14. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance, but make no recommendation for further consideration:--
Department of the Environment
(17901)
5860/97
COM(97)28 |
Amended proposal for a Council decision on a Community action programme
promoting Non-Governmental Organisations primarily active in the field on environmental
protection. |
| (17958)-- |
Proposal for a Council Decision on a Community action programme promoting
Non-Governmental Organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection. |
| Legal base: |
Article 130s(1); co-operation; qualified majority
voting. |
Background
14.1 We considered a proposal to provide financial assistance to Non-Governmental
Organisations on 2 April 1996[28]. We did not recommend a
debate in view of the small amount of money involved, but we pointed out that there were a number
of aspects of the Commission proposal which were unsatisfactory and would make any proper evaluation
of value for money extremely difficult. Since then, two documents have been put forward. The
first, which is the subject of an Explanatory Memorandum dated 14 March from the Department of the
Environment, outlines amendments proposed by the European Parliament. The Commission was prepared
to accept 12 of these. They were incorporated in Council document 5860/97, which was not
circulated until 11 February 1997 and was quickly overtaken by a further draft dated 20 February.
This second document contained a Presidency compromise which was put to the Environment Council on
2-4 March, and on which a Common Position was agreed, subject to a UK Parliamentary Scrutiny
Reserve.
The Common Position
14.2 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 17 March, with which he has supplied a text
of the Common Position, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment (Mr
Clappison) recalls that the proposed Community action programme would provide financial assistance
to Non-Governmental Organisations undertaking actions of Community interest which would contribute
to the implementation of Community and Environment Policy. Such activities would cover awareness
campaigns, information, demonstration of projects and co-ordination of activities.
14.3 The text now says that distribution of funds would take place annually and that
priority activities to be financed would be specified in the Official Journal, together with
any criteria to be used for selecting them. Appropriate organisations would be invited to apply for
funding and an annual list of successful beneficiaries and funds received would also be published
in the Official Journal. The Commission would verify that the appropriate activities were
carried out and would recover sums improperly received in any case of misuse. The Commission could
also reduce or suspend financial assistance or, where they were management improprieties, demand
prompt repayment of sums already paid.
14.4 Changes made since we considered the proposal last April include clarification
of the legal base and definitions of those Non-Governmental Organisations eligible for funding,
which must be "independent and non-profit-making organisations primarily active in the field
of environmental protection, with an environmental objective aimed at the public good." Such
activities must have a sound cost/benefit ratio and contribute to a multi-national approach. The
time framework of the programme has been redefined and includes details of the budget line. The
rate of assistance has been increased from 40% to 50% of the cost of eligible expenditure, and the
administrative procedures and timetable of the programme have been spelt out.
Conclusion
14.5 We appreciate that it is difficult to ensure that formal texts are made
available in Member States when changes are made in rapid succession. Nevertheless, we are concerned
that the only formal text deposited was 5860/97 (dated 11 February 1997) and that no Explanatory
Memorandum was prepared on it before the Common Position was reached at the Environment Council on
2-4 March. We note that the UK Government made clear that there was a Parliamentary Scrutiny
Reserve on the text which superseded document 5860/97. Nevertheless, since the Department of the
Environment must have known that this item was on the agenda for the Environment Council, we would
have expected an Explanatory Memorandum before that Council, as the document indicating the likely
changes was available in Brussels on 20 February.
14.6 We have noted the changes made to the text that we cleared on 2 April 1996 and, while we consider the proposal to be politically important, we do not recommend a debate and now clear it.
28.(16808) 4163/96; see HC 51-xv (1995-96), paragraph 7 (2 April 1996). Back
|
