Select Committee on European Union Fifth Report


CHAPTER 3: THE SINGLE MARKET TODAY

The Impact of the Single Market so far

23.  Two decades after the adoption of the Single European Act, and 14 years after the launch of the Single Market, the majority of the evidence received by the Committee suggests that its impact, so far, has been positive. It has facilitated the creation of a home market of 500 million consumers, making the EU the world's largest trading bloc, and "a very attractive investment location" with a strong position in the global economy (Harbour, Purvis, Wilcox p 221).

24.  According to the Commission the estimated gains from the Single Market amount to 2.2% of EU growth and 1.4% of total employment (or 2.75 million jobs) over the period 1992-2006 (p 86). In its response to the Commission's review the Government suggested that the Single Market had boosted prosperity in the EU by 1.8% GDP or €225 billion in 2006 alone[4]. Business for New Europe submitted evidence that the European Single Market had the largest GDP of any economy in the world, accounting for 40% of global trade (p 204).

25.  The Government argued that the Single Market had boosted competition and led to a reduction in prices, pointing to the convergence in product prices in the late 1990s as evidence of increased competitiveness[5].

26.  Business for New Europe estimated that the Single Market is worth £20 billion annually to the UK: around 50% of the UK's trade is with the rest of Europe, and approximately 3 million jobs are linked to EU exports (p 205). The Single Market has also sparked large increases in foreign direct investment, much of which has benefited the UK (p 204).

27.  Another significant benefit of the Single Market has been the improved ease of movement across borders, for students, workers, holiday-makers and pensioners. According to Commission data, 1.2 million students across Europe have completed part of their studies in another Member State; and 15 million Europeans have moved across borders to work or retire (Q 199). According to a Eurobarometer survey, three-quarters of EU citizens find travelling abroad much easier today (Q 199)—a finding which is supported by the fact that British people alone made 53 million visits to the rest of Europe in 2006, an increase of 50% since 1998 (Business for New Europe p 206). It is also estimated that over a million Britons live, work and study in other EU Member States, whilst since 2004 around 600,000 people from the accession countries have come to the UK (Business for New Europe p 206).

28.  There have been other benefits to consumers—Commission surveys suggest that 73% of EU citizens consider access to a wider choice of high quality goods and services one of the major benefits of the Single Market; 67% of citizens welcome the increase in competition in areas like transport, communications and financial services brought about by the Single Market; and 53% of European consumers consider that Single Market regulation has increased consumer protection within the EU (Q 199). Single Market regulations have in general set high standards for the protection of the consumer, the environment, health and other standards that are, in some cases, applied in other regions of the world (Q 275).

Enlargement

29.  The Single Market today is a very different undertaking to the Single Market of 1993 and this is chiefly due to successive waves of enlargement. This Committee has been a strong supporter of the enlargement process and we recognised the positive economic and political impact which it has had on the European Union in our recent report The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity? (53rd report, 2005-06, HL 273).

30.  Enlargement has had a profound impact on the Single Market. According to the Government, the 2004 and 2007 enlargements have increased the size of the Single Market by 104 million consumers, and the EU GDP was around €850 billion larger in 2007 than it would otherwise have been (p 143). Investment opportunities have increased and this is reflected in the sharp increase in UK trade with the eight central and eastern European countries that joined in 2004: £6.4 billion in 2005, up 151% since 1995; UK trade with Romania and Bulgaria was just over £1 billion, up 250% over the same period (HM Treasury p 143). Lord Williamson of Horton, former Secretary-General of the European Commission, agreed that the growth potential of the new Member States was a very important element of the enlarged Single Market (Q 17).

31.  Inevitably however, "the increased divergence among the 27 Member States constitutes a challenge to [the Single Market's] proper functioning" (Commission p 86) and this was recognised by many witnesses: most importantly, agreement of legislation, transposition and implementation have become much more difficult in an enlarged EU. BusinessEurope, the European employers' organisation, stressed how much more difficult implementation of Single Market regulation has become in the enlarged EU, and made a range of proposals for its improvement, including the training of national officials and judges, and the improvement of non-judicial resolution mechanisms such as arbitration or mediation in cases of disputes (Q 275). We consider the issue of legislation and implementation in greater detail below.

32.  Enlargement has also had a significant impact on the movement of labour. Our inquiry did not consider this in detail.

