5 Promotion of "active European citizenship"
| (24682)
10898/03
COM(03) 276
| Draft Council Decision establishing a Community action programme to promote active European citizenship.
|
| Legal base | Article 308 EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 11 November, 10 December and 15 December 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03), paragraph 17 (15 October 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 22 December 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 The purpose of this draft Decision is to provide a legal base
for grants, from the beginning of 2004, towards the promotion
of active European citizenship. In the past, grants for this purpose
have been financed under appropriations from Part A of the Commission
section of the budget. The provision of a legal base for the grants
is now required by the Financial Regulation of 2002[11]
and the decision to apply activity-based budgeting to the Commission
budget.
5.2 For several years, financial support for the
promotion of active European citizenship has been provided under
Part A to the following bodies:
- the Association of the Councils
of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European
Union (the Association's purpose is to coordinate and relay to
the public the judicial decisions of the Councils of State on
Community law and to facilitate the pooling of methods of transposing
and implementing European law at national level);
- the "Our Europe" Association
(described by the Commission as "a think tank of personalities
representative of European society and the political, social,
economic and scientific worlds to act as a marketplace for ideas
promoting a closer European Union");
- other European think tanks and organisations
advancing the idea of Europe;
- associations and federations of European interest;
- the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (the
Council represents organisations of refugees and displaced persons
and promotes policies which contribute to the Treaty's objectives
on asylum and social exclusion);
- Jean Monnet House and Robert Schuman
House (meeting places for the discussion and explanation of the
activities of these two founding fathers of the European Union);
and
- bodies promoting town-twinning schemes in the
European Union.
5.3 Under Part B of the Commission budget grants
have been given to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and trade
union organisations to finance "measures for civil society"
and to the Platform of European Social NGOs which, among other
things, helps to shape EU policies on matters such as social rights.
5.4 The draft Decision provides for two types of
grant:
a) operating grants to co-finance expenditure
associated with the permanent work programme of a body (such as
the Association of Councils of State) pursuing an aim of general
European interest in the field of active European citizenship
or an objective forming part of the European Union's policy in
that field; or
b) grants to co-finance a specific action in
the field of active European citizenship (such as the promotion
by local authorities of town-twinning).
5.5 The proposal requires the Commission to submit,
before the end of 2007, a report on the effectiveness of the programme
in achieving its objectives.
5.6 When we considered the proposal in October,[12]
the Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane) told us that the move
to activity-based budgeting will allow Member States to examine
more closely the added value of the activities which receive financial
support. He added:
"Discussion in the Council Working Group will
allow us to argue for a tightening up of the proposal. This could
be done, for example, through more clearly defined and measurable
objectives, with a definition of desired outputs and provision
for regular reporting against objectives; a systematic evaluation
of the activities; and the establishment of a management committee,
if practicable. We will also want the Commission to justify its
selection of institutions which are to receive guaranteed funding
of their operating costs, to ensure that they do offer an essential
service and value for money."
5.7 The Minister said that the Government would prefer
the proposed grant programme to run until the end of 2006 rather
than the end of 2008.
5.8 In the Conclusion to our Report on the proposal,
we said that we fully supported the Government's intention to
argue for the draft Decision to be tightened up, with more clearly
defined and measurable objectives. We asked the Minister a number
of questions and decided to keep the document under scrutiny pending
the answers.
The Minister's letters
5.9 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Home Office (Caroline Flint) tells us that responsibility
for the Government's interest in the proposal has been transferred
to her Department. Her letters reply to our questions. Those questions
(paraphrased in italics below) and the Minister's replies to them
are as follows.
We question whether the activities are sufficiently
homogeneous to be placed together in one programme and we believe
that an evaluation should be made before the programme is adopted,
rather than in three or four years' time. Does the Government
think it appropriate for think tanks promoting specific political
views to be supported from public funds?
5.10 The Minister tells us that the Government has
now succeeded in reducing the period of the programme from 2004-08
to 2004-06. The programme can, therefore, be evaluated sooner.
The Government believes that this provides a satisfactory compromise
as time is very restricted and an evaluation would not be possible
before the start of 2004. As to support for think tanks, the Minister
says that the Government is content with the criteria for dispersing
funds from the programme; they are robust enough to ensure that
spending is directed towards the bodies most capable of promoting
European citizenship. The Government has also secured an improved
monitoring system for the evaluation of the achievement of the
programme's objectives.
We note that an operating grant under Part 2 of
the programme will not fund all the eligible expenditure in the
calendar year for which it is awarded. At least 20% must be co-funded
from non-Community sources. We ask the Minister why bodies which
are specifically aimed at objectives of European interest should
be required to seek funds from non-Community sources.
5.11 The Minister replies that the Government is,
in general, supportive of co-funding because it ensures some public
"buy-in" to those organisations that receive EU funds.
The Government is confident that co-funders will not be able to
alter schemes to fit their own agendas.
What is the timetable for the proposal?
5.12 The Minister says that the Presidency plans
to submit the proposal to the meeting of the Council of Ministers
on 22 December 2003. The Minister adds that the Government is
content with the proposal and she hopes that her letters will
assuage our concerns about it.
Legal base
5.13 In her letter of 10 December, the Minister tells
us that this programme is an essential complement to the formal
establishment of European citizenship by Article 17 of the EC
Treaty. She continues:
"The required understanding and motivation to
take an active part in the working of the Union is essential to
make the granting of citizenship workable. Although there are
specific legal bases connected with facilitating some of the rights
of Union citizens…there is no specific Article providing
for a general measure on civil participation. As no specific legal
base exists for establishing this programme and the measure is
necessary to attain a Community objective, Article 308 is the
appropriate legal base".
5.14 The Minister amplifies this in her letter of
15 December. She tells us:
" ... active citizenship is as important to
the operation of the common market as it is to the operation of
any other area of Union activity. See, for example, recitals (2)
and (3) of the proposed Council Decision on this point. In any
event, we believe that a wide interpretation of the phrase 'in
the course of the operation of the common market' in Article 308
is necessary in order to give a purposive interpretation of the
Article, taking account of how the tasks and activities of the
Community, as expressed in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty, have
evolved since the Treaty was first drafted".
Conclusion
5.15 We consider it unsatisfactory that approval
is sought for the extension of funding until 2006 without an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the financial support that has been provided
so far and, in particular, an assessment of the value for money
obtained from the support of the institutions which have received
guaranteed funding of their operating costs. Accordingly, we ask
the Minister to obtain such an assessment. We also ask the Minister
to provide us with a complete list of all the bodies which have
received financial support from the programme in the last two
years and for which it is proposed that funding should be earmarked
in the period 2004 to 2006.
5.16 We remain concerned that Article 308 is
cited as the legal base for the programme. The Article says:
"If action by the Community should prove
necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the
common market [our emphasis], one of the objectives
of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary
powers, the Council shall…take the appropriate measures".
5.17 At this stage, it seems to us that the Minister's
interpretation of "in the course of the operation of the
common market" is so wide as to rob the words of their plain
meaning.
5.18 We shall keep the document under scrutiny
until we have received the Minister's response.
11 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 of 25
June 2002. Back
12
See headnote. Back
| 
