Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
THURSDAY 3 MAY 2007
COMMISSIONER MARGOT
WALLSTRÖM, MR
STEN RAMSTEDT
AND MR
TOMAS NIKLASSON
Q20 Chairman:
Commissioner, we are on the record. May I say what a great pleasure
it is to see you here. It is very kind of you to come. I think
this is the second time you have been before this Committee in
this building and we have also had the pleasure of seeing you
in many other meetings and much appreciate the interest you have
taken in COSAC too, which is very important to all of us. Before
asking you to make an opening statement, which I am sure you probably
want to do, let me just explain that we are pursuing the Annual
Policy Strategy with some interest. This is a relatively new development
for our Committee. We now regularly look at the Annual Legislative
and Work Programme and then we move on to the Annual Policy Strategy
for the next year. This is very valuable for our Committee because
it gives us a good idea of what is the current thinking in the
Commission and also assists us in setting our own work programmes
down to Sub-Committee level to give us an idea of the kinds of
issues we will need to be looking at in some depth in the 12 months
to come. We do attach great importance to this. It is of great
importance to us because it is a very concrete example of the
way in which, thanks to you and your colleagues and President
Barroso, the relationship between the national parliaments and
the Commission has been greatly fortified and improved. Our looking
at the Annual Policy Strategy and the Legislative and Work Programme
are demonstrations of our desire to continue that relationship
and keep the relationship between the national parliaments and
the Commission in good shape and that it has a real meaning and
purpose to it, hence the questions that we will ask about how
the Annual Policy Strategy is created, how the national parliaments
can engage with the Commission on it and to raise one or two more
specific issues about the Policy Strategy itself. The floor is
yours, Commissioner.
Commissioner Wallström: Thank you very
much. Of course, we appreciate that we have everything on record.
Q21 Chairman:
Yes.
Commissioner Wallström: We have nothing
to hide. I am very pleased to see this strong interest in our
Policy Strategy and I appreciate the opportunity to come here
and give evidence and answer any questions you might have. With
me is Sten Ramstedt, who in my Cabinet is also responsible
for contacts with the national parliaments, and Tomas Niklasson
from the Secretariat-General who has provided background and all
the facts and figures. Thank you very much honourable Lords, ladies
and gentlemen. Maybe I could give an introduction to describe
the background and then we can go into questions and answers.
As you know, the Annual Policy Strategy was adopted by the Commission
on 21 February and outlines the policy priorities for the Commission
in 2008. It also defines, for the first time I would say, the
communication priorities. We have listed a number of communication
priorities. It underlines, again, our commitment to Better Regulation,
and that is of particular interest to the European Parliament
and this is what we often get questions on. I can say to begin
with that we appreciate a dialogue with the European Parliament
where we can focus on the political priorities, the bigger picture,
and that is what the whole process and procedure is designed for,
to make sure that we do not end up discussing only details on
this or that proposal or why did it come on this date rather than
that date, but rather are the priorities the right ones, how can
we co-operate and create a good political debate. The APS is the
first element in the preparation of the Work Programme for 2008.
I have also presented the APS to the European Parliament to launch,
as we hope, this constructive and timely dialogue that will feed
into our preparation of the Work Programme. We have also had an
informal exchange of views with the Council and the Annual PGA
Group and we have also presented it to the Permanent Representatives
of national parliaments in the European Parliament to make it
possible for national parliaments to contribute to the discussion.
The strategic objectives defined by the Barroso Commission when
we took office remain valid. They are about prosperity, solidarity,
security and freedom, and a strong and open Europe in the world,
meaning we always have to think about our role in the global context.
This summarises the core ambitions of this Commission. Then we
have a number of highly important issues that are not confined
to just one or other of the strategic objectives but they need
to be taken forward in synergy in the cross-policy areas. The
first of these is energy and climate change. We need to deliver
on the very positive results from the March 16 Council and the
key elements of this energy package must be put in place. A well-functioning
internal market, a vibrant renewables sector, energy efficiency
and solidarity and interconnection will all be taken forward.
We will also push for strong commitments by the European Union
and global stakeholders to reduce CO2 emissions beyond 2012 when
the Kyoto Protocol expires. This was on the agenda for the EU-US
Summit, even though I think we have to keep the pressure up on
the Americans until the G8 meeting and this might be the occasion
when we can hopefully get more out of our partners. The second
cross-cutting issue is the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs.
