1/2

Staten-Generaal

Vergaderjaar 2010–2011

22 112

Nieuwe Commissievoorstellen en initiatieven
van de lidstaten van de Europese Unie

DY/ nr. 1120

VERSLAG VAN EEN GESPREK
Vastgesteld 7 januari 2011
Verslag van het gesprek van de commissie voor Europese samenwerkingsorganisaties van de Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal en de vaste
commissie voor Europese Zaken van de Tweede Kamer der StatenGeneraal op dinsdag 16 november 2010 in het gebouw van de Tweede
Kamer der Staten-Generaal te Den Haag met Eurocommissaris
Šefčovič (interinstitutionele betrekkingen).
De voorzitter van de commissie voor de Europese samenwerkingsorganisaties,
Strik
De voorzitter van de vaste commissie voor Europese Zaken,
Verburg
De griffier van de commissie voor de Europese samenwerkingsorganisaties,
Petter
De griffier van de vaste commissie voor Europese Zaken,
Nijssen

kst-22112-1120
ISSN 0921 - 7371
’s-Gravenhage 2011

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

1

Aanvang: 15.30 uur
The Chairperson (Ms Strik): Ladies and gentlemen, let us start our
meeting. As you can see, we are not complete yet, but it would cost us too
much time to wait any longer, given that the voting in progress in the
House of Representatives will take another ten minutes at least.
Mr Šefčovič, let me first say that I am honoured to welcome you to the
States-General of the Netherlands. Your presence here is a testimony to
an open and fruitful relationship between the Dutch parliament and the
European Commission. A warm welcome to you once more.
As chair of the Standing Committee on European Cooperation Organisations of the Dutch Senate, I welcome your personal commitment to the
deepening of the Commission’s relations with the national parliaments
and we are very pleased that you could visit the Dutch parliament in such
an interesting period in EU institutional relations, and right after the
presentation of your new working programme. We are, of course, first of
all highly interested in hearing your thoughts from the Commisions’
viewpoint on the new working programme, as well as on the interinstitutional relations that you see as an ideal relationship between the
Commission and the national parliaments in particular. We all know that
these are very exciting times, due to the budget discussions going on in
Brussels right now. I am sure there will be questions about this topic.
I would ask you to start your presentation as soon as everyone has arrived
here, including the members of the House of Representatives. Following
your talk, I am sure that members of the committees of both chambers
would like to address a few questions to you.
Awaiting the arrival of our colleagues from the House of Representatives, I
suggest that we start with an informal debate, in which the senators now
present here can ask you a few questions.
Mr Šefčovič: Thank you very much. We can indeed start now informally
and I will wait with my presentation until your colleagues arrive.
I welcome the opportunity to come here, to meet you all and to present to
you the Commission’s working programme. Actually you are the first
parliament to which we present the program, you even get to see it before
the European Parliament and before the Council does. I will repeat this in
my presentation. Tomorrow I will be speaking to the incoming Hungarian
presidency. So you are the first ones to get to see the programme. I do
welcome this opportunity and I hope that more of my colleagues will
come to visit you, because I think it is very important to be in close touch
and to have good contacts with the national parliaments. After all, we
would like to get your support for our projects, for Europe. We want to
explain to you better what we do in Brussels, in Strasbourg and in
Luxembourg. We also want to make it clear to you that we are very much
aware of the value of money and that we are trying to organize European
projects with an added value for Europe and for the European citizens. For
that, of course, we need very solid friendly relations and we need good
communication channels. That is why I came here. I think that this visit
could help us to establish that communication.
Now that I am speaking to the members of the Senate, I start by thanking
you for your active participation in our political dialogue between the
Commission and the Senate. We read with very much interest and care
your contributions in the framework of the subsidiarity mechanism.
Communication is a part of political dialogue, because it is very important
to know what you think and how you feel about the proposals that are
made by the Commission. After all, your opinion is a very strong indicator
for us. Did we or did we not get things right? How should we change them
or adjust them? We are absolutely aware that we merely prepare the
proposals, which then have to be approved by the member states and by
the European Parliament, because they are made for the citizens of

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

2

Europe. So for us, your feedback is very important and maybe later on,
when we have a discussion, I can share with you some of the ideas we
have on how we could cooperate even better and how I believe the
national parliaments – the Senate and the House of Representatives – can
be involved even more in the pre-legislative phase of preparing European
legislative proposals.
The chairperson: Thank you very much. That sounds like music to our
ears.
I would now like to give the members of the Senate the opportunity to ask
a few questions. To whom can I give the floor first?
Mr Kuiper (ChristenUnie): Shall I start? Mr. Šefčovič, thank you for being
here and for this conversation. As part of this parliament, we are still
trying to figure out the best way to cooperate with the Commission. I have
read the speech you addressed to the Quartet in Spain. You were very
open and you said that the Commission would help or facilitate national
parliaments by offering information to them and by doing its best to
establish good relationships. Can you give us more insight into how this
looks from your perspective? What is your evaluation of the current
relations between the national parliaments and the Commission, after we
accepted the Treaty of Lisbon? What is your part of the story of inventing
this relationship between national parliaments and the European
Commission? What does «facilitator» mean, in practice?
The chairperson: Should we collect a number of questions?
Mr. Šefčovič: Whatever you prefer.
The chairperson: Okay, we will do that. Who has the next question?
Mr Peters (SP): I have two questions in fact. Our mandate is of course
related to the national authority, meaning the government. Indirectly, we
might have, also through the Treaty of Lisbon, a responsibility to the
European Parliament and to the Commission. Sometimes it is not very
clear to our committee how we should address certain critical remarks or
fundamental differences with respect to proposals of the European
Commission towards that Commission. I think that there is not yet a
clear-cut method of directing those messages or remarks. In your opinion,
what is the best way? Personally I think that all three bodies need to be
informed, the European Parliament, the European Commission and of
course our own government and ministry.
My second point regards proposals and the schedule of those proposals.
Having worked for the Commission myself, I know the procedures. An
initiative is taken by the Commission and then at some point, there is an
inter-service consultation about what will be happening next and about
what the views are of the different Commissioners or of part of the
Commission. Is it possible to introduce a moment early on in the
procedure of all initiatives or proposals, in which the national parliaments
can be involved in, or at least informed of, what is happening? And by
that I mean in more detail than just the title alone.
Mr Eigeman (PvdA): Thank you very much. I have a question about
another aspect of the work of the Commission, not specially about the
working programme. You have a difficult task, I think, in interinstitutional
relations. Europe is too much an institutional project now. How do you
think it will be possible to evoke more commitment from the European
citizens? I ask you to answer this question from an interinstitutional way
of looking at things. I think it is very important that every Commissioner,
especially a Commissioner with your important task, should pay attention

