6 Promotion of "active European
citizenship"
| (26556)
8154/05
COM(05) 116
+ ADD 1
| Draft Decision establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme "Citizens for Europe" to promote active European Citizenship
Commission staff working paper
|
| Legal base | Articles 151 and 308 EC; co-decision; unanimity
|
| Document originated | 6 April 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 17 May 2005
|
| Department | Culture, Media and Sport
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 8 June 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (24682) 10898/03: HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03), para 17 (15 October 2003); HC 42-iii (2003-04), para 5 (17 December 2003); HC 42-v (2003-04), para 16 (14 January 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically and legally important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
6.1 The aims of the current European citizenship programme are
to bring Europe closer to its citizens by promoting civic participation
and encouraging cooperation between communities in all Member
States. The programme was set up by a Council Decision on 26 January
2004 under Article 308 of the EC Treaty and will expire on 31
December 2006. Following low turn-out at last year's European
Parliament elections, the Commission believes that the aims of
the programme continue to be a priority for the EU. It has therefore
proposed an extension and enhancement of the current programme
to run from 2007 to 2013 and to be known as the "Citizens
for Europe" programme.
6.2 Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community (the EC Treaty) authorises the Council to adopt measures
to give incentives to Member States to cooperate with each other
to promote knowledge and dissemination of Europe's culture and
history and encourage cultural exchanges. Article 308 of the
Treaty authorises the Council to adopt measures if they are necessary
to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market,
one of the objectives of the Treaty and the Treaty has not provided
the necessary powers.
Previous scrutiny of the current citizenship programme
6.3 In October 2003, the previous Committee considered
the draft Decision to set up the citizenship programme for 2004-06.
The Committee regarded it as unsatisfactory that approval was
being sought for the programme without an evaluation of the financial
support previously provided for the promotion of European citizenship,
including an assessment of the value for money obtained by supporting
the institutions which had received guaranteed funding of their
operating costs. It was also concerned by the use of Article 308
as the legal base, regarding the Minister's interpretation of
the words "in the course of the operation of the common market"
as so wide as to rob the words of their plain meaning.
6.4 On 14 January 2004, after receiving additional
information from the Minister, the previous Committee remained
unpersuaded by the Minister's arguments about the appropriateness
of the use of Article 308 as the legal base for the Decision.
It pressed for an immediate evaluation of the expenditure up to
the end of 2003 and asked the Minister "to seek an assurance
from the Commission that the external evaluation to be done in
2006 will be completed and made available well before any proposal
for the continuation of the programme beyond 2006 is presented
for approval".
6.5 In March 2004, the then Minister (Caroline Flint)
responded to the previous Committee's points. She indicated that
the Commission would not agree to undertake an evaluation of the
expenditure up to the end of 2003. The Government had concluded
that it was impractical to do so itself. The Minister agreed with
the Committee that an evaluation should be available before any
renewal of the programme for 2004-06 and said the Government had
"therefore gained an assurance from the Commission that an
evaluation would be produced alongside any proposal to renew this
programme in 2006".
6.6 On 10 March 2004, the Committee wrote to the
Head of the European Secretariat at the Cabinet Office indicating
its concern about the absence of evaluations of expenditure programmes
more generally. His reply, received on 31 March, stated that the
Government agreed with the Committee about the need for such evaluations.
All government Departments had been told to seek timely evaluations
and to comment on them in Explanatory Memoranda (EMs). The EM
should provide an explanation if an evaluation was not to be carried
out.
The draft Decision on a programme for 2007-13
6.7 The proposal aims to improve on the current programme
by adding a cultural dimension to its objectives and by simplifying
the financial management through amalgamating eight funding streams
into one.
6.8 The three general objectives proposed for the
2007-13 programme are:
· encouraging
involvement of citizens in forming "an ever closer Europe";
· "forging
a European identity"; and
· enhancing
mutual understanding within Europe.
6.9 There are also four more specific objectives:
· bringing
people together from local communities across Europe;
· fostering
"action, debate and reflection" related to European
citizenship;
· making
the idea of Europe more tangible by celebrating its values and
achievements; and
· encouraging
balanced integration of citizens and civil society organisations
from all Member States.
6.10 The programme would operate both directly with
citizens and through citizens' organisations in three areas:
· Action
1 will support activities such as town twinning and the funding
of transnational and cross-sectoral citizens' projects;
· Action
2 will provide "structural support" in the form of grants
for think tanks and civil society organisations at a European
level or with a European dimension; and
· Action
3 will provide financial support for high-visibility Commission
events, Commission studies, surveys and opinion polls on European
citizenship and for information and dissemination tools (such
as an internet portal).
6.11 The Commission proposes the joint use of Articles
151 and 308 of the EC Treaty as the legal base for the proposal.
Article 151 would provide the base for the cultural element in
the proposal, while Article 308 would provide the legal basis
for the rest of it.
6.12 The Commission staff working paper accompanying
the draft Decision includes an impact assessment. This outlines
the Commission's view of the problems it faces in promoting active
European citizenship. It also discusses the consultation process
it has held with stakeholders and the public (through on-line
consultation). It then assesses various risks and impacts of the
draft Decision (social, economic and environmental) and the proposed
funding arrangements.
6.13 The Commission says in its Impact Assessment
that no evaluation results are yet available for the existing
"active European citizenship" programme because it is
"still relatively new", but that an external evaluation
report on the current programme, covering 2004 to 2006, is to
appear before the end of 2006 and a draft should be available
before then.[17]
The Government's view of the draft Decision
6.14 The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport (Tessa Jowell), in her Explanatory Memorandum of 8 June
2005, states that the types of activity provided for in the proposal
have had European Union funding for some time. She notes that
there is widespread support amongst Member States for the main
aims of the proposal. There is also support for many of the specific
actions within it, especially town twinning (for which it is the
only dedicated source of funding) and supporting citizens' projects.
Wide dissemination of the benefits as well as the focus on some
specific target groups is also welcomed by Member States. She
adds that the proposal is in accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity.
6.15 The Secretary of State does, however, indicate
that there is little mention of the expected impacts of the new
programme (except in terms of outputs) or evidence from the current
programme supporting the Commission's proposal, and no evidence
on the need for a doubling of funding.
6.16 The Government states that, although Article
308 was used to set up the current programme, the "additional
provisions in the proposed new programme will necessitate a further
look at the argument for 308 as part-legal base in this case".
However, it says that the use of Article 151 and 308 together
is acceptable to the UK because the procedure under each Article
requires the Council to act unanimously.
Conclusions
6.17 The previous Committee was told by the Government
that it had obtained assurances from the Commission that an evaluation
of the 2004-06 programme would accompany any proposal to extend
it. It was also promised that Departments would provide full
explanations in any case where such an evaluation was not carried
out.
6.18 We consider it unacceptable that the Commission
has failed to honour the assurances given, and has instead proposed
a greatly expanded programme without awaiting any evaluation of
the existing one and without evidence about the effectiveness
of the expenditure proposed.
6.19 We also consider it unacceptable that the
Secretary of State's Explanatory Memorandum makes no mention of
the earlier assurance and merely refers in one paragraph to the
lack of evidence from the current programme. The Government has
not, therefore, provided the explanation it promised. We ask
the Secretary of State why she provided no explanation in her
Explanatory Memorandum, and we also ask her to find out from the
Commission why it did not honour the assurances it gave.
6.20 We will expect the Government to oppose
this programme until such time as an external evaluation of the
existing programme demonstrates its effectiveness. We welcome
the fact that the Council will look closely at the proposed support
for European think-tanks.[18]
6.21 Like our predecessors, we are concerned about
the use of Article 308 as part of the legal basis for this proposal.
We ask the Government to re-examine the argument for the use
of Article 308 and to explain to us the concerns raised by other
Member States about combining Articles 151 and 308.
6.22 We also ask the Secretary of State to provide
us with the full Regulatory Impact Assessment once it has been
completed.
6.23 Meanwhile, we shall continue to hold the
document under scrutiny.
17 Page 7 of the Impact Assessment. Back
18
See HC 42-v (2003-04), para 16 (14 January 2004). Back
| 
