18 EU General Budget, 2013
| (a)
(35340)
14093/13
COM(13) 669
(b)
(35354)
14453/13
COM(13) 692
(c)
(35355)
14454/13
COM(13) 691
|
Draft Amending Budget No. 8 (DAB2 bis) to the General Budget 2013: General statement of revenue: Statement of expenditure by section: Section III — Commission
Draft Decision on mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund
Draft Amending Budget No. 9 to the General Budget 2013: General statement of revenue: Statement of expenditure by section: Section III — Commission
|
| Legal base | Article 314 TFEU and 106a, EURATOM Treaty; co-decision; QMV
|
| Documents originated | (a) 25 September 2013
(b) and (c) 3 October 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (a) 2 October 2013
(b) and (c) 8 October 2013
|
| Department | HM Treasury
|
| Basis of consideration | Two EMs of 14 October 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | Shortly
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
18.1 During the course of a financial year the Commission
presents to the Council and European Parliament Draft Amending
Budgets (DABs) proposing increases or reductions for revenue and
expenditure in the current EU General Budget — there are
normally about ten DABs each year.
18.2 In March the Commission presented Draft Amending
Budget No. 2 (DAB 2/13), which sought significant increases in
payment appropriations, which the Commission claimed were necessary
to meet legal obligations arising from claims left unpaid at the
end of 2012, as well as to absorb pressures which it expected
to arise in 2013. Consideration of this DAB became enmeshed in
the negotiation of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for
2014-20. At the 14 May ECOFIN Council, a political agreement was
reached on a Presidency compromise DAB, significantly reducing
the Commission proposal, which was contingent on reaching MFF
agreement. Following agreement in the June European Council on
the MFF package the DAB was agreed at the 9 July ECOFIN Council,
the UK, along with Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden,
having voted against it. There was also a Council commitment related
to this issue to consider a further DAB in the autumn.[76]
18.3 The EU Solidarity Fund was established by Council
Regulation (EC) No. 2012/2002 to allow the EU to respond effectively
to major natural disasters affecting Member States or candidate
countries. The Fund is available when a country is affected by
a major natural disaster that has serious effects on the living
conditions, natural environment or the economy of one or more
regions of that country (or exceptionally, in a neighbouring country).
Currently there is a threshold of damage estimated at either more
than €3 billion (£2.5 billion) or 0.6% of its Gross
National Income for a country to qualify for financial assistance.
The documents
18.4 Draft Amending Budget No. 8 (DAB2 bis) to the
General Budget 2013 (DAB 8/2013), document (a), concerns an increase
of payment appropriations of €3.9 billion (£3.3 billion)
across Headings 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b and 4 of the MFF. Most (around
80%) of the requested additional payment appropriations are concentrated
in Heading 1b (Cohesion for growth and employment).
18.5 The Commission asserts that this money is needed
to meet outstanding needs to the end of the year ¯ to ensure
that legal obligations stemming from past and current commitments
can be honoured, that financial penalties be avoided and that
beneficiaries can receive the funds envisaged by the agreed EU
policies. It also claims that this DAB updates DAB 2/2013, presented
in March for an amount of €11.2 billion (£9.4 billion)
and only partially approved by the Budgetary Authority in September
for an amount of €7.3 billion (£6.1 billion).
18.6 The draft Decision on mobilisation of the EU
Solidarity Fund, document (b), concerns two cases. First, during
the summer of 2012 major parts of Romania suffered from very low
precipitation and repeated waves of extremely high temperatures,
leading to drought and forest fires. Subsequently, in November
2012, the Romanian authorities decided to submit an application
for financial aid from the EU Solidarity Fund. The Commission
proposes that Romania should be granted €2.5 million (£2.1
million) from the Fund.
18.7 With regard to the second case, in May and June
Central Europe was affected by a meteorological situation where
Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic were affected by extreme
flooding. Subsequently, Germany submitted an application for financial
assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund under the criteria for
major disasters, whereas the applications from Austria and the
Czech Republic were based on the so-called "neighbouring
country" criterion. The Commission proposes that Germany
should be granted €360.5 million (£301.4 million), Austria
€21.7 million (£18.1 million) and the Czech Republic
€15.9 million (£13.3 million) from the Fund.
18.8 Draft Amending Budget No. 9 to the General Budget
2013 (DAB 9/2013), document (c), is proposed by the Commission
to cover mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for Romania, Germany,
Austria and the Czech Republic. Thus DAB 9/2013 proposes additional
commitment and payment appropriations of €400.5 million (£334.9
million).
The Government's view
18.9 In her Explanatory Memorandum on DAB 8/2013,
document (a), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
says that:
· the Government has been clear that it
wants to see real budgetary restraint in the EU over the coming
years;
· reform of EU spending is a long-term project,
but recent action taken by the Government, including the European
Council agreement on the MFF for 2014-20, delivers important progress;
and
· the Government is committed to continue
to work hard to limit EU spending, reduce waste and inefficiency
and deliver the best possible deal for taxpayers.
18.10 The Minister continues that:
· the Government believes that DAB 8/2013
is a totally unacceptable request from the Commission at a time
when most Member States are taking difficult decisions to reduce
public spending;
· it will not support such a request for
additional payments for the EU budget and recalls that it voted
against the Council position on DAB 2/2013 earlier this year;
and
· it will continue to work closely with
its like-minded allies to restrain the EU budget.
18.11 The Minister reports that:
· there was a qualified majority in favour
of DAB 8/2013 at Coreper on 14 October;
· it now needs to be approved by the Council
and the Presidency has indicated its desire that the Council adopt
a position swiftly; and
· the Government voted against the proposal
in Coreper.
18.12 In her Explanatory Memorandum on DAB 9/2013
and the EU Solidarity Fund proposal the Minister repeats her opening
remarks about budgetary restraint. She then says that:
· the Government supports the broad objectives
of the EU Solidarity Fund in providing financial assistance to
Member States in the event of major natural disasters, where the
Member State alone cannot handle the repercussions;
· it is content that the proposed assistance
for Romania, Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic meets the
Fund criteria for assistance;
· it believes, however, that the DAB 9/2013
financing proposed for this assistance is an unacceptable request
from the Commission at a time when most Member States are taking
difficult decisions to reduce public spending;
· it will not support such a request for
additional commitments or payments for the EU budget; and
· again, it will continue to work closely
with its like-minded allies to restrain the EU budget.
18.13 The Minister reports that, as with DAB 8/2013:
· there was a qualified majority in favour
of DAB 9/2013 and the EU Solidarity Fund issue at Coreper on 14
October;
· the proposals now need to be approved
by the Council and the Presidency has indicated its desire that
the Council adopt a position swiftly; and
· the Government voted against the proposals
in Coreper.
Conclusion
18.14 We presume that the Government will be voting
against these proposals in Council. However, given QMV in relation
to them we recognise that, regrettably, the Government will be
unable to prevent their adoption and so now clear the documents
from scrutiny. However, we urge the Government to continue efforts
to muster effective support against similar unacceptable budgetary
proposals.
18.15 On a broader issue, we note the very tight
timetabling of Council consideration of these proposals. We should
like to hear urgently from the Government what it is doing to
insist that the Commission and the Council Presidency properly
observe the requirements of Protocol No. 1 to the TEU/TFEU, so
facilitating national parliament scrutiny of Commission proposals.
76 (34805) 8041/13: see HC 86-xxxix (2012-13), chapter
3 (24 April 2013), HC 83-iv (2013-14), chapter 2 (5 June 2013),
HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 52 (4 September 2013) and Gen
Co Debs, European Committee B, 16 July 2013, cols. 3-26. Back
| 