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

3

to this aspect of building a new Europe. If we do not succeed in getting
commitment from our own citizens, then we have a long and very difficult
struggle ahead of us for the future.
The Chairperson (Ms Strik): As a co-chair of this meeting, I would now
like to welcome Ms Verburg, my co-chair from the standing committee on
European Affairs of the House of Representatives. Now that the colleagues from the House of Representatives are here as well, we can start
with the formal part of the meeting.
The Chairperson (Ms Verburg): Thank you very much. It is a great
pleasure to be welcomed to your own house, so to speak. I appreciate it
very much that you took the opportunity to start already. I hope that it was
explained to you, Mr. Šefčovič and your staff, that we had to vote in the
House of Representatives, and voting in that chamber is considered a holy
duty so that as an MP, you must be present. My colleagues Ms Ferrier and
Mr Ormel join us too and we are very glad that my co-chair and you
decided that you would not start with your introductory words until we,
members of the House of Representatives, were able to join this meeting
as well. Thank you once more and welcome to the Netherlands. This is the
first time we have the pleasure to meet you and we are looking forward to
your introduction. You have the floor.
Mr Šefčovič: Thank you, madam chairperson. Did I understand it
correctly that I should first answer the questions put before me and then
give my introduction? In that way, the senators will not feel unanswered.
Feeling unanswered is not good in any parliament. So I will try to be very
quick.
The Chairperson (Ms Verburg): Please do.
Mr Šefčovič: How can the Commission be a better facilitator of communication? There are two very important new elements in the architecture
of communication between the national parliaments and the European
Union. Already before the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, the
Commission Barroso I established a local political dialogue, in which we
tried to send to parliaments all proposals for future legislation. We have
been encouraging the national parliaments – and I mean both chambers
in bicameral systems – to comment on what we do. Do you like our
proposals or not? Do you have problems with them? Do you have
comments on them? I can tell you that so far we have several hundreds of
opinions coming from all the parliaments in this political dialogue. I give
you the exact figures, so that you can see that this is picking up. We
received 850 opinions so far from the national parliaments on what we do
in the EU.
The Lisbon Treaty brought innovation. It brought in the subsidiarity-check
mechanism and we are behaving in a very disciplined and legalistic
manner. If a legislative proposal is prepared, we send it simultaneously to
the national parliaments, to the Council and to the European Parliament.
We send it in all the available language versions. Should delays occur, by
any chance, in one of the language versions, then we start to calculate this
eight-week delay from the date where the last linguistic version was sent
to the last national parliament. Then we wait for your comments and I am
very glad to say that these comments are coming in. You do it in a good
Dutch way: if you are not happy with our answers, you send us your
comments again, so then we know that we need either to be more precise
or to argue in a better way. We very much respect and value the fact that
you do it in such a way, because it helps us in the Commission to learn
about what we can expect from the member states, where we can expect
complications, what we need to adjust so that our proposals will be better

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

4

received in the future. If you ask me how the Commission intends to
become a better facilitator: we want to be your primary source of
information and we want to be the primary recipient of your feedback.
When we receive your opinions, I assure you that the answer you get
from the Commission will be signed by me personally. In that way you
will know that I saw it, that I read it and that I am sending a response to
you with my signature on it. If you have additional comments or reservations, I will be very glad to see them and to have the opportunity to open
a discussion with you.
Mr Peters asked how you can be better involved in the communication
with the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council and how
you could be involved in the legislative process at all stages. At times, the
national parliaments do not make full use of the possibility they have to
be very active in what I would call the pre-legislative phase, and by that I
mean our presenting the possibilities of a legislative proposal or when we
issue green books, white books, when we ask for public consultations. For
example for the file for which I am responsible, the European citizens»
initiative, we received quite a few opinions coming also from the
parliaments and stating what the parliaments would like to see in the
European citizens» initiative, how it should be organized, how it should be
framed. That was very helpful for us and we have been working with
these comments very closely. So this is a very important phase.
Next comes the stage of the impact assessment. As you know, we have an
obligation, according to the concept of smart legislation, to conduct quite
extensive impact assessments. That means that any legislative proposal
we make is assessed. What kind of administrative burden will it bring?
What will be the burden for national administrations, for the citizens?
What will be the social consequences? What could be the environmental
consequences? We are very much pressed to assess also regional
consequences of the legislation proposed and that is what we do. In the
phase of doing the impact assessments, we always attach such assessments to our legislative proposals, so if you get legislative proposals from
us, you will find the impact assessment from the Commission attached as
well.
Of course you also have a legislative process in which you have
enormous powers to influence your ministers, your people in Coreper. Ms
Verburg knows that very well, because she came to Brussels to see the
experts in the working groups and I can tell you that the Netherlands have
very good diplomats and very influential ones. We know that if there is a
particular issue, it is extremely difficult for the Netherlands that usually
the structures, the institutions are looking for solutions that are good and
acceptable to your country as well. So this is how we can communicate
with the Council, with the Commission and in the European Parliament.
You have your liaison officers and that is very much appreciated, because
they inform the colleagues in the European Parliament of what is going on
in the Dutch parliament and they can give you feedback on how a
particular issue is being discussed in the European Parliament. There are
several ways in which we can do it and there are special procedures
which I believe your experts know. They know how to send your opinion
to us. We have a centralized mailbox, but you can always send comments
to me. Our staff services will make sure that your input is studied and that
a reply is being prepared, so that you know your comment was not lost,
but we studied it and would like to respond to it, too.
The last question asked was how to improve the commitment of
European citizens to Europe, because times are tough, I agree with you on
that. It is not easy, especially not if you work for the European
Commission. On top of that, I think we are at a quite difficult stage now. I
come from one of the new member states and to me – I said it several
times today, especially to the young people at the university – it still is a
miracle that I can sit here with you as a commissioner from a democratic

