Government departments, ministries and offices

Transcription

1 Ministerial Correspondence, House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee This document contains all the correspondence between Ministers and the European Scrutiny Committee. The correspondence is saved under the Government department that it relates to. Within each department, the correspondence is saved in reverse date order, so that the most recent letter is at the top. To go to the section relating to a particular department, press and hold the Control button and click on the relevant heading from the list below. Government departments, ministries and offices Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Cabinet Office Department for Education Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministry of Defence Department of Energy and Climate Change Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Exiting the EU Food Standards Agency Foreign and Commonwealth Office Government Equalities Office Department of Health and Social Care Home Office Inland Revenue Department for International Development Department for International Trade Ministry of Justice Office of National Statistics HM Revenue and Customs Department for Transport HM Treasury Department for Work and Pensions

2 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Letter from the Chair to Margot James Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border parcel delivery services 37821: 9706/16 Thank you for your letter of 28 November on the proposed parcel delivery services Regulation. 2 We are grateful for the detailed overview it provided of both the European Parliament s position as well as progress to date in trilogue negotiations. Before we prepare our response, we ask you to provide a response to the second question in our most recent report. 3 That is, whether, based on the proposed text of the Regulation the Presidency has agreed, which broadly appears to meet the aims the Government had set out in its original non-paper, the UK is likely to want to apply the terms of the legislation after the UK leaves the EU. We understand that you were unable to respond to this question as you had not yet received our report. As scrutiny of this file nears completion, we also ask you to provide us with an analysis which clearly sets out: those elements of the Regulation which could be retained in UK law and achieve part/all of their stated policy objective, in the absence of a bilateral UK-EU agreement; those elements of the Regulation which could not be achieved in the absence of a bilateral agreement; given that the Government has now clarified its intention to leave the Single Market, the implications for UK stakeholders (including both businesses and consumers) of (i) non-participation in the proposal, and (ii) of only retaining those effects of the proposal that can be achieved through domestic legislation; and whether the Government believes it is feasible to include provisions on cross-border parcel delivery in a UK-EU free trade agreement or other form of bilateral agreement, and whether it anticipates that it will seek to do so. We look forward to receiving your response by the end of January 2018, or sooner if progress in trilogue negotiations requires it. 19 December 2017 Letter from Margot James to the Chair Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border parcel delivery services: Update to the Committee: 37821, 9706/16 I am writing to update you on progress on this file since the summer, including the European Parliament s proposed amendments and our intended negotiating approach as the file moves into the trilogue process. In broad terms, the Parliament s proposed amendments support UK objectives, particularly in terms of reducing burdens on national regulatory authorities and postal operators in Article 3 (Information Requirements) and Article 5 (affordability assessment). The Parliament introduced a new Article 6(a)

3 that in part replicates existing EU obligations and in part imposes further obligations on online crossborder retailers. It requires retailers that deliver products to consumers based in another Member State, in particular to individuals and SMEs, to provide upfront delivery information and details of complaint handling processes of the retailer and the parcel delivery operator. Member States discussed the European Parliament s proposals at a Working Party on 8 November. The Presidency called for Member States constructive engagement to ensure that the negotiations reach a conclusion by the end of the year. In discussion, we and other Member States questioned how the Parliament s proposed Article 6(a) added value. While we understand the rationale for increasing consumer protection (albeit only for cross-border retailers under this scenario), we do not believe that this Regulation is the place to address it. This Regulation is intended to increase price transparency and improve affordability of cross-border parcel delivery operator services, and not to increase or replicate existing consumer protection. We still have concerns that Article 3 extends the information requirement provisions to delivery operators sub-contractors. We would prefer to see a simplified approach adopted here, and similarly in the affordability assessment in Article 5, to facilitate the application in practice by delivery service providers and national regulatory authorities. We believe that both the Parliament and Member States will be encouraged to look for concessions as we move into the trilogue process and that there is scope for compromises to be reached. 28 November 2017 Letter from Margot James to the Chair European Pillar of Social Rights (38691: 38693) 8637/17 and 8693/17 Thank you for sharing a draft of the Committee's report on the European Pillar of Social Rights. In the report there is a request for further details on the UK's future economic relationship with the EU post- Brexit and whether the UK could be obliged to continue implementing EU employment and social legislation as it develops. The nature of the future economic relationship between the UK and EU is subject to negotiations, and as such we cannot provide certainty at this stage on whether the UK will be obliged to continue implementing EU Social and Employment legislation. Moreover, Parliament has voted not to disclose material that could damage the UK's position in its negotiations with the EU. It would therefore not be appropriate to discuss the details of our negotiating position here. While we remain members of the EU, Government have made a commitment to continue to act 'in good faith' on ongoing EU business. This means the UK continues to actively engage on current EU legislative proposals, assessing policies on their merits. On the implementation period, the Prime Minister has said, people, businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. So the framework for the strictly time-limited implementation period should therefore be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. What it will look like precisely will be for the negotiations and will need to be in both of our interests. We are aiming to agree the detailed arrangements for this implementation period as early as possible to provide certainty for citizens and businesses. 21 December 2017

