European Standing
Committee B
Tuesday 17 December 2002
[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]
Staffing Needs of the Commission in Enlarged European Union
[Relevant Document: European Union Document No. 13905/02, Commission's legislative and work programme for 2003, middle paragraph on page 4.]
10.32 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The new staffing needs of the European Commission are an important issue, particularly following the historic events of last Friday in Copenhagen. While I was briefly representing the Prime Minister, I had the pleasure of sitting in the meeting of the Council of Ministers as the Prime Minister of Poland and leaders of the other accession states made speeches that described how, after 50 or more years of division, the continent of Europe had become reunited. It was an important moment. That has been achieved with a great deal of financial and budgetary rigour. The cost to the European Union of its enlargement to include the new member states will be in the order of €10 billion, which represents about €9 for each citizen in the existing member states. To make it work, we will need a strong and effective Commission. It is right that the Commission should now set about increasing its staffing in a responsible, measured and, in budgetary terms, prudent way to meet the new needs.
In a speech in Cardiff on 29 November, the Prime Minister stated:
''It is easy to knock the Commission. By definition, because it is based in Brussels, it is a remote bureaucracy—but smaller in size than many single Whitehall Departments. It takes unpopular decisions—because it is responsible for keeping Member States to the commitments they have agreed. This role as enforcer is unenviable, but essential. Governments rarely give it credit for its achievements, but are always quick to criticise its shortcomings. And it has at times in the past not managed its internal affairs well.
But we should stand up for the Commission. It plays an essential role. Along with the Court of Justice, it is the best guarantee of equality in the Union, ensuring that small countries or new Member States are not treated as second class members.''
I welcome those words, because it is easy to indulge in Commission bashing. However, with about 20,000 employees, it has a smaller staff than, say, the BBC. The number of Commission staff is smaller than the total number of town hall bureaucrats employed by the cities of Birmingham or Glasgow. Even with irregularities and, sometimes, downright fraud, the Commission delivers a remarkable bang for the euros that it receives.
The enlargement that is now taking place is good for the United Kingdom, the European Union and, we hope, the new member states, which were welcomed by the Council of Ministers last week. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the remarkable work of the Danish presidency and the Danish civil servants who worked tirelessly with their Prime Minister,
Column Number: 4
Mr. Fogh Rasmussen, to make such a success of the final stages of the enlargement process. Now that they have laid down their pens, it will be up to the Commission to ensure that enlargement succeeds.
Central to the process is the Commission's legislative and work programme. We support the three policy priorities identified in the Commission's annual policy statement: making an enlarged Europe work, achieving stability and security and building a sustainable and inclusive economy. Preparing for successful EU enlargement is the central theme of the Commission's 2003 programme, which involves ensuring a smooth accession process as well as monitoring continuously the candidate countries' implementation of their commitments.
Stability and security remain major priorities in the continued fight against terrorism, with proposals to consolidate the EU's immigration, asylum and integration policies and to develop an integrated system of border management.
In pursuit of more sustainable development, the Commission proposes the pursuit of improved economic policy co-ordination and greater coherence between the EU's internal and external policies. It also makes provision for implementing the commitments made at the world summit on sustainable development.
Adequately preparing the Commission for enlargement is a key challenge. The UK will continue to press for efficiency savings and economies of scale, but we recognise that the admission of 10 new member states will involve some inevitable costs. To be efficient and effective, the Commission must be adequately resourced. It will budget for additional future human resources needs within the agreed Berlin financial perspective ceilings. It is important to stress that the budget will not increase beyond the very strict overall limits that were decided at Berlin. The Commission has undertaken to review staffing levels annually in its preliminary draft budget.
We are keen to see the method used to produce the Commission's figures and are working with it to investigate ways of economising further. A good beginning has been made, but further rationalisation is necessary. We shall continue to work with the Commission to ensure that enlargement is a success.
The Chairman: We have until half-past 11 at the latest for questions to the Minister. I remind hon. Members that their questions should be brief and asked one at a time. There is likely to be ample opportunity for all hon. Members to ask questions.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): I am interested in the language problems that might arise. It is comforting that English will be the main standard language in the new enlarged community, but will there not need to be translations into and out of every language because some representatives will not be able to speak any language apart from their own?
Mr. MacShane: The strength of the European Union is that it is a project of much diversity and one of the most important diversities that we should
Column Number: 5
defend, and find money to pay for, is the linguistic and cultural diversity of member states. My hon. Friend is right in saying that English is dominant and it was interesting for me at the General Affairs and External Relations Council to hear 10 Foreign Ministers of new member states making their pitch. All of them spoke in English. The speeches I heard last week were also all in English. I think that English will predominate, but we must make provision for other languages. Mechanisms known as relay systems can be used. The problem is also faced by the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, which are attended by member states from well beyond European Union shores. Mr. Neil Kinnock pointed out in a letter to the Financial Times yesterday that the costs are containable. What a wonderful thought that people from smaller countries such as Estonia and Slovenia can take part in their own language in the working of the European Union.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): The papers that were given to us for this Committee include the report, ''Preparing for the Parliament of the Enlarged European Union'' of 3 September 2001. I have a few questions about that and updating.
Paragraph 45 on page 16 states:
''For the purposes of this three-year plan . . . the calculations have been based on a figure of 740 new posts''
in the Commission,
''200 posts released as a result of natural wastage and 300 as a result of special early retirement measures.''
Will the Minister tell us the cost of the 200 posts being released as a result of natural wastage, the redundancy cost, how the 300 special early retirements will be obtained and the cost, and over what period those people will be put into early retirement?
Mr. MacShane: I do not have those figures immediately to hand. The Commission is undertaking a serious reform process on the organisation of its personnel administration and that is being undertaken by the vice-president, our former colleague, the right hon. Neil Kinnock. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to write to her with detailed answers to her questions.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): The Minister knows that I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, which sent the document for debate. On the basis of the Government's motion, is it not already out of date to say that it welcomes the Government's emphasis on the importance of keeping to the Berlin financial agreement? Are we not now talking about Berlin plus, because the Berlin financial agreement has already been breached?
Mr. MacShane: To my knowledge, references to Berlin plus are references to how the European security and defence policy is implemented in co-operation with NATO. The Berlin financial ceiling has not been breached to my knowledge, but if I am wrong I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend with more details. As far as I know, everything has been kept under rigorous financial control.
Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister for his response to me, although I am disappointed that the document has been in existence since September 2001. I would have
Column Number: 6
hoped that there would be further and better particulars, especially at this scrutiny Committee.
On buildings and the physical infrastructure of the consequences of enlargement, I read that there will be extensions to buildings in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. Can the Minister update us on those extensions, the implications for people already working in those buildings, the cost of the extensions and when the buildings will be ready to receive staff?
Mr. MacShane: I am not an expert on Strasbourg because I have never been to that great city, but I have seen with my own eyes in Brussels the refurbishment of the Berlaymont building, which was found to have too much asbestos in the wrong place. I have seen how different Commission offices are scattered all over the place. The Justus Lipsius building, which houses the European Council and the parliamentary offices is in Brussels.
Clearly, expanding the European Union by 10 member states will involve more staff and, in particular, staff with the necessary linguistic abilities—I am not talking about interpreting. Building policy remains under review and any bids will have to be approved both by the European Council and the European Parliament. We are all conscious of the need to clamp down on any unnecessary or unjustified costs.
| 