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

5

new member state of the EU and represent that EU, because 21 years ago,
I was looking at Austria through barbed wire, there was an iron curtain
there. That was very difficult for all of us and to see that today, we are
travelling with id-cards, we are paying with the same money, I meet
Slovak students at your universities and we have freedom of speech,
freedom of religion: for me, that still is a miracle.
At the same time I know that for the young people and for a large part of
the population in the old member states, it is a different story. Europe is
here and it is very much taken for granted. We need to get the citizens on
board by explaining what Europe can do for them, how positive it can be,
what we can do on a European level which cannot be done on a national
level. We have to explain that money spent on a European level has a
higher added value and brings much more positive results than money
spent on a national level. Of course it is not an easy job, but we have very
clear facts to demonstrate. Look at the improvement of the single market,
the tearing down of additional barriers on the single market. You all know
how hugely the Netherlands benefitted from being a member of the single
market and now plays a much more significant role at a global level. We
would never achieve such solid results in trade negotiations if we had to
negotiate as France, as the UK, as the Netherlands, not to speak of
Slovakia. As the European Union, on the contrary, we have a very strong
voice. Be it in international diplomacy, in the creation of conducive
conditions for new reform processes, which must take place in all our
member states, because if we do not do it, we will have a big problem to
stay competitive, to be on the competitive edge, which can guarantee us
the social conditions we know today.
I am sure we can discuss this a little bit further on in the meeting. I do not
want to monopolize my first possibility to answer your questions. Madam
chairperson was telling me to proceed otherwise.
Chairperson Verburg: Thank you for answering the questions from our
colleagues from the Senate. Let us now turn to your introduction. As far
as I understood, your talk will take about 15 minutes.
Mr Šefčovič: I will keep an eye on my watch.
Chairperson Verburg: Thank you, Sir. Meanwhile, we will not interrupt
you. Everyone is asked to save their questions for afterwards, so that we
do not have to interrupt the introduction. Sir, you have the floor.
Mr Šefčovič: Yes. I will use the microphone and I will test my Dutch.
Dank u wel voor de vriendelijke uitnodiging. Het is een eer dat ik hier het
werkprogramma van de Europese Commissie voor 2011 mag komen
presenteren. Dit is het eerste parlement waar wij dit doen, zelfs nog
eerder dan in het Europese Parlement en de Raad. Wij zullen ons
werkprogramma daar volgende week bespreken.
This is as much as I could learn from my daughters, who attended a
Belgian school where they had Nederlands as a second language. I hope
that you understood some of it. On top of that, I put on my orange tie,
because I knew that we could have a very lively debate this afternoon.
Thank you very much for your invitation and for the possibility to address
members from both chambers of the Dutch parliament to inform you of
our working programme. As I said, this is the very first presentation of the
Commission’s working programme. Tomorrow, we are going to present it
to the incoming Hungarian presidency and on Sunday or Monday we will
present it to the Council and then to the European Parliament. I think that
it is very good for us to have the opportunity to briefly present the
programme now. As members of the Commission, we very much
appreciate and highlight the role of the national parliaments in all this
process.

