eu/s4/14/23/a european and external relations …...rapporteur: mr povilas Žagunis (mayor of...

EU/S4/14/23/A

EUROPEAN AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

AGENDA

23rd Meeting, 2014 (Session 4)

Thursday 11 December 2014 The Committee will meet at 9.00 am in the Robert Burns Room (CR1). 1. Declaration of interests: Adam Ingram will be invited to declare any relevant

interests. 2. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether

to take items 7 in private. 3. Committee of the Regions: The Committee will consider a report from the

Scottish Parliament's nominated member of the Committee of the Regions. 4. Reports from the Scottish Government: The Committee will consider reports

from the Scottish Government on EU Structural and Investment Funds, transposition of EU Directives, learning of foreign languages in primary schools and Horizon 2020.

5. Brussels Bulletin: The Committee will consider the latest edition of the

Brussels Bulletin. 6. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – implications for

Scotland: The Committee will take evidence from—

David Breckenridge, Chief Executive, Scottish Textile and Leather Association; John Crawford, Strategy Manager, Scottish Enterprise; Benny Hartop, Managing Director, Hawick Knitwear Company; Allan Hogarth, Executive Director, Scottish North American Business Council; and the Institute of Directors Scotland; Scott Johnstone, Chief Executive Officer, Scottish Life Sciences Association;

EU/S4/14/23/A

David Williamson, Director of Government and Communications, Scotch Whisky Association.

7. Work programme: The Committee will consider its approach to developing its work programme.

Katy Orr Clerk to the European and External Relations Committee

Room Tower 1 T3.60 The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5234

Email: [email protected]

EU/S4/14/23/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda item 3

Committee of the Regions Report

EU/S4/14/23/1

Agenda item 4

Scottish Government updates

EU/S4/14/23/2

Agenda item 5

Brussels Bulletin

EU/S4/14/23/3

Agenda item 6

Written evidence

EU/S4/14/23/4

SPICe briefing

EU/S4/14/23/5

PRIVATE PAPER

EU/S4/14/23/6 (P)

Agenda item 7

PRIVATE PAPER

EU/S4/14/23/7 (P)

EU/S4/14/23/1

1

European and External Relations Committee

23rd meeting, 2013 (Session 4), Thursday 11 December 2014

Report from the Scottish Parliament’s Members of the Committee of the Regions

Background

1. The European and External Relations Committee conducted a short inquiry into the Scottish Parliament’s representation on the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and suitable reporting mechanisms in December 2011. One of the conclusions of the inquiry was that—

“The parliamentary CoR members are invited to provide an update on their activities as CoR members at least once a year. This update would take the form of a presentation by each parliamentary CoR member to the EER Committee, accompanied by a short written report. This report would then be circulated to the subject committees where relevant.”

2. Attached as an annexe to this paper is a letter and report prepared by Patricia Ferguson MSP in her capacity as one of the Scottish Parliament’s members of the Committee of the Regions.

Decision

3. Members are invited to comment on the report and indicate whether it should be circulated to subject committees where relevant.

Jenny Goldsmith Assistant Clerk to the Committee

EU/S4/14/23/1

2

Annexe I enclose for your Committee’s attention a report regarding the work of the Committee of the Regions. There have only been two plenary meetings of the Committee of the Regions since Stewart Maxwell last reported to the Committee. Clearly this has been an interesting year for the EU generally with many changes occurring in the parliament as a result of the European Elections held in May. For the Committee of the Regions there are also changes happening as new mandates apply in jurisdictions. As is often the case it would appear that some delegates from the UK have not yet been cleared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and there is likely to be a delay before some appointments are confirmed. The Committee within the Committee of the Regions of which I am a member (which is called the Commission for Economic and Social Policy (ECOS)), is about to undertake some interesting work looking at two papers coming from the European Commission. The first is on a Strategic Review of Health and Safety at Work and the second on a Green Action Plan for SMEs. I would be happy to provide further information to the committee on these issues, in due course, if that would be helpful. I hope the attached summary is of interest to the Committee. Patricia Ferguson MSP

EU/S4/14/23/1

3

OCTOBER 2014 PLENARY

Monday 6 October 2.30 p.m. OPENING OF THE SESSION Michel Lebrun, President of the Committee of the Regions 1. Adoption of the agenda (COR-2014-04764-00-02-CONVPOJ-TRA) 2. Official Opening Session of the OPEN DAYS

"GROWING TOGETHER – SMART INVESTMENT FOR PEOPLE" 2.30-2.35 p.m.

Welcome by Iskra Mihaylova, Chairwoman of the Committee on Regional

Development (REGI) of the European Parliament Michel Lebrun, President of the Committee of the Regions

2.35-3.15 p.m.

Keynote speeches by Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, Vice-President of the European Parliament Johannes Hahn, European Commissioner for Regional Policy José Ángel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (video

message) 3.15-3.35 p.m.

Statements by Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Committee of the

Regions

3.35-3.45 p.m. Concluding remarks by ‐ Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, Vice-President of the European Parliament

‐ Catiuscia Marini, First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions 3.45 – 5.15 pm. 3. Joint REGI-COTER meeting "Getting cities and regions back on track to growth and convergence –

how to make best use of the new Cohesion policy instruments" 5.15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT

EU/S4/14/23/1

4

Tuesday 7 October 3 p.m. OPENING OF THE SESSION 4. Approval of the minutes of the 107th plenary session, held on 25 and 26

June 2014 (COR-2014-02184-00-01-PV-TRA and COR-2014-02184-02-00-PV-REF)

5. Statement by the president 3.15 p.m. 6. Statement by Mr Sandro Gozi, Secretary of State for European Affairs,

on the Priorities of the Italian Presidency – Background note: COR-2014-04764-02-01-PSP-TRA

4.15 p.m. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF OPINIONS 7. Long-Term Financing of the European Economy1

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, and the Council COM(2014) 168 final COR-2014-03235-00-00-PAC-TRA - ECOS-V-059 Rapporteur: Mr Witold Krochmal (Member of the City and Municipal Council of Wołów, Poland/EA)

8. Measures to support the creation of high-tech start-up ecosystems2

Own initiative opinion COR-2014-00672-00-00-PAC-TRA - EDUC-V-040 Rapporteur: Mr Markku Markkula (Member of the Espoo City Council, Finland/EPP)

9. The Clean Air Policy Package for Europe

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2013) 918 final Proposals for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council COM(2013) 919 final - 2013/0442 (COD) COM(2013) 920 final - 2013/0443 (COD) COR-2014-01217-00-00-PAC-TRA - ENVE-V-046 Rapporteur: Mr Cor Lamers (Mayor of Schiedam, Netherlands/EPP)

1 Simplified procedure 2 Simplified procedure

EU/S4/14/23/1

5

10. European Strategy for Coastal and Maritime Tourism

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 86 final COR-2014-02645-00-01-PAC-TRA - NAT-V-041 Rapporteur: Mr Vasco Ilídio Alves Cordeiro (President of the Autonomous Regional Government of the Azores, Portugal/PES)

11. The aid scheme for the supply of fruits and vegetables, bananas and

milk in the educational establishments3 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council COM(2014) 32 final – 2014/0014 (COD) COR-2014-01278-00-00-PAC-TRA - NAT-V-038 Rapporteur: Mr Povilas Žagunis (Mayor of Panevėžys, Lithuania/EA)

7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Wednesday 8 October 9 a.m. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF OPINIONS 12. A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the period from 2020 to

2030 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 15 final COR-2014-02691-00-00_TRA-PAC - ENVE-V-047 Rapporteur: Ms Annabelle Jaeger (Member of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Regional Council, France/PES)

10.30 a.m. 13. Debate on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with

‐ Karel de Gucht, Member of the European Commission, responsible for Trade

‐ Anthony Luzzatto Gardner, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union 11.30 a.m. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF OPINIONS

3 Simplified procedure

EU/S4/14/23/1

6

14. Mobility in geographically and demographically challenged regions Own-initiative opinion COR-2014-01691-00-00-PAC-TRA - COTER-V-049 Rapporteur: Mr Gordon Keymer (Member of Tandridge District Council, United Kingdom/ECR)

15. A European Platform against Undeclared Work4

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council COM(2014)221 final – 2014/0124 (COD) COR-2014-03236-00-00-PAC-TRA - ECOS-V-060 Rapporteur: Mr Dainis Turlais (Chairman of the Security, Corruption Prevention and Public Order Issues Committee of the Riga City Council, Latvia/ALDE)

16. Election of Bureau members (COR-2014-04764-00-00-PSP-REF) (for

decision) 17. New CoR members and alternates (COR-2014-04764-01-00-PSP-TRA) (for

information) 18. Any other business 19. Date of the next meeting 1 p.m. END OF THE PLENARY SESSION December 2014 plenary Wednesday 3 December 2014 3 p.m. 20. Adoption of the agenda (COR-2014-05892-00-03-CONVPOJ-TRA) 21. Approval of the minutes of the 108th plenary session, held on 6-8

October 2014 (COR-2014-04764-00-00-PV-TRA) and appendices 1 to 5 (COR-2014-04764-00-00-PV-REF, COR-2014-04764-01-00-PV-REF, COR-2014-04764-02-00-PV-REF, COR-2014-04764-03-00-PV-REF, and COR-2014-04764-04-00-PV-REF)

22. Statement by the president

4 Simplified procedure

EU/S4/14/23/1

7

3.15 p.m. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF OPINIONS 23. Promoting quality of public spending in matters subject to EU action Own-initiative opinion

COR-2014-04885-00-00-PAC-TRA – BUDG-V-009 Rapporteur: Ms Catiuscia Marini (President of the Umbria Region, Italy/PES)

24. 6th report on economic, social and territorial cohesion Own-initiative opinion

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 473 final COR-2014-04896-00-00-PAC-TRA - COTER-V-052 Rapporteur: Mr Nicola Zingaretti (President of the Lazio Region, Italy/PES)

25. Industrial Policy Package Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 14 final Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee COM(2014) 25 final COR-2014-01344-00-00-PAC-TRA - ECOS-V-056 Rapporteur: Mr Markku Markkula (Member of the Espoo City Council, Finland/EPP)

26. Innovation in the Blue Economy: Realising the potential of our seas and

oceans for jobs and growth5 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 254 final/2 COR-2014-04835-00-00-PAC-TRA - NAT-V-044 Rapporteur: Mr Adam Banaszak (Member of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie regional assembly, Poland/ECR)

27. Effective, accessible and resilient health systems6 Communication from the Commission

COM(2014) 215 final COR-2014-04834-00-00-PAC-TRA - NAT-V-043 Rapporteur: Mr Karsten Uno Petersen (Regional Council Member, Denmark/PES)

5 Simplified procedure. 6 Simplified procedure.

EU/S4/14/23/1

8

28. An alpine macro-regional strategy for the European Union Own-initiative opinion

COR-2014-02994-00-00-PAC-TRA - COTER-V-050 Rapporteur: Mr Herwig Van Staa (President of the Tirol Regional Assembly, Austria/EPP)

29. Multimodal travel information, planning and ticketing services7 Own-initiative opinion

Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 194 final COR-2014-04895-00-00-PAC-TRA - COTER-V-051 Rapporteur: Mr Petr Osvald (Councillor of Plzeň, Czech Republic/PES)

30. Reconnecting Europe with its citizens –more and better communication

at local level Own-initiative opinion

COR-2014-04460-00-00-PAC-TRA - CIVEX-V-049 Rapporteur: Mr Christophe Rouillon (Mayor of Coulaines, France/PES) Statement by Ms Mairead McGuinness, Vice-president of the European Parliament

31. Neighbourhood at the Crossroads: Implementation of the European

Neighbourhood Policy in 2013 Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions JOIN(2014) 12 final COR-2014-04459-00-00-PAC-TRA - CIVEX-V-048 Rapporteur: Mr Olgierd Geblewicz (Marshal of the Western Pomeranian voivodship, Poland/EPP)

32. EU Quality Framework for Anticipation of Change and Restructuring Own-initiative opinion

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2013) 882 final COR-2014-01319-00-00-PAC-TRA - ECOS-V-057 Rapporteur: Mr Pavel Branda (Deputy mayor of Rádlo, Czech Republic/ECR)

9 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Thursday 4 December 9 a.m. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF OPINIONS

7 Simplified procedure.

EU/S4/14/23/1

9

33. The efforts to promote genuine solidarity on real European migration policy

Italian Presidency referral COR-2014-05728-00-00-PAC-TRA - CIVEX-V-054 Rapporteur-general: Mr François Decoster (Member of Nord-Pas-de-Calais Regional Council, France/ALDE) Statement by Mr Domenico Manzione, State Secretary for the Interior, Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union

10 a.m. 34. Statement by Ms Corina Crețu, Member of the European Commission,

responsible for Regional Policy 10.45 a.m. 35. Draft Resolution of the Committee of the Regions on the European

Commission's communication for an Investment Plan for Europe (for decision) (COR-2014-06881-00-00-PRES-TRA)

36. The importance of a more interconnected Europe focusing on the

potential of the ICT sector as a source of growth8 Italian Presidency referral

COR-2014-04165-00-00-PAC-TRA - EDUC-V-044 Rapporteur: Ms Anne Karjalainen (Member of Kerava City Council, Finland/PES)

37. Internet Policy and Governance Own-initiative opinion

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 72 final COR-2014-02448-00-01-PAC-TRA - EDUC-V-041 Rapporteur: Ms Odeta Žerlauskienė (Member of Skuodas District Municipal Council; Deputy Mayor, Lithuania/ALDE)


EU/S4/14/23/1

10

38. European film in the digital era9 Own-initiative opinion

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 272 final COR-2014-03660-00-00-PAC-TRA - EDUC-V-042 Rapporteur: Mr Jean-François Istasse (Councillor, Verviers Town Council, Belgium/PES)

