Download Free Remaining Government Responses Session 2004 05 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Remaining Government Responses Session 2004 05 and write the review.

The Government is expected to respond to all reports from the Committee, within two months of publication The Committee then makes them available to the House and publishes them as required. This report makes 35 such responses available.
The European Union Committee was formerly called the Select Committee on the European Union. Responses to the following reports from session 2003-04: 16th (HLP 104, ISBN 0104004622), 17th (HLP 105, ISBN 0104004657), 21st (HLP 131, ISBN 0104005076), 23rd (HLP 138, ISBN 0104005122), 24th (HLP 139, ISBN 0104005114), 27th (HLP 165-I, ISBN 0104005289), 30th (HLP 179-I, 0104005475), 31st (HLP 180, ISBN 0104005394), 32nd (HLP 186, 0104005564).
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.
In recent years it has been the Committee's practice to take evidence regularly from the Ambassador of each incoming Presidency country and from the Minister for Europe after each European Council. Accordingly, this report makes available the oral evidence given by Mr Jim Murphy, Minister for Europe, on 15 January 2008, and by His Excellency Mr Iztok Mirosic, Ambassador of Slovenia, on 29 January 2008. It also contains supplementary memoranda by both witnesses.
Evidence from the Minister for Europe on the June European Council : 28th report of session 2007-08, report with Evidence
This report is about the need for the Commission and Member States to take action in order to prevent the Single Market project from failing to achieve expectations. Increased competition, lower prices and a wider choice of products and services are the potential benefits to consumers; access to an enormous home market is the potential benefit to business. In reality the failure of Member States to implement important legislation has maintained barriers and prevented the fuller completion of the Single Market. This failure is aggravated by the growing trend towards economic protectionism in a number of Member States. Misguided attempts to protect domestic industries and safeguard national jobs are preventing consumers and businesses from reaping the full benefits of a truly open Single Market. The EU needs to reassess the tools it uses. The legislative route is not always the most effective means for achieving Single Market goals. The increased use of other, non-legislative tools will help to overcome the difficulties of legislating for an expanded EU. National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) must be independent of government, especially where governments have financial interests in the major market operator or national incumbent. There is no need for a 'super-regulator' at EU-level in any of the sectors considered in this inquiry: energy, telecommunications and financial services. Achieving consistent implementation begins with effective policy-making based on detailed sector-specific understanding. Currently very few SMEs are engaged in cross-border activity and this is largely due to the regulatory barriers which remain in place, and the lack of reliable information to assist businesses. The Committee welcomes the objective of engaging small business in the Single Market.
The 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy marked the culmination of a gradual reorientation of EU farm subsidies from product support to direct income support. A mid-term "Health Check" of this reform is now underway, exploring what further adjustments may be required for the period 2009 to 2013. The Commission's proposals for short-term adjustments to the CAP merit broad support. The Committee is not convinced of the long-term justification for maintaining direct subsidy payments in their present form, and advocates a phased reduction in direct payments over the course of the next financial period beginning in 2014. A significant proportion of the funds released should remain earmarked for the CAP, but be spent on the rural development element of the policy rather than on farm subsidies. The report also addresses the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the EU agriculture industry. The sector is a significant contributor to climate change, but also vulnerable to its effects. Climate change may present a business opportunity for the industry, which is uniquely placed to deliver environmental services. Soaring global demand for many agricultural commodities has allowed some sectors of the European farming industry to prosper, while others are grappling with rising input prices and stagnant or falling output prices. Were supply shortages to ensue in future, the Committee expects that food scarcity would be a function of income rather than of production capacity. Those most at risk are consumers on low incomes in the developing world. Further trade liberalisation in the agriculture sector is supported, but if direct payments are withdrawn and import tariffs reduced-as the UK Government advocates-then the production standards that EU producers of agricultural goods are obliged to meet should be re-examined.
This report sets out evidence taken by the Committee from members of the Grand Committee of the Finnish national parliament (the Eduskunta), the equivalent select committee in the Finnish Parliament with responsibility for scrutiny of EU matters. Issues discussed include: the ratification of the EU constitutional treaty; euroscepticism in Finland; the role, resources and working methods of the Grand Committee; and role of MEPs.
The passerelle ("bridge") provisions relate to simplified procedures designed exclusively for revision of the Constitutional Treaty.
In March 2005, the European Commission issued a Communication designed to improve the EU regulatory environment in order to promote competition and trade and facilitate job creation. The Committee's report examines the proposals for better regulation, including the 'regulation tools' of impact assessment, simplification and consultation, the position of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the case for a new regulatory body to oversee regulation in the EU, the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making and the role of Member States, the ambitions and activities of the UK presidency of the EU in this area. The Committee welcomes the initiatives and the attitudinal change that seems to be filtering through the Commission but highlights the need for full implementation and assessment; and also calls on the UK Government to ensure the issue is placed at the top of the EU political agenda.