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

6

In the answer I gave earlier, I said that in my opinion, the national
parliaments could be more involved in the programming and controlling
of how the legislative process in Brussels is taking place. As for the
Commission’s working programme, you will probably notice that we
slightly changed the way in which we are preparing our work programme.
We now start with the State of the Union, the address of the president of
the Commission in September. Then we have a structured dialogue with
the committees in the European Parliament, while at the same time, a lot
of the issues in question are discussed in the sectoral councils. After two
months, the Commission adopts the working programme. What is very
important to say is that the major innovation is that we adopted the
concept of a rolling-over programme. That means that it is not only a
programme for one year. In the programme we just adopted, you will also
see what we would like to achieve in the entire period of the present
Commission. Of course, the programme is more precise for the first year,
but you can still see what our intentions are for the second and the third
year. That makes things much more predictable than they used to be. You
can see what the priorities are and you can already see whether there is
something you like very much and want to be supported and done faster,
or if there is something you have a reservation against and think you
would need more information so that together with your experts and your
diplomats, your government can scrutinize the proposal in question much
closer. We wanted to ensure much closer predictability and visibility of
what is the future planning of the Commission.
As I said already, I very much appreciate the quality of the dialogue
between the Dutch parliament and the Commission. We see that there is
an increasing number of opinions and comments coming in from both
chambers of your parliament. You are using more and more the
instrument of the subsidiarity-check mechanism and I also appreciate how
active your delegation is in the COSAC, because I am sure that this will be
one of the international or European bodies where this concentration of
an exchange of views or coordination of the positions of the national
parliaments vis a vis the European legislation can take place.
What would be our major priorities for the next year? We are now in a
post-crisis situation, but we are still witnessing a very difficult situation on
the financial markets. Therefore we need to continue as much as possible
with the comprehensive reform of our financial systems. We would like to
demonstrate stronger post-economic governance and of course we will be
continuing to present you the concrete proposals under our flagshipinitiative, the Europe 2020 strategy.
Mr Šefčovič: It is important for the Netherlands that Michel Barnier is
working very hard on finalizing the complete package of proposals for
improving and modernizing the European single market, to get rid of the
barriers which unfortunately still exist on the single market. Our main
priorities are the economic crisis, governance, sustaining the European
social market economy, restoring growth and jobs through the EU 2020
Strategy, pursuing the Citizens’ Agenda by building an area of freedom,
justice and security, and, of course, making the most of EU-policies, inter
alia by launching the negotiations on the modern EU Multi-annual
Financial Framework. Finally, we need to use the momentum we have
now. We just completed negotiations on the establishment of the
European External Action Service. We need to use the momentum to
make the European voice heard in the international scene in a much
better, much stronger, and much more coherent and coordinated way, so
that the EU is much more influential on the global stage.
I know the financial issue is very important for the Netherlands. There are
two important areas to cover. First, we need to introduce a much better,
much stronger fiscal discipline. We have been working closely with the
taskforce of president Van Rompuy to present a comprehensive package

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

7

on how to improve microeconomic governance. One of the goals is to
achieve a much stronger budget discipline through a so-called European
semester. We also want to give national parliaments the opportunity to
see how the Commission and the EU member states see the parameters
of national budgets. Are they sustainable in the eyes of the other member
states and the Commission or not? We do not want to create the
impression that we want to meddle in their budget-making process. It is
very important in the European context to have the budget parameters
presented to the peers in the European Union and the Commission, so
that we can comment on them if we think they are unsustainable or
incompatible with macroeconomic goals. It is up to the national parliaments to decide on the budget and the priorities. Your cooperation in this
matter, and, of course, your good questions to your government about
fiscal consolidation and fiscal prudence are very welcome. I am sure it will
be to the benefit of the Netherlands, as it will be to the benefit of any
other country where such a procedure takes place.
Of course, we need to reform the way in which financial markets are
regulated and managed. Here again, we rolled out a lot of proposals.
Much will depend on how the proposals will be supported by member
states and the European Parliament, on how ambitious they are, and on
how the new supervisory structures of the new authorities, which start
their work on 1 January, will take hold of this new, very important area.
We need to be absolutely clear that we will be able to avoid a banking
crisis like the one we had in Europe just a few months ago.
I want to say a few things about the EU 2020 Strategy. Here you all know
very well that what we are looking for is sustainable growth for the future,
which we would like to build on three pillars. The Commission cannot
achieve this result on its own. I was particularly pleased to see that your
parliament supports the EU 2020 Strategy, because you see it as a way to
modernize the European economy and to start the new national reform
processes in the member states. For that it is very important that the
ownership of the EU 2020 Strategy is not in Brussels alone, but that it is
felt on a national level too, by the governments and the parliaments.
Ideally, it is regional, local, and hopefully supported by the citizens as
well. After all, one of the lessons of the former Lisbon Strategy was that
there were too many priorities, that it was seen as an effort driven by
Brussels, and that there was not enough inclusion into the process of
national and local politicians. We need to avoid that this time. If you can
help us with advise, it will be hugely appreciated, because this is very
important for the whole of Europe.
We started the process of drafting a national reform programme. The
Commission completed bilateral talks with the governments of the
member states. Now we are working on our comments and the comments
of the member states. Hopefully we will adopt them together in early
spring next year. They should be ready by the time we will discuss the
European semester. This time we want to avoid a double approach where
in March we criticise member states because they are not fiscally prudent,
and in the autumn we criticise them because they do not invest enough in
research and development. This must be done in a complex manner and
in one go. We need to have a complex picture of the economic
development.
A very important question is how to guarantee our citizens good
opportunities. Of course, it is not only a matter of investing or of
modernizing the economy, but also of preparing our labour force. I served
for a while as educational commissioner. I know this is not the case in the
Netherlands, but in Europe 30% of the workforce of around 80 million
people has only basic skills. According to statistics there will be at least 12
million jobs less for basic-skilled people in 2010. We need to adjust our
policies. How to train these people better? How to change the approach to
lifelong learning? And also: how to improve the education of young

