that the conclusion
of the review of Decision 1999/468 would help to improve the position
of the European Parliament by providing it powers of scrutiny
over implementing measures taken on the basis of acts adopted
under the co-decision procedure. We also understand that comitology
may be discussed at next month's European Council.
We would therefore be grateful if you could
provide the Committee with a note setting out the current position
in the negotiation including a statement of the outcome of the
work of the Friends of the Presidency Group and explaining how
it is proposed to take forward the initiative of the French Government.
18 May 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 18 May. I am writing
to update you on the negotiations to reform Comitology Procedures
and to request that your Committee release this proposal from
scrutiny in light of the latest developments. I apologise for
not writing sooner.
As you know, the UK Presidency set up a Friends
of the Presidency working group last September to discuss reform
of comitology procedures. The working group took as its starting
point the Commission's proposal of 2002, revised in 2004, to amend
the 1999 Comitology Decision. Our main aim was to reach a reform
that would give the European Parliament more of a say in implementing
co-decided legislation.
The Austrian Presidency has taken forward negotiations,
assembled a compromise text and discussed it with MEPs. In summary,
the main points of the new "regulatory with scrutiny"
procedure are as follows:
— It shall apply when the implementing
measures are amending non-essential elements of the basic instrument.
— The scrutiny procedure differs depending
on whether the Committee has approved these measures.
— If it has, the draft measures go
to the Council and the Parliament and either institution can oppose
them on certain grounds within three months.
— If the draft measures are not approved,
the measures are sent to the Council and Parliament at the same
time but the Council must first decide whether it has any objection
to them within two months. If it has no objection, the Parliament
has four months from receipt to oppose the measures on certain
grounds.
— There is provision for the time limits
to be extended by one month or to be shortened.
— The Council and Parliament can make
provision for implementing measures to have provisional application
on grounds of urgency.
I believe this text meets the UK's principal
objectives for comitology reform, namely:
(a) There is no change to the management
procedure. The Member States agreed early in the negotiation
to a limited reform dealing with quasi-legislative measures which
are to be found in the current regulatory procedure.
(b) To prevent the Commission going ahead
with a proposal over the objections of the Council or the European
Parliament. Under the Presidency proposal, the Commission
will need to submit an amended draft or a legislative proposal
if either the Council or Parliament objects to its draft. It is
possible, however, for the Council and Parliament to provide for
application of an urgency procedure where the time limits for
scrutiny cannot be met. This would allow the Commission to give
the measure provisional application and also to maintain it in
force after objection by either the Council of Parliament until
replaced by a definitive instrument. The safeguards on this latter
power are that the Committee must have approved the draft and
keeping the measure in force has to be justified on health protection,
safety or environmental grounds.
(c) To allow the European Parliament to
be able to object to measures on the grounds of their substance
and not just on the grounds that proposals may be "ultra
vires". The Presidency proposal provides that the Parliament
and Council can oppose draft implementing measures on the grounds
that the measures exceed the implementing powers, or are not compatible
with the aim or content of the basic instrument or do not respect
proportionality or subsidiarity. We understand from the Presidency
that the Parliament is content with this which is our primary
objective.
In addition, the amended Decision provides for
the European Parliament to be informed by the Commission of committee
proceedings on a regular basis following arrangements which ensure
that the transmission system is transparent. The Presidency has
also negotiated a minutes statement to be made jointly by the
Council, Parliament and Commission. The current draft indicates
that implementing powers will normally be conferred on the Commission
without time limit and so sunset clauses should no longer be routinely
included in Lamfalussy measures (which are related to EU directives
on financial services). It will also list those existing measures
which should be adjusted to the new procedure as a matter of urgency
although the content of this list has not yet been settled.
There is general agreement among Member States
on the text of the proposal and the details of the minutes statement
are close to being finalised and agreed with Parliament and the
Commission. However, one Member State has raised an issue concerning
the voting requirements in the Council in that it wants a simple
majority of Member States to be in favour of the implementing
measures before they can be adopted. This would overturn the current
practice that the Council requires a qualified majority to oppose
the Commission's proposal. We are content to keep the current
practice and believe such concerns are best addressed by ensuring
that the most politically sensitive matters are dealt with through
the normal co-decision procedure rather than through comitology.
I hope that this outstanding issue can be resolved
shortly so that Parliament can be re-consulted on the text and
agreement reached.
In your letter of 18 May, you refer to a French
paper "Institutional improvement based on the framework provided
by existing Treaties". We agree that the reform meets our
objective of giving the EP more of a say in implementing co-decided
legislation.
I shall update you further when the outstanding
issues are resolved.
1 June 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letter of 1 June which was
considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 15 June. We are
grateful for the description of the compromise text being proposed
by the Austrian Presidency, which appears to confirm the accounts
that have appeared in the press.
