Government rejects Atkins' EU report

The Atkins report on Strategies for the European Construction Industry concentrated too much on the internal needs of Europe without giving sufficient weight to promoting the European industry in a global context.

This is one of the principal conclusions in a draft UK Government response to the Atkins, or Secteur, report published at the beginning of last year.

The Government says 'the UK feels that overseas markets, particularly in developing countries, are highly important and will provide key opportunities for construction firms. Any European construction strategy must stress the importance of international competitiveness and the need to ensure that European firms are effectively promoted in world markets.'

It adds that the European Commission's own response to Atkins will need to take account of various changes which have occurred since the report was conceived.

It is pointed out that the European Union has itself grown and now includes a number of member states with their own particular problems. New markets and opportunities for construction have also opened up in Eastern Europe.

'Furthermore,' says the Government, 'the principle of subsidiarity consolidated by the Maastricht Treaty means that the Commission will need to consider carefully the most appropriate level for introducing reforms. In most cases, advocacy rather than prescription will be what is required at the European level.'

The UK response notes that a large number of the issues raised by Atkins have been tackled by Sir Michael Latham in his report Constructing the Team.

It supports a stronger role for DG111 in representing the interest of the construction industry within the Commission. The UK says its priorities are:

n measures to ensure more effective use of funds for infrastructure development;

n initiatives to promote education and training;

n measures to ensure more effective use of research money;

n measures to encourage greater mobility and mutual recognition;

n closer liaison between the industry, member states, and the Commission.

In addition, the UK Government and industry would like to see future consideration of the need for compatibility of liability regimes within Europe. It suggests that it is not worth trying to set up a pan-European client body until such organisations are more firmly established at national level.