4 Letter from Margot James to the Chair Working Time Directive (38690) 8635/17 The European Scrutiny Committee recently considered my Department's Explanatory Memorandum about the European Commission's report on the implementation of the Working Time Directive (WTD) The Committee cleared the report from Scrutiny but asked me to provide further information which I am pleased to do. The Committee asked for further information on three points: A more substantive assessment of the Commission guidance What changes to the organisation of working time in the UK will flow from the document? What the status of the Commission's new guidance will be once the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill becomes law? Assessment of the guidance As the Committee mentions in its report, there are many political sensitivities across Europe regarding the Directive, and attempts to review the Directive were unsuccessful. However, many Member States commented during the review process that the succession of CJEU rulings over many over the years had created some uncertainty about the exact content and extent of the Directive's provisions. The Commission thus decided to publish legislative guidance which described CJEU rulings and their implications in some detail. The guidance was produced by DG Employment. The Commission has also added its own interpretation of some issues which have not yet been covered by CJEU cases, and this is clearly flagged in the document. The guidance is not legally binding. Our assessment of the document is that it is a useful summary reference document of the case law, and the Commission's views on areas that have not to date been tested in the CJEU. Virtually all aspects of the Directive are covered in the guidance document. It discusses all the CJEU cases that have been of interest to the UK. These include those cases about on-call working (SiMAP and Jaeger cases), carry-over of annual leave (Stringer and Pereda), holiday pay (Williams and Lock) and travel to and from a client's premises (Tyco). These cases have been the subject of much discussion in the UK but the legal position is now generally clear. The discussion of the cases within the document does not add anything new to this legal position. The Commission's own interpretation of working time issues not directly covered by court cases is uncontroversial. There is some discussion of the opt-out from the 48-hour maximum working week, retention of which has been a key priority for the CBI and other business organisations. The text of the guidance sets out the circumstances in which such an opt-out is allowed. This includes the arrangements which are currently used in the UK. Implications for UK legislation We will not need to make any changes to the UK Working Time Regulations (WTR} as a result of the new guidance. Status of guidance after the once the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill becomes law The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will provide that the WTR which transpose the WTD, and are made under s2(2) of the European Communities Act will be retained in national law. The Government has published draft Statutory Instruments to illustrate how the WTR will remain effective after the UK has left the EU The Commission guidance is not legally binding but will continue to be a useful reference document. 21 December 2017

5 Letter from the Chair to Margot James Implementation of the Working Time Directive (38690) 8635/17 I am writing on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee to thank you for your letter of 21 December, replying to our questions about the latest European Commission report on the implementation of the Working Time Directive. We have drawn your reply to the attention of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees. As we had already cleared the document from scrutiny, no further reply from you is necessary. 17 January 2018 Letter from Andrew Griffiths to the Chair Coordination of insolvency proceedings in the EU: (38963), 11667/17 Thank you for your response to Richard Harrington MP s Explanatory Memorandum dated 30 August 2017, regarding amendments to the Annexes to the EU Insolvency Regulation 2015/848. My predecessor Margot James wrote to you on 11 December to advise you the Government had concluded it was in the UK s interests to opt in to the amendments given the UK s existing participation in the underlying Regulation. The Presidency of the Council was notified of this decision on 14 November. I note that the Committee has now cleared the document from scrutiny. Your Committee, however, raised a number of queries in its response, which I address below. I have replied by separate letter to the queries raised by the Committee in respect of the draft Directive on preventive restructuring, second chance and insolvency measures. In the absence of any deal on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in cross-border insolvency proceedings, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as currently before Parliament will enable the Government to amend EU law as it applies in the UK, to deal with deficiencies in that law arising from withdrawal and so ensure that insolvencies can continue to be managed as efficiently and predictably as possible. Potential deficiencies in the law might include the loss of reciprocal arrangements such as mutual recognition of insolvency proceedings and enforcement action. One option for the Government would be to amend the law so that insolvency proceedings commenced in the EU are no longer automatically recognised in the UK. In that case EU insolvency office-holders who wish to be recognised in the UK, allowing them, among other things, to deal with the debtor s assets located here will have a number of options. I have set out these options below. Foreign insolvency office-holders may apply to court for recognition under the provisions of the Cross- Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 and the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (the regulations which give effect to the UK s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-

