Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
19 NOVEMBER 2003
MR MICHEL
SERVOZ AND
MR PETER
HANDLEY
Q40 Mr Davis: The same paragraph
in this document which refers to Petersberg tasks also refers
to, "Continue action against international terrorism".
Looking at the detail that you provide here, however, I can see
nothing related to terrorism. What actually do you propose?
Mr Handley: This is not a new
track, of course. It is something that has been pursued by the
Commission since 11 September, and many of the proposals have
already been made in this area. There has been a series of proposals
made to try and make it harder for terrorist activities to be
funded. There has been a series of justice and home affairs measures
in order to make it easy to extradite terrorists, for example.
There has been a lot of activity. This is therefore an ongoing
area of international concern for 2004, as indeed is the area
of bio-terrorism, where we have been doing a lot of work already
this year on trying to make sure that the European Union is ready
in the event of any possible terrorist attack of that nature.
Q41 Mr Davis: Let us just stick with
terrorism. I appreciate that it is ongoing, but it sounds a bit
to me like a mantra. Where do I see specific proposals in these
appendices related to terrorism? Can you help me find them, because
I did not see them?
Mr Handley: The text you are referring
to there is not necessarily saying that there is something new
that is going to be done and new legislative proposals coming
forward. In that particular case it is referring to an area of
ongoing implementation.
Q42 Mr Davis: But you have a heading
here, "Commission proposals awaiting action". I cannot
find what you have described in there. Where is it?
Mr Handley: It is a series of
actions on arrest warrants and—
Q43 Mr Davis: Can you just direct
my attention to it? I cannot find these in the appendix. It may
be that I am missing something. You tell me it is ongoing. You
tell me that the proposals are not new; they already exist; they
are awaiting some sort of decision. I would expect them therefore
to be in this list of "awaiting action". I cannot find
anything. It may be that I am missing it. I am asking you to help
me to find it.
Mr Handley: I am not saying they
are necessarily decisions still awaited by the Council or Parliament.
What I am saying is that we are in a phase of implementation—which
is to say that it now forms part of the ongoing implementation
that forms part of the Commission's activities in 2004.
Q44 Mr Davis: Could you write to
us afterwards—since you obviously do not know—and
specify what these actions are that are awaiting implementation?
I am increasingly sceptical, having listened to your explanation.
However, I want to be fair to you and to give you the opportunity
to explain in detail to us, very specifically, what is awaiting
implementation and covered by "Continue action against international
terrorism".
Mr Handley: Certainly.
Q45 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Could I turn
to your sustainable growth ambitions? The background to this,
of course, is very sombre. The European Union suffers from low
growth and high unemployment. There is a lot of evidence that
the gap between Europe and the rest of the world is actually widening,
to our disadvantage. It is obviously very important, therefore.
When I read what are called your "Key initiatives",
it starts by saying, "To reinforce the effective delivery
of the strategic policy goals". Frankly, I think that this
is Euro-waffle. It does not actually mean anything. Can I turn
to what this might mean in practical terms to, say, a small businessman
in my constituency trying to achieve sustainable growth? He, I
think, would be worried by this programme, because there is a
reference to a number of initiatives which could impact on his
costs very directly. Just to take one example, there is a plan
for a draft directive on the prevention of violence at work. This
is fairly typical. It is obviously a very good idea—who
could be against efforts to reduce violence at work? To a businessman,
however, this means more paper, more consultation, more interference,
more legal liability, when he or she is struggling to maintain
competitiveness in a very difficult world trading environment.
Do you have representations to the effect of saying, "No,
we don't want this"? Obviously you have social pressures
on you. You have groups that you fund always wanting to do more,
particularly in the social field. Is there a countervailing force
that says, "Haven't we got enough regulations and red tape?".
The European Council frequently makes reference to a deregulatory
initiative, and the Prime Minister of our country has often referred
to this in the House of Commons, in terms of Council conclusions.
However, it never seems to feed through to the Strategic Planning
and Co-ordination Unit of the Commission, if I may say so—who
have this wonderful machine for generating more initiatives. On
the ground, amongst people who are trying to deliver sustainable
growth, I think that this causes further despair. Can you comment
on that?
Mr Servoz: Perhaps I may say,
if you will excuse the humour, I think prevention of violence
at work does not necessarily mean less productivity. I think you
will agree with me that if you succeed in preventing violence
at work, the productivity will probably go up. I do not think
that employers should therefore necessarily be against preventing
violence at work. That said, on a more serious note I would say
that what the Commission is putting forward is a proposal for
sustainable growth. It means that the Commission, when it proposes
what to do on the Lisbon Agenda, has to reconcile three dimensions.
One is the economic growth; another is indeed the social dimension;
and then there is the environmental dimension. All of these mean
concrete proposals concerning the three dimensions, and they have
to be reconciled and worked together. This is the way the Commission
has put forward its proposal in the context of the Lisbon Agenda,
which has been approved by the European Council and by the European
Parliament. Regarding deregulation, I am sure that you are familiar
with the Better Lawmaking Initiative which the Commission has
taken. It concerns a number of issues, including impact assessment.
This initiative has been subject to an agreement between the three
institutions and will very shortly be implemented between the
three institutions. I think that this goes the way, not necessarily
of deregulating but of better regulation.
Q46 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The impact
assessment does not seem to stop anything. We have had examples
in this Committee whereby the cost outweighs the benefit, but
it has still gone ahead. The other problem is that your cost assessments
often differ from those carried out by British government departments.
We dealt with an example in this Committee last month. This is
all making regulations perhaps more user-friendly, but it does
not stop them. My question to you was, do you seek representation
from small business organisations of a genuinely representative
kind arguing against a lot of this happening at all? Otherwise,
we are simply winding the handle again and there will be more
regulation at the cutting edge of the European economy, which
will further increase our costs, possibly cause further job losses,
and certainly do nothing to aid this sustainable growth which
we are on about. I am not sure that you have completely answered
my question.
Mr Servoz: In fact, better regulation
does not mean stopping legislation. It means better regulation
in the sense of preparing legislation better. This is what impact
assessment in particular is about. It is trying better to define
what is the impact on the stakeholders, and looking at subsidiarity
and proportionality in a way which has never been done before.
So I think that this is what it means. Better regulating, better
preparing legislation—not necessarily stopping regulation.
In terms of contacts with small businesses, the Commission receives
a lot of remarks and observations from small businesses, from
organisations representing employees, representing trade unions,
also representing employers. This is something that the Commission
is living and breathing every day. In fact, it is really part
of the legislative process in the Commission.
Q47 Mr Cash: On the question of sustainable
growth, the question of whether or not an individual country's
economic management will be within the control of that country
is rather an essential question. It is somewhat tied up with,
for example, the single currency. It also has a huge bearing on
levels of employment and the generalities of a social agenda.
In practice, however, do you not agree—particularly with
this Constitution, which is currently with the Intergovernmental
Conference—that economic management should be the first
priority and should be given back to the Member States?
Mr Servoz: I think what the draft
Treaty establishing the Constitution is doing, and what the actual
law of the Union is doing, is establishing the close co-ordination
between the economies of the Member States and the economies of
the Union at large. This is what the Commission participates in
and intends to continue.
Mr Marshall: Could we move on to a number
of general issues?
Q48 Mr David: One of the big issues
looming on the horizon is the future of cohesion policy, regional
policy. I notice on page 15 in annex 2, tucked away, there is
a reference to a "Draft regulation for the new Structural
Funds post-2006". Given that there will be discussions and
the publication of a document on the draft regulation, would it
not be better to wait for agreement on a new Financial Perspective?
For obvious reasons, you cannot decide how something will be spent
until you can say how much you are going to spend.
Mr Servoz: The answer is yes,
this is what the Commission will do. The Political Framework on
the Financial Perspectives should be adopted in the weeks to come,
and a Third Cohesion Report will be adopted after that.
Q49 Mr David: What is the timescale
for the agreement on the Financial Perspective?
Mr Servoz: The timescale for the
adoption of the Financial Perspectives proposal is 2005, but that
is the detailed proposal. What the Commission is putting forward
now is the Political Framework, which describes the objectives,
the instruments, and the financial envelopes. After that, there
will be proposals for each of the sectors, including cohesion.
These proposals will come in the spring of next year and then
there will be the negotiation with Council, which hopefully will
reach an end, I would say, at the end of 2004 or, more probably,
at the beginning of 2005.
Q50 Mr David: You take my point?
As I understand it, a regulation is something which is fairly
detailed. It is not necessarily simply a cohesion report. There
is a great deal of disagreement at the moment between national
governments on the shape of regional policy. You might be engaging
in a great deal of work, only to find at the end of the day that
it has all been to no effect.
Mr Servoz: That should not be
the case. The communication which the Commission is preparing
now sets not only political objectives but also detailed proposals
for reform on the cohesion policy. It is clear that the detailed
legislative proposals which will come afterwards will have to
reflect these political orientations very closely. So I do not
think that there would be a situation where the Third Cohesion
Report, in its fine detail, could depart from the framework which
will have been established before.
Q51 John Robertson: The list of proposed
measures includes one on the prevention of violence at work. Why
should there be a European directive for this? Is this not an
area for subsidiarity?
Mr Handley: There is no presumption
that there will be a directive on this. Like most measures in
the social area, there is a multi-step process which involves
consulting social partners. So what is being announced here is
the opening of such a consultation with social partners on violence
in the workplace. We have published a first assessment of the
scope of this exercise, indicated our intention to talk to a wide
range of stakeholders, and that the options that might be considered
range from merely sensibilisation or publicity campaigns about
the issue, through to possible agreements between social partners
and, only as a last possibility, actually doing a directive or
some other form of legislation. This is a good example of where
a problem is being allowed time to be properly examined, for various
parties to make their views known, before any decision is made
on whether indeed any action at the European Union level is necessary
to complement the actions already undertaken by Member States.
Subsidiarity and proportionality, therefore, will also be taken
fully into account.
Q52 John Robertson: Would this be
a case then of looking at best practice and trying to get the
best for everybody, rather than actually imposing something on
them?
Mr Handley: As I said in the earlier
answer, there is no presumption at this stage that new legislation
is required. It may well involve asking the Member States what
strategies they have in place and what they have found works or
does not work. So, yes, best practice would certainly have its
role to play.
Mr Marshall: I fear that you may have
set a hare running here, because both Mr Cash and Mr Heathcoat-Amory
want to follow this up.
Q53 Mr Cash: I want to ask a very
simple question under this general set of questions that we have.
Is the European Commission completely and totally against the
idea of the repatriation of fisheries policy?
Mr Servoz: The answer is that
this is not what the Commission has proposed in its reform of
the fishery policy.
Mr Cash: That does not answer my question.
Are you against it?
Mr Marshall: They do not have a view.
It is the Member States that determine what is in the Treaty.
Q54 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I return
to this example of violence at work? You are really, by implication,
admitting Mr Robertson's point that any action would breach the
subsidiarity principle. You are still saying that it is nevertheless
a good idea to consult, to talk about it, to launch an initiative.
Can you not see, however, that at the level of the small or medium-sized
business this is another threat, if you like, another possibility,
another thing that they may have to comply with eventually? So
they feel that they must get involved in this. It all takes time;
it all takes money. That is what businesspeople complain about.
Discussions are going on that could well affect their costs in
the long term. They have had a lot of experience of where simple
ideas are first dreamt up, then they become proposals, then they
become legislation and then they become legally binding. They
feel obliged therefore to take an interest in this. A huge great
consultation document will thump onto the desk of a small businessman,
which he feels obliged to read and to respond to. This is completely
unrealistic. It will not happen. They do not have people to do
this. In practice what you are doing, therefore, is talking to
other people, stakeholders—which are often your own sponsored
interlocutors, to give you a sort of social dialogue—but
it cuts out the people who will eventually be involved in this.
That is what creates the cynicism and, frankly, hostility amongst
a lot of small businesspeople as to what in fact you are planning
here. If there is no realistic prospect of it ever leading to
a directive, why do it at your level? It is a national concern.
We are all concerned about violence in the workplace. That is
what we are elected to deal with. What has it got to do with you?
Mr Servoz: The answer is that
the Commission is talking to different lines of interest, which
includes the social partners, the trade unions, the employees
and the employees' organisations. Obviously they have a strong
interest in pushing this matter forward. The Commission has to
act on the requests that it receives, not only from the small
businesses but also from the employees. That said, as my colleague
has explained, there is a process which is a consultative process.
Then, after this process, a decision is made at the political
level whether the matter should be transformed into legislation.
We are far from that, however. I think that it is only fair that
the Commission represents the various aspects and the consequences
that it has around it.
Q55 Angus Robertson: May I move on
to the rather large policy area of justice and home affairs? In
the Work Programme the Commission says that there should be further
progress on this policy area, to respond to the demands of citizens
and also to the European Council's political goals. What are the
Commission's specific priorities in this area for 2004 and looking
to the future?
Mr Handley: One very major concern
is to ensure that by 1 May next year we can say, and the European
Council can say, that we have completed what we set out to do
in the agenda agreed at the Tampere European Council in 1999.
We want to take stock of how far its objectives have been achieved,
and this is really a task for the June 2004 European Council under
the Irish presidency. We also want to launch a debate with the
council about where we go from here. The overall objective is
to create a European area of freedom, security and justice, but
this is not something that is achieved overnight. The idea would
be possibly to have a second phase to the Tampere programme, to
be agreed some time either towards the end of next year or shortly
afterwards in 2005. Of course, in the context of the next Financial
Perspective the whole area of citizenship, the rights of citizens
and protecting them against security threats and so forth, will
play an important part. This is therefore a set of issues in European
Union activity which is set to continue forward for some years
to come. The Tampere Agenda is the main, central concern for the
European Union next year. In more specific areas, as you are aware,
this year's Thessaloniki European Council issued a whole series
of proposals and reports relating to asylum, immigration, and
so forth. There is a follow-up that is proceeding for a number
of these. For example, next year we have been asked to produce
for the European Council before June a report on a more orderly
and better-managed manner of dealing with the arrival of people
from outside the Union who are in need of international protection.
That is one such thing. We are also coming forward shortly with
some proposals on a return programme. Basically, there are areas
of activity which you can see in the Work Programme list for next
year which relate to most of the strands of the Tampere Agenda.
Q56 Angus Robertson: You talk about
something which might be quite significant—the launch of
a debate with the Council on this future agenda. Is there any
chance of a sneak preview of any thoughts you have about what
you want to be the main strands of that debate?
Mr Handley: At this stage it is
a little premature, partly because we are in the closing stages
of President Prodi's Commission, and there is a certain amount
of handover and fresh thinking that might be required when the
new Commission comes in the autumn of next year. Certainly this
Commission understands that more will need to be done after 2004's
deadline for the current Tampere Agenda, but there is a role also
for the next Commission in trying to define that future strategy.
Q57 Mr Davis: What are the demands
of the citizens in this field?
Mr Handley: We have seen since
11 September that there is a greater awareness of the interconnectedness
of the European countries in dealing with the problems of terrorism—movement
of terrorists for example. We have also seen concerns in a number
of European Member States about immigration flows. A number of
these things are common to so many Member States that they suggest
that there is a need for the European Union to become more actively
involved in trying to get some common practices throughout the
European Union.
Q58 Mr Davis: There might be concerns
in a number of Member States and a number of member governments
on this issue, but I have yet to hear any citizens of this country
make demands, as you say, for action by the European Union. How
do you quantify these demands? You are responding to these demands.
We had a discussion about terrorism before. I have looked again
at this section on justice and home affairs, and I cannot see
anything here. Which of these items is responding to the demands
of citizens?
Mr Handley: The European Commission
does consult citizens. We have a regular six-monthly survey called
the Eurobarometer, where there is a whole battery of questions
which are designed to identify trends in the thinking of European
citizens over time. You will normally find towards the top of
these lists concerns such as peace, security, good quality of
environment, jobs. Many of the basic concerns of citizens which
you as parliamentarians see on a day-to-day basis with your constituents
are also expressed by citizens in these surveys of attitudes towards
Europe. It is clear, therefore, that we are not operating in a
policy vacuum. We are consulting on a good sample basis, to see
what it is that citizens expect of the European Union—which
is not to be seen as acting as replacing national governments
but in a complementary relationship.
Q59 Mr Davis: You are talking round
it. Tell me, what specifically are the demands of the citizens
of the European Union in this field? You have given me all this
information. What are the demands? What are your conclusions from
these surveys, the Eurobarometers, and God-knows-what? I am asking
you what you think are the demands.
Mr Servoz: The demands are quite
clear. For example, enlargement has provoked a demand for more
security regarding the management of borders. That is a demand
which has been expressed by citizens quite clearly. The Commission,
with the Council and Parliament, has acted upon it. Likewise,
immigration/asylum is clearly an issue where there is a demand
from the citizen and where clearly Member States alone would not
be in a position to react in an effective manner any longer. This
is clearly a matter where Member States have to work together,
with the help of the Commission. Again, there is a demand from
the citizen and a demand that action be taken at the European
level—which does not mean the Commission. It is also the
Member States together.
Mr Davis: You are still not answering
the question. You are just going round it. Re-read it when you
get the transcript and then respond to us in writing. What are
the demands? It is no good saying "immigration/asylum".
What is the citizen asking you to do with immigration and asylum?
Think about it and come back to us, please.
| 
