Brussels, 13/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 13 November, the European Parliament in Strasbourg held a debate with President José Manuel Barroso on the European Commission's legislative work programme for 2008, adopted on 23 October (EUROPE 9531). This programme focuses on five priorities (growth and jobs, sustainable development, migration, citizens' concerns, globalisation) and includes a total of 26 “strategic initiatives” that the Commission intends to launch in 2008 and 61 “priority initiatives” programmed for the next 18 months (the document is available at: http: //ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_fr.htm).
Overall, a large majority of MEPs support the Commission's general orientation but this did not stop the political groups from reiterating the importance they attach to one or other of the priorities or to criticise the “insufficiencies” indeed “shortcomings”, in the work programme.
Hartmut Nassauer (EPP-ED, Germany) highlighted subsidiarity: “The new Reform Treaty gives subsidiarity a more important position. In the future, the Commission will have to better ensure respect for the boundaries between Community competencies and powers of member states”. He also cited the example of German “Apfelwein”, whose designation was threatened by a Commission proposal. Nassauer asked: “How can the Commission, in a gesture of bureaucratic coldness, propose the abolition of a centuries old tradition?” He appealed for a “new subsidiarity culture. It's the only way of bringing citizens closer”. The EPP-ED is also concerned about the “large number” of legislative initiatives planned by the Commission. Mr Nassauer asked: “Will we really reduce bureaucracy in this way?” In response, José Manuel Barroso provided assurances that the Commission was “really committed to subsidiarity” but also warned against “those who hide behind subsidiarity to reject Commission initiatives or proposals that are necessary and entirely justified”, for example in relation to the internal energy market. He was also keen to reassure Mr Nassauer about bureaucracy: out of the 26 strategic initiatives, “only eight are of a legislative nature” and a lot of former legislative texts will be withdrawn.
Speaking for the Socialist group, Hannes Swoboda (Austria) said that he was generally satisfied with the work programme but that two points, however, deserved some particular attention: - the importance of communication. “If we cannot explain to citizens what we are doing for them, our work will only be half done!” he exclaimed, stressing that this often involved a question of language; - social problems and the social dimension of globalisation. Swoboda criticised the fact that “there are too few answers in your paper to this problem”, adding, “We want a social Europe. 2008 has to be social. The social dimension has to concern the whole Commission, including its president and not only the commissioner for social affairs”. The PES also attaches a lot of importance to migration policy. Swoboda said that it was right to follow an integrated approach in this area but asked whether they should not at first agree on what currency is needed for doing so: “Without integration, no immigration?” Hannes Swoboda said that Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel already agreed with this observation and the European Commission ought to follow them.
Andrew Duff (ALDE, United Kingdom) expected a new dynamic to the European integration process in 2008, with the ratification of the new treaty and the practical extension of the Schengen Area to new members. For the liberals, the preparation of the entry into force of the new treaty will be the “main task”. In this respect, the ALDE has two concerns, explained Mr Duff: - in freedoms/security/justice it was necessary to ensure correct and complete integration of the current third pillar in the Community area;- in foreign common and security policy, the Council, Commission and EP should reach agreement on the setting up of a common external service as included in the treaty. Duff explained that this would be an “exciting and tricky” task.
Pierre Jonckheer speaking for the Greens/EFA (Belgium) alluded to the “great legislative responsibility” of the European Commission in the “Community method, on which the Greens are very keen”, despite the pressure exercised against it by certain member states and lobbies. 2007 was a “big year” for energy policy and the fight against climate change but it will be necessary to put all the commitments into practice in 2008, which risks being more complicated. Jonckheer asked for “a necessary critical vigilance. The Commission should particularly resist the idea of seeking to please the lobbyists and some member states. Binding measures are needed, not just soft measures”. In the context of immigration, the Commission also has a “great responsibility”. Mr Jonckheer insisted that “Europe needs an immigration policy, but not only a policy that simply seeks to promote the adoption of a biometric passport in all member states”.
Françis Wurtz (GUE/NGL) questioned Mr Barroso about the Commission's intentions on revision of trade defence instruments: “Is it true that on 23 October, the College of Commissioners debated a proposal by Mr Mandelson on European companies that had relocated their production to low wage third countries? This proposal will aim to exempt these companies from anti-dumping rights applicable to products exported to the Union at a price that is substantially lower than their 'normal value'. Is it true that this project received broad support and that a formal Commission decision is expected on this subject on 15 December?” Mr Wurtz also asked why this project had not been mentioned in the Commission's 2008 work programme. In response, José Manuel Barroso repeated what his spokesperson had affirmed on 5 November (EUROPE 9537): the Commission is not counting on exemptions from trade defence measures for European companies that relocate their production. The Commission president declared that “there will be no bonuses for companies that relocate but we are not going to punish them!” He explained that the objective was to put “robust and transparent” defence measures in place.
Speaking for the UEN group, Brian Cowley from Ireland said that he was concerned by the Commission's imminent proposals on corporation tax (approximation of tax bands). He said that he was happy that there was still unanimity as the rule in this domain, and affirmed that the legal tax bands in these possible proposals appeared to be insufficient. In his reply Mr Barroso noted that the Commission was aware of Ireland's and other member states' feelings on the question of a common corporation tax band. He told Mr Cowley that it was obvious that unanimity would apply in this area - “your concern will therefore be taken into account”.
Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM, Denmark) said that it was a shame that the work programme had not been discussed in the national parliaments, “which should all debate and give an opinion on the matter”. Mr Bonde noted that Brussels had proposed to listen to national parliaments more but unfortunately only a few national MPs had sent their comments to the Commission.
Frank Van Hecke (Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty) said that the Commission had increasingly swept aside the principle of subsidiarity by “exceeding its powers”, for example in immigration, “which should remain the competency of member states”. José Manuel Barroso said that on the question of immigration, “it is absurd to have 27 migration policies in Europe. A common approach is required. There is resistance in certain member states but we will insist”. Barroso affirmed that European immigration policy should be “firm” faced will illegal activities associated with immigration (illegal immigrants, work off the cards, etc) but should also be “open, generous and in solidarity” in the context of integrating immigrants.
Hans-Peter Martin (independent) returned to the issue of the social dimension and told Mr Barroso that “people do not agree with your work. The social dimension should be at the centre of activities”. (H.B.)