Memorandum by Jim Murphy MP, Minister
for Europe
2009 ANNUAL POLICY
STRATEGY
I promised to write to you with further information
on a number of issues of interest to the Select Committee, following
my evidence session to your Committee on 10 June, on the European
Commission's Annual Policy Strategy (APS) for 2009.
The Committee sought clarification on how the
Government consults with the Devolved Administrations on our response
to the APS and on European policy formulation more generally.
I can confirm that the Explanatory Memorandum on the APS was shared
with the Devolved Administrations in March. The JMC(E) Ministerial
Committee is the primary means through which we discuss EU policy
issues with the Devolved Administrations.
The Committee also asked about the extent to
which Justice and Home Affairs policy would change under the Lisbon
Treaty. I told the Committee that we expected around 50 proposals
would need to be transposed over to the Community method from
the Third Pillar. I have since been able to verify that the actual
figure is 82. The resources needed to undertake this will limit
the scope for additional initiatives in this field for some time
to come.
I understand that the Committee had planned
to ask a series of additional questions on various aspects of
work planned by the Commission under the APS for 2009. I enclose
details of the answers that I had planned to give the Committee
during the evidence session, had time allowed.
3. The Government's EM says that the APS
has "no direct implications for subsidiarity". Individual
proposals, of course, may well have subsidiarity implications.
Which proposals do you intend to monitor closely to ensure that
they add value at the European level?
We pay particular attention, in our discussions
with the Commission, to subsidiarity. The UK has long been a primary
advocate of the principle of subsidiarity—going back to
the 1992 Edinburgh European Council. The Protocol on Subsidiarity
and Proportionality, introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty, was a
UK initiative.
There are procedures in place to monitor subsidiarity.
The Commission's Explanatory Memoranda include an assessment of
compatibility with the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality
and the conferral of powers. Usually the Commission gets it right,
but there are occasions when its enthusiasm gets the better of
it.
Subsidiarity 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. Subsidiarity
concerns tend to arise not in specific subject areas, but rather
where there are horizontal provisions on harmonisation and the
approximation of laws (eg, under Art 95 TEC). In the past, we
have seen subsidiarity concerns in fields such as environment
and employment legislation.
7. Will 2009 produce any progress on reforming
the EU budget?
Discussions on long-term budget reform are being
taken forward in the context of the European Commission's Budget
Review.
HMG's response to the Commission White Paper
set out a positive and principled vision for future EU budget
Expenditure, in line with the agreed HMG EU Budget Review policy
and consistent with our Global Europe agenda. It called for a
fundamental re-orientation of spending away from agriculture and
towards 21st century challenges: such as prosperity, climate change
and poverty reduction.
Our principles for a modern budget are:
— first, the EU should only act
where there are clear additional benefits from collective efforts
or "EU added value", compared with action by individual
Member States;
— second, where EU-level action
is appropriate, it should be proportionate and flexible. We must
recognise the limits to EU budgetary intervention. Expenditure
is just one of a number of policy levers, alongside coordination,
sharing best practice, and legislation or regulation. In addition,
the full range of financing options should be considered, including
both grant and loan finance; and
— third, sound financial management,
including a modern approach to management and audit and greater
focus on delivery of outcomes in programme design and evaluation.
It will be important to maintain budget discipline.
11. The Commission states that negotiations
on a new round of Bilateral Free Trade Agreements will continue
during the coming year, including negotiations on a new Partnership
and Cooperation Agreement with China. How do these fit with efforts
to conclude the Doha Round successfully? Do you share the Commission's
belief that the Doha Round will be completed?
The Doha Development Agenda remains the Government's
trade policy priority. We are devoting a great deal of effort,
from the Prime Minister downwards to ensuring that a deal can
be reached in 2008. But for the deal to be concluded this year,
significant progress, culminating in an outline deal on agriculture
and industrial goods (NAMA), must be made in the next few weeks.
Pascal Lamy (Director General, WTO) believes
a deal can still be done this year. The Government shares his
confidence, but a lot of hard work and political commitment by
leading nations is needed in the coming weeks.
With regards the Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement, or PCA, with China, the UK has been active in shaping
the vision for the development of EU-China relations, with the
result that Community policy towards China is now more strategic
and wide ranging, with the proposed PCA going well beyond the
narrower scope of the 1985 Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
The Government believes that the PCA, covering
co-operation, political and economic issues will guide the future
scope, direction and parameters of the EU-China relationship and
in particular supports strongly the trade and investment aspects
of a future agreement, the key objectives being to:
— building on China's WTO commitments
to remove restrictions on investment and foreign ownership in
China, and
— obtain better protection of
intellectual property and negotiate mutual recognition of geographical
indications.
The EU also intends to address with greater
intensity the:
— sustainability and environmental
aspects and impacts of its economic and trade relations with China;
and
— enhance cooperation on safety
and health standards.
The Government does not see Free Trade Agreements
as an alternative to the Doha Development Agenda, but believe
that there is value in these agreements as long as they are complementary
to what will be achieved in the Doha round.
12. The APS includes a proposal that the
fisheries and aquaculture Common Market Organisation be reformed.
Are you aware of the Commission's motivation for the inclusion
of this in the APS, and would the Government support, in principle,
such a reform? Do you consider that it may be an opportunity to
explore further the role of the EU in relation to the eco-labelling
of fisheries products?
The Commission conducts periodic reviews of
the Common Market Organisation. The original aims of the CMO were
to provide market stability and guarantee a fair income for fish
producers. Supply is often not adapted to the needs of the market
in terms of quantity, quality and regularity. This is partly due
to the poor state of conservation of fish stocks. Improvements
in international transport have encouraged an increase in imports
of fish products. In addition, marketing structures have changed.
The result has been a growing dependence on
imported fisheries products, which now account for more than 60%
of total consumption in the European Union. There has also been
an evolution from a market dominated by fresh fish to one where
consumers have increasingly turned to processed fish products,
especially prepared meals. Consumers have become more demanding,
not only in terms of choice, but also in terms of the dietary
and hygiene quality of food products.
A major reform of the CMO was undertaken in
late 1999 with a view to achieving a better match between supply
and demand, strengthening the competitiveness of the processing
industry and improving information to consumers about the fish
products available on the market.
Greater international competition means that
the EU fishing industry must become more competitive by exploiting
its strength, particularly in the fresh fish sector. This is more
difficult to achieve in a situation of overcapacity, coupled with
reduced fishing opportunities because of over fishing.
The Government firmly supports further reform,
which is long overdue. We are fully supportive of the review to
deliver the necessary improvements.
Reform will also be an opportunity for a greater
focus on the consumption end of the fisheries marketing chain,
linked to the promotion of fish as a healthy food source and eco-labelling
will be a key element of this. The Commission are currently exploring
the setting of appropriate standards for individual schemes within
the Community, with this in mind.
The EU is already signed up to a basic framework
for eco-labelling, established under the auspices of the Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN).
This is however extremely simple (in order to allow the participation
of developing countries). Member States have therefore recently
agreed that more stringent criteria should be established at Community
level, whilst still providing an element of flexibility to allow
them to develop their own bespoke national schemes.
The UK fully supports the principle of improving
consumer information to assist purchasing decisions. However,
we have resisted calls to be actively involved in the accreditation
process for existing schemes like that of the Marine Stewardship
Council—although we have provided some funding both to the
MSC itself and to assist the provision of information to support
applications for accreditation.
28 June 2008
| 
