Una Riley’s article in the June 2005 print magazine, on Euralarm.
It was in Lucerne almost two years ago when, for the first time, Geoffrey Van Orden MEP presented our keynote speech at the Euralarm General Assembly. That was the start of the Fire and Security European Liaison Group. The initiative was the brainchild of SC1 (Standing Committee One) the Communications and Marketing Group of which I am a member on behalf of the BSIA. Having been instrumental in getting the original proposal off the ground I felt then, and still do, that readers should be aware of what is happening in Europe regarding our profession as it is important that that you are aware of issues that will directly affect you such as the Service Directive.
Originally Euralarm was only represented by national associations but now independent companies can become members, hence the involvement of Siemens, Bosch, Coopers and Tyco to name but a few. The 2005 GA started with the usual flurry of activity and the host country was most hospitable. Once again the keynote speech was made by Geoffrey Van Orden in his capacity as chairman of the European Parliament’s Fire Safety and Security Industry Liaison Group. Geoffrey also provides an invaluable direct link to the EU’s institutional architecture. We consider this conduit into the European Parliament to be vital to our business aim of contributing to the creation of a more effective single market. Geoffrey started by saying. He said: "I left you in 2003 by saying that the European Union needs to refocus and develop a different set of priorities – to move away from the obsession with political integration and to concentrate on helping our economies become more competitive in order to meet the challenges of this century rather than the last. Regrettably there has been little movement in this direction. In the last two years there have been two developments of particular significance. Firstly the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 members on May 1 last year. This has been a beneficial development. Secondly, the proposed imposition of a European Constitution, which I believe is wholly unhelpful. The entry into the EU of eight central and eastern European countries together with Malta and Cyprus, constituted the largest round of enlargement to date. It was unprecedented in scale. But the enlargement process has not ended. Next week the European Parliament will hopefully give its assent to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania on January 1, 2007. Last year the European Council agreed to open accession negotiations with Turkey and these are scheduled to begin on October 3. This is a highly controversial move and, even if negotiations are completed successfully, it is likely to be 15 years before Turkey joins the EU. Accession negotiations with Croatia may begin soon. Indeed all the countries of SE Europe have the perspective of EU membership in due course. The key question is whether the enlargement of the EU to 30 or more very diverse countries means that it has to intensify the process of integration through a common EU Constitution; or change its direction, perhaps devolving into several "Europes" with different degrees of integration and differing relationships with the outside world. There is nothing absurd about this idea. In fact, we already have a differentiated EU – of the 25 EU states only 13 are in the Eurozone; some are in Schengen, some are not; 19 EU countries are members of NATO, six are not – and so on.
The argument over the constitution is therefore vital. If the constitution is thrown out – and this seems very likely – then there will be a great opportunity to reflect on the nature of the EU for the years ahead. This discussion has already begun and we see the different camps lined up, for example in their attitudes to developments in the European Commission. You will recall that, in October last year, a new Commission cabinet was appointed, led by Manuel Barroso of Portugal. It claimed that it was committed to improving the EU’s economic performance. In particular, it made the completion of the Single Market a priority. Its reform programme was based on the re-launch of the so-called Lisbon Strategy. This Strategy was agreed in 2000 and set out to make the EU โthe most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010โ. The EU’s lack of progress in achieving this aim is well-documented. In the Commission’s recently published progress report, "Growth and jobs: working together for Europe’s future – A new start for the Lisbon Strategy", the main conclusions begin: "the growth performance of the European Union has stayed far behind the expectations from the time of launching of the Lisbon Strategy". At the heart of the EU’s poor performance is the reluctance on the part of some of the EU’s founding members to let go of the old ‘European Social Model’, despite it being wholly unfit for the geo-political climate of the 21st century. The proponents of this out-dated system insist on putting labour regulations and welfare provisions above market reform. The so-called Social Model is embedded in the fabric of the EU’s current operations. The dialogue that the so-called ‘social partners’ have with the EU institutions, and with the Commission in particular, has itself become an obstacle to restoring economic growth and creating jobs. In fact in the enlarged EU, this old Social Model is now coming into conflict with the more Atlanticist, economically liberal, outlook embraced originally by Britain and now by many of the new member states. This polarising of visions for the future of Europe is impacting directly on both the European Constitution, which includes the charter of Fundamental Rights, but also key legislation such as the Services Directive – legislation that will ultimately greatly affect the operations of your industries. The liberalisation of the services sector is for many of us the litmus test of the EU’s commitment to economic reform. It is estimated that at least half of the EU’s GDP is accounted for by service industries, many of which are affected by the proposed Directive. In its existing form, the Directive seeks to break down barriers facing the services industries with one swoop, rather than tackling them sector by sector. I am very aware that certain sectors have particular concerns over this. The lower tax systems, light regulation, lower wages and more flexible labour markets of some economies are seen by others as "social dumping". To my mind it is a question of finding the right balance, bearing in mind that competition is not just within Europe but increasingly on a global scale. Quality products need quality installation. I understand the need for robust safeguards to maintain the quality of installations and their maintenance across a single services market, but in our efforts to secure a helpful Directive for your interests, we must guard against sclerotic regulation that throttles industry and competition and adds unnecessarily to costs. It is expected that Parliament will consider a revised Services Directive before this summer and I shall try to ensure that your concerns are voiced."
