here - United Kingdom Parliament

109WS
Written Ministerial Statements
6 JUNE 2013
Written Ministerial Statements
110WS
Written Ministerial
Statements
Thursday 6 June 2013
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS
EU Competitiveness Council (Post-Council Statement)
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David
Willetts): My noble Friend, the Minister of State
for Trade and Investment (joint with Foreign and
Commonwealth Office), (Lord Green) has today made
the following statement:
The EU Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on
29 and 30 May 2013. I represented the UK for internal market
and industry items on 29 May, and Shan Morgan, Deputy Permanent
Representative to the EU, represented the UK for research items
on 30 May. A summary of those discussions follows.
The main internal market and industry issues discussed on
29 May were: auditing; Single Market Act I and II; smart regulation;
industrial policy; modernisation of EU copyright law; and; state
aid modernisation. Outside the chamber, there was a lunch discussion
on industrial policy.
Council began with an orientation debate on Commission
proposals to regulate statutory audits. In a full round table, most
member states were prepared to accept the principle of mandatory
rotation, with some arguing for a longer period before mandatory
rotation, or for a narrower scope. I intervened on a similar vein to
this. Some member states remained opposed. On non-audit services,
all member states supported the principle of a blacklist only of
prohibited services, but with many stressing the need for the list to
be more limited, with some pushing for alignment with international
standards. I agreed with the principle of a blacklist only, though
expressed reservations on any cap in non-audit services. On a final
point on the role of the European Securities Markets Authority
(ESMA) in pan-European audit regulation, a majority of member
states supported the European Board of Auditors’ Oversight
Bodies (EBAOB) solution already proposed by nine member
states, citing cost and independence as key concerns. I argued this
solution was more appropriate and less expensive.
The next substantive item concerned Single Market Act I and
II, with the presidency and Commission outlining progress made
over the last six months towards adaptation of the legislative
proposals arising from Single Market Act I and II. This was an
information point only and I did not intervene. Other substantive
morning items included Council conclusions on smart regulation,
which were adopted without comment.
The lunch discussion focused on industrial policy. Shan Morgan
took the UK seat and represented the UK for the rest of the
Competitiveness Council.
The discussion over lunch followed on from discussions at a
dinner the previous evening on the same subject, which I attended.
The main UK messages highlighted the importance of creating
the right environment for industries to be competitive, while
questioning the need to set a 20% target for industry’s share of the
economy. The presidency summed up the discussions in the first
agenda item after lunch, reporting on the consensus of the
importance of re-industrialisation as a means for employment,
and that technical change had opened up various new opportunities
which the EU is well placed to benefit from. There were also
comments on the importance of energy costs, and the revolution
caused by shale gas in the US.
The next substantive agenda item was an exchange of views on
the modernisation of EU copyright law, with the Council updated
on progress under the Irish presidency on collective rights management,
the Commission updating the Council on their ongoing “Licenses
for Europe” dialogue, and finally a presentation by Antonio
Vitorino on his recent report on private copying and reprography
levels. There was a general consensus among member states that
the copyright framework needed to be updated to better suit the
digital age, and that this work should be based on sound evidence,
guided by the principles of technological neutrality, promoting
legal offers and providing the necessary protections for creators.
Response to the Vitorino report was varied, with the UK’s view
that any work in this area should commence after the pending
European Court of Justice rulings in this area. This was echoed
by many member states.
The final substantive agenda item was a general approach on
state aid, with the presidency presenting the current text of the
two proposed regulations as a finely balanced compromise. Most
member states endorsed the current text, though with some
opposing the procedural regulation. Other member states intervened
to seek further detailed changes, though were not met with much
support. In a broader debate on modernisation, a wide-ranging
discussion took place. A significant number of member states
asked for further flexibility regarding the Commission’s proposed
ban on regional aid to large enterprises in “C” regions. The UK
intervened strongly on this point, and also to welcome the regulations
as a useful contribution to improving state aid procedures and
that state aid was to be used only to address genuine market
failure. The presidency concluded that agreement had been reached
on the regulations as proposed, and noted the concern of member
states concerning regional aid.
Several AOB items were discussed at the Council. The first
concerned an update on the state of play of the COSME funding
programme, setting out the two remaining issues of size of the
budget and settling of the work programme. There was no UK
intervention.
The next AOB was the LeaderSHIP item, where the Commission
outlined their communication considering how to reinvigorate
the European shipbuilding sector. The UK did not intervene,
though some did to, for example, welcome the strategy, or to call
on the Commission to implement the proposals. There were also
calls from some quarters to call for flexible state aid rules in the
sector.
At the request of the French delegation, the Commission
introduced their proposals to modernise EU trade defence instruments.
In a short discussion, there were differing views among the
member states that chose to intervene. The UK intervened to
welcome the revision of the rules, but also to stress the need that
trade defence tools are only used to tackle unfair trade which is
damaging to EU producers, and not for other reasons.
For the next AOB, the presidency updated the Council on the
discussions that took place at the Informal Competitiveness
Council in Dublin earlier in the month, focused on entrepreneurship.
There was no discussion on this point.
An AOB was raised by a delegation on the regulations on CO 2
emissions from cars and vans. A number of member states
intervened on this point, particularly on the issue of “supercredits”.
Following this item there were two further AOBs raised by
delegations. The first concerning the Tobacco Products Directive,
with some member states concerned on the impact of the proposals
on their economies. The UK, and others, intervened to support
elements of the Commission’s proposals, stressing the need for a
proportionate and evidence-based final text. The second AOB
concerned the high-level group on innovation policy management.
The final AOB point to conclude the industry half of the
Council concerned the upcoming Lithuanian presidency. The
Lithuanian Minister updated the Council on the priorities during
their term.
The main research and space issues covered on 30 May were:
EU space industrial policy, proposed establishment of a space
surveillance and tracking support programme, Horizon 2020,
joint programming, high-performance computing, international
co-operation in research and innovation, and advisory work for
the European research area.
On the space items, the Council adopted conclusions in response
to a Commission communication on “EU Space Industrial Policy:
Releasing the potential for economic growth in the Space sector”.