20th REPORT, SESSION 1999-2000: THE EU
SOCIAL POLICY AGENDA
Letter and Government Response from the
Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work
and Equal Opportunities, Department for Education and Employment
We had pleasure in reading the Committee's report
on the Commission communication on the Social Policy Agenda, and
felt that it addressed a number of very salient issues to which
we shall attempt to respond here. The Social Policy Agenda was
successfully agreed at the Employment and Social Policy Council
of the 27-28 November and subsequently endorsed at the Nice European
Council in December. The final text was based on proposals from
the French Presidency, the Commission and Member States. An explanatory
Memorandum was sent to both Houses on 15 December 2000. This now
gives us a far clearer idea of the future of the EU social agenda,
and allows us to answer a number of your queries with more specific
evidence than was available at the time of our discussion. The
report's conclusions seemed to suggest some common themes so we
have used these to structure our response.
LISBON AND
PROSPERITY
The report welcomed the statement made by Baroness
Jay that the Lisbon strategy was "integral to the social
policy agenda" and called upon the Government to argue the
case forcefully within the Council. We can now confirm that during
the course of the negotiations the UK argued hard and successfully
to maintain the Lisbon focus of EU social policy. Indeed the Lisbon
strategic goal of becoming "the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world" is recalled at the
very top of the Agenda.
We agree with the Committee that in order to
make this target a reality "it is essential that this policy
should be a help rather than a hindrance to prosperity."
This sentiment is expressed within the final document itself in
which it states that "the Agenda must strengthen the role
of social policy as a productive factor". This is further
reflected in the diversity of specific measures which range from
initiatives to help the long-term unemployed, disabled people,
older workers and ethnic minorities in to employment; enhanced
European co-operation in the field of lifelong learning including
the UK proposal for a European Award for pioneering companies;
and implementation of the Commission's "e-Europe" Action
Plan with a view to encouraging access for all to the knowledge
society.
REGULATION AND
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
MEASURES
The Committee rightly observes that not all
social policy can be productive, and that there is an all important
role for social policy to play in terms of protecting those most
vulnerable in society. The Committee emphasises the importance
of creating a balance between the priorities of maintaining social
protection whilst also nurturing business and the economy. In
the final text of the Social Policy Agenda we feel that this balance
has been struck. For example, in the field of health and safety,
there are calls for consolidating, adapting and, where appropriate,
simplifying existing standards and responding to new risks by
measures which include the exchange of good practice. There are
also calls for renewing proposals for necessary regulation, for
example in the field of gender equality. Much of this reflects
existing national policy priorities such as the promotion of the
application of health and safety legislation in SMEs or developing
initiatives for female entrepreneurs.
But at the same time we negotiated hard to minimise
the burdens to be imposed on business. In fact, in the final text
of the Social Policy Agenda there are no proposals for new labour
market regulation. All the measures to which there is reference
are either in existence, already under negotiation, or waiting
to be brought forward.
DISABLED PEOPLE
The Committee particularly raised concern about
the provision for disabled people within the Social Policy Agenda.
One specifically targeted measure to which we can draw your attention
is the designation of 2003 as the European Year of Disabled Citizens
during which action intended to bring about the fuller integration
of disabled people in all areas of life will be prioritised. You
may also wish to note that the Article 13 Action Programme allows
for core funding for a European level NGO for each of the areas
covered by the programme, including disability, and an Action
Programme to combat social exclusion is under discussion in Brussels.
OPEN CO-ORDINATION
Open Co-ordination has proved a highly effective
alternative to regulation in the past and we are pleased that
it retains a high profile in the current Social Agenda. One of
the main commitments in the Social Policy Agenda is to confirm
the establishment by June 2001 of national two year action plans
to combat poverty and social exclusion. It is envisaged that this
process will draw on the successful employment national action
plans pioneered at Luxembourg. We feel that the open co-ordination
method provides the ideal vehicle with which to take forward an
issue such as social exclusion, since it allows the benefits of
co-operation and co-ordination to be reaped while respecting national
diversity.
In its report the Committee acknowledges the
potential of the open co-ordination method, but also voices some
doubts. These fall into four main areas. The first is that open
co-ordination is perceived to be ineffective and entirely reliant
on the current political European consensus of socially democratic
governments. It is true that the open method of co-ordination
is not enforceable through law. However, a refusal to comply with
guidelines would have an impact upon the wider context of European
negotiations. It would bring into question the commitment that
Member States had two goals to which their political leaders had
signed up and communicated publicly. A Member State perceived
by others as unwilling to take forward an agreed goal may, as
a result, lose influence in future negotiations. For example,
at the Lisbon Council in March 2000, Heads of State and Government
signed up to a target of full employment in Europe by 2010. The
Employment Guidelines, as the major, Treaty-based vehicle for
dealing with employment matters, have been reviewed to incorporate
the Lisbon goal and have been agreed by all Member States. If
any country were now to withdraw their support for the Guidelines
it would imply that they no longer supported the European goal
of full employment. Such a significant change in direction could
bring a loss of credibility in future negotiations, as EU colleagues
would not be certain that the Member State in question would be
prepared to deliver its political commitments. Our experience
of the employment guidelines so far indicates that the process
is robust and effective despite the lack of legal compulsion.
The second question of whether social rights
can be adequately enforced within this "intergovernmental"
approach raises a slightly different issue. The Social Policy
Agenda must be seen within the wider context of all European Community
activity. There already exists alongside the Social Policy Agenda
effective legislation which enforces community level fundamental
rights and combats discrimination, for example the recently concluded
negotiations on Article 13. The Social Policy Agenda can complement
such existing European Policy without attempting to overlap it.
A third point raised by the Committee is that
governments readily engage in the exchange of best practice voluntarily,
and that little is to be gained by formalising the process at
community level. We would take issue with this sentiment. By formalising
a process of consultation, co-operation and exchange, Member States
are encouraged to consider common challenges and problems in a
collective way which, while respecting national circumstances,
may lead to new solutions. This wider approach to policy making
is not present when governments merely undertake unstructured
bilateral exchanges.
The fourth area of concern is that Open Co-ordination
may encourage "competence creep" into policy areas in
which the European Community action has no treaty base. We do
not believe that there is any real danger of this: the Government
will continue rigorously to examine all proposals emanating from
the Commission to ensure that they have a proper legal base (where
one is needed), or otherwise would not lead to an improper extension
of Community competence. We of course recognise that so-called
"soft law" initiatives, such as opinions or recommendations,
can have competence implications, or may at least prepare the
ground for subsequent "hard law" regulations or directives;
and so we will not hesitate to question and object to any proposal
which does not appear to have a proper basis in the Treaty.
SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP
The Government notes the Committee's comments
on the role of the social partners in Community social policy,
and in particular the Commission's proposal to consult the social
partners on data protection within the employment relationship.
We feel that the process is, in principle, beneficial because
those who are affected by a policy have a role in its development.
However, not all parties who will be affected
by the outcomes are currently represented during the negotiations.
We are seeking to improve this situation by taking steps to encourage
better representation of SMEs and Governments. One practical application
of this is the UK initiative to set up a Brussels office for UK
small business, which is being initially funded by the Small Business
Service and will be run by a consultant. This will provide a two
way conduit for information between the Commission and SMEs in
the UK both through representative organisations and directly
through businesses. It is envisaged that it will also act as a
lobbying force. The office is expected to be up and running by
the middle of this year, which will bolster Commission plans to
establish a professional chamber of business in Brussels.
The UK is also keen to ensure that social partnership
evolves and remains, in the words of the Committee, "relevant".
For this reason we have been encouraging social partner negotiation
to consider using the full range of community instruments, looking
at open co-ordination and exchange of best practice, rather than
only regulation. We appreciate the Committee drawing attention
to the suggestions made by the Employers Forum on Statute and
Practice, and are pleased to report that officials are meeting
with EFSP to discuss the issue.
SUBSIDIARITY
In terms of both regulation and open co-ordination
the Committee rightly raises the issue of subsidiarity. The government
has used this principle as a guide during all its negotiations
on the Social Policy Agenda and successfully secured a reference
to subsidiarity in the final text. To address the wider debate
we can confirm that the Social Policy Agenda does not, in the
Government's view, extend Community competence, and the Committee's
fear that responsibilities for social provision are to be centralised
at EU level has not been realised.
The initiative now lies with Commission to take
forward those measures which are proposed within the Social Policy
Agenda. However the UK will be active in future negotiations in
ensuring that we do not agree to any specific measure for which
there is an insufficient treaty base.
DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT
The Committee is rightly concerned about the
democratic scrutiny of European activity, which is an issue at
both European and national levels. The ways in which the European
Parliament has input into dossiers such as the Social Policy Agenda
are twofold. Initially the European Parliament was fully consulted
by the French Presidency in advance of their production of the
first text of the Agenda, on the basis of the Commission communication.
Indeed the European Parliament produced a written opinion which
was fed into the negotiations. Subsequently the Parliament can
expect to be involved in its codecision role, as and when specific
legislative proposals, which are not subject to unanimity, are
discussed and implemented.
The question of the scrutiny role of national
parliaments is one which Tessa has previously raised with Committees
of both Houses, and we would reiterate what was said before. We
certainly found the scrutiny conducted in advance of negotiations
on the Social Policy Agenda, in particular the hearing before
the Committee, extremely helpful. Specifically, we felt that we
had a far clearer understanding of Parliament's concerns and could
bring this understanding to the discussions at European level.
However we do acknowledge that the process does not always work
perfectly at present. This is often due to the difficulty of co-ordinating
the timing of Parliamentary and European business. However, as
Tessa Jowell said in her earlier letter, we understand that the
Cabinet Office plans to discuss possible solutions with the Clerks
of the Scrutiny Committees in the near future.
EUROPEAN SOCIAL
MODEL
In conclusion we would like briefly to address
the "European Social Model". The Committee has questioned
whether a single model exists and points to the tensions underlying
the current consensus. This is a doubt which we would not attempt
to dispel. The European Union embraces a huge diversity of forms,
traditions and priorities in the field of social policy. However,
we are convinced that the current Agenda strikes the right balance
between allowing Member States to build upon their existing strengths
through the flexibility of the open co-ordination method, whilst
maintaining common core standards and values through legislative
measures. As the Committee asserts this flexibility will be even
more important in the context of future enlargement, to which
the UK remains committed.
We concur with the Committee's final assertion
that the Social Policy Agenda is an ongoing dialogue. It is a
process in which the UK has a major role to play, which we will
be exercising in the run up to the Stockholm European Council,
through a variety of bilateral activities with other Member States.
Social policy is an area in which the UK has a great deal to offer
in Europe, and the current text allows us to do so.
21 January 2001
| 
