6. We consider that the
following raises questions of legal and political importance,
but make no recommendation for its further consideration at this
stage:-
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE
|
(17767)
12796/96
COM(96)635
|
Amended draft Decision on a First Multi-annual Programme to Assist European Tourism PHILOXENIA (1997-2000).
|
|
Legal base:
|
Article 235; unanimity. Article 3(t) is relevant.
|
Introduction
6.1 The only Community
action in the field of tourism, apart from that taken under separate
Treaty Titles, is the Community Action Plan to Assist Tourism[24].
The evaluation carried out by Price Waterhouse of the first two
years of this plan highlighted weaknesses. On 3 July 1996 we
considered the Commission report on this evaluation and its proposal
for the PHILOXENIA programme.[25]
The amended draft Decision
6.2 The Action Plan envisaged
in the PHILOXENIA proposal covers four areas:
-A Improving
knowledge in the field of tourism. This would include pooling
and disseminating research and analysing the statistics collected
under the recently introduced Directive on tourism statistics.
It would also include establishing a legal and financial watch
within the Tourism Unit for the systematic assessment of Community
measures affecting tourism.
-B Improving
the legislative and financial environment for tourism by improving
liaison with the industry, through conferences and theme meetings.
-C Raising
the quality in European tourism: by promoting sustainable
tourism and undertaking projects relating to obstacles to social,
business, cultural, rural and urban tourism, elderly and disabled
tourists, and developing responses.
-D Promoting
Europe as a destination.
The overall expenditure
proposed is 25 million ECU (£18.4 million)[26].
6.3 The latest draft
incorporates some amendments proposed by the European Parliament.
These do not affect the scope of the programme but the text now
includes new references to:
-- the
merits of tourism as an industry still not having been sufficiently
recognised;
-- the
Council Resolution of 13 May 1996[27]
on Euro-Mediterranean co-operation in the tourist sector, which
calls for special attention to be paid to tourism; and
-- improving
reliable and up-to-date statistics, as provided for in the Tourism
Statistics Directive[28].
The Government's view
6.4 In her Explanatory
Memorandum (dated 22 January) the Secretary of State at the Department
of National Heritage (Mrs Bottomley) repeats the points which
she made in her previous EM on the draft which we considered on
3 July. In essence, she says that the Government is sceptical
about the desirability of promoting Europe as a tourist destination
and, even if it were desirable, whether the Commission is best
placed to undertake this task. On the collection and dissemination
of statistics she says that, since we have yet to see the results
of the Statistics Directive, it is premature to begin further
work.
6.5 The Minister also
points out that the question of establishing a Title on Tourism
in the Treaty is being considered in the IGC.[29]
6.6 So far as the fate
of this draft Decision is concerned, the Minister tells us that:
"During Council
working groups and at meetings of the Committee of Permanent Representatives
(COREPER) in the second half of 1996, several Member States, including
the United Kingdom, maintained general reservations on the proposal.
Germany's Bundesrat (second chamber of Parliament) opposed the
proposal principally on grounds of subsidiarity and value for
money. At COREPER Germany indicated that it would veto the proposal
if it were brought before the Council. The UK, Netherlands, Denmark
and France maintained general reservations. As a result the Irish
Presidency decided not to hold a Tourism Council, and the Netherlands
Presidency has also indicated that it is unlikely to hold a Tourism
Council".
Conclusion
6.7 When we considered
the earlier draft of this Decision in July last year we noted
that it was presented hard on the heels of a report which did
not inspire confidence in the project, and at a time when the
whole question of the extent to which the Community should be
given competence in this field was under review. The impression
given was that PHILOXENIA had gained a momentum of its
own, and perhaps one which the Commission was seeking to maintain.
This impression persists, strengthened if anything by the new
additions to the text. We also understand that the Commission
for Tourism, Mr Papoutsis, remains a firm advocate of the programme.
6.8 The indication
by Germany in COREPER that it would veto the proposal, together
with the reservations expressed by four other Member States, including
the United Kingdom, suggests that PHILOXENIA will not prosper,
given that the legal base requires unanimity. We ask the Minister
to continue to keep us informed of any developments in the progress
of this draft Decision, and do not clear the document.
24 (13662) 5437/92; see HC 79-i (1992-93), paragraph 57 (17 June 1992); see also Official Report, 19 March 1993, cols. 510-531. Back
25 (17229) 7472/96 and (17241) COM(96) 168; see HC 24-xvii (1995-96), paragraph 4 (3 July 1996). Back
26 At £1 = 1.3563 ECU. Back
27 (17058) - ; see HC 51-xv (1995-96), paragraph 11b (2 April 1996). Back
28 Directive 95/57/EC; (15948) 4443/95; see HC 70-ix (1994-95), paragraph 26 (8 March 1995). Back
29 See CONF 2500/96 A general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties Part B, page 136, where it features as an issue tabled by the Greek delegation for consideration by the Conference. Back
|