Legislation and the Single Market

33.  With enlargement the task of transposition and implementation of the Single Market rules has become much more complex. The latest issue of the Internal Market Scoreboard provides data to support this. The average transposition deficit recorded in July 2007 was 1.6% (or 1.8% if Romania and Bulgaria are included). However, the percentages do not immediately reflect the magnitude of the problem—the Internal Market acquis is made up of 1628 directives and 679 regulations[6]; Portugal with a deficit of 4.4% has failed to implement 71 internal market directives; in Italy it is 44 directives, in the Czech Republic 38 and in Poland 29[7]. The UK, despite being within the target 1.5% deficit, has failed to transpose 19 directives. The effect of the non-application of these rules is difficult to quantify, but clearly the failure to transpose directives does not help the further development of the Single Market.

34.  The failure of Member States to implement fully existing legislation was a recurring theme throughout the evidence received, especially in the energy and telecoms sectors. Indeed, many witnesses commented that the sectors under consideration were not so much in need of reform as in need of having existing legislation evenly applied across the Member States (see paragraphs 84-85, 109-110 and 130).

35.  There is also a qualitative element to the transposition and implementation of legislation which is evidenced by the number of infringement proceedings for the incorrect transposition or application of directives, which continues to rise[8]. It was argued by Dr Mark Thatcher, of the London School of Economics Public Policy Group, that the nature of legislation emanating from Brussels—described as "incredibly broad … a set of objectives with very little detail" (Q 29)—allowed for significant differences in interpretation during transposition into national law. This was a point which arose in our second visit to Brussels. One Commission official explained that simplified legislation (referred to as "less Brussels, more Member States") did not always lead to better implementation: it often allowed for a greater degree of interpretation by the Member States, and that was typically where the problems arose (Q 469).

36.  Commissioner Charlie McCreevy confirmed this view: "Directives are an overarching type of a framework. They allow Member States a fair degree of flexibility. Most Member States add rather than subtract and most Member States gold-plate rather than take away". The result is a bit of a "mish-mash". Regulations on the other hand, which pass directly into European law, have the exact same effect in 27 Member States and safeguard against interpretation by Member States as well as gold-plating. However, Member States were very reluctant to agree to prescriptive regulations at EU level (Q 474).

37.  The patchy implementation of Single Market rules is compounded by the uneven provision made by Member States for National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs). The Committee was surprised to discover that the powers and remit of NRAs vary considerably between Member States since "there is no European model of how the National Regulatory Authorities … should actually be set up" (Dr Mark Thatcher Q 29). Crucially, there is also no legislation regarding the need for independence from government, which was a recurring source of concern in the evidence received, across all three sectors (see paragraphs 90 and 110). Many witnesses called for closer cooperation between national regulators, in order to ensure a more even interpretation and application of the rules across the Member States; this was considered an essential pre-requisite to increasing cross-border activity, especially among SMEs (see paragraphs 44-46).

38.  Given the difficulties inherent in agreeing and implementing legislation, it was not surprising that Commissioner McCreevy described himself as very reluctant to go down the legislative route in future. Quite apart from issues concerning interpretation and implementation, the process is very lengthy, inevitably so given the number of Member States involved. Mr McCreevy advocated "effective [non-legislative] action" (Q 474).

39.  The Committee was given the impression from a number of witnesses that the construction of the Single Market had developed sufficiently so that a lot of new legislation was no longer required. Mr Bryan Cassidy, member of the Single Market Observatory (of the European Economic and Social Committee) commented that "the big battles were fought and won some considerable time ago … Compared with the heady days of 1991 we are now down to much more workaday and detailed things" (Q 415). Mr Jean-Claude Thebault, Deputy-Head of the Cabinet of the President of the Commission, confirmed this view, saying that "we are not in a period where we have to issue many directives or regulations" (Q 398).

40.  The Committee heard from Commission officials that they are keen to "build up a more preventative and proactive approach upstream" (Q 204), focusing on assisting Member States early on in the transposition process, rather than waiting until such a time when infringement proceedings need to be commenced. Concrete steps are already being taken in this direction with the publication of a handbook to assist Member States with the implementation of the Services Directive[9].

Problem-solving in the Single Market

41.  SOLVIT, a dispute resolution mechanism, is another example of an initiative launched under this objective. SOLVIT was set up in 2002 as a problem solving network to handle complaints arising from the misapplication of EU rules by public authorities. The Committee heard evidence from Commission officials charged with the coordination of the SOLVIT network and was very impressed by the work that such centres undertake. There are 30 national SOLVIT centres, based in the Member States and also in members of the European Free Trade Area (Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway). Levels of staffing and general resources are at the discretion of Member States and as a result these vary widely. SOLVIT assesses the staffing levels in offices as either "adequate" or "low". In its 2006 report it rated the UK as "adequate".

