Each year the Government deposits 1200 European policy documents for scrutiny, some of which are cleared straight away, whilst others are reserved for further scrutiny. These are normally considered by one of seven policy-based sub-committees and this report summarises the work undertaken by the Committee through its sub-committees. also reports on UK's Presidency of the EU and looks ahead to likely developments in 2006.
This report is a follow up to the March 2012 report on the European Commission's proposals for a Financial Transaction Tax (HL paper 287, session 2010-12, ISBN 9780108475771). Now the Commission has given the green light to a sub-group of 11 Member States to move forward with a significantly revised tax proposal, under a process known as enhanced cooperation - a move which the European Union Committee condemns as being divisive, significantly detrimental to the UK's interest and deliberately contentious in such a controversial area. The report finds serious flaws with the Commission's use of enhanced cooperation, namely: the tax would have an adverse impact on institutions in the non-participating Member States, such as the UK; the legislation could see the UK unfairly being required to collect the tax on behalf of other Member States, such as Germany and France; this use of enhanced cooperation fails to meet the requirements of EU law, including in respect of the Single Market; the flawed process by which the Commission has allowed enhanced cooperation to be used risks undermining its use in the future. The Committee criticises the UK Government for their slowness to appreciate the potential damage to the UK that such a tax could present. However they welcome the Government's belated decision to launch a legal challenge in a bid to annul the decision.
This report describes the work of the House of Lords EU Select Committee and its seven Sub-Committees over the past year, and considers the Committee's work in the coming year. It analyses scrutiny overrides (occasions when Ministers act before the Committee's scrutiny is complete), and urges the Government to ensure that Committees are kept fully informed about the progress of negotiations. It also makes recommendations regarding General Approaches, delays in Ministerial correspondence with the Committee, the contents of Government Explanatory Memoranda, and Commission responses to Committee reports.
As the Committee highlighted in its report The Fight Against Fraud on the EU's Finances it is difficult to estimate the extent of fraud committed against the EU budget. That report suggested that the figure could be 5 billion euro per year or more. For the purposes of its Impact Assessment the Commission has conservatively assumed that about 3 billion euro per year could be at risk through fraud. These are significant amounts, and both Member States and the EU as a whole have a strong interest in reducing the level EU fraud. In broad terms, the Commission's proposed response to this level of fraud is to establish the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) as an EU body with exclusive power to investigate and prosecute a broad range of criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union and inextricably linked offences, able to call upon the resources of national authorities. This would create a very significant and disruptive incursion into the sensitive criminal law systems of the Member States. The House of Lords considers that such action at EU level would breach the principle of subsidiarity in that it is unnecessary, excessive and insufficiently justified by the Commission. It considers that the objective of countering fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union can best be achieved by action by the Member States within the existing framework for co-ordination and cooperation. This framework is capable, if necessary, of being strengthened to meet this objective effectively
This report concludes that the Government should seek to rejoin the 35 measures that have already been identified, but that it should also seek to rejoin an additional set of measures: implementing measures related to Europol's continued operation; the Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law; the European Judicial Network; the European Probation Order; and the Convention of Driving Disqualifications. The Government has still not dealt with earlier reports' conclusions about the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its jurisdiction. What is more, the Government's general approach to the CJEU is not consistent with its decision to opt back into many other post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. The Government also needs to work flexibly with the European Commission in order to avoid any gaps in the application of the measures the UK will seek to rejoin. For example, we must ensure that rejoining the European Arrest Warrant is water-tight well in advance of the opt-out taking effect, to prevent problems for our criminal justice system. The report also recommends that the Government conduct a review of the impact of the opt-out decision three years after it has taken effect, and report its conclusions to Parliament
