SOCIAL POLICIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (SUB … … · The primary purpose of the House of Lords...

European Union Committee

House of Lords London SW1A 0PW www.parliament.uk/hleug

The primary purpose of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee is to scrutinise EU law in draft before the Government take a position on it in the EU Council of Ministers. This scrutiny is frequently carried out through correspondence with Ministers. Such correspondence, including Ministerial replies and other materials, is published where appropriate. This edition includes correspondence from 1 December 2011 – 8 May 2012.

SOCIAL POLICIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

(SUB-COMMITTEE G)

CONTENTS

ACTIVE AND HEALTHY AGEING (7293/12) .................................................................................................... 2

AN EU AGENDA FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (7226/11) ................................................................. 2

AN EU FRAMEWORK FOR NATIONAL ROMA STRATEGIES UP TO 2020 (8727/11) ......................... 3

ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE: ACTION PLAN AGAINST THE RISING THREAT (16939/11) ......... 3

CLASSIFICATION, PACKAGING AND LABELLING OF DANGEROUS PREPARATIONS (5831/12) 3

CONSUMER PROGRAMME 2014-2020 (16795/11) .......................................................................................... 4

CREATIVE EUROPE PROGRAMME (17575/11, 17186/11) .............................................................................. 9

CROSS-BORDER THREATS TO HEALTH (18509/11) .................................................................................. 14

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES OF THE MEMBER STATES (17736/11) ............................................................. 15

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (12892/08) ........................... 15

ERASMUS FOR ALL: EU PROGRAMME FOR EDUCTION, TRAINING, YOUTH AND SPORT

(17574/11, 17188/11) .............................................................................................................................................. 17

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (18090/11, 18091/11) ............... 19

EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND (15247/11) ........................................................................................................... 21

EU-SWITZERLAND AGREEMENT: THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS (16231/11) ...................... 24

EU YEAR FOR ACTIVE AGEING AND SOLIDARITY BETWEEN GENERATIONS (EY 2012) .......... 25

FUTURE NECESSITY AND USE OF MECHANICALLY SEPARATED MEAT (MSM) IN THE EU

(17547/11) ................................................................................................................................................................. 26

FOOD INTENDED FOR INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN AND FOOD FOR SPECIAL

MEDICAL PURPOSES (12099/11) ....................................................................................................................... 26

GREEN PAPER: RESTRUCTURING AND ANTICIPATION OF CHANGE, WHAT LESSONS FROM

RECENT EXPERIENCE? (5582/12) ...................................................................................................................... 28

2

HEALTH FOR GROWTH PROGRAMME 2014-2020 (16796/11) ............................................................... 28

INFORMAL MEETING OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL POLICY MINISTERS (24-25 APRIL 2012)

..................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

INFORMATION TO PATIENTS AND PHARMACOVIGILANCE (6549/12, 6550/12, 6551/12,

6552/12) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32

MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (15476/11, 15477/11) ............................................................................................. 32

POSTING OF WORKERS & MONTI II REGULATION (8040/12, 8042/12) ............................................ 34

PREGNANT WORKERS DIRECTIVE (13983/08) ........................................................................................... 34

RECOGNISING AND PROMOTING CROSS-BORDER VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES IN THE EU

(14556/11) ................................................................................................................................................................. 35

THE RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (18899/11) ........................................... 36

SOCIAL CHANGE AND INNOVATION PROGRAMME (15451/11) ....................................................... 39

TRANSPARENCY DIRECTIVE (7315/12) .......................................................................................................... 41

WHITE PAPER: AN AGENDA FOR ADEQUATE, SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE PENSIONS (6715/12)

..................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES INITIATIVE (5166/12) ......................................................................................... 44

ACTIVE AND HEALTHY AGEING (7293/12)

Letter from the Chairman to Paul Burstow MP, Minister of State, Department of Health

Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the above Communication, which was considered by the Sub-Committee on Social Policies and Consumer Protection at its meeting on 26 April 2012.

We note that the Communication is provided for information, and we are grateful for the ample information that you and the Devolved Administrations have provided to us. On that basis, we are content to release the Communication from scrutiny.

On one issue, though, we would appreciate further information within the usual ten days. We note from the list of participants at the first meeting of the EIP’s Steering Group (2 May 2011) that there were no UK representatives – from government, civil society, research or business. Do you consider that this was due to a lack of support for the idea or a lack of awareness? We would welcome reassurance that the Department of Health and the Devolved Administrations are working actively to bring the EIP to the attention of stakeholders.

26 April 2012

AN EU AGENDA FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (7226/11)

Letter from the Chairman to Sarah Teather MP, Minister of State for Children and Families, Department for Education, to the Chairman

Your letter of 21 November 2011 was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 1 December 2011.

3

We are grateful for your comprehensive response to our earlier letter, which has helpfully clarified a number of issues which we raised.

We are writing separately to the Commission setting out some of the views that we heard from our witnesses and making use of some the information that you have helpfully provided in your letter. In that letter, which will be copied to you, we shall draw attention to the evidence sessions and to our relevant correspondence with you.

We are content to release the Communication from scrutiny and do not require a response to this letter.

1 December 2011

AN EU FRAMEWORK FOR NATIONAL ROMA STRATEGIES UP TO 2020 (8727/11)

Letter from the Chairman to Andrew Stunell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government

Thank you for your letter of 23 November 2011 which was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 15 December 2011.

We are grateful for your comprehensive and interesting responses to our questions. We will look forward to receiving a copy of the Ministerial Working Group’s report when it becomes available later this year.

We do not require a response to this letter.

15 December 2011

ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE: ACTION PLAN AGAINST THE RISING THREAT (16939/11)

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon Simon Burns MP, Minister of State for Health, Department of Health

Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the above Communication was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 19 January 2012.

This is clearly an important issue – antimicrobial resistance represents a major public health hazard. It is therefore heartening to note that the Commission is promoting strong action in this area. We also welcome the fact that the plan proposes more intensive action focused on veterinary medicine and animal health, given the possibility to transmit resistance through food. However, we also note that the scale of any harmonisation of practice with respect to disease prevention will need to be subject to the usual impact assessment process.

We therefore welcome your position on this matter. We are content to release the Communication from scrutiny and we do not require a response to this letter.

19 January 2012

CLASSIFICATION, PACKAGING AND LABELLING OF DANGEROUS PREPARATIONS (5831/12)

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon Chris Grayling MP, Minister for Employment, Department for Work and Pensions

Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) dated 7 March 2012 was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 26 April. They decided to clear the document from scrutiny.

You offer no position on the proposed changes to align the text with the comitology provisions of the Lisbon Treaty as regards delegation of powers to the Commission. We would be grateful for confirmation that you are content with the text as proposed by the Commission.

4

We look forward to your response within the usual 10 working days.

26 April 2012

Letter from the Rt. Hon Chris Grayling MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 26 April, confirming that the above document had cleared scrutiny. You also asked for the Government’s position on the proposed changes to align the recast of the Dangerous Preparations Directive (DPD) with the comitology provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.

We believe that the post-Lisbon comitology arrangements concerning the use of delegated and implementing acts are correctly applied in this case. In line with UK policy regarding the Common Understanding on delegated acts, we will seek to limit the delegation to a determined period, and to commit the Commission to timely consultation in advance of any acts.

However, we expect this change to have little practical effect. The Directive (either in its present or recast form) will be superseded by the existing European Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) of substances and mixtures on 1 June 2015. Comitology under DPD has already been superseded by CLP, and the use of delegated powers by the Commission under DPD is not anticipated.

2 May 2012

CONSUMER PROGRAMME 2014-2020 (16795/11)

Letter from the Chairman to Edward Davey MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) of 30 November regarding the above Proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 15 December 2011. They decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny.

We were a little surprised that the Government see no reason to consult nor to produce an impact assessment on the proposal on the basis that the Programme will have no direct impact on UK consumers or business. This is particularly so given your reference to the fact that the Government co-finance on a 50/50 basis the UK’s European Consumer Centre. In this respect, we would be a grateful for an explanation of this assertion. We would also urge you to consult, at least informally, with stakeholders and to inform the Committee of the outcome.

You may be aware that the Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the next Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2014 to 2020. Therefore, we are particularly interested in the various proposals for funding instruments which are currently being brought forward by the Commission. With regard to the Consumer Programme, you indicate that the Government will adopt a tough negotiating stance but offer no line in principle as to whether you will seek to protect this budget nor, if it is cut, where the priorities should be.

According to the Commission’s analysis (page 26 of the Impact Assessment ADD 1), the instrument has been strengthened and this is particularly so in three areas : first, support for a strengthened alert system for dangerous products (RAPEX); second, the new Cosmetic Products Notification Panel, an online database that is being developed in the context of the new (2009) cosmetics Regulation, and the use of which will become mandatory as from 11 July 2013; and third, support for development of new dispute resolution mechanisms. Do you agree with the Commission’s analysis of the main areas where the instrument has been strengthened?

We would be grateful for your observations as from our perspective the sum of €27m for RAPEX seems unjustifiably large in the context of this Programme, particularly as doubts have been expressed about its efficacy. The additional spend (€8.7m) for the Cosmetics Panel seems reasonable as it derives from new EU regulation. We also have some concerns about a €13.8m budget under this Programme for legislative development of new dispute resolution mechanisms. It seems to us that the Consumer Programme ought to be supporting actions rather than policy development, which should otherwise be funded through the administrative budget. We note in fact that the Consumer Programme is supported by an additional €10.2m for payments of an administrative nature. The reserve of €4.3m for coordination and monitoring of ADR, on the other hand, seems reasonable as actions deriving from policy developments may need to be supported during the 2014 to 2020 period.

5

We are wary about the inclusion in the Programme of some of the actions that are intended to complement and enhance the efficiency of measures undertaken at national level. In a time of budget constraints, we would question whether the EU budget should be used to finance measures, such as awareness-raising campaigns on consumer issues and the training of national consumer organisations that may more properly be financed from national budgets. Another provision that we would question is the possibility to finance joint actions in the field of product safety. We are unclear what this might include aside from RAPEX. Your views on the inclusion of these types of actions would also be welcome.

Finally, you acknowledge that improving the evidence base could assist UK policy makers, but you also fear that there could be negative implications if the Commission’s work conflicts with national strategies. We would be grateful if you could explain the grounds for your concerns as we see no obvious conflict.

We will look forward to receiving your response within the standard ten working days.

15 December 2011

Letter from Edward Davey MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 15 December concerning the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) I submitted on the above topic on 30 November 2011. I note that you have retained the Commission’s proposal under scrutiny.

In your letter you ask for an explanation as to why the Government is not formally consulting or producing an Impact Assessment on the proposal. After careful consideration we concluded that the programme itself does not impose additional regulatory burdens on the business, charity or voluntary sector in the United Kingdom and would have zero or very limited direct effect on UK businesses and consumers. The Government will, however, prepare Impact Assessments on all of the individual future EU proposals for action under the Consumer Programme, wherever such proposals are likely to have a significant impact in the UK.

In cases where formal consultations are not considered necessary or proportionate the Government will consult informally with interested stakeholders and I propose to seek key stakeholders’ views on the proposed consumer programme in the coming weeks. I will update the Committee once the deadline for responses has passed.

In your letter you request further information on the Government’s negotiating stance in relation to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2014-2020.

The UK’s top priority in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2014-2020 is controlling overall budget size. The Prime Minister has stated jointly with other Member States that there can be no increases in the next MFF above inflation. This must be in payment terms not commitments.

Like other EU Member States, at this stage in negotiations we are not putting a precise figure on the spend that would be acceptable to the UK in a given area. This is due to the following:

— Our primary focus is on total budget size;

— We will not agree individual areas of spend until the total MFF size is agreed;

— We are at the beginning of a long MFF negotiation process which is expected to last until at least the end of 2012.

However, in line with our overall aim, we will certainly seek to reduce the level of spending on this programme from the level proposed by the Commission, which would likely result in significantly increased payment levels compared to current spend.

The Government shares the Committee’s view that education and awareness-raising campaigns should not be a priority and will push for cuts in this area of spend. This is an issue we have already raised with the Commission. It is important that consumer education and information reflects not only EU-derived rights but also national laws and is placed in a national context. It is my view that in most cases this is best achieved at national rather than EU level. The Commission recently published an external evaluation of its consumer education work. The report recommended substantial changes to the Commission’s consumer education activities to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. The Commission have indicated that as a result of these findings they will review this area of activity and the Government will press the Commission to act on these recommendations.

6

Your letter, also questions the need for Commission funding for the training of national consumer organisations. It is my understanding that the Commission will review its training activities following the recommendations of the review referred to above. In the UK we have well established consumer organisations with considerable expertise and the need for Commission funded activities is therefore limited. This is not always the case in other, particularly newer, Member States, for whom the Commission funding may be more beneficial. It is likely that the need for this training will diminish over time and I would expect that to be reflected by a decrease in the budget for this activity.

In relation to the UK’s European Consumer Centre (ECC) funding, the UK ECC provides a valuable service to UK consumers and a recent evaluation commissioned by the Commission found that the UK ECC handle over 1000 more complaints and information requests than any other ECC and together with France and Germany they handle half of all enquiries received by the whole network. At present the Department and the Commission fund the UK ECC on a 50/50 basis and therefore any substantial changes to the role or functions of the ECC network could have budgetary implications for the Government and any future proposal for such changes will be carefully analysed by the Government. During the negotiation of the consumer programme and any discussions on the future of the ECC network we will continue to promote UK interests. The Government is promoting a single point of contact for UK consumers for any consumer enquiries and complaints, if, as the Commission favours, the ECC Network were then also to promote directly to consumers, this would be likely to lead to confusion for the UK consumer and would not be in their best interests. This is an example of the Commission’s work that we fear may have negative implications which may conflict with national strategies. We have raised these concerns with the Commission on several occasions and will continue to do so. As a co-funder with UK ECC, BIS works very closely with them on budgetary issues and its work programme. UK ECC is fully aware and supportive of our position.

In response to the Committee’s concerns around a proposed budget of €27m for RAPEX this not only includes the operation and maintenance of the two platforms involved in the operation of RAPEX but also to support and enable greater European cooperation on product safety issues. The newly developed GRAS RAPEX IT system is a much improved system speeding up the dissemination of information in greater detail. The other system, the Business application, simplifies the procedure for producers and distributors to fulfil their legal obligation to notify national authorities of any dangerous consumer products they have placed on the EU market. Both platforms continue to ensure products posing a serious risk to consumers are removed from the EU market e.g. in 2009 1,699 dangerous products were removed across the EU and this rose by 13% in 2010 to 1,963 and we expect this figure to increase year-on-year.

Another vital role is through enabling market surveillance cooperation. Member States are obliged to ensure only safe products are placed onto the EU market through market surveillance. To this end Joint Actions (collaborative Market Surveillance exercises) involving the majority of Member States will be carried out. These Joint Actions allow for a coordinated approach to high risk products across the whole Internal Market. The funding does not replace Member State’s own funding but enables these activities to be carried out and managed effectively leading to better results and greater participation. The Commission also enhances market surveillance by improved cooperation through the exchange of market surveillance officials to encourage the sharing of best practice amongst Member States. The UK continues to support and participate where appropriate in all RAPEX funded programmes.

The Government supports strong EU consumer policy that places consumers at the heart of the Single Market. We particularly support the Commission’s activity around pan-European market monitoring and research as creating a Union-wide evidence base to support enforcement action and the development of policy and strategy. I also welcome actions to support knowledge sharing and best practice. A successful example of this in practice is the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) database which is useful for informing enforcement bodies as it contains Union-wide, publicly available data on national laws transposing the Directive, jurisprudence, administrative decisions, references to related legal literature and other relevant materials.

