4 European Institute for Gender Equality
| (a)
(26429)
7244/05
COM(05) 81
(b)
(27486)
9195/06
COM(06) 209
|
Draft Regulation establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality
Amended draft Regulation establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality
|
| Legal base | Articles 13(2) and 141(3) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | (b) 8 May 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b)12 May 2006
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | (b) EM of 19 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 34-xxviii (2005-06), para 13 (10 May 2006)
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 1 June 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) Cleared on 10 May 2006
(b) Not cleared; further information requested
|
Document (a)
4.1 Document (a) is the draft of a Regulation establishing a European
Institute of Gender Equality. In March 2005, the Commission presented
it in response to a request from the European Council.[11]
4.2 Document (a) provides that the Institute's functions
would include collecting, analysing and disseminating information
on gender equality; helping to get gender equality integrated
in all Community policies; conducting surveys; supporting research;
and organising European conferences, campaigns and meetings. The
Institute's total budget between 2007 and 2013 would be €52.5
million. It would employ 30 staff by 2012.
4.3 Document (a) also provides that the Institute
would have a Management Board. Six of its members would be appointed
by the Council and six by the Commission; the Commission would
also appoint three non-voting members (one from an appropriate
NGO, one from an employers' organisation, and one from an employees'
organisation). The members would serve for five years, renewable
once for a further five.
4.4 The previous Committee considered the draft Regulation
in April 2005[12] and
we considered it in July[13]
and November 2005[14]
and on 10 May 2006.[15]
On each occasion, we and our predecessors recognised the case
for the work proposed in this Regulation but doubted that there
is a sufficient justification for creating a new EC agency to
do it, rather than extending the remit of an existing one.
4.5 The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality who
was then at the Department of Trade and Industry (Meg Munn) explained
to us at length why the Government accepted the case for creating
a separate new Institute. In May, we concluded that, while we
retained doubts about the need for an new agency, we had drawn
our concern to the House; we were satisfied that the Minister
had considered our view even though she did not share it; and
we accepted her judgement that, in the circumstances, it was likely
to be in the UK's best interests to be seen to contribute constructively
to the Council's discussion of the proposal. We decided, therefore,
to clear document (a) from scrutiny.
Document (b)
4.6 At its first reading of the draft Regulation
on 14 March 2006, the European Parliament adopted 50 amendments.
Document (b) reports the outcome of the Commission's consideration
of the proposed amendments.
4.7 The Commission proposes to reject ten of them
and to accept all the others, in whole or part. Most of the amendments
the Commission has accepted are intended to clarify the text or
add an emphasis without changing the substance of the Regulation.
But, in the light of the European Parliament's amendments, the
Commission proposes a radical amendment of Article 10, which sets
out the composition of the Institute's Management Board.
4.8 The Commission now proposes that:
- the Board should have nine
members representing the Member States, each with one vote;
- the members representing the Member States would
serve for three years and could not be re-appointed for a further
term;
- the term of office of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
of the Board would be two and a half years;
- the Commission would have one seat on the Board
and one vote, except that the vote of the Commission's representative
would have the same weight as the votes of all the Council's representatives
taken together during consideration of the Institute's work programme
and budget ; and
- the Commission would appoint three non-voting
members — one to represent interested NGOs, one to represent
employers' organisations and one to represent employees' organisations.
4.9 Document (b) explains what amendments the Commission
proposes to make; it does not, however, contain a complete revised
text of the Regulation.
The Government's view
4.10 The Deputy Minister for Women at the Department
for Communities and Local Government (Meg Munn) tells us that
the Commission's revised proposal for the composition of the Management
Board is the only issue of major disagreement. She says:
"The Council supports a large board with one
representative per Member State whilst the Commission sides with
the European Parliament in favour of a small board."
Conclusion
4.11 We shall keep document (b) under scrutiny
for two reasons:
- First, document (b) merely
explains which of the European Parliament's amendments the Commission
rejects or accepts, with or without modification. We consider
it necessary to see a revised text of the draft Regulation incorporating
the changes.
- Second, the composition of the Management
Board is important but, at present, there appears to be disagreement
between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament
about its constitution. Further negotiation will be required.
Accordingly, we ask the Minister to keep us informed
of the negotiations and to provide us with a revised text of the
draft Regulation.
4.12 We see nothing new to call into question
our previous decision to clear document (a) and, for the avoidance
of doubt, we confirm that decision.
11 Brussels European Council, 17-18 June 2004, Conclusion
43. Back
12
See HC 38-xv (2004-05), para 4 (6 April 2005). Back
13
See HC 34-i (2005-06), para 18 (4 July 2005). Back
14
See HC 34-xii (2005-06), para 3 (30 November 2005). Back
15
See headnote. Back
| 