This report contains the Government responses to the Committee's recommendations and conclusions that were set out in (HLP 270-I, session 2006-07 - Financial management and fraud in the European Union, ISBN 9780104009598). The Government finds that it agrees with many of the Committee's conclusions and observations on the presence of fraud and corruption in the European Union, and that a lack of a Statement of Assurance (DAS) from the European Court of Auditors, is not an indication of widespread fraud and corruption in the EU itself. The Government welcomes a number of the Committee's recommendations, including that the European Court of Auditors should produce a list of those Member States demonstrating poor management of European funds
In May 2007, the European Commission issued a communication relating to organ donation and transplantation. This made a number of proposals for actions which were designed to help increase the supply of donor organs across the EU. The two major elements were: first, the introduction of a directive aimed at setting standards for the quality and safety of organ donation and transplantation across the EU; and, second, the establishment of an action plan for closer cooperation between Member States in sharing experiences and best practice. This Report brings together evidence relating to the Commission's proposals and draws conclusions about their merits. It also sets out evidence received about a range of matters relating to organ donation which are not within Community competence but which are of central relevance to the shortage of organs for donation: the Organ Donation Taskforce's recent recommendations for the re-organisation of the health infrastructure in the UK; and the proposal, by the Chief Medical Officer for England, that current legislation in England should be changed in order to create a "presumed consent" or "opt-out" system for organ donation in place of the existing "opt-in" system. The Committee's conclusion is that the proposals set out in the Commission's communication would help to raise the numbers of organs available for transplantation as well as the overall safety and quality of those organs. The proposed directive should not be overly bureaucratic and should not inhibit the application of expert clinical judgement and informed patient choice.
This report finds that the funding of the EU is complex and lacks transparency and that there is a need for a simpler system that would reduce the administrative burden. It concludes that a Gross National Income based revenue source is the best way of providing the bulk of the budget's funding. Apart from other considerations, the Committee has seen no evidence that any other new form of taxation would provide the same level of clarity and certainty.
documents considered by the Committee on 15 December 2009, including the following recommendations for debate : European Development Fund (EDF) expenditure; financial management; European Defence Agency activity in 2009 and 2010 : report, together with formal minutes
documents considered by the Committee on 15 December 2009, including the following recommendations for debate : European Development Fund (EDF) expenditure; financial management; European Defence Agency activity in 2009 and 2010 : report, together with formal minutes
Fourth report of Session 2009-10 : Documents considered by the Committee on 15 December 2009, including the following recommendations for debate, European Development Fund (EDF) expenditure; financial management; European Defence Agency activity in 2009 a
Negotiations are underway to agree the details of the European Union budget for the period of 2007 to 2013 (known as the Financial Perspective), covering the newly enlarged EU of 25 member states. Further enlargement is likely, with Bulgaria and Romania due to join in 2007 and the possible accession of Croatia and Turkey being considered. The Committee's report considers a range of issues in relation to the current budget debate, including the merits of the Commission's proposals within the framework of recent and future EU enlargement; the Common Agricultural Policy; Structural and Cohesion Funds; the Lisbon Agenda; other spending categories; the functioning of the 'Own Resources' and a EU tax; UK abatement and the Commission's proposal for a Generalised Corrective Mechanism. Conclusions reached include support for the UK Government's insistence that the UK rebate is non-negotiable, given the inadequate reforms of the CAP; however, if real reform of the budget was offered, then the UK Government should be prepared to negotiate. Structural funds should be focused on the 10 new member states, as well as the two applicant countries of Romania and Bulgaria, with the phasing out of EU regional development funds for all 'old' member states with the exception of Greece and Portugal.
The Committee's report examines the European Commission's Green Paper policy document "A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy" (details of which are available at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/green-paper-energy/index_en.htm). Issues discussed include i) whether the Commission's three EU energy policy priorities (sustainability, competitiveness and security) and six key action areas are the most important priorities for energy policy and whether they can be fully achieved; and ii) the rationale for a single European energy policy.
