DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION OPERATIONS (8707/04,
15128/03)
Letter from Gareth Thomas MP, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary for State, Department for International Development
to the Chairman
Your Committee met on 12 December and discussed the
proposed regulation to renew and amend Regulations (EC) No 975/1999
and 976/1999 on Human Rights and Democracy (EM 15128/03). Your
Committee cleared this document and I am now writing to inform
you of the European Parliament (EP)'s first reading amendments
to the proposal.
Progress on the negotiations has been delayed
by a difference of opinion between the Commission and Council
Legal Services as to whether one amending regulation could be
applied to two separate regulations with different legal bases,
ie, TEC (Treaty of European Communities) Article 179 for developing
countries and Article 181a for other third countries, particularly
as the co-decision procedure applies to Article 179 but not to
Article 181a.
Our legal advice is that the new amending regulation
should be split into two or retained as one regulation with two
distinct parts, each subject to a different adoption procedure.
The proposal has now been considered by the
EP Committees on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security
and Defence Policy, which leads on this regulation, and by the
Committee on Development and Co-operation. The regulation passed
its first reading in the EP during its session of 19-22 April
2004. The EP adopted three of the four amendments proposed by
the Development Co-operation Committee. They are as follows:
AMENDMENT 1
Article 3 Point 1 (Amendment to Article 4, paragraph
1 of Regulation 975/199)
The current Regulation only permits grant funding
for legal persons (organisations). This has created difficulties
in engaging long term election observers and for the particular
case of lawyers preparing amicus curiae briefs in death
penalty cases. The proposed amendment clarifies the circumstances
in which Natural Persons (individuals such as consultants) are
eligible for financing under this Regulation, including the cases
mentioned above. Furthermore, according to the new Financial Regulation
((EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002), election observers and the case
of lawyers preparing amicus curiae briefs in death penalty
cases will have to be employed directly by the Commission as the
use of intermediaries or contractors to control EC resources is
banned—a practice often used for providing election observers.
The amendment makes this possible.
We understand the reasons for this amendment
but would have favoured a broader definition of eligibility. It
is not difficult to envisage other cases where individuals could
be used beyond the specified cases, such as special rapporteurs
or human rights monitors as part of a post-conflict strategy.
AMENDMENT 2
Article 1 Point 1a (Amendment to Article 2, paragraph
2, point (ga) of Regulation 975/1999)
This amendment provides that the EU may support
efforts to foster the establishment of groupings of democratic
countries within United Nations bodies, specialised agencies and
regional organisations, in addition to other types of assistance
for democratisation.
The use of EU budgetary support to promote democratic
structures and values was an important feature of the programmes
for central and eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States
in the post-Communist period, and they are still needed in other
regions if democracy is to take root and flourish. As one of the
UK strategic priorities is to promote sustainable development
underpinned by democracy, this amendment will help to implement
that objective.
AMENDMENT 3
Article 1 Point 5 (Amendment to Article 11, paragraph
1 of Regulation 975/1999)
This amendment provides for the Commission to
produce an annual report setting out the programme for the coming
year by region and by sector, to report back on its implementation
to the EP and to keep it fully informed of its proceedings. This
gives expression to the EP's wish to be more fully involved in
the management of the programme and to be better informed about
results. The Commission would continue to be responsible for overall
planning and management and the Council would approve financial
allocations.
A majority of MEPs are keen for the EP to have
a greater say in the planning, establishment of priorities and
implementation of initiatives in the field of democracy and human
rights. Tighter programming deadlines imposed by the new Financial
Regulation have resulted in a reduced role for the EP in influencing
priorities for action. Some MEPs are also concerned that a stronger
role for the Commission in the management of the programmes since
2001 has resulted in more complex, lengthy and expensive procedures.
Two ideas are currently being discussed with the Commission and
the Council to address these issues:
(a) Setting up an advisory committee outside
the comitology structure to manage the programme, with representatives
from the EP and the Commission, and chaired by the High Representative;
(b) Carrying out an independent study into
alternative more effective ways to implement the programme.
We agree with the EP that these changes have
weakened their role. To improve democratic accountability, a mechanism
to engage the EP more closely in the political process is therefore
called for. An independent study could helpfully explore various
solutions.
14 June 2004
| 
