SCRUTINY OF COMITOLOGY AND OF CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Thank you for appearing before Sub-Committee
E on 1 November 2006. The Committee welcomed both the opportunity
to discuss the proposed use of the passerelle with you,
and your undertaking to respond in writing on the other subjects
that we had proposed for discussion. Having regard to the points
you made during the evidence session, we will concentrate these
questions on issues which have arisen in recent scrutiny of matters
for which you are responsible.
On the issue of the scrutiny of comitology decisions:
We understand that the Commission is preparing
a comitology decision to implement a mechanism to verify progress
on post-accession judicial reform and measures against corruption
and organised crime in Bulgaria and Romania. Would this be a suitable
decision to deposit for scrutiny?
On the issue of the scrutiny of confidential
documents:
What assessment is made of Council documents
prior to the decision to publish them as restricted documents?
Is there a case for a more careful assessment of documents to
ensure that only those which are genuinely sensitive are withheld
from this Committee and from the public?
Has thought been given to anonymising (ie removing
specific Member State references from) revised proposal drafts
to allow them to be submitted for scrutiny, and thereby ensure
that Committees are considering the latest position in the Council?
What would the objections be to leaving in any references to the
UK's position?
The Committe looks forward to receiving your
response.
3 November 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 3 November in which
you asked about the scrutiny of comitology and of confidential
documents.
The Commission are proposing to adopt a Regulation
establishing a Justice & Home Affairs monitoring mechanism
for Romania and Bulgaria based on the Act of Accession. In accordance
with this, Member States will be consulted on the proposal, but
the content and adoption of the measure will ultimately be a matter
for the Commission. Nonetheless, this is a potentially important
measure, which we are therefore proposing to deposit for scrutiny.
On the scrutiny of confidential documents, the
Council Decision adopting the Council's security regulations (28
February 2001) sets out the levels of classification and the application
of those levels. The regulations set out that information shall
be classified only when necessary and shall be maintained only
as long as the information requires protection. The regulations
also set out that the classification of a document shall be determined
by the sensitivity of its contents in accordance with a clear
definition set out in the regulations (Section II, paragraphs
1-4). The regulations also make clear that over classification
can result in a loss of confidence in the validity of the classification
system.
We have confidence that the system appropriately
balances the need to protect national and EU interests with the
need for openness in the EU decision-making process.
However, I think it important to say, that we
have rarely declined to deposit a document due to its security
classification. But where we have done so, we have submitted an
explanatory memorandum (without the document itself) explaining
the key points.
You ask whether anonymising draft texts would
enable them to be declassified. Unfortunately, I do not believe
so. Making differences between the Member States public would
weaken the EU's common position once it was reached. This could
then be exploited in the EU's engagement with third countries
and international organisations.
My officials will pass a copy of the 106 page
Council Decision adopting the Council's security regulation (28
February 2001) to both the Clerk to the Commons Committee and
the Clerk to the Lords Committee.
20 November 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letter of 20 November which
was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 13 December.
We are most grateful for the explanations you have given.
The proposed Regulation establishing a JHA monitoring
mechanism for Romania and Bulgaria raises the wider issue of scrutiny
of EU delegated legislation. You will recall that we had an exchange
of letters on this subject back in the summer and I think it would
be helpful if the question of how to identify legally, politically
or practically important comitology measures could be revisited.
As regards the question of the confidentiality,
we are grateful for the efforts which the Government have made
to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise significant proposals.
We are disappointed if not entirely surprised that you have rejected
our suggestion that documents might be "anonymised".
We must continue, therefore, to rely on reports in the media describing
the positions of Member States and would encourage the Government
to be as open as possible when dealing with Parliament's scrutiny
of EU legislation.
14 December 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 14 December about
the scrutiny of new comitology procedures.
Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office and Cabinet Office met with officials from your Committee
and the House of Commons Scrutiny Committee in December to discuss
this issue. Work is ongoing on drawing up a detailed proposal.
I hope to be able to write to the Committees soon to seek your
agreement of the procedures we will suggest.
22 January 2007
| 