39. Recognition of skills and competences acquired through non-formal and

informal learning Own-initiative opinion

COR-2014-03921-00-00-PAC-TRA - EDUC-V-043 Rapporteur: Mr Marek Olszewski (Mayor of Lubicz, Poland/EA)

40. Policy package on organic production Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2014) 179 final Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council COM(2014) 180 final – 2014/0100 (COD) COR-2014-04832-00-00-PAC-TRA - NAT-V-039 Rapporteur: Ms Willemien Hester Maij (Member of the Executive Council of the Province of Overijssel, Netherland/EPP)

41. mHealth (mobile health) Green Paper

COM(2014) 219 final COR-2014-04833-00-00-PAC-TRA - NAT-V-040 Rapporteur: Mr Martin Andreasson (Member of the Regional Assembly of Västra Götaland, Sweden/EPP)

42. New CoR members and alternates (COR-2014-05892-01-00-PSP-TRA) (for

information) 43. Any other business 44. Date of the next meeting


EU/S4/14/23/1

11

The Committee of the Regions (CoR) is the EU’s assembly of regional and local representatives. Its mission is to involve regional and local authorities in the European decision-making process, based on the belief that cooperation between European, national, regional, and local levels is essential to building a supportive union among the people of Europe. There are several committees within the Committee of the Regions. Their descriptions are as follows: The Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional & External Affairs (CIVEX) is responsible for coordinating the Committee of the Regions' work on issues which include justice and home affairs, fundamental rights and freedoms, smart regulation and the reduction of administrative burdens, citizenship and broader institutional issues such as governance and devolution. The Commission also intensively deals with the Union's external dimension, focusing on neighbourhood and enlargement countries, and decentralised cooperation for development. Territorial Cohesion Policy (COTER). Regional policy and transport policy are at the heart of concern for local and regional authorities throughout Europe. The COTER Commission allows for representatives from local and regional authorities to discuss the planning and implementation of these policies and to ensure that their concerns are taken up by the other European Institutions. The Commission for Economic and Social Policy (ECOS) is responsible for coordinating the Committee's work on employment, social protection, equal opportunities, single market, entreprise policy, innovation and economic and monetary policy. The opinions discussed and adopted in the ECOS Commission form the basis of the CoR's position on local and regional responses to economic and social policy, through which the Committee seeks to influence the wider EU legislative agenda to ensure that the challenges faced at the local and regional level – and the responses to them – are understood and taken on board. Education, Youth, Culture and Research (EDUC). Throughout the European Union local and regional levels have key responsibilities for policies and activities related to education, culture, youth and sports. They are also key players in developing regional research and innovation strategies, and in harnessing the full potential of information and communication technologies to the benefit of society. The EDUC Commission provides a forum for representatives from local and regional authorities to provide input to other European Institutions and exchange good practices in these fields. Environment, Climate Change and Energy (ENVE). Local and regional authorities play a central role in the implementation of EU environment, climate change and energy policy. The ENVE Commission allows for representatives from local and regional authorities to discuss the formulation of these policies and to promote best practices in theses fields. Natural Resources (NAT). Local and regional authorities are a cornerstone in the implementation of agricultural, health, fisheries and maritime policies in the EU.

EU/S4/14/23/1

12

Within the NAT Commission, their representatives deliberate on these issues, provide a local and regional input to European Union decision-making, and exchange best practices in theses fields.

EU/S4/14/23/2

1


23rd Meeting, 2014 (Session 4) Thursday 11 December 2014

Reports from the Scottish Government

Background

1. The Committee receives regular update reports from the Scottish Government on a six monthly basis every June and December. The reports cover the following topics:

European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)

Horizon 2020

Foreign language learning

Scottish Government’s Transposition of EU Directives

European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)

2. The European and External Relations Committee has received a six-monthly report from the Scottish Government in relation to the Committee’s previous work on European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) (see Annexe A).

3. The Committee last considered ESIF in depth in November 2013 when it considered evidence on the new approaches for the new programming period of 2014-2020. The Committee wrote to the Scottish Government with its findings from that evidence, and received a response from the Scottish Government.1 4. This latest report updates the Scottish Government’s position on the progress and timescales of the Partnership Agreement, Operational Programmes, Tailoring to the specific needs of the Highlands and Island, and Transition funding. Recommendation 5. The Committee is invited to consider whether it wishes to follow up any issues contained in the report with the Scottish Government. Horizon 2020 6. The Committee receives a six-monthly report from the Scottish Government providing an update on the progress made in development of the Horizon 2020 programme, which follows from the Committee’s inquiry on Horizon 2020 in 2012.

1 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/66513.aspx

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/66513.aspx

EU/S4/14/23/2

2

7. The latest update provides information on Framework Programme 7 (FP7), Horizon 2020, the European Research and Innovation Steering Group, the Knowledge Innovation Communities (KIC), and the Vanguard Initiative (see Annexe B). Recommendation 8. The Committee is invited to note the update from the Scottish Government. Foreign language learning 9. In 2013, the Committee held an inquiry on foreign language learning in primary schools, and subsequently receives a six-monthly report from the Scottish Government providing an update on the progress made in this area. The latest update provides information on the Strategic Implementation Group, Local Authority Strategies, Engagement, Glow, and the Language Assistant Programme (see Annexe C). Recommendation 10. The Committee is invited to note the update from the Scottish Government, and to forward it to the Education and Culture Committee for information. Scottish Government’s Transposition of EU Directives 12. The Committee receives a regular report from the Scottish Government providing the latest information on the transposition of EU legislation into domestic law. 13. The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs wrote to the Committee on 8 December 2014 to provide an update on the Scottish Government's transposition of EU directives in the last six months and on transposition currently being undertaken (see Annexe D). 14. The transposition report sets out each directive's transposition deadline, the responsible Cabinet Secretary or Minister, the lead official within the Scottish Government, and a summary of the action required to implement the directive. 15. A main aim of the Committee’s consideration of these directives is to allow the Committee to monitor whether the deadline date for transposition has been delayed or missed. The deadline date has been delayed in two of the three directives transposed in the last six months. Recommendation 16. The Committee is invited to—

note the Government’s transposition report; and

EU/S4/14/23/2

3

forward the report to the relevant subject committees for further action (as per the Parliament’s EU Strategy).

Jenny Goldsmith Assistant Clerk to the Committee

EU/S4/14/23/2

4

Annexe A - European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)

I am pleased to provide your Committee with an update on progress with the 2014-20 European Structural Fund Programmes. I understand that the Committee received an update in June 2014 when it was hoped that the Programmes would be operational by this time but unfortunately this hasn’t been the case due to unforeseen circumstances. Whilst this update focuses on the final few issues to consider before the new programmes start, I understand the Committee has taken a wide-ranging interest in the development of Structural Funds. I have no doubt this has been very helpful in forming an investment strategy which will help deliver jobs and growth for Scotland, and would like to thank you for this constructive engagement at all levels. Partnership Agreement The Partnership Agreement for the UK was approved on 29 October 2014. This document sets the strategy for the optimal use of European Structural and Investment Funds throughout the UK, and includes a distinct Scotland chapter. The strategy contained in the Scottish and UK chapters of the Partnership Agreement identifies the needs that Scotland should address to achieve Europe 2020 targets; the more strategic direction with programmes channelled through strategic interventions and schemes; and the focus on major areas of investment such as low carbon, environmental improvement, economic diversification, skills and employability. The adoption followed a lengthy period of negotiation between the UK and the Commission, notably around issues raised with the JPMC in May:

Thematic concentration – The UK has restricted its choice of thematic objectives and the scope of activity within some others. This approach has allowed for the inclusion of broadband and ICT as a thematic objective, a very welcome change for Scotland, which will include this objective in both ERDF and EAFRD operational programmes.

Governance and delivery – Arrangements in all parts of the UK have been clarified and further developed, including the role of LEP’s in the English programmes; the role of LEADER in all UK nations; and the role of Lead Partners in the Scottish Structural Funds Programmes. This was a significant issue for the Commission, which had expressed concerns over the LEP process in particular pre-judging the selection of projects and allocations within English programmes.

Allocations – The Supreme Court heard the final appeal on the ongoing Judicial review of the UK allocations on 21 October. Although a judgement is not expected until early in 2015, the Commission have been reassured by the process and arguments, and the Court itself expressed that it did not wish the judgement to delay the process any further. The Scottish ERDF and ESF

EU/S4/14/23/2

5

programmes are therefore based on the original allocations from 2013 totalling some €900 million.

The approval of the Partnership Agreement means that all UK Operational programmes can now be submitted for formal approval. Operational Programmes Scottish Government submitted first drafts of the two operational programmes for Structural Funds – the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund – in July. Following extensive negotiations on the content and focus with the European Commission, I am now confident that these programmes will be finalised and approved by the Commission before the end of 2014. These programmes are worth over €900 million to Scotland over the coming years, and getting this investment into Scotland as early in the programme period as possible therefore important. Although this has taken longer than originally expected it was imperative in meeting our strategic aims that we were able to convince the Commission of our focus and determination to maximise the funding available to Scotland. This will enable us to achieve the results required to meet the various EU and Scottish Government outcomes and targets. Whilst the broad aim of the Programmes remain the same as in July, there have been a number of changes to make the Programmes acceptable to the Commission:

The strategy section has been updated to draw out additional territorial challenges, particularly around cities, rural areas and the transition region. This has allowed exploration of the particular needs of the Highlands and Islands in more detail, and now presents a better link through to the activity targeted in that region

The activities for each Priority Axis are more generalised, and refer less directly to strategic interventions. The intention remains to support the interventions identified through the Strategic Delivery Partnership process during 2013 last summer, but the new presentation will enable reviews and shifts in policy during the programming period. This ties in with a stronger commitment to a mid-point review to avoid pre-judging what the needs of Scotland might be by 2018.

The selection criteria for each priority axis have been tailored to that axis, reflecting for example the need to demonstrate market failure, an in-depth understanding of associated state aid rules, or the need to align with domestic policy and funding initiatives to avoid duplication and ensure additionality

Significant changes have been made to allow certain types of infrastructure investment. For example, the Commission have agreed during negotiations that the Programmes in Scotland may invest in broadband, enabling low carbon infrastructure such as localised grid access, and in limited SME infrastructure in the transition region where market failure can be demonstrated;

Equally, the scope for other infrastructure has been narrowed or rules out, for example the ability to invest in public-owned business and innovation

EU/S4/14/23/2

6

infrastructure, including for energy efficiency; and limiting infrastructure investment in cultural assets to those cases where there are direct and immediate benefits for SME’s. These limitations are now reflected in each relevant priority axis.

Indicators have been revised to provide clear linkages between needs, actions, results and tying these back to more specific objectives

Synergies with other funding instruments have been brought out more clearly, both as an ambition (in section 8), and as practical actions for example by making synergies part of the selection criteria and allowing the funding of preparatory studies under Technical Assistance

Management and control and governance roles are more explicit, and more in line with regulatory requirements

The section on simplification is more focused around how initiatives will simplify the Funds for beneficiaries

Scottish Government is continuing to work with Partners to develop high-quality projects which will genuinely impact on growth and jobs across Scotland, and is aiming for the first of these to be up and running during January 2015. The Scottish Government has been developing appropriate processes and procedures to ensure that the 2014-2020 Structural Funds programmes are ready for implementation once formal approval has been given by the European Commission. As these Programmes are significantly different from previous Programmes there has been a need to develop new application and appraisal structures and processes to ensure that these are relevant, appropriate and will meet the European Commission requirements. A risk assessment element has also been added in view of the large-scale nature of the Strategic Interventions and the need to ensure that risk is managed throughout the life-time of these interventions. Applications will be prioritised by anticipated start date and to ensure continuity on some types of activity, notably employability measures under the Local Authority-led pipelines. Second and third tranches of strategic interventions will be invited and supported during February and March, will all initial strategic interventions expected to be approved by April 2015. Tailoring to the specific needs of the Highlands and Islands A significant part of the work on developing the Operational Programmes has centred on identifying the particular needs of the Highlands and Islands, and the best way of addressing these. During this work, it has become clear that the level of tailoring required by the region can be achieved without the full Integrated Territorial Investment regulatory structure. However, the nature of the region does mean some additional activity is likely to be required, and I can confirm that we have agreed with H&I stakeholders and the Commission that such additional activity will include:

Support for blended and distance learning to ensure that remote communities can access growth sector-relevant skills

Broadband infrastructure, particularly for communities where the market is unlikely to ever provide coverage

EU/S4/14/23/2

7

Support for sector-specific business infrastructure, for example for marine energy, to encourage new industry in the region

Support for enabling infrastructure such as localised grid development where this is required to support a research or pilot development project

Alongside the general support available, this will help ensure that the Highlands and Islands has every opportunity to develop its key sectors as good employment platforms for the area. To ensure continuity and focus on this key area of the country a Highlands & Islands Territorial Committee has been established to assist the JPMC in ensuring we maintain impact in the region. Transition funding The Committee has previously shown an interest in maintaining capacity between funding periods. The last update was able to confirm that the 2007-13 programmes had been extended to allow continued funding particularly for employability initiatives involving the third sector, who are particularly vulnerable to capacity loss if there are funding gaps. With the new programmes now expected to come into play as of January 2015, the priority is now on finalising and approving those projects which support this kind of employability support, so that local third sector organisations do not experience such a gap. We are working closely with local authorities to ensure an early start, and on informing third sector organisations of this positive outcome. I would like to thank you for your help and interest in this important subject area and I have no doubt that your contribution in shaping investment plans will prove beneficial to Scotland. Keith Brown MSP Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities 4 December 2014

EU/S4/14/23/2

8

Annexe B - Horizon 2020

EU/S4/14/23/2

9

EU/S4/14/23/2

10

EU/S4/14/23/2

11

ANNEX A

EU/S4/14/23/2

12

EU/S4/14/23/2

13

EU/S4/14/23/2

14

Annexe C - Foreign language learning Further to your Committee’s report into Language Learning in Primary Schools published in June 2013, and the Government’s response in August of that year, we continue to provide the Committee with updates every six months on key developments of our 1+2 languages policy. This policy aims to give all young people in Scotland excellent language learning opportunities from a young age, as a normal and expected part of a broad, relevant school education. The Government is committed to the long term implementation of this policy. That is why we are supporting local authorities and schools with significant extra funding - £9m over two years – and intend, subject to future spending review decisions, to continue to provide developmental funding similar to the current levels. COSLA recently carried out a costing exercise with all local authorities to ascertain an estimate of the total cost of the implementation of 1+2 for 2015-16. The outcome of this exercise is currently going through usual budgetary processes and consideration. Please find attached an update on work carried out since June to take this policy forward. I hope that you find this update helpful. Alasdair Allan MSP Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland's Languages 2 December 2014 Update to the European and External Relations Committee on progress to implement the Government’s 1+2 Language Policy

December 2014

At the 1+2 Strategic Implementation Group (SIG) meeting on 29th October, members heard from Education Scotland of the picture of implementation across Scotland as presented by the Local Authority strategies. They discussed the steps taken to progress implementation and the next challenges to this. The SIG members also agreed to set up two sub groups to meet soon to look further at national guidance and also at employer engagement. Local Authority Strategies Education Scotland summarised the state of readiness as set out in the Local Authorities strategies. Over half of the strategies received set out a timeline for 2020 and a few were well ahead in their preparations for full implementation, with one expecting to be there by 2015. The paper shows evidence of useful inter-authority working. This includes the Pan-Tayside group and links between North and East Ayrshire, the Lothians, Stirling and Falkirk.

