House of Lords - European Union - Twenty-Third Report

Select Committee on European Union Twenty-Third Report

CHAPTER 3: THE CONTENT OF THE APS FOR 2008

57. As an essential part of our inquiry, each of the House's seven sectoral Sub-Committees on the European Union analysed the APS according to their areas of specialism. In addition, we invited written submissions commenting both on the APS as a whole and on individual proposals. We will be keeping the helpful comments provided by our Sub-Committees and in written evidence in mind during 2008 and during the Committees' scrutiny of the proposals that the Commission brings forward. In the meantime, we urge the Commission to consider these points and we will draw them to the attention of the Commission officials drawing up the Annual Legislative and Work Programme for 2008.

Points raised by our Sub-Committees

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE[35]

58. Our Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee considered that it would be worth following the Commission's strategic review of the Economic and Monetary Union, and the Commission's plans to improve its functioning.[36]

59. The Sub-Committee would be interested in monitoring the Commission's efforts to conclude and implement the Doha Development Round, and the Commission's intention to complement global discussions with bilateral negotiations for a new generation of trade agreements with important emerging economies.[37]

INTERNAL MARKET[38]

60. Our Internal Market Sub-Committee welcomed the Commission's proposed actions in taking forward the Energy and Climate Change Package as a step in the right direction.[39]

61. The Sub-Committee considered that the enforcement of competition and internal market rules in the energy sector will prove controversial.[40]

62. The Sub-Committee would be interested in following the conclusion of the Single Market Review, and have chosen to conduct an inquiry into this subject, as well as monitoring legislative proposals that emanate from the Review.[41]

63. The Sub-Committee considered that the internal market aspects of the Commission's possible revision of the Integrated Guidelines of the Lisbon Strategy, in the context of a strategic report on the first cycle of the Strategy, would also be worth following.[42]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY[43]

64. With regard to the Commission's intention to take forward initiatives to implement the EU Maritime Policy, our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy Sub-Committee questioned whether the security aspects of the Policy had been sufficiently addressed as part of the proposal.[44]

65. The Sub-Committee considered that the Commission had an important role in EU policy on the Middle East, and felt that the APS was rather thin in this area, although the rapidly changing situation 'on the ground' was recognised.[45]

66. The Sub-Committee also noted that the current institutional arrangements make achieving an integrated and coordinated EU policy in such areas more difficult, as discussed in our Report "Europe in the World".[46]

ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE[47]

67. Our Environment and Agriculture Sub-Committee felt that in general, the direction suggested in the environment, agriculture and fisheries policy fields was sound, although the Sub-Committee noted that it was crucial that the horizontal priority of Better Regulation was applied to these fields.[48]

68. The Sub-Committee welcomed the importance that the Commission had placed on climate change.[49]

69. The Sub-Committee noted that energy crops were not specifically referred to in the section on sustainable energy, and emphasised that sustainability and the development of energy crops must be undertaken in harmony.[50]

70. The Sub-Committee believed that the impact of the proposal to develop a legal framework for risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority of GM food and feed must be particularly carefully considered.[51]

71. On the Common Fisheries Policy, the Sub-Committee welcomed the proposed major recast of the control framework, but questioned how effective this could be without work on tackling the extreme variability of penalties applied across the EU for equivalent infringements of fisheries rules.[52]

72. The Sub-Committee supported the Commission's view that the CAP Health Check was an integral part of work on the development of the future CAP in the long term.[53]

LAW AND INSTITUTIONS[54]

73. Our Law and Institutions Sub-Committee was concerned that the APS did not mention the need to give greater prominence to fundamental rights and ensuring human rights compliance of its proposals. This need should be addressed by the Commission as part of its strategic review of Better Regulation in the EU and its commitment to develop further its human rights compliance methodology.[55]

74. The Sub-Committee noted that the APS did not focus in any great depth on areas relevant to its law and institutions remit. This was not surprising, given the difficulties encountered in the criminal justice field. The wider evaluation of the Hague Programme might also impact upon the direction of EU criminal justice in the future.[56]

75. The Sub-Committee considered that it would be interested to see what action was envisaged in terms of promoting fundamental rights: the APS did not set out any detailed action and it seemed likely that efforts would be focussed on protecting children and children's rights.[57]