42.  The SOLVIT network exists without any formal legal basis—it was set up following a Council recommendation, and its activities are dependent on the cooperation of Member States and relevant authorities (Q 423). To date this approach appears to be very successful, with over 80% of cases being solved.

43.  Although SOLVIT exists to resolve disputes, a large amount of submitted complaints are actually requests for information about cross-border matters without any actual dispute. These complaints, making up around 80% of submissions, are most often about "the impossibility of finding decent information about what the rules are". Ms Marian Grubben, the SOLVIT team leader, described this information gap as "maybe the single most important problem for SMEs" (Q 425).

SMEs and the Single Market

44.  The Committee sought evidence on the barriers likely to be encountered by SMEs in trying to take advantage of the Single Market. The Committee took evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) that only 2% of UK SMEs were conducting business in other EU markets (Q 83), which suggested that barriers were very high indeed. The FSB referred to the Single Market as a "remarkable success story" but that "the small business community has yet to share in its benefits" (Q 66). Ms Karen Clements, from the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), referred to a growing "disenchantment" with the European Union and the Single Market amongst the members of the BCC because "businesses are not reaping the full benefits of the Single Market" (Q 66).

45.  The role of Member States and their responsibility for implementation and enforcement was cited as one of the main barriers: "the persistent national abuse of Single Market principles, whether it is flouting the principle of mutual recognition or failing to implement and enforce laws on time and evenly" (Q 66). A further barrier was the lack of a single source of reliable information about trading across Member States (Q 68), and this had led to a lack of confidence about entering other EU markets (Q 70). This point was supported by evidence from Ms Grubben, the SOLVIT team leader, who felt there was "an enormous need for more user-friendly targeted information for businesses just about practical things—where do I go to achieve this, what sort of forms do I need to fill in" (Q 425).

46.  Both the FSB and the BCC referred to the importance of completing the internal market in services: in its written evidence the FSB stated that 99.8% of EU businesses are SMEs, of which 89% operate in the service sector (p 39). It was hoped that the Services Directive would enhance levels of engagement with the Single Market among SMEs (Q 101). Both the BCC and the FSB expressed disappointment with the final form of the Services Directive, which had been significantly weakened by the time of agreement. Mr Clive Davenport, representing the FSB, argued that the impact for SMEs was effectively to "keep [them] out of the Single Market, or at least make entry complicated and expensive for them" (Q 111).

Economic Nationalism and the Country of Origin Principle

47.  The Committee was concerned from the outset of this inquiry by the apparent incidence of economic nationalism in Europe, by some Member States resisting the adoption of liberalisation measures, in markets such as energy and telecoms, in an effort to protect national industries (the so-called "national champions"). Such action appeared to us contrary to the principles of the Single Market; many of our witnesses agreed.

48.  The CBI wrote that "the recent trend of protectionism in the EU, whether in the name of protecting national champions or economic nationalism, is contrary to the four principles of the European Union" (p 216). Evidence submitted by Malcolm Harbour MEP, John Purvis MEP and Baroness Wilcox warned that economic nationalism posed a threat to EU competitiveness. The Government argued that such measures, although designed to protect domestic industries and avoid job losses, were "directly threatening to open and competitive markets, and will not protect jobs and growth in the long term" (p 145).

49.  The Committee heard evidence from Mr Peter Sutherland (former EU Commissioner for Competition, and Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International) who argued that while economic nationalism was not new, the articulation of it had recently changed in an attempt to render it more acceptable: "the arguments about national champions have been couched in phrases which at least recognises the European nature of the champion rather than the national nature of the champion" (Q 318).

50.  Evidence received from the FSB referred to the "serious threat posed" to the Single Market by the protectionist tendencies of some stakeholders and Member States and highlighted in particular the "sustained attempt to undermine the country of origin principle" (FSB p 40). The "country of origin principle" has been the legislative building block for the facilitation of free movement of goods or services across borders. This principle has underpinned efforts to increase competitiveness within the EU by making it possible for businesses to trade in other Member States on the basis of "home country" regulations. The Government's evidence referred to it as an "important tool" in delivering the freedom of movement for goods and services, and in "providing legal certainty" for businesses which would otherwise have to comply with different rules and regulations when operating across borders (p 144). Dr Thatcher added that without the country of origin principle we run the risk of back-sliding toward a state of non-tariff barriers and national protectionism (Q 36)[10].