6 Border Insolvency). These regulations embody the concept of foreign main and foreign non-main proceedings which are similar to the main and secondary proceedings concepts that underpin the jurisdiction provisions contained in the EU Insolvency Regulation. Whilst these regulations provide pragmatic frameworks that allow for the reasonably efficient handling of a cross-border insolvency involving a UK element, there is no automatic recognition and the frameworks do not include many of the features of the EU Insolvency Regulation, such as provisions requiring court-to-court cooperation or coordination of multiple proceedings involving members of the same corporate group. Alternatively, a foreign office-holder may apply to a UK court for relief on other grounds under the common law. Generally speaking these provisions adhere to the underlying principle of universalism, in that there should be one insolvency proceeding in the court of the debtor s domicile and that these proceedings should be recognised globally. Statutory arrangements exist in respect of the Republic of Ireland (which pre-date the EU Insolvency Regulation) which allow the Irish Court to seek assistance from UK courts in matters relating to insolvency proceedings. UK courts have discretion to provide broad assistance in such cases including applying foreign insolvency law. Where a UK insolvency office-holder wishes to be recognised in an EU member state so that they can deal with assets for example, this will depend on the national law of the relevant member state. Several member states (Poland, Greece, Romania and Slovenia) have also adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law and therefore substantively similar rules will apply for a UK office-holder seeking recognition and relief in those states. In other member states the position varies. We have conducted an analysis of certain member states national provisions on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement and have concluded that some have laws that would facilitate the relatively smooth operation of cross-border insolvencies involving a UK main proceeding whilst others do not. The Government is therefore committed to seeking, as part of the exit negotiations, an agreement with the EU that allows for close and comprehensive cross-border civil judicial cooperation on a reciprocal basis which reflects closely the substantive principles of cooperation under the current EU framework. This will benefit businesses in both the UK and the EU, providing certainty and efficiency in the handling of cross-border insolvency cases. You asked that the Government comment on the possible impact of an implementation period on crossborder cooperation. The UK Government is working hard to ensure the smoothest possible transition between our current and future arrangements by calling for a strictly time-limited implementationperiod, so that people, businesses and public services only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and EU We will therefore seek for the framework of this implementation period to broadly follow the existing structures of EU rules and regulations. 12 January 2018 Letter from the Chair to Andrew Griffiths Coordination of insolvency proceedings in the EU: (38963), 11667/17 Thank you for your letter of 12 January in response to our Report of 19 December. As you note, in that Report the Committee cleared from scrutiny the proposed Regulation on amending the Annexes to the EU Insolvency Regulation 2015(848).

7 I would like to thank you in particular for your helpful and frank exposition of the issues that might be encountered in the event of a no deal on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of insolvency proceedings. I would also like to ask whether the Committee could have sight of the Government s analysis of Member States national laws which could affect the recognition of UK main insolvency proceedings and office-holders. 24 January 2018 Letter from Richard Harrington to the Chair Proposal for a Council Decision on the adoption of the High Flux Reactor supplementary research programme to be implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community (38639) 7892/17 Thank you for the European Scrutiny Committee s Report on the proposed Council Decision on the High Flux Reactor supplementary research programme and for clearing the document from scrutiny at the Committee s meeting on 10 January. The Government has made clear that the continuity of supply of medical radioisotopes as well as other medicines will be a high priority matter following UK s withdrawal from the EU. The Government fully recognises the importance of this issue and I would like to assure you it is a subject I have personally engaged on closely, together with my colleagues in other Departments, in particular the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and HM Revenue and Customs I hope that through this letter and others, such as the one I wrote jointly with Lord O Shaughnessy at the DHSC to the Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the House of Lords EU Select Committee, I am able to answer your questions and provide clarity on the subject. 1) What arrangements will apply to the import of medical isotopes from the EU during any post- Brexit implementation period of around two years as proposed by the Prime Minister during her Florence speech? The Government has made clear that the UK wants a deep and special partnership with the EU and to continue close cooperation on topics such as ensuring reliable and timely supply of medicines, including medical radioisotopes. It is in the interest of both the UK and EU to avoid disruption to the timely access of treatment to patients; and to ensure that cross-border trade remains as frictionless as possible. Both the UK and the rest of the EU recognise that we will need time and preparations to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin our new partnership. The Prime Minister in September proposed a time-limited period for implementation which would cover the EU and Euratom. Our Written Ministerial Statement in January confirmed that we will be seeking for Euratom to be included in that period, and the EU s draft guidelines also envisage that. The exact nature of the period will be subject to forthcoming negotiations. We want our departure from the EU to be as smooth as possible, including on the issue of supply of medicines and medical radioisotopes. 2) What assessment has been made of additional customs controls on transports of radio-isotopes from the EU to the UK after Brexit, and how those would be mitigated in view of the short half-life of the product?

