6 European Heritage Label
| (31414)
7094/10
COM(10) 76
+ ADDs 1-2
| Draft Decision to establish a European Union action for the European Heritage Label
Commission staff working document: impact assessment and summary of impact assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 167 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 9 March 2010
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 15 March 2010
|
| Department | Culture, Media and Sport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 22 February and 1 April 2011
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 10 (8 September 2010)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 4 May 2011
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background and previous scrutiny
6.1 The draft Decision would establish a new, voluntary EU
scheme (building on an existing intergovernmental arrangement)
to select heritage sites which have "a symbolic European
value" and which would be eligible for the attribution of
an EU European Heritage Label. Any Member State would be eligible
to participate in the scheme but none would be bound to do so.
The draft Decision would specify the criteria for obtaining an
EU European Heritage Label, the application and selection procedure,
and the financial provision to implement the scheme for 2011-13.
6.2 We first considered the draft Decision last
September, and expressed doubt about the need for an EU European
Heritage Label. We said that, if other Member States supported
the scheme, it would be vital to ensure that participation was
entirely voluntary.[15]
We asked for progress reports on the negotiations and kept the
draft Decision under scrutiny.
6.3 The Minister for Tourism and Heritage (John
Penrose) told us last October that the Government's position on
the draft Decision was clear:
"Whilst we have not opposed the scheme in principle,
we have actively supported the voluntary nature of the scheme
— which has been agreed; opposed any additional cost burdens
to the current proposal; supported sensible changes to make the
scheme as light touch as possible and limited our intervention
during the negotiations to these key policy areas."[16]
6.4 He also highlighted two outstanding issues
of concern for the UK. The first, and most important, concerned
funding for the EU European Heritage Label. The Commission indicated
that appropriations required to fund the EU European Heritage
Label in 2011 and 2012 would be found by reprioritising existing
resources from the EU's Culture Programme budget. However, funding
for 2013 would be drawn from the margins of the EU budget.[17]
This, the Minister explained, would increase the actual spend
within the ceiling established for the Culture Programme budget
and thus constitute additional funding from the EU budget which
Member States would be required to meet. Although the sum involved
in this case was likely to be low — with the UK contribution
amounting to approximately £66,000 in 2013 — the Minister
said that an important point of principle was at stake because
the approach advocated by the Commission (and supported by most
other Member States) would increase the size of the EU budget.
6.5 The second issue concerned the institution
responsible for officially designating sites to be awarded an
EU European Heritage Label and for withdrawing the Label. The
original proposal entrusted this task to the Commission, acting
on the advice of an independent panel of experts. Most Member
States wanted some degree of Council involvement. The Minister
indicated that the draft Decision was likely to be amended to
include provision for a comitology procedure whereby a Committee
of Member State experts would oversee the Commission's actions.
The Minister's letter of 22 February 2011
6.6 The Minister's letter describes the amendments
to the draft Decision proposed by the European Parliament and
says that there is broad agreement within the Council that they
have improved the text. Discussions would continue with a view
to reaching an agreement at First Reading.
The Minister's letter of 1 April 2011
6.7 In his latest progress report, the Minister
tells us that the Council is likely to accept the vast majority
of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament. He continues:
"[...] discussions are due to continue at the
informal trialogues on a few points, notably the participation
of third countries in transnational sites, the rhythm of selection
and quotas for transnational and national thematic sites. On these
points the UK continues to support any endeavour to minimise the
administrative burden and counter a rapid proliferation of sites
with the EHL attribution."
6.8 The Minister provides further information
on the funding proposed for the EU European Heritage Label in
2013 and on the institution competent to award and withdraw the
Label. On the first, he says that the UK will retain a reserve
on the financial provision for 2013 for the following reason:
"We continue to believe that the funds allocated
to the action for 2013, however small, should as a matter of principle,
come from the Culture Programme rather than from the margin of
the budget as suggested by the Commission. The text itself does
not specify the source of funding for the Programme. However the
Commission's accompanying financial fiche suggests that the EHL
should be funded by the Culture Programme in 2012, and onwards
from 2014, but leaves the possibility open that funding for 2013
could be taken from the margins. Therefore in the absence of any
clarification on this point in the text itself I propose that
the UK retains our reservation on the basis that we will abstain
in the final vote."
6.9 He explains that the second issue has been
resolved and that the Commission will be responsible for awarding
or withdrawing the designation of the EU European Heritage Label,
an outcome which he says the Government supports.
6.10 The Minister anticipates that there will
be further "trialogue" discussions between the Commission,
Council and European Parliament during April and that the Presidency
will seek to reach agreement on a Common Position in early May
which will provide the basis for a First Reading deal with the
European Parliament. He asks for our views on "the potential
for scrutiny clearance" before then.
Conclusion
6.11 We note that a First Reading deal on
the draft Decision is imminent and that the Government is broadly
satisfied with the outcome. The Minister tells us that there remains
a risk that funding for the EU European Heritage Label in 2013
will be taken from the margins of the EU budget and that, for
this reason, the Government intends to abstain when the draft
Decision is put to the vote in the Council.
6.12 We share the Government's concern about
drawing funds from the margins of the EU budget and agree that
there is an important point of principle at stake. However, it
seems that most Member States are willing to acquiesce in the
use of funding from the budget margins, in light of the relatively
small sums involved, and that there is little prospect of securing
a blocking minority on this issue. We therefore think that it
is appropriate for the Government to register its objection by
abstaining when the Presidency seeks approval for a Common Position
in May and, on that basis, we are content to clear the draft Decision
from scrutiny.
15 See HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 10 (8 September
2010). Back
16
Minister's letter of 26 October 2010. Back
17
The margin is the difference between projected spend for each
budget heading and the ceiling set for that budget heading. Using
the margin increases the actual spend and so constitutes additional
expenditure. Back
| 