EU/S4/14/23/2

15

To lead and support the strategy more than half have set up, or intend to set up, a strategy group and some form of language champion/lead teacher/language coordinator in each primary school. Five have introduced cluster language leaders. All Local Authorities recognise the importance of cluster working. One authority intends to introduce S6 pupil language ambassadors. These appointments suggest promising shared leadership of the initiative. Most Local Authorities (LAs) are using the additional SG funding to fund a languages development officer, training and additional resources, particularly ICT based resources. A variety of models of training are being used including In-house training after attendance at Scotland’s National Centre for Languages (SCILT)/Education Scotland Train the Trainers courses; use of external providers, ICT and video conference and sharing training provided by other authorities such as Edinburgh or Glasgow. Some have introduced an innovation fund for schools which have an interesting model for an aspect of 1+2 which they wish to explore. EU A few LAs are also tapping into additional training abroad available through Erasmus + and through immersion courses. One authority has a link with Reims in France through which all primary teachers in the authority will be linked with a primary teacher in Reims. Choice of language The most common language for Language 2 (L2) is French. Spanish is also popular as L2 or Language 3 (L3). Mandarin shows signs of becoming increasingly popular as L3. Engagement As regards engagement with key stakeholders SCILT told the SIG meeting that there has been huge demand for their new parent leaflet with more than 30,000 copies being printed. Copies can be ordered here: http://www.scilt.org.uk/LearnersParents/Parentleaflet/tabid/1875/Default.aspx. Alternatively Local Authorities can provide an online link of their website for parents, carers and learners to access. The October 2014 General Teaching Council Scotland Teaching Scotland publication featured an article on the policy entitled ‘Speaking in Tongues’ http://www.teachingscotland.org.uk/education-in-scotland/scotlands-education-system/56-speaking-in-tongues.aspx and our Co Chair Michael Wood represented the SIG at an EIS Learning Representatives Day and at COSLA Education Executive Committee. Education Scotland has published a National Framework to support primary teachers in delivering modern languages from P1 through to P7. The framework shows progression through primary school stages, with suggestions on how language learning should become an embedded part of children’s daily school routines. In addition, it includes supportive grammar frameworks and curriculum maps to broaden the scope of language learning in the middle and upper years of primary school. The framework contains film clips of primary practitioners delivering

http://www.scilt.org.uk/LearnersParents/Parentleaflet/tabid/1875/Default.aspx

http://www.teachingscotland.org.uk/education-in-scotland/scotlands-education-system/56-speaking-in-tongues.aspx

http://www.teachingscotland.org.uk/education-in-scotland/scotlands-education-system/56-speaking-in-tongues.aspx

EU/S4/14/23/2

16

language lessons from P1 - P7, as well as sound files containing common classroom vocabulary and phrases. Updated guidance for working within the 35 policy recommendations was published in July, with a particular focus on the flexibility around the teaching of (L3). The flexibility allows learners to progress with L3 (as opposed to L2) into secondary school as their main language, if L3 is taught in sufficient depth to allow learners to reach second level by the end of P7. Education Scotland has set up a short life working group tasked with writing first level Experiences and Outcomes for modern languages. This is in response to requests from primary practitioners, who have asked for support in planning for progression in language teaching from first level onwards. SCILT is being funded by SG to offer support, advice and training for Local Authorities. Part of their work also involves engaging with employers and enlisting help from employers to show young people the relevance of languages as a skill for employability. Their aim is to have at least one Business Language Champion (BLC) in place for each Local Authority before the end of March 2015. At present there are 20 BLCs in place, and this exciting development is yielding benefits for the young people involved and resulting in heightened interest in language skills. http://www.scilt.org.uk/Business/Linkinglanguagesandbusiness/tabid/1597/Default.aspx. SCILT also intend to hold two business breakfasts in Edinburgh and in Glasgow. New Glow Service The Glow service was successfully transitioned to a new, flexible, cloud-based arrangement over the weekend of 3-6 October 2014. This new service arrangement includes a range of core applications and services such as blogs and broadcasting (Glow Meet/Glow TV). A wiki service is also being developed and is expected to be rolled out in December 2014. Blogs can be shared externally. Some of the features of the new service are as follows:

All pupils and teachers have access to the Office 365 tenancy which provides: o Collaboration and sharing tools through SharePoint; o 1TB of online storage space per user through One Drive; o A Glow email account through Outlook; and o Access to the online Office - Word, Excel, PowerPoint.

Users also have the option to add a range of educational app ‘tiles’ to their Glow Launchpad. Apps are available in the App Library and are categorised by curricular area (mixture of free and paid for content). Tiles can also be customised to link to specific web pages.

http://www.scilt.org.uk/Business/Linkinglanguagesandbusiness/tabid/1597/Default.aspx

http://www.scilt.org.uk/Business/Linkinglanguagesandbusiness/tabid/1597/Default.aspx

EU/S4/14/23/2

17

Glow can be accessed anytime from most web-enabled devices, including most smartphone and tablets.

Specific work to enable 1+2 in Glow A space is being developed in Office 365 for SCILT (titled SCILT Blether) and there are several local authority SharePoint sites set up within Office 365 supporting the national 1+2 development, providing opportunities for practitioners to share and collaborate. A process has been established for external partners to be given guest accounts for Glow with differing levels of access dependent on need; this includes access for schools/pupils/teachers in other countries. Local authorities themselves can provide guests with access in accordance with the process. ICT in Learning Programme

Through the ICT in Learning Programme, Scottish Government and Education Scotland will undertake a range of activities to help ensure that Scottish schools are able to get the best value from technology for learning and teaching.

This work will be supported by the National Digital Learning Forum. Through a series of workshops, themed sessions and communication events, the forum will seek to encourage dialogue and make recommendations about the tools, functions and applications that will make a positive impact on learning. Comprised of a range of stakeholders from across the education and technology communities it will ensure that the continued development and evolution of Glow, as well as other digital technologies for learning, reflects the real needs of learners and teachers.

Language Assistant Programme There is much more interest in using Modern Language Assistants (MLA) and more than half of the authorities indicated their intention to do so. In the current year the numbers of Language Assistants have increased by 45% to 108 (including independent schools – 86 in Local Authority schools). The numbers of English Language Assistants (outgoing) are 290 this year – so the ratio of incoming to outgoing Assistants is now 1 incoming for every 2.6 outgoing. There is clearly a long way to go to establish parity but given the increase this year (due substantially to SG funding) we recommend that we keep this situation under review for a further 12 months. Meanwhile, we will continue to work with the British Council, SCILT and the Cultural Organisations to support and encourage best use of Language Assistants, so as to give Local Authorities confidence about employing them and strong evidence of benefits to be gained. We believe there is potential to do more around sharing what works, providing quality training, and deploying Language Assistants to very best effect. This will give us time to see if the numbers continue to improve with continued funding. In addition the German Educational Trainees (GET) programme (coordinated by SCILT) mentioned in my last update now has 30 trainee language teachers from Germany working in Scottish schools.

EU/S4/14/23/2

18

We will continue to support language development in Scotland and look for opportunities to raise awareness and the value of language learning. This past six months has seen a lot of positive developments. We know now that there are many examples of excellent, innovative language learning in schools and across many Local Authorities but that the challenge is to scale up these successes within local authorities so we can create the conditions to enable all young people to learn two additional languages by 2020. Scottish Government, Learning Directorate Curriculum Unit December 2014

EU/S4/14/23/2

19

Annexe D - Scottish Government’s Transposition of EU Directives To further enable the Committee's consideration of our implementation of European Union legislation, I am writing to update you on the Scottish Government's position in relation to the transposition of EU Directives as of 25 November 2014. The Transposition Report details each Directive implemented in the period from 14 June 2014 to 25 November 2014, as well as the transpositions which are currently in progress as at 25 November 2014. You will note from the Report that the Scottish Government has made three instruments transposing EU Directives since our last Report in June. I trust you find this update both helpful and reassuring in relation to our EU transposition obligations. Fiona Hyslop MSP Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs 8 December 2014

EU/S4/14/23/2

20

Directives transposed during the period from 14 June 2014 to 25 November 2014

EU Directive Transposition Deadline

Transposing SSI Purpose of SSI Lead Minister

Lead Official Dates Comments

Directive 2012/29/EU of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime.

16 November 2015

The Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provision) Order 2014 (SSI 2014 No. 210)

To commence sections 2, 6, 8, 23 and 26 to 29 of the Victim and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014

Cabinet Secretary for Justice

Graham Ackerman

Made on 22 July 2014; Laid in the Scottish Parliament on 24 July 2014; Brought into force on 13 August 2014.

None

EU/S4/14/23/2

21

Directive 2012/27/EU of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC

05 June 2014

The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014 No. 267)

To transpose Article 14(5)-(8) of the Energy Efficiency Directive, and to amend the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 more generally

Minister for the Environment and Climate Change

Rob Morris led on the transposition of Article 14(5) –(8) of this Directive. John McMenemy led on the overall transposition of Directive 2012/27/EU.

Laid in Scottish Parliament on 25 June 2014; Came into force on 30 October 2014.

Together with the other UK Administrations, the Scottish Government missed the 5 June 2014 deadline for transposing Article 14 of this Directive due to a need to ensure close alignment on how the provisions are implemented across the UK and to take full account of the responses to the 12 week Public Consultation launched by the Scottish Government on 22 January 2014. A Ministerial Direction was issued to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to demonstrate transposition and implementation of Article 14(5)-(8) between 5 June and 30 October 2014. Policy Officials gave the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee a clear indication of the timetable throughout the transposition process by means of submissions and the then Minister for the Environment and Climate Change gave evidence on these Regulations to the RACCE Committee on 1 October 2014.

EU/S4/14/23/2

22

Directive 2012/33/EU of 21 November 2012 amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels

18 June 2014

The Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014 No. 258)

To transpose the provisions of the Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels Directive (Directive 2012/33/EU)

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment

Andrew G Taylor

Made on 25 September 2014 and laid before the Scottish Parliament on 29 September 2014. This SSI was brought into force on 13 November 2014.

The delay in transposition was due to a lack of policy and legal resources for taking the work forward earlier.

EU/S4/14/23/2

23

Transposition of new EU Directives in progress as at 25 November 2014

EU Directive Transposition Deadline

Transposing SSI Purpose of SSI Dates Lead Minister

Lead Official

Comments

Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

N/A - The Directive has already been transposed. These Regulations amend designations made under the transposing SSI.

The Designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2014

To amend the designation of areas of land in Scotland as nitrate vulnerable zones, revoke previous designations and update references to the designations in other legislation

TBC

Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform

Ian Speirs None.

Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives

N/A - The Directive has already been transposed. These Regulations amend the transposing SSIs.

Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2014

To amend the Waste Management Regulations 2011 and Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2012 to provide for testing of unsorted recycled waste by the operator of a materials recovery facility and other related matters.

Proposed to be made on 24 February 2015, to be laid in the Scottish Parliament on 27 February 2015 and to come into force on 1 April 2015.


Gabby Pieraccini

None.

Directive 2014/78/EU of 17 June 2014 amending Annexes I, II, III, IV and V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of

30 September 2014

The Plant Health (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2014

To implement various EU measures.

Proposed to be made on 14 January 2015, to be laid on 16 January 2015 and proposed to enter into force on 23 February 2015.

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment

Yvonne Hay

Council Directive 2000/29/EC established the EU Plant Health regime. That Directive is already transposed into Scots law by the Plant Health

EU/S4/14/23/2

24

organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community

(Scotland) Order 2005. The Directive is frequently updated and supplemented by Commission Implementing Directives and Decisions, to take account of new or revised risk assessments, pest interceptions, changes in distribution of tree pests and other developments. These technical updates require amendment to the national legislation and this is done as required but with a view to minimising the overall number of amending instruments, in order to make best use of resources and parliamentary time.

EU/S4/14/23/2

25

Commission Implementing Directive 2014/78/EU is one such update. The changes are technical in nature and will be brought forward in an amending order, alongside other technical amendments from other recent Implementing Directives and Decisions.

