13 European Union Solidarity Fund
| (35239)
12883/13
COM(13) 522
| Draft Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund
|
| Legal base
| Articles 175 and 212(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department
| HM Treasury
|
| Basis of consideration
| Minister's letter of 11 March 2014
|
| Previous Committee Reports
| HC 83-xiv (2013-14), chapter 15 (11 September 2013) and HC 83-xxxv (2013-14), chapter 4 (5 March 2014)
|
| Discussion in Council
| Not known
|
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Cleared |
Background
13.1 The EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was
created in 2002 with the aim of enabling the EU to respond to
major disasters inside the EU and in candidate countries (those
involved in accession negotiations). The purpose is to grant affected
countries financial aid, where necessary, to help them bear the
financial burden inflicted on them by natural disasters.
13.2 A major disaster is defined as
one where damage exceeds the lower of 0.6% of Gross National Income
or €3 billion in 2002 prices. Applications for cases that
do not meet this threshold may be accepted exceptionally from
countries affected by the same disaster as in a qualifying country
or for regions where a disaster affects a major part of the population
with serious and lasting repercussions. Aid is normally limited
to alleviating non-insurable damage and is repayable if assistance
is received subsequently from third parties. Operations benefiting
from the EUSF cannot benefit from other EU funds.
13.3 Negotiations to improve the functioning
of the EUSF have been ongoing and in October 2011 the Commission
presented a Communication on the future of the Fund, which included
an evaluation and proposals for improvement.[43]
It said that this Communication formed the basis for discussions
with Member States, the European Parliament and other stakeholders
and that it was also the starting point for the current proposal,
which it presented in July 2013.
13.4 The main objective of the Commission's
proposal was to improve the functioning of the existing EUSF.
Whilst the Commission said that the EUSF was generally meeting
this objective, it was considered not to be sufficiently responsive
and visible, as well as being too complicated in terms of setting
clear criteria for activation. It recommended making the instrument
quicker to respond to disasters, more visible to citizens and
simpler to use, with clearer provisions in place. The Commission
suggested this could be achieved by a number of technical adjustments
to the scheme.
13.5 In September 2013, we said that,
whilst the Commission's intention of improving the functioning
of the EUSF was clearly welcome, we noted the Government's intention
of ensuring the adequacy of the details of the draft Regulation,
particularly with regard to budgetary matters. Earlier this month,
whilst being reminded that the Government's two key objectives
were to ensure that budgetary restraint was considered and to
protect the existing scope of the Fund, we heard that:
· Council working group consideration
of the proposal began in January;
· the Presidency had conducted
negotiations to a very compressed timetable with a number of working
group meetings since 10 January;
· a Presidency text was discussed
by COREPER on 12 February and was now in trilogue; and
· given the pace at which discussions
were progressing, the timetable for negotiations going forward
was not clear but the Government understood that the Presidency
was aiming to secure an agreed text in time for the European Parliament's
March or April plenary.
13.6 In relation to the first objective
we heard that:
· in discussions thus far the
Government had worked with like-minded Member States to eliminate
language that could result in budget size not being respected;
· this had included discussions
of the proposed mechanism for advance payments funded by recoveries;
and
· the Government would continue
to carefully assess all proposals and intervene as appropriate
to ensure that budgetary control was exercised.
13.7 As for the Government's second
objective we heard that the Government had achieved this by resisting
proposed expansions and pressing for the insertion of clear eligibility
requirements and removal of ambiguous language that would expose
the Fund to interpretation and confusion.
13.8 However, we were concerned that
a general approach appeared to be under discussion with the European
Parliament and Commission in trilogues. So we asked whether the
Government thought that the general approach met its two objectives
and whether the adoption of the general approach by COREPER meant
the Government was irreversibly committed to texts of the main
elements of the proposal and, if so, what this meant for the scrutiny
reserve. Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.[44]
The Minister's letter of 11 March 2014
13.9 The Economic Secretary to the Treasury
(Nicky Morgan) now explains that:
· the Presidency document discussed
in COREPER was designated as a general approach to indicate that
it was a compromise text close to finalisation, but no formal
general approach was agreed;
· the Presidency has begun
informal trilogue discussions with the European Parliament in
parallel to speed up the negotiation process and ensure a conclusion
ahead of the European Parliament's dissolution; and
· the Government does not consider
this step to have amounted to Council agreement on the draft Regulation
and no formal vote has been taken.
13.10 The Minister then tells us that
Council discussions have continued at working group level on a
small number of final outstanding issues and that the Government
has successfully worked with like-minded Member States to secure
both of its key objectives — budgetary restraint and seeking
to protect the scope of the Fund. On budgetary restraint she continues
that:
· the Government has ensured
there is no change to the overall size of funds allocated to the
EUSF or the budget size in the Multiannual Financial Framework
for 2014-2020;
· the mechanism for advance
payments is not funded from recoveries that would otherwise have
been returned to the EU general budget; and
· the Government pushed for,
and delivered, language in the draft Regulation imposing a clear
two month deadline for the Commission to recover any unduly paid
advances.
13.11 As for the scope of the EUSF,
the Minister says that the Government has continued to protect
the existing scope of the Fund by inserting clear eligibility
requirements and removing ambiguous language that could expose
its eligibility requirements to misinterpretation.
13.12 Finally, noting that the Government
can now support the draft Regulation, the Minister tells us that:
· it is currently expected
that the draft Regulation will return to COREPER later this week
for official level agreement, before going to Council for Ministerial
adoption; and
· it would then be formally
directed to the relevant European Parliament committee.
Conclusion
13.13 We are grateful to the Minister
for her further account of where matters stand on this draft Regulation
and, in the light of the objectives secured, are now content to
clear the document.
43 (33223) 12794/11: see HC 428-xl (2010-12), chapter
13 (2 November 2011). Back
44
See headnote. Back
| 