With regards to the consumer programme objective around Rights and Redress the Commission supports the development of new dispute resolution mechanisms and improving access to redress for consumers. To achieve this they propose the development of a Union-wide online dispute resolution (ODR) platform and the proposed budget will principally go towards the development and maintenance of this online system. This system would signpost consumers and traders to organisations that provide alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The Government has some questions about the added value of the establishment of an ODR platform along the lines proposed. These

7

reservations are discussed in more detail in the Explanatory memorandum that was issued on 15 December 2011 (Council doc nos. 17795/11, 17815/11 and 17968/11).

In response to the Committee’s concerns around a proposed budget of €13.8m for legislative development of new dispute resolution mechanisms this amount refers not only to dispute resolution, but the whole programme objective around rights and redress including preparation, transposition assessment, monitoring, evaluation, implementation and enforcement by Member States of consumer protection legislative and other regulatory initiatives (i.e. studies, consultations, workshops and impact assessments). Activity around the development of ADR schemes is estimated in the proposal at €4.3m , a figure confirmed as €4.6 m in the Commission Proposals on ADR and ODR (17795/11, 17815/11 and 17968/1) as above.

For the Committee’s information, in addition to the Consumer Programme, which sets out the financial framework for the Commission’s consumer work from 2014 – 2020, the Commission is due to launch a new Consumer “Agenda” in the spring. I understand that this Agenda will take the form of a Commission Communication setting out the vision and strategy for EU consumer policy from 2013. It is intended to be more ambitious than the current consumer strategy that it will replace and will aim to increase the profile of consumer policy across the whole Commission. The Commission acknowledge the need for coherence with the Consumer Programme and it is therefore likely that the Agenda will also focus on the themes of safety, information and education, rights and redress and enforcement. The Government cautiously welcomes in principle these plans for an ambitious new EU Consumer Agenda, because making markets work for consumers usually implies fair trade, competitive markets and common regulation across Europe, strengthening the Single Market and reducing business costs. However, we will of course need to examine the precise content when the anticipated Communication is published. We are already engaging with the Commission on this to try to ensure that this new Consumer Agenda is in line with UK Objectives. We have a particular interest in policies that will contribute to our goal of driving growth in the Digital Single Market through building consumer and business confidence in cross-border online trade.

9 January 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Edward Davey MP

Your letter of 9 January on the above Proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 19 January 2012.

We found your response extremely helpful in setting out the Government’s policy more clearly. At this stage, we can lend our broad support to your position. We look forward to details on the progress of negotiations, as also on the outcome of informal consultation with stakeholders.

In the meantime we shall retain the proposals under scrutiny.

We do not require a response within ten working days, but would appreciate an update in a timely fashion as you judge appropriate.

19 January 2012

Letter from Norman Lamb MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 19 January which was addressed to my predecessor Edward Davey. I note that the Committee has retained the above proposal under scrutiny and has asked to be kept informed as negotiations continue. I am writing to update you on progress on this dossier, to inform you of the results of our informal consultation and to seek your agreement to a waiver of scrutiny to enable the Government to agree a partial General Approach on this dossier at the end of May.

The Danish Presidency has been clear throughout these negotiations that they will not cover the budgetary issues in their proposed partial general agreement as these are being covered in negotiations on the EU Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF). The Government is committed to ensuring that no decisions are taken on the financial envelope for this specific programme until negotiations on the entire budget are concluded. We expect to be asked to agree the financial package in the second half of this year and I will write again when we have further details.

Taking this into account, on 9 February a working group meeting took place to discuss the general objectives, articles, annexes and recitals of the proposal but not the financial detail. The Presidency requested that any further comments from Member States be received, in writing by 1 March after

8

which they would assess the need for any further working group discussions. The UK Government gave its broad support of the proposal and the Commission’s main objectives, highlighting areas of concern (as set out in previous letters to the Committee on this subject) and in particular the difficulty in fully assessing the value of planned EU spending under the Consumer Programme without having seen the anticipated “Agenda” due to be launched at the end of May.

The Presidency has indicated that they will send a revised text during the week commencing on Monday 23rd April and officials will forward this to the Committee once received. It has confirmed that any changes to the text will be minor and will reflect the comments received from Member States. There will not be any further working group discussions but a written procedure will be conducted whereby any further comments in relation to the revised text can be submitted in writing.

The revised text will then be put to a meeting of COREPER for agreement on a partial general approach (on the policy but not the budget allocation) on 25 May. The proposal will then be added as an ‘A’ Point to the agenda of the Competitiveness Council on 30 May or at another Council meeting before the end of June.

I am therefore currently only in a position to comment on the original text of the proposal. I do not however, have any major concerns at this stage and remain content that any textual changes to the policy aspects of the proposal will not affect the protections for UK consumers and will not place unreasonable burdens on UK businesses or Government. I therefore support the proposal but wish to assure the Committee that the Government will only agree to the general approach if it meets our overall objectives as set out in Edward Davey’s letters to you. I understand that other Member States are generally supportive of the proposal.

I understand that your Committee may only have limited opportunity to consider the proposals before the 30 May. I am therefore requesting a waiver from scrutiny to enable us to be in a position to vote on a general approach on that date.

In your letter the Committee also requested details of the outcome of an informal consultation of stakeholders. We consulted with stakeholders in Government bodies, Enforcement agencies and business and consumer organisations. We received responses from OFGEM, OFCOM and Consumer Focus and their responses, detailed below, clearly reflect the Government’s views on the Commission’s consumer programme and a general alignment with current Government consumer policy.

OFGEM

Though OFGEM did not have strong views on the proposal they were keen to be kept informed of progress. They noted their support for the Commission’s aim to empower consumers, protect their interests and create the best conditions for consumers to actively participate in the Single Market. They want to see a programme which complements their work on protecting the interests of energy consumers in the UK, particularly in improving transparency and engagement between gas and electricity suppliers and consumers.

OFCOM

OFCOM’s response focussed in particular on the proposal’s objective on Rights and Redress and confirmed they had responded to the BIS call for evidence on the Commission’s proposals on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). They welcome a proposal which aims at increasing the level of consumer confidence and shared again the concerns they raised in response to this call for evidence which we are addressing in our negotiation of that proposal, on which I am writing to you separately.

CONSUMER FOCUS

Consumer Focus supports the proposal for a consumer programme but feels it is difficult to fully understand the Commission’s thinking in the absence of the consumer “agenda” but which would provide the strategic vision and concrete actions. Publishing both the programme and agenda at the same time would have provided better clarity. They note that the proposed budget was relatively small compared to other EU programmes and considering the importance of increasing consumer confidence to support the growth agenda but they recognise the constraints on the Commission.

Consumer Focus support the four main objectives of the proposal providing specific comments related to information and education and rights and redress. They share the Government’s view that

9

the consumer markets scoreboard, market studies and behavioural economics are useful and should be developed further. They welcome the Commission’s support for consumer organisations and European policy work in general as key to representing consumer interests in Brussels. Consumer Focus however feel that too much emphasis is put on information as a consumer empowerment tool when in reality this can lead to information overload and confusion, which can result in consumer disempowerment.

In relation to the rights and redress objective, Consumer Focus agrees that this is important but feels the emphasis should be on strengthening and modernising consumer rights rather than merely consolidating them and particular attention should be paid to consumer rights in relation to intangible digital products. Consumer Focus expressed disappointment that there was no mention of collective redress and also referred to the Commission’s proposals on ADR and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as being weak.

Consumer Focus expressed further disappointment with the Commission’s lack of integration with other policy areas of interest to consumers such as energy policy, telecommunications, financial services and copyright and thinks it essential that the consumer programme could have a role in ensuring the consumer interest is properly considered in the development of these policies.

I will keep the Committee updated as negotiations progress and will write to the Committee after the publication of the consumer agenda.

23 April 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Norman Lamb MP

Thank you for your letter of 23 April which was considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 26 April 2012.

We note your request that the Committee consider providing a waiver on scrutiny for this document in light of the Danish Presidency’s intention to ask for a partial general approach to be agreed at the meeting of COREPER on Friday 25 May and subsequently in Council as an “A” point. We note your statement that the budgetary aspects will not form part of the partial general approach, as this will be considered as part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework later in the year, and that the Government will only agree to an approach that is aligned with the objectives that your predecessor set out in his correspondence with us.

In general terms, we consider that the substantive provisions of measures such as this and their budget allocations are inextricably linked and we find it difficult to countenance how they can be disaggregated in practical terms. However, in light of these exceptional circumstances, we are content on this occasion to grant a scrutiny waiver. In the meantime we will continue to retain these documents under scrutiny. We would ask that you communicate your position to us once you have had time to analyse the Presidency text and before the COREPER meeting. We do not require a response to this letter.

26 April 2012

CREATIVE EUROPE PROGRAMME (17575/11, 17186/11)

Letter from the Chairman to Ed Vaizey MP, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum dated 12 December which was considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 12 January. They decided to retain the documents under scrutiny.

We note that you welcome the programme’s focus on the economic and growth potential of the creative and cultural sectors in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy, as well the administrative simplifications that have been suggested by the Commission. However, while we are in agreement with this position, we also consider that the Commission have not yet made a robust case for their assertion that the proposed funding increase will help stimulate further jobs and growth in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy. We would be grateful for your views on this.

We further note that while you acknowledge that the UK cultural and creative sectors have benefitted from the previous programmes and are likely to benefit from the new programmes, you

10

will nevertheless seek to oppose what you consider to be a substantial increase in this budget heading in the context of the negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework. We do not doubt that additional funds would be welcomed by the culture and creative sectors in the UK and would therefore be grateful for any further information that you could provide about the tangible benefits that funding under the current MEDIA and Culture programmes has already facilitated at the UK level.

We also note that the Government launched a public consultation on the programme from 15 December until 16 March 2012 and we will look forward to receiving an analysis of the results in due course. During the period in the run up to the end of this Session we may also choose to conduct enhanced scrutiny of the Creative Europe Programme, including oral evidence from the relevant minister and key stakeholders from the cultural and creative sectors.

I would be grateful to receive a reply to this letter within the standard deadline of 10 working days.

12 January 2012

Letter from Ed Vaizey MP to the Chairman

I am replying to your letter of 12 January, concerning the Explanatory Memorandum on the Commission’s proposal for a new Creative Europe programme.

You asked for my views on whether the Commission has made a robust case for their assertion that the proposed funding increase will help stimulate further jobs and growth in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy. I agree with the Committee that the Commission has not done so. In particular, the Commission has not provided a clear estimate of the likely impact of the additional funding.

In the current economic and financial climate, it is important to ensure that every euro spent by the EU has a positive economic impact. In negotiations I will want to ensure that the programme will help to promote competitiveness, jobs and growth in the cultural and creative sectors, commensurate with the programme budget which is ultimately agreed. I shall also be opposing any increase in real terms on current spending levels in this area.

You also asked for further information about the tangible benefits for the UK from funding under the current MEDIA and Culture programmes. I attach some information [not printed] provided by MEDIA Desk UK for 2010 and the Cultural Contact Point for 2010 and 2011 on how the cultural and creative sectors in the UK have benefited from these programmes. Both the MEDIA Desk UK and the Cultural Contact Point are conducting further research into the benefits and outcomes resulting from MEDIA and Culture programme funding in the UK. I will ensure that the Committee is informed of the results of this research.

25 January 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Ed Vaizey MP, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries

Thank you for your letter of 25 January which was considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 2 February 2012.

We note your position on the proposed increase in funding for this programme as well your intention to oppose it during negotiations. We are also grateful for the attached information about the impact that the current MEDIA and Culture programmes have had in the UK and will look forward to receiving further information in due course.

In the meantime, we will look forward to receiving oral evidence from you about this proposal on 15 March. On 22 March we will also be receiving oral evidence about the same proposal from Visiting Arts, the EU Cultural Contact Point for the European Commission’s Culture programme in the UK and MEDIA Desk UK, the central information and promotion office for the European Commission’s Media programme in the UK.

We have decided to continue to retain this proposal under scrutiny. We do not require a response to this letter.

2 February 2012

11


I was pleased to have the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Sub-Committee on 15th March. I promised to write with further information on some of the issues raised by the Sub-Committee.

I am pleased to inform you that, following a late rush, the total number of responses we have received to our consultation on Creative Europe is now over 40. This is far more respectable than the handful we had received when I attended the Sub-Committee, and it includes both large national organisations and a fair selection of small organisations and individuals. I expect to publish a report on the consultation in the next few weeks.

I was asked why I had not attended the EU’s Education, Youth, Culture and Audiovisual (EYCA) Ministerial Council since being appointed. Reviewing my diary, I see that in May 2010 the Council meeting was held between the general election and the Coalition Government taking office, in November 2010 and May 2011 I was engaged in Parliamentary business, and in November 2011 I was on another overseas visit. The next EYCA Council meeting is on 10-11 May and I am considering whether I will be able to attend.

I also agreed to provide some information on current investment, tax credit and similar schemes for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). We already have a range of schemes in the UK to help SMEs and I have attached some information about them. Unfortunately, it is not currently possible to identify the extent to which these schemes have assisted SMEs in the cultural and creative sectors. However, the Access to Finance sub-group of the Creative Industries Council is preparing a report on the extent to which current schemes support SMEs in the creative industries and how to improve access to finance for them. We expect the report to be available in June.

The Demos report “Risky Business” published last year identified the problems which businesses in the cultural and creative sectors face in raising finance for investment and growth. The report is available on the Demos website at: http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/riskybusiness

In addition, we announced in the Budget a new corporation tax relief scheme for video games, animation and high-end television industries from April 2013, subject to state aid approval and consultation.

I hope this information is helpful.

24 March 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Ed Vaizey MP

We are grateful for the evidence you provided to us about the Creative Europe proposal on 15 March. You will be aware that on 22 March we also received oral evidence about the same proposal from: Ann Branch, DG Education and Culture, European Commission; Yvette Vaughan Jones, Executive Director at Visiting Arts, the EU Cultural Contact Point for the European Commission’s Culture programme in the UK; and Agnieszka Moody, Director of MEDIA Desk UK, the central information and promotion office for the European Commission’s Media programme in the UK.

We note your support for the Creative Europe proposal’s focus on the economic and growth potential of the creative and cultural sectors in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy, as well as its focus on building capacity and expertise in organisations. You have also acknowledged that the UK’s creative and cultural sectors have benefited from the current MEDIA and Culture programmes. We agree that the EU has added value to this sector and we note that under the current Culture programme in 2011, the UK was the most successful of the largest Member States (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, UK) in terms of receiving project funding, with total grant funding of €5.7 million (up from €4.4 million in 2010). In 2010, UK organisations also received €8.7 million from the MEDIA programme, which represented approximately 8% of the total funds allocated that year across the EU. We also note that these sectors have grown twice as fast as the rest of the UK economy over the past decade.

Despite this, we also note your opposition to the Commission’s proposed total budget of €1.8 billion, representing a funding increase of 37%, for the Creative Europe proposal. When we wrote to you on the 12 January we stated that we did not believe that the Commission had yet made a robust case for their assertion that the proposed funding increase would help stimulate further jobs and growth. However, since then we received compelling evidence from the cultural and creative stakeholders mentioned above about the economic and social benefits provided by EU funds to UK organisations and to the creative and cultural sectors across the EU more broadly. We also note that the Commission’s proposed increase constitutes only a fraction (0.002%) of the overall allocation for

12

the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2014 to 2020. In the context of domestic funding cuts for this sector and taking account of UK organisations’ obvious capacity for attracting EU funding, and notwithstanding the Government’s declared negotiating stance of achieving a real-terms freeze across the next MFF, we would urge the Government to review its approach to this funding proposal.