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

8

people? It was a big surprise in many member states that when the crisis
struck, the first people not to get a job were young people, and very often
young people with a university education. When you investigate the
reasons, very often you get the answer from businesses that universities
are a bit detached from the business environment, that young people do
not have the appropriate skills, and that you need to invest a lot in training
when you hire young people. Therefore, we introduced the initiative New
Skills for New Jobs. We want to force universities to talk more with
businesses, to adjust their programmes, and to modernize, so that our
young people, when they leave university, are much better prepared for
jobs than they are now. I know this is not a problem in the Netherlands,
but in the European Union we have a very high drop-out rate. In many EU
countries this is such a big problem that we simply need to find policies to
improve this.
I spoke about the single market and our aim to achieve its full potential. I
spoke about financial services. We need to chart the new map of how
services will be offered. I also spoke about the importance of budgetary
surveillance. I want to speak about a very important issue which I am sure
will be discussed very soon: the potential of treaty change.
I know how sensitive this issue is in the Netherlands, but I can assure you:
it is not only sensitive in this country. We had quite a serious debate on
this issue in the General Affairs Council just a month ago. Then it was
taken up by government leaders in the formation of the European Council.
Council president Herman van Rompuy got a mandate to explore the
possibilities and to inform the leaders in the December meeting of the
Council on how to proceed. In the meantime the Commission is drawing
up the possible permanent mechanism as a tool to prevent a crisis like we
have seen at the beginning of this year. Again, I think this needs very
careful management, because these issues are very sensitive. The
Commission is ready to go for any kind of legal analysis and any
exploration of possible legal avenues to find a way, if we cannot find the
proper accommodation within the treaty, within the European legislation.
It seems that the leaders want very limited treaty change. This creates the
impression that we are discussing the transfer of powers to Brussels. The
aim is to use the simplified procedure: the unified unanimous decision by
the European Council and, of course, ratification by national parliaments.
We will see how the debate will evolve. The president of the European
Council is having bilateral meetings. In December we will get more
precise information.
I want to conclude with yesterday’s vote on the 2011 budget, which as you
know failed. We regret this, because it will complicate our life significantly
in the coming weeks and months. We want to have a very open dialogue
with the Council and the Parliament. The Commission will start its work
on the new draft budget proposal immediately. We are aware that we are
in new territory, because we used the new procedure for the first time. We
need to find a solution, hopefully in the early spring of next year. We are
still analyzing the legal, budgetary, and financial consequences of not
having the budget ready on time. But we do our utmost to assure that
after 1 January the policies will be executed under the budgetary rules as
much as possible.
Chairman, I do not want to prolong my talk any more. I know that usually
the most interesting part for the members is the discussion, the questions
and the answers. Thank you all very much for your attention. I will try to
answer your questions.
The Chairperson (Ms Verburg): Thank you, Mr Šefčovič, for your
comprehensive overview of the priorities of the European Commission
and your tasks. You addressed the importance of the European Union for
its citizens. We represent these citizens. I am sure we want to exchange
thoughts on behalf of them with you. I give all members who did not yet

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

9

put a question to you the opportunity to do so now. We start with Mr
Franken.
Mr Franken (CDA): First I want to apologize for being late, but there was
a Senate meeting I had to attend.
I want to ask Mr Šefčovič a question about the relationship between the
EU and the Council of Europe. I think there is a growing irritation in
several national parliaments about the fact that the EU takes up activities
which have been the domain of the Council of Europe for a long time.
These activities are fulfilled by the Council in an excellent way. The
Council has a long track record with positive results, including the
conventions on the trafficking of human beings and on money-laundering,
and a treaty about cybercrime. I also point out the monitoring reports on
Eastern European countries. However, the EU has been handling
legislation on the same subjects more and more recently, and more and
more it organizes election observations in countries where Council
representatives are preparing their monitoring reports. We regret that
there is more competition than cooperation between the EU and the
Council of Europe. Is it possible to change this approach in the EU?
The Chairperson (Ms Verburg): I allow two other members to ask their
questions. But I request them to be more brief, otherwise we will not have
enough time for the Commissioner to answer. First Mr Ormel.
Mr Ormel (CDA): As I am not a senator, I can be very brief.
Thank you, Mr Šefčovič. We are very honoured by your visit. You are not
the first Commissioner to visit the Dutch parliament. It is good that we
have such good relations. It is not only that we are near Brussels
geographically speaking, but we can see that for the Commission the
national parliaments are also near to them.
I do have a critical question. At the end of your analysis you said that you
regret the failing of the budget talks. That is put rather mildly compared to
what the chairman of the Commission, Mr Barroso, said. He said the
Netherlands are responsible for the failed budget talks. He said that
Netherlands are not behaving according to the European spirit; we, one of
the founding fathers of the Union. Our national parliament was very
critical on the spending in Europe during the financial crisis. Does the
Commission understand that there is a financial crisis in the European
Union?
The Chairperson (Ms Verburg): Thank you for this much briefer
question than that of Mr Franken! It is Ms Ferrier’s turn.
Ms Ferrier (CDA): Mr Šefčovič, thank you for your introduction, and for
coming to our house of democracy.
You are the Commissioner for Inter-institutional relations and administration. As we all know, there are many challenges we need to tackle at a
global level. But for us it starts at the European level. You were talking
about the financial crisis. There is also a food crisis and an energy crisis.
We have to work on sustainable growth. You are responsible for the
context between institutions, at the European level, but also on the
national level. What would you call the biggest challenges to make
concrete steps forward? If we fail, will Europe lose its interest in the rest of
the world?
The Chairperson (Ms Verburg): Thank you. Mr Šefčovič, you have the
floor.
Mr Šefčovič: Thank you.

