Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 369)
MONDAY 22 OCTOBER 2007
Ms Kitty Ussher, Mr Gareth Thomas, Mr Mark Paskins
and Mr Julian Farrel
Q360 Baroness Eccles of Moulton:
How good are we being at developing single points of contact?
Mr Thomas: We would like to think we are not
too bad. Let me bring Mr Farrel in to give you some more detailed
information.
Mr Farrel: We are just in the process of launching
a consultation on the implementation of the EU services directive.
The key element of that, as you mentioned, is for SMEs the point
of single contact. That is a very substantial consultation document
that is just in the process of going out and we are looking forward
to getting a good response to that.
Q361 Baroness Eccles of Moulton:
How much do we know about the progress that is being made in other
countries which, of course, affect our SMEs trading?
Mr Thomas: On that we have had a series of conversations
between our officials working on the point of single contact with
officials in other countries to share best practice. Other countries
have sought to come across to the UK to learn from us about implementation
of the point of contact and through the discussions that we have
been having we have an opportunity to learn from what other countries
are doing.
Q362 Baroness Eccles of Moulton:
The diluting of the country of origin principle you think can
be considerably assisted by other types of support that other
SMEs can receive?
Mr Thomas: There are a whole series of ways
that we seek to support small and medium enterprises as I have
described. We think, in a sense, we have a particular responsibility
to push the case for small and medium enterprises particularly
because of the point you make about how many businesses would
be in that category and the potential for them to benefit from
the markets that are available within the Single Market. I do
not think we would ever relax and say we have everything perfect
but we try to do as much as we can.
Q363 Baroness Eccles of Moulton:
It is a double-edged duty: both being a good host and encouraging
the other Member States to be as helpful as possible to our businesses
that want to go and work in them.
Mr Thomas: Yes. There are benefits to the UK
from the competition that comes from businesses that are based
in overseas countries which helps to keep prices for British consumers
low but we want to make sure that the Commission, and indeed Member
States, are doing all they can do to make the business environment
across the Single Market attractive to British businesses too.
Q364 Baroness Eccles of Moulton:
This is not an area that will be lost sight of?
Mr Thomas: No.
Q365 Baroness Eccles of Moulton:
There is a difference between a business that is working on a
temporary basis, a temporary licence or registration, and at some
stage becoming permanent. It seems that its position in the country
that it is working in alters in some way; there is a changeover
between temporary and permanent.
Mr Thomas: There are no set rules. The European
Court, through some of the decisions that it has taken, has in
a sense given us some case law, I suppose you would describe it,
but there are not at the moment any set rules. It is something
we keep under review.
Q366 Lord Dykes: I apologise
for the delay in arriving because of the Government's EU Lisbon
statement in the House. My apologies to the Ministers and their
colleagues as well. Particularly with the events earlier in the
year, quite dramatic events, on mobile phones and other aspects
of telecommunications, there is now this likelihood the Commission
will bring in the proposal for an EU-wide telecommunications regulator.
We have made inquiries in this Committee and elsewhere that suggest
there is not a lot of support for this, both in this country and
elsewhere, but everything is in the formative and transitional
stage. What would the Government's position be if these proposals
were put forward by the Commission?
Mr Thomas: I think we would want to see the
detail of the proposals before we gave a completely definitive
comment. I suppose at the moment we would prefer to see a strengthening
of the individual national regulators as opposed to a creation
of a super regulator across the European Union. Our concern would
be, could such a super regulator really know the different conditions
in each country? We think there would need to be co-operation
between regulators but at this stage we do not think the case
has yet been put to us clearly enough for such a super regulator.
Q367 Lord Dykes: Do you feel
confident that such a structure of co-ordination and co-operation
could be effective rather than just pretending?
Mr Thomas: There is already a European Regulators
Group that provides an advisory role to the Commission. You will
have to forgive me, we do need to see what the Commission brings
forward before we can give a definitive view. If it would help,
Lord Freeman, I will write to the Committee once we have seen
what the Commission are saying and have had time to digest it.
You will forgive me for wanting to allow some room at this stage.
Kitty Ussher: In terms of your general points,
there are examples from other sectors where co-operation between
regulators has proved quite effective. In my own sector we think
that the Lamfalussy arrangements to co-ordinate supervision in
financial services are the right way to go about it. Once they
can be tweaked at the margins we think they are rather effective
so it is possible in theory.
Q368 Lord Geddes: The current
remedies available to enforce Single Market legislation, in the
written evidence we have got I was alarmed to read as a remedy:
"to encourage a greater role for private actions against
anti-competitive behaviour is key to stimulating higher levels
of market dynamism." I absolutely agree but how on earth
can an SME afford to do it?
Mr Thomas: SMEs may have the resources to want
to go down that particular route. The key thing is for us to establish
such a process to make it easier for SMEs, or any business, to
take out private actions for damages. That is what we are seeking
to do both here in the UK and across the European Union. As part
of the process of doing that, we obviously discuss with SMEs what
the results of legislation in that area would mean, and the costs
of bringing an action would be one of the things we would expect
to discuss.
Q369 Lord Geddes: You might
discuss it but who would pay for it at the end of the day?
Mr Thomas: One of the things you need to do
in the discussion is understand how small and medium enterprises
would see the cost of bringing such an action. There are a variety
of other tools that we can use, or small medium enterprises can
use, to get redress. One of the most effective ways at the moment
is the so-called SOLVIT process. I know of one example where a
British company has been helped to secure some 98,000 EUR by way
of a VAT return from Spanish authorities as a result of that process.
I do not think you should see private actions on their own. They
would be part of a series of measures that SMEs, and indeed other
businesses, might use to get redress.
Chairman: I hope the Committee will take
evidence from SOLVIT on our second visit in December. We were
impressed with the theory and want to see how it operates in practice.
Thank you very much indeed. This has been a very workman-like
session but may I compliment you, without being in any way patronising,
on the clarity and directness of your answers which is much appreciated.
We look forward to producing our report in due course and we hope
it will be helpful.
| 