While we acknowledge your concerns about the proposed financial guarantee facility for cultural and creative SMEs and your opposition in principle, we would urge you to keep an open mind about the potential merits of such a facility, especially if the majority of respondents to the DCMS consultation express support for it. The evidence we received from Visiting Arts, MEDIA Desk UK and Arts Council England was certainly very supportive of the proposed facility based on informal feedback and responses to surveys they have conducted. We understand that the cultural and creative sectors typically experience more difficulty attracting funds from investors who are wary of what they consider to be a riskier sector. Therefore, the leveraging potential of such a facility should not be overlooked. In addition, its use as a bridging mechanism during engagement with investors about the opportunities that this sector can provide should also not be discounted. However, we also acknowledge the potential support that tax breaks and facilities such as the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) can provide to this sector, which you mentioned during your evidence to us.

The culture and creative sectors are inherently international and therefore we believe that ministerial engagement at this level would be beneficial in terms of exchanging best practice and conceiving joint collaborative efforts. You told us that there had been only one meeting of the Culture Council during your time as a Minister, which you were unable to attend, and that you rarely met with your fellow culture ministers from other countries. You also promised to write us and clarify the number of Council meetings there had been during your period as a minister. We have looked into this matter and note that, since the General Election, the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council has met five times – on 10 and 11 May 2010; 18 and 19 November 2010; 14 February 2011; 28 and 29 November 2011; and 10 February 2012. We further note that no UK culture ministers have attended any of these Council meetings, with the UK Deputy Permanent Representative usually attending on behalf of the Government instead. We understand that an informal culture council meeting is due to take place this October, during the Cypriot Presidency, which we would urge you to attend in order to engage with your equivalent ministers in other Member States on areas of shared interest.

We look forward to receiving a copy of the digest of the responses you have received to the DCMS consultation on the Creative Europe proposal in due course, as well as the surveys which are being produced by Visiting Arts of MEDIA Desk UK about their respective stakeholders’ engagement with the current Culture and MEDIA programmes, respectively.

We will also be making recommendations about the Creative Europe proposal in the EU Select Committee’s forthcoming report about the next MFF, which will be published before the end of the current Session.

In the meantime, we shall continue to retain these documents under scrutiny and look forward to receiving your response within the usual 10 working days.

27 March 2012


I am replying to your letter of 27 March, which crossed with mine of the same date to Baroness Young.

I note the Committee’s views on the level of funding proposed by the Commission for the Creative Europe programme. We will keep the funding position under review as the negotiations on spending programmes and the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014 to 2020 progress. Ultimately, the amount of funding available for this programme will depend on the total amount of funding agreed in the MFF for the relevant budget heading and agreement on how that funding should be allocated between the programmes under that heading.

I note also the Committee’s views on the proposed financial guarantee facility. I have provided some further information to Baroness Young on Government-supported investment, loan and tax credit schemes for small and medium-sized enterprises, as requested by the Sub-Committee.

13

On the question of my attendance at the EU Culture Council, as I indicated in my letter to Baroness Young, the meeting in May 2010 took place between the general election and the Coalition Government taking office, in November 2010 and May 2011 I was engaged in Parliamentary business and in November 2011 I was on another overseas visit. The meetings in February 2011 and February 2012 were one-day meetings which dealt with education matters only. I am currently considering whether I will be able to attend the Council meeting on 10-11 May. I will consider the informal Council meeting planned for October when further information on the proposed agenda is available.

My officials are currently working through the responses to the DCMS consultation on the Creative Europe proposal and I will let you have a copy of the consultation report in due course.

18 April 2012


I am writing to seek clearance from the scrutiny committees to agree a partial general approach on the Creative Europe proposal at the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Ministerial Council on 10th May. The text as it now stands meets the Government objectives and we can support it. I do not expect any further amendments to be made before the Council meeting which would be inconsistent with those already included or which we would not be able to support.

I enclose the latest text of the draft Regulation [not printed].

The Presidency has confirmed that the partial general approach will not include the recitals, except for amendments and new recitals consequent to amendments to the Articles. These are shown in footnotes in the attached text. It will also not include the following financial elements which are shown in square brackets in the attached text:

— the loan guarantee facility in Article 7 and the Annex and the related definitions, objectives and indicators in Articles 2.3, 5(c) and 14.1(b)(iii);

— the financial envelope (i.e. the programme budget) in Article 19.1;

— the indicative share of the budget allocated to each of the strands in Article 19.1a(a)-(c);

— the arrangements relating to protection of the EU’s financial interests in Article 20.

This means that the budgetary and financial issues which are of particular concern to the Government are not part of the partial general approach. They will be dealt with at a later date in the light of further progress on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the new Financial Regulation for 2014-2020.

Most of the changes to the text which have been made for the partial general approach are drafting amendments to clarify the text and make it more focussed and specific.

The most significant changes made from the Commission’s original proposal are:

— deletion of the references to particular sectors in the section defining the programme’s strands, to reflect the fact that it will be the nature of the project which determines the relevant strand rather than the sector to which the organisation(s) involved are deemed to belong;

— inclusion of references to the intrinsic value of culture and recognition that many cultural activities are not expected or intended to make a profit. This reflects the position in the current Culture programme. It does not prevent the programme promoting job creation and economic growth in the cultural sector;

— greater emphasis on audience development and specific references to children, young people and under-represented groups in the programme objectives and indicators;

— changes to the implementation and comitology arrangements: the annual work programmes are now subject to the examination procedure and the programme guidelines are subject to the advisory procedure. The text also makes clear that implementation is governed by the Financial Regulation, and there is an obligation on the Commission to inform Member States of

14

decisions about which projects have been selected to receive funding from the programme within two weeks of those decisions being adopted;

— the indicative budgetary allocation between the strands is now included in the text of the Regulation (but the actual percentage allocations are not part of the partial general approach).

Overall, I am satisfied that all the changes made are consistent with our objectives for the programme of promoting jobs and growth in the cultural and creative sectors, ensuring European added value, and encouraging administrative simplification while maintaining flexibility and an appropriate level of oversight and control, and that we can therefore support them.

Accordingly, I would be grateful for the Committees’ clearance to support a partial general approach at the Ministerial Council in May on the basis of the attached draft text.

I also enclose for the Committees’ information an interim summary of the responses to our consultation on the Creative Europe proposal. The responses showed overwhelming support from the cultural and creative sectors in the UK for European funding programmes for these sectors and the importance which many people and organisations in the sectors attach to these programmes. I expect to publish a final version of the summary shortly.

23 April 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Ed Vaizey MP


We note your request that the Committee consider providing a waiver on scrutiny for these documents in light of the Danish Presidency’s intention to ask for a partial general approach to be agreed by the Education, Youth, Culture & Sport Council on 10 May. We note your statement that the budgetary aspects and the proposed loan guarantee facility will not form part of the partial general approach, and that these will instead be considered as part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework later in the year.

In general terms, we consider that the substantive provisions of measures such as this and their budget allocations are inextricably linked and we find it difficult to countenance how they can be disaggregated in practical terms. However, in light of these exceptional circumstances, we are content on this occasion to grant a scrutiny waiver. In the meantime we will continue to retain these documents under scrutiny and would appreciate receipt of your assessment of the outcome of the EYCS Council in due course. We do not require a response to this letter.

26 April 2012

CROSS-BORDER THREATS TO HEALTH (18509/11)

Letter from the Chairman to the Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the above Communication was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 2 February 2012.

We agree with you that the scope of the proposed Decision is extremely broad and needs to be clarified. While we see value in coordination and sharing of information, we would agree that some of the obligations are potentially unnecessarily intrusive. They may simply require clarification.

One striking point about this subject is that the threats concerned will rarely be restricted to the EU. Legislation such as this should therefore aim to fill the gaps in global action against global threats. An example of that is voluntary joint procurement of vaccines, an idea that does not find favour with you. Could you explain why, please? Where in the proposed Decision do you see added value of increased EU action, and where do you think the objectives require instead full implementation of the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations?

As regards your concerns surrounding Article 12, we would agree that the power delegated to the Commission needs to be defined more clearly. You are concerned that it might be applied to border control measures, but we note that one of the few specific clauses in that article as currently drafted

15

expressly states that any action taken must be proportionate to the health risks involved, “avoiding in particular any unnecessary restriction to the free movement of persons, of goods and of services”. It may be that you wish to see this strengthened further. We look forward to further clarification of this article, as also your position on it.

You note that the Government’s position is still under preparation. We look forward to receipt of that position, preferably within ten working days.

In the meantime, we have decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny.

2 February 2012

Letter from Earl Howe to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 2nd February 2012 to Earl Howe seeking further information in respect of the above European document.

You specifically raise questions about the scope of the proposed decision, the issue of threats not being restricted to EU citing the example of voluntary joint procurement of vaccines and finally your concerns surrounding Article 12.

We are collating input from OGDs and noting the position of other Member States on Article 12 that will consolidate the Government’s proposed position.

I will write again once my officials have obtained further details on the issues you have raised.

16 February 2012

EMPLOYMENT POLICIES OF THE MEMBER STATES (17736/11)


Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the above proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 19 January 2012.

We note that the presentation of this proposal is a formality because, as you note, it has already been agreed that the Guidelines should be extended each year until 2014. We are therefore content to release the proposal from scrutiny.

You make reference to the production of the UK’s report but do not explain its timing or whether it will be made available to Parliament. We would be grateful for clarification on both points within the usual ten working days.

19 January 2012


Thank you for your letter of 19 January. You asked for more details about the UK’s national report (the National Reform Programme). The report will be submitted to the European Commission in April 2012. As in previous years, copies of the report will be deposited in the library.

30 January 2012

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (12892/08)

Letter from Maria Miller MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Work and Pensions, to the Chairman

last wrote to you in February 2011 to update you on progress on ratifying the UN Convention by the European Union (EU) as was originally set out in the above Proposal (which was cleared 10 November 2009) and ii) on the Proposal for a Council Decision on accession, by the EU, to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which remains under scrutiny. I apologise for my delay in this further update, but I was anticipating further developments through the discussions on Convention governance and the new EU Disability Strategy.

16

I am now writing to inform you that we do not anticipate any further progress on the Proposal to a Decision on the Protocol. On that basis, you may wish to consider clearing this volume from scrutiny and I will, of course, keep you informed should there be any developments in the future.

As you know, in November 2010, the EU adopted the new EU Disability Strategy 2010-2020 which is broadly aligned with the Convention. The EU formally ratified the Convention in December 2010, although the proposal for the Council Decision on the Protocol has remained outstanding.

The European Commission and the Presidency then published draft Conclusions inviting Member States to support the implementation of the new EU Disability Strategy (5540/11 - SOC 40- COHOM 10- MI 27). At that point discussions about the Proposal in respect of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention were resumed through the discussions on these Conclusions, as the EU Disability Strategy addresses implementation of the UN Convention by the European Community and Member States.

Following these discussions at the meetings of the Social Questions Working Party, all references to the Optional Protocol were deleted from the Conclusions due to lack of consensus among Member States, as the Optional Protocol could only be signed by common accord. The Conclusions were formally adopted at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumers Affairs Council in June 2011.

15 March 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Maria Miller MP

Thank you for your letter of 15 March 2012, concerning the above proposal, which was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 26 April.

We are grateful for the update that you have provided on the state of play in relation to discussions on the EU’s conclusion of the Optional Protocol. You have requested the release of the proposal from scrutiny. Before doing so, we would ask that you explain the nature of the obstacles encountered in seeking to achieve consensus among all Member States, as well as the Government’s own position. Furthermore, we would also like you to explain what the implications of the EU’s failure to conclude the Optional Protocol may be.

We look forward to receiving your response within the usual 10 working days.

26 April 2012

Letter from Maria Miller MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 26 April asking for further information in response to mine of 15 March requesting that the proposal for EU conclusion of the Optional Protocol be released from scrutiny.

We understand that the obstacle to consensus arises because some Member States are unlikely to conclude the Optional Protocol themselves. They are concerned that where a Member State does not do so, but the EU does, then an alternative route to complaint is provided which circumvents their position, and so their decision not to ratify the Protocol is nullified. The UK concluded the Optional Protocol in 2009 and so this scenario does not arise.

We believe that the implications of failure by the EU to ratify the Optional Protocol are primarily presentational because it may suggest a lack of commitment to the principles of the Convention. It does not militate against the need for the EU to implement the Convention, which the Government firmly supports.

The UK’s stance on the Convention is not affected. The 2011 Government report to the United Nations set out clearly our continuing commitment to implementation of the Convention in the United Kingdom.

8 May 2012

17

ERASMUS FOR ALL: EU PROGRAMME FOR EDUCTION, TRAINING, YOUTH AND SPORT (17574/11, 17188/11)

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Your Explanatory Memorandum on the above proposals was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 12 January. They decided to retain the documents under scrutiny.

We welcome the inclusion of a dedicated Sport funding stream within the proposal, which we recommended in our Grassroots Sport and the EU report.1 However, we consider the range of projects and policy areas stated as priorities under this heading to be very diverse and would welcome your thoughts on the rationale behind their selection. In particular, if you could provide an example of a “non-commercial European sporting event of major importance” it would be much appreciated.

We note that the Government is opposed to the significant funding increase proposed by the Commission for this programme and that in the event of the budget being agreed at a lower level you think it is crucial that the indicative percentages for the three key actions are revisited. We would welcome your view on where savings could be achieved in this respect and how you would prefer the percentages to be revised accordingly.

Thank you again for providing oral evidence to our inquiry on the modernisation of higher education in Europe, during which the above proposal was also discussed. The Committee was particularly grateful for your frank and concise responses to each question. As with the Communication which prompted our current inquiry (document 14198/11), the above documents will also be retained under scrutiny for the duration of our inquiry due to the relevancy of their content in that context.

We will look forward to receiving demographic information about UK Erasmus Programme participants (regarding age, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, and so on), which was requested by way of a supplementary questions during the oral evidence session, within the standard ten working days.

12 January 2012

Letter from the Rt. Hon David Willetts MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 12th January. I am glad that the Committee found my oral evidence on the Modernisation of European Higher Education useful.

To answer your points in turn:

The Sport objectives listed under Article 11 of the ‘Erasmus for all’ programme are broadly in line with the European Commission’s ‘Developing the European Dimension in Sport’ Communication2 and the subsequent European Union Work Plan for Sport (2011-14)3 that was adopted as a Council Resolution last year. The Sport Activities listed under Article 12 follow on from these objectives. While they appear to be wide-ranging in scope, this is similar to the how the three-year Preparatory Actions funding programme was delivered, and this new programme will cover the six-year period 2014-2020. Given the length of the programme, the Commission has stated that it has intentionally kept the projects and policy areas broad to avoid being tied down now and remain open to evolving priorities that may emerge over the six years.

The Sport Chapter, comprising Articles 11 and 12, was discussed for the first time at a Council Working Party on Sport meeting that took place on 16 January 2012 where the Commission defined ‘Non-commercial European sporting events of major importance’ as events which cannot be self-sustained. However, the UK, as well as several other Member States, remain unconvinced that financial assistance is required here.

This is based on the Preparatory Actions funding programme having previously supported two European Youth Olympic Festivals, two Special Olympics and two Mediterranean Games. The main beneficiary of the Programme is to be grassroots sport and it is difficult to see how this has directly benefitted grassroots sports participation either here in the UK or in the majority of other Member

1 EU Committee, 16th Report of Session 2010-12 (HL Paper 130) 2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0012:FIN:EN:PDF 3 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st09/st09509-re01.en11.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0012:FIN:EN:PDF

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st09/st09509-re01.en11.pdf

18

States. The UK will be providing follow-up written comments to the Danish Presidency who will then draft an opinion to be passed to the Education Committee. We will therefore continue to push this point with the Commission and also aim to exert our influence through the new Expert Groups on Sport where the UK is well represented

You ask where, given that the Government is opposed to the significant funding increase proposed, we think savings could be achieved. You will appreciate that negotiations are at an early stage and the detail of some of these proposals needs to be explored further in initial working groups before the Government can identify those areas that might offer up a reduction. The overall eventual figure for this programme is a matter for the MFF negotiation taking place in parallel, but all aspects of the EU budget have been asked to contribute to the PM's objective of an overall Flat Real Freeze, so the "Erasmus for all" line will have to form part of that position.

