The Government's treatment of
the Annual Policy Strategy
79. When we asked the Minister whether there
was a proper dialogue on the Annual Policy Strategy between the
Commission and the national governments and parliaments, he said,
"I think there is" (Q 11). He told us that a response
to the Annual Policy Strategy "impacts on the Commission's
legislative work programme potentially … the document in
and of itself can be improved as Member States offer their
reflections on it and as the European Parliament offers its reflections
on it" (Q 18). He said that the Annual Policy Strategy
itself is largely sourced indirectly from Council conclusions
and commitments, so "the work in itself at its inception
has taken account of the wishes of Member States and to a large
extent often can reflect the concerns of national parliaments"
(Q 12). The Commission explained the process of responding
to national government concerns: "The Commission receives
a response from Member States assembled in the Council of Ministers
(comments from the 'Antici Group' composed of representatives
of all Member States). The Commission systematically examines
these contributions in the run-up to its Legislative and Work
Programme which is presented in October each year and takes them
into consideration when designing this Work Programme" (p 16).[75]
The Government should be making the most of this opportunity
to influence the Commission's plans.
80. While the Minister said that the Annual Policy
Strategy was "important", he was keen to emphasise that
it was "useful in the context that it is a relatively
internal document", and that we should not "overstate
its significance, because in and of itself it does not create
a single legislative vehicle" (Q 2). In its Explanatory
Memorandum (EM) on the Annual Policy Strategy, the Government
made only a few comments.[76]
The Government stated that it welcomed the Annual Policy Strategy's
publication; that it believed the Annual Policy Strategy should
be "more readable and more focussed, with greater explanation
of prioritisation of policy areas"; that it agreed with the
Commission "that it is important that the EU focuses on delivering
recognisable benefits and tangible policies that matter to its
citizens"; that it "broadly" welcomed the Commission's
policy priorities; that it believed "development should be
recognised as an increasingly important part of Europe's role
as a world partner"; and that it agreed that implementing
the Global Approach to Migration remained a priority. The Government's
Explanatory Memorandum on the Annual Policy Strategy gives us
the impression that the Annual Policy Strategy is not taken very
seriously in Whitehall.
81. As we stated in our report on the 2008
Annual Policy Strategy, "our scrutiny and analysis of the
APS needs to be assisted by a comprehensive Explanatory Memorandum
from the Government." [77]
82. Firstly, the Government needs to consult
properly on its EM. The Minister told us how the Annual Policy
Strategy is handled within Whitehall: "Cabinet Office ensures
the distribution of the relevant material to Whitehall departments"
(QQ 11, 18). We recommend that the Government should ensure
that the Annual Policy Strategy's financial allocations are seen
and scrutinised by the Treasury, to inform both the EM and the
Government's response to the Commission.
83. When we asked the Minister whether devolved
administrations were consulted on the Annual Policy Strategy,
he commented: "there is an opportunity for devolved administrations
through the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe to play a role,
but we should continue to find additional ways to make that more
effective" (QQ 11, 30-31). He confirmed that the EM
had been shared with the devolved administrations in March 2008
(p 10).
84. Secondly, as we urged in our report on the
2008 Annual Policy Strategy, the EM "should present the
Government's initial thoughts on [the Annual Policy Strategy's]
proposals and priorities, and provide a preliminary assessment
of the policy implications."[78]
85. The EM stated that no fundamental rights
issues applied, that the Annual Policy Strategy had no direct
implications for subsidiarity, and that financial implications
were not applicable.[79]
When we questioned the Minister about the quality of the EM, he
told us that it made no comment on fundamental rights issues "because
the nature of the document is not a package of specific legislative
proposals" (Q 25). The UK was "a primary advocate
of the principle of subsidiarity", but "[s]ubsidiarity
can only be considered on the basis of an individual proposal
for legislation. Concerns cannot be inferred from the APS alone,
and it is difficult to predict, ahead of seeing an individual
draft proposal, whether or not the UK would have concerns with
regards to subsidiarity" (p 10). We consider that
the Government should include in its EM its preliminary comments
on proposals which may raise fundamental rights issues, which
touch areas where subsidiarity may be a concern, and where significant
financial implications will clearly arise.
86. In our view, there is a tension in the
Government's attitude to the Annual Policy Strategy. Either the
Annual Policy Strategy is an important statement of intent and
provides a real opportunity for the European institutions, governments
and parliaments to influence the Union's plans, or it is too vague
for the Government to comment upon properly and is therefore not
very useful or significant. If the former, the Government should
be engaging fully with the Annual Policy Strategy and seeking
to influence the Commission's priorities. It should be able to
provide us with a detailed Explanatory Memorandum allowing us
to scrutinise its positions, and in due course with its full response
to the Commission. If the latter, the Government should be putting
pressure on the Commission to make consultation on the Annual
Policy Strategy a worthwhile exercise. Either way, the Annual
Policy Strategy is the precursor to the Preliminary Draft Budget,
and it would be extraordinary if the Government did not take a
view on the allocation of financial resources the Commission proposes.
70 