8 The Government recognises the concern that changes to customs and border processes as a result of withdrawal from the EU and the EU Customs Union could affect the timely supply of medical radioisotopes. This will depend on the outcome of negotiations to leave the EU. At present, goods being traded within the EU, including medical radioisotopes, do not need to undergo customs checks due to our membership of the EU Customs Union. Goods coming from outside the EU are subject to customs declarations and licence checks under our current customs arrangements through the National Clearance Hub. Currently, 96% of imports from outside the EU were cleared by HMRC within seconds. As a contingency, the Government has a two-hour clearance commitment for urgent goods. Through this process medical radioisotopes from outside the EU can already be prioritised through non-eu import controls in recognition of their urgent nature, ensuring that their arrival into the UK is expedited rapidly. Following our withdrawal from the EU, we recognise that these arrangements will need to adapt in order to account for trade with the EU Member States. There are two parts to the Government s work negotiating an agreement with the EU, and domestic preparations for a new customs regime. The Government s customs objectives were set out in the Future Customs Arrangement Partnership Paper in August 2017 and were reiterated in the Customs White Paper published in October The papers set out that as the UK leaves the EU and its customs union, the Government will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK. The August paper sets out the two approaches that most closely meet our objectives. One is a highly streamlined customs arrangement, which aims to ensure that trade with the EU is as simple as possible, with the minimum extra requirements for businesses, including those importing medical radioisotopes. The other is a new customs partnership, an unprecedented and innovative approach under which the UK would mirror the EU s requirements for imports from the rest of the world, while also moving to an independent trade policy. This would remove the need for a customs border between the UK and the EU. The Government has also started working on our domestic preparations. The Government is on course to having a functioning customs service on Day One after our withdrawal from the EU, with suitable plans in place to ensure that supplies of priority goods such as medical radioisotopes are not compromised. HMRC and Border Force are in the process of identifying all of those goods that will require priority treatment on Day One and ensuring that plans are in place to make sure that supplies are not disrupted. HMRC and Border Force are looking at all of the available resourcing options to make sure that they are able to deal with every contingency for Day 1 and beyond. I have grouped my responses to questions (3) and (4) as they are closely inter-related. 3) How, in the light of the serious supply shortage and the shutdown of supply reactors in Canada and the Netherlands, the Government plans to replace the security of supply function [for medical radioisotopes] currently fulfilled by the Euratom Supply Agency? 4) In the absence of engagement in the Euratom Supply Agency, what steps the Government plans to take to assure the supply of enriched uranium [to produce medical radioisotopes]? The Euratom Supply Agency (ESA) has a remit to ensure the security of supply of nuclear fuel within the Euratom Community. However, the trade in medical radioisotopes is not subject to the approval of the ESA. On the supply of medical radioisotopes, the ESA has an observatory role, including through the setup of a European Observatory on the Supply of Medical Radioisotopes in The Observatory aims to consolidate and share information between the EU, EU Member States, international partners, the medical community and industry stakeholders on supply. It also aims to support decision-makers by commissioning research and coordinating reactor shutdowns within the EU but crucially it does not have a

