24th REPORT: PROPOSED EUROPEAN INSTITUTE
FOR GENDER EQUALITY
Letter from Meg Munn MP, Deputy Minister
for Women and Equality, Department of Trade and Industry to the
Chairman
Thank you for your report of 14 February 2006
on the proposed Institute for Gender Equality, which my officials
and I found most interesting.
Throughout the course of the past year we have
exchanged views and positions on this issue several times (notably
my letters to you of 17 July 2005[23]
and 12 October 2005,[24]
with your replies on 21 July 2005[25]
and 31 October 2005),[26]
including my appearance before your Committee on 24 November 2005
and the subsequent written report of that meeting.
Recently negotiations have moved on, albeit
slowly, at European level and we are now in the final phase of
the decision making process. The European Parliament deliberated
a Report by the European Parliament Women's Rights and Gender
Equality Committee (by MEPs Lissy Groner and Amalia Sartori),
during their session from 13-16 March 2006. The European Parliament
adopted 53 of the 55 recommendations contained in the report.
The Council of Ministers Social Questions Working Group began
consideration of the European Parliament amendments on Tuesday
28 March 2006. Further Council Working Groups are scheduled to
discuss this dossier on 11 April and 3 May, with a view to reaching
agreement at a meeting of the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives
(COREPER I) on 17 May, in order to approve a Common Position at
the European Employment and Social Affairs Council on 1 June 2006.
Below, I have addressed each of the recommendations
that you note in Chapter 5 (page 22) of your Report, I hope that
this is helpful.
1. Recommendation 100 (the need for the Institute)
The Government takes the view that gender equality
would be best served by a separate body able to address issues
specific to gender equality in the European Union, such as employment
discrimination and child care. The Government also considers that
merging the proposal for a European Gender Institute with the
proposal for a European Fundamental Rights Agency would result
in a loss of focus in these areas. You will recall that the Equal
Opportunities Commission (EOC) stated, in their evidence to you
last year, that they believed that