Overall, the Government is considering all the aspects of the proposal against EU added value; whether they duplicate provision in any other area of the budget; and how to make the programme more efficient.

I am pleased to attach the demographic information about UK Erasmus programme participants (regarding age, ethnicity, gender, disabilities) that you requested. The age and gender table is derived directly from British Council records, and is for 2010/11. The ethnicity, disability and social group information is produced from a matching exercise with HESA data undertaken biennially in February, therefore the most recent is for 2008/09. The next set of this data (2010/11) is expected to be available in May, and I will be happy to provide it to you then.

3 February 2012

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon David Willetts MP

Thank you for your letter of 3 February 2012 which was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 16 February 2012.

We are grateful for your views on the Sport sub-programme and potential cost savings under the Erasmus for All proposal, while the demographic information that you have also provided should prove useful during the preparation of our report for the current inquiry on the EU’s contribution to the modernisation of higher education in Europe.

Negotiations are at an early stage. We will continue to retain these documents under scrutiny and look forward to an update on progress in due course.

16 February 2012


I am writing to update you on progress in negotiations on the above draft Regulation. which will be discussed at the Education Council on Tuesday 11 May where the Presidency will aim for agreement on a partial general approach (PGA). In particular I am writing to request the Committee consider providing a waiver on scrutiny for EM 17188/11, so that we may agree to a partial general approach at the Council. Your Committee is currently holding the above EM under scrutiny.

At the Council the Danish Presidency aims to reach a PGA that is to say to freeze negotiations where the Presidency considers textual changes to the Regulations are mature enough to warrant this. This is explicitly on the basis that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, including cross-cutting issues such as relationship to the overarching Financial Regulation. This means we have the opportunity to reopen discussion should the need arise.

Most of the points of concern to us have been resolved satisfactorily in the course of negotiations; in particular the Presidency has acknowledged that the indicative minimum funding percentages for each part of the programme will need to be revisited once the MFF is concluded to ensure that no area loses funds compared to the predecessor programme; and the text provides the national flexibility with regard to arrangements for the National Agency(ies) which we wanted. The proposed Master's loan guarantee scheme, however, has not yet been resolved or sufficiently clarified, but it has been excluded by the Danes from the PGA at the instance of ourselves and several other Member States.

I should also underline that the budgetary aspects do not form part of the partial general approach. No numbers will be agreed at the Education Council. Agreement on financial aspects will continue to take place through negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework and are led by HMT.

19

I hope that the Committee will be satisfied that a scrutiny waiver can be granted to enable the UK to agree to a partial general approach at the Council on 11 May, on the basis that our remaining issues are successfully resolved during the remaining negotiations. I will write to you again in light of the Education Council.

23 April 2012



We note your request that the Committee consider providing a waiver on scrutiny for these documents in light of the Danish Presidency’s intention to ask for a partial general approach to be agreed by the Education, Youth, Culture & Sport Council (EYCS Council) on 11 May. We note your statement that the budgetary aspects will not form part of the partial general approach, as this will be considered as part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework later in the year. We also note that the proposed Masters loan guarantee scheme has also been excluded from the partial general approach, in part, at your insistence. You will recall that we endorsed the development of the Masters loan guarantee scheme in our recent report on the Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe (27th Report of Session 2010-12, HL Paper 275, paragraphs 101-103).

In general terms, we consider that the substantive provisions of measures such as this and their budget allocations are inextricably linked and we find it difficult to countenance how they can be disaggregated in practical terms. However, in light of these exceptional circumstances, we are content on this occasion to grant a scrutiny waiver. In the meantime we will continue to retain these documents under scrutiny and would appreciate receipt of your assessment of the outcome of the EYCS Council in due course. We do not require a response to this letter.

26 April 2012

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (18090/11, 18091/11)

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Your Explanatory Memorandum on the above proposals was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 12 January. They decided to retain the documents under scrutiny.

We note that the EM refers both to the Commission’s proposed budget of €2.8 billion for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and another figure of €3.182 billion. Considering that the EU Budget currently contributes €309 million to the EIT, ostensibly this will constitute a substantial increase. While we understand that this increase is intended to provide for the running costs of the additional 6 KICs, it is not clear whether the funds allocated to ‘societal challenges’ will also be made available to these KICs, as suggested in Annex II of the proposed Horizon 2020 Regulation (document 17933/11), or if this is already reflected in the total budget proposed for the EIT. Therefore, we would welcome further clarification of the proposed budget allocations under Horizon 2020 to the EIT and the KICs, as well as your general view on the merits of the overall increase.

We will look forward to receiving your response within the standard ten working days.

12 January 2012


Thank you for your letter dated 12 January 2012 in which you request clarification on the proposed budget allocations under Horizon 2020 to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) and my general view on the merits of the overall increase.

In its Horizon 2020 proposals, the Commission has proposed a budget allocation to EIT of €2.8bn, based on 2011 constant prices, or €3.19bn expressed in current prices. This is a slightly higher

20

amount than set out in the separate proposal to amend the EIT regulation (€3.18bn). The Government will seek clarification from the Commission on this discrepancy. These figures are in commitments, not actual payments. We have indicated to the Commission that we want to conduct negotiations across the Multiannual Financial Framework in actual payments and are asking the Commission for complete payment figures for this programme.

Horizon 2020 indicates that €1.65bn (current prices) of the funding allocated to the pillars ‘Societal challenges’ and ‘Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies’ will be made available to the EIT. While this funding is included in the total amount for EIT, it will only be allocated after a thorough external evaluation of the EIT and the existing KICs. This funding would fund the three current KICs, an additional three KICs to be launched in 2014 and the launch of a further three KICs in 2018. The Government will seek greater clarity on the process for the allocation of this funding.

This is a substantial budget increase and the Government’s view is that, in the context of the Government’s overall priority to restrain the next Financial Framework to, at most, a real freeze in current payments levels, we will be seeking significant reductions in the Commission’s proposal for the EIT programme.

3 February 2012


Thank you for your letter of 3 February 2012 which was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 16 February 2012.

We are grateful for the additional information that you have provided about the proposed budget allocations to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. While we remain unclear about the budgetary situation on the whole, as this matter is being pursued as part of our inquiry into the next Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2014 to 2020, we are now content to clear the above documents from scrutiny.


16 February 2012


I am writing to update you on progress in negotiating the above draft legislative texts which will be discussed at a Competitiveness Council on Thursday 31 May. In particular, I am writing to request the Committee consider providing a waiver on scrutiny for the above EMs, so that we may agree to a partial general approach at the Council, which I will be attending. Any partial general approach, that is to say a freeze to negotiations where the Presidency considers textual changes to the regulations are mature enough to warrant this, would be explicitly on the basis that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, including cross-cutting issues with other regulations (such as the overarching Multiannual Financial Framework). This means we have the opportunity to reopen discussion should the need arise.

The Danish Presidency regard obtaining agreement for a partial general approach on these items, as one of their key priorities; technical discussions on the content of the proposals (excluding budgetary issues) have progressed satisfactorily in the Council Research Working Group since February, in which the UK has been participating actively. The Government welcomed the overall objectives and content of the Commission’s proposals and is confident that the texts which the Presidency are likely to table for agreement on 31 May will fully reflect UK priorities, including a focus on excellence, addressing global societal challenges and support along the innovation chain.

We continue to work closely with UK stakeholders to identify the areas within Horizon 2020 which represent most potential benefit. They have responded positively to the Horizon 2020 proposals. In view of the importance of EU level programmes to the UK (both to academia and industry) it is in the UK’s national interest that the negotiations on Horizon 2020 are concluded in due time such that the new programme can start on time in January 2014. I should also underline that the budgetary aspects do not form part of the partial general approach. No numbers will be agreed at the Competitiveness Council in May. Agreement on financial aspects will continue to take place through negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework.

21

I hope therefore that the Committee will grant a scrutiny waiver to enable the UK to agree to a partial general approach on these Articles at the Competitiveness Council on 31 May. I will write to the Committee again following the Competiveness Council.

23 April 2012

EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND (15247/11)

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon Chris Grayling MP, Minister of State for Employment, Department for Work and Pensions

Your letter of 21 November 2011 on the above proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 12 January 2012. The Sub-Committee also took the opportunity to consider again your Explanatory Memorandum regarding the same.

Since we first considered the proposal, you will be aware that we convened a Seminar on the ESF on 8 December. We were extremely grateful for the contribution of Mr Angus Gray, from your Department, to that Seminar.

There are various aspects of the proposal that we particularly welcome: the reliance on the Europe 2020 strategy for growth as the driver for the future direction of the ESF; the involvement of partners, including NGOs; some improvement in the nature of indicators for assessing effectiveness; that the ESF should support the shift towards a low-carbon economy; and the proposed focus on the hardest to reach citizens.

You are concerned to ensure that the ESF focuses on its core role as laid down by the Treaty, which is boosting employment and supporting training. We also support this approach. Clearly this does not mean, however, that the ESF cannot boost social inclusion and combat poverty – indeed, it is well placed to do so if it focuses, as we previously recommended, on the hardest to reach citizens.

In our previous scrutiny of the ESF and during our recent seminar, we heard consistent support for the concept of greater linkages between the various Funds. This has emerged, through the Common Provisions Regulation, in the form of the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) – followed by Partnership Contracts and Operational Programmes. Should this be deployed successfully, we consider that it could be an important way of drawing maximum value from expenditure under each Fund in the current climate. Much will depend on delivery. You express support in principle for the CSF but emphasise how difficult it will be to get agreement on all of the necessary stages on time. While we appreciate that you are at an early stage of delivery, we would nevertheless welcome information on how you are working with the Commission, other Departments, the Devolved Administrations and delivery partners to establish how the CSF can be delivered effectively and on time.

A major challenge for effective delivery of the CSF will be local delivery mechanisms and local flexibility. This was an issue that caused much debate at our seminar and those working with the ESF are clearly keen to see greater local flexibility and responsiveness. We would welcome your view on this aspect of the proposal, as also how you see delivery of the ESF and other Funds in the future, particularly through the “community-led development strategies” to which you refer in your EM.

The Commission took the view at our seminar that one of the greatest benefits for the UK of the new Proposal would be simplification. It will come as no surprise to you that this was welcomed and supported. Therefore, your own assessment of this aspect of the proposals would be welcome.

We are very interested to take forward debate on how the ESF can be used to support innovative financial instruments. The proposal remains vague on this and some clarity will be required. How do you see the suggestion for use of the ESF in this way evolving?

Finally, we are interested in the budget allocation and the proposals for ring-fencing funds for the ESF. As you will be aware, we are also examining the overall Multiannual Financial Framework and will be publishing a report in the Spring that will make recommendations relating to Structural and Cohesion spending.

You state in your EM that, at this time of major fiscal consolidation, you would like to see significant reductions to the overall Structural and Cohesion Funds envelope. Furthermore, you are also critical of the proposed minimum shares for the ESF, although you consider that a refocus of the Funds to

22

support growth, including through increased employment and higher skill levels, will reduce regional disparities.

In our report last year on the Financial Framework from 2014, we concluded that the European Regional Development Fund should be concentrated on the least prosperous regions, but that the ESF can continue to add value throughout the EU, regardless of the wealth of the region. On that basis, therefore, we support the proposed minimum allocations of the ESF and would be interested to know, given your support for improved skills, how you can be assured that your desired refocus of the Funds will be delivered without such ring-fencing.

We will retain the proposal under scrutiny and look forward to your response to the above points within ten working days, alongside any further information that you may be able to share on the progress of discussions in Brussels.

12 January 2012


Thank you for your letter of 12 January 2012 about the above proposal and seeking further information on the Government’s position.

The Council Working Group is continuing to consider the package of cohesion regulations including the Common Provisions Regulation and European Social Fund (ESF) Regulation under the Danish Presidency. We are still at the stage of trying to obtain clarity over what the Commission is trying to achieve.

We are seeking to clarify the process for adopting the Common Strategic Framework (CSF), and in particular would like to see a stronger role for the Council and Parliament. We are also seeking to clarify the respective content of the CSF, Partnership Contract and Operational Programme. We expect the Commission will publish further information on the CSF in February or March. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will lead on the CSF and the Partnership Contract in its role as the co-ordinating department for structural funds in the UK. We are working on the basis that there will be a Partnership Contract at the UK level, which will help ensure there is coherence between the funds at a strategic level, and separate Operational Programmes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We believe the ESF should continue to complement the Government’s employment and skills policies and programmes, with priorities set at a national level in England. Within this national framework we will want provision to respond to the needs of individuals in specific localities. It will therefore be important for providers to engage with the local communities they serve. At this stage, it is not clear that ‘community-led development strategies’ would be the most effective and flexible way of building in a strong local dimension in England, although they may be a useful option for some Member States.

We strongly support simplification of administrative arrangements for both beneficiaries and managing authorities, while maintaining financial disciplines to control the level and effectiveness of EU spend. Overall, we welcome the flexibility to tailor programmes to national and local needs where appropriate. However, our assessment is that the overly complex proposals for programming and financial controls proposed in the draft regulations are not consistent with the Commission’s stated aim of simplifying delivery of the funds.

In principle we support Member States having the option of using the ESF to support innovative financial instruments. We will be seeking greater clarity on the Commission’s proposals during working group discussions. In particular, we would need to know what sorts of activities are within scope, and consider the administrative costs and financial risks involved in such schemes.

We believe that the best way to ensure funds are focused on raising employment and skills levels is through the provisions for strategic programming and thematic concentration linked to the Europe 2020 strategy. We do not believe that minimum shares of the ESF for particular types of region are essential to achieve this. The main drawback of minimum shares is that it may allocate more ESF funding to particular regions than is justified by an assessment of their labour market needs and the availability of national public expenditure for employment and skills in those regions.

24 January 2012

23

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon Chris Grayling MP

Your letter of 24 January 2012 on the above proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 9 February 2012.

It is clear from your helpful response that substantial work remains to be done on the Proposal.

We will continue to retain the proposal under scrutiny and would be grateful if you could provide us with additional information in due course, once you have secured clarification on the issues that we have already raised with you.

9 February 2012

Letter from Mark Prisk MP, Minister of State for Business and Enterprise, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Chairman

I am writing to update you on progress of the above draft Regulations which will be discussed at a General Affairs Council (GAC) on Tuesday 24 April where the Presidency will aim for a partial general approach on some of the ‘negotiating blocks’. In particular I am writing to request the Committee consider providing a waiver on scrutiny for those EMs still under scrutiny, so that we may agree to a partial general approach at the GAC. Member States were only notified during Easter recess that the Presidency intended to ask for a partial general approach in April rather than June as originally planned. Had I known about this change I would have written sooner, and I apologise that it was not possible to do so. Your Committee is currently holding the above EMs under scrutiny. EM 15247/11 was submitted by the Minister for Employment, who is aware I am writing.

At the GAC Member States will aim to reach a partial general approach on six of the ‘negotiating blocks’ that the Danish Presidency has been taking forward in negotiations, that is to say to freeze negotiations where the Presidency considers textual changes to the Regulations are mature enough to warrant this. This is explicitly on the basis that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, including cross-cutting issues with other blocks and regulations (such as the overarching Financial Regulation). This means we have the opportunity to reopen discussion should the need arise.

I should also underline that the budgetary aspects do not form part of the partial general approach. No numbers will be agreed at the GAC. Agreement on financial aspects will continue to take place through negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework and are led by HMT.

The six negotiating blocks where Member States will look to reach a partial general approach are: strategic programming; ex-ante conditionality; management and control; monitoring and evaluation; major projects; and eligibility (the relevant articles are set out in the Annex). In discussions on these so far, the Government has sought to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are strongly highlighted across the negotiating blocks and simplification is achieved wherever possible. For example, the text on ex ante conditionalities (the preconditions that need to be met before funds can be spent) contains greater controls on the powers of the Commission.

