Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR MICHEL
SERVOZ AND
MR PETER
HANDLEY
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER 2002
Mr Connarty
1. Good morning again, Mr Servoz and Mr Handley.
As I explained, I am taking the chair in the absence of the Chairman,
Jimmy Hood, who is actually off at a conference with other chairs
of select committees in Estonia. Can we just get right down to
business because I know you have got another meeting and we do
want to let you go as quickly as possible so you can focus on
your next meeting. In the Work Programme document the Commission
talks about "structured dialogue" with other EU institutions.
Can you summarise for us the significance of the stocktaking document
and what stage it represents in your new strategic planning process?
Can you tell us what happens next?
(Mr Servoz) Thank you very much. First
of all, if I may, I would like to express my thanks to you and
to Members of this Committee for inviting us to give evidence
to this committee. I think the timing of this meeting is quite
good because in fact it was only yesterday that the Commission
adopted this Work Programme for 2003. In a way it is also an opportunity
for us to explain what is in this Work Programme for 2003. What
I should explain is the process which prepares for this Work Programme.
There I think it is quite important to remember that this is part
of the reform of the Commission which was all started by scathing
criticisms in the Wise Men Report about the fact that the Commission
appeared to be unable to set priorities and willing to do all
sorts of things without a clear order of business, a clear set
of priorities. As a reaction to that the Commission has decided
to create a political programming process. To cut a long story
short, this political process is the following: first you have
at the beginning of the year what we call the Annual Policy Strategy
and this is a decision taken by the Commission which gives the
political orientation. In this decision the Commission identifies
political priorities. For instance, for 2003 there are three broad
priorities. One is enlargement, quite obviously, the second one
is stability and security and the third one is the sustainable
economy. On the basis of these political priorities the Commission
identifies key actions, key initiatives, which are going to be
delivering the priorities. Thirdly, and most importantly, the
Commission identifies the resources which are necessary to deliver
this priority. In other words, this is a political framework on
the basis of which there will be the budgetary process and there
will be a dialogue with the other institutions which will lead
to the preparation of the Work Programme. This process with the
other institutions is what we call the structured dialogue. In
concrete terms it means that each Commissioner goes and sees their
parliamentary committees in the European Parliament and discusses
with those committees the priorities and the key initiatives which
are foreseen in their own domain. All of this preparation leads
to a stocktaking document in which the Commission takes stock
of these dialogues which have taken place between individual Commissioners
and the committees and then on this basis the Work Programme is
prepared. In other words, the Work Programme is really the result
of several steps which gradually refine the definition of the
priorities and the identification of the priority actions. The
Work Programme was adopted yesterday. In fact, what it does is
simply confirm the priorities that were identified in February
because in the dialogue we found that the other institutions had
endorsed, had welcomed, the three priorities which were identified.
Secondly, the Work Programme also indicates how the key initiatives
will be translated in legislative action. The Work Programme is
a political instrument. It is an instrument in which the Commission
announces a number of political actions, they are not all legislative.
For instance, on foreign affairs it is clear that there is a lot
of work which takes place in the doha negotiations, a lot
of work which takes place regarding Afghanistan, which is political
work but which cannot be translated into legislative action. This
is why the Work Programme makes a summary of these key initiatives
which are political initiatives and, in addition, presents a list
of what are the concrete legislative actions which are foreseen
for next year. I should mention at the same time that a similar
dialogue takes place with the Council. The President has presented
the Annual Policy Strategy to the Council. There was a discussion
which resulted in a discussion at the General Affairs Council
in the spring and it is intended to have the same process after
the adoption of the Work Programme which means that during the
month of November first President Prodi will present to the GAC,
the General Affairs Council, the Work Programme and have discussions
with the Member States and, secondly, he will present the Work
Programme to the plenary of the European Parliament. We know that
the Parliament will reflect and possibly issue a resolution after
this presentation. In a few words that is the general framework.
