13 European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training
| (25350)
6030/04
COM(03) 854
| Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 337/75 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
|
| Legal base | Article 308 EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Education and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 5 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xii (2003-04), para 2 (10 March 2004) and HC 42-xvii (2003-04), para 2 (21 April 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | May 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
13.1 The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
(the Centre) was set up in 1975.[23]
It is an EU Agency. Its main purpose is to provide policy makers,
researchers and practitioners with information designed to promote
a clearer understanding of developments in vocational training.
13.2 The Centre currently has a Management Board,
comprised of representatives of the Governments, employers' organisations
and employees' organisations of the Member States and three representatives
of the Commission (when the new Member States join the Board,
it will have 78 members). There is also a Bureau, which has neither
a legal existence nor formally defined functions.
13.3 Following an external evaluation of the Centre
in 2001, the Commission and the Board concluded that the Centre's
functions should remain unchanged but that its management should
be reorganised. The purpose of the draft Regulation is to amend
the Regulation of 1975 so as to reconstitute the Centre's management
structure. There are two main proposals. First, the Governing
body would meet once a year (and on other occasions only if at
least a third of the members ask for another meeting). Second,
the Bureau would be given legal existence and specified functions.
The Bureau would have eight members, including a representative
of the Commission.
13.4 In March, when we first considered the draft
Regulation,[24] the Minister
of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education at
the Department for Education and Skills (Alan Johnson) told us
that the Government supported the proposal but considered that
Article 150, not Article 308, would be the appropriate legal base
for the Regulation.
13.5 Article 150 of the EC Treaty sets out the Community's
responsibilities for vocational training, including the exchange
of relevant information. Article 150(4) expressly provides for
the Council to adopt measures to contribute to the achievement
of the objectives of the Article.
13.6 Article 308 of the Treaty empowers the Council
to take measures which are necessary to attain, in the operation
of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and
for which there is no other legal base in the Treaty.
13.7 Article 308 was cited as the legal base for
the Regulation which set up the Centre in 1975. At that time,
however, the Treaty did not contain the provisions now found in
Article 150.
13.8 We concluded in March that the proposed changes
to the Centre's management arrangements appeared sensible, particularly
because the Governing Board will have 78 members after 1 May,
but we were concerned about the legal base for the proposal.
As indicated above, Article 308 is to be used only where the EC
Treaty has provided no alternative. In this case, there is a
specific legal base available in Article 150. Accordingly, we
supported the Minister's view that Article 308 is not appropriate.
We asked him to keep us informed about the Government's negotiations
to have Article 150 adopted as the legal base. Meanwhile, we kept
the document under scrutiny.
13.9 In his letter of 5 April, the Minister told
us that the Government had explained its concerns about the legal
base, but that the Commission and all other Member States were
content to use Article 308. The Minister said that the Government
was alert to the potential misuse of Article 308 where it appears
that other Treaty Articles are more appropriate. It was his intention,
however, reluctantly to agree to the proposal and to propose that
a declaration be inserted as a footnote to the Regulation indicating
that the use of Article 308 must not be regarded as a precedent
and should not be used for future vocational training proposals
affecting the Centre.
13.10 When we resumed our consideration of the draft
Regulation on 21 April, we decided to ask the Minister to tell
us the reasons why the Commission and the other Member States
were content to accept Article 308 as the legal base. We also
asked the Commission for its explanation.
The Minister's letter of 5 May
13.11 In his reply to our question, the Minister
says:
"The Commission and [the] other Member States
are content to sign up to this proposal on the grounds that the
largely administrative and management changes proposed to the
Regulation could be made more swiftly by use of the Article 308
procedure requiring unanimity in Council rather than co-decision
under Article 150. This could mean that the new Regulation could
be in place by the time the new Member States can participate
at their first full Council meeting on 28 May.
"You may also be aware that the European Parliament
has recently adopted its [own] opinion on the CEDEFOP[25]
Regulation under the consultation procedure which Article 308
entails. They proposed some minor amendments, but did not raise
the question of the legal base either.
"The main reason for making the changes to the
Regulation is to increase the effectiveness and cost efficiency
of CEDEFOP. The early restructuring of CEDEFOP should ensure that
it can more effectively serve the vocational training needs of
the new Member States and improve its organisation and thereby
not impact negatively on the quality and relevance of its work.
If Article 150 were to be used, co-decision with the European
Parliament would be required and this would result in a considerable
delay in putting into place the changes to the existing Regulation.
This is something that the Commission and other Member States
wish to avoid. I should also mention that it may be unhelpful
for UK relations with other Member States if we were to hold out
for Article 150.
"In view of the special circumstances in this
case, and as I am anxious to ensure that CEDEFOP is able to work
effectively particularly on accession of the new states, I hope,
therefore, that [the] Committee will support my proposal which
is to reluctantly accept the proposal and insert a Declaration
in the footnote to the Regulation. This would indicate that the
use of Article 308 in this case should not be seen as a precedent
or as a precedent for future vocational training proposals in
respect of CEDEFOP".
13.12 The Commission has not yet sent us a written
reply but we understand that it agrees with the Minister's explanation.
Conclusion
13.13 It is not in dispute between ourselves and
the Government that Article 150 is the proper legal base for this
proposal and that Article 308 is not. The only argument for using
Article 308 appears to be one of expediency: to avoid delay. We
understand that argument but it is not, in our view, a sufficient
justification for the improper use of Article 308.
13.14 This is a point of clear legal importance.
It has, however, now been fully aired in our reports on this proposal.
There is nothing to add or to be gained from further scrutiny.
Accordingly, we clear the document while drawing the matter to
the attention of the House by the publication of this Report.
23 OJ No. L 39, 13.2.75, p.1. Back
24
See headnote. Back
25
The French acronym for the Centre. Back
| 