David Dickinson CE of the BSIA, soundly voiced his concern. He said: "The Services Directive as it is currently drafted cannot fail to undermine quality and safety Standards of those member countries who have worked hard over many years to reach standards that protect their people, customers and their communities. The so called โCountry of Origin Principleโ would be completely disastrous if applied to the security industry in any of its many facets. This proposed legislation, if enacted, will yet again prove that the law of unintended consequences is alive and well and living in Brussels.โ
Geoffrey went on to talk about quality relating to products. He said: "Central to the effective functioning of a single market in the provision of Fire detection and Alarm products are one-stop testing and the development of a European Quality Mark (EQM). I congratulate Euralarm on its proactivity in this area. The arguments in favour of one-stop testing are certainly convincing. It would mark an important milestone in the development of a European single market in fire detection and alarm products, and contribute significantly to promoting the EU’s industries in this field in the wider global market. We in the European Parliament Liaison Group will, I feel sure, do all that we can to help you take forward the EQM, and in particular, will make contact with relevant Commission DGs, including, where appropriate, with Peter Mandelson, the EU’s Trade Commissioner. This is precisely the sort of area where the EU can do some good. It also shows what an effective practical role the Parliamentary Liaison Group might play. I should also mention the proposed revision of the Construction Products Directive (CPD). Aside from marks of quality and one stop testing, the key issue is the uniform interpretation of this Directive across the EU. When it comes to European legislation, there are two separate aspects: first there is the setting of common standards, then their enforcement and practical implementation. Unless all Member States conform to the standards in practice, legislation will be inefficient and unfair. Uneven compliance and non-compliance undermine the potential benefits of the Single Market and with it Europe’s competitiveness. The number of internal market infringement cases has more than doubled since 1992. At the same time, some governments, including the UK’s, are over-zealous in implementing EU Directives, adding unnecessary additional burdens to industry. This practice, known as ‘gold-plating’, can in practice be as harmful as non-implementation. For example, the British Chambers of Commerce recently conducted a study and concluded that, "the average UK relative elaboration ratio for all 100 directives (ie those included in the study from 1999-2002) is 334 per cent ie the UK adds two and a third times as much verbiage, and perhaps regulation, as it needs to.โ
In business we are disturbed at the amount of gold-plating โฆ so why does it happen? Is it a case of keeping some of the 850,000 new public employees since 1997 occupied? Why do we impose even further restrictions on business?
Geoffrey went on to say: "There have been some encouraging developments which should help us. Firstly, there are now 162 new MEPs following last year’s enlargement round. They bring with them the interests and concerns of a range of central and Eastern European organisations in Fire and Security. The Group will take advantage of this potential and seek to recruit more MEPโs. The fire and security industries must try to communicate a coherent message to the EU authorities on the shape and size of legislation that will help your sector – we shall do all that we can to assist you in this. Perhaps even more significantly, the EU must get its own house in order if it is to play a positive role for our industries in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. There is much to be done.โ I agree and through the magazine will ensure that readers are kept up to date.