Directive 2014/83/EU of 25 June 2014 amending Annexes I, II, III, IV and V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community

30 September 2014

The Plant Health (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Order 2014

To implement various EU measures.

Proposed to be made on 14 January 2015, to be laid on 16 January 2015 and proposed to enter into force on 23 February 2015.

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment

Yvonne Hay

Council Directive 2000/29/EC established the EU Plant Health regime. That Directive is already transposed into Scots law by the Plant Health (Scotland) Order 2005. The Directive is frequently updated and supplemented by Commission

EU/S4/14/23/2

26

Implementing Directives and Decisions, to take account of new or revised risk assessments, pest interceptions, changes in distribution of tree pests and other developments. These technical updates require amendment to the national legislation and this is done as required but with a view to minimising the overall number of amending instruments, in order to make best use of resources and parliamentary time. Commission Implementing Directive 2014/83/EU is one such update. The changes are

EU/S4/14/23/2

27

technical in nature and will be brought forward in an amending order, alongside other technical amendments from other recent Implementing Directives and Decisions.

Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption

N/A - The Directive has already been transposed. These Regulations consolidate and amend the transposing SSI.

The Public Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2014

To consolidate (with modifications) the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 and make new provision in relation to monitoring drinking water abstraction points, risk assessment, offences and incidental provisions.

Laid on 30 October 2014, proposed to be made on 16 December 2014 and proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2015.


Lynne McMinn

None.

EU/S4/14/23/2

28

Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community

N/A - The Directive has already been transposed. This is a consolidating set of Regulations which unites a number of changes made to the transposing legislation in previous years.

The Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2014

To consolidate amendments made to the Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2014 and to increase the level of fees charged to reflect the costs of inspection.

Proposed to be made on 26 November 2014, to be laid on 28 November 2014 and proposed to be brought into force on 15 January 2015.


Romy Strachan

None.

Directive 2011/99/EU of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011

on the European protection order

11 January 2015

The European Protection Order

(Scotland) Regulations 2014

TBC

Laid before the Scottish

Parliament on 26 November

2014 and proposed to

come into force on 11 January

2015.

Cabinet Secretary for

Justice

Graham Ackerman

None.

EU/S4/14/23/3


23rd Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Thursday 11 December 2014

Brussels Bulletin

Introduction

1. The latest Brussels Bulletin – Issue 2014/14 - is attached in annexe. Recommendation 2. The Committee is invited to indicate whether it would like any follow-up actions for any of the items contained in the Brussels Bulletin and to agree to forward it on to relevant committees for their consideration.

Katy Orr Clerk

Issu This Co

Gen

Eco

Tra

Env

Em

Hea

Jus

Reg

ue 2014/14

s issue inc

ontents

neral, Cros

onomy, En

nsport and

vironment,

ployment,

alth and Sp

stice and H

gional Polic

4

cludes new

ss-cutting &

ergy and E

d Infrastruc

Climate, R

Skills and

port ..........

Home Affair

cy .............

ws from 21

& Institutio

Enterprise

cture.........

Rural and F

Education

................

rs .............

................

Novembe

nal Affairs

.................

.................

Fisheries ..

n ................

.................

.................

.................

er 2014 to 4

................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

4 Decemb

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

ber 2014.

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.................

.... 2

.... 2

.... 4

.... 5

.... 6

.... 7

.... 8

.... 9

Ge

AnnOn maiecocoothey The B

b F

t Thesusimpinveadm TheStathe cou

Ec JunOn Inveecothe inveEU it sEur ThebilliandTheinvecon

eneral,

nual Grow28 Novem

in featuresonomic anordination py take. The

e Commiss

Boosting inby progressFiscal respax evasion

e Commisstainable pproving theestment, qministration

e Commisste or GoveAnnual G

untry-speci

conomy

ncker Inve26 Nove

estment Plonomy ove

needs of testment. Tfunds andignificantlyropean Inv

e main straon guaran

d the Conne Commisestment inntributions f

Cross

wth Surveymber 2015s of its newnd budgetprocess, be Commiss

sion recom

nvestment s in energy

ponsibility, n.

ssion alsopensions, e flexibility quality of n.

sion will noernment wi

Growth Survfic recomm

y, Ener

estment Plember, Elan for Eurr the next the real ec

The Plan dod seeks to y more reliestment B

and of the tee from th

necting Eursion estimn the ecofrom Mem

s-cuttin

y 5, the Comw jobs andtary policyy empowesion hopes

mmends tha

through thy and the dwith more

recommemodernisiof producinvestme

ow hold bill adopt ecvey. In Ma

mendations

rgy and

lan European rope. The three year

conomy, anoes not prereduce risiant on priank (EIB)

Plan is a nhe EU budrope Facilit

mates that onomy (i.eber States

ng & In

mmission ad growth ay coordin

ering Membs these cha

at Europea

he new Invdigital econ efficient p

ends thatng social

ct and servnt in rese

ilateral meconomic pray, followins for budge

d Ente

CommissiPlan aims rs, undertand provide esent any k. The Plaivate invesin Europe’

new Europdget – incluty – and a EFSI cou

e. mobilises and natio

stitutio

adopted itsagenda. Thation. Theber Statesanges will

an econom

vestment Pnomy, and public spen

Member protection

vices markearch and

eetings witriorities basng more betary, econ

rprise

on Presidto mobilis

ake targetegreater re“new mon

an is largelystment. Ths economi

pean Fund uding contrcommitme

uld reach e €315 bnal promot

onal Af

s Annual Ghe Survey e 2015 S to take grmean refo

mic and soc

Plan Accelecutting red

nding and

State refn systemskets, the fd innovati

th Membersed on theilateral me

nomic and

dent Jeane €315 bil

ed initiativegulatory pr

ney”, as suy focused

he Plan alsic recovery

for Strategributions frent of €5 ban overal

billion). Thtional bank

ffairs

Growth Sustarts the

Survey aireater resprm is more

cial policy b

erating strd tape. measures

forms focus (includinframework on and t

r States. Ine findings aeetings, thesocial polic

n-Claude lion in inve

es to ensurredictabilitych, but raton infrastrso foreseey.

gic Investmrom the Hobillion from ll multiplie

his impact ks.

rvey, whice Europeanms to st

ponsibility fe fully imple

be focused

uctural ref

t address

us on labg health conditions

he efficien

n March 2and recome Commiscies.

Juncker pestment in re this invey and remother repackructure, sees a greate

ments (EFSorizon 2020the EIB’s

er effect ofcould be

ch outlinesn Semestetreamline for the actemented.

d on:

form, includ

tax fraud

bour marksystems) s for businncy of pu

2015 Headmendationsion will is

presented the Europ

estment meove barrierkages exiseking to mer role for

SI), with a 0 Programown reservf 1:15 in e higher

2

2

the er of

this ions

ding

and

kets, and

ness ublic

s of ns of ssue

an pean eets rs to sting

make r the

€16 mme,

ves. real with

75%covequFunEurfinaandput Thetech“Invcurrits fEur Theinveof t201effo The(moalte ThewhiantiComcon Wh201Howcom LonOn on tTheinveto lofor

% of the Everage, thuuity and send (EIF) foropean Strancial instrd R&D supin place a

e second hnical assvestment Trently examfinal reporropean Co

e third straestment, athe Europe15, expecteorts under t

e Plan furthore accuraernative so

e Europeach includeicipated tommission ansidered in

ile Gross 14 roughly wever, invempared wit

ng term in26 Novemthe Regulae Commissestment in ong-term inretail inves

EFSI’s resus facilitatiecuritisatioor operatioructural andruments, ppport. The

dedicated

strand prosistance thTask Forcmining potert by mid-Duncil Summ

and of thend further ean Commed to be pthe Regula

her emphately descriurces of fin

n Parliamees a comm be ready and the Methe contex

Domestic at the sam

estment inh 2% in the

nvestmentmber, the Eation estabsion first plong-term

nstitutionastments of

sources wng private

on of loansonal impled Investme

particularly Commissi

d monitorin

oposes to hrough an ce” comprientially viaDecembermit on 18-1

e Plan is preinforcing

mission, wpublished oatory Fitne

asises the ibed as fonancing).

ent and Hemitment tofor the EFember Staxt of the m

Product anme level an the UK fee EU.

European blishing a fproposed tprojects s

l investors a minimum

ill go to ininvestmen

s for SMEsmentation.ent Funds in the are

on will prog system t

set up ainvestmen

ised of thable project. Heads o19 Decemb

providing g the Singlhich will bon 16 Decss and Pe

important rthcoming

eads of Sto fast-tracFSI and theates will rev

mid-term rev

nd private as in 2007,ell sharply

Parliamentframeworkthe creatio

such as infsuch as p

m of €10,0

nfrastructunt. The rems and mid. The Planthrough a

eas of SMovide guidato track res

pipeline nt advisorye EIB, thets for EU-le

of State orber.

greater ree Market.

be reflectecember. Inrformance

medium topolicies to

tate or Gok adoption

e advisory view the Pview of the

consumpt, total invein 2008-2

t and Memk for Europon of ELTrastructure

pension fun000. At the

ure projectmaining 25

d-caps, relyn also rec significanE-support

ance to easults.

for projecty “Hub”, toe Commisevel investr Governm

gulatory pBetter regd in the C

n particularProgramm

o long-termo complete

vernment n of relev“Hub” to b

Plan in mide EU budge

tion in the estment wa009; inves

mber Stateean Long-IFs in June. ELTIFs ands and inse fund man

ts, typically5% of the ying on th

commends t increase , energy e

ach Membe

ts at EU-lo be in pssion and tment. The

ment will d

predictabilitulation is o

Commissior, the Com

me (REFIT

m role of the the single

were invitant legisla

begin opera-2016, andet for 2014

EU were as about 1stment is p

governme-Term Invene 2013, aare expectsurers, butnager’s dis

y providingESFI will

he Europeaboosting in the use

efficiency, er State on

level and lace by Juthe Mem

e Task Forciscuss the

ty, removione of the on Work Pmmission w).

e Capital Me market f

ed to endoative measations by md further o4-2020.

in the seco5% below

projected t

ents reachestment Fuas a meanted to appet the final tecretion, re

g greater provide di

an Investmthe impac

e of innovaICT, transn this, and

to strengtune 2015.

mber Statece will pres

e report at

ng barriermain prior

Programmewill step up

Markets Unfor capital

orse the Psures. Thimid-2015. ptions may

ond quartew 2007 figu

o grow by

ed agreemunds (ELTIns of booseal particuext does ademptions

3

3

risk irect

ment ct of ative sport will

then An s is sent the

s to rities e for p its

nion and

Plan, s is The y be

er of ures. 9%

ment Fs).

sting larly

allow s will

be assbec EneAt aViceEurpriofutu T

c C M D F

TheUniEurund CreOn conrevicop On Culcultundthe Com

Tr

TraEU of cAboinverevi

permitted sets. The come EU la

ergy Uniona recent he-Presidenropean Coorities for thure Europe

The need fcoordinatioCompletionModerationDecarbonisFurther inv

ese five buon, with aropean Codertaken du

eative Indu25 Novem

nclusions oiew of the

pyright fram

21 Novemture, and tural heritadervalued,

need for mmmission’s

ranspo

ansport infTransport

conclusionove all, Mestment asiew of the

before theagreemenaw.

n high-level Ent of the Eommissionehe next five

ean Energy

for increason among En of a compn of energysation of thvestment in

uilding blocaffordable, ommission uring the n

ustries mber EU on a Europ2010 Aud

mework.

mber, a discResearch

age for Ewith gove

maximum es recognitio

rt and

frastructut Ministers ns on traninisters cas a key dEurope 20

e end of tt must be

EU EnergyEuropean Cer for Clime years. Thy Union wil

sed securitEU Membepetitive intey demand, he EU enern research

cks, accordsecure awill come

next two ye

Ministers pean audioiovisual M

cussion alsCommitte

Europe. Diernment aiefficiency ion of cultu

Infrast

re met in Brusport infra

alled on thriver of ec

020 strateg

the life-cyce formally

y Policy aCommissiomate Actioheir speecl be based

ty, solidariter States aernal markthrough imrgy mix. and innova

ding to Šefnd sustaine forward ears.

in the Edo-visual poedia Servi

so took plaee on the iscussionsd continuan the sourre as integ

tructur

ussels on 3astructure he Commiconomic ggy.

cle of the endorsed

and Compeon responson and Enches focused:

ty and trusand exploriket, removimproved en

ation.

fčovič, shonable enerwith a str

ducation, Colicy in theces Direct

ace in the CEU’s strat noted, w

ally diminiscing of fun

gral to the E

re

3 Decemband the tssion to crowth and

fund, provby gover

etitivenesssible for Energy Migued on five

st within thng the opting the remnergy effic

ould lead torgy supplyrategy pap

Culture, Ye digital erive, and p

Committeetegy to pr

with conceshing. Memnding, as wEuropean

er and, amtrans-Euroconsider th job creat

vided the rnments a

Conferennergy Unio

uel Arias Cmain prior

he Union –ion of com

maining regiency in th

o the creaty. In the fiper setting

Youth and ra, in the reparation

e of the Reromote an ern, that cmbers of t

well as showeconomy a

mongst othopean tranhe role of tion as pa

fund has nd MEPs

nce in Bruson Maroš Cañete, pity areas o

– including mmon purchgulatory bae EU.

tion of a reirst quarteg out key

Sport Cocontext of s to mode

gions’ Eduintegrated

cultural hethe commiwing appreand identity

er issues, nsport netwf transport rt of its up

enough liqbefore it

ssels the Šefčovič, resented t

on which to

strengthenhasing of garriers.

esilient Eneer of 2015

actions to

ouncil adopf an upcomrnise the E

ucation, Yod approaceritage is ttee endor

eciation fory.

adopted awork (TEN

infrastrucpcoming 2

4

4

quid can

new and their

o the

ning gas.

ergy the

o be

pted ming EU’s

outh, h to still

rsed r the

a set N-T). cture 2015

BasinfrareqNetCorNetthe are Theneefurtto M At twelpacEur ShiThepromarbecinclfishgovRegmonby tinstwhiTheParagr

En

AgrSpeComhis dev

sed on aastructure,uired to cotwork by 2re Networktwork Corrupcomingdue to be

e meeting aed to “blendher encou

Member St

the 3 Decel as adop

ckage”, to aropean Avi

ipping eme Europeaposed Reritime trancome operuding inter

hing vesselvernment gulation, canitoring of the Commtrument, ach is curre

e agreemerliament aneement, w

nvironm

riculture aeaking at mmissione

mandate velopment

analysis o, the Counomplete th

2030. Discuk infrastrucridors and g submissio

presented

also emphd” Europearaged the tates in ord

ember meepting a Geaccelerateation Safe

issions an Parliamgulation o

nsport. Therational asrnational mls, woodenships usealling for tair polluta

mission. Thend will be

ently underent on the nd Council

which is exp

ment, C

and Rural the sixth

er for Agricas a Coas his ke

of individuncil recoghe TEN-T ussion covcture too, the plann

on of the Wd to the Co

asised thean or natioEuropean

der to incen

eting Miniseneral Appe the impleety Agency

ent and thn the mone agreemes of 2018 maritime shn ships of ed for nohe scope

ant NOx, the propose

e reviewedr negotiatioEU MRV Rl. This propected to b

Climate

Developm Knowled

culture andommissioneey priority,

ual Membnised the – with €2

vered the pand the ning of nati

Work Proguncil by th

e importanconal grant f Investmentivise priv

ters also dproach on ementation .

he Councinitoring, reent paves

and will hipping. Exa primitive

on-commeof the law

hough evend Regulati should a

ons at the Regulation

ocess is unbe finalised

e, Rura

ment ge and I

d Rural Deer. He ide, also stre

er StatesCommiss

250bn of inprioritisationeed for aional transrammes foe Commis

ce of otherfunding wint Bank to

vate investm

discussed pthe two pof the Sin

il of the Eeporting an

the way apply to

xemptions we build, shercial purp

to be widntually agron is seenn internatiInternationn still requinlikely to ed in spring

al and F

nnovation evelopmententified foessing the

’ requiremion’s estimnvestment on of Connlignment b

sport infrasor the TENssion on 22

r forms of fth innovati

o provide thment in ma

progress oproposals ngle Europ

EU have rnd verificafor a Eurships abowill be graips not pro

poses. MEened to inreed to man as a stepional agre

nal Maritimires forma

entail furthe2015.

Fisheri

Summit t, Phil Hogstering inn

e need to

ments in mation tha

necessarnecting Eubetween thstrucutre. M

N-T Core N2 Decembe

financing foive financiahe necessajor investm

on the Fouof the “S

pean Sky, a

eached ination (MRVropean MRove 5000 gnted to waopelled by EPs initiaclude ship

aintain the pping stoneement to e Organisal endorsemer change

ies

in Brussegan, outlinenovation iensure th

the field at €500bn ry to compurope Facilhe prioritieMinsters a

Network Coer.

or infrastrual instrumeary technicment proje

rth Railwayingle Euroand amend

formal agV) of CO2RV systemgross tonn

arships, namechanic

lly favourps of 400 Goriginal sce towards cut shippiation (IMOment from s to the s

els, the ned his main agricult

he protect

of transinvestmen

plete the Clity funding

es of the Calso discusorridors, w

ucture, andents. Miniscal assista

ects.

y Packageopean Skyd rules for

reement o emission

m, which isnes (GT), val auxiliar

cal means red a striGT, as wecope propoa global Mng emissio

O), be reachthe Europpecifics of

ew Europin prioritiesure and rion of nat

5

5

sport nt is Core g for Core ssed hich

d the sters ance

e, as y II+ r the

on a s of s to not

ries, and icter ll as

osed MRV ons, hed. pean f the

pean s for rural tural

resoimpandusesuscrea202proecoinno HogDevAgrCAPNovincrDevfarm

Em

GroOn PovSkilrebrefoJea RecTheTralear201of ssignface L A C A

ources, bportance ofd diversify ed for datastainable ruate more a20 programduction, w

osystem seovation.

gan also velopment riculture PoP as a majvember Inreasing mvelopment mers, partic

mploym

owth and e20 Novem

verty and Slls and Labalancing thorm, and Tan-Claude

cognition e Europeaining (CEDrning acros10, Membeschools onificant proed. The re

Low level oAcceptanceCosts and A lack of co

biodiversityf the Ruraeconomic

a collectionural develoand better

mme shouldwhile increaervices an

spoke beCommitte

olicy (CAPjor priority vestment

market orieto encou

cularly you

ment, S

employmember, in a Social Excbour Mobilihe econom

Thyssen noJuncker, a

of Non-Fon CommisDEFOP), ss Europe.er States sr universitoblem, givport highlig

of public awe of validabureaucraoordination

y, landscaal Developm

activity. An and anaopment”, he

jobs in rud focus onasing its cnd public

efore memee on 3 D

P) in contribof 2015, HPlan. CAP

entation, urage inveung farmer

Skills a

ent speech to

clusion, Maity, spelled

mic and sooted that thand the Eur

ormal Leassion, alonhas publis. The repostill face sigty. Inabilityven the skghts key ch

wareness ftion being cy involved

n or a com

pe, soil ment Progn example

alytics in ce said, to hral areas. : increasin

capacity fogoods; an

mbers of Decemberbuting to tHogan noteP could aencouragin

estments inrs.

and Edu

o the 4th Aarianne Thd out her mocial agendhe €315bn ropean So

rning g with theshed an art shows thgnificant cy to demokills-mismahallenges,

for validatiolower thand in validatprehensive

and wategramme, we of this is rop and livhelp the agHogan stag the efficir climate cnd empow

the Euror, where hhe growth ed that CA

accomplishng the mn rural ar

ucation

Annual Cohyssen, Co

mandate forda. This wgrowth an

ocial Fund w

e Europeananalysis ofhat althoug

challenges onstrate sktch and sincluding:

on of skillsn educationting skills be system fo

er. The Cwhich will s

the roll-ouvestock mgri-food seated that aiency, sustchange miwering rura

opean Parhe outlined

and jobs AP can sup

this in nmodernisatreas, and

n

onvention ommissionr a job-rich

will be achiend investmwill be cen

n Centre fof the validgh significain formallykills and ktructural u

s; nal qualificbeing prohor validatio

Commissiostimulate rut of fast br

managemenector maintgricultural tainability aitigation anal areas t

rliament’s d the roleagenda. P

pport the anumerous ion of thimproving

of the Eurer for Emp

h recovery eved by inent packag

ntral engine

or the Devdation of nant progresy recognisknowledge

unemploym

cations; ibitive;

on, meanin

ner also ural areas roadband, nt. “Innovaain comperesearch

and resiliend adaptatto enhanc

Agriculture of the nPledging simbitions oways, suce sector,

g access t

ropean Plaployment, via investm

nvestment ge, announes of this re

velopment non-formalss has beeing skills g

e learned ment proble

ng inefficie

stressed to strengtwhich is to

ation is keetitiveness in the Hornce of primtion; provid

ce support

re and Rnew Commimplificatio

of Juncker’sch as thro

using Rto finance

atform agaSocial Affa

ment, jobs and structnced on 26eform.

of Vocatio and infor

en made sgained outis cited a

ems prese

ncy aboun

6

6

the then o be y to and izon

mary ding t for

Rural mon

on of s 26

ough Rural e for

ainst airs, and tural 6 by

onal rmal ince side

as a ently

nds.

ThesepLeadevinfolearRPLcou DigTherepundrepeHeprareco T

s T M

D

He

HeaOn ach201the Thesho I

Etp

Tib

Is

e Commisparate anaarning (RPveloped sigormal skillsrners are oL learner in

urses to ob

gital healthe eHealth Sort analys

derstandingort encourealth is pactical stepsommendat

The CommstakeholdeThe CommMember StDevelopme

ealth an

alth in Eur1 Decem

hieving the15. The UK

EU, Shan

e discussioould be see

n terms oEuropean hat improparticularlyThe healthncluding abetween 20nvesting insustainabil

sion has alysis for SPL) is linkegnificantly s validationoften theren Scotland

btain their q

h skills Stakeholdesing eSkillg of the issrages the Eart of the s to tackletions:

mission shoers tasked tmission sho

tates shouent.

nd Spo

rope 2020mber, EU He objectivesK was repMorgan.

on was guen as inves

of health, Innovation

oved healty by contribh and sociaa relatively008 and 20n preventiity of publi

also publiScotland. ed to the S

since 201n – includiefore placed may be wqualification

er Group (s in the sues impaEuropean C

curricula eSkills ga

ould coordito map com

ould also euld strength

ort

Health Mins of the Eresented a

ided by anstments pr

the mid-te Partnershth outcombuting to loal care secy high pro011. on and inc finances

ished couThe Scot

Scottish C10, there ang the pered in main

wrongly pern.

an advisorEuropean

acting eSkiCommissioof health

aps in the E

inate effortmmon neensure the ehen efforts

nisters disEurope 202at the Cou

n Italian Poductivity a

erm reviewhip on Acti

mes can honger workctors acco

oportion of

novation s.

ntry reportland repo

Credit and are still barception thnstream prceived as

ry body of healthcar

lls developon and EUcare profeEuropean

ts at EU leeds in eSkilexchange s to include

scussed th20 strategyuncil meeti

Presidency and compe

w of Eurove and He

have on ming lives.

ount for apf high-skill

should be

rts for all rt notes thQualificati

arriers to ghat RPL isrogramme a part-tim

the Europre workforpment, and

U Member Sessionals. healthcare

evel and shlls. of best prae eSkills a

he contribuy, which isng by Dep

text whichetitiveness

ope 2020ealthy Agemeeting t

pproximateed jobs, a

seen as i

EU Memhat althouions Framgreater up

s expensives, which ae learner d

ean Commrce. Aimedd needs inStates to tThe repo

e sector, an

hould set u

actices in tas part of C

ution of ins to undergputy Perma

h notes thas. The text

should bueing and tahe headli

ly 10% of and create

mportant a

ber Statesgh Recogework (SC

ptake of noe. The repalready exdue to thei

mission) had at provin the eHeaake steps

ort providend includes

up a thema

raining andContinuous

nvestmentsgo a mid-tanent Rep

at investmstates that

uild on theake into acne emplo

employmeed 2.8 mil

aspects of

s, includinnition of P

CQF) and on-formalport notes xist, or thar taking of

as publisheiding a bealth sector,to ensure s a seriess the follow

atic networ

d curriculas Professio

s in healthterm reviewpresentativ

ments in het:

e work of ccount the yment tar

ent in the lion new j

f ensuring

7

7

ng a Prior has and that t an few

ed a etter the that s of wing

rk of

. onal

h to w in

ve to

ealth

the role

rget,

EU, jobs

the

T H

f R

sS

In rsuccallintro The202forwThe201 SpoMinconimpmanupo

Minconspo

Ju

GenOn VioConand

There is a cHealth sysfocused apRobust heashould be Specific Re

response tch, the besed for betoduction o

e Italian P20 into a rewarded to te Commiss15 Europea

ort and innnisters at tnclusions oportant drivnufacturingon Member

Promote solutions Facilitate and betteinnovativeExchangeEuropeanprivate pa

nisters alsontribution oort and phy

ustice a

nder Viole25 Novem

lence againsumers ad Gender E

clear link bstem invespproach, foalth indicaintegrated

ecommend

to the textt way forw

tter reflectiof a headlin

residency eport to bethe Europesion intendan Council

novation the 25 No

on sport asver of inng, IT, hear States to

cross-secfor sport. access to

er use of Ee solutionse best pran Commissartnerships

o called oof sport to ysical activ

and Ho

ence mber the Einst Wome

and GendeEquality C

between postments shocusing on tors should

d into Natdations.