I am confident that in agreeing to close down debate on these elements of the regulations it will allow discussions to focus on those aspects which require further detailed debate. That the UK is showing willingness to progress the negotiation will also give us further leverage to intervene on issues that really matter going forward.

We have also reserved the right to reopen negotiations on these aspects should that prove necessary. I hope you agree with this approach and that the Committee will therefore grant a scrutiny waiver to enable the UK to agree to a partial general approach on these Articles at the GAC on 24 April. Should you require further information on these changes, my officials would be happy to discuss them with you.

17 April 2012

Letter from Mark Prisk MP to the Chairman

I write further to our recent correspondence on the above Regulations, where you agreed a scrutiny waiver so that the UK could agree a partial general approach at the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 24 April. You asked me to let your Committee know the outcome.

At the GAC the Presidency obtained agreement to a partial general approach on the six negotiating blocks concerned: strategic programming, monitoring and evaluation, management and control, major projects, ex-ante conditionality, and eligibility.

24

The UK, along with other Member States, had concerns regarding the inclusion of text on Country Specific Recommendations in the strategic programming block. We were concerned this text would have given the Commission a stronger role and a greater say in assessing how Member States should address the recommendations, rather than it being left to peer review through the Council. There was also a link to the discussions on macroeconomic conditionality that will take place in the Friends of Presidency group on the Multiannual Financial Framework. It was agreed that this text would be put in square brackets, meaning it did not form part of the partial general approach.

The Presidency recorded in the minutes of the Council that the partial general approach was agreed on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, that this does not prejudice negotiations on further blocks in the package of draft Regulations, and that depending on negotiations on further blocks, other Regulations and the overall Multiannual Financial Framework there may need to be retrospective changes made.

I am pleased the GAC was able to agree a partial general approach and believe this was a positive outcome. For example, the deletion of the Partnership Code means Member States will have more scope to organise partnerships as they see fit, taking account of different rules and practices in each, rather than having a model imposed on them by the Commission. The changes agreed on ex-ante conditionalities mean they are now more proportionate to their aim, and again this text better reflects subsidiarity. Similarly, I was pleased that the Council agreed that the Common Strategic Framework should be annexed to the Common Provisions Regulation, which would give the Council and the European Parliament the opportunity to agree its contents.

In response, the Commission gave support to changes which clarified the relationship between the Partnership Agreement and the Operational Programmes, but maintained its position that the Common Strategic Framework should be adopted as a delegated act rather than through the ordinary legislative process as the Council agreed in its partial general approach. The Commission also raised some unease at the changes agreed on ex-ante conditionalities and the single audit principle. It did however give a particular welcome to the work the UK has been doing alongside Italy and Poland to ensure there was a stronger emphasis on effectiveness and delivering results in programming rather than focusing on how much had been spent.

There is still a long road ahead in negotiations, and we are now turning our attention to other negotiating blocks. These include important issues such as thematic concentration, financial instruments, performance management, financial management, and information and communication. Agreeing the partial general approach means we will be better able to focus on these issues, and I will of course write to your Committee to update you with progress.

2 May 2012

EU-SWITZERLAND AGREEMENT: THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS (16231/11)


Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the above Proposal dated 16 November 2011 was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 12 January 2012. We regret that due to the late receipt of this EM, on 13 December 2011, we were unable to scrutinise this document before the Christmas recess period, which resulted in a breach of scrutiny reserve occurring.

We note that you consider that Protocol 21 is engaged even in the absence of a Title V legal basis for the proposal, with the result that the measure would not apply to the UK unless it opted in. As we have made clear in the past in other similar situations, we do not share this view.

We would be grateful if you could notify us as soon as the Decision is adopted by a meeting of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee or by written procedure. We look forward to receiving a response to our other points within the usual ten working days.

12 January 2012


Thank you for your letter of 12 January 2012.

25

First of all, may I apologise for the fact that you did not receive my Explanatory Memorandum of 16 November 2011 until 13 December 2011. I have put in place measures to ensure the correct and timely dispatch of such documents to prevent a recurrence of such delays.

While it remains the policy across Government that the Protocol 21 opt-in is engaged even in the absence of a Title V legal base where the content of the proposal creates JHA obligations, it has always been my intention to remove any uncertainty by challenging the legal base in both this Agreement and the EU Agreement with the European Economic Area in the Court of Justice. In this particular case, of course, I believe that the JHA obligations arise from the whole of the proposal rather than forming only part of it, and so our case is not based on the non-inclusion of a Title V base in a broader measure, but on the fact that the substantive legal base is simply wrong.

The Decision on the EU-Switzerland Agreement was adopted in Council on 16 December. As anticipated in the EM, we submitted to the Court of Justice on the same day an application under Article 263 TFEU to annul the Decision and a further application under Article 278 TFEU to suspend the Decision.

I am also informing you, in line with the Government’s scrutiny commitments on the opt-in, that I shall shortly be laying a written statement before Parliament on this subject. I shall keep you informed of further developments on the challenge.

17 January 2012

EU YEAR FOR ACTIVE AGEING AND SOLIDARITY BETWEEN GENERATIONS (EY 2012)

Letter from Steve Webb MP, Minister of State for Pensions, Department for Work and Pensions, to the Chairman

Thank you for your interest in the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations 2012. I am sorry for the delay in responding to you, but I wanted to include the UK Work Programme with my response, which this short delay has enabled me to do.

The aims of this European Year closely align with the Government’s plans for our ageing society and we are already developing a narrative on redefining retirement as an increasingly active phase of life where people:

— have opportunities to continue contributing by working longer and/or volunteering in their communities;

— have taken personal responsibility for ageing well by working, saving and looking after their health and well-being; and

— where they live in good places to grow older.

A UK coordinator was appointed in November 2010, and has been contactable through a designated e-mail address ([email protected]) since April 2011; this e-mail address can also be easily accessed through the European Commission 2012 web site (http://ec.europa.eu/social/ey2012.jsp).

As you recognise resources are limited and we see the role of the UK coordinator as facilitating opportunities for stakeholders across the UK to showcase the, often radical and innovative, work that they are already undertaking in this area. I understand that, in addition to communicating with a wide range of different stakeholders, the UK coordinator has already had preliminary discussions with the Devolved Administrations and expects to progress these discussions further early in the New Year.

A key factor holding up progress is the absence of clear information from the European Commission and their supporting Communications contractor on the process for EY 2012 commitments. Indeed we have increasing concerns in the UK that the commitment process may be so bureaucratic as to deter many stakeholders and we see a primary role for the UK coordinator in smoothing a way through this process.

The UK coordinator has, as I understand, also had specific discussions with Sport England and the British Heart Foundation National Centre for Physical Activity and Health on the opportunities for a positive legacy offered by the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics. Discussions have also been initiated with the UK representation of both the European Commission and the European Parliament to develop specific events focusing on developing key policy areas of shared interest.

mailto:[email protected]

http://ec.europa.eu/social/ey2012.jsp

26

The UK, in common with a majority of Member States, was late in submitting a work programme for EY2012 to the Commission; indeed I understand that at 1 December 2011 only 3 Member States (Austria, the Czech Republic and Sweden) had provided a work programme. My colleague, the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, Minister for Employment and I agreed the proposed UK Work Programme for EY 2012 last week and this has now been submitted to the Commission. A copy of the work programme is attached with this letter [not printed].

The UK Government will, most certainly, be making a commitment for EY2012; and among the potential commitments under consideration are the extension of our work with the Age Action Alliance; the further development of the UK Advisory Forum on Ageing and it’s local engagement structures; and the work with employers and Jobcentre Plus on older workers. Whatever commitment the UK Government finally agrees upon, I am concerned to ensure that any commitment made will properly compliment other commitments from stakeholders across the UK.

19 December 2011

Letter from the Chairman to Steve Webb MP

Thank you for your letter of 19 December 2011 which was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 19 January 2012.

We are grateful for your comprehensive and interesting responses to our questions and trust that the various events detailed in the UK Work Programme will be a success during 2012.


19 January 2012

FUTURE NECESSITY AND USE OF MECHANICALLY SEPARATED MEAT (MSM) IN THE EU (17547/11)

Letter from Anne Milton MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, to the Chairman

I am writing to let you know of a change to UK policy and an associated moratorium on the production of ‘desinewed meat’ (DSM), obtained by mechanical separation of residual meat from the bones of animals, which the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is putting in place in two stages, the first commencing on Saturday 28th April 2012.

I thought it would be helpful to alert you to this as the FSA has this afternoon issued a statement − attached for ease of reference [not printed]. You may recall that this issue was central to the scrutiny of a European Commission Communication on Mechanically Separated meat which was considered by your Committee in 2011 (EM 17547/10).

I will of course keep you informed of any future developments.

4 April 2012

FOOD INTENDED FOR INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN AND FOOD FOR SPECIAL MEDICAL PURPOSES (12099/11)

Letter from Anne Milton MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 6 October 2011, requesting further information on the Government consultation and impact assessment for this proposal. The Department has now conducted a full public consultation, which has helped establish the potential impact of the EU proposal. Copies of the consultation, including a summary of responses, and checklist analysis of the impact of the EU proposal are attached to this letter.

Respondents broadly welcomed the Commission’s proposal to restrict the scope to three categories as this provides important simplification and clarification of the rules that apply to products hitherto regulated as PARNUTS or ‘dietetic’ foods. However, some respondents felt that the scope was too

27

narrow and may not allow innovative foods to be marketed. This and other technical aspects of the proposal will need to be addressed in ongoing discussions.

To minimise the burden on businesses, the Government will negotiate sufficient transitional periods, currently proposed for two years, to maximise the time food businesses have to make any necessary changes, for example to information provided on food labels.

In your letter you asked for re-assurance that the health claims made on foods that are proposed to be removed from the scope of the rationalised framework, such as those on slimming foods, sports foods and diabetic foods, would still be robustly regulated. Under existing legislation on nutrition and health claims, such claims would have to be assessed and substantiated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and authorised by the European Commission. Therefore, if slimming foods and sports foods are not covered by specific legislation under this proposal, there are sufficient controls in place to ensure consumers can have confidence in the food they purchase.

Negotiations are still at an early stage and many Member States are yet to finalise their initial positions. The Danish Presidency is hoping to secure a first reading deal in the Parliament and we need to be prepared for a potential vote in April. The scope, and therefore impact of the proposal, may change as negotiations move forward and we will continue to develop the Impact Assessment in line with this. I welcome your Committee’s involvement and will keep you informed of progress on this dossier.

8 February 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Anne Milton MP

Thank you for your letter of 8 February 2012 on the above proposal, which was considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 16 February.

We found your letter and the information on the outcome of your consultation to be very helpful. We note that you remain supportive of the proposed legislation, as do the majority of stakeholders. Negotiating appropriate transitional periods to assist businesses affected by regulatory change will clearly be important.

As you acknowledge, negotiations are at an early stage. We will therefore retain the proposal under scrutiny and await further information on progress of this proposal in due course.

16 February 2012

Letter from Paul Burstow MP, Minister of State for Care Services, Department of Health

Further to Anne Milton’s of 8 February on the above proposal, I would like to provide a further update following further discussions in the Council working group. In addition, following reports from the three European Parliamentary Committees involved with this proposal and a vote in the lead Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on 29 February, areas where a compromise may need to be agreed are now clearer.

The key issues where member States and the European Parliament have differing views are:

— provision for ‘Growing up milks’ marketed for children greater than 12 months of age;

— provisions for control of slimming products designed to replace the total diet, including very low calorie diets; and

— maintaining the provisions for gluten free and very low gluten labelling within this proposal.

My officials are working with the relevant interest groups to gather further data on the impact of such provisions on the industry, which will be included in a full impact assessment on the proposal.

The Presidency is aiming for a first reading deal with the European Parliament and a plenary vote is provisionally scheduled for the 21-24 May session. The council working group discussions continue and by the end of March, we should have greater clarity on whether the scope of the proposal is likely to be extended. We will be in a position then to write to Ministers to agree a final UK negotiating position. We are happy to write again at that time.

28

7 March 2012

GREEN PAPER: RESTRUCTURING AND ANTICIPATION OF CHANGE, WHAT LESSONS FROM RECENT EXPERIENCE? (5582/12)

Letter from the Chairman to Norman Lamb MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Thank you for the Explanatory Memorandum dated 8 February which was considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 8 March.

We note your opposition to the Green Paper and welcome your decision to provide a full response. The European Social Fund is one tool available to assist with restructuring, and it is currently being re-negotiated. We would argue that it is therefore a salient moment to consider its contribution to restructuring and identify any changes that might be made for the period 2014-2020. We trust that your response to the Commission will cover that issue, and we look forward to receiving a copy in due course.

We are content to release the Green Paper from scrutiny and do not require a response to this letter. However, we would welcome sight of your response to the Commission once it has been prepared.

8 March 2012

HEALTH FOR GROWTH PROGRAMME 2014-2020 (16796/11)

Letter from the Chairman to Anne Milton MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) of 30 November regarding the above Proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 15 December 2011. They decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny.

We note that the European Union has competence, albeit limited, in the area of health. We further note that in general terms, the intention of this Programme is to support existing legislation and initiatives in this area and the wider Growth Agenda. This seems appropriate and we are content that the Proposal is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

With regard to budgetary aspects, you imply that the Government will negotiate to reduce the Programme’s budget but give no indication as to by how much it should be reduced and which elements should be restricted. At the same time, we note that you see value in the Programme for UK participants. Therefore, please elaborate on which aspects you consider may be of particular value to the UK and which aspects of less value?

From our reading of the proposal, it appears that 50% of the funds will be available under the first objective (innovative and sustainable health systems – helping to boost cooperation through the development of common tools). That objective includes funding to support e-Health initiatives, including the interoperability of patients registers. During our inquiry into the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, we recognised that the electronic interoperability of systems is important but noted that it has proved challenging, even within Member States. Our resultant report – Healthcare Across EU Borders: a safe framework (4th Report of Session 2008-09, HL Paper 30) – therefore urged the Commission and Member States not to underestimate the challenge of the task and to assess carefully the impact and modalities of introducing any system across the EU. For the moment, we judge it premature and ambitious to include the development of a fully interoperable health register within this financial Programme. We would therefore support a reduction in funding to this part of the Programme, but still allowing sufficient funding to support a feasibility assessment, considering all options to achieve a similar end.

Under the first objective, funding may also be directed to the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. While the value of the Partnership remains to be demonstrated, it should be in theory be a good way of avoiding duplication of effort across the EU and sharing valuable information and ideas. We would support the retention of this as a budget line in the Programme.

29

In our earlier inquiry, which is referenced above, we also emphasised the importance of cooperation and ensuring a safe Pathway of Care for each patient. The Committee heard that collaboration between service providers is already happening, particularly through European reference networks and thus considered that these should be supported. It is proposed that these be supported by this Programme under the second objective, a proposal which we support.

The third objective, on health promotion, includes important measures on prevention but we consider that this could be given greater prominence in the Programme as a whole, possibly with a greater proportion of the funds allocated.

We are surprised that you have no plans to consult formally, particularly as you see some value in the Programme for the UK. We would urge you at least to discuss it informally with potential UK participants and to provide the Committee with feedback.

On the issue of whether this is most appropriately tabled as a Regulation or as a Decision, we would find it helpful if you were to set out the Government’s concerns more clearly and comprehensively, including any refinement in your thinking that may have taken place since the drafting of the EM.

We look forward to receipt of the Government’s position once it has been agreed. In the meantime, we will look forward to receiving your response to the above points within the standard ten working days.

15 December 2011

Letter from the Rt. Hon Andrew Lansley MP, Secretary of State for Health, Department of Health, to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 15 December 2011 to Anne Milton, seeking further information following from the Explanatory Memorandum on the above proposed Regulation.

The budget for implementing the Health for Growth programme has been estimated at 446 million euro in commitments (planned spend), at current prices, for the seven years from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 as set out in ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’ in June 2011. The level it has proposed would lead to payments (actual spend) levels higher than those currently.

