PROGRAMME FOR ENTERPRISE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
(21202)
8134/00
COM(00) 256
|
Commission Communication containing proposals for a Council
Decision on a Multi-Annual Programme for Enterprise and
Entrepreneurship (2001-2005).
|
| Legal base:
| Article 157(3) EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 17 May 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| 18 May 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
8.1 The Commission presents the Multiannual
Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship as a major instrument
for achieving key goals over the next five years for a competitive
and dynamic EU economy. It has identified five objectives which,
it says, will translate broad policy aims into a specific programme
of activity, tailored to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs). These objectives are targeted on those areas where the
EU's enterprise policy faces its main challenges:
- to promote entrepreneurship "as a valuable
and productive life skill, based on customer orientation and a
stronger culture of service";
- to encourage a regulatory and business environment
that takes account of sustainable development, and in which research,
innovation and entrepreneurship can flourish;
- to improve the financial environment for SMEs;
- to enhance the competitiveness of SMEs in the
knowledge-based economy; and
- to ensure that business support networks and
services to enterprises are provided and co-ordinated.
8.2 The activities to be supported by the
programme will include:
- the development of policy through the identification,
exchange and implementation of good practice;
- development of a statistical and technical understanding
of the needs of business;
- information support services.
8.3 The intention is that this programme
should build on the experience of the Third Multiannual Programme
for SMEs (1997-2000)[26]
and the independent evaluation of it which we considered last
year[27].
One of the recommendations of the evaluation was that the Business
Environment Simplification Task Force (BEST) could be further
developed. The Commission now proposes that it should be replaced
by a more broadly-based initiative, to be called BEST Procedure.
The acronym will no longer be relevant.
8.4 The key challenges which the new programme
is designed to confront are identified in the Communication as:
- raising the profile of entrepreneurship as key
to the new economy;
- promoting an innovative business environment;
- stimulating new business models in the e-economy;
- getting more from the internal market;
- new methods of co-ordination: benchmarking, monitoring
and concerted action.
8.5 A radical proposal for cutting red tape,
put forward in the Communication, is that there needs to be an
evaluation, on the basis of experience, of the whole acquis.
The Commission believes that five years is a "challenging,
but broadly achievable" time to achieve this. It is not mentioned
specifically in the Actions Foreseen annexed to the draft Decision.
8.6 There are also plans to improve business
impact assessment procedures. The Commission says that in the
past what has been lacking has been "not intention but clout".
In the United States, the Office of Management and Budget of the
White House has the authority to stop legislation and to insist
that a cost-benefit analysis be made, it says. It will, in future,
"insist that legislative proposals can only be adopted if
business impact has been properly assessed prior to launching
the proposal."
8.7 Other related initiatives on enterprise
policy, on which the Commission is working, are identified in
the Communication as:
- a comprehensive eEurope Action Plan, by June
2000;
- a benchmark exercise on entrepreneurship and
innovation to be launched by June 2000, with first results presented
by December 2000;
- the European Charter for Small Enterprises, to
be endorsed by June 2000; and
- a review of EU financial instruments to redirect
EU funding towards high tech start ups and other risk capital
initiatives.
The Government's view
8.8 The Minister of State for Energy and
Competitiveness in Europe (the Rt. Hon. Helen Liddell) says in
her EM that:
"The Government endorses
the strategic direction of the Communication and the proposal
for a Council Decision. The drawing together of work on enterprise
policy and Multi Annual Programme with other relevant initiatives,
notably the UK-inspired Lisbon Council decision to develop a European
Charter for Small Firms, is welcome. The document identifies the
right strategic direction for action in Europe and makes an important
link between strategic thinking and delivery of results through
the Multi-Annual Programme. The Government welcomes the higher
profile given to sharing best practice through benchmarking, peer
review, seminars and conferences."
8.9 The Commission says that small scale
activities have had to be dropped from the programme. This is
in line with its policy, following criticism from the Court of
Auditors and the European Parliament, to limit its work to what
it has the management capacity to handle. The Minister says that
the UK supports this shift but will press the Commission for a
clear statement on which of the existing measures is to be discontinued,
in time for an assessment to be made before the December Industry
Council of the impact of this change. It will also press the Commission
to develop a more detailed plan of action.
8.10 The Minister notes that no indications
of the financial implications are given in the documents but that
the Commission has undertaken to attach a financial statement
to the final text.
Conclusion
8.11 We welcome the shift in this proposal
towards a more focussed programme aimed at developing and implementing
policy measures and away from small scale, low-impact support
measures. We somehow doubt that there will be any appetite for
evaluating the acquis, but we are particularly pleased
to note the Commission's declaration that it will take a firm
line on impact assessments.
8.12 Since the EM was drafted, the final
text of the Communication has been issued, to which a financial
statement is attached. We ask the Minister to provide us with
a Supplementary EM with her views on the budget proposed, and
we ask her to tell us whether she expects the draft Recommendation
to be amended before Common Position. If so, we ask her to provide
a further EM or a letter in due course when the text is in a final
or near final state, before it is put to a Council with a view
to agreeing a Common Position.
8.13 Until we have the Minister's reply,
we shall not clear this document.
26 (17124) 6141/96; see HC 51-xix (1995-96),
paragraph 1 (15 May 1996). Back
27
(20319) 9739/99; see HC 34-xxix (1998-1999), paragraph 15
(27 October 1999). Back
|