, Ministersward is thro

on of the ne target on

of the Coe endorsedean Councds to make Summit.

ovember Es a driver onovation, wlth, food a:

ctor and

o a wider rEU funding

s concerninctice to crsion and ss in sport in

on the Cominnovationity at scho

ome Aff

European en with a per Equalityommittee

oor health hould shift interventiod be deveional Refo

s noted thaough inform

role of hen health w

ouncil will cd by the Gcil Summit e proposals

Education, of innovatiwith signifiand drink,

cross-bord

range of fig program

ng the econreate and sport stakenfrastructu

mmission n and econol age.

fairs

Parliamenplenary deby, Vera Jocalled for

and socialfrom a re

ons that areloped, andorm Progra

at healthcamation andalth in achas not sup

compile thGeneral Aff

of Heads os relating t

Youth, Cion and ecicant “trantourism a

der cluste

nancing fommes (sucnomic aspesupport s

eholders, re projects

to organisnomic grow

nt marked bate attenurova. Memore EU-

l exclusionesource-cee needed td Health Sammes an

are is a M best practhieving thepported.

he results fairs Counof State orto the Euro

Culture andconomic grnsferable ind educat

rs in tec

or the sporh as Horizect of the s

strategic paexplore th

s.

se a high-wth, as we

the Internded by Eu

embers of level actio

. entred appto achieve

Systems Pend taken i

ember Statices exchae Europe 2

of various cil on 16 D

r Governmeope 2020 r

d Sport Corowth. Thennovation”tion sector

hnology t

rt sector, izon 2020 sport sectoartnerships

he possibil

level crosell as disc

ational Dauropean Cothe Parlia

on on gend

proach to results. erformancento accou

ate compeange. Som2020 objec

discussioDecemberent on 18-review bef

ouncil meey noted th” – for exrs. The co

ransfer an

ncluding vor COSM

or. s in sport ity of prom

s-sectoral cussing the

ay for the ommissionment's Wo

der violenc

an outcom

e Assessmunt in Cou

etence andme delegatctives, but

ns on Eurr, before be19 Decemfore the Ma

eting adophat sport isxample in onclusions

nd innova

venture caE) to deve

and, with moting pu

event on e promotio

Eliminationer for Justomen's Rigce, includin

8

8

mes-

ment untry

d, as ions t the

rope eing

mber. arch

pted s an

the call

ative

pital elop

the blic-

the n of

n of tice, ghts ng a

DirecomComMEOrdany

Re

SixOn Socin tovereinaligRecin vwor LasStru EurTheimpAimrepdevEur

ective and mmitment mmission'sPs of exis

der, and say new mea

egiona

xth Cohesi19 Novem

cial and Tethe EU, a

ercoming thnforcing cognment ocommendavarious arerk towards

stly, the neuctural and

rope 2020 e Committeplementatioming to import analyse

velopment,ropean Sem

a Europeto combat

s new strasting legislaid that exsures.

l Policy

ion Repormber, Euroerritorial Coand highlighe impact oherence of Cohesiations. Theeas of imple

an EU Urb

eed for a d Investme

ee of the on of the Eprove the oes key asp such as mester, an

ean Year ating gende

ategy on gation suchxisting effo

y

rt opean Minohesion, pghts the cof the finabetween Cion policyey also undementationban agend

regular dent Funds w

Regions hEurope 202ownership, pects of thincreasing

nd Partners

against Geer violenceender equ

h as the Vorts on gen

nisters discublished in

challenges ancial and Cohesion y with derlined thn, and calle

da, ensurin

debate at was under

has publis20 strategyfocus and

he strategyg regional ship Agree

nder Violee would b

uality, whicVictims' Rignder violen

cussed then July. The

faced by economicPolicy andthe Euro

he importaned on the g that it co

the ministlined.

shed its 5ty over the effectiven

y’s progresdisparities

ements.

ence. Combe reflectech will be ghts Direcnce should

e Commisse report an

national, c crisis. Mind econom

opean sence of knoCommissio

orresponds

terial level

th annual past year,

ness of Eurss. It includs, as well a

missioner ed in a depublished

ctive and td be evalu

sion’s Sixtalyses theregional

nisters stremic governaemester aowledge anon and Mes to the prin

l on the r

Monitoringas seen b

rope’s growdes chapteas on mul

Jourova sedicated cin 2015. S

he Europeuated befo

th Report state of soand local essed the ance, incluand Cound good prember Statnciple of su

results of

g Report, by EU citieswth and jobers on trenlti-level go

stated that chapter in She reminean Protecore introdu

on Econoocial coheauthoritieimportancuding throntry Speractice shates to contiubsidiarity.

the Europ

looking at s and regiob strategy;

nds in regioovernance,

9

9

her the

nded ction cing

mic, sion s in

ce of ough ecific aring inue .

pean

the ons. ; the onal the

10

10

EU/S4/14/23/4

1


23rd Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Thursday 11 December 2014

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - Written evidence

The following written submissions have been received and are attached in annexe—

The Scottish North American Business Council (SNABC)

CBI Scotland

EU/S4/14/23/4

2

Annexe – Written evidence

The Scottish North American Business Council (SNABC) Introduction The Scottish North American Business Council (SNABC), is an affiliate of the British-American Business Council (BABC). The BABC is the largest transatlantic business network, comprising and representing more than 20 chapters, with a collective membership of more than 2,200 companies, based in major business centres throughout North America and the UK. As part of the BABC, the SNABC has been strong supporter of a comprehensive EU-US trade and investment agreement, the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP). We expect TTIP to significantly benefit companies on both sides of the Atlantic, providing a significant boost to both jobs and growth, benefiting Scottish businesses, workers and consumers alike. The negotiations also have positive strategic implications and can contribute to enhancing the international rules-based trading system and thus to raising global prosperity. We want to see the UK at the heart of the policy debate. We see a TTIP-enabled Europe as one much more attractive to companies from both sides of the Atlantic interested in mutual trade and investment. TTIP general benefits The UK is the largest investor in the US and the US is the largest investor in the UK. Both contribute directly to around 2 million jobs in each other’s markets. In 2012, British-American trade was worth almost £364 million a day. Trade barriers between the EU and the US are sometimes referred to as being small, averaging around 3%. However, British companies still pay $1 billion to the US in tariffs every year. For some industries, these tariffs are particularly high. For example, US tariffs on UK sportswear are 32%, for synthetic women’s coats 16%, hotel tableware 28%, and slippers 26%. Tariff elimination between the EU and the US has been estimated cumulatively to be worth 1-3% of each side’s GDP. Even if an as yet undetermined part of that came to be attained, companies would benefit from it. However, it is the regulatory dimension from where 80% of the benefits of the deal are predicted to emanate. What the negotiations should aim to do, in our view, is to find ways of avoiding regulatory duplication and double testing and certification in cases where the EU and the US have compatible standards currently achieved through different means. The aim is to spare companies the added cost of having to comply with regulations that provide the same protection, twice.

EU/S4/14/23/4

3

Such duplication of testing is burdensome for even the largest of companies, but it can make the difference between there being a strong business case or no business case at all for many small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). This is why we believe that TTIP will have a big impact on SME’s capability to expand their business, adding jobs and growth to our local economies. TTIP’s benefits for Scotland Trade with the US already is of great importance to Scotland. 14% of all international exports from Scotland already go to the US. 500 Scottish based companies are US-owned and many use Scotland as a base to access the entire EU market. The US has been ranked among the top two future markets by Scottish exporters TTIP is widely seen as an opportunity to reshape local economies providing economic growth, jobs and prosperity. Exploring the benefits of TTIP for companies, particularly SMEs, in UK regions, has been the major goal of a national roadshow organised by BritishAmerican Business (BAB) – the largest affiliate of the BABC – in the UK. The SNABC has been a strong supporter of this initiative and co-organised two events on 5th November 2013 and 23rd September 2014 in Edinburgh. Further roadshows took place in Glasgow on 1st May, 2013, and 5th March, 2014. The message we took from these events has been clear: while there are plenty of encouraging success stories out there, many companies still face huge obstacles when doing business with the US. The smaller you are, the more these get in the way. For example, we heard from a Renfrewshire-based world leader in the design and manufacture of products that address the needs of vascular and cardiovascular clinicians, that the required approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US makes their products more expensive and the processing time consuming. The Glasgow-based firm LugPlugs™ told us that import duties and customs clearance charges make it expensive for them to import products from the US to the UK needed to manufacture their personal hearing protection delivery system. But even more importantly, these costs apply twice, as the finished products are also exported (back) to the US! TTIP can help to remove these trade barriers. These examples show that as well as setting out the ‘big win’ macro case, we need to break down the benefits to local, specific and tangible opportunities which are valuable to Scots and our companies who want to make more out of the transatlantic channel.

EU/S4/14/23/4

4

TTIP and public concerns It is important to explain the potential benefits that TTIP could have and also to address the concerns raised about the agreement, many of which are due to misinformation. Standards There is a concern that regulation will be dragged down to the lowest standard, and that we will see deregulation. However, both the EU and the US have underlined that harmonization or levelling regulations is not a goal – both sides, from President Obama down have stressed that the outcome of the negotiations should not reduce the level of protection for consumers, workers or the environment. We support effective, proportionate, aligned regulation, and a high quality benchmark agreement which helps secure high standards globally by good example. Investor-State Dispute Settlement Another major contentious issue at the moment is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the TTIP negotiations. ISDS is designed to protect companies’ foreign investments against harmful or illegal rulings in the countries where they operate. It provides protection against discrimination, expropriation, unfair and non-equitable treatment and restrictions on transfer of capital. ISDS means resolving disputes about breaches of such protection. Since 1975 the UK has negotiated 94 Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), almost all of which include ISDS provisions. It is important to note that UK investors have brought at least 43 ISDS claims to protect their investments. No ISDS challenge had ever succeeded against the UK. More importantly, ISDS cannot repeal or reverse legislation or require a change in government policy, as it is currently discussed in regards to the NHS (see below). Information about the ISDS mechanism is openly available. The European Commission has done an open consultation on the topic. We expect a response from the Commission to the 150,000 submissions to the consultation later this year. We are in favour of ISDS content for TTIP. Investment protection plays a strong role in building the confidence that underpins international investments and the trade that depends on them, benefiting producers and consumers alike and supporting job creation and growth. Therefore, investment treaty arbitration and improved provisions for an ISDS mechanism should be a central component of the investment chapter so that the very few disputes that arise can be resolved in depoliticised, transparent proceedings. NHS One topic that has particularly characterised the debate in the UK is TTIP’s potential impact on the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). Against all

EU/S4/14/23/4

5

current concerns that TTIP will undermine British providers of public services, there is no wording that suggests a liberalisation of the NHS under TTIP. More importantly, ISDS does not determine whether public services or government procurements are subject to litigation, which is the remit of the investment commitments themselves. The provision of public services is recognized as an important public function on both sides of the Atlantic, and there is no goal that we have seen stated or even implied to undermine such services, nor to negotiate more alignment. A recent briefing by the NHS European Office stated that both the EU as the whole and individual member states can specify in the agreement areas where they reserve the right to adopt or maintain measures in respect of particular services, such as the provision of health services that receive public funding or state support. Transparency The negotiations for TTIP are taking place under a mandate approved by the British Government and the other 27 member states of the European Union. There is already a vast amount of information publicly available on the European Commission’s website – including negotiating positions in a number of areas and the full reports from each negotiating round. Emphasizing the European Commission’s commitment to transparency in the negotiation process, the Council of the EU published the negotiating directives for talks on a EU-US trade agreement. Further publications are planned as part of the new Commission’s overall priority to improve transparency. We welcome the EU’s initiatives to enhance transparency and as far as we are concerned, the ongoing TTIP negotiations are admirably transparent and open to public comment and input. Numerous public, open and well attended stakeholder meetings have taken place in Brussels, Washington D.C., and across European member states. Conclusion The roadshow series on TTIP, however, reveals that a lot more needs to be done to show the specific, local, tangible benefits that TTIP can have for companies in the UK. We look forward to working with our colleagues from BAB in London and other stakeholders to contribute to the debate to make a good case for TTIP helping Scotland. 3rd December 2014

EU/S4/14/23/4

6

CBI Scotland

INTRODUCTION 1. The CBI strongly supports the negotiations for a ‘Transatlantic Trade

and Investment Partnership’ between the European Union and the United States, officially launched at the G8 Summit in June 2013 in the United Kingdom. It is important that political support for TTIP remains high as we move into a more advanced phase of negotiations in 2015.

2. The US is an extremely important trading partner for the UK, responsible for 17.1% of our total exports of goods and services in 20121. Moreover, the US is a crucial investment destination for UK businesses, with the UK holding more investment in the US than any other country in the world, $487 billion at the end of 2012 – substantially more than the next foreign investors including Japan, Netherlands and Canada, and 18% of the total $2.7 trillion of FDI in the US2. This is a reciprocal relationship as US businesses have invested more in the UK than anywhere else, with the US responsible for 24.6% of all inward FDI to the UK in the period from 2002 to 2011.

3. The trade and investment relationship between the UK and US is already functioning relatively well, but it is by no means complete. Businesses continue to face a variety of barriers and costs that could be avoided, many of which are attributable to regulatory divergences. An historic EU-US trade deal would open up new opportunities for business, delivering growth and jobs without any additional public expenditure.

1 Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom Balance of Payments – The Pink Book 2013

2 CBI report July 2014, Sterling assets 6 – British investment creating U.S. jobs

To tackle those trade and investment barriers that are of most importance to UK business, the CBI supports a comprehensive agreement that includes ambitious commitments to:

Eliminate tariffs Liberalise trade in services Improve access to US public procurement contracts Reduce any remaining barriers to foreign direct investment, with

provisions on access and protection. Reduce current non-tariff barriers to trade in key sectors upon

entry into force of the agreement Prevent new non-tariff barriers to trade from arising in the future Simplify customs rules and administrative procedures to facilitate

trade

EU/S4/14/23/4

7

4. Independent studies have projected that EU exports to the US would increase by 28% each year as a result of an ambitious trade and investment agreement, and that the UK economy could be given a boost of £10 billion each year34. To achieve these results, negotiators must come to the table with an ambitious mind-set, ensuring that solutions to difficult topics are found during the talks. We would like to stress the importance of a swift and successful conclusion to the TTIP negotiations.

5. The TTIP negotiations not only provide an opportunity to directly boost bilateral trade flows between the UK and US upon entry into force of an ambitious agreement, but also to help set global rules, norms and standards that can be conducive to global trade and investment in the long term. For example, in the wake of continued concerns about the enforcement of intellectual property rights in key markets, the EU and US should work to develop joint approaches on key global IPR challenges within the remit of the TTIP negotiations.

CBI priorities in detail: A) MARKET ACCESS - GOODS Eliminating tariffs and establishing clear rules of origin 6. According to WTO data, the EU and US apply low tariffs on goods, with

simple average MFN tariff rates of 5.2% and 3.5%, and a trade-weighted average tariff of between 2% and 3% for EU exports to and imports from the US.5 However, given the sheer size of the trade flows between the UK and US, as well as the rising amount of intra-firm trade, the UK economy will significantly gain if all remaining tariffs are eliminated. Some companies are forced to shell out millions, tens of millions, and even hundreds of millions of pounds and dollars to customs authorities each year, which hurts consumers and diverts revenue away from much needed investment. High tariff costs affect UK companies exporting to the US as well as companies that source parts and components from the US.