If you want I could now explain to you how in practice the structured
dialogue has influenced the priorities and the key actions which
were identified in February. There I should say, and I think it
is important, that this was the first exercise. It was in fact
probably a pilot exercise. For the first year we had a dialogue
with Parliament and Council on the political priorities and on
the priority actions. It is clear that both sides were learning
in a way. I must say that some of the discussions which took place
between Commissioners and parliamentary committees lacked a bit
of focus and I think both sides are aware of this point and will
make sure that next year the discussions are a little bit more
focused. If I can just mention the few points which were discussed
in this dialogue, debated in this dialogue, with Parliament and
Council, and which we took into account in the Work Programme
as examples. On enlargement—
2. Could you leave those specific points to
maybe respond to specific questions. You have explained very well.
Could you say just a little more about what happens next?
(Mr Servoz) Absolutely.
3. Then many people want to ask many questions
and we do not have a lot of time.
(Mr Servoz) Thank you. What happens next is the following:
when the Work Programme is adopted—the Work Programme was
adopted yesterday—there is a formal presentation to the
General Affairs Council by the President and then to the Parliament.
That takes place on 18 November for the Council and 20 November
for the Parliament in plenary. After this we understand that the
Council and Parliament probably will issue resolutions. Next is
the fact that the Work Programme will be implemented as of 1 January.
This is an important point. It is not only implemented by the
Commission as a political body, more importantly it is implemented
by the services, what we call our Directorates-General. They are
those who on the ground will implement the Work Programme. How
do they do that? They have management plans, a new tool which
is also a result of the reform, and in these management plans
they have to reflect the priorities, the objectives and the key
actions which the Commission has decided in the Work Programme.
This is really a guide for them on which they have to execute
the Work Programme and, of course, the execution will be monitored.
At the end of 2003 they will have to prepare an Annual Activity
Report. I think it is quite important to stress that this Annual
Report is something for which they have a full responsibility,
even a political responsibility. This Annual Report is sent to
the European Parliament and to the Council and the European Parliament
can hold hearings with the individual Commissioners and Directors-General
to discuss the content of the report. The report is essentially
meant to explain how far the objectives were achieved, what are
the results. It is a very important tool for the Commission.
Mr Connarty: Thank you, that is very, very succinct
and comprehensive at the same time.
Miss McIntosh
4. A number of colleagues around this table
have actually been in the European Parliament and are familiar
with the previous procedure. I would be very interested to know
to what extent the new structural dialogue that you have had has
regard to other institutions and other parties other than the
European Parliament and the Council of Ministers in shaping this
programme. Presumably you will be approached by, for example,
individual Member States and I would like to ask whether the UK
Government approached the Commission with any helpful suggestions?
(Mr Servoz) On this I would simply say that the structured
dialogue as it is defined for the time being is only with the
European Parliament and Council. Of course, we also send, transmit,
these documents to the Comité des Régions
and also to the Comité Économique et Social but
there is no such structured dialogue with these other bodies.
5. If I was to ask if you have a dialogue at
this stage with anybody other than those two main EU institutions
you would probably say no, you do not?
(Mr Servoz) I do not think we would say no. The fact
that we are here today is also an example that we are open to
have such a dialogue with all the bodies that participate in the
conception of these political strategies.
6. Is there a difference between this so-called
structured dialogue and in the way that the Work Programme is
amended and the position that perhaps used to happen with the
annual debates on the Work Programme in the European Parliament
over the number of years that has been happening? Are there any
new benefits that you are seeing emerging?
(Mr Servoz) It is basically a difference between the
Work Programme as the Commission did it before 2001 and the Work
Programme which we do today. Before the Work Programme was essentially
a catalogue of legislative forecasts but we all knew that these
provisions were not always executed. Actually the execution rate
was pretty poor. The big change is first of all now the Work Programme
is a political statement. It is first a political instrument in
which there are political priorities and on which there is a dialogue
with the other institutions on the priorities, the objective being
that there should be a convergence of political objectives between
Parliament, Council and the Commission. In that respect there
is a big change.
Ms McIntosh: That is very helpful.