We can now say that we are making good progress in partnership
with the Member States. Next year we will also reflect on how
to press ahead with further reforms following on from the Single
Market review and the social reality check which will be presented
this year. You will find these among the communication priorities.
The Commission will also launch a series of initiatives to make
sure that the Single Market continues to deliver on its economic
promise and allows citizens to reap the benefits. The third horizontal
issue is migration. In its various facets it is a key challenge
for the EU. Labour migration, if it is properly managed, can make
a positive contribution to our economies and our societies. We
plan to propose further measures to achieve a common European
asylum system by 2010. We will also need further action on preventing
illegal migration, combating the ruthless business of human trafficking
and protecting our common external borders. The APS also proposes
a reallocation of staff. It calls for a limited number of additional
staff in line with the Commission's needs for 2003-09 to cover
needs mainly due to enlargement. All other priorities will be
covered through internal reallocation within the Commission and
through efficiency gains. We are putting a lot of strain on our
staff with this and I can tell you they complain about the work
burden we are putting on them and there are a lot of problems
of stress, people cannot sleep and I do not know what, but this
is the line we have taken. With respect to human resource needs
beyond 2008, the Commission finalised the screening and presented
a report on 28 April. This screening report gives three clear
messages. It confirms the need for 250 new posts in 2009 as the
last reinforcement to cover the needs due to the latest enlargement
to Bulgaria and Romania. It states that beyond these posts the
Commission will not call for additional posts from 2009-13. It
is based on the working assumptions that the Multi-Annual Financial
Framework for that period will remain a stable linguistic regime
and there will be no additional Commission competences before
2014. Please do not put any extra tasks on us because we will
not be able to do those with the staff we have. Finally, the report
also states that the Commission should concentrate on operational
activities and indicates priority areas for internal redeployment.
These include these cross-cutting issues as well as competition
policy, ensuring proper transposition and enforcement of Community
legislation, and also closer integration of internal and external
policies. These are the political priorities.
Q22 Chairman:
The housekeeping.
Commissioner Wallström: Cross-cutting and
the staff and allocations, the resource allocation to this. It
is tough because we do not have a very high number of staff, of
officials, compared with any national or even regional administration,
and we cover 27 Member States now. This is the communication challenge.
I often ask how does a political body which deals with everything
from counting cod in the Baltic Sea to the peace process in the
Middle East communicate in 23 official languages. That is the
strength of the European Union but it is not that easy to communicate
in a simple fashion.
Q23 Chairman:
Thank you very much indeed. I think we are all aware of the problem
of staffing needs, although obviously it is in the nature of governments
to try and limit the output of funds. You may have seen that rather
interesting and quite amusing list of 50 reasons to love the European
Union that came out.
Commissioner Wallström: I saw that, yes.
Q24 Chairman:
One reason which I think staggered a lot of people was that the
Commission employs fewer people than the BBC.
Commissioner Wallström: Maybe that can
be used against the BBC, I do not know.
Q25 Chairman:
Who knows? Maybe the BBC is rapidly recruiting. One of the issues
that we would like to ask you about is the way in which the Policy
Strategy is drawn up. We are obviously interested in the eventual
input that national parliaments might have, but we are particularly
interested to know how you interact with the European Parliament
between an Annual Policy Strategy coming out and then the Legislative
and Work Programme coming later based upon it. What is the European
Parliament doing during that period?
Commissioner Wallström: It is prepared
internally within the Commission through a letter circulated by
the President to all Commissioners and he invites us and our services
to prepare, to look at what we have in the pipeline, what are
the plans for the future, and then we present our initiatives,
or the main policy priorities, to him and they are analysed and
prioritised by the Secretariat-General who then prepares an Annual
Policy Strategy for the inter-service consultation. They put all
of this together and try to make a structure out of it, a priority
list, and then it comes back after the intra-consultation to the
College. That was done in February. It is after consulting all
the Commissioners and the services. That is a good exercise. Then
we present the Annual Policy Strategy to the European Parliament
and launch what is called a structured dialogue on our policy
priorities. We are invited as individual Commissioners to go to
hearings with respective committees. They meet the Commissioners
to discuss the list of priorities and the resources, et cetera,
in the different policy areas. Then a report is drawn up by the
European Parliament and this is taken into account by the Commission
when we set up our Work Programme. We have seen that there is
a tendency for this structured dialogue to be very much on the
detail instead of having the political groups engaged, which is
what we have asked for to make sure that the political groups
in the European Parliament are better drawn into the preparations
because then we will have a better overview and more of a general
discussion: are these the priorities, what do the different political
groups in the Parliament think about it? On the national parliaments,
we hope that more and more of the national parliaments will also
arrange a debate where the priorities are being discussed. To
most national parliaments it is a matter of the timetable to make
sure that you come in with the right timing and how you can actually
influence this whole process. I think this is something that we
have to learn by doing, we have to follow this process very closely.