9 decision-making or executive role in regard to responding to shortages. The Government s objective remains that our approach to EU exit should ensure that, when we leave the EU, we can maintain the same access to medical radioisotopes that we currently have. I hope that this letter has provided you with the necessary reassurance that the Government is fully aware of the importance of the continuity of supply of medical radioisotopes and will continue to be a priority for the Government in both our domestic preparations as well as in our negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. 2 February 2018 Letter from the Chair to Richard Harrington Importation of medical isotopes following Brexit (38639) 7892/17 Thank you for your letter of 2 February 2018 on the implications of Brexit for the importation of medical isotopes from the EU.1 We have taken note of your explanation that, during transition, there will be no disruption because all customs and transport processes would remain covered by the facilitations afforded by EU law; and that, when the UK has fully left the Single Market and the Customs Union, HMRC will be able to offer priority treatment on Day One and put in place plans ( ) to make sure that supplies are not disrupted. We are grateful for that assurance. However, we note that even under the highly streamlined customs arrangement you describe, there would be extra requirements for businesses, including those importing medical radioisotopes. We therefore remain concerned about the lack of detail about the Government s plans to ensure no disruption occurs after the transition, given the significant increase of customs declarations that HMRC will need to cope with at all points of entry into the UK when imports from the EU become subject to routine customs clearance. We are particularly concerned that Eurodespatch, which carries freight through the Eurotunnel, has said that new customs obligations would be very difficult to put in place in the restricted space available [at its] stations, and would make our current cargo business ( ) economically unviable.3 A temporary, fire- related closure of the Eurotunnel in 2008 led to shortages of medical isotopes. While we appreciate that HM Revenue and Customs and Border Force are looking to prioritise goods so that supplies are not disrupted, your letter left a number of issues unanswered. What is the Government s track record in meeting the two-hour clearance commitment for urgent goods? In particular, to what extent is this commitment met for medical isotopes imported from outside the EU? Which other goods are expected to obtain priority treatment under the plans you have outlined for the post-brexit customs clearance system? How would the Government prioritise the import of medical isotopes and other priority goods if the increase in customs activity on trade in goods between the UK and the EU leads to goods being significantly delayed before they even reach the UK border, for example if freight traffic through the Eurotunnel is disrupted because of the need for customs controls at either end? What additional [customs] requirements does the Government think may be likely to arise after the transition, under the desired highly streamlined customs arrangement? With respect to the value of the Euratom Supply Agency s coordinating role in the event of possible or actual shortages in the supply of medical isotopes, I would be grateful if you could confirm our interpretation of your last letter, namely that the Government does not envisage any adverse effects from the UK not being included in the Agency s deliberations relating to supply shortages.

10 I would be grateful to receive a reply from you by 7 March. 28 February 2018 Letter from Andrew Griffiths to the Chair Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (CPC Regulation) (37814) 9565/16: Thank you for your report of 13th November 2017 in which you cleared the proposal from scrutiny. As expected, the Competitiveness Council met on 30th November and 1st December 2017 and the file was agreed. No changes were made and there are no substantial policy points on which to update the Committee. The new Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 27th December In their report, the Committee asked the Government to confirm that the provisions for third country cooperation on cross-border consumer detriment provided by the CPC Regulation are (a) the same as in the Commission s original proposal and (b) are adequate should the UK wish to cooperate with the EU on this issue following EU exit. I confirm that the text of Article 32 (Article 40 in earlier drafts) in the new Regulation, which provides for third country cooperation in achieving the objectives of the Regulation, is substantially the same as it was in the Commission s original proposal published in May There were only minor linguistic changes during negotiations for the file. Furthermore, it is the Government s view that the provisions are adequate should the UK wish to continue to participate in the CPC Regulation as a third country after EU withdrawal. Overall, we continue to consider how best to cooperate on consumer protection with our partners after we leave the EU, recognising that there will be mutual benefits for all consumers if we can agree suitable future arrangements. I hope that this is helpful and I will of course keep you further updated on this issue as necessary. The Committee will also note that the Government has responded formally to the House of Lords European Union Committee inquiry Brexit: Will Consumers be Protected? (9th Report, Session , HL Paper 5 l). 21 February 2018 Letter from the Chair to Andrew Griffiths Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation: (37814), 9565/16 Thank you for your letter of 21 February The Committee was grateful for the extra information you provided. We regard our scrutiny of this proposal as now complete. 7 March 2018 Letter from Sam Gyimah to the Chair Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 (39425) 5271/18

