The recent vote by the Scottish Parliament on 8 December 2004, to reject, at least temporarily, the Executive's proposals to meet new EU maritime transport competition rules by putting out to tender Caledonian Macbrayne's west coast ferries has brought the question of the application of EU state aids rules into sharp relief.
European heads of government have in recent years committed themselves to making substantial cuts in state aids payments across the EU under the Lisbon and Gothenburg summit commitments, to deliver substantial improvements in the competitiveness and performance of the EU economy. The UK has been among the states calling loudest for a substantial reduction in such state aids, motivated by concerns about the way German and French Governments have sought to use state aids to provide subsidies to industries such as Ruhrkohle (the Ruhr coal mining conglomerate) and Air France which allow them to compete unfairly with other European companies.
The concerns of those who opposed the Executive's proposals on Caledonian Macbrayne, however, are that the effect of a decision to accept a lower tender than one provided by the community-based lifeline ferry service operated by Caledonian Macbrayne would be to substantially damage the economies of the most remote islands by taking away local jobs and by consequence to weaken rather than strengthen the competitiveness of the area.
The whole question of the extent to which state aids promote or undermine public economic objectives is one which is attaining increased importance in quasi-judicial decision making by the Commission on individual state aids issues, and is one which is worth the attention of Scottish lawyers working on European competition law.
Article 87 of the EC Treaty prohibits any aid granted by a member state or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain firms or the production of certain goods. The aid in question can take a variety of forms as, for instance: state grants; interest relief; tax relief; state guarantee or holding; or provision by the state of goods and services on preferential terms. Fundamentally, three types of state aid exist: sector aid, regional aid and horizontal aid. Sector aid is aimed at relieving the burdens for sectors in recession by e.g. supporting restructuring of the sector and retraining the sector’s labour force. Regional aid is targeted on developing the poorest regions in Europe, creating the foundation for expansion and modernisation of the regions and thereby contributing to the overall EU goal of economic and social cohesion in Europe. Horizontal aid is aimed at reducing market failures by subsidising e.g. environmental action or R&D activities in private firms. However, state aid also has some detrimental effects which can lead to potentially large economic costs. State aid can distort competition and lead to inoptimal use of society’s resources by e.g. supporting an outdated industrial structure and delaying a necessary restructuring process in firms.
Most of the Commission's responsibilities for state aids are carried out by DG Competition, now headed by the Dutch Commissioner Nellie Kroes, but her sectoral colleagues run sector-specific state aids regimes for particular areas, notably agriculture and fisheries, transport, and coal. In transport guidelines exist on the application of articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and article 61 of the EEA agreement to state aids in the aviation sector (94/C 350/07); on state aid to maritime transport (Commission communication C(2004) 43, Official Journal C 013, 17 January 2004, 0003-0012); as well as rules concerning inland, road and rail transport.
Aid granted in conformity with all the conditions set out in these regulations is automatically considered compatible with the common market. Where a state (or its responsible authorities, such as the Scottish Executive) is in any doubt as to whether a proposed subsidy is covered by the guidelines or not, or where it clearly is not, the authority is under an obligation to notify that aid to the Commission. Where it does not, the Commission may instigate an investigation, often inspired by a complaint from a third party or another member state. Whether notified or not, the Commission may find such aid incompatible with the common market and oblige the state to ensure repayment of part or all of the aid in question by the recipient body, including interest. The Scottish Executive has recognised the importance of respecting this regime and has set up a unit in ETLLD in Glasgow (http://www.stateaidscotland.gov.uk) to advise public sector and other bodies on how to meet EU rules, which works in close cooperation with the parallel UK body in the Department of Trade and Industry.
A significant number of changes have been made recently to state aids procedures. In a recent speech, "A reformed competition policy: achievements and challenges for the future", Center for European Reform Brussels, 28 October 2004, the outgoing Competition Commissioner Mario Monti highlighted a series of changes to simplify and modernise procedures, including new provisions regarding notification forms, standardised reporting, the interest rate to be used for recovery of illegally granted aid and rules relating to time limits. He also drew attention to the use of enhanced economic methods of investigation as key elements in improving the economic underpinning of decisions. In order to enable scarce resources to be concentrated on cases which give rise to important competition concerns, new instruments were being developed to allow for the very simplified treatment of cases which do not give rise to significant concerns as regards distortion of competition or effect on trade. Discussions were also underway in Brussels on revisions to certain guidelines on state aids, notably a new framework on rescue and restructuring, and a new framework on the application of the State aid rules to the provision of compensation for the cost of providing services of general economic interest. (This point on services of general economic interest is of particular application to the Caledonian Macbrayne case, in that the recent ECJ Altmark decision has established ground rules on how a public sector obligation can be applied to provide subsidy to an undertaking of public interest as long as no overcompensation is applied. See Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH, judgment of 24 July 2003; and interesting discussion by Alan Boyd and Joanne Teale of McGrigor Law on http://www.mcgrigors.com/pdfdocs/pl_state_aid_paper.pdf .)
Finally, and of significant interest to Scotland, the framework for regional aid is currently being reworked, with early indications of Commission thinking being that they intend to ban aid to large firms altogether except in Objective 1 regions, which post-2007 will be almost exclusively in the new member states of Central Europe and the Baltic states.
The Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs has recently carried out useful work on improving policymakers’ foundation for making decisions by undertaking a number of case studies on existing or earlier state aid schemes. (See http://www.ks.dk/english/stateaid/publication/analyse .) The key findings are that the negative effects of state aid are:
· Distorted competition by giving some firms a competitive advantage over others;
· Excessive profits to excessive investments in subsidised sectors, thereby distorting investment patterns;
· Excessive wages: labour is fixed in less efficient firms at the expense of more efficient firms;
· Low productivity: there is a risk that state aid can delay necessary renewal, innovation, product development and lead to lower productivity growth. In the long run, state aid can tie resources in unproductive firms and sectors;
· Outdated industrial structure: state aid can support an industrial structure with many small firms. Such a structure might be preferable, e.g. from a regional perspective, but at the same time could conflict with the potential for economies of scale by concentrating production on fewer plants. A case study of transport aid paid to firms to compensate for the extra costs of shipping goods from the Danish Island of Samsoe showed that the payment of aid for a time-limited period did not help restructuring, since the plants closed when the aid was stopped.
· Direct costs, administrative costs and distortionary taxes: financing public expenses leads to higher taxes with potential distortions on e.g. labour supply and investment.
On the other hand, where the aid scheme is thought through, defensible in economic terms and proportionate to the aim of the public policy, it is more likely to achieve its objectives. The parallel case study on Danish Government subsidies to energy saving investments in industries and subsidies to cover CO2 taxes in certain firms (voluntary agreements) showed that in both cases the purposes of the schemes, part of a larger package, did not distort competition unfairly and indeed served a purpose in helping to raise (or at least maintain) the international competitiveness of Danish firms. So, with the Altmark case in mind, where the economic rationale behind a scheme can be demonstrated, it is more likely that the Commission will judge a scheme to be acceptable.
The recent Commission decision, IP/04/157, 3 February 2004, on subsidies to Ryanair by the Walloon Government to provide air services from Charleroi, so much derided by the Ryanair chief executive, in practice allowed support to the development of new routes from underused regional airports and allowed Ryanair to keep 11 million out of the 15 million euros it has been awarded. The 4 million euro repayment Ryanair was ordered to make by the Commission (and which it has said it will contest in the ECJ) applied to discounted airport charges which went beyond the discounts made available by the Government to other carriers and to certain route development payments made without reference to the economics of the route in question.
What does all this mean for Scotland? First, in the specific case of Caledonian Macbrayne, the Commission guidelines allow public service obligations (PSOs) to be imposed for scheduled services to ports serving peripheral regions of the Community or thinly served routes considered vital for the economic development of that region, in cases where the operation of market forces would not ensure a sufficient service level. But the Commission has also made it clear that for public service contracts to be consistent with the common market and not to constitute state aid, the Commission expects public tenders to be made, as the development and implementation of schemes must be transparent and allow for the development of competition. Exceptions can be allowed in exceptional cases involving regular ferry services, but only where the economic case can be demonstrated clearly that the aid involved is not overcompensation (see Altmark above) and that competition is not being hindered, either now or in the future.
The difficulty the Executive faced in this case was twofold: there was no practical way they could demonstrate the true cost of the subsidy required without going to tender; and the UK Government’s policy on state aids was not to seek a conflict with the Commission if an alternative route could achieve the same effect. It remains to be seen whether there is any room for renegotiation or whether the Commission will insist on the tender going ahead. For the future of the ferry services a key consideration on the way in which the public service obligation is operated will be the extent to which the islands of Scotland are regarded as being a peripheral region of the Community in need of special treatment on economic grounds - at this stage there is no formal recognition of this in Community law since the Highlands and Islands have lost their status as an Objective 1 region for the purposes of structural funds and the position for the next round of structural funds to come into force from 2007 is still to be decided.
This issue will also have a major bearing on the extent to which regional aid can be paid by the enterprise agencies, the Scottish Executive and local authorities to businesses in the Highlands and Islands and other deprived parts of Scotland from 2007 onwards. Currently, with the accession of the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe, the expectation is that the focus of EU regional policy, both in terms of European structural funding and regional state aids guidelines, will be on the new member states in Central and Eastern Europe where GDP per head in deprived regions can be as little as 25% of the EU average. Under current Commission proposals no state aid to large firms in Scotland will be permissible at all, and other forms of aid will be limited to support for SMEs and research and development. Aid will be permissible for derelict land reclamation and environmental protection, but questions still remain to be asked about the extent to which such aid will act to support the regeneration of employment blackspots in Central Scotland, and more widely the Executive's declared intention to promote sustainable economic development, which may require a degree of continuing public subsidy in order to promote environmental as well as economic goals.
As far as the remote parts of the Highlands and Islands are concerned, it is a matter of concern that the proposals do not seem to give them any special status - while it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the more central parts of the Highlands and Islands, especially the area around Inverness, do not need any special treatment compared with other parts of Eastern Scotland now that they are fully integrated into the Scottish transport system, it is difficult to envisage the same regime being conducive to the development of sustainable businesses in the more remote parts of the west coast and the islands. This analysis of trends in state aids decision-making shows that the best way to safeguard public support for economic development in these remote areas is to devise a case for continuing support which makes economic sense, can be sustainable over time and can be demonstrated to promote competition in the long run.
Colin Imrie is a former UK diplomat and Commission official who was Head of the EU JHA Team and Access to Justice Division in the Scottish Executive Justice Department till September 2004. He is now Director of EUsolution.com Ltd, an Edinburgh-based consultancy services firm working on EU policy and funding and on market development in the new EU member states.
Current Submissions04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |