European Commission Work Programme 2006
Hello, everyone, and welcome to the 17th meeting this year of the European and External Relations Committee.
I have received apologies from Charlie Gordon; John Home Robertson, who is overseas; and Margaret Ewing, who is not well. I welcome back Phil Gallie—I see that he is here, not his substitute. It is a pleasure to have him back.
I also welcome a special visitor to the committee. David Craig from Hamilton College is doing work experience. I hope that he will enjoy what he hears.
Our first agenda item today is consideration of the European Commission's work programme for 2006, which was published last month. The committee will discuss the areas of the work programme that it might want to take forward in the coming months. To help us, I am pleased to welcome William Sleath from the Commission's strategic planning and programming unit, who kindly agreed to come over from Brussels to be with us this afternoon.
It is a pleasure to meet you for the first time, Mr Sleath, although I know that members who took part in the committee's visit to Brussels last spring recall meeting you on that occasion to discuss the Commission's 2005 work programme. I ask members to bear in mind the fact that William must catch his return flight this afternoon so, interested though we are, we should not keep him beyond 3 o'clock.
I ask William Sleath to make a brief opening statement and then we will move on to questions.
William Sleath (European Commission Secretariat-General):
It is a great pleasure to be here. We welcome the opportunity to explain a little about the Commission's intentions for the coming year, so I thank you for the invitation.
Before sketching out a few of the key features of the programme for 2006, I will explain why we have a work programme at all.
It is important to remember that the work programme is one step in a chain that links the Commission's overall political objectives to real action. When the Commission came into office, it established five-year strategic objectives. In a sense, each work programme is a kind of annual down payment of action towards the realisation of those goals. It offers a kind of internal discipline to ensure that the political aims of the Commission are where the action is focused. It also offers a performance measure internally and externally.
There is an external reason for each work programme, which is transparency. In the European Union system, the Commission has the role of developing policy and coming up with ideas. Obviously, it is important that not only the other institutions in the EU system but other actors and interested parties, such as this committee, are aware of what is likely to come up and what the future programme of EU action is likely to be.
You will have noticed that the programme for 2006 is organised to follow the four strategic objectives that the Commission has laid out: prosperity; solidarity; security; and the external dimension of those three goals. Looking inside that, it is important to think of the overall life of a political initiative from conception, through consultation to legislation, negotiation and implementation. There are many different stages that a political initiative must pass through. The work programme is a snapshot of those political initiatives at various times in their lives. Some are in their early stages and we are issuing consultation papers on them. Others have been consulted on and are nearing their legislative stage. Still others are in the form of proposals that we are in the middle of putting the case for.
We have in the work programme a list of priority actions, which is where much of the attention tends to be focused. However, I stress that the work programme is not only about that list; it also covers many on-going actions, some of which will take up a huge amount of energy and political attention over the coming year. For example, in relation to the financial perspectives package, even if we get a deal at the European Council next month, there will still be a tremendous amount of work to do to get all of the programmes into legislative form and up and running before 1 January 2007. There are many areas of importance—such as Lisbon, the World Trade Organisation round and so on—that are not necessarily linked to the adoption of a particular paper by the college of 25 commissioners but which are, politically, headline issues for the coming year.
In addition, the priority list is not an exclusive list. As well as the items that have been highlighted, the Commission is likely to come forward with many other items over the year. Many of those are things such as annual reports and other regular documents that the Commission is required to produce under existing legislation.
I will pick out a few headline issues, in each of the four areas. Of course it is difficult to pick out particular subjects, and I am sure that members have certain things that they would like to talk about, but I will run through the strategic objectives quickly. The Lisbon agenda remains the core focus of our activity on prosperity, with perhaps an emphasis this year on trying to ensure that the internal market works—the emphasis is on implementation. With regard to solidarity, there will be a particular emphasis this year on long-term areas: the challenge of demographics and how environmental policy will look after the Kyoto arrangements come to an end. Security is an issue, and in the wake of the London bombings there is great emphasis on anti-terrorism measures. Externally, we must follow up the priorities of the Lisbon agenda and issues relating to terrorism in an international dimension.