The Government as a whole is proposing to oppose this increase as part of the Managing Financial Framework negotiations, as the maximum acceptable expenditure increase through the next Multiannual Financial Framework must be a real freeze in payments year on year from the actual level of payments in 2011. The UK has indicated that it cannot agree to budgets for individual programmes and headings until negotiations on the Framework are complete.

Under the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (2003/C321/01) the Commission are required to explain their choice of legislative instrument in the Explanatory Memoranda attached to its initiatives. The Commission's Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Health for Growth programme does not explain the Commission's reason for choosing to use a Regulation. I will be seeking further explanation from the Commission of their reasons for proposing a Regulation, to be satisfied that it is the correct choice of instrument.

As far as the content of the proposals is concerned, I am currently discussing this with members of the European Affairs Committee, and will advise you further once we have agreed a common UK position.

In the meantime we are proposing to hold a seminar on the current European Union Public Health Programme to alert external stakeholders to the funding opportunities that it offers. This will also be an opportunity to seek their views on the proposed new Health for Growth programme.

I will continue to keep you informed as negotiations progress.

9 January 2012

Letter from the Chairman to the Rt. Hon Andrew Lansley MP

Your letter of 9 January 2012 on the above Proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 19 January 2012. They decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny.

30

We note that the Government are still to agree a position. We look forward to receiving information on that position, preferably within ten working days, and would be grateful if you could then react to the various points that I raised in my letter that remain outstanding further to your response.

19 January 2012

Letter from Anne Milton MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 19 January 2012 in response to my letter of 9 January 2012, in which I advised that I was consulting the European Affairs Committee on an agreed common UK position.

The European Affairs Committee have now responded and agreed on the UK approach.

The UK is overall supportive of the Health for Growth Programme and its emphasis on the importance of health for economic growth. The UK also supports the continuing public health aims of the programme for improving health and well-being of the European population. We note also your support for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing.

We are also in favour of the new programme’s focus on EU added-value and proposals for improved arrangements for application, reporting, monitoring and dissemination.

However, our negotiating position on the Multiannual Finance Framework seeks a real freeze in payments year-on-year from the actual level of payments in 2011, or a 5% reduction in funding. If the latter, then we would propose that there is a reduction in areas that do not relate to traditional public health and prevention, such as those on healthcare, though we accept your point about the value of cooperation and collaboration in ensuring a safe Pathway of Care.

However we have concerns about the potential risk of competency creep through the Health for Growth Programme’s proposals in the field of healthcare. The UK will ensure appropriate recognition that actions in areas of e-Health and Health Technology Assessment, for example, are matters of voluntary cooperation in accordance with the provisions on health technology and e-Health in the Directive 2011/24/EU on patients’ rights in cross border healthcare. However, we will raise with the Commission your suggestion that they should fund a feasibility assessment in the area of e-health.

As you know, the Commission has proposed that the Health for Growth Programme be introduced as a Regulation, making it directly applicable in Member States’ law. A number of Member States have questioned this in the absence of an explanation in the Explanatory Memorandum. Following enquiries, the Commission have now explained the replacement of decisions by regulations in EU spending programmes is for reasons of legal certainty and transparency. The Commission also indicated there was desire to achieve more uniformity since there was apparently a mix of regulations and decisions in previous practice. The main measures governing the programmes as a whole are, therefore, proposed as regulations. Following investigation by officials, and the explanation offered by the Commission, I am satisfied that the use of Regulation is satisfactory and does not raise problems in this case. Where the Treaty does not specify the form in which a measure is to be adopted, and it is a measure of general application with no specific addressees, it can be brought forward as a Regulation or a Decision.

However, the choice of measure should have been explained by the Commission in the Explanatory Memorandum for the Health for Growth proposal as agreed under 2003 Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making. We will be seeking clarification from the Commission on this omission.

We have now consulted about this programme, both internally and through a recent seminar involving a wide group of external organisations. A summary of comments that we have received is attached at the Annex and, where appropriate, we will seek ways to raise these points during the forthcoming working group discussions.

I also attach a checklist [not printed] summarising the expected impacts of the programme.

I hope this is helpful.

6 February 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Anne Milton MP

Your letter of 6 February 2012 on the above Proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 16 February.

31

We found your letter and summary of comments to be very helpful and we note that your position is broadly aligned with ours. We take note particularly of your comments acknowledging the points that we made in relation to a European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing and e-Health.

You indicate your desire for the Programme to focus on traditional public health areas, rather than healthcare. While, as you alluded to, we see some room to assist cooperation in healthcare, we also agree that health promotion could be afforded greater prominence in the Programme.

A number of interesting points were raised in the summary of comments from stakeholders. You promise to seek to raise some of these points, where appropriate. Could you be any more specific, please, on which points you intend to take forward in the context of negotiations?

There is clearly some way to go in negotiating the Regulation. We will retain the proposal under scrutiny and look forward to your response on the above point within the usual ten working days.

16 February 2012

Letter from Anne Milton MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 16 February 2012 responding to my letter of 6 February 2012 concerning the above proposal for a Health for Growth programme

As you know, the UK overall is supportive of the proposed Programme, but considers the main focus should be public health rather than healthcare.

The first four Articles of the proposed Health for Growth programme were discussed at the Council Working Group on Public Health on 6 February 2012. These include the main aims and objectives of the proposed programme. We raised a number of issues as agreed with the European Affairs Committee. A number of other Member States raised concerns about the title, scope and objectives of the proposal. Comments centred upon the division of competence between Member States and the EU in the proposal, and whether the new focus of the proposal was appropriately directed. The Commission’s responses were not overly convincing on these points, largely arguing that they were simply responding to recommendations from the evaluation of previous programmes. The Presidency promised to produce a compromise text to address the concerns raised by Member States. This will be discussed at future working group meetings.

In future working group discussions on this proposal, we hope to reiterate a number of the concerns mentioned by stakeholders whom we have consulted. These include the need to ensure that:

— health is seen as important in its own right not simply as a driver of economic growth

— health inequalities are addressed

— that appropriate weight is given to the different elements of the programme including a relatively greater prominence to health promotion and disease prevention

— that there is some degree of continuity between the new Health for Growth programme and the current Public Health programme

We will continue to keep you advised on progress.

I hope this is helpful.

1 March 2012

INFORMAL MEETING OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL POLICY MINISTERS (24-25 APRIL 2012)

Letter from the Rt. Hon Chris Grayling, Minister of State for Employment, Department for Work and Pensions, to the Chairman

As you are aware, Departments are required to provide a factual written Ministerial Statement after each Council, setting out how each agenda item was handled. However, as this falls during the Prorogation period, I am writing to you now to advise you of these details, in line with the Cabinet Office agreement.

32

The Informal Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers took place on 24-25 April 2012 in Horsens, Denmark. I represented the United Kingdom on the first day of the meeting and my Honourable Friend, Norman Lamb, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs represented the United Kingdom for the session on Posting of Workers on the second day.

On the first day, there were three simultaneous workshops to discuss youth unemployment and social services under pressure. I participated in discussions on “fulfilling the Youth Guarantee”. The Presidency stressed that youth unemployment was one of the most urgent challenges for all Member States and that it was important to ensure young people were getting jobs or other work-related training when they left education to avoid increasing and uncontrollable long-term unemployment. Member States agreed and highlighted a range of current policy examples including tax incentives, wage subsidies, apprenticeship and rehabilitation programmes. I intervened to outline the government’s apprenticeship programme and its new employer subsidy policy. I highlighted the importance of tailor-made and specific solutions to work for the varying labour market structures of Member States, rather than adopting one blanket model. I also stated that neither the Commission nor Ministers should adopt measures which would have a negative impact on jobs.

On the second day of the meeting there was a general discussion on the recently adopted proposals related to Posting of Workers: a proposal for an enforcement directive enhancing the application of the existing Posting of Workers Directive (96/71/EC); and a regulation on the right to take collective action in the context of the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment. On the enforcement directive, Member States broadly agreed on the value of enhanced administrative co-operation and improving sanctions mechanisms. The UK along with some Member States questioned the introduction of a new joint and several liability provision in the construction sector. On the regulation, whilst most Member States had yet to adopt a formal position, a considerable number of these – including the UK – expressed significant doubts or concerns about the proposal.

1 May 2012

INFORMATION TO PATIENTS AND PHARMACOVIGILANCE (6549/12, 6550/12, 6551/12, 6552/12)

Letter from the Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health, to the Chairman

I am writing to provide your Committee with updated Explanatory Memorandum [not printed] on the European Commission’s separated legislative proposals on information to patients and pharmacovigilance.

I am writing in similar terms to William Cash MP, Chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, and copying this letter to the clerks of both Committees, to Les Saunders Cabinet Office European Secretariat and to Arthur White (DH EU Coordination Team).

In your letter of 19 January on the earlier combined proposals (15476&7/11) you asked whether there is a common approach between Member States on which medicines are available without prescription. Availability is harmonised for certain medicines, licensed across the EU through a centralised authorisation procedure operated by the European Medicines Agency. For other medicines (the majority), availability varies between Member States. The UK has a broader range of products available without prescription than in most other Member States.

5 March 2012

MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (15476/11, 15477/11)


I am writing to update your Committee, further to my letter of 24 October providing a preliminary Explanatory Memorandum on the European Commission’s legislative proposals on information to patients and pharmacovigilance. The Government has now finalised its policy position on this proposal.

33

The UK position on the 2008 proposal on information to patients was reached after wide consultation with the public and interested parties, including UK industry. It was:

— Welcome for the clear statement on maintaining the current ban on direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription only medicines, whilst recognising that pharmaceutical companies can be an appropriate source of information.

— Support for a framework for provision on information by industry to support safe use of medicines.

— Priority in negotiation to ensure that any changes did not threaten existing UK practice.

These objectives remain valid, but in addition, the revised proposal raises specific concerns in three respects:

— First, a blanket approach to the European Agency vetting information for centrally authorised products is not proportionate to the risk of non-compliant information and is overly bureaucratic (the Regulation talks about a 60 day negative approval process).

— Second, the controls on advertising of medicinal products (including products authorised by the European Agency) are a matter of national responsibility; a regulatory role at a European level would threaten the established role of member states in the enforcement of (national) advertising controls.

— Third, the proposals restrict the application of all the medicines advertising legislation to marketing authorisation holders and their agents. This would exclude third parties with a commercial interest such as slimming and sexual health clinics. Removal of the existing advertising controls on advertising medicines only available on prescription poses a potential risk to public health.

Maintenance of the existing UK provision will be the priority in negotiation, coupled with ensuring that any proposals are proportionate and genuinely enhance consistency and support for safe medicines taking across the Community.

We will update the Committee with the results of consultation with stakeholders on the likely costs and benefits of the proposal in due course.

21 December 2011

Letter from the Chairman to the Earl Howe

Your letter of 21 December 2011 on the above proposals was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 19 January 2012.

We are grateful for the information that you have provided and note that your position accords with with our initial position as set out in our letter to you. Your explanation of the Mediator case was extremely helpful in explaining the Commission’s reference to “recent pharmacovigilance events”.

One aspect of this dossier on which we are not entirely clear relates to a common approach between Member States on medicines that are subject to prescription or not. Are you able to provide any information on the extent to which medicines in one Member State might be available without prescription but be subject to prescription in another Member State?

We have decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny, while awaiting notification of further developments in the negotiations and also look forward to the promised results of the stakeholder consultation on the likely costs and benefits of the proposals.

While we do not require a response within the usual ten working days, we look to you to provide us with the above information in a timely fashion.

19 January 2012

34

POSTING OF WORKERS & MONTI II REGULATION (8040/12, 8042/12)

Letter from the Chairman to Norman Lamb MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills

Thank you for the Explanatory Memorandums regarding the above proposals both dated 18 April, which were considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 26 April.

With regard to the proposed revision of the Posting of Workers Directive, we note your resistance to the introduction of joint and several liability in the construction sector for the wages of posted workers as well as the handling of complaints. The issue that the Commission is seeking to address through this proposal is a serious one – that of sub-contractors failing to pay wages – and we therefore see merit in improvements being sought in the operation of the existing Directive. We would like to know if this issue is of concern to the Government and, if so, how it you consider it ought to be addressed. We would also welcome clarification as to whether you believe that the joint and several liability provision breaches the principle of subsidiarity and whether you will be opposing the proposal in its entirety on that basis or solely this provision.

We believe that the proposed Directive concerns some serious long-term issues which we hope that the Commission will seek to address in more general terms. We note that the existing Directive came to prominence during the energy sector wildcat strikes in 2009 which began at the Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire. We would therefore be grateful for your position on whether the proposed revisions to the Directive may prevent similar such disputes from reoccurring in future.

You note that consultation is not obligatory but that you will be issuing a short Call for Evidence to inform your negotiating strategy. We would be very keen to learn the respective views of the British construction sector and the trade unions on the joint and several liability proposals specifically, as also on the view of UK employers and workers with regard to posting from the UK to other EU Member States.

Concerning the proposed Monti II Regulation, we note your opposition to the measure on the grounds that the ECJ judgments are already clear and directly applicable in UK law, but we consider that there is merit in clarifying fairly opaque case-law into a more accessible and understandable Regulation in terms of accessibility and increasing public understanding. Indeed, we note that UK Governments regularly consolidate aspects of the common law into statutes for this very purpose. However, we also appreciate that the requirement under section 8 of the European Union Act 2011, which requires the consent of Parliament by way of primary legislation before any Article 352 measure can be agreed to by UK ministers, may also raise difficulties in the domestic context. We would welcome your views about the potential benefits of adopting a Regulation in this area.

We would be grateful for a response to these questions within the standard deadline of 10 working days. We would also welcome further updates about the progress of these measures as negotiations progress. In the meantime, we have decided to hold both documents under scrutiny.

26 April 2012

[SEE ALSO ‘INFORMAL MEETING OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL POLICY MINISTERS (24-25 APRIL 2012)’]

PREGNANT WORKERS DIRECTIVE (13983/08)

Letter from Edward Davey MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to the Chairman

I am writing to update you on the latest position regarding the Pregnant Workers Directive.

As the Committee will be aware, the European Commission published its proposal for amendments to the existing Pregnant Workers Directive (92/85/EEC) in October 2008. The European Parliament eventually reached its first reading position in October 2010. The European Parliament’s proposals went much further than the Commission’s original proposal. Although amendments spanned the range of issues related to maternity leave and return to work, amendments which caused particular concern for Member States included the demands for 20 weeks’ fully paid maternity leave and two weeks’ fully paid paternity leave. In the UK, these would cost in excess of £2 billion per year in

35

addition to the existing spend in this area. Our concerns are not limited to costs, the European Parliament’s position seeks to impose maximum standards and a one size fits all model on Member States, which does not take account of the individual systems which Member States have developed to support working families.

Progress on the file has effectively been stalled since the European Parliament’s first reading. At the December 2010 Employment Council the UK, along with seven other Member States (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Estonia, Czech Republic and Slovakia) jointly signed a Minute Statement which called for a pause in discussion so that Member States could fully consider the impact of the European Parliament’s position. Other Member States reflected these sentiments in oral interventions.

The Hungarian Presidency held some working groups in the first half of 2011. These considered some of the points of principle raised by the Parliament’s amendments, including the inclusion of paternity and adoption leave within the directive. The consensus was that these provisions would not be acceptable. When the Hungarian Presidency gave their progress report at the June 2011 Employment Council, 14 Member States intervened to set out their concerns about the European Parliament’s proposals and/or about elements of the Commission’s original proposal. Chris Grayling, for the UK, said that the Council must not reach a Common Position unless and until the European Parliament gives a clear signal that it will change its position.