I do not know if you have counted, Sten, how many national parliaments
have decided to discuss this?
Mr Ramstedt: No, COSAC is going to discuss it.
Commissioner Wallström: COSAC will give
us some more facts and figures on how many of this type of debate
are being arranged or planned for the future where you can look
at the Work Programme or the Annual Policy Strategy.
Q26 Chairman:
We had a little bit of a problem about this in COSAC because there
was a move to try and get synchronised debates taking place in
parliaments so that there would be one day on which all the national
parliaments would focus on the Annual Policy Strategy or the Annual
Legislative and Work Programme and, quite honestly, it just does
not work, we cannot do it that way. Certainly we are interested
in seeing if we can get the Policy Strategy debated in our chamber.
Just going back a bit, if I may, to the European Parliament, can
you give any concrete examples of where the European Parliament
has initiated some rethinking on the Policy Strategy by the Commission?
What sort of influence has it had that you can think of on the
Policy Strategy?
Commissioner Wallström: On social issues.
In some cases, of course, committees will look at the list of
initiatives and say, "Why is this not put on the list?"
and in some cases they want to take out proposals. This has been
done. This follows from the regular dialogue meetings we have
with every committee, so it is adjusted on the details. We cannot
only satisfy one political direction in the European Parliament,
we have to ensure the balance is there. This can come from having
a better dialogue with the political groups. Tomas has helped
to list some examples of the things that the European Parliament
added on to the APS. One was on energy policy and that was followed
up through the Strategic Energy Review. There were reports on
the ports policy, of course, and the Ports Directive was stopped
entirely. There were requests for a legal framework on services
of general interest I remember also and those were followed up
through a communication. There were requests for measures in the
area of flexicurity, as it is called, and that was also followed
up in 2007 in different communications. The modernisation of regulation
for electronic communication led to a new legislative proposal
announced for the Work Programme for this year. Also there was
follow-up action to the White Paper on our communication policy
and how to promote democracy and human rights. Again, that was
followed up by an announced communication in the Work Programme.
There are a number of examples of policy areas or priorities for
the European Parliament.
Chairman: Good. Thank you very much.
Q27 Lord Tomlinson:
I found that very interesting, Commissioner. I am interested in
the word "strategy", so that there is a clear strategic
direction. You have told us how the European Parliament almost
have their shopping list and add little bits to it, but are there
any areas where you say to the European Parliament, "No,
this will confuse and muddy what needs to be a clear strategic
direction if we are going to have something that we can communicate
with clarity and simplicity to our citizens"?
Commissioner Wallström: I think that the
Lisbon Strategy is an example of where we have tried to make sure
that it is not turned back into a Christmas tree or a long, long,
long shopping list. We cut it down to call it Jobs and Growth
Strategy instead of the Lisbon Strategy, to give it a name which
speaks about the content. There is always this temptation to add
on a number of things.
Q28 Lord Tomlinson:
"Why did we add this? Because we were talking to the Transport
Committee", or "Why did we ..."
Commissioner Wallström: Yes. That is a
good example of how we tried to strip it down into four very concrete
areas: energy; small and medium-sized enterprises; knowledge building
and flexicurity issues that we have to invest in. Those are the
four priority areas. This is where we will do our part but we
also expect Member States to do their part. This is the temptation,
you are absolutely right. This is a huge compromise machine and
sometimes we struggle very hard for our right of initiative in
the Commission but at the same time we have to be flexible to
the European Parliament and the Council and sometimes we have
to accept that they come with new proposals. We have learned from
the process and we have chosen to try to strip it down more and
more. For the communication priorities next year, for example,
we have to make sure we make it even shorter. You cannot communicate
on eight or 10 to be really, really effective. We are slowly but
steadily getting there. You are right, a strategy ought to be
very precise.