The relationship between the European Union and Russia has been going through a difficult phase with disputes over energy supplies, foreign policy issues, and tension between Russia and individual Member States. The change of presidency in Russia provides an opportunity to take stock and to consider whether this deterioration can and should be reversed. Russian politicians emphasise the importance of the relationship. This report discusses how the relationship might be developed in practice. The report examines Russia as a European country, its recent history, and the current economic situation in Russia. It then considers the institutional framework for Russia-EU relations, including the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. The Committee believes closer co-operation should be fostered in several areas of common interest: economic, freedom, security and justice, research and education and culture. Energy is an important subject: there are concerns about whether Russia can supply sufficient gas and oil to meet its current and foreseeable domestic demand and international commitments. The security of energy supply to the EU is vital. The Russian view of international security issues is also very different from that of the West, and developments in the near neighbourhood of Russia are a very sensitive geopolitical area. Russian support for Serbia is contrasted with their co-operation on Iran. The two sides work together usefully on the Middle East, terrorism, non-proliferation, and other issues. The EU should continue and strengthen its efforts to reach common ground with the Russians on such international issues, but should also speak out if the Russian government falls short of the standards it has formally accepted in a number of international agreements.
The Millennium Review Summit, in September 2005, will see the UN heads of state and government reviewing how the United Nations can deliver freedom from want, fear and oppression for all the world's peoples. Four agendas will be addressed: development; security; human rights and democracy; and reform of the UN institutions. This report looks at the EU's role in the United Nations, and at what the EU can do to make a successful outcome at the Review more likely. The Committee praises the EU's policies on increasing development aid, and on the responsibility to protect in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity. Other areas where the EU and the British government should strive for progress at the Review are: the strategy against terrorism; nuclear non-proliferation; supporting the Secretary-General's proposals for reform of the UN institutions and secretariat.
The European Union Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) opened on 23 July 2007 and was initiated following a report originally produced by the German Presidency on the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" (Constitutional Treaty, Cm.6429, ISBN 9780101642927), which in turn led to a "Draft IGC Mandate" setting out a detailed prescription on issues raised by the above report, circulated by the Presidency of the European Council. The report itself recommended a "Reform Treaty" which would amend existing treaties and so required an intergovernmental conference. The European Scrutiny Committee has set out a number of conclusions, including: the Committee questioned the aims of the European Council in engaging with EU citizens on the EU Constitution whilst setting out changes to the constitution in an essentially secretive manner; that the substance of the Reform Treaty is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty itself; the Committee is concerned about the UK's position under the Charter; that the UK retains opt-outs that were previously arranged under the Constitutional Treaty will still be retained under the Reform Treaty; that the proposals in the Reform Treaty raise a serious difficulty of a constitutional order, appearing to impose a legal duty on national parliaments to the European Union itself, the Committee calls such a legal duty on Parliament, objectionable, and states that as a matter of principle it should be resisted.
In this report looking at crisis management in the EU, the Committee call for a closer working relationship between the EU Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) and NATO's Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response and Coordination Centre (EADRCC). The role of the two bodies is similar, but there is practically no contact between them. It would be in the interests of the EU, NATO and the members of both organisations to support and complement each other's work rather than duplicating it. In the event of a serious natural or man-made disaster the failure of the two bodies to cooperate could have serious consequences. The Committee also raise concerns that NATO prevents officials of the EU Joint Situation Centre (SitCen) from taking part in NATO training courses due to concerns about security clearance. The Committee state that the level of security clearance required by NATO should be the same for officials of national Governments and of the European Union. The Committee also call on the Government to begin working with the EU to ensure a full EU contribution to the security preparations in place at the 2012 Olympic site and in surrounding London boroughs. Finally the report criticises the failure of the UK to participate fully in international exercises designed to test preparedness for Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) attacks. The UK has been involved to some extent in only 11 of 31 EU or NATO CBRN exercises between 2000 and 2008; it has played a full part by deploying teams in none of the NATO exercises, and only one of the EU exercises.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.