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

10

Thank you for the question about the Council of Europe. It very much
reflects the spirit of the discussion I had with Mr Van der Linden. I fully
agree that the Council of Europe has done a marvellous job. It has a long
established track record in fighting for human rights. It has the ability to
get the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights respected
even by countries where sometimes the human rights are not fully
respected. That is remarkable and very good.
Mr Franken talked about a competition. The Commission definitely would
not like to see it as a competition. We like to see it as complimentary, as
helping each other. I absolutely agree that we should not compete on who
is monitoring what and where. We need to communicate and to use our
resources carefully. We must distribute the task in such a way that we can
cover as much of the international human rights aspects as possible.
In the midst of the discussion on the Lisbon Treaty – Mr Van der Linden
was part of the convention – it was clear that for some member states the
Lisbon Treaty should bring to the citizens additional guarantees in respect
of human rights. These human rights would also be better enforced on
the European level. The European institutions must respect human rights.
Therefore the Charter of Fundamental Rights was attached to the Lisbon
Treaty. You all remember very well how difficult this question was for
several member states, concerning the explanatory note for the UK,
Poland, the Czech Republic et cetera. But the overwhelming feeling in the
Commission was that the majority of the member states wants the
European Union to bring additional guarantees to the degree to which
human rights are observed and enforced, and to what could be the
consequences if human rights are breached, especially by European
institutions. It was also the decision of the member states, because we
cannot get a negotiating mandate without the approval of the Council to
enter the convention on human rights with the EU. We respect the will of
the member states. I know that the negotiations to join the Commission of
Human Rights with the EU will not be easy.
Very important is what Mr Franken pointed out. How can we coordinate
better? How can we avoid possible competition? How do we get our
courts in Luxemburg and Strasburg to talk to each other in a way that is
not competitive but complementary? And how to use the Council of
Europe to the best benefit this very important organisation can bring to
us? I am thankful Mr Franken brought it up. I will ask my colleagues in the
Commission if they are aware of the tension this issue creates in the
Netherlands. Of course, we will come back to you on this particular issue.
Mr Ormel asked me a frank question about the 2011 budget. I know that in
the Dutch parliament and in the Netherlands it is tradition to speak frankly,
so allow me to do the same. I was participating as a member of the
Council in the previous debate on the financial perspective. The
proportion and the size of the European budget represents 1% of the
European GNI. Looking at the amount of time we needed for the previous
Multi-annual Financial Perspective – the number of summits, the enormity
of the negotiations on the highest possible level among leaders, presidents, chancellors and prime-ministers – I think the difficult atmosphere
which was created by this debate over 1% of the GDP was a bit exaggerated. I quote the ex-chancellor of Austria, Mr Schüssel: this was such a
difficult process that we should not repeat it, and most probably we will. I
understand that the fiscal situation and the atmosphere in Europe is such
that the debate will be very difficult.
Mr Ormel asked me if we are aware that there is a crisis in Europe. We
are. Even though I know you would not agree with me, please let me
explain the logic behind our initial proposals. Especially because of the
crisis we came up with an increased budget. Why? There are two major
reasons.
The first is that we received much more requests for the financing of
different kinds of retraining schemes from the European Social Fund,

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

11

because there are more unemployed people in Europe. The second is that
the first years of the financial perspective have been used to prepare the
necessary infrastructure for absorbing, for executing the Structural Funds
payments and Cohesion Fund payments in a responsible way. So the
structure is there. The absorption of the Cohesion Fund or Structural
Funds in the first two years has been 1% or 2%. It got higher, because the
infrastructure is prepared and due to the fact that because of the crisis,
there was a stronger demand to use the Structural Funds and Cohesion
Fund as some kind of medicine to fight the crisis, to get out of the crisis
faster. These were the reasons why we came up with the increased
budget.
You all know very well the structure of the European budget. So let me
just repeat that this is not money for Brussels. The administrative budget
represents only 5.7%. This is not for salaries only. We manage the
European databases, the Schengen database, and through this database
the collection of excise duties for the whole European Union. We have to
manage the staff in 150 states. We have to guarantee the linguistic rights
in 23 languages. There are many other things we do for the 5.7% of the
1% of the European GNI. The rest of the money goes back to the member
states value-added. It serves as a catalyst for better European
programmes, for value-added European spending. I understand that we
probably did not do enough in the Commission to convince you. We are
ready to do so. We need to discuss it more. We need to provide you with
better information in order to convince you. I can assure you that getting
Europe out of the crisis is a top priority for the European Commission. We
are doing our utmost. Mr Ormel expressed his conviction on this matter.
This is the logic with which the European Commission started the
preparation of the budget proposal.
We are fully aware of political reality. So we have to come up with a new
budget proposal. We will try to do it as quickly as possible. Hopefully, by
the end of February or March we will have the European budget for 2011,
which will allow us to continue the programmes which have already been
agreed, pre-allocated in the current Multi-annual Financial Framework.
Mr Ormel (CDA): Thank you for your answer. You say the administrative
budget is not rising. But according to what we see, it is rising by 4.1%.
Mr Šefčovič: Yes, I understand your point. You referred to the budget of
all the institutions together, whereas I talked about the budget of the
Commission. From 2007 onwards, we have been following a policy of zero
growth. We are not hiring any more people, but the same does not apply
to other institutions and they have solid reasons for that. I am sure that all
the concern and criticism that was expressed in the debate about the 2011
budget and led to its failure will be addressed. We have to come up with a
new proposal.
Ms Ferrier asked what the biggest challenges are and how we can keep
the future of Europe high on the agenda when it comes to connecting the
institutions. This is a very important question. In Brussels, we are in the
process of implementing the new framework. The powers of the European
Parliament are enhanced. Member states are getting used to the
mechanism of QMV when it comes to issues that are discussed in the
Council. This requires totally different negotiation tactics than when you
have veto power. The European Council is a very important actor. On top
of that we have more active national parliaments. Moreover, we will soon
have the European citizen’s initiative. How to get all these institutions
interconnected? I find it very important that we get through this transitionary and introductory stage and that the new institutions will work
properly as soon as possible and, hopefully, in a better atmosphere. I
represent the Commission in the European Parliament and in the Council.
In the Council there is strong criticism of the European Parliament and in