Chairman: Lord Bowness, Lord Marlesford,
would you like to come in?
Lord Bowness: I did not want to pre-empt
the question really, my Lord Chairman, because you are coming
to the Lisbon Strategy later on.
Chairman: It is all right, you can raise
it now if you want to.
Q29 Lord Bowness:
Fine. Commissioner, you talked about the Lisbon Strategy and alluded
to the fact that on some of these things you need the co-operation
of the Member States, which is obviously true, but how realistic
is it to expect the Member States to implement the Lisbon Strategy
without there being any additional powers to Brussels? I make
no comment as to whether there should or should not be, but how
realistic is it that you can include in an annual programme the
Lisbon Strategy with all its objectives without there being any
powers backing it up?
Commissioner Wallström: When we reviewed
the whole Lisbon Strategy, and that was at the beginning of the
mandate of the Barroso Commission, we looked at where we had competences
and power to act as the Commission, what initiatives we could
take. We identified the list of initiatives that we could undertake
and the timetable for that. Then we looked at where the competences
of Member States were and where did we trust Member States to
take action. It was clear that we needed more of an ownership
on the Member States' part. As I told you before, we also cut
down on the number of areas that the Lisbon Strategy would cover
because if it covered everything it meant what should citizens
ask their politicians to do. Can we tell if they follow the plan
or not if you have a wide, wide choice? We tried to concentrate
on these four priority areas and to ask that Member States appoint
a Mr or Mrs Lisbon so there would be a visible figure who could
lead the work. I do not think we can ask for more. We are not
in a position to ask for more competences, we can only say that
we will deliver what comes to us. For example, on energy we will
take the initiatives necessary and we can co-ordinate, we can
help. The energy decision of the Council where the energy policy
was discussed was a big step forward, but then Member States have
to implement it. I do not think we can ask for additional enforcement
capacities but rather use the ones we already have and create
political pressure. Where we have started to see some results
is on the investment in research and development but we are still
lagging behind the United States, for example, and this is an
area where Member States have to do better.
Q30 Lord Bowness:
Can I suggest to the Commissioner, would it not be better for
the reliance on the Member States to deliver to be made a lot
clearer? It seems to me that your paper puts great emphasis on
it, and everybody will be in favour of the Lisbon Strategy and
its objectives, but given that you cannot deliver, and I am not
criticising the Commission for that, that is just a fact, does
it not lead to a certain amount of disillusionment and disappointment
amongst people in Europe because they see the European Union as
not delivering? They get a paper with a lot of talk about the
Lisbon Strategy, they then see that not coming about and they
see it is the European Union that does not deliver rather than,
in fact, laying the blame on the governments and the Member States.
Would it not be better to make the limitations which you have
a lot clearer in these documents?
Commissioner Wallström: I think it is a
well calculated risk if we enter into an area with a political
goal where we do not have the whole power, the whole competence,
we cannot deliver everything. We can do a lot and also at the
EU level the Commission can definitely take a number of important
initiatives, but we also have to trust Member States to implement
them. I think one should be fair. Sometimes we have to explain
this is for Member States and governments to deliver, but I do
not think one should get too much into the blame game either because
that will not give high credibility to the whole European co-operation.
Q31 Lord Bowness:
Not into the blame game but we might try and avoid taking the
blame.
Commissioner Wallström: Yes, that is true.
We saw that it was necessary in order to ensure prosperity that
we needed to engage in the Strategy. We tried to review it, reform
it, strip it down and make it clearer and report better. We have
much better proper reporting now. It is a little bit of a name
and shame exercise as well. We have tried to create visibility.
That is as far as we can go. Sometimes we have to explain that
this is on Member States to put the responsibility where it should
be.
Q32 Lord Marlesford:
The Strategy includes the suggestion of developing an external
migration policy. This is an issue of considerable interest in
the United Kingdom and I am sure in other Member States as well.
Can you give us any idea of where you have got to on this, because
you refer particularly to Africa. The controversies there have
been about internal migration are one thing but the controversies
about external migration into the EU are a greater matter.