11 I am writing in response to your request for further information regarding the Government s intentions for our future science and innovation partnership with the EU, following EM 5271/18. The Government has been clear in its ambitions for a far-reaching science and innovation pact following our departure from the EU. In her speech in Florence in September last year the Prime Minister said that we will want to continue working together with the EU in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent, including through programmes relating to science and education. The Prime Minister reiterated this message in her speech at Mansion House on 2 March this year, stating that the UK is committed to establishing a far-reaching science and innovation pact with the EU, facilitating the exchange of ideas and researchers. This would enable the UK to participate in key programmes alongside our EU partners. As outlined in our Future Partnership Paper published last September, 1 we are considering a range of options for our future science and innovation partnership with the EU. This will depend upon the outcome of our negotiations, but could include collaboration in a range of areas such as the EU Framework Programmes, nuclear research and training, and space. EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation are clearly an important aspect of European collaboration on science and innovation. The current programme, Horizon 2020, will be replaced by the Ninth Framework Programme (FP9) in Participants from non-eu countries can participate in some areas of Horizon 2020 automatically under the rules governing third countries, or countries can obtain increased access for their citizens by associating to the programme. Currently, researchers in associated countries (such as Switzerland and Norway) have the same level of access to Horizon 2020 as those in EU Member States. Associated countries do not have a formal vote over the Horizon 2020 work programmes, but can attend programme committees, which provides them with a degree of influence. Terms of association (including financial contributions) vary, and are determined by bilateral agreements with the EU. All third countries without formal associate status can participate in specific parts of the programme, with some restrictions. Apart from a few exceptions, these third countries are not eligible for EU funding and usually fund their own participation. A number of non-associated third countries, such as South Korea and Canada, have already made provisions under their science and technology agreements with the EU to increase cooperation through Horizon 2020, for example, through cofunding mechanisms for specified research projects. Arrangements for third countries, including future association arrangements will be discussed as part of the EU s development of the next Framework Programme, FP9. To feed into this development the UK has published a position paper presenting our views on how the FP9 should be designed in order to maximise its impact and effectiveness. Were the UK to associate, the terms of this would need to be negotiated with the EU and its Member States, building on what has already been agreed with other non-eu participants, for example Switzerland and Norway. These terms include the size of any financial contribution, which the UK would need to weigh against other spending priorities. It would be premature for the UK to commit to a specific participation route for FP9 at this stage, as both the programme and its participation routes are not yet finalised. As we have said, we hope to have a full and open discussion with the EU about these options as part of the negotiations on our future partnership. 14 March 2018 Letter from the Chair to Sam Gyimah 1 Collaboration on science and innovation (September 2017):

12 UK participation in the 9th Framework Programme for Research Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 (39425) 5271/18 Thank you for your letter of 14 March on the Government s ambitions for a future partnership with the EU on science and innovation after the end of the current EU Framework Programme for Research (Horizon 2020) in December You noted that the Government believes it is premature for the UK to commit to specific participation route for FP9 at this stage as both the programme and its participation routes are not yet finalised. However, we note that the method for close involvement in EU Framework Programmes which has been called association under multiple successive Multiannual Financial Frameworks is well- established and likely to be carried forward in FP9 in some form. As you describe in your letter, association offers participation in the Framework Programme by researchers and organisations established in an associated country as if they were based in an EU Member State. The main difference is that their Governments are represented without voting rights on the relevant programming committees while still making a substantial financial contribution. Of course they do not have a formal vote over the basic legal framework for the Programme or its long-term and annual funding from the EU budget within the Council. While we appreciate the exact mechanism for third country participation will be the subject of negotiations between the European Parliament and the remaining Member States over the coming months, we have seen no indication that the FP9 framework will radically depart from the 'association' model. Nor is it clear to us what additional level of cooperation the Government envisages after Brexit, given that the existing framework already allows for full participation by third countries on par with EU Member States. Moreover, the European Council has clearly stated that the UK's involvement should be "subject to the relevant conditions for the participation of third countries to be established in the corresponding programmes", and not 'bespoke' in nature. It would therefore be helpful to have more detailed information from you about the Government s specific objectives given the UK s large research base and the need for certainty about post-brexit opportunities for scientific collaboration across Europe. Given its remit, the Committee is obviously also particularly interested in the specifics of the future Agreement, in particular any financial mechanism whereby the UK contributes to the overall Framework Programme budget. With this in mind, I would be grateful if you could: explain if the Government would choose the association option if its mix of rights and obligations was substantially the same in FP9 as it is under Horizon 2020; clarify in which areas the Government believes it wants to go further than what the current association model offers when negotiating an agreement with the EU on cooperation in research and innovation; confirm that it is the Government s intention to have an agreement on research cooperation in place by 1 January 2021 to avoid any need for the UK to remain bound by the next Multiannual Financial Framework if it wants to participate in FP9; and provide us with the latest statistics on UK participation in Horizon 2020-funded projects, following reports in the press that the UK cohort of overall participants has dropped to the fifth-largest among Member States since the referendum.2 28 March See We note in this respect that the latest statistics published by your Department put the UK in second place in terms of both overall participants and funding secured as of September 2017 ( September-2017).