7. As is the case for all other EU FTAs, tariff elimination on a zero-for-zero basis upon entry into force of the agreement should be the level of ambition. Any exemptions from this rule, such as the insertion of phase-out periods or partial tariff liberalisation, should be reserved for the most sensitive products only. The CBI expects all industrial tariffs to be removed upon entry into force of the agreement, and appreciates that some agricultural tariffs will be more sensitive due to the higher level of duty currently applied.

3 Centre for Economic Policy Research, Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment ‐ An Economic Assessment, March 2013. 4 Centre for Economic Policy Research, Estimating the Economic Impact on the UK of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement between the European Union and the United States, March 2013 5 WTO online statistics database, tariff profiles for European Union and United States

EU/S4/14/23/4

8

8. Rules of origin criteria should be clear for exporters to understand, notably

avoiding the use of any traced value/list schemes that apply to the automotive sector under NAFTA. It is essential that rules of origin are as simple as possible for exporters to understand; otherwise there is a risk that opportunities for companies to benefit from the elimination of tariffs will be foregone due to the incorrect classification of originating or non-originating goods.

B) MARKET ACCESS – SERVICES AND INVESTMENT Liberalising trade in services 9. Services are highly important in the context of transatlantic trade, and the

US and UK are the world’s top two exporters of commercial services.6 The CBI would strongly welcome horizontal commitments from the EU and US to bind existing levels of liberalisation and to grant improved market access and national treatment in all four modes of delivery, with the scope of commitments covering all services sectors.

10. State-level barriers to trade in services are particularly important to clarify and address. Just like the EU, the US is not a harmonised internal market for trade in services. As a first step, the CBI supports detailed clarifications of the barriers that apply at state-level, which are particularly prevalent in highly regulated fields such as professional services and financial services. There should be full transparency of all regulated professions and restrictions that apply at state level, going beyond indicative measures or general principles.

11. On mode 4, UK citizens with e-passports currently do not require visas when travelling to the US under 90 days due to the Visa Waiver Program, which is important given the high degree of regular business travel between the UK and US. However, for the temporary movement of persons over a longer term, problems have been reported relating to the predictability of the US visa regime. Given the importance of labour mobility for services trade, we support measures to reduce burdens and uncertainty for employers when visas are required for longer-term stays in the US.

Sector specific market access issues

12. Sector specific market access priorities identified by the CBI for the

services and investment negotiations include:

6 WTO International Trade Statistics 2012

EU/S4/14/23/4

9

Removal of ownership and control restrictions for foreign investment in US airlines (following the 2007 Open Skies agreement, a 25% cap still applies in the US compared to a 49% cap in the EU).

Authorisation for EU commercial vessels to transport merchandise between US ports (currently vessels are required to be built, owned, operated and manned by U.S. citizens and registered under the U.S. flag).

Address lack of wholesale market access for competitors in US electronic communications sector, ensuring competitors have access to broadband networks and business access services at non-discriminatory, transparent and cost-based rates.

Removal of discriminatory collateral requirements in the re-insurance sector.

Reduced barriers for the professional services sector (e.g. allowing UK qualified professionals to take relevant US exams regardless of route to qualification in sectors like accountancy and legal services).

Removal of nationality restrictions on ownership in accountancy and banking sectors.

Investment – increasing access and protection

13. Transatlantic investment flows are essential in achieving deep economic integration which explains the high degree of intra-firm trade between the UK and US. The CBI welcomes the shared EU-US principles on international investment that have emerged from the TEC process. The TTIP should promote the free transfer of capital, a level playing field for foreign and domestic companies, and protection for investors and their investments.

14. On investment protection and the specific issue of investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), the CBI supports the insertion of bilateral investment treaty provisions into the agreement, under the condition that commitments by both parties are consistent with the high levels of protection afforded in standard UK BITs to date. The objective should be to provide legal certainty that investments in the US cannot be discriminated against on grounds of nationality.

C) MARKET ACCESS – PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 15. The EU should look to open up US public procurement contracts to the

highest degree possible, going beyond GPA commitments in terms of coverage and lowering existing thresholds due to the imbalance between EU and US commitments under the GPA. The agreement should include

EU/S4/14/23/4

10

binding transparency rules for award process and national treatment, as well as clear criteria and deadlines in the selection and decision-making process.

16. Currently, ‘Buy America’ provisions prevent UK firms from being able to compete for US contracts due to local content requirements, whereas the UK market is considered one of the most open in the world, and no local content requirements are applied. The negotiations should seek to ensure that ‘Buy National’ criteria no longer exclude EU companies from competing for contracts. If these restrictions cannot be fully removed at state level, solutions should be reached to achieve a lowered and consistent percentage of local content requirements among the different states to prevent states from pushing forward with ‘Buy National’ legislation.

17. Without improved market access conditions in some sectors, benefits in

public procurement will remain limited only to those sectors that are able to fully operate on both sides of the Atlantic. The CBI encourages negotiators to look specifically at NTBs in those sectors that are particularly relevant for the public procurement market.

18. Additional priorities raised by CBI members at the sector level include: Removing restrictions on the sale of any textile product into the US

for military use, including for mixed materials (Berry Amendment) ‘Buy American’ provisions for High Speed Rail Projects and Transit

Rail Projects that benefit from FRA and FTA funding respectively. State laws that impose contracting preference provisions with

higher domestic content requirements than those set forth in the federal law (e.g. the Stronger Transportation ‘Buy American’ requirements in California).

D) REGULATORY CONVERGENCE AND NON-TARIFF BARRIERS Reducing current non-tariff barriers to trade in key sectors is the top priority for the CBI in the negotiations

19. The TTIP negotiations must take the work that has been done by TEC

much further, and should bind in results. Making sure that regulatory agencies are on-board and fully engaged in the negotiations is absolutely essential to reduce the burden of regulation that is frequently seen as the biggest single barrier to transatlantic trade. Regulators must formally recognise compatible and functionally equivalent approaches to approving products and services in their respective markets.

EU/S4/14/23/4

11

20. Full regulatory harmonisation for most sectors will not be realistically achievable within the ambitious timeframe that has been set for the negotiations, and this applies to both trade in goods and services. As a result, EU negotiators should strive for as many economically meaningful mutual recognition agreements as possible, and to limit any discriminatory regulatory requirements that currently apply to cross-border trade and investment. The most important benchmark of success for the TTIP will be the extent to which new regulatory commitments can be delivered that make a practical difference to businesses on the ground, as opposed to solely focusing on future regulatory co-operation and compatibility, although this is also important. The TTIP also needs to ensure that regulatory commitments that are taken are fully implemented and held to account.

21. There is a strong sectoral dimension to the regulatory aspect of the negotiations. Counterpart regulatory agencies and standards bodies must work in conjunction with the relevant industry associations for each sector to ensure that costly and unnecessary duplicate testing procedures and regulatory divergence are avoided wherever possible. In some sectors, establishing stronger mechanisms for cross-border co-operation and consistency when designing or updating regulations is an important stepping stone to future regulatory convergence. The level of co-operation and industry engagement needs to intensify as we move into a more advanced phase of the negotiations in 2014.

22. The CBI has so far identified the following sectors and regulatory issues

for prioritisation:

Automotive 23. While the compliance procedures are fundamentally different (Type

Approval in EU; self-compliance in US), motor vehicles that are safe to drive in one market should be considered safe to drive in the other. For key safety and environmental standards, there is currently duplication between the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 1958 Agreement applied in the EU and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards (FMVSS) applied in the US, which increases the complexity of product development, leading to increased compliance costs.

24. Proposals have been put forward by sectoral industry bodies in the EU and US to counter this situation, focusing on introducing mutual recognition agreements for key safety standards, and confirming equivalence for these standards. The TTIP negotiations should build and deliver on these proposals, making sure that meaningful commitments

EU/S4/14/23/4

12

take effect on current barriers to trade. Furthermore, following the signature by both the EU and US on the 1998 Agreement, both partners should commit to adopt global technical regulations (GTRs), of which 11 currently exist on safety and environmental standards with others in the pipeline.

25. Concerns have also been raised relating to divergent emissions standards between different US states, and support has been highlighted for the re-entry of the US into the WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light-Duty Test Procedure) process given the importance of establishing a global test procedure to measure light vehicle emissions and energy consumption.

26. On future regulations and standards for the sector, the EU and US should agree to consult each other before introducing new technical legislation, and should create a process with the objective of harmonising divergent regulations (UNECE 1958 Agreement and FMVSS standards) leading to common future standards.

Chemicals

27. Sectoral industry bodies in the EU and US have presented joint

recommendations on regulatory co-operation measures, stressing the importance to the sector of increased consultation and co-operation by regulators when adopting new chemicals regulations. This is seen as an important transitional step towards developing comparable chemical regulations thereby allowing mutual recognition to be applied, in a context whereby there may not be much scope to harmonise or amalgamate the main EU and US chemicals regulations (REACH and TCSA).

28. Within this context, priorities include: systematic data and information sharing between EU and US

regulators; increased co-operation on the processes to prioritise and align

chemical substances for review and evaluation, including classification;

common regulatory principles on how hazards and risks are characterised;

mandatory and improved transparency of information and rules to protect commercial and proprietary interests;

a mandatory transatlantic cross-border consultation process when drafting new chemical regulations to avoid future regulatory divergence.

EU/S4/14/23/4

13

29. New areas for regulatory activities like nanotechnology and endocrine disruptors provide more potential for regulatory convergence by defining common standards on criteria and common methodological approaches, which in the long-term could possibly be extended to other global trading partners.

Cosmetics

30. Divergent classifications of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients between the EU and US create an unnecessary regulatory barrier to trade, and the CBI supports mutual recognition of classifications (e.g. for toothpaste, anti-dandruff, anti-perspirant) and of positive list materials (e.g. UV filters). There should also be mutual recognition of labelling requirements in cosmetics and sunscreens, and the INCI naming system for cosmetic ingredients should be adopted by the US.

Financial Services 31. Regulatory divergence between the EU and US presents the most

pressing trade barrier for the UK financial services sector. Despite the existence of the EU-US Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue, the CBI is concerned that key rules set at the global level are being implemented by the EU and US in divergent ways, and hence we fully support the inclusion of the financial services sector within the negotiations on regulatory convergence. Inclusion of financial services is not about giving either party a loss of sovereignty over prudential frameworks, but about working with the other party towards the broad convergence of regulatory outcomes. Sub-federal regulators need to be incorporated within the process, given that key regulations are devised at this level, particularly for insurance.

32. As part of TTIP, negotiators should look at barriers created by the extra-territorial application of rules which may make it difficult for financial services providers to supply their products. For example, further co-operation and clarity on derivatives regulation is essential to prevent the extra-territorial application of rules by either party, and to ensure that EU and US regulatory approaches are compatible.

Food and drink 33. Divergent technical standards and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules

are longstanding barriers to EU and US agri-food trade, with significant differences in policy in areas such as food safety, biotechnology, hormone growth enhancers, pathogen reduction treatments and import procedures. There is a clear opportunity to discuss pragmatic solutions to these barriers, with the agriculture and food and drink industry in the UK

EU/S4/14/23/4

14

supporting the implementation of SPS rules in accordance with the science based approach.

34. As well as being a key market for UK exports, the US is also a source of

agricultural raw materials used in EU manufacturing. The EU and US combined represent a third of global trade in food and drink manufacturing and an ambitious deal would afford significant benefits in terms of food security for consumers and security of supply for manufacturers. A major barrier to achieving this is the diverging outlook on food safety between the EU and US. Negotiators should seek to ensure a mutual recognition agreement on technical standards relevant to foodstuffs and an equivalence agreement on internal inspections.

Information and Communication Technologies 35. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have experienced a

radical transformation in the last decade with the development of the Internet as a common platform where convergent voice, data and video services are provided by a range of actors, not all subject to the same legacy regulations. A holistic vision with a common understanding of the ICTs ecosystem should be an objective for the EU and US which should be reflected in the TTIP, to ensure a level playing field among all actors involved in the provision of ICT services. As competitive dynamics change with the entrance of new players, the goal of ensuring open markets for ICT services across the Atlantic should come in parallel with a more flexible approach towards the provision of telecommunications services and healthy competition.

Medical devices 36. Negotiators should address divergences in regulatory procedures between

the EU and US which will help speed up patient access to new medical devices and avoid duplicate regulatory requirements for companies.

37. Within this context, priorities for TTIP include: acceptance of successful ISO 13845 audits performed in both the

EU and US as the basis for the respective regulatory procedures; harmonisation of the technical documentation that provides

evidence of demonstrating quality system compliance (based on the results achieved by the ‘Global Harmonization Task Force’, now the International Medical Device Regulators Forum);

the development of a single model for a medical device marketing application with electronic submission capabilities.

EU/S4/14/23/4

15

38. In the long term, the EU and US should work to promote and accept a globally harmonised solution for a Global Unique Device Identification and associated databases for medical devices.

Pharmaceuticals 39. Proposals have been put forward by sectoral bodies to boost regulatory

convergence in the pharmaceuticals sector, where the existence of duplicate regulatory requirements is a particularly costly barrier to cross-border trade. In particular, the CBI supports a mutual recognition agreement in the field of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspections for finished drug products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), which would give a clear boost to EU-US trade. Other priorities to be addressed include variations in the regulatory assessment of ‘changes’ in the manufacture and control of APIs, as well as divergent requirements for pharmacopeia (medical explanations for drug use) that do not reflect the globalised nature of the industry.

Transport 40. Issues have been raised relating to difficulties faced by companies in

accessing the light rail sector in the US because of diverging standards. European and international norms (IEC) differ from US standards (ANSI) and are not recognised by the US certification agencies. The EU and US should improve co-operation when developing new technological standards.