It is clear that the proposal has undergone
substantial change and we find it difficult to understand why
you have not provided a copy of the text for examination by this
Committee and also by our sister Committee in the Commons. As
soon as we receive that text we will examine it carefully and
sympathetically. I say "sympathetically" because, as
you know, this is a matter on which there is a large degree of
coincidence in views between the Government and this Committee,
not least as regards the increased involvement of the European
Parliament.
You say nothing about the role of national parliaments
and in particular how you see the proposal affecting the scrutiny
work of the Select Committee and its Sub-Committees. As you will
recall, it has been a matter of long standing concern that the
Government have not provided sufficiently for parliamentary scrutiny
of comitology measures. In practice all we have received are proposals
which, having failed to be approved in the Committee, have been
referred to the Council for decision. We question whether these
are the only measures which have political significance and merit
scrutiny in this Parliament. Accordingly we would be grateful
if, when you provide the Austrian Presidency text, you would let
us have a note as to how you see the new procedure impacting on
the work of the Scrutiny Committees.
The Committee have decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny.
16 June 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 16 June. As requested,
I am writing to provide you with the final text of the proposal,
agreed at Coreper on 8 June subject to a UK Parliamentary reserve,
for a Council Decision amending Commission Decision 1999/468/EC
on Comitology. I also attach associated statements which were
agreed at Coreper on 22 June (not printed). Although the text
of the amended proposal is not yet publicly available, I am depositing
an Explanatory Memorandum so that your Committee may consider
lifting your scrutiny resrve on this item. I will of course formally
deposit the document next week once it becomes publicly available.
For the reasons set out in my letter to you
of 1 June, I believe that the agreement of a revised Comitology
Decision meets all the UK's principal objectives for comitology
reform, chiefly giving the European Parliament more say in implementing
co-decided legislation. The outcome represents a major success
for the Austrian Presidency on an initiative launched during our
Presidency last autumn.
In your letter of 16 June you requested information
on how I saw the new "regulatory with scrutiny" procedure
impacting on the work of the Scrutiny Committees. The Government
will of course want to work with Parliament's Scrutiny Committees
to determine the best approach to ensure the effective scrutiny
of implementing measures under the proposed new arrangements.
As I indicated in my letter of 1 June, the scrutiny
procedure differs depending on whether the comitology Committee
has approved the draft implementing measures. If it has, the draft
measures go to the Council and the Parliament and either institution
can oppose them. If they do not, the Commission can adopt the
draft measures. I realise that some of these measures would potentially
be policitally significant and would thus merit scrutiny by your
committee. In these cases, one approach might be to take a light
touch and have the proposals sent to the Committee staff informally
for them to examine. If the Committee staff felt there were issues
to explore they could do so, initially with the lead department
concerned and then, if necessary, request that the proposal be
deposited with an Explanatory Memorandum for scrutiny in the usual
way. This would keep the volume of issues down to a manageable
level for both the Committees and the Government. It should be
noted, however, that the Council has only three months to object
to the measures under this procedure and, after that period, the
Commission can adopt them assuming the European Parliament has
not opposed them.
In the case of measures under the regulatory
with scrutiny procedure where the Committee has not reached agreement,
the draft implementing measures would be automatically deposited
for examination by your Committee. This would be consistent with
the current arrangements although, in these cases, the period
for Council consideration is reduced to two months. If you think
that it would be helpful I would be happy for officials to meet
with your staff to consider this approach more fully.
In my letter of 1 June, I mentioned that one
Member State wanted a simple majority of Member States to be in
favour of the implementing measures before they can be adopted.
The Member State in question was particularly concerned about
sensitive areas such as GMO authorisations. These concerns have
now been addressed by means of the statements in the Draft summary
record of the Coreper meeting at Annex III of document 10125/1/06.
Following agreement in Coreper, the text of
the amended Decision is now subject to re-consultation of the
European Parliament on 6 July. If approved, it would then go to
17-18 July GAERC for adoption: I would be grateful if your Committee
would consider lifting your scrutiny reserve before this date.
29 June 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letter of 29 June and for
providing copies of the draft amending Decision and the accompanying
statements to be adopted by the Council. They provide very useful
clarification of the points made in your letter of 1 June and
I can confirm that the Committee has now decided to clear the
proposal from scrutiny.
On the important question of the role of national
parliaments and in particular how the Scrutiny Committees of this
Parliament can be more closely involved in monitoring and scrutinising
comitology measures, we agree with your suggestion that it would
be useful to try and find a way in which, without burdening officials
in Departments or the Clerks here, comitology proposals which
have political or other significance can be identified and then
deposited for scrutiny. As you indicate, at present we receive
only a handful of comitology measures for scrutiny, namely those
which, in the absence of agreement in the comitology committee,
are referred to the Council for decision. We are therefore pleased
to see that the Government now recognise that there may be other
measures which should be deposited for scrutiny. What we have
to do, as you suggest, is to find a practical way forward. Subject
to the agreement of our sister Committee I propose the Clerks
get in touch with your officials so that work on your suggested
approach can be taken forward as soon as possible.
13 July 2006
139 Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of
Session 2005-06, HL Paper 243, pp 379-380. Back
| 
