Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-First Report


24 European Institute for Gender Equality

(27486)

9195/06

COM(06) 209

Amended draft Regulation establishing a European Institute for gender Equality

Legal baseArticles 13(2) and 141(3) EC; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentDepartment for Communities and Local Government
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 25 May 2006
Previous Committee ReportHC 34-xxx (2005-06), para 4 (24 May 2006)
Discussed in Council1 June 2006
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared; but further information requested

The first draft of the Regulation

24.1 In March 2005, the Commission presented the first draft of a Regulation to establish a European Institute of Gender Equality. It provided for the Institute's functions to 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.

24.2 The previous Committee considered the draft Regulation in April 2005[74] and we considered it in July[75] and November 2005.[76] 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.

24.3 In her letter of 2 May 2006, the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Meg Munn), who was then at the Department of Trade and Industry, explained to us that, because so many other Member States strongly supported the creation of the Gender Equality Institute, if the Council were to vote on the proposed Regulation, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of its adoption. She also reminded us that QMV was the voting procedure for the proposal. In these circumstance, she considered that it to be in the best interests of the UK to try to ensure that the Institute will operate efficiently and effectively; and that the Government is more likely to succeed in influencing the detailed arrangements for the Institute if it is seen to contribute constructively to the discussions.

24.4 We considered the Minister's explanation on 10 May. [77] While we retained doubts about the need for an new agency, we decided to clear the first draft of the Regulation from scrutiny because we had drawn our doubts 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.

The Commission's opinion on the European Parliament's amendments

24.5 In March 2006, the European Parliament adopted 50 amendments to the first draft of the Regulation. The document under scrutiny reports that the Commission had decided to reject ten of the amendments but to accept all the others, in whole or part.

24.6 Most of the changes were intended to clarify the text or add an emphasis without affecting the substance of the Regulation. But, in the light of the European Parliament's amendments, the Commission proposed to make radical changes Article 10 (which sets out the composition of the Institute's Management Board). The revised text would provide for the Board to have nine members to represent the Member States, each with one vote; for the Commission to 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 for the Commission to appoint three non-voting members — one to represent interested NGOs, one to represent employers' organisations and one to represent employees' organisations.

24.7 The document explains what amendments the Commission had decided to propose; it does not, however, contain a revised text of the Regulation.

24.8 When we considered the document on 24 May, the Minister for Women at the Department of Communities and Local Government (Meg Munn) told us that the Commission's revised proposal for the composition of the Management Board was the only issue of major disagreement.[78] She said:

    "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."

24.9 We decided to keep the document under scrutiny for two reasons:

  • First, the document merely explained which of the European Parliament's amendments the Commission rejected or accepted. We considered it necessary to see a revised text of the draft Regulation incorporating the changes.
  • Second, the composition of the Management Board is important, was not agreed and required further negotiation.

Accordingly, we asked the Minister to tell us about the progress of the negotiations and to provide us with a revised text of the draft Regulation.

The Minister's letter of 25 May 2006

24.10 The Minister's letter tells us that, despite the scrutiny reserve, the Government had decided to vote for the adoption of the revised draft of the Regulation at the Council meeting on 1 June. The Government's position throughout has been that the Institute should be budget neutral, add value and not duplicate the work of existing agencies. Because so many other Member States wish the Institute to be established, the Regulation was bound to be adopted by QMV. It would not be in the interests of the UK to try to block its adoption:

    "By voting in favour of this proposal, the UK will be in a stronger position to influence the more detailed budgetary and other discussions on the structure of the Institute — such as the structure and voting mechanism of the Management Board, which will be discussed at the second reading."

24.11 We understand that the Council reached a political agreement on the Regulation on 1 June, with the Government's support.

Conclusion

24.12 Our doubts about the justification for setting up the new Institute to do the work are undimmed. But the reasons why we cleared the first draft of the Regulation remain valid and we can understand why the Government decided to take part in the political agreement at the Council's meeting on 1 June.

24.13 It would serve no useful purpose to keep the document under scrutiny and so we clear it. But important questions remain to be settled: notably, about the Management Board and the budgetary arrangements. Accordingly, we ask the Minister to keep us fully informed of the further consideration of this proposal by the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council.




74   (26429) 7244/05: See HC 38-xv (2004-05), para 4 (6 April 2005). Back

75   See HC 34-i (2005-06), para 18 (4 July 2005). Back

76   See HC 34-xii (2005-06), para 3 (30 November 2005). Back

77   See HC 34-xxviii (2005-06), para 13 (10 May 2006). Back

78   See headnote. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 26 June 2006