Mr David
7. Following on that point about this being
a political statement in many ways, there is a discussion going
on in the Council about the Council itself having more of a strategic
role in terms of the Union's priorities. For example, in the Seville
Conclusions there was reference to a multiannual strategic programme
coming forward from the Council. Assuming after the Convention
that kind of thinking is taken forward, how would you see the
Commission's Work Programme relating to that more strategic role
being taken in the Council?
(Mr Servoz) On this I would say that first of all
we have welcomed the Seville Conclusions. We think that it is
a very important step that the Council has taken to organise the
political programming on its own, which is an annual programming
and at the same time a kind of three year programming. For us
it is a step which is welcome. Our intention is to contribute
to this programming. Of course, this is only a partial step. At
the end of the day we think that there should be a European Union
programming, that there should be the identification by the three
institutions of one programming and we should work towards this
objective. We think this objective can only be achieved through
the Convention. For the time being the Seville Conclusions have
created the Council programming and we want to contribute to it.
Actually, the Work Programme which the Commission has adopted
today is a contribution to the Council programming and will be
presented by President Prodi on 18 November as a contribution
to the Council programming.
Miss McIntosh
8. I hope you do not perceive this to be an
unfriendly question but when we considered the Commission budget
earlier this year, particularly on enlargement, I have to say
that I personally was shocked and I was a stagiaire in
the Commission in 1978. I cannot quite understand why the enlargement
will lead to a 13 per cent increase of existing available human
resources and 16 per cent of the posts and the Commission estimates
that by 2008 it will need about 3,900 additional full-time equivalent
staff filling 3,400 additional establishment posts. I think all
of us are in favour of enlargement, this is not a politically
motivated point, I personally set a high price on enlargement,
but I cannot understand when in geographic and population terms
the next enlargement is comparatively small to the succession
of enlargements that we have had that the Commission can justify
that forecast and increased expenditure, particularly relating
to staff.
(Mr Servoz) This is indeed a very important point.
If I can point in the direction of the estimates which have been
done by the Council, by Parliament and by the Court of Justice
for their own needs in view of the enlargement, I can tell you
that the Council have estimated that they need a more than 35
per cent increase in their staff. The same goes for Parliament.
For the Court of Justice it is even worse, they have asked for
more than a 60 per cent increase in their staff for after enlargement.
In that respect I have to say that our own estimation we see as
modest and frankly very well justified. I was part of the team
which participated in the screening of all the services to make
sure that what they were claiming for after enlargement was reasonable.
I can tell you the study has been made very thoroughly and very
carefully. It seems important to us that enlargement is achieved
with the same level of quality that we have today. We do not think
it is possible with the current level of staff to achieve this
objective. It is 10 more countries, 10 more Member States, close
to 100 million more citizens. There are issues that need attention
that are extremely difficult to tackle: veterinary issues, competition
issues. I think it is clear that this is a task which it is not
possible to undertake if the corresponding level of staff are
not present. If I can simply insist on one aspect of the reform.
One aspect of the reform of the Commission was to say that the
Commission should not do what it cannot do if it does not have
the resources. So "if you do not have the resources you,
Commission, do not undertake the commitment". That is why
I think the Commission has been asking for these extra resources
which in our view are really necessary.
Miss McIntosh: But perhaps the Commission should
focus on what it should be doing and not on things that it should
not be doing and that would be a good focus. There is not a 13
per cent increase in population, the workload is not going to
be a 13 per cent increase, we just wonder how you can justify
that. We hope that you are not going to be looking to undertake
a 13 per cent or 10 per cent increase in functions because that
causes problems in this country when the Commission appears to
be undertaking functions that it should not be. If I could give
you an example—
Mr Connarty
9. Could I suggest that we do not get into that
kind of dialogue, we do not have the time. I think the point Miss
McIntosh is making is why does the Commission not transfer people
from less important work rather than just keep expanding its work?
(Mr Servoz) We are doing that. For instance, if you
look at the Annual Policy Strategy for 2003 we have carried out
an internal redeployment of more than 300 staff. We are really
moving people from certain tasks to priorities. We are doing it.