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

12

the European Parliament there is strong criticism of the Council. We try to
play the role of the honest broker and to reach compromises. For the
citizens of Europe it does not matter who causes the problems or who
increases the tension: the Council, the European Parliament or the
Commission. For them, Brussels is one entity. If we do not do it well, we
will create the image that we are some kind of infighting organisation
which is self-absorbed and does not take care of the citizens. This is not
good for anybody. Therefore, I am a strong supporter of a good dialogue
and of making more and intensive use of the communication channels.
From the point of view of democracy it is OK to have some quarrels now
and then, but it slows down the process and spoils the atmosphere. Very
often, even if we achieve positive results, these are distorted by the
process which led to them. Therefore, I plead for more communication, a
more open approach and better discussion.
A very important element for national parliaments is to communicate
more intensively with the partners from their respective countries in the
European Parliament. You will find out that on many issues you will have
a bit different points of view. Sometimes it is a bit confusing for the
Commission to see that the members of a particular party in the European
Parliament and the members of the same party in the national parliament
take totally different positions on a subject. We have to operate in this
environment. That is why I would advocate stronger communication at
this level, so that we can «brush the edges» of the discussion at the initial
stage.
Mr Benedictus (CDA): The Commission has put forward proposals to
support the economic recovery. I have two questions about that. Are
those proposals sufficient to prevent a new crisis? Are they good enough
to cope with the financially failed state Greece? Or do we have to kick out
Greece?
Ms Haubrich-Gooskens (PvdA): One of the major problems we have to
deal with in Europe is the sustainability of the single European currency.
There are rumours of some countries considering to opt out of the
Eurozone. Does the Commission have any idea how Europe is going to
deal with this problem? Some experts already predicted this years ago,
because we have introduced the single currency without fulfilling the
political conditions to deal with it. Europe does not have any authority
with regard to the economic conditions in the different countries of the
Eurozone. Could you please comment on the ideas of the Commission
about this urgent problem?
Mr Ten Broeke (VVD): I joined this meeting a bit later because I was in a
radio interview where I had to comment on the comments made by your
boss on the Dutch approach. I can only underline what Mr Ormel just said.
In my view the remarks made by Mr Barroso are completely outrageous.
Our country has helped out in the case of Greece and in the stabilization
mechanism. We also preferred the solution proposed by Mr Ollie Rehn to
that proposed by Mr Van Rompuy to get discipline back in the Stability
and Growth Pact. Moreover, we have been adamant supporters of the
Commission when it comes to the Stability and Growth Pact. Given the
fact that we have shown so much responsibility and solidarity with the
rest of Europe, your chairman does not have the right to come up with the
responses he came up with. Again, I find them outrageous and they have
dealt a severe blow to the confidence in the European story, that we all
would like to pursue.
This parliament has been very active in the field of the work you do. We
want to keep on, because it is very important. In the Treaty of Lisbon the
so-called orange card was introduced. This means that we would like to
take co-responsibility for legitimising the whole regulation process. What

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

13

we need is a good mechanism of cooperation with the Commission as
well as with the European Parliament, in order to deal with the very short
period of time – two months – in which we have to give our subsidiarity
conclusions. How can you help us in doing that?
Ms Broekers-Knol (VVD): As we all know, the new institutional balance
was laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. When the Commission took office,
Mr Barroso made an arrangement with the European Parliament. It was
agreed that the European Parliament would get more power than was laid
down in the Lisbon Treaty. This could mean that the balance of power,
which is the idea behind the Lisbon Treaty, will be disturbed. Is the
European Commission aware of this? Does the Commission consider it
possible to change the balance of power in the European Union, as laid
down in the Lisbon treaty, through agreements between institutions, for
instance the European Commission and the European Parliament? If so,
we could reach a certain point, at which we did not intend to arrive.
Mr Šefčovič: As far as Greece is concerned, the Commission tries to
learn the best possible lessons from this very difficult situation we are
witnessing from the beginning of the year. You will remember the
dramatic Sunday evening when we had to decide on how to help Greece
and to establish this crisis mechanism. The creative mind of the head of
the international department of the Dutch Foreign Ministry produced the
idea of the special purpose vehicle. He was really the saviour of the day.
We managed to erect the barrier very quickly to preserve the European
currency from the very vicious attacks in the financial markets. We need to
act at several levels. We have to be much stronger in prevention. That is
why we introduce the various proposals to better manage the fiscal
situation and macroeconomic surveillance at member state level. The
Commission very clearly prefers automaticity in sanctions. We believe
that these will have a very strong preventive impact. It will lead member
states to respecting fiscal prudence much more than before. At the same
time it is very clear that we need to set up a mechanism for the period
after 2013. We are now looking for the legal possibilities. It is quite clear
that many member states would favour stronger involvement in the
coverage of negative consequences by the private sector, so that in the
end it will not always be the taxpayer who pays the bill. This is a rather
complex issue. When I discuss it with the experts, they tell me that we do
not have some kind of Paris Club mechanism for the Eurozone. This is a
new situation for all of us. We are now working on the potential
mechanism for the future. If we observe fiscal prudence and carefulness,
if we maintain strong macroeconomic surveillance, if we return to the
Stability and Growth Pact, I believe that we can prevent the sovereign
debt crisis. This does not take care, of course, of the structural deficiencies
you can have in different economies in Europe. To that end, we need the
EU 2020 Strategy to support the national reform programmes, in order to
help these countries to get more competitive, stronger economic
positions. That is how we can reduce the inequalities in economic
competitiveness among the members of the Eurozone. The Commission
would like to do their utmost to keep all the Eurozone members within the
Eurozone. Hopefully, we can put such a mechanism in place that this will
be the case.
I do not know about any discussion about the possibility of member states
opting out of the Eurozone. We are working with only one scenario, which
is the preservation of the Eurozone; making it stable and stronger, and
creating the conditions which will prevent us from having this very
difficult debate that we had at the beginning of the year. At the same time,
we must create the conditions to avoid the moral hazard coming from the
irresponsible governments or actors on the financial markets, for whom
purchasing even high risk bonds is not a risk anymore, because they know