The Polish Presidency held a substantive discussion on the file at the Informal Meeting of Family Ministers in Krakow, Poland on 21 October, which I attended. Member States once more set out their opposition to the European Parliament’s position. Many – including myself − commented on the costs of the proposals, particularly in light of the economic crisis, as well as raising concerns about subsidiarity and/or underlining that setting the rate of maternity pay must stay within Member States’ competence.

The Presidency presented a summary of this discussion to the European Parliament on 28 October in response to an oral question from the Gender Equality Committee which sought to ascertain Council’s latest position. MEPs who spoke at that debate gave a range of views, with no real consensus. Many, including the Rapporteur, signalled that they preferred to stick to their first reading position. Others signalled some degree of flexibility, with some looking to the Commission’s original proposal as a reasonable starting point for a compromise.

Following the oral question, the Polish Presidency held two working groups to gauge Member States’ views on the positions set out by MEPs, and the scope for further discussion. The Presidency subsequently concluded that Council’s openness to negotiations depends on the degree of flexibility that the European Parliament is prepared to show, and on clear and concrete indications on how the Parliament would take into account the Member States’ views. This position was set out in the Polish Presidency’s progress report, presented to the Employment Council on 1 December this year.

We do not yet have any indication of the way the Danish Presidency intends to handle this file. I remain clear, however, that Council should remain firm in seeking movement from the European Parliament before considering whether any further progress can or should be made. I will continue to make these points in forthcoming discussions in order to ensure a good outcome for the UK.

I will update the Committee on any progress in due course.

16 December 2011

RECOGNISING AND PROMOTING CROSS-BORDER VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES IN THE EU (14556/11)

Letter from the Chairman to Nick Hurd MP, Minister for Civil Society, Cabinet Office

Thank you for your letter dated 17 November which was considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 1 December.

We are grateful for your comprehensive letter which we found most helpful. It raises a number of issues which we intend to pursue further in our scrutiny of related documents.

We are now content to release the Communication from scrutiny and do not require a response to this letter.

1 December 2011

36

THE RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (18899/11)

Letter from the Chairman to Norman Lamb MP, Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Thank you for the Explanatory Memorandum from your predecessor, Ed Davey MP, dated 12 January which was considered by the Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 9 February. Our scrutiny of this proposal has been informed by a round table discussion held on 26 January between Baroness Young of Hornsey and representatives from the, General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Architects Registration Board. A summary of this meeting is attached for your reference.

As you will be aware we have already considered a number of pertinent areas relating to the Commission’s proposal, with respect to the healthcare professions, in our report Safety First: Mobility of Healthcare Professionals in the EU (22nd Report of Session 2010-12, HL Paper 201), to which your predecessor responded on 19 December 2011 on the same day that the Commission’s proposal was published. In general terms, we welcome the Commission’s proposed revision of the Professional Qualifications Directive, subject to the following points on which we invite your response.

While the stakeholders welcomed the updating of the minimum training requirements, concerns were raised about the provisions in this area being too prescriptive and the need for more flexibility. They were also concerned that their involvement in the preparation of any delegated acts, which seek to modernise these minimum training requirements, should be assured from the outset.

All of the stakeholders emphasised the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) in terms of ensuring the continued competence of professionals. However, while some regretted that it was not mentioned in the proposal, others agreed with the Commission’s omission due to concerns about any such references being too prescriptive, emphasising that CPD should remain primarily a concern for the relevant competent authority to regulate. We reiterate the recommendation in our report that there should be a reference to CPD in the general framework of the Directive along with an obligation on Member States to require healthcare professionals to undertake CPD.

With regard to the proposed professional card, we remain to be convinced that this is a priority measure. Many of the stakeholders shared our scepticism, calling for greater clarity, with some expressing concerns about the proposed timescales, the concept of tacit recognition, the status of any certificate, how it would interrelate with the temporary and occasional provision of services and the resource implications of the proposal. However, we note that the proposal seems to suggest that the introduction of professional cards for different professions will not be mandatory.

The stakeholders welcomed the Commission’s desire for the more widespread use of the Internal Market Information system (IMI), as well as the introduction of an alert mechanism. However, they did not understand how the alert mechanism could be restricted to the automatically recognised professions and not the general professions. They also stressed that the mechanism should also flag up any conditions, restrictions or limitations placed on an individuals’ right to practise rather than just removals from registers. We share their concerns in this regard. We also share the Government’s concerns about the data protection implications and welcome your intention to ensure that this aspect is examined closely during the negotiations.

With regard to language testing, we note that the Government have already announced their intention to amend the Medical Act in order to allow competent authorities in the UK to subject applicants to language tests. While we are sympathetic with this aim we would also welcome clarification on how the government proposes to align domestic legislative reforms with negotiations on the revision of the Directive at the EU level.

The stakeholders endorsed the proposal’s exemption of the healthcare professions from the partial access provisions, in the interests of patient safety, as do we. We note that the Government is intending to push for veterinary surgeons and architects to be exempted on a similar basis. The Architects Registration Board and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons called for such an approach during our stakeholder meeting.

Like the Government, the stakeholders were also enthusiastic about the proposed transparency exercise whereby each Member State will review their regulated professions on the basis of proportionality and necessity and report these to the Commission, before undertaking a peer review process. However, they had concerns about whether each Member State’s regulatory or

37

representative bodies would fulfil that role, particularly as these competencies varied between and within Member States.

We note that some aspects of the proposal fall within devolved competence. While the regulation of health professions is currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, the Scotland Bill – which began its Lords committee stage on 26 January – contains a clause to 're-reserve' such a competency. The Scottish Parliament’s report on the Bill, which was published in December 2011, is opposed to this clause (as is the Scottish Government), among many other aspects of the Bill. How does the Government intend to accommodate the Bill’s progress with the wider negotiations on the proposal for a revised Directive?

In the Government’s response to our current inquiry into the EU’s contribution to the modernisation of higher education in Europe, a desire is expressed for frameworks such as the Bologna Process/European Higher Education Area and the European Qualifications Framework to be reflected in the revised Professional Qualifications Directive, but without making them legally enforceable, particularly regarding the minimum training requirements for the seven automatically recognised professions covered by the Directive. We agree with this objective and intend to make reference to it in our forthcoming report, which is likely to be published in March. We also note that the proposal intends to achieve closer alignment with European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) in terms of duration criteria.

The role and responsibilities of notaries vary within and between Member States. We note that they will be brought within the scope of the Directive for the first time, subject to some restrictions in application, and have concerns about how this may operate in practice. We would be grateful for the Government’s thoughts on the likely implications of this change to the Directive in the UK, particularly as notary publics fulfil different functions north and south of the border.

We would be grateful for a response to these questions within the standard deadline of 10 working days. In the meantime, we have decided to hold the document under scrutiny.

9 February 2012

Letter from Norman Lamb MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 9 February 2012 responding to an Explanatory Memorandum on the revised Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive. Your letter raised a number of questions which I will answer in turn.

The Government agrees that the proposed process to update minimum training requirements is positive. We are treating this subject as a high priority, in particular the concerns you noted about the provisions being too prescriptive and needing more flexibility. The proposed changes to years and hours of study required for the seven relevant professions provide some interim solutions before a more wide-ranging review of the required competences and a move towards more competence-based requirements. The Government will seek to ensure that the amendments would not require substantial changes to courses provided by UK universities and that the changes will not contribute to a lowering of standards in other Member States. In addition, the Government is committed to ensuring that competent authorities are involved in the revision of minimum training standards when this process takes place.

Your letter and the Lords’ report recommended that Member States should be obliged to require healthcare professionals to undertake Continuing Professional Development (CPD). It is perhaps worth noting that the current Directive already requires Member States to ensure that professionals in the seven professions with minimum training standards to undertake the necessary “continuing education and training” to ensure that they continue to maintain safe and effective practice. In addition, the revision proposed by the European Commission would oblige Member States to report on what provisions are in place for continued training of the five health professionals and vets every five years. We would like these reports to form the basis of discussions to share best practice between Member States.

The proposal also allows all professionals to be asked for proof that they are not suspended or prohibited from pursuit of their profession in their home Member State as a result of serious professional misconduct. The proposal also obliges competent authorities considering applications under the General System to take account of “lifelong learning”.

The Government will also call for CPD to be a requirement for all health professionals, including those covered by the General system. Since education is a Member State competence and CPD

38

practices vary widely across Member States, we do not believe this requirement should go into detail. Rather, it should form an incentive for those Member States who do not have CPD requirements in place to develop this.

The Government shares the Committee’s view that the professional card as proposed is unconvincing. We share the concerns raised in your letter, and we understand that other Member States also feel there is a need for greater clarity on these areas. In particular, we are seeking to ensure that home competent authorities would clearly retain the power to decide whether a professional should be recognised, and that the proposals do not place undue strain or cost on competent authorities. Otherwise, we are taking a pragmatic approach in negotiations, and emphasising that professional card processes should only be introduced where it is found to work for individual professions after a thorough cost-benefit analysis and, if possible, a pilot.

On the alert mechanism, it is true that the alert mechanism as currently drafted would introduce a more specific alert requirement for doctors, nurses, dental practitioners, midwives, pharmacists and veterinary surgeons. However, a general alert requirement has also been proposed for professions not covered by the Services Directive (since the Services Directive already includes an alert mechanism).

In addition, there is already a general requirement in the Directive to alert competent authorities in other member states of any disciplinary action or serious specific circumstances which would have an impact on the pursuit of activities under the Directive. The alert mechanism as proposed would already represent a significant improvement to sharing information about professionals between Member States, in that it creates a specific process for sharing information. We agree that competent authorities should also share information about conditions, restrictions or limitations place on an individual’s right to practice. Including this in the alert mechanism would however endanger the data protection rights of individual professionals, and will be particularly difficult to agree with other Member States who have more stringent data protection rules. The Government will therefore seek to agree the proposal as drafted in the first instance.

Our first priority on language testing is to ensure that an effective system of language checks is in place to safeguard patient safety. The Department of Health currently plans to introduce a system of local level checks for doctors involving Responsible Officers, supported by an extension of the GMC’s powers, which is compliant with the current Directive. However, the Government also considers that there is merit in checks being permitted at the point of registration for professions with patient safety implications if amendments to the Directive can be achieved to this end, particularly for doctors who do not relate to a Responsible Officer or other health professionals who may be self-employed, and in other appropriate circumstances in light of the fact that many doctors and other health professionals will apply for registration before they have secured a post. The European Commission appear to have gone a long way to cater for systematic language checks in the case of professions with patient safety implications, though the Government would like to ensure that the drafting of the new provisions makes this clear. The Department of Health and DEFRA will continue to consider options for language checks as the proposals progress.

We are pleased to hear of your support for the transparency exercise, which the Government views as a priority to boost growth through deregulation and promoting the free movement of professionals. This is a cross-cutting exercise which would be driven by the lead Government Department or Ministry. We would seek the involvement of regulatory and representative bodies where necessary if the justification for regulation is unclear. The stakeholders you met all represent professions where the need for regulation is clear.

The Directive also introduces a notification procedure for the seven professions with common minimum training standards, which requires Member States to inform the Commission of their legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions with regard to the issuing of evidence of formal qualifications and submit a report demonstrating these are compliant with the Directive. These reports will require involvement of competent authorities responsible for those professions. As your Safety First report noted, competent authorities in some Member States have a representative role as well as a regulatory one. The choice of competent authority is a Member State responsibility, but the notification procedure will help to highlight the different approaches Member States have.

Your letter also asks about matters of devolved competence and a proposal in the Scotland Bill to re-reserve the regulation of health professionals. The Government will continue to consult the Scottish Government on the implications of the Directive for Scotland throughout negotiations on the Directive.

39

Lastly, you requested views on the implication of new provisions in the Directive for notaries. I should clarify that our implementing Regulations currently extend to notary publics in England and Wales. The new provisions in the Directive reflect a recent European Court of Justice judgement stating that notaries were beneficiaries of the treaty and were not within scope of the Professional Qualifications Directive. Prior to this, we had not seen a reason to exclude notary publics from the provisions of the Directive. The new provisions will therefore require few changes in the implementing Regulations to the recognition of EU notaries.

You might also be interested to know that my officials and officials from other Departments responsible for individual professions are in regular contact with competent authorities, as well as other interested parties, to discuss progress in negotiations. We held a stakeholder event with the European Commission on 26 January which was well attended.

21 February 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Norman Lamb MP

Your letter of 21 February 2012 on the above proposal was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 8 March 2012.

We are grateful for your detailed responses to each of our points about the proposal. We consider this to be a very important measure and would welcome further updates as the negotiations progress.

In the meantime, we will continue to hold the document under scrutiny.

8 March 2012

SOCIAL CHANGE AND INNOVATION PROGRAMME (15451/11)

Letter from the Rt. Hon Chris Grayling, Minister of State for Employment, Department for Work and Pensions, to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 10 November on the proposal for a draft Regulation establishing an EU Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI). You raised three issues: where we would seek reductions compared to the figures in the PSCI and in what we now know will be the new Rights and Citizenship Programme; what should the total allocation to the PSCI be; and what progress has been made on arrangements for the EU Microfinance Facility in the UK.

On areas for savings under the Programme for Social Change and Innovation, the issue for us is that the total programme package should be balanced and respect the need for budget discipline. We are broadly content with the proposed indicative percentage allocations between the three current programmes integrated into it: Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS, 60%, of which at least 17% is for innovation); Network of Public Employment Services (EURES, 15%); and European Microfinance Facility (20%). This seems an acceptable balance, not least as there is already scope for flexibility in determining which activities are prioritised under annual appropriations and work programmes. For example, the current PROGRESS programme has been able to focus support on mutual learning in areas as they have risen up the policy agenda, while maintaining support for ongoing projects. We have some doubts about the value of proposed new post-placement support and youth mobility schemes under EURES, but some Member States appear to support them, so we will need to clarify and help steer detailed proposals here.

As to the total allocation to the PSCI, we will seek to ensure that this is consistent with the overall UK objective for the next Financial Perspective, to show a real freeze in payments, with the growth and competitiveness heading – under which the PSCI sits - increased by no more than inflation. We understand that the Danish Presidency will seek to take forward negotiations on all bar the programme budget, which will be discussed once the wider Financial Perspective and budget headings are agreed and, we anticipate, will then be in proportion to that. In the meantime, however, my officials have obtained a commitment from the Commission to provide a detailed comparison of spending under the current and proposed programmes.

Ministry of Justice has submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on the draft Regulation proposing a Rights and Citizenship Programme for the period 2014 - 2020 (17273/11), which will take on the former PROGRESS gender equality and anti-discrimination strands. This programme was only

40

published on the 21 November, and detailed budget priorities are still to be determined, but UK objectives will again be consistent with those for the overall Financial Perspective.

You also raise the question of the PROGRESS Microfinance Facility and the fact that arrangements have been made to disburse these funds through microcredit providers at a national, regional and local level in other Member States but not yet in the UK. We understand that Community Development Finance Institutions (the microcredit providers in the UK) are in the final stages of putting together a wholesale fund through their trade association the Community Development Finance Association (CDFA). This will use the Facility. Whilst no announcements have been made, we expect that this will utilise €8million provided through PROGRESS Microfinance Facility and further investments from the private sector in the UK. I hope that the CDFA will be in a position to make a more formal announcement soon.

More generally, negotiations on the PSCI have yet to begin in earnest. The Commission briefly outlined its proposals, along with other programmes, at Council Working Group on 14 November. Member states set out their initial positions, but there was insufficient time for detailed negotiations, and we do not yet have a date for the next round of talks.

I hope this update is useful and I will write again as negotiations progress.

12 December 2011


Thank you for your letter of 12 December 2011 which was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 12 January 2012.

We are grateful for the further information that you have provided about the prospective operation of the Microfinance Facility in the UK. We also appreciate that the negotiations on the proposed Programme for Social Change and Innovation are at an early stage. Therefore, we look forward to receiving further updates on these negotiations in due course. In the meantime we have decided that this document should continue to be retained under scrutiny.

