Select Committee on European Scrutiny Sixth Report


The European Commission's Annual Work Programme for 2004


Scrutiny of the Annual Work Programme

1. The Commission's Annual Work Programme[1] is part of its annual planning cycle, setting out what it intends to do in the forthcoming calendar year. In June 2002 we stated that we intended to make the Annual Work Programme an important part of our own programme, since it offers an opportunity to consider possible legislative proposals at a much earlier stage, and perhaps also to influence the Commission's plans.[2] Both last year and this year we have taken evidence from Commission officials on the Work Programme.[3] We are grateful to them for attending to give evidence. This short Report introduces that evidence, considers the Government's Explanatory Memorandum on the Work Programme and takes up two points which arose during the evidence.

2. The Commission's witnesses, who also gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, told us that "this is the only example of a national parliament which has contacted us and with which we have had hearings".[4]

3. Our handling of the Work Programme is still at an experimental stage. In future we may invite evidence from Commissioners, and we may also institute evidence sessions to examine the implementation of the Work Programme in the previous year. It is possible too that there will be wider parliamentary involvement in scrutiny of the Work Programme. In June 2002 we suggested the creation of a European Grand Committee which could, among other things, consider the Work Programme,[5] and a similar suggestion has been made recently by the Foreign Secretary.[6] If the EU's draft constitutional treaty is eventually agreed, examination of proposals for possible conflict with the principle of subsidiarity will be an important aspect of scrutiny of the Work Programme.[7]

4. Moreover, we also believe that if the Commission's Work Programme is to be successfully pursued there will have to be prior and ongoing consultation and dialogue with national parliaments and discussion with them about the outcome afterwards. This is the substance and spirit of the Protocols on the Role of National Parliaments and on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality in the draft constitutional treaty.

5. Another area of uncertainty is the relationship of the Work Programme to other planning documents, including Presidency lists of priorities and the European Council's Multiannual Strategic Programme (MSP), the first of which was adopted by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 8-9 December. A Commission witness told us that there was a "great coincidence" between the priorities in the Work Programme and the MSP but it was "incomplete", and that programming should be carried out jointly between European Parliament, Council and Commission. He stated that, while the Commission had the right of initiative and could put forward whatever it chose, it would not be sensible to put forward proposals the Council had indicated it would oppose,[8] though we note that the Commission has never applied this logic to its proposal for a European Public Prosecutor. The first MSP contained little that was new, but this will not necessarily be the case in the future, and we will need to consider further what parliamentary scrutiny it should receive.

The Annual Work Programme for 2004

6. The Commission lists existing and new initiatives under three very broad headings: the accession of ten new Member States (on 1 May 2004); "stability", relating to the EU's relations with neighbouring States and completion of the Tampere agenda on justice and home affairs; and sustainable growth, including the Lisbon strategy. The Commission President notes that "The central priority for 2004 will be to complete the accession of ten new Member States and shape the future direction of the enlarged European Union, including preparation of the next financial perspective".[9] One of the annexes lists proposals requiring an extended impact assessment.

7. Since there will be European Parliament elections in June 2004, as well as parliamentary business connected with enlargement, proposals subject to the co-decision procedure will be unlikely to make any progress between April and September. Also, there will be a new Commission in November. The Commission has therefore confined the proposals in its Programme to "those that are absolutely necessary and feasible in 2004". This constraint will not of course apply to the next Programme.

8. The matters relating to the Work Programme covered in the evidence from Commission officials were as follows:

The process

Policies

Possible proposal on prevention of violence at work

9. In answer to our question about a possible Commission proposal relating to prevention of violence at work, one of the witnesses told us there would not necessarily be a Directive; the Commission was simply beginning consultation with employers and unions, and subsidiarity and proportionality would be taken into account before the Commission decided whether any action was needed.[10] There was said to be pressure for such a proposal from employees' organisations.[11] Prevention of violence at work is listed in Annex 2 to the Work Programme as a proposal which will undergo an extended impact assessment.

10. We believe that in cases such as this an impact assessment misses the point, since the overriding question is whether Community action is ruled out by the principle of subsidiarity. While we wish there to be effective action against violence at work, we find it difficult to see how the Commission could argue that such action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can be better achieved by the Community, as required by the Maastricht definition of subsidiarity.[12] Unless there is a plausible case that some form of Community action could meet that requirement, the Commission should not be imposing the burden of responding to consultation, particularly on small businesses, and an impact assessment is not relevant. We call on the Commission to scrutinise its proposals for compliance with the principle of subsidiarity at an earlier stage, before embarking upon consultation, and in the case of prevention of violence at work not to proceed with consultation unless it can explain what possible Community action could comply with the principle of subsidiarity. We will be writing to the Commissioner concerned to seek that explanation.

The Explanatory Memorandum of 11 December 2003

11. The Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane) tells us that the Government agrees with the broad priorities identified by the Commission. On the "European Neighbourhood" policy he indicates that the Government "will seek to ensure that due weight is given in the policy framework to political reform in the neighbours (democracy, human rights, media freedom etc.)." The Government hopes that Croatia's application for membership (not mentioned by the Commission) will be considered a priority in plans relating to the Western Balkans. Although it is "content to see the Commission associate itself with the development of ESDP (the Petersberg tasks) and other security policy issues", it emphasises that "defence matters, including research, remains the preserve of Member States". As regards sustainable growth, the Minister says "it is disappointing to see no mention of employment — particularly as many countries have identified this as their priority to address at the Spring Council, and the recent publication of the Kok taskforce".

12. The individual items in the Work Programme will come before us for scrutiny in due course, and we have no questions to ask the Government about the Work Programme itself. We therefore clear the Work Programme from scrutiny.

Hallmarking and the withdrawal of Commission proposals

13. The Commission's witnesses were not able to answer our questions about a proposal relating to hallmarking,[13] probably because it is not included in the Commission's own Programme for 2004. The proposal is the draft Precious Metals Directive of 1993 (amended in 1994), which would threaten the UK's hallmarking system. As the Commission notes, the main problem in reaching agreement in this area is the divide between countries with a hallmarking tradition and those which rely instead on "a manufacturer declaration combined with market surveillance". No progress had been made since 1998, but the recent Italian Presidency decided to revive the proposal and place it on the agenda of the Competitiveness Council of 27-8 November 2003. However, the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) concluded that sufficient progress had not been made for it to be discussed and requested the Presidency and Commission "to consider along which lines further possible discussion at the working group level could lead to a compromise".[14] Progress on this unwelcome proposal seems unlikely under the current Irish Presidency, since Ireland has a hallmarking system.

14. This raises the wider question of the failure of the Commission to withdraw draft legislation which is not making progress. Unless draft legislation is withdrawn, any Presidency can take it up again, as in the hallmarking case, whereas new legislation would require the Commission to exercise its right of initiative. It does the reputation of the EU's legislative system no good to have long-dormant proposals taken up again years later at the whim of the current Presidency, and for the organisations and individuals whose interests might be damaged to have the prospect of such legislation hanging over them indefinitely. We call on the Commission to withdraw the Precious Metals Directive, and urge the Government to press for its withdrawal, and for rules providing that the Commission's legislative proposals lapse if no progress has been made on them within a specified period.


1   14510/03 (25069); originated 29 October 2003; deposited in Parliament 24 November 2003. Back

2   Thirtieth Report of Session 2001-02, European scrutiny in the Commons, HC 152-xxx, para 58. Back

3   Last year's evidence was published as HC 1290-i, 2001-02, incorporated in HC 63-iv, 2002-03. This year's evidence is published with this Report. References in this Report to 'Q' are to this year's evidence; references to 'Ev' are to the information submitted subsequently by the Commission's witnesses and appended to that evidence. Back

4   Q 5. Back

5   HC 152-xxx, 2001-02, para 79. Back

6   Uncorrected evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee, 11 December 2003, Q 3. Back

7   See the Protocols on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union and on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, annexed to the draft constitutional treaty (Cm 5897, pp. 150-3). Back

8   QQ 6-8. Back

9   In the covering letter to the Work Programme. Back

10   Q 51. Back

11   Q 54. Back

12   Article 5 EC. Back

13   QQ 3, 16. Back

14   Ev 14. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 26 January 2004