51.  This was a view shared by many witnesses, who also expressed their disappointment at the outcome of negotiations on the Services Directive. Witnesses argued that the Directive had led to a significant dilution of the country of origin principle (BCC, FSB, CBI). In the Services Directive the principle is only applicable to companies operating in a host country on a temporary basis. Once they become established in another Member State they must comply with that country's regulations. However, the nature of a temporary basis was not clearly defined. The FSB argued that as a result of the "nebulous" text of the Services Directive the Single Market in services would have to be achieved through recourse to the European Court of Justice (p 40). The CBI expressed concern that the Directive would act as a deterrent to businesses, especially SMEs wishing to operate in other EU Member States (p 216).

52.  The Committee has previously expressed its support for the country of origin principle in its reports on the Services Directive and the Audio-Visual Media Directive[11]. It has been concerned by the potential for the dilution of the country of origin principle to adversely affect businesses, both SMEs and larger companies.

Consumers and the Single Market

53.  Despite the broader benefits to citizens in terms of free movement and the right to study, work or retire abroad, which were mentioned by the Commission (see paragraph 27 above), as consumers some citizens do not perceive the Single Market as a reality (Q 216). There are two aspects to this—the failure of cross-border purchasing to develop beyond very marginal activity; and the failure of key markets, such as energy, to be sufficiently liberalised at national level for consumers to enjoy the benefit of increased competition (Q 218).

54.  We received evidence from BEUC, the European Consumers Organisation, and the National Consumer Council (NCC) which suggested that the key to improving consumer confidence in cross-border shopping was to provide consumers with the same level of consumer protection, including proper means of redress, as when shopping at home (Q 218). On the other hand, other factors may be at work—consumer resistance is not unfounded, but reflects practical and cultural factors which make cross-border shopping less attractive. Mr Dominique Forest concurred that what really mattered were the concrete benefits to consumers that could arise from "providers from other Member States settling in your country and making the home market more competitive" (Q 221). This required the proper implementation of liberalisation measures across the Member States (Q 223).

Economic and Monetary Union[12]

55.  The Committee sought evidence of the impact of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the adoption of the euro in 13 of the Member States on the functioning of the Single Market. The Commission pointed to the benefits of increased transparency and reduction in the cost of cross-border activities as a result of the single currency. The Government conceded that the single currency could play a role in strengthening transparency, and that the elimination of exchange rate risk and transaction costs under EMU facilitated the provision of cross-border financial services (p 145). The benefit of transparency was supported by BEUC, the European consumers' organisation, but it was also pointed out that transparency needs to be accompanied by very concrete measures to make it beneficial to consumers; the euro in itself cannot deal with the lack of competition, or the difficulties in cross-border shopping, or with uncertainties about the rights and means of redress for consumers (Q 219).

56.  Another impact suggested by witnesses was an increase in foreign direct investment. The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) argued that the introduction of the single currency has been one of the major factors in increasing the attractiveness of the European financial market (p 207). Mr Sutherland argued that inward investment to the UK would have been higher if the UK was part of the eurozone (Q 319). Lord Williamson of Horton made the point that currency variations in the Single Market can present difficulties (Q 7), but he conceded that there did not appear to be a problem for businesses crossing over from the eurozone to the sterling zone (Q 13).

57.  Dr Thatcher told us that a single currency may help the functioning of the Single Market, but it is not a necessary or sufficient condition for its success (Q 46). He argued that the lack of common standards was a more important barrier than the lack of a common currency.


4   The Single Market: A Vision for the 21st Century, HMT & DTI, January 2007 Back

5   Ibid. Back

6   As at 30 April 2007. The "acquis" means the body of Community laws in force. Back

7   Scoreboard 16, Internal Market, July 2007 Back

8   Ibid.  Back

9   The Handbook can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/services-dir/index_en.htm Back

10   The Committee took the view in its report The Services Directive Revisited that "many of the concerns expressed about a 'race to the bottom' in terms of employment conditions would be met by the overriding application of the Posting of Workers Directive (Directive 96/71/EC) to employees posted to work in another Member State. The effect of this would be that such employees would be covered by the laws and regulations relating to employment in the host country" (paragraph 16). Back

11   European Union Committee, 38th report (2005-06): The Services Directive Revisited (HL 215); European Union Committee, 3rd report (2006-07): Television without Frontiers (HL 27). Back

12   EMU is considered in greater detail in our report forthcoming report on the issue. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008