Asked by: Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Home Office and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.
Answered by Lord Bates
As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The Review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce the 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, Departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders.
It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the Government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything that it does.
The Home Office participated in three reports as part of the Balance of Competences review: Asylum and non-EU Migration; Free movement of persons (jointly with DWP); and Police and Criminal Justice (jointly with the Ministry of Justice). Work on the Reviews was allocated, according to need, to existing staff within the Department. Providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.
The total cost to the Home Office for printing and publication of the Asylum and non-EU Migration, Free Movement of Persons, and Police and Criminal Justice reports was £8088.08.
The Home Office hosted or jointly hosted a total of a number of engagement events for the three reports, including events in Edinburgh and Brussels. We estimate that the total cost incurred by the Home Office for all of these events was £2200. Across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00.
The Home Office did not incur any other associated costs as part of the Balance of Competence Review.
Asked by: Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they failed to write in advance of 1 December to describe the circumstances and provide justification for their agreement to the draft Council Decision concerning the United Kingdom's participation in provisions of the Schengen <i>acquis</i>, as required by paragraph 6.2.11 of the Cabinet Office Guidance for Departments on Parliamentary Scrutiny of European Union Documents.
Answered by Lord Bates
The Council Decision concerning the United Kingdom’s participation in provisions of the Schengen acquis gave effect to the decision of the House of Lords on 17 November that the Government should re-join a package of 35 measures following the exercise of the UK's opt-out under Protocol 36 to the Treaties on the functioning of the EU (the 2014 opt-out decision). The Government accepts that the draft of this document should have been deposited earlier and apologises for the delay in its provision to the Committee.
Whilst we have noted the wishes of the Committee for an oral statement on the override, the Government does not believe it to be necessary given the number of debates and the extensive engagement with both Houses of Parliament and their Committees on the Protocol 36 op-out. We have responded to the Committee's correspondence on this matter and a written statement was laid in Parliament on the 10th December.
Asked by: Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the deposit in Parliament of the draft Council Decision concerning the United Kingdom's participation in provisions of the Schengen <i>acquis</i>, published on 19 November, was delayed until 4 December, leading to an override of the House of Lords scrutiny reserve resolution on 1 December.
Answered by Lord Bates
The Council Decision concerning the United Kingdom’s participation in provisions of the Schengen acquis gave effect to the decision of the House of Lords on 17 November that the Government should re-join a package of 35 measures following the exercise of the UK's opt-out under Protocol 36 to the Treaties on the functioning of the EU (the 2014 opt-out decision). The Government accepts that the draft of this document should have been deposited earlier and apologises for the delay in its provision to the Committee.
Whilst we have noted the wishes of the Committee for an oral statement on the override, the Government does not believe it to be necessary given the number of debates and the extensive engagement with both Houses of Parliament and their Committees on the Protocol 36 op-out. We have responded to the Committee's correspondence on this matter and a written statement was laid in Parliament on the 10th December.
Asked by: Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Bates on 4 December, why they have refused the European Union Committee’s request of 26 November for an oral statement to be made regarding the override of the House of Lords scrutiny reserve resolution over the draft Council Decision concerning the United Kingdom's participation in provisions of the Schengen <i>acquis</i> on 1 December.
Answered by Lord Bates
The Council Decision concerning the United Kingdom’s participation in provisions of the Schengen acquis gave effect to the decision of the House of Lords on 17 November that the Government should re-join a package of 35 measures following the exercise of the UK's opt-out under Protocol 36 to the Treaties on the functioning of the EU (the 2014 opt-out decision). The Government accepts that the draft of this document should have been deposited earlier and apologises for the delay in its provision to the Committee.
Whilst we have noted the wishes of the Committee for an oral statement on the override, the Government does not believe it to be necessary given the number of debates and the extensive engagement with both Houses of Parliament and their Committees on the Protocol 36 op-out. We have responded to the Committee's correspondence on this matter and a written statement was laid in Parliament on the 10th December.