E) TRADE FACILITATION The TTIP should simplify customs rules and administrative procedures to facilitate trade 41. In 2012, the EU and US achieved a landmark agreement to mutually

recognise AEO and C-TPAT trusted traders. This should be locked into the TTIP agreement with commitments to fully monitor and implement it, including clear benefits and incentives to certified operators, such as automatic known consignor status for cargo security, fast track processing through customs, permission to provide required documentation post-release, and an incentive structure of fewer inspections and validations for fully compliant traders.

42. In addition, the EU and US should:

EU/S4/14/23/4

16

work together to establish account-based customs processing for trusted traders, as opposed to transaction-based collection of customs duties;

create greater incentives for SMEs to take advantage of trusted trader programmes;

eliminate and harmonise ‘pre shipment’ notifications and reporting requirements (Entry Summary Declarations in the EU and Importer Security Filings in the US).

build the WCO Guidelines for the Immediate Release of Consignments by Customs into the TTIP agreement to ensure that goods traded between the EU and US are released immediately provided that all the conditions laid down by customs are met and the necessary information required by national legislation is communicated at a stipulated time before the consignments arrive.

43. On air cargo security, the CBI welcomes the June 2012 Air Cargo Security Agreement between the EU and US, and provisions should now be strengthened through steps to harmonise air cargo security regulations based on the new International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 17 framework. In addition, the CBI recommends the use of the U.S. Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) program as a basis for EU-US cooperation on the use of advance data risk assessment.

44. Other issues to look into include the fact that the “de minimis” value threshold for the imposition of duties and customs requirements is lower in the EU than it is in the US. Reaching a common threshold would be to the benefit of both economies, particularly for SMEs who suffer from the additional financial and administrative burden imposed by low and differing de minimis value thresholds.

December 2014

About the CBI: Across the UK, the CBI speaks on behalf of 190,000 businesses of all sizes and sectors which together employ nearly 7 million people, about one third of the private sector-employed workforce. With offices in the UK as well as representation in Brussels, Washington, Beijing and Delhi, the CBI communicates the British business voice around the world.

EU/S4/14/23/5

Scottish Parliament Information Centre logo

THE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP

Background

This paper provides background on the process and negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which is a trade agreement that is being negotiated between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US). TTIP aims to remove trade barriers in a wide range of economic sectors to make it easier to buy and sell goods and services between the EU and the US.

According to the European Commission:

“On top of cutting tariffs across all sectors, the EU and the US want to tackle barriers behind the customs border – such as differences in technical regulations, standards and approval procedures. These often cost unnecessary time and money for companies who want to sell their products on both markets. For example, when a car is approved as safe in the EU, it has to undergo a new approval procedure in the US even though the safety standards are similar.”1

According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative:

“The main aims of the partnership are to increase trade and investment between the US and EU by reducing tariffs (particularly on agricultural products), aligning regulations and standards, improving protection for overseas investors, and increasing access to services and government procurement markets by foreign providers.”2

Context3

Negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States of America began in July 2013.

In trade policy, the European Commission negotiates on behalf of the EU and its 28 Member States: The Commission, led by the EU Trade Commissioner (now Cecilia Malmström), will represent the EU at the negotiating table. The Commission will negotiate on the basis of guidelines agreed by the Council, where the governments of all EU Member States are represented. The Commission's Trade Directorate General will take the lead. It will work closely with other Commission departments, especially those dealing with the areas that will be the main focus of the negotiations.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/ 2 Office of the United States Trade Representative - Fact Sheet: United States to Negotiate Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union 3 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/questions-and-answers/

2

For the US, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will be the main negotiator.

The Negotiation Process

During the negotiations of a trade deal, the European Commission is required to keep the EU’s Member States and the European Parliament informed about progress. The European Commission has provided background information explaining how this is done for all trade deals it negotiates:

“The European Commission negotiates on behalf of the EU according to instructions from EU Member State governments in the Council and regularly informs the Council and the Parliament of how the negotiations are going. After each negotiation round and at other key points in the negotiations the Council and the European Parliament are simultaneously informed about the state of play. The Trade Policy Committee continues as the main forum for dialogue between the negotiators and the representatives of Member States. The Commission is also always available to answer any questions from MEPs or to attend the meetings of MEPs involved in the International Trade Committee (“INTA”). Discussion takes place regularly with Council and with the Parliament at working level, but it may also be raised periodically at Ministers level or in plenary debates.

The Commission also updates civil society in regular meetings to explain how the negotiations are progressing. The negotiations and their texts are not themselves public. This is entirely normal for trade negotiations, not just those involving the EU.”4

The Negotiating Mandate5

The Council of Ministers met on 14 June 2013 to agree a negotiating mandate for the European Commission.6 The Commission’s negotiators are also being guided by position papers covering particular areas (e.g. regulation) and sectors (e.g. raw materials and energy).7

Unusually for trade negotiations, and following significant pressure on the European Commission the negotiating mandate was made public in October 2014. It can be downloaded at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf

The Negotiations

The European Union and United States negotiating teams have now met for seven rounds of negotiations, the most recent round taking place in the United States at the start of October 2014. A report on the 7th round of negotiations is available to download at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/october/tradoc_152859.pdf

Consultations

During the negotiation process, the European Commission has announced online public consultations on the inclusion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement8 mechanism in any

4 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/june/tradoc_151381.pdf 5 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-564_en.htm 6 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=917 7 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/resources/ 8 ISDS is a form of resolution of disputes between foreign investors and the State that hosts their investment. ISDS allows foreign investors to initiate dispute settlement proceedings against a host State.

3

deal and an SME survey to collect information regarding the trade barriers currently faced by European industries and individual companies when doing business with the US. The Investor State Dispute Settlement consultation took place between March and July 2014 and the SME survey began in August and will last until 15 December 2014.

The New European Commission

During the debate about the next European Commission President, and the subsequent European Parliamentary hearings on the composition of the new European Commission, TTIP was a policy area which was widely covered.

The new European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker highlighted reaching a reasonable and balanced trade deal with the United States as one of his ten policy priorities.

The new Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström addressed the issue of TTIP during her confirmation hearing in the European Parliament. She said:

“If there is an area where the next Trade Commissioner will need to be particularly vigilant, it is TTIP—it is our most demanding negotiations and is certainly the most debated by the public.”9

She pledged greater transparency whilst maintaining the confidentiality needed in trade negotiations. On the substance of any deal, she said she was convinced that a common approach to health, environment, labour consumer safety and financial risks can be found but stressed that “It cannot be about lowering standards, but about avoiding extra costs – the costs entailed for example in the duplication of factory inspections and unnecessary divergences of approach”.

In a speech delivered in Brussels on 18 November 2014, Cecilia Malmström pledged that any agreement would protect public services across the European Union in the same way that previous trade deals had done;

“As regards public services, caution means following the EU's standard approach to public services in trade agreements.

Because no EU trade agreement that follows that approach has ever stopped a Member State from organising its health or education system in the way it chooses.”10

Ratification

Once the negotiators have come up with an agreement, it will be the Council, together with the European Parliament, which will examine and approve or reject the final agreement. Ahead of this, the Commission will publish the draft text of the agreement stimulating a public debate about the proposed deal. According to the European Commission:

“Members of the public have several months to form an opinion regarding the outcome of the negotiations and influence the decision of the European Parliament and the Council in a democratic process. After all, no agreement can be applied

9 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/eu-trade-candidate-plays-transparency-card-gets-timid-applause-308793 10 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-1921_en.htm

4

without a “yes” from the Member States’ governments and from the Members of the European Parliament.”11

In addition, the House of Commons Library also suggests that member state ratification may also be likely:

“Because it is likely to contain elements that fall outside of EU competence, the agreement will also have to be separately ratified by the national parliaments of each of the EU Member States before it formally enters force. In the UK, this is done through secondary legislation; specifically, a draft Order in Council laid in Parliament, and approved by both the Commons and Lords (under the affirmative procedure), and then by the Privy Council. Under ‘provisional application’ procedures, however, if Member States agree to it (via the Council), parts of the agreement can enter force before it is ratified by national parliaments.

Any changes to EU laws, rules or regulations resulting from the Agreement would have to be separately approved by the EU's Member States in the Council, and by the European Parliament.”12

On the US side, the US Congress will be required to approve any agreement.

The negotiations will continue into, and possibly beyond 2015, though both sides have said they are keen to avoid the negotiations lasting several years.

As engagement with Foreign Affairs including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Union (and their institutions) and other international organisations, and regulation of international trade are reserved under Schedule V of the Scotland Act13, neither the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government has a direct role to play in the negotiations or subsequent ratification of the TTIP.

The United Kingdom Government’s Position

The United Kingdom Government has expressed support for a TTIP agreement and emphasised the potential economic benefits it believes could be achieved from any deal. In particular the UK Government has emphasised the outcome of the research it commissioned from the Centre for Economic Policy Research14 which suggested that there could be significant gains. The report stated that:

“In the long run, UK national income could rise by between £4 billion and £10 billion annually, with the main gains being generated by the liberalisation of non-tariff barriers.”15

In response to public concerns about TTIP, Vince Cable, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills wrote to MPs on 22 September 2014.16 In his letter Mr

11 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/june/tradoc_151381.pdf 12 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN06688/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip 13 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5 14 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/198115/bis-13-869-economic-impact-on-uk-of-tranatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-between-eu-and-us.pdf 15 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-and-investment-agreement-between-eu-and-usa-estimated-impact-on-uk 16 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360261/bis-_14-_1109-Vince-Cable-letter-dated-22-September-2014-to-All-MPs-TTIP.pdf

5

Cable reiterated the UK Government’s view about the economic benefits that TTIP would bring and stated that for individuals this would mean “more jobs and reduced prices and more choice for goods and services”.

Addressing the concerns of some campaign groups who have suggested that TTIP could water down regulatory standards and environmental and labour protections, or force the privatisation of public services, the Secretary of State wrote that this was “simply not the case”. He explained:

“Although TTIP is ground-breaking in its focus on aligning regulations, mainly through mutual recognition, this is with a view to maintaining high standards, and therefore helping US and EU companies compete with global competitors. Both the EU and US have committed to maintaining standards at the highest levels, and the EU will retain the right to set regulatory standards that are higher than internationally agreed minima, for example in food. Neither negotiating side is looking to lower standards through the TTIP process. We have not authorised the EU to agree to anything in TTIP that would do that.”

On the specific issue of the National Health Service, the Secretary of State wrote:

“There is a particular concern about the potential impact on the NHS. This is misplaced. There is no requirement in TTIP for the Government, or future governments, to open NHS healthcare services to further competition and private sector provision. The Government, and the European Commission, have been clear that the right to decide on the provision of public services will - quite rightly - continue to remain with national governments regardless of the progress of TTIP. And there will be no change to the fundamental principle that access to NHS services is based on need, not ability to pay.”

Finally, on the issue of Investor State Dispute Settlement, the Secretary of State wrote that:

“To be clear, investment protection and ISDS provisions will not prevent the UK from taking regulatory action to protect the public or the environment, nor will they force the government to change laws, open markets or privatise public services, including the NHS. These provisions – and the UK already has over 90 bilateral investment treaties in place - provide protection to investors from overseas from unfair treatment or discrimination on nationality grounds, as already occurs within the EU.”

The Scottish Government’s Position

Like the UK Government, the Scottish Government has emphasised the potential benefits of TTIP. In a letter to the Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee on 5 August 2014, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth wrote;

“The Scottish Government believes that TTIP could deliver significant economic benefits for Scotland and has been engaging with the UK Government to maximise

6

the benefits of TTIP for Scotland and to ensure that concerns about TTIP are addressed.”17

The Cabinet Secretary also stated that the Scottish Government were looking for assurances from the UK Government that TTIP would not affect the Scottish Government's ability to determine how NHS services are provided and that there will be no obligation to open the NHS in Scotland to private providers and that decisions of the Scottish Government in respect of the NHS would not be open to potential challenge through ISDS mechanisms.

Finally, the Cabinet Secretary addressed a number of other areas which campaign groups have voiced concerns over including the transparency of negotiations and the Investor State Dispute Settlement:

“More broadly, the Scottish Government is aware of concerns about issues such as the transparency of negotiations; Investor State Dispute Settlement and a potential lowering of consumer and environmental standards. We welcome the steps the European Commission is taking to address these concerns such as publishing negotiating positions and consulting on ISDS and note that in his statement to the European Parliament on 15 July, the President of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, stated that a trade deal between the US and the EU would be a central part of his programme but stressed that any deal will not "sacrifice Europe's safety, health, social and data protection standards or our cultural diversity on the altar of free trade".”

On 19 November 2014, the former Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing answered a Parliamentary Question about the implications of the TTIP on the potential privatisation of the NHS. The question from Cameron Buchanan MSP and the answer are reproduced below:

Cameron Buchanan (Lothian) (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party): To ask the Scottish Government whether it accepts the European Commission Director General for Trade’s statement that "the net effect of the EU’s approach is that nothing in TTIP [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership] will lead to privatisation of the NHS". (S4O-3717) Alex Neil: I welcome the director general’s statement. However, there needs to be much greater transparency in the TTIP negotiations and until the Scottish Government and the public see the final legal text of any agreement we cannot be fully assured that such statements hold weight. We remain concerned that TTIP may threaten the public ownership of the NHS and could undermine the democratic decisions of the Scottish people. That is why the First Minister has written to the Prime Minister asking him to ensure that the NHS is clearly and fully exempted from TTIP and to address concerns about investor-state dispute mechanisms.

Parliamentary Engagement

The House of Lords European Union Committee published a report18 on TTIP on 13 May 2014. The report examined the likelihood of a successful deal being reached, examined

17 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/General%20Documents/20140805_Cab_Sec_to_Convener_on_TTIP.pdf 18 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeucom/179/179.pdf

7

the UK Government’s approach to TTIP, and explored concerns about the possible adverse effects of TTIP.

Iain McIver SPICe Research