I emphasise that the European Commission's work programme is not just about policy content; it is also about how the Commission tends to its business. The committee will see in the large section headed "Delivery and Better Regulation" the importance given to the quality of regulation, to consultation and to ensuring that the European Union's work is of a high standard. President Barroso has put particular emphasis on that.
That was, I hope, a helpful introduction and a very quick run-through of the objectives. I am happy to discuss any and all of them.
Thank you very much, William. Members will have many questions, but I will start by asking a fairly general one. How can regional Governments and Parliaments participate in the European legislative process?
I mentioned the idea that political initiatives that come forward as legislation do not come out of nowhere. Legislation is part of a political initiative's life, but it is standard practice—other than in urgent cases—to build in consultation mechanisms. That can be done when the initiative is at the separate document stage—a green paper or a communication—or as part of the process of impact assessment, which is now a compulsory exercise for the items in the priority list.
Consultation offers an opportunity to many actors: to non-governmental organisations, trade associations and social partners. It also offers an opportunity for regional authorities and regional Parliaments to have their voice heard and to input to the process. We always welcome such input, as it can save the Commission from coming forward with an initiative that has not taken all factors into account.
It is in everyone's interest that consultation happens at an early, upstream stage when it can be fed into the Commission's thinking.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that it is acceptable for the Commission to listen to the views of a regional Administration on a matter without necessarily going through the national Government.
Absolutely. There is a formal legislative system for which procedures are laid down in the European Union treaties and in which there is a clear, formal role for the European Parliament and for member states' Governments acting in the Council of the European Union. One of the fundamental principles of the better regulation world in which we now live is the distinction between that formal system and the early consultation that I talked about.
However, that is not the whole story. Our experience is that if one waits until that point to have a political discussion, it is too late. The discussion ought to happen much earlier, with a much wider variety of actors. Of course, the fact that national Governments and the European Parliament have a formal role further down the line means that they are particularly important in the process and people will always have an eye on the line that they are likely to take. However, the process is in no way exclusive and the consultation mechanisms that have been developed over recent years are there to give other actors the opportunity to have their say.
My question is more specific. It is about the recommendation for a European qualifications framework, which I understand will be part of the Commission's work programme. What is the aim of that framework? Is it to get mutual recognition throughout the European Union of all professional qualifications? If so, will that not be very difficult? Even within the United Kingdom, there is not mutual recognition of all professional qualifications. For example, there is a General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is distinct from the General Teaching Council for England. Someone's qualifications may be recognised and may enable them to teach in England but not in Scotland. Similarly, there is a different body of Scots law, a different training for lawyers and a different law society in Scotland. What will the Commission do to work towards a European qualifications framework?
You have underlined some of the reasons why it is not easy. It has proved not to be enough to start off from the political goal of mutual recognition. It is necessary to work with national, regional and local authorities, trade bodies and professional organisations to develop confidence and mutual understanding. The idea behind the framework is to develop through that network approach a more understanding attitude in order to pave the way for real free movement and mutual recognition of qualifications. It is inevitable that that process will not move forward at an equal rate in all parts of society and the economy, but we have to make a start. We can provide good examples and encourage member states to learn from each other's experience and to move forward in that way.
Can I take it that the European Commission will make direct contact with Scottish institutions and bodies such as Scottish universities, the General Teaching Council for Scotland and so on rather than rely on the UK Government to present the Scottish case?
Certainly, that kind of network cannot work only at a national level; it must operate at all kinds of levels through all kinds of bodies, otherwise it is a case of civil servants talking to civil servants, which will not work. The network must include people who will receive a curriculum vitae and say to themselves, "Do I regard this qualification as being just as good?" Work must be done at a much more fundamental, local level.
I will start with a general question. We have thanked you for coming from Brussels and we appreciate your contribution to the committee's work, but a question that I ask myself when I look at the work programme is: will it reconnect Europe and its citizens?
It seems to me that the programme is very measured compared with programmes in previous years. I do not know whether you can give us a reason for that. Revision of the works council directive has been called for, for example, but I do not see anything in the programme about that, nor do I see a great deal about the services directive, which will have an effect on public services and collective bargaining, although I recognise that the programme is, as you said, a snapshot of political initiatives.