13 Letter from Andrew Griffiths to the Chair More effective enforcement by national competition authorities (38624), 7621/17 ADDs /17: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Empower the Competition Authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. I am writing to update your Committee on the negotiations about the above Directive and on the progress on the changes the Government is advocating. Since my predecessor s letter of 16 November 2017, the Council Presidency has produced four compromise proposals. These have been discussed in seven meetings of the Council Working Group on competition. On the Article 3 reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, we have argued that the inclusion of an explicit reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU is unnecessary as all EU law must already be compatible with the Charter, as well as with general principles of EU law. Discussions on this Article are ongoing, but we do not expect there to be support for any major changes in the Council. There has been significant progress on the leniency provisions in Articles 16 to 22 of the proposal. The European Commission has given us assurances on national competition authorities (NCAs) discretion in determining whether leniency applicants fulfil the evidential threshold set out in the Directive to qualify for immunity from fines and criminal sanctions. We have also supported amendments proposed by the T E W +44 (0) enquiries@bis.gov.uk Presidency which we think significantly improve the Articles on summary applications. On the Article 29 restrictions on the use and sharing of information, the latest compromise proposal would allow NCAs to share information collected during their investigations to comply with obligations under national criminal law and with natural persons rights of defence. While this is a significant improvement, we still think the Article can be improved further by allowing certain information to be shared for other legitimate purposes and under safeguards that ensure leniency material is treated appropriately. We have focussed our efforts on trying to make improvements to this Article in coordination with other countries that share our goals. The Council Presidency has indicated that they will make changes in the next compromise text allowing wider information sharing, which the Government would support. The next meetings of the Competition Working Group will be on 14 March. This will involve attaches from Member States Permanent Representations. The Council Presidency is aiming to have an agreed position in the Council by April, ahead of trilateral discussions with the European Commission and the European Parliament later in the year. I will keep the Committee updated on any further developments. 13 March 2018 Letter from the Chair to Andrew Griffiths More effective enforcement by national competition authorities (38624) 7621/17 + ADD 1-4 Thank you for your letter of 13 March The Committee was grateful for the information you provided and welcomes further updates on the progress and outcome of negotiations on this proposal, setting out the extent to which any proposed revisions and/or compromise text meet the Government's objectives. The Committee would also welcome an updated Government assessment in due course on how key provisions highlighted as of relevance to the UK (such as on leniency, mutual assistance and restrictions on the use of information sharing) are expected to impact the implementation and enforcement of UK competition policy after the UK's withdrawal from the EU. 18 April 2018

14 Cabinet Office Letter from David Lidington to the Chair Delay in Laying before Parliament the Explanatory Memorandum on the 2015 European Commission Report on the Application of Regulation (39472) 1049/2001 in 2015: (8162/16) As members of the Committee will be aware, every year the Government is required to submit an Memorandum (EM) to Parliament on the European Commission s annual report on the operation of the Access to EU Documents Regulation (1049/2001). The Memorandum and its associated report are then passed to this Committee, and its corresponding committee in the other House, for discussion and comment. Unfortunately, during the establishment of DExEU (which has taken over responsibility for commissioning Ems and depositing them in Parliament) and the ensuing transition of policy responsibilities between departments, the commissioning of the EM in response to the EU s 2015 report on Access to EU Documents was overlooked. This omission was not picked up at the time by either DExEU or the Cabinet Office (nor subsequently by this House) and has only recently come to light. I apologise to the Committee for this error. The Cabinet Office has now retroactively produced an EM for the 2015 report and will therefore also be laying this EM today alongside the current EM for the 2016 report for the Committee s attention. 13 February 2018 Letter from the Chair to David Lidington Commission Report on the application of Regulation (39472) 1049/2001 in 2015: (8162/16) The Committee would like me to thank you for your letter of 13 February, apologising for the delay in submitting an Explanatory Memorandum on the Commission s Report on the application of Regulation 1049/2001 in We note that the error arose as an administrative oversight, during the establishment of DEXEU. We are hopeful therefore that this is an isolated incident. The Committee is considering both the Report for 2015 and 2016 at its meeting this week. 07 March 2018

15 Department for Education Letter from Anne Milton to the Chair Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common framework for the provision of better services for skills and qualifications (Europass) and repealing Decision No 2241/2004/EC 38136, 12947/16 I am responding to your letter of 22 November You asked for an update on this dossier following the Education Council on 22 May and following my letter of 27 June Following working group negotiations the Council text made it clear that arrangements for the National Skills Coordination points and the national contact points in each Member State that will receive EU funding, are to be in accordance with national arrangements. This clarified the main area of concern to the UK, that the national points need to fit with our devolved arrangements. Negotiations continued with trilogues with the European Parliament, under the Estonian Presidency, and a text has been agreed that we expect to be adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. No significant changes were made to the text which would impact on UK policy and we are content for the Decision to be adopted. The Decision is expected to be agreed by consensus by the Council on 12 April I attach the final version of the Decision for your information. 28 March 2018 Letter from the Chair to Anne Milton Proposed Council and European Parliament Decision on a common framework for the provision of better services for skills and qualifications (Europass): (38136), 12947/16 Thank you for your letter of 27 June explaining that there was no agreement at the 22 May Education Council, but that the UK s outstanding concern has been addressed. The document was released from scrutiny by our predecessors at their meeting of 25 April We would welcome further information on the progress of negotiations well in advance of agreement in Council. 18 April 2018