76. The Sub-Committee noted that the APS did not provide any detailed civil justice programme for the coming year.[58]

HOME AFFAIRS[59]

77. Our Home Affairs Sub-Committee noted the Commission's continuing belief in a need for EU common rules regulating at least the conditions of admission for some key categories of economic immigrants. The Sub-Committee had been sceptical in the past about the need for a common regulation of admission to the EU for work purposes.[60] It was important to ensure that a more detailed assessment of the need, or lack of need, for common rules was made a part of the impact assessment that would precede any legislative proposal in this field.[61]

78. The Sub-Committee also noted the Commission's argument that there was a need to complement the decentralised exchange of fingerprint data under the Council Decision on stepping up cross-border cooperation (the Prüm Decision) with a centralised criminal fingerprint database. The Sub-Committee had recently completed an inquiry on the Prüm Decision, in which problems arising from different thresholds in the collection of data and storage limits were highlighted.[62] The Sub-Committee considered that the development of any centralised system should be based upon harmonisation of the criteria for collection of data and a common definition of the serious offences to which the data would relate. In addition, the relationship of the database to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) needed to be addressed.[63]

SOCIAL POLICY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS[64]

79. Our Social Policy and Consumer Affairs Sub-Committee expressed a high level of regret that the Commission already appeared to be planning the implementation of the European Institute of Technology before the proposal had been agreed by the European Parliament and the Council.[65]

80. In the light of the Sub-Committee's inquiry into mental health, the Sub-Committee felt that the Commission should intensify its work during 2008 on developing aspects of its coordinating role.[66]

81. With regard to labour law, the Sub-Committee considered that the Commission should seek particularly to address the ongoing problems with the Working Time Directive.[67]

82. The Sub-Committee saw the Social Reality Stocktaking Exercise as a potentially useful undertaking that must, however, demonstrate genuine added value.[68]

83. The Sub-Committee felt that if work on patient safety and home health monitoring was to be included in the Annual Legislative and Work Programme, it would need to clear that EU action in this area was justified and would add value.[69]

84. The Sub-Committee also considered that any Commission work on social services of general interest would have to have due regard to the operation and financing of social services in each Member State.[70]

Points made in written evidence submissions

GENERAL POINTS

85. The standing committee on European Cooperation Organisations of the Senate of the States-General of the Netherlands was satisfied with the Commission's overall ambition and four policy priorities (p 59).

86. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) welcomed the Commission's statement that there was a political consensus in the Commission on the policies it needs to deliver in the social, economic and environmental fields. It felt that the APS contained a number of significant and positive proposals in the social and equality fields (p 51).

87. The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) welcomed the Commission's focus on major challenges such as energy and climate change, the Lisbon Agenda and migration (p 52).

88. Gary Titley MEP welcomed the extent to which "the agenda is now very much what we would call a UK agenda … very much about practical policies which will make a practical difference" (Q 85).

89. The Minister for Europe said that the Government "believe that the Commission programme, which is much closer to a UK Government than ever before, is in the right direction because it emphasises the importance of maintaining the competitiveness of the European economy whilst at the same time delivering fairness and social justice" (Q 122). He said that "the emphasis on tackling climate change, on immigration flows, on dealing with energy security, on security against crime and terrorism is very much the agenda that this Government wants to see the European Union have" (Q 127).

90. Timothy Kirkhope MEP supported the general priorities of the Barroso Commission, particularly the emphasis on Better Regulation, delivery of results, economic reform and environmental protection. He felt that the priority given to institutional reform was the biggest failing of the APS. The APS stressed several of the right priorities, but Better Regulation should have been given greater emphasis, and he wanted a specific commitment to 'deregulation', as well as better impact assessment (p 1, Q 1).

91. The City of London Corporation supported the work being done on Better Regulation and impact assessments (pp 50-1).

92. Gary Titley MEP welcomed the inclusion of communication priorities in the APS, considering it "a huge breakthrough that we are talking about that in the Annual Policy Strategy" (Q 91).

93. The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) welcomed the Commission's communication commitments (p 57).

94. Timothy Kirkhope MEP had concerns regarding the cost and value of the commitment to improving communication (p 3, Q 6).