Europe's citizens are asking about what is being done about MG Rover or Hewlett Packard in France. The committee sees such examples. Will you flesh out a little the social and employment issues, which seem to be a little bit lacking on first reading of the programme? Can we look forward to their being fleshed out in future years while the period of reflection is being worked out? I am not sure. Perhaps you can give us an insight.
Sure. If annual work programmes are considered to be down payments for actions, it is inevitable that there will be years in which there will be a little more in one area and other years in which there will be a little more in other areas. This year, we are hitting a moment in the institutional rhythm in which many important things are already on the table. A lot of energy in the social area will go on developing the new social agenda, for example, which was adopted only last February, I think, and on getting in place the new cohesion and structural funds, assuming that there is a deal on the financial perspectives. Therefore, there is already an in-built agenda that people are working on without their necessarily having to propose new initiatives. In the area of equality between men and women, an action plan has been proposed that follows on from the social agenda and which puts things into more tangible form.
You mentioned the interesting example of Hewlett Packard. The Commission has been faced with something of a challenge with that case. Some member states have said, "What's the European Union's answer to the problem? How can the European Union show that it is offering a response to such social crises?" We have come forward with the idea of the globalisation adjustment fund, which is not in the programme because of the urgency that is involved. President Barroso has proposed a new fund to allow urgent and rapid help to be directed to those who have lost their jobs. The aim is to help people to find new jobs where there have been large-scale redundancies.
The work programme offers an idea of the main lines of medium-term planning, but there is no sense in which it is exclusive or in which, just because there is a priority list, we cannot do anything else if there is an urgent need and a political imperative to act. Some cases will fall into those categories.
I am glad that you mentioned the globalisation adjustment fund because I was going to ask you about that. I do not see it in the programme but it is attached to the financial perspectives. Is that correct? Is the Commission looking to ring fence that fund as it does the solidarity fund? Is the globalisation adjustment fund intended to be outwith the money in the financial perspectives? What support has the fund gained during the UK presidency? I will be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
You are absolutely right. The budgetary mechanism for the globalisation adjustment fund is modelled on the solidarity fund. There will be no pre-allocated money for the fund in the financial perspectives. If there is no need for the fund in a particular year, there will be no expenditure. If the European Parliament and the Council agree that there is a need, the fund can draw up to €500 million per year. Incidentally, that sum can customarily be found in the headings, because there is always a reasonable margin.
On your question about how much support the fund has been getting, I can perhaps characterise the position by saying that support is not too bad. There is recognition that there is a real political issue and there is interest in the European Union's ability to offer a swift response to social crises. Some member states are positive while others have been more reticent.
The fund will be something that citizens can actually see. When cases arise such as those of MG Rover or Hewlett Packard in France, citizens will know that a pot of money from Europe is available to assist. My understanding is that the fund will deal with asymmetric shocks to regional economies and that there will be a trigger mechanism for member states to draw on it. Is that correct?
It is for member states to consider whether the criteria have been met and to make a request. The request will go to the Commission, which will give its view on whether it is justified. It will then go to the European Parliament and the Council.
It might be useful to say a bit more about the purposes of the fund. It is a reactive fund, so it will kick in only when something happens that is of a certain level of political importance. Member states will have to bear that in mind when they make requests. Also, there is an element of co-financing, in that the member state will be expected to contribute as well. The requirement for national finance is a guarantee that there will be a certain level of seriousness in the requests.
Thank you. I recognise that my colleagues want to come in, but if I can briefly say—
Very briefly, please.
The services directive is a bit of a disappointment. Some leadership on that would have been welcome because the directive is so controversial and so complex. I hear what you say about the programme being a snapshot in time and I do not know whether discussions on the directive are taking place or whether the European Parliament is doing most of the work. However, sometimes we need a little bit of leadership and I was a bit disappointed that the position was not made clearer in the work programme. I simply make that comment; I do not know whether you want to respond.
When the work programme was adopted, it was expected that the European Parliament would come up with its views at the end of October or this month, so that the Commission could respond with a revised proposal this year. If we had known that the European Parliament's consideration was going to be postponed, we would have said something about the matter in the work programme.
