Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum 8121/07 which was considered by Sub Committee A at their meeting on Tuesday 8 May. The Sub Committee decided to hold the item under scrutiny.

  The Sub Committee noted your concerns regarding the legal base for issues where competence is shared. The Committee agrees that consideration needs to be given to including Article 133(6) as a legal base. We would be grateful if you would confirm that the decision had been amended to reflect this and let us know what other steps are being taken to ensure compliance with that Article.

  Thank you for your letter of 9 May, I am writing to up-date you.on the latest position.

  Discussions on this item are still ongoing at Council Working Group level. The key issue that you noted in your letter remains the legal base and, in particular, whether Article 133(6) should be added to the legal base of the proposed Council Decision.

  To date, the Decision has yet to be amended. This issue is the subject of detailed legal consideration in Brussels. We expect the discussions to progress only when that consideration is complete. I will write again when discussions have moved forward substantively.

31 May 2007

  I am writing further to my letter of 31 May.

  I am pleased to say that discussions on this dossier have now moved forward. In particular, the proposal has been the subject of detailed legal argument in Brussels.

  The issue remains that noted in your letter of 9 May—the legal base. Most debate has focused on whether Article 133(6) should be added to the legal base of the proposed Council Decision but other additional legal bases have also been proposed. Specifically, and on the grounds that some of the measures withdrawn relate to transport, Articles 71 and 80(2) have been proposed. These legal bases would bring with them a further legal base—Article 300(3)—which would necessitate the Council consulting the European Parliament.

  At present, discussions in Council are finely balanced. The German Presidency has presented a compromise containing the full suite of legal bases proposed to date—Articles 133(5), 133(6), 71, 80(2), 300(2) and 300(3)—and amending the text of the proposed Decision to be consistent with the new legal bases added. We have supported the Presidency's efforts and, ideally, would hope to secure an outcome on this basis. However, given that agreement in Council will depend on securing unanimity among the Member States to amend the Commission's proposal, that the Commission is firmly opposed and that some Member States appear less confident of the arguments on Articles 71, 80(2) and 300(3) than they appear on Article 133(6), it may be that in order to secure agreement to the addition of Article 133(6) we may need to drop Articles 71, 80(2) and 300(3) from the Presidency compromise.

  Without minimising the reservations expressed in your letter of 9 May, in view of the likelihood of this dossier coming to rapid agreement, I would be grateful if your Committee could consider lifting its scrutiny reserve.

25 June 2007

  I am writing in response to Ian McCartney's letters of 31 May and 25 June. These were considered by Sub-Committee A at their meeting on 3 July. The Sub-Committee agreed to clear the item from scrutiny to all agreement either on the German Presidency compromise that you have outlined, or on the original proposal in your Explanatory Memorandum that Article 133(6) be added as a legal base.

  The Sub-Committee would be grateful if you were to write to them following the agreement to update them of the outcome of these negotiations. I trust that you are content that, should the German Presidency proposals be agreed to, the procedure envisaged under the legal bases proposed are compatible.

3 July 2007