Participants
Katrina Purcell Chair, General Council Phil McGarry Vice Chair, General Council Sandra Kennie Chair, Women’s Committee Jermaine Allison Black Workers’ Committee Gina Hay Chair, Disabled Workers’ Committee Ronnie Smith General Council Hugh Scullion General Council Namasiku Liandu General Council John Park Secretariat Mary Senior Secretariat
Unfortunately, due to illness, Fiona Smith, Youth Committee, was unable to participate.
Programme of Visit
Monday – Trade Unions
The visit incorporated a very busy itinerary, beginning, after the early flight from Edinburgh to Brussels, with a briefing from the TUC’s Brussels based official Peter Coldrick, on the work of the TUC in Europe. James Howard of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) then spoke to delegates on the role of the ICFTU and on global developments. ETUC General Secretary, John Monks, also came into the meeting and gave a short update on current issues facing the ETUC and took questions on this and other issues relating to Europe.
In the afternoon session delegates received presentations from Catelene Passchier from the European Trades Union Congress on equalities and migration, from Brian Synnot from the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) on the future of public services, and from the ETUC’s Ronald Janssen on employment and training policies. These presentations were particularly helpful in providing context and background for the next day’s visit to the Commission.
That evening delegates had a dinner hosted by Stephen Hughes MEP, north east region of England, and the Socialist Group co-ordinator on the European Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs Committee.
Tuesday – the European Commission
The second day of the visit was spent at the European Commission visitors’ centre building. The first to address the group was Lars Vind Sorensen, from the Directorate General for the Internal Market. A Dane, Mr Vind Sorensen gave an amusing introduction to the European institutions, explaining the different powers of the Parliament, Council of Ministers and Commission, underlining some of the cultural and linguistic hurdles encountered in the legislative processes. Mr Vind Sorensen advised the group that the best way to pursue an issue or to lobby, is to contact the appropriate civil servant and engage with them.
After a short break, Luc Tholoniat, Secretariat General, gave a presentation on Services of General Interest. The very detailed contribution touched on the controversies of this matter, and the fact that Services of General Interest, or “public services” was a key issue in the referenda on the constitutional treaty last year. Had the treaty been endorsed by the Council of Europe, it would have given the EU a much clearer legal framework to act on Services of General Interest. As it stands there is an argument that given the emphasis of “subsidiary” in the existing treaties, that the EU can only act if it is adding value, there is not a clear cut case for the EU acting in this area.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes that Services of General Interest are critical for growth and jobs, and has defined three types of services:
• Services of general economic interest – telecoms, energy, postal services. • Other Services of general economic interest – waste, water (not covered by a single Directive, but broad principles of EU law). • Non economic public services / services that have no impact upon EU trade.
Before the lunch break delegates heard from Sonja Boelaert, a lawyer within the Directorate General for Employment on the free movement of EU workers. This detailed and informative presentation explained how free movement of workers is one of the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty along with that of the right to work, the right of residence and to be joined by family members, and the right of non discrimination on the grounds of nationality. However, with enlargement of the EU, a transitional period of three phases was implemented on the free movement of workers, to allay fears of mass influx of workers. It was explained that Sweden and Ireland set no restrictions on free movement in the first phase from May 2004 to May 2006. The UK operated an open labour market, but strict regulations of the Workers’ Registration Scheme were in place.
It was interesting to learn that the transitions work on a reciprocity basis, in that Hungary, Poland and Slovenia were able to apply the conditions set by member states for their foreign nationals, to those of foreign nationals of those member states.
The initial results of enlargement have show that mobility in this initial transitory phase has been low, lower than two per cent of the whole of the EU’s working age population. According to the statistics of the Commission, Ireland has had a more significant population increase than any other EU state. It was also noted that enlargement has seen an increase in illegal working. There has been no evidence that new migrants take away work from established workers, and economists are clear that enlargement has had a beneficial impact upon economies.
Ms Boelaert concluded by saying that the Commission welcomes the UK, Irish and Swedish experiences; has noted the unwanted side effects of enlargement (illegal working); noted that most people who move are highly skilled, but tend to take up lower skilled jobs; and recommends that states prepare for full free movement.
Lunch on the Tuesday was hosted by the Commission, with Mr Annerberg, Head of Commissioner Wallstrom’s Cabinet (Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy). A Swede, Mr Annerberg was pleased to discuss the performance of a certain Swedish footballer over lunch!
The afternoon session began with Gerrit Gerard De Graff, from the Secretariat General talking about the Lisbon Agenda. This was not the most enlightening presentation, on the Lisbon Agenda, which is the Commission’s strategy to invest in people to create a knowledge economy for the future. Mr De Graaf is a Senior Civil Servant in Commissioners Barroso’s office and misinterpreted the groups understanding of the issue which led to a fairly robust exchange of views about the UK’s approach on many employment related issues but very little about the progress of the Lisbon Agenda. He did explain that during the UK’s presidency in 2005 a summit had been held at Hampton Court where the different social models were examined in detail with the UK (anglo-saxon) model being dismissed by member states as the preferred way to ensure Europe’s global competitiveness.
Egbet Hothuis, from the Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, spoke after Mr De Graaf on employment and training policies in the European Union. Unfortunately, Mr Hothuis did not say very much on equalities issues, as had been requested. He did explain that the Commission is aware that not enough people are in training in the EU, but that the UK is one of the best EU member states in this respect. It was implied that not all of the member states transpose EU Directives effectively into national law, and that the UK is one of the better member states for doing so.
The final speaker in a very long day was Roger Liddle, a British citizen, now working in the President, Jose Manuel Barroso’s, Cabinet. The delegation was most interested that Roger Liddle had previously been Tony Blair’s European Advisor based in 10 Downing Street, and had come to the Commission as a member of Peter Mandelson’s Cabinet. Roger Liddle gave a very interesting presentation, talking about the Agenda for Europe’s Citizens and promoting a social Europe that recognises Europe’s diversity. He emphasised what he saw as the need to invest in mothers and babies, and children’s early years. He noted that the most successful countries in terms of economic growth, living standards and social cohesion, were those with the most advanced welfare states and highest taxes – Sweden, Denmark and Finland. The irony of a former member of the Prime Minister’s office uttering such words was not lost on our delegation, and an interesting discussion on New Labour ensued.
Delegates made their own arrangements for dinner on the Tuesday evening, after a long and intense day.
Wednesday – European Parliament
The final morning saw delegates embark upon an overly long journey through Brussels’ streets and subway to get to the European Parliament. After a long wait to get through the Parliament’s security, and then an equally long walk to get to our meeting room in some obscure part of the Parliament, we were finally ready for the remaining sessions.
First we were addressed by Giampi Alhadeff who since February 2006 has been the General Secretary of the European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP). A Londoner, and former Director of War on Want, Giampi gave a very interesting presentation. With 19 Labour MEPs the British Labour Group is still one of the largest Socialist delegations, but much reduced from the 62 Labour MEPs of the 1990s. Giampi noted that the Labour Government at Westminster, EU enlargement and the introduction of proportional representation has had a significant impact upon the EPLP. The European Parliament is currently dominated by the right-wing parties. The EPLP now has to concentrate on issues that are good for the electorate, such as the environment, health, working practices and consumer issues. It is anticipated that the UK will have its quota of MEPs reduced when more countries join the EU, and given that European elections are set for June 2009, the possibility that the General Election may be held on the same day will impact on the results for the European Parliament.
Unfortunately Anne Van Lancker MEP, a Belgian member from the Party of European Socialists was unwell and unable to address delegates.
Jean Lambert, a Green MEP from London did address delegates on her work in the European Parliament. She explained the Green Party is in a Group that is fourth largest in the European Parliament, and includes the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. As a member of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee she has worked closely with the ETUC on a number of issues, in particular on the issue of flexible working. Jean touched on the concerns of many within the Parliament at the split base of the European Parliament, and the considerable costs of transporting the Parliament every month to Strasbourg for one week. Delegates were urged to support the “One Seat” http://www.oneseat.eu/ campaign by signing the online petition.
It was disappointing that we did not get to see the Parliament in action. We were meeting during a Committee week and it would have been of interest for delegates to actually sit in on a Committee session to gain first hand experience of the Parliament. As it was, there was a feeling that time was wasted by the endless walking through the vast halls of the Parliament.
The TUC Brussels staff, Elena Crasta and Peter Coldrick were incredibly helpful and supportive before and during the visit. This was the first such TUC delegation to visit the European Institutions, so there were clearly points to take note of for future visits.
One obvious issue was the poor standards of access for disabled people in Brussels. With a wheelchair using participant in the party, the hotel, Parliament and Commission had been notified in advance of requirements. However, it was incredibly disappointing to find that the five star hotel did not have an accessible room. The many points we had on access issues have already been forwarded to the TUC and European Commission.
Feedback had been provided to the TUC’s Brussels office about the access issues and the problems faced both getting to and in the Parliament. Arrangements for luggage, security and lunch in the Parliament on the last day were also ill thought through and require to be addressed. Having made these points delegates have also provided positive feedback about the hospitality of all our hosts over the three day trip and the quality of the information and presentations received.