In the case of enlargement, if I can just mention one issue which
really explains the situation, we have a translation problem.
We have a major translation problem. If memory serves me well
we have 10 more languages to cover and you know the rules, all
the decisions which are issued must be translated into these languages.
Unless the language question is resolved, and the Commission has
always been favourable to a solution on this one, it is clear
that we have to staff properly the translation services. We could
look at the figures but in this 13 per cent increase, if my memory
serves me well, half of it is translation services.
Mr Connarty: I am sure that debate will run.
Mr David
10. The programme refers to enlargement as being
one of the central priorities for 2003, quite rightly in our view,
and it goes on to state—it is a very broad statement—"One
of the objectives is to conduct an in-depth re-thinking of Community
policies that reflects the qualitative dimension of the most significant
enlargement in the history of European integration." What
exactly does that mean?
(Mr Servoz) I think it means that a number of policies
will need to be rethought because they will not be conducted in
the same way after enlargement with 25 countries as they are currently.
I think there is an obvious example which comes to mind and that
is the Common Agricultural Policy.
11. I am glad you mentioned that.
(Mr Servoz) On this the Commission has taken its responsibilities.
There is a proposal that has been made which is on the table and
we are basically saying that we need to reform it. Commissioner
Fischler has made a proposal which states very clearly how after
enlargement the Common Agricultural Policy should be reoriented.
That is basically what it means. It not only applies to the Common
Agricultural Policy, it also applies to a number of fields like
transport policy and other cases.
12. Could I just pursue this slightly on the
Common Agricultural Policy. There has been a great deal of discussion
in Britain and elsewhere about the summit at the weekend and there
has been some speculation that the decisions that have been taken
will in fact compromise the conclusions of the mid-term review
and may actually question what you have just stated. What is the
Commission's response to that debate?
(Mr Servoz) First of all I would like to say that
whatever I say now is in a personal capacity. Indeed decisions
have been made by the European Council but we in the Commission,
and I think we are not alone, are looking at these decisions and
trying to interpret them. The Commission is also reflecting on
what next steps it is going to take, especially vis a vis
the proposals that it has made. What I can say is the facts as
we know them at this point in time. At the European Council last
Friday a cap was set for the increase of European aid and as far
as we are concerned we noted that the overall level of agricultural
spending until 2013 now has a limit. There are clearly a number
of questions which for the time being are unresolved. However
the Commission has stressed the importance of the fact that the
enlargement negotiations can proceed, they can be successfully
concluded. There are however, a number of questions which are
to be resolved. The only thing I would say not in a personal capacity
is the following: the Commission has a number of legislative proposals
ready, to implement the reform that it presented earlier in the
year. These legislative proposals, I repeat, are ready, they are
in the Work Programme for 2003.
Tony Cunningham
13. My question is also on enlargement. There
are a number of practical steps that the Commission I am sure
will be taking to ensure that anti-fraud arrangements are put
in place in the new Member States and that these anti-fraud measures
are effective, but a concern that I have, and as Miss McIntosh
said a number of us are former Members of the European Parliament
and have written budgets and so on in that capacity, is getting
the balance between making sure that there are anti-fraud measures
there but also making sure that they are not perceived within
the Commission to such an extent that people do not make any decisions.
It lands on someone's desk and in order to make sure that there
is absolutely no fraud they pass it on to someone else for another
decision and somebody else could look at it and so on and in the
end the budget is never spent, huge amounts of money are never
spent. It is getting that balance right, making sure that there
is no fraud but also making sure that decisions are made so that
there is an effective use of the money.
(Mr Servoz) This is probably one of the most important
challenges for next year because one of the things that was identified
by the Commission as really crucial on 9 October when it decided
on its proposal on enlargement was really the question of judicial
and legislative capacity in the new Member States to deal with
fraud in particular. There the Commission has secured funding
of a lot of money for an institution building facility in the
new Member States. I think the Commission is quite aware that
a lot of work needs to be done in that respect. This is clearly
the biggest challenge, it is clearly identified as such, and as
you know there will be very thorough monitoring next year for
the implementation of the agreement and there will be a progress
report. I think this issue will be top of the list.
Tony Cunningham: The second part of the question
you did not touch on. You could put in so many measures that there
was absolutely no fraud whatsoever and nothing actually happened,
no money was spent, nothing was done, everyone was just there
checking, double-checking and treble-checking and so on. How do
you get the balance right?
Mr Connarty
14. Mr Handley, if you feel you want to contribute
something, please do.
(Mr Handley) In response to your question I would
say that what the Commission is doing is gradually and progressively
decentralising the responsibility for spending programmes on programmes
such as PHARE and SAPARD to the authorities in the new candidate
countries. This is being done in order to ensure that everything
does not get frozen by being centralised at the headquarters in
Brussels and that the expertise is built up in the new candidate
countries before enlargement takes place. This has to be seen
in conjunction with what Mr Servoz was saying about making sure
that you also have the mechanism to detect and combat fraud. We
would certainly agree that under spending is a potential problem
and unless the budget is spent fully and on projects which contribute
to the major goals of institutional and judicial capacity then
new Member States will not have made themselves fully prepared
for enlargement.
Mr Connarty: Thank you very much. We will move
on now to the chapter on stability and security.
Mr Davis
15. Mr Servoz, I am very interested in this
heading "stability and security", paragraph 3.2. In
the first paragraph before you go down to the specifics there
is a reference to the need to balance measures to counter illegal
immigration on the one hand, but on the other hand a genuine Community
immigration policy. Is there a Community immigration policy already?
(Mr Servoz) Yes.
16. What is it in that Community immigration
policy which is not genuine?
(Mr Servoz) I think what the Work Programme is doing
this year is trying to set a balance between the security measures
which have been extremely necessary after 11 September events,
so clearly a focus on security, but this needs to be balanced
first of all by a number of measures, such as social integration.
17. I am sorry to interrupt you but I do not
think you have understood the question. Let me explain. I asked
you whether there is an existing Community immigration policy
and you said yes. I am asking what is it in that policy which
in the opinion of the Commission is not genuine? If there is already
a policy and you say we need a genuine policy, what is it that
means that the Commission does not regard it as a genuine policy?
What does the adjective mean?
(Mr Servoz) The term "genuine" applies more
to the balance. We need to apply a genuine balance between security
measures and social integration. If I may just make one point,
there is in the Work Programme 2003 a number of measures on employment,
legal immigration and employment. I think that is quite important.
18. It is very important but that is not the
question. My question is you have got an adjective, you say it
is a mistake, it should be an adverb. Mr Handley, are you able
to explain? Should it be a genuine balance rather than balanced
by a genuine policy?
(Mr Handley) I do not think we can get into the semantics
of this.
Mr Davis: But words mean what they mean. It
seems an unnecessary word.
Mr Connarty
19. Mr Davis, it is a very important point that
you are pursuing, perhaps we should let Mr Handley explain.
(Mr Handley) Part of the problem is that the Commission
has proposed quite a series of measures to develop a European
immigration and asylum policy but many of these proposals which
form part of the Tampere agenda and form part of the follow-up
to the various European Councils have not been followed through.
Until such time as the Council actually adopts all of the proposals
that are on the table we cannot be said to have a genuine Community
immigration and asylum policy. That is one of the major concerns.
As you will see in our Work Programme for next year, we highlight
all of the various justice and home affairs dossiers which are
currently awaiting action at the Council. To some extent when
we say we need a genuine immigration and migration policy it refers
to the fact that there is not one yet fully in place. As Mr Servoz
has explained, the other dimension of it is we need to balance,
if you like, the unwelcoming aspects of Community policy with
the welcoming aspects. We need to make sure that those who have
a genuine right to come into the European Union can do so in a
way which is fairly systematic across the European Union and that
there are also systematic practices of what to do with people
who come in who should not be here.
|