Thank you.
When I met one of the commissioners this time last year, just as the new Commission was bedding in, I got the clear impression that it was intended that the hallmark of the new Commission would be consolidating and reinforcing what was there and that there did not need to be a great long stream of new initiatives and regulations to prove a commissioner's virility. Do you think that that is holding fast?
There is still very much a flavour of that. The current Commission is keen that it delivers on what it announces. Whereas in the past we adopted 50 or 60 per cent of the priority actions that we announce by the end of the year, in the 2005 work programme we have now adopted more than 80 per cent of the actions and will certainly have adopted more than 90 per cent by the end of the year. Delivering on what the Commission puts forward is still very much the byword.
It is worth noting that quite a few items in next year's programme are about helping implementation. The proposals on public procurement are not about having another piece of legislation to extend the scope of the rules; they are about how those who fear that the rules are not being implemented can get a legal judgment in their favour. A lot of the items in the programme relate to the idea that we need to do more to ensure that the existing rules are implemented.
I am grateful that you mentioned the proposals on public procurement, because I was going to come on to that. I certainly welcome the focus on ensuring the proper implementation of the rules. It is a healthy sign if that is the trend.
You will be aware that there has been considerable concern in Scotland about non-military shipbuilding contracts. It appears that in Germany most public sector contracts go to German yards and that in France most public sector contracts go to French yards. However, in Scotland the contracts seem to go anywhere bar Scottish yards. We cannot understand why the same German yards are not as competitive when they bid for a Scottish contract as they are when they bid for a German contract. There is scepticism, but it has not yet been established that anyone is doing anything other than playing by the rules.
What initiatives does the Commission intend to implement to try to ensure that the rules are properly enforced? It is a question of ensuring not only that public sector contracts are properly advertised in the relevant European journals but that the outcomes of the bids for contracts are properly reported. I think I am right in saying that there is a shortfall between the number of contracts that are advertised and the number of contracts whose outcome is reported.
I do not know about the issue of reporting. Certainly, there is a focus on trying to encourage challenges where it looks as if contracts are not being awarded according to the rules, by ensuring that processes are in place to allow those challenges to be effective and not lengthy. Such issues can act as a disincentive to a private company putting in a bid in the first place.
There is a general recognition that the public procurement rules are not working as openly or as well as they ought to and therefore a sense that action must be taken to ensure that the rules work. This year, the concentration is on trying to ensure that if someone has a problem in any of the 25 member states, they know exactly where to go, how long action will take, how much it will cost and what the end result might be. There is an obligation on member states to offer such procedures, but the procedures tend to vary from one member state to another.
Unlike Irene Oldfather, I see the EU work programme going into new areas, to some degree. It seems to me that in the work programme that you have presented to us today there are no no-go areas for the EU in relation to national interests—much more so than in the past. Is the Commission still working to an agenda that is based on the proposed European constitution going ahead?
There is a sense in which the constitution was a consequence of European political consensus. The constitution introduced very few new policy areas and stayed fairly close to the status quo on the scope of EU action. The more significant impact of the constitution was in the area of the facilitation of procedures for taking action. I do not think that you would have seen a huge difference.
The constitution contained some new areas, the most obvious of which was the significant shift in what the EU could do in the area of justice and home affairs. The Council established The Hague programme on the assumption that the constitution would come into force. If you have read The Hague programme and know the Council's intentions, you will see that there are items in the work programme that the Commission should be coming forward with but is not, because there is no constitution and therefore no legal basis for them.
With respect, I do not know that I agree with what you said about the constitution, which would have given new competences to the EU in certain areas. However, that is not for debate today.
I think that Jim Wallace referred to one of the proposals in the work programme on defence procurement. Defence is very much a national issue. My reading of the EU's intention on defence procurement is that it would remove an element of national responsibility and the EU would be able to select, for whatever reason, what it considered best for our armed forces. Is that not a step beyond what the Commission can do?
The EU treaties have for many years had in them provisions on defence procurement that have explained that there can be exceptions for reasons of security. The intention this year is to try to go a little bit further and define what we mean when we talk about "reasons of security".
