8 European Refugee Fund 2005-2010
| (25369)
6256/04
COM(04) 102
+ ADD 1
| Draft Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010; and Commission staff working paper on the extended impact assessment on the draft Council Decision
|
| Legal base | Article 63(2)(b) EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| Document originated | 12 February 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 16 February 2004
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 25 February 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
8.1 The first European Refugee Fund (ERF I) was established in
2000 and ends on 31 December 2004.[16]
Its annual budget is currently about €40
million. The Fund provides financial support for Member States'
work on receiving third country nationals who already have refugee
or protected person status or who are applying for asylum or other
forms of protection; on integrating them into the Member State;
and on arranging their voluntary return to their countries or
regions of origin. ERF I meets up to half the cost of these activities;
the Member State bears the rest. Nearly all the Fund's money
goes to Member States; the rest (5%) is used by the Commission
for research and evaluation, public awareness campaigns and capacity-building
in, for example, non-governmental organisations which help refugees.
8.2 Reception of applicants and people granted asylum
includes the provision of accommodation, medical advice and legal
assistance in the processing of asylum applications. Integration
includes advice on housing, education and benefits; providing
language training; helping people to become employable; and making
partnerships with local authorities and voluntary organisations
to assist integration. Work on voluntary returns includes advice
about repatriation programmes, information about the situation
in the countries of origin and help in resettlement.
8.3 Four countries (Germany, the UK, France and the
Netherlands) have received more than half the financial support
provided from the Fund so far. Each Member State receives a fixed
annual payment (€100,000 in 2004) plus an amount based on
the number of refugees and asylum applications it receives.
The document
8.4 The Commission proposes that a new European Refugee
Fund (ERF II) should run for six years, from January 2005 to the
end of 2010. The document comprises the text of a draft Decision
to give effect to the proposal, together with the Commission's
explanatory note and a financial statement. In addition, there
is a working paper by the Commission's staff containing an assessment
of the expected impact of the proposal and alternatives to it.
8.5 The groups of people to be helped by ERF II would
be the same as those who benefit from ERF I (people with refugee
or other protected status and applicants for asylum). Similarly,
the action by Member States which would be eligible for financial
support would remain reception, integration and voluntary repatriation.
Every Member State would receive an annual fixed payment from
the Fund (€500,000 for the accession states until the end
of 2007 and then €300,000 a year, while the present Member
States would get €300,000 a year for all six years) and payments
reflecting the number of refugees and asylum-seekers they deal
with.
8.6 But ERF II would have some important differences
from ERF I. The main differences would be:
- "A more strategic role
for the Commission" — the Commission's slice of
the budget would be doubled to 10% to enable the Commission to
do more on best practice, and more on transnational projects and
the analysis and dissemination of information. The Commission
would also have a new power: the approval of Member States' multi-annual
plans.
- Multi-annual plans
— ERF II would have two phases, 2005-07 and 2008-10. Every
Member State would be required to produce a "multi-annual
plan" for each of these phases and submit it to the Commission
for approval.
- More expenditure —
between 2005 and the end of 2007, ERF II's annual expenditure
would be marginally more than the current Fund's, but it would
treble to €150 million a year between 2008-10. The draft
Decision expressly requires the Commission to ensure that the
annual appropriations for 2008-10 "are consistent with the
financial perspectives" (Article2(2)).
- New Reports —
Member States would be required to send the Commission by 31 December
2006 an evaluation report on the projects co-financed by ERF II
and to make further evaluation reports by the end of June in 2009
and 2012. The Commission would be required to make three reports:
one by April 2007 on the results so far of ERF II, together with
any proposals for amendment to the programme; the second by the
end of 2009, providing an evaluation of results by then and a
proposal for the Fund's future development; and a final evaluation
report by the end of 2012.
8.7 Under the heading "subsidiarity", the
Commission's explanatory note says:
"The requirement of promoting a balance in the
efforts made by the Member States requires a financial contribution
aimed at both relieving the pressure on the Member States most
affected and developing the capacity of the Member States whose
asylum infrastructure and services are inadequate, and presupposes
a redistribution at European Union level which cannot be achieved
by the Member States in isolation."[17]
8.8 If the proposal were not adopted by 1 May 2004,
the draft Decision would become subject to co-decision between
the Council and the European Parliament and to QMV in the Council.
The Government's view
8.9 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Home Office (Caroline Flint) tells us that the Government
has not yet decided whether to opt into the proposal. But the
UK has taken part in ERF I and has received over 20% of the total
ERF I funding since January 2000.
8.10 The Minister notes that the Commission proposes
that ERF II should be implemented through two three-year multi-annual
plans. She comments that:
"the Government is concerned that this will
add to the burden on Member State responsible authorities, and
will be seeking amendments to allow Member States to reserve a
greater proportion of the budget for management and administration
of the fund."
8.11 The Minister also notes that ERF II would span
the current Financial Perspective and the Financial Perspective
beginning in 2007. She says:
"This prejudices negotiations on the next Financial
Perspective, which are just starting. Although some attempt is
made to address this issue, a stronger clause is required that
would only indicate funding until the end of 2006 with expenditure
thereafter being re-examined in the light of the outcome of the
Financial Perspective negotiations."
Conclusion
8.12 The costs associated with dealing with applicants
for asylum are not evenly distributed among Member States. The
case for sharing the costs of reception, integration and voluntary
repatriation was recognised by the establishment of the European
Refugee Fund in 2000. We can understand, therefore, why the Commission
has presented this proposal for the continuation of the programme
after the present one expires at the end of this year.
8.13 However, the draft Decision would not only
continue the present programme. It also includes a new requirement
for Member States to produce multi-annual plans and would give
the Commission a larger share of the Fund and a greater role in
the process through its consideration and approval of the plans.
Increased expenditure is proposed in the second three-year phase.
We note that the Government will be pursuing aspects of these
proposals during the negotiations and that it has not yet decided
whether to opt into the Decision. Moreover, consideration of
the proposal is at an early stage. For these reasons, we shall
keep the document under scrutiny. We should be grateful if the
Minister would keep us informed of the progress of negotiations
and tell us what decision the Government reaches on whether to
opt into the Decision.
16 Decision 2000/596/EC; OJ No. L 252, 6.10.2000, p.12. Back
17
Pages 7 and 8 of the explanatory note. Back
| 
