2 EU co-financing for actions in
the field of asylum and immigration
| (a)
(34264)
14123/12
COM(12) 526
(b)
(34265)
14181/12
COM(12) 527
| Draft Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 573/2007/EC, Decision No 575/2007/EC and Council Decision 2007/435/EC with a view to increasing the co-financing rate of the European Refugee Fund, the European Return Fund and the European Fund for the Integration of third country nationals as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability
Draft Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 574/2007/EC with a view to increasing the co-financing rate of the External Borders Fund for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability
|
| Legal base | (a) Articles 78(2), 79(2) and (4) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
(b) Article 77(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | (Both) 20 September 2012
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (Both) 28 September 2012
|
| Department | Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EMs of 8 October 2012
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) For debate in European Committee B
(b) Clear
|
BACKGROUND
2.1 The framework programme on "Solidarity and Management
of Migration Flows" has a budget of nearly €4 billion
for the period 2007-13 to support the implementation of EU border
control, asylum and immigration policies. The budget is shared
between four funds - the European Refugee Fund, the European Return
Fund, the European Fund for the Integration of third country nationals
and the External Borders Fund ("the Funds") —
and distributed to Member States in the form of grants. National
programmes implementing the objectives set out in each of the
funding instruments are subject to the principle of co-financing.
In most cases, the contribution from each of the Funds is limited
to 50% of the cost of a specific action, but this threshold may
be increased to 75% for projects addressing EU strategic priorities[1]
or for Member States with a lower average per capita GDP and in
receipt of financial support from the EU Cohesion Fund. Exceptionally,
the European Refugee Fund also includes provision for temporary
emergency funding to support Member States experiencing a sudden
influx of third country nationals. In such cases, the EU may contribute
up to 80% of the cost of the emergency measures for a period of
six months. This means that the national contribution to actions
co-financed by the Funds can range from as much as 50% of the
cost to as little as 20%.
THE DRAFT
DECISIONS
2.2 The purpose of the draft Decisions is to enable certain
Member States experiencing liquidity problems as a result of the
economic and financial crisis to request an increase of up to
20% in the EU co-financing rate, with a consequent reduction in
their national contribution. The proposed change to the EU co-financing
rate would only apply to Member States:
- outside the euro area who are experiencing balance
of payments difficulties and receiving medium-term financial assistance
in the form of a loan or other financing facility;[2]
- within the euro area who are experiencing, or
seriously threatened with, a severe economic or financial disturbance
and receiving assistance under the European Financial Stabilisation
Mechanism established in May 2010,[3]
or receiving financial assistance from other euro area Member
States before the Mechanism took effect; and
- those receiving financial assistance in accordance
with the European Financial Stability Facility or the Treaty establishing
the European Stability Mechanism.
Any Member State receiving financial assistance under
these instruments now or in the future would qualify for a higher
EU co-financing rate under each of the Funds.[4]
2.3 In its explanatory memoranda accompanying
the draft Decisions, the Commission says that the deepening financial
crisis in some Member States is having a substantial effect on
the real economy. Its proposal to increase the EU co-financing
rate would provide the additional liquidity needed to ensure that
programmes utilising the Funds can continue to be implemented.
The Commission notes that changes to the EU co-financing rate
for EU Structural and Cohesion Funds, the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund have
already been agreed.[5]
It emphasises that any change to the co-financing rate would
be budget neutral and would not affect the distribution of Funds
between Member States or the annual allocation of funding for
each Member State.
2.4 Two separate Decisions are needed because
one of the four Funds — the External Borders Fund —
builds on elements of the Schengen acquis in which the
UK does not participate. The UK is therefore not entitled to
take part in the adoption of document (b), which would amend the
2007 Decision establishing the External Borders Fund. By contrast,
the UK does participate in the remaining three Funds and document
(a), which would amend the three Decisions establishing the European
Refugee Fund, the European Return Fund and the European Fund for
the Integration of third country nationals, is subject to the
UK's Title V opt-in.
THE
GOVERNMENT'S
VIEW
Document (a)
2.5 The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice
(Damian Green) notes that the UK is one of the principal beneficiaries
of the three Funds covered by document (a) and that the UK's "Facilitated
Return Scheme" and "Charter Flights" project are
supported by the European Return Fund. He says that the UK has
"a direct interest in ensuring that Member States have access
to the Funds intended to strengthen the EU's borders" and
that "the Government would be concerned if vulnerable Member
States could not access these Funds due to unaffordable levels
of co-financing."[6]
2.6 As the proposal is subject to the UK's Title
V opt-in, the Minister sets out the factors which the Government
will take into account in determining whether or not to opt-in.
In terms of benefits, he suggests that opting into the draft
Decision would make it easier for Greece to use its full allocation
of EU funding, adding:
"The Greek-Turkish border is the entry point
for more than half of all illegal migrants to the EU, and many
of these migrants travel onwards to the UK. We therefore have
a clear interest in seeing an improved response to migratory pressures
in Greece and the effective use of SOLID[7]
funds can play an integral part in this. It is notable that this
proposal also provides benefit to Ireland with whom we have a
shared border."[8]
2.7 The Minister does not, however, anticipate
that the Commission's proposal would have any direct impact for
the UK, as he does not expect the UK to require assistance from
the various EU financial support mechanisms identified in the
draft Decision. He expresses some concern that an increase in
the rate of EU co-financing "could result in the EU receiving
less value" as the reduced contribution from recipient Member
States will mean that EU funds are spread more thinly.[9]
He confirms that, even if the UK were to decide not to opt into
document (a), it would remain bound by the original (unamended)
2007 Decisions establishing the European Refugee Fund, the European
Return Fund and the European Fund for the Integration of third
country nationals.
Document (b)
2.8 The Minister indicates that the changes proposed
in document (b) would have no direct policy implications for the,
UK since it does not participate in the External Borders Fund.
He adds:
"However, the UK supports the increased co-financing
rate that is proposed to be made available to those Member States
most affected by the financial crisis as we believe this will
assist them to maintain their programmes for the strengthening
of the external borders. This will apply especially to a Member
State such as Greece which is experiencing financial difficulties
as well as high levels of illegal migration flows."[10]
CONCLUSION
2.9 We note that the proposed increase in the
EU co-financing rate for the European Refugee Fund, the European
Return Fund, the European Fund for the Integration of third country
nationals and the External Borders Fund would be cost-neutral
and would not alter the overall allocation of EU funding to each
Member State for the period 2007-13. Continuing migratory pressure
at the Greek/Turkish border suggests that there are compelling
reasons for ensuring that Member States, such as Greece, which
have been hit hardest by the economic and financial crisis are
able to access and utilise their allocation of EU funds to improve
their border management systems, although we acknowledge the risk
that EU funding will be spread more thinly as a result.
2.10 Whilst we have no objection in principle
to the changes proposed by the Commission, we note that they are
unlikely to be of direct benefit to the UK. A decision to opt
into document (a) would, at best, serve as an expression of solidarity
with the (as yet) relatively small number of Member States eligible
to request an increased EU contribution. A decision not to opt
in would not affect their eligibility to do so. As the factors
for and against exercising the UK's Title V opt-in in this case
appear to be finely balanced, we think that the Government's opt-in
decision should be debated in European Committee B. As the UK
does not participate in the External Borders Fund and, as a result,
is not entitled to participate in the changes proposed by the
Commission, we are content to clear document (b) from scrutiny.
1 As defined in strategic guidelines established for
each Fund. Back
2
See Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002, OJ L No. L 53, 23.02.02,
p.1. Back
3
See Council regulation (EU)No 407/2010, OJ L No. L 118, 12.05.10. Back
4
The current recipients of financial assistance are Romania, Ireland,
Portugal and Greece. Back
5
See (33065); HC 428-xxxvii (2010-12), chapter 11 (12 October 2011)
and HC 428-xxxvi (2010-12), chapter 3 (13 September 2011). Back
6
See para 29 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
7
An acronym covering the four Funds which form part of the framework
programme on "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows". Back
8
See para 24 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
9
See para 25 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
10
See para 10 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
| 