If we consider the member states' input to the EU defence effort and the output from that effort, there is an appreciation that we do not get as much of an output as we ought to, given our input. One of the reasons for that could be that the interpretation of the national security exception has been so wide that we do not have the military clout that we ought to have.
I would prefer to leave that to our national Governments to judge.
Is this not a time for the EU to reflect? People in France and Holland have spoken out in a way that might suggest that national interest should have a greater input, but are you not ignoring that by coming up with a work programme such as the one that we are considering? Would it not have been better, in—I think—Jim Wallace's words, to regard the period between now and 2007 as one of consolidation?
Consolidation, yes—but not inaction. There is no evidence from France or the Netherlands that citizens want the European Union to stand still and do nothing. On the contrary, there is a range of issues on which the opinion polls show that citizens want the European Union to act. They perhaps do not want it to act in the same way that they consider that it acted in the past, but they expect EU action, so to stand back and do nothing is not the right answer.
My final question is specific to the toys directive. I have a particular interest in the importation of toys. I presume that the EU directive will set very safe criteria for the manufacture of toys by European manufacturers and producers. Will the directive apply in the same way to anybody who imports toys to ensure that the goods comply with it?
Yes. The safety legislation is about products that are marketed on the EU market, rather than only those that are made in Europe.
Okay. Thanks very much.
Is Mr Gallie happy?
No. I am never happy, but I will accept that answer.
I have two specific questions that I would like William Sleath to answer. First, will you give me your views on whether the proposed European institute of technology is likely to be established in five proposed centres throughout Europe?
Secondly, I have concerns about the intention to open up the internal market for postal services. What proposals does the Commission have for the interests of rural areas, such as much of the Highlands of Scotland, where a competitive postal service might not be viable?
As you might know, there has been a consultation on the European institute of technology, which came to an end only last week, I think. I am sure that my colleagues are beavering away examining the answers and coming to some slightly firmer conclusions than we have had so far.
As you are obviously aware, among the ideas was that of having a network that would build on existing institutions in several member states. However, inside that idea, there were several different models that could be used. For example, although there would be a network, would a central body be necessary to hold everything together? How large a network should we have? How would we choose who will be inside it? Who would be involved in the results: would it always be the same people in the network or would we have a variable geometry? There are lots of different options and it is a little early to come to conclusions about how this area will end up.
On the issue of postal services, it is important to remember that the goal of the initial legislation on postal services was not just to open up the market; it was to maintain a universal service and open up the market in areas that would not harm the universal service. I would think that that two-track approach would be maintained.
There is an initiative this year because the original legislation gave 2009 as the deadline for implementation of the current phase and included a built-in review this year, when the Commission was to come to a view about the extent to which the intentions that were set out for 2009 should be maintained or whether they should be amended or reformed in some way. If you like, it is a kind of mid-term review when amendments can be suggested. I am sure that the idea of the critical importance of maintaining the universal service will remain absolutely at the heart of the intentions.
Has any research or investigation been done by the Commission on the current state of postal services, their cost, how they will be maintained and how they could be part of a competitive national postal service?
I do not know the details, but the review will be the result of such a study and investigation. It will come forward with ideas but, at the same time, it will give an idea of the state of play with regard to how reform has gone so far.
Does anyone want to follow up any of the issues?
To me, the integration of the EU mortgage credit market looks like harmonisation. How, in the Commission's view, does that affect competition?
With regard to the proposal for a regulation on the law on jurisdiction in relation to divorce, the Scottish Parliament is currently dealing with the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, which is quite complicated and is creating concerns within our relatively small community. How will wider EU interests affect divorce law in this country?
On the mortgage issue, the question is one of liberalisation. At the moment, we do not have a single market in mortgages. A consumer who is looking for a mortgage in one member state is in a situation in which, because of prudential rules, consumer-protection rules, supervisory rules and so on, they are able only to take up an offer from their country. That is a gap in the existing internal market arrangements. We think that it is time that we moved towards giving borrowers an opportunity to have access to a larger amount of mortgage offers.
The divorce issue is part of a civil law initiative. We are talking entirely about mutual recognition. At the moment, there are problems in securing mutual recognition of family law issues across the member states. The regulation is one of a series of attempts to ensure that a divorce that is granted in one member state is recognised in all the others.
Your answer to the convener's first question was welcome and helpful. It indicated that the views of regional and sub-member state legislatures and Executives would be welcome. The work programme helps a lot, but is the mechanism for early warning a bit hit and miss? Are there mechanisms, not just for Scotland but for places such as Catalonia and the German Länder, that allow us to have meaningful input at a sufficiently early stage so that we can influence thinking?
The answer is probably, "Yes, normally." The system is not yet perfect; the systems of consultation are still relatively new in the Commission's bloodstream. It takes a few years for such systems to become natural and for people to do things in a comparable enough way for outside actors to know exactly what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to respond. We are moving towards that position.
Over the past couple of years, our minimum standards for consultation have helped a lot to standardise systems and have made it easier for outside interests to be heard. The Europa website your voice in Europe should list all the on-going consultations and is an easy one-stop shop. We are getting there, and if our systems get there, it will inevitably become easier for outside interests to have their voice heard.
Thank you very much.
I know that the committee has studied closely the papers that were sent with the agenda, including the paper that the Scottish Parliament information centre prepared on the background to the work programme. Would the committee like to engage with any specific aspects of the programme? To jog our memories, I took a note of the specifics that we touched on when taking evidence: a European qualifications framework; social employment issues and the solidarity fund in particular; consolidation and public contracts; defence procurement; the toys directive; the institute of technology; and postal services. What are members' views?
The discussion has been helpful. We should keep a watching brief on some of those issues and ask our parliamentary officer in Brussels to keep us posted on developments. I know that the globalisation adjustment fund is dependent on finances, so we cannot do a great deal more about that just now. That applies to a number of issues, but we should certainly keep abreast of any developments.
I have particular concerns about defence, and it might be worth, even at this early stage, touching base with Adam Ingram, the minister of state at the Ministry of Defence, to see what his views are. That is only one side of the argument—companies such as BAE and others have a UK interest, and it might be worth finding out what is happening on both sides of that argument.
I thought that Dennis Canavan's comments on education were interesting. We will discuss information technology later, and our major institutions, such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the universities, are perhaps out of step with what is being proposed in Europe on that. That is obviously well worth looking at.
I am more interested in the mortgage issue from a people viewpoint than from an industry viewpoint. It sounds to me as if finding a system that would operate right across Europe could be a heck of a complicated process, given different property ownership practices and so on. Once again, it seems to me that the mortgage issue is one on which Europe should not overstretch itself.
Perhaps that is an issue on which we can keep a watching brief rather than investigate whether progress is being made.
On the idea of a watching brief, it might be useful if we monitored some of the issues. Issues such as postal services are reserved, but if the Scottish Parliament has direct responsibility for an issue, perhaps we could hear from the Executive what input, if any, is being made into the consultations, particularly those on issues highlighted by members.
I will leave the institute of technology aside for the moment, as we will come back to it. However, we will have a watching brief in relation to the other consultations—particularly those that members raised and into which the Executive should have an input. Part of the watching brief would involve checking the Executive's input.
A further point occurs to me following what Jim Wallace said. We have held a debate in the Parliament on the Commission's work programme. It was useful, because it allowed members to raise issues to which the Executive could respond. I am not sure whether that debate was a committee debate or an Executive debate, although I have a feeling that it was the former. I do not know whether any committee debates are coming up, but if so, we could use one to explore the work programme further and get a response from the Executive. Alternatively, we could invite a minister to the committee.
Nick Hawthorne has just confirmed that it was a committee debate.
Phil Gallie likes getting ministers along to the committee.
I liked the debate in the Parliament, actually. I would prefer such a debate, if possible.
There is no reason why we cannot make a bid.
I understand that slots for committee debates are available in January, February and March.
Let us have them all. What do members think? We will go for it.
Let us have a debate as early as possible. I back Irene Oldfather's suggestion.
What is happening here? It just shows that the break did the two of you good.
We will monitor the issue, but we will also make a bid for a committee debate to consider points raised by other members of the Parliament. We will do that with a view perhaps to inviting a minister to the committee to discuss some of the issues. Have I got that right?
Members indicated agreement.