16 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Letter from the Chair to Tracey Crouch Proposed Regulation on the European Solidarity Corps (38789), 9845/17 Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) of 30 June. Whilst the Committee has considered the proposed Regulation and your Explanatory Memorandum today and has decided to clear the document from scrutiny without a Report to the House, this was on the basis that you respond to this request for clarification. Your EM is very comprehensive and even examines the question of whether the UK might consider participating in the European Solidarity Corps after Brexit. But we would like more clarity on the Government s approach should the Regulation come into force before the UK s exit from the EU. Could you please confirm that the UK accepts that in that situation the Regulation would apply to the UK and so require it to comply with the Regulation (which includes the UK s participation in the European Union Solidarity Corps)? 13 November 2017 Letter from John Glen to the Chair Council Decision approving a mandate for the Commission to open negotiations on the United Nations World Tourism Organisation s Convention on the Rights of Tourists and the Obligations of Tourism Service Providers (38789) 9845/17 I am writing to inform you about the Council Decision to award a negotiating mandate enabling the Commission to negotiate the United Nations World Tourism Organisation s Convention on the Rights of Tourists and the Obligations of Tourism Service Providers on behalf of Member States. Following work to ensure that Member State competences are respected, the Government supports the proposed mandate. On 23 June 2016, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The government respected the result and triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union on 29 March 2017 to begin the process of exit. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The Convention covers protection for tourists in the event of an emergency, and tourists relationship with package travel and accommodation providers: Annex I covers civil contingencies, a Member State competence. Annex II focuses of the obligations of package travel providers and is based on Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (the EU Package Travel Directive). Annex III covers the obligations of accommodation service providers regarding provision of contractual information and performance of contracts. This is based on the Directive (EU) 2011/83/EC (Consumer Rights Directive EU).

17 The Convention allows for signatories to accede to one or all of the annexes in the Convention. Due to the mixed content of the Convention, Member States have only awarded the Commission a mandate for negotiating areas where there is Union competence. Member States will retain their competence in the areas covered by the Convention which do not affect common rules or alter the scope of such rules. Therefore, the Commission only has a mandate to negotiate in close cooperation with Member States: (a) The preamble and Articles 1 to 21; (b) Annex II; (c) Annex III, with the exception of Article 5. The mandate also obliges the Commission to seek to ensure that the Convention is compatible with EU law, in particular Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (the EU Package Travel Directive) and Directive (EU) 2011/83/EC (Consumer Rights Directive), to avoid or minimise any future legislative changes. This represents the first of a two-stage process, as the Commission will return to seek Council approval for the text of the Convention once finalised. Member States will be regularly consulted throughout the process, and I will continue to update the Committee as these negotiations progress. 10 July 2017 Letter from the Chair to John Glen UNWTO Convention on the Rights of Tourists (38789) 9845/17 I write to thank you for your letter of 10 July 2017 with respect to the UNWTO Convention on the Rights of Tourists, which is currently under negotiation. I would be grateful if you would keep the Committee informed of progress in these negotiations, in particular if developments in the talks mean the Convention could necessitate changes to the EU Consumer Rights or Package Travel Directives, which in turn may require new legislative measures in the UK. I would also welcome your estimate of when the negotiations might be concluded, given that the UNWTO s original timetable under which the final Convention would be submitted to its General Assembly in September 2017 was clearly not realistic. We trust that the exercise of respective EU and Member Sate competence will be transparent. The Committee would also welcome confirmation from you that Directives 2011/83/EU and 2015/2302/EU, on which the Convention appears to be largely based, are expected to remain on the UK Statute Book substantially unchanged in the immediate post-brexit period, either as part of the implementation period sought by the Prime Minister, or as part of the process of retaining EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. 13 November 2017 Letter from Rt Hon Matt Hancock to the Chair Future Partnership Paper: The EU-UK data protection relationship I am writing to you and your committee to inform you that the Government has published a Future Partnership paper outlining the future EU-UK data protection relationship, which I have attached with this letter. This paper is the result of the Government s commitment to publishing a series of papers over