24 European Institute for Gender Equality
| (27486)
9195/06
COM(06) 209
| Amended draft Regulation establishing a European Institute for gender Equality
|
| Legal base | Articles 13(2) and 141(3) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Department for Communities and Local Government
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 25 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxx (2005-06), para 4 (24 May 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | 1 June 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared; 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
| 