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

14

that in the end the taxpayer will cover the bill. We need to find an
appropriate equilibrium, in a way which would preserve the single
European currency.
As far as Mr Ten Broeke’s comment on the reaction by the president of the
Commission is concerned, I understand there could be a divergence of
opinions, but I was explaining the logic behind the preparation of the
budget. Mr Ten Broeke looks at it as a lack of respect for the situation
caused by the economic crisis. We saw it as one of the possible remedies
to overcome the crisis. The feeling yesterday evening was that we are
very close to an agreement. At least, the European Parliament and the
Council agreed on 2.91%. What remained was the political declaration
about how future discussions should take place on very important issues.
The feeling was that, if we tried a little bit more, we could find a solution
and wake up the next morning with the budget in place, which would save
us from a very difficult debate in the coming weeks and months. The fact
that the Netherlands is the highest net contributor is highly appreciated
and regarded, not only by the Commission. I come from a new member
state. We all know this and everybody really appreciates it. We are aware
of your pro-European commitment. With your state secretary we have
been preaching very much for the automaticity of the sanction
mechanism in the last debate. So, in most of the issues, the positions of
the Netherlands and the Commission are very close. On this particular
one we did not see eye to eye, but I think it is just a matter of additional
contacts and communication. I believe that in the end, for the sake of
Europe, we will find a solution.
As far as the orange card is concerned, let me assure you that we will
send you any legislative proposal as soon as possible, immediately when
we send it to other European institutions, such as the European
Parliament and the Council. It is very difficult to do something about the
period of eight weeks, because it is an obligation laid down in the treaty.
As for your opinion on seasonal workers, for example, we took this into
consideration, because it was just a couple of days over time. We do not
want to be too legalistic on this issue. We are not only looking for the
phrase which says that the principle of subsidiarity was breached, in the
sense that if it is not there, we do no read it. We read it in a political
manner. We take into consideration that you are not happy with the
content or particular articles. We will study it carefully and answer you. If
you have any problems with the way we answer you, if you have the
feeling that our communication is not on time or that anything else is not
appropriate, please let us know. I really mean it: we want to have a serious
relationship with your parliament and we read your opinions very
carefully. We can discuss this in the next COSAC meeting. Several
parliaments have suggested to use that as some kind of coordination
body, which could identify potential problems with proposals from the
Commission and coordinate the communication about the approach to
the proposal. If anything in this respect can be done by us, I promise you
that we will do it.
The Commission did not give more power to the European Parliament
than is laid down in the treaty. I negotiated the treaty and I will negotiate
the framework agreement with the European Parliament. It excited a lot of
interest. The Council expressed very reserved opinions. As a former
member of Coreper I can tell you that my conscience is absolutely clean.
On several occasions I personally invited my former colleagues from
Coreper to join these negotiations. Why should only the Commission and
the European Parliament discuss and negotiate the framework agreement
on how to implement the Lisbon Treaty into daily operations? Today, the
position would be totally different. I spoke about it with several ambassadors and with the legal service of the Council. Unfortunately, it probably
came too fast. We were still hostage to the old psychology at the time.
That is why this did not happen. But I can tell you that I defended the

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

15

institutional balance as much as possible. I am sure that you cannot find
any single line which has been crossed as far as the powers the treaty
attributes to the European Parliament are concerned. I was well aware of
this and of the potential criticism from the Council. I knew that if I did this,
the first thing the Council would do would be to take us to court. They did
not do it and we will make sure that guidelines for the implementation of
this framework agreement will be drafted in a way respecting the division
of powers laid down in the treaty. I do my utmost to get the Council more
involved into future agreements. I think it is very good to have a balanced
approach. I work very hard to get the Council on board when it comes to
the management of the register of lobbyists, which we now call transparency register. We are now going to proceed with the Union’s
programming. The Council, the European Parliament and the European
Commission will have to agree on the priorities proposed by the
Commission and selected by the three institutions as top priorities for the
next legislative period. If we do this well, this will help us enormously to
assign the appropriate time to discuss these matters in the Council and in
the respective committees, in order to realise more efficient cooperation. I
can assure you that it is very important for the Commission to be in a
balanced situation. The European Commission is present in all the
working groups of the Council. So, we have very intimate and close
relationships with the Council. We are very much aware of the fact that we
can only be successful if the relationships between the institutions are
balanced.
The Chairperson (Ms Verburg): Thank you very much, Mr Šefčovič. We
have now come to the end of this meeting. We had an open, direct and
clear exchange of thoughts. I thank you once more for coming to the
Netherlands and for having the first round of exchange of thoughts with
our committees, both from the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Dutch representatives are direct and open, but also responsible and
reliable. If we give our word and put our money into Europe, we will keep
our word, and people can count on the Dutch. I think that it was necessary
to have this open exchange of thoughts. We expect you to be a Commissioner who is very much hands-on, so please give us your cell phone
number ... We wish you all the power and strength and energy you need
to do a good job. We invite you to come back next year, to present your
schedule and that of the European Commission for the year after that. I
wish you a very pleasant stay in the Netherlands. Enjoy our country. Our
best regards for your daughter. Please exercise your Dutch a bit more, so
that we can have our discussion in Dutch next year. It is necessary, not
only to keep the European Union and the European Commission as strong
as possible, but also to empower the European Union and the European
Commission to play an important and responsible role in our world.
Mr Šefčovič: Thank you very much, madam, and thank you very much
also, Ms Strik. It was a pleasure to be chaired by two ladies. Thank you
very much for the frank and open discussion. I know that your committees
on European affairs will come to Brussels from time to time to meet the
commissioners. Whenever you plan such trips, it will be my honour to
host you and to continue our debate. As I said, if in the meantime there is
anything we can reply to, in writing or by phone, I will be very happy to
do so.

Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2010–2011, 22 112, nr. 1120

16