Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-29)
MR MICHEL
SERVOZ AND
MR PETER
HANDLEY
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER 2002
Mr Davis
20. I am not convinced but we will have to move
on. Can I look at this reference on page 20 to a one-stop shop
for processing applications for asylum. Page 20, point three,
second bullet point "establishment of an instrument relating
to a `one-stop shop'." Can somebody explain what is a one-stop
shop in this context?
(Mr Handley) We are talking here about a one-stop
shop for processing asylum applications. If you recall the agenda
set up at the Tampere European Council committed the European
Union to a two step approach on a common asylum system. Step one
is establishing common minimum standards and that is what I was
referring to in my previous intervention about all the proposals
made by the Commission. The second step is establishing a single
procedure and a common status for refugees. It is this single
procedure part that we mean by the one-stop proposal referred
to in our Work Programme for next year. At present there are different
procedures according to which route an asylum seeker comes into
the European Union. It depends whether he comes in under Geneva
Convention or other procedures. What we are proposing for next
year is that everywhere in the European Union where an asylum
seeker presents him or herself to be processed for asylum status
that there be the same procedures whichever avenue the asylum
seeker has come into the Union by. We intend to come forward next
year with some kind of blueprint for this within a common European
asylum policy.
Mr Davis: Thank you.
Mr Connarty
21. Can I move on. Specifically what subjects
are likely to be covered by the Framework Decision fixing common
standards for persons accused in criminal proceedings? That is
on page 11. Why is such a proposal thought necessary? Is not criminal
procedure best left to the Member States?
(Mr Servoz) On this I think the common standards for
criminal proceedings are not meant to interfere with Member States'
responsibilities in criminal law in particular. We are talking
about an agreement which has been reached on the trafficking of
human beings and on paedophilia and sexual exploitation of children.
At the same time a number of decisions are being proposed on drugs,
xenophobia and racism. The idea is not to impose any harmonisation
or anything like that, it is more to get an understanding and
a common view on issues which are really cross-cutting throughout
Europe, just looking at paedophilia for instance.
22. You are talking about guidelines rather
than an imposition of procedures?
(Mr Servoz) Yes.
23. You notice that Mr Cash has left and I am
sure a debate would ensue at this point if he was still here because
he has been exercised by these questions in the past. I am duty
bound to ask the question I think he would have asked. In February
this Committee expressed concern that the Commission would attempt
to bring in a European public prosecutor. We understand that only
one Member State spoke in favour of the proposal at the Justice
and Home Affairs Council on 28 February to 1 March and yet we
notice it is back in the stocktaking document at page 11. Why
does the Commission continue to pursue its plan, as it appears
to be the Commission's plan, for a European public prosecutor
when it is clear there is virtually no support for it in the Council?
I think you have to accept that with this process, which we have
had with a number of other things, it is as if the Commission
will carry on regardless of the wishes of the Member States until
it gets its way on a specific proposal.
(Mr Servoz) Actually it is correct that initially
it was a Commission proposal which was not taken up in Nice. Based
on that the Commission decided to launch a Green Paper, which
is essentially a consultation process, in 2001. The Commission
is going to start examining now the result of this consultation
procedure and on the basis of these consultations, which are very
wide, the Commission will decide what it will propose. It is clear
that in making any proposal the Commission has two things in mind.
First of all it will take into account the good work done by Eurojust
and, secondly, the approach of the Commission will be built on
mutual recognition rather than seeking harmonisation of criminal
law.
24. I think the problem for us who are exercised
by the question of subsidiarity is that it would appear that the
Commission is an oligarchy and will not take no for an answer.
It should have realised, obviously, that if only one Member State
was interested in this proposal it should drop it. Now why does
it keep insisting that it knows best? That is what it seems the
process is, you keep at it until you wear everyone down.
(Mr Servoz) The Commission takes no for an answer.
However, the question of the Green Paper was discussed in Council
and the Council accepted the idea that the Commission would launch
a Green Paper. Can I just repeat that the Green Paper is not legislative
action, this is just a consultation process, just a way for the
Commission to gather ideas. It is clear that the results of this
consultation, including the negative, will be taken into account
very carefully.
25. Thank you. Moving on to sustainable and
inclusive economy. Can you tell us more about the Commission's
proposed system of impact assessment which you mention on pages
12, 15 and 24. Will such an assessment cover costs and the impact
of any extra bureaucracy, going back to the point made by Miss
McIntosh earlier?
(Mr Servoz) Impact assessment is a very important
tool, not only for the Commission but for the other institutions,
including national parliaments. It is linked not only to sustainable
development but also to better regulation, to subsidiarity and
proportionality. What it does is the following: starting in 2003
the Commission will carry out an impact assessment of the major
legislative proposals and if you look at the Work Programme there
are 40 major proposals which are identified and will be subject
to impact assessment. It means a thorough examination of subsidiarity,
proportionality and also the three components of sustainable development,
that is the balance between economic aspects, social aspects and
environmental aspects. The Commission is starting in 2003. Clearly
this is the first year, only 40 proposals, after this the Commission
will increase the number of impact assessments which will be carried
out.
Tony Cunningham
26. One of the aspects which is often debated
here is the question of pensions. I wonder if I can ask is the
Commission's involvement in pension policy likely to be confined
to cross-border aspects?
(Mr Servoz) Yes. I can simply answer that the Commission
has no ambition to interfere with the Member States' national
pension schemes.
Mr David
27. Can I ask a question in relation to education
and training. There is a reference in the programme on page 13
to the "Implementation of the joint Commission/Council Work
Programme on objectives for education and training systems in
Europe". That is an area of some debate about where subsidiarity
comes into play. Would you see any difficulties with regard to
the principle of subsidiarity in the context of the present discussion
about what exactly it means? Would you see any difficulties here
particularly with regard to education?
(Mr Servoz) I do agree the principle of subsidiarity
applies particularly to the area of education and culture. I would
simply add the Commission has only complementary competences in
this field.
28. Could I press you a little bit further then.
If it is a problematic area do you think it warrants a reference
in the programme and what exactly do you have in mind in that
reference?
(Mr Servoz) Yes. I would not call it a problematic
area, it is only an issue that the Commission has to look at very
carefully whenever it makes a proposal. I should draw the attention
of the Committee simply to the fact that there is one strategy
in which the knowledge based economy is essentially a package
of measures concerning education and culture. On this, it is actually
the European Council which has defined the strategy and asked
the Commission to come forward with proposals so we are acting
upon them.
Mr Connarty
29. Can I ask one final question, maybe some
of the other Members might have something else to ask but I am
conscious of your time. What areas are intended to be covered
by the Green Paper on "our role in ensuring the wide availability
of high quality services of general interest for all citizens"
which you mention on page 22? What role does the Commission think
it has in that respect?
(Mr Servoz) I think concerning services of general
interest, because that is the word we use in Brussels, there we
have committed ourselves to produce a Green Paper. That was discussed
in Laeken and Barcelona. As a result of the European Council it
was decided that the Commission would produce a Green Paper. This
Green Paper will allow the Commission, based on the results of
the consultation, to discuss the possibility of proposing a framework
directive on this subject.
Mr Connarty: Thank you very much. Can I thank
you both for attending. I am conscious you have another meeting
and now you have some time to relax before you go in.
| 
