8 Employment and social solidarity
| (a)
(26968)
13691/05
COM(05) 536
(b)
(27475)
8974/06
—
|
Amended draft Decision establishing a Community programme for employment and social solidarity — PROGRESS
Revised draft Decision establishing a Community Programme for employment and social solidarity — PROGRESS
|
| Legal base | Articles 13(2), 129 and 137(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) 9 May 2006
|
| Department | Work and Pensions
|
| Basis of consideration | (b) EM of 10 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 34-xi (2005-06), para 6 (23 November 2005)
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 1 June 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (Both) Cleared
|
Background
8.1 There are four current EC programmes that support activities
to counter social exclusion and unfair discrimination and to promote
co-operation in employment matters. All four will expire at the
end of 2006.
8.2 In October 2004, the previous Committee considered
a draft Decision to establish one new programme — PROGRESS
— covering broadly the same activities as the present four
and running from 2007 to 2013, with a total budget of €628.8
million.[21]
8.3 The PROGRESS programme would have five sections:
- employment;
- social protection and inclusion;
- working conditions;
- anti-discrimination and diversity; and
- gender equality.
8.4 The activities to be supported by the programme
would include the collection, analysis and dissemination of information
about employment and social conditions in the Member States; monitoring
the implementation of relevant EC legislation; and supporting
bodies and networks which promote the Community's policies on
equality, skills for employment and countering social exclusion
and poverty. Member States, regional and local authorities, employers'
and employees' organisations, EU-level non-governmental organisations
and universities would be eligible for grants.
8.5 In September 2005, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department of Work and Pensions (Mr James Plaskitt)
told us that, in March 2005, the Council had agreed "a partial
general approach"[22]
on a revised text of the draft Decision (excluding Article 17,
which specifies the size of the budget for PROGRESS and the allocation
of the budget between the sections of the programme). He explained
why he thought the revised text an improvement. We saw no objection
to the changes on which the Council had reached a partial general
approach.[23]
Document (a)
8.6 In September 2005, the European Parliament adopted
72 amendments to the original text of the draft Decision. Document
(a) contains the Commission's opinion on them and an amended draft
of the Decision.[24]
8.7 The Minister told us that the UK Presidency was
content with the amended draft and that he hoped that the Council
meeting on 8 December would be able to reach a "partial political
agreement" on it. The agreement would expressly exclude the
budgetary provisions of Article 17; they would be reserved for
consideration after the settlement of the total EU budget for
2007-13.
8.8 We saw no reason to differ from the Commission's
and the Government's views on the amendments proposed by the European
Parliament. We also saw no need to object to the proposed partial
political agreement on the understanding that it excluded the
budgetary provisions.
Document (b)
8.9 Document (b), a revised draft of the Decision,
has been produced in the light of the proposed Inter-Institutional
Agreement between the Council and the European Parliament on the
EU budget for 2007-13. There is only one difference of substance
between document (a) and the revised draft. It concerns Article
17.
8.10 In document (a), Article 17 specifies a total
budget of €628.8 million for the PROGRESS programme between
2007 and 2013. Document (b) leaves the amount blank pending the
final settlement of the EU budget. Moreover, the allocation of
the budget between the sections of the programme differs between
the documents (a) and (b). The table below summarises the differences.
| SECTION OF PROGRAMME |
DOCUMENT (a) | DOCUMENT (b)
|
| Employment | 21%
| 23% |
| Social protection and inclusion | 28%
| 30% |
| Working conditions | 8%
| 10% |
| Anti-discrimination and diversity | 23%
| 23% |
| Gender equality | 8%
| 12% |
| administration | 2%
| 2% |
| Contingency | 10%
| — |
The Government's view
8.11 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department
of Work and Pensions (Mr James Plaskitt) tells us that there is
already agreement between the Council and the Commission about
the total EU budget for 2007-13 and that it is expected that the
European Parliament will endorse the settlement shortly.
8.12 As to the budget for PROGRESS, the Minister
reminds us that the Commission originally proposed that it should
be €628.8 million and that the European Parliament subsequently
proposed that it should be raised to €864.2 million, an increase
of 36%. In line with the draft Inter-Institutional Agreement on
the EU budget, Member States have reached agreement in the PROGRESS
Working Group that the budget should be €658 million. The
Minister says that there are informal indications that the European
Parliament may be able to accept this at Second Reading of the
draft Decision.
8.13 He adds that Member States have also reached
agreement on the revised allocation of the budget between the
sections of PROGRESS; this, too, is expected to be acceptable
to the European Parliament.
8.14 The Austrian Presidency intends to seek a political
agreement to the draft Decision, including the size of the budget
and its allocation, at the meeting of the Employment and Social
Policy Council on 1 June. The Minister asks us to clear document
(b) on the express condition that the total EU budget will have
been settled by 1 June and that the budget for PROGRESS will be
€658 million.
Conclusion
8.15 Document (a) has been superseded by document
(b) and so we clear it from scrutiny.
8.16 Last November, we saw no objection to the
proposed political agreement on the non-budgetary provisions of
document (a). There are no differences of substance between those
provisions and the corresponding provisions of document (b). There
is no "right" figure for the budget for PROGRESS; the
amount now proposed does not appear disproportionate. Moreover,
there appears to be no need for us to question the revised allocation
of the budget between the sections of the programme. For these
reasons, we clear document (b) on the condition suggested by the
Minister.
21 See (25910) 11949/04: HC 42-xxxii (2003-04), para
12 (13 October 2004). Back
22
"A general approach" is a non-binding agreement on a
text before its presentation to the European Parliament. The House's
Scrutiny Reserve Resolution of 17 November 1998 makes no reference
to general approaches. Back
23
See HC 34-vi (2005-06), para 10 (19 October 2005). Back
24
See headnote. Back
| 