Commissioner Wallström: You have to work
in parallel on several different issues. We have to make sure
that we protect our borders, that we have border controls, that
we use FRONTEX, as we have already started to do and it has proved
very successful, and also that Member States are willing to contribute
more and more to that because they have seen the problem of illegal
migration, et cetera. We also have to work with the countries
from where these migrants come. We do this in regular dialogue
and in a regular way where we try to help with the policies, financial
help and information. We also have to take action on the criminal
acts that are behind this. Very often it is truly criminal gangs
that organise these trips, for example, for poor Africans to come
to Europe or what have you. In the regular political dialogue
with the African Union or any other country where we see a lot
of these migration flows we have a political and diplomatic context.
Franco Frattini could probably tell you much more. As you see
here, we also mention the Schengen Information System, the visa
policy, the databases and all the technical things that have come
about. A lot has happened in a very short period of time. Again,
how to tackle violence and radicalisation we have had a communication
on this particular issue. We have seen a much more proactive agenda
and activity from the European Union. I cannot give you a lot
of the details behind that. As you see in the list there is also
legislation for medical devices, a number of reviews, and the
centralised database of fingerprints. Frattini could tell you
exactly where we are on all of these issues. Those are the types
of things in combination, looking at what we can do to prevent
flows of illegal migrants as well as making sure that we have
a legal migration flow, which are positive for the European Union.
We are working with these countries on a regular basis.
Q33 Lord Marlesford:
If I may, Commissioner, that brings me to another matter which
has certainly been of concern to our European Union Committee
in Britain, which is the German Presidency handling of the Prum
Treaty for joint action and exchange of information on fighting
crime and terrorism.
Commissioner Wallström: Yes.
Q34 Lord Marlesford:
It seems to us, and we are about to publish a report on this,
that the method by which the German Presidency is handling this
has to some extent taken over the normal Commission prerogative
of proposing policies to the Council after consultation with the
Parliament and national governments, but we believe it has also
been a shortcut to the normal Commission procedures, which we
think are very important, of proper cost estimates and impact
assessments. Are you concerned about this in the case of the Prum
initiative and, if so, what are you going to do about it? That
is the essence of what our report is going to say.
Commissioner Wallström: I do not know enough
about the process. You need a specialist to get a proper and totally
correct answer. I know that more and more Member States worry
about this. I heard this from a group of Swedish visitors today
who also asked about the Prum process.
Q35 Lord Marlesford:
It is the constitutional angle really, Commissioner.
Commissioner Wallström: I understand.
Q36 Lord Marlesford:
That really you should be in charge of this rather than allowing
a Member State that happens to hold the Presidency to be pushing
a particular thing on its own agenda rather than through the Commission.
Commissioner Wallström: Could I come back
to you and I will give you a totally updated view. I understand
that Frattini is engaged in this, we could check with Frattini's
people. I would be happy to do that so that I do not give you
some blah, blah that is not correct.
Q37 Chairman:
That would be excellent. Certainly it would be helpful to the
work of our Sub-Committee.
Commissioner Wallström: We can do that
and follow up the Commission's position as it is now and what
has happened with this process.
Chairman: That is very kind of you.
Q38 Lord Tomlinson:
Commissioner, when I read Commission communications I tend to
read the figures rather than the written word and, I must say,
reading the communication in relation to the Annual Policy Strategy
I found some of the figures somewhat confusing in terms of trying
to understand what the strategic thrust was in terms of financial
allocation to it. If we take Table 2 where you have got those
four priorities and policy areas, if we look at energy and transport
there is roughly a nine-fold increase over the five year period
compared with 2008 and on environment roughly a five-fold increase
with two million in the one year and 10 million over the five
year period. Why is freedom, security and justice consuming so
much in 2008 and has so little left for the remainder of that
indicative period in terms of financial planning? That is saying
to me, as I read it, that this is not a priority, it is something
that is disappearing from the radar. How do you explain that?
Commissioner Wallström: It can be explained
by the fact that these are changes in the financial resources
and it means it is not the full picture. These are only how you
correct the figures, you do not see the whole picture.
Q39 Lord Tomlinson:
So in terms of communication of a strategy—
Commissioner Wallström: It is not a very
good indication.
| 