12 January 2012


Thank you for your letter of 12 January on the proposed Regulation establishing an EU Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI). You retained the Programme under scrutiny and asked for progress reports on negotiations.

I am sorry for the delay in replying, but my officials agreed with yours that this letter should await the outcome of negotiations at Council working group on 21 February.

Negotiation is proceeding on all bar the overall Programme budget, which the Danish Presidency has said will be taken forward as part of separate discussions on the next Financial Perspective.

After a slow start, we have made progress with all our priorities at the 21 February discussions, including on:

— Article 5(2) – Removal of the Commission’s proposed 5% contingency reserve, where many member states agree with us that it is important to maintain the current discipline of the Commission budgeting realistically and allocating the full funding between programme strands from the outset.

— Article 5(3) – A specific cap on administrative spending, although the percentage for this is still subject to negotiation.

— Article 9 - Improving the level of member state input to programme management, via Commission undertakings to improve consultation with expert policy committees on the programme’s strategic priorities.

— Article 11 - Retention of co-financing requirements under the PROGRESS and EURES axis. PROGRESS generally requires a 20% contribution from bidders, although exceptions can be made. EURES similarly requires 5%. We and many other member states believe that this is an important principle, which supports both budget and project discipline, while providing sufficient

41

flexibility where projects have difficulties in raising match-funding (especially in newer member states).

— Article 20.b – Better recognition that the purpose of the network of public employment services (EURES) is to enhance the ability of workers to find jobs and that member states are free to choose which actions they will participate in under the PSCI to complement, but not rival, national employment services. For example, the UK does not generally provide post-placement support for job seekers on the basis that we target finite resources on those most in need of getting into a job, and the PSCI Regulation should not imply an obligation to provide them. And member states must decide whether they wish to participate in mobility schemes for young workers, which should be designed to attract the right skills to address specific shortages in their labour market rather than any specific age cohorts per se (e.g. young workers).

We still await a revised draft of the Regulation to confirm the position on these points, and it is likely that this will only be a working text, but my officials will share it with yours once available.

The next working group discussions are provisionally scheduled for 12 March and, looking further ahead, the Presidency is hopeful that it will be in a position to seek agreement on a partial general approach – on all bar the budget figure – at the 21 June Employment and Social Policy Council.

Subject to resolving the final drafting on the above priorities, and securing scrutiny clearance, I am keen to accommodate the Presidency timetable and will keep you advised on progress.

The European Parliament is also considering the Commission’s proposal, with a first exchange of views at the Employment Committee on 29 February.

6 March 2012

TRANSPARENCY DIRECTIVE (7315/12)


In the Explanatory Memorandum (COM (2012) 84, signed by Anne Milton and submitted on 22 March) for the above proposal, we indicated that the consistency of the Commission’s proposal with the principle of subsidiarity had yet to be examined, in particular, because the Government would be seeking clarification on some of the proposed measures. I understand that, following the submission of the Explanatory Memorandum, concerns have been raised with Article 8 of the draft Directive and, in view of this, I am providing the Committee with an update on the issue of subsidiarity.

Article 8 deals with remedies in cases of non-compliance with time limits for decisions about the inclusion of individual medicinal products in national healthcare systems and the procedures to administer these remedies. The proposed requirement, under Article 8(2), for a Member State to designate a body to administer the remedies procedure, including the potential imposition of interim measures to address non-compliance, financial penalties and damages, is of concern.

At this stage, the scope of the Article and the extent to which it might apply to the UK system of medicines pricing are both unclear. As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum the Department will be seeking clarification on the proposed measures. In particular, further clarification will be sought on the scope of Article 8, including whether the requirements of Article 8.2 apply to the whole Directive, or only to decisions made under Article 7 of the draft Directive.

However, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has responsibility for judicial matters and we have, therefore, sought their views on these provisions. This consultation has highlighted concerns with the prescriptive nature of Article 8. We understand that EU Directives usually provide for the Member States to design an enforcement mechanism for non-compliance with a Directive, where this is required. It appears that Article 8 is much more intrusive, for example, in dictating the composition of the body.

In view of this, whilst we will be seeking further information on the proposed provisions, it is likely that we will be signalling to the Commission at an early stage in discussions a potential concern about

42

the consistency of the Commission’s proposal with the principle of subsidiarity. We will, of course, keep the Committee informed on the progress and outcome of these discussions.

16 April 2012

Letter from the Chairman to Anne Milton MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) of 22 March 2012 and your letter of 16 April 2012 regarding the above Proposal were considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 26 April 2012. They decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny.

Transparency in this area is clearly an important part of the Single Market. We consider that pan-EU rules on transparency in order to satisfy the Single Market are appropriate and require action at the EU level. For that reason, we consider the underlying principles of the proposal to be aligned with the principle of subsdiarity.

In your letter you expressed specific reservations about the alignment of Article 8 with the principle of subsidiarity. We consider that a remedies procedure needs to be in place and therefore that Article 8 as a whole is not problematic. We would agree, however, that the second subparagraph of Article 8(2), requiring that the employment conditions of the members of the enforcement body be aligned with those of the judiciary, is disproportionate to the objective of this particular article. It seems us also that it falls foul of Article 288 TFEU, which indicates that a Directive should leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. For those reasons, we can support your decision to query elements of this article and to negotiate amendments accordingly.

It may be, as you imply, that the proposed time limits are inappropriate, as are some of the provisions on enforcement and reporting. Time limits do, of course, serve a purpose, but we can certainly see the case for greater flexibility than proposed by the Commission in order to take into account “very rare but complex” cases.

This is clearly an early stage in the negotiation. We look forward to receiving progress reports from you, in due course, on your consultations, negotiating position and your attempts to clarify some of the provisions, not least on Article 8.

26 April 2012

Letter from Earl Howe to the Chairman

I am writing to provide an update in response to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee’s draft report on the proposed Transparency Directive.

The Committee asked about the compatibility of the proposal with the UK’s pricing system for branded medicines. The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme is the main mechanism for controlling the price of branded medicines supplied to the NHS (the prices of generic medicines are set by the market). From January 2014, the Government’s intention is to introduce a new system of pricing for innovative medicines which will give patients better access to effective and innovative medicines. The purpose of value-based pricing is to improve NHS patients’ access to effective and innovative medicines.

As you know, we will be seeking significant clarification from the European Commission on the scope of the proposed transparency measures in order to consider how they might affect the UK. I am aware that discussions on the detail of the proposed measures will take place in the Council Working Group on Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices starting with the provisions around pricing of medicinal products (Articles 3, 4, 5, 6).

As the Committee may be aware, in the UK, pricing decisions are taken at market launch and the average time taken for pricing decisions for branded medicines is 18 days. There is no separate reimbursement mechanism and the great majority of new prescription medicines are granted automatic full reimbursement upon market authorisation from the EMA/MHRA and pricing approval (for brands) from the Department of Health.

The 2009 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) includes the option for pharmaceutical companies to propose Patient Access Schemes (PAS), which are national level arrangements to improve the cost-effectiveness of a medicine being considered as part of a NICE technology appraisal. It is important to note that recommendations on clinical and cost-effective use of medicines (and other technologies) in the NHS set out in NICE appraisal guidance do not constitute reimbursement

43

decisions and, even where NICE does not recommend a drug, the product can still be fully reimbursed on the NHS and clinicians remain able to prescribe the product to NHS patients, subject to local decisions about funding.

PAS arrangements are, therefore, separate from the arrangements for pricing and reimbursement decisions at launch, as set out in the 2009 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. The PAS provisions are an option for pharmaceutical companies to consider, PAS proposals are instigated by companies and there is never any compulsion upon companies to propose a PAS for one of their products. In light of this, whilst we intend to seek further clarification from the Commission as regards the scope of the exclusions set out in Article 1, the Government's view is that PAS do not fall within the scope of the Directive as they do not form part of the pricing and reimbursement decision-making process.

We are continuing to work closely with colleagues across Government and stakeholders, including representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to consider how the provisions as drafted might impact on the UK. Until more progress has been made at EU level, I do not believe it is possible to reach definitive conclusions on all the possible policy and operational implications for the UK. I will of course keep the Committees updated as the detail of the Commission’s proposals becomes clearer.

2 May 2012

WHITE PAPER: AN AGENDA FOR ADEQUATE, SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE PENSIONS (6715/12)

Letter from the Chairman to Steve Webb MP, Minister of State for Pensions, Department for Work and Pensions

Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) dated 7 March 2012 was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 22 March.

We are content to clear the document from scrutiny, while raising a number of issues as set out below.

First, we were alarmed at your assessment that the review of the IORP Directive has the potential to increase the liabilities of private sector defined benefit occupational pension schemes by at least £100 billion, with some estimates as high as £700 billion. It is clear from the joint letter from the Confederation of British Industry, the Trade Union Congress and the National Association of Pension Funds, to which you refer in your EM, that there is widespread concern about the review.

You note that the Commission has made some efforts to allay the concerns expressed by stakeholders on the review of the IORP Directive. Those efforts are not clear from the White Paper and we would therefore welcome information from you on what the Government have been doing to seek reassurance and what commitments have been made by the Commission as a result. Further to your discussions with the Commission, what could an alternative approach look like and are you in a position to provide us with an assessment of the potential costs of an alternative approach? We would urge you to continue to work with the Commission, stakeholders, European Parliament and other Member States on this issue and would welcome brief information on your strategy for doing so. While some Member States have been supportive of your position, this remains a worryingly small number, a pattern which might be repeated in the European Parliament.

Second, a number of other initiatives outlined in the White Paper appear to be more positive, although you have declined to offer comment on them. We would welcome a much more informative and comprehensive analysis of the suggestions made in the White Paper. In particular, both the Pensions Portability Directive and the Pan-European Pension Fund for Researchers would seem to offer obvious advantages for mobile workers. You may be aware that we have today published a report on the Modernisation of EU Higher Education, in which we have concluded that much progress remains to be made in increasing the mobility of researchers, including career structures and pension rights. We would welcome your position on the portability initiatives, including your analysis of whether both are necessary to achieve the same objective for researchers specifically.

We look forward to receiving your response within the standard 10 days.

22 March 2012

44

Letter from Steve Webb MP to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 22 March 2012.

On the review of the IORP Directive, the Government position is clear - we see no case for new legislative requirements on pension scheme funding, and we will continue to work closely with our domestic stakeholders, with our allies in Europe, and with the European Parliament.

The Commission does appear to be listening to the widespread concerns expressed on the potential cost of new funding requirements based on those in the Solvency II Directive. Commissioner Barnier stated on 10 February that, although new funding proposals would be “inspired” by the Solvency II approach, the Commission has no plans to “copy and paste” them. The Commission has yet to confirm a firm timetable for bringing proposals forward.

Nevertheless in the meantime the Government, in cooperation with our domestic stakeholders and other member states, will undertake work to determine the potential effects of changes to funding requirements.

On the revival of a Portability Directive, the Government supports the Commission’s role in removing obstacles to the functioning of the single market, including the mobility of workers, and hence the portability of pensions between member states, but again we await detailed proposals. It may be of interest that UK law would not have required amendment had the Commission’s previous proposals been adopted, but these were abandoned in 2009 in the face of opposition from other member states.

On researchers, we do not oppose the idea of a pan-European occupational pension scheme for researchers, but we note the availability and flexibility of the current UK pension arrangements. Researchers working in the UK have access to occupational pension arrangements, the Universities Superannuation Scheme for example, and other than certain tax requirements, there are no legislative barriers to a researcher transferring pension rights from or into a UK pension arrangement.

In addition, where a member of a UK scheme moves abroad for a short period, the Pensions Regulator allows them to be treated as a seconded worker for (generally) up to five years, during which time they continue to benefit from all UK pension rights, including remaining a member of a UK-based pension scheme.

The Government is also working to make sure that the EU level coordination of social security systems guarantees the rights of persons exercising their right to free movement – (that is that people are not disadvantaged in terms of social security when moving from one EU country to another. The regulations provide for equality of treatment, aggregation of insurance periods and the possibility to export benefits.

31 March 2012

YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES INITIATIVE (5166/12)


Your Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the above Communication was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 9 February 2012.

We agree that there is little new in this Communication. We will look forward to seeing the UK’s national reform programme once it is submitted to the Commission and deposited in the library, as you explained in your letter of 30 January 2012 on item 17736/11 (Employment Guidelines).

The Commission refers to the Erasmus for Entrepreneurs action and its positive contribution to youth employment. We recently visited the University of East London’s Docklands Campus as part of our inquiry into the Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe, where we were told that this has been the least successful of their mobility initiatives. What are your views on this particular Programme and how successful it has been among UK higher education institutions?

We are content to release the proposal from scrutiny and look forward to your views on the above issue within the usual ten working days.

9 February 2012

45


Thank you for your letter of 9 February. You asked for the Government’s view of how successful the ERASMUS for Entrepreneurs programme had been amongst UK higher education institutions. As you are probably aware, this initiative is not part of the much larger ERASMUS programme but rather a project funded by DG Enterprise. It is focused on facilitating one-to-one relationships between young entrepreneurs across Europe and helping improve their understanding of the potential benefits of the single market. It is a relatively small programme, with 1000 ‘entrepreneur relationships’ having been formed since its launch in 2009. The UK is the third most popular destination.

The Government’s focus is on ensuring that EU programmes aimed at young people are managed efficiently, add sufficient value and support our wider Europe 2020 objectives. There is currently no formal evaluation of this scheme that we can draw on to determine its success in relation to these objectives. However, there are a number of UK higher education institutions who are involved in it, and informal discussions generally suggest the programme is a useful addition to their work on supporting enterprise and entrepreneurship amongst young people.

23 February 2012


Your letter of 23 February 2012 on the above Communication was considered by our Social Policies and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee at its meeting on 8 March 2012.

We are grateful for your response and note your general observations on the experience of UK Higher Education institutions with this programme. You emphasise that the Government’s focus is on ensuring that EU programmes aimed at young people are managed efficiently, add sufficient value and support the wider Europe 2020 objectives. We are therefore surprised that you have not evaluated this programme and would strongly urge you to do so. To us, the level of engagement seems disappointingly low. At the University of East London, we heard that they had experienced difficulties in persuading potential candidates to go partly due to their expectation that they would have to be fluent in the host Member State’s language, which is not in fact a prerequisite.

We would welcome your views, within ten working days, on why engagement has been so low, how that might be addressed and what actions the Government are taking to evaluate this programme and therefore ensure that it is managed efficiently, adds sufficient value and supports the wider Europe 2020 objectives.

8 March 2012

Letter from the Rt. Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Thank you for your letter of 8 March to Chris Grayling. You asked if the Government intends to formally evaluate the Erasmus for Entrepreneurs programme, so I have been asked to reply as BIS is responsible for entrepreneurship.

This is a relatively small project − the budget for 2012 is €4m, funded from DG Enterprise’s budget − targeted at intermediate organisations from member states, and we do not intend to run a formal evaluation on behalf of the Government.

The Commission’s own interim evaluation of the programme last year addressed a number of points raised in your letter, including the issue of promotion and targeting of the programme. It considered that there was a need for further promotion of the scheme at national level. That falls to the Higher Education institutions and other Intermediate Organisations involved in the programme.

You also asked about added value and alignment with the Europe 2020 programme. The Commission have presented this programme as part of their flagship ‘Youth on the move’ initiative which is one of the cornerstones of the Europe 2020 programme. The focus on entrepreneurship supports Annual Growth Survey references to the need to ‘promote business creation and self-employment...and entrepreneurial skills’.

Feedback from the UK institutions participating in the programme is generally positive, and the UK remains amongst the most popular destinations for new entrepreneurs from other member states.

27 March 2012

SOCIAL POLICIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (SUB … … · The primary purpose of the House of Lords...

Documents

Transcript of SOCIAL POLICIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (SUB … … · The primary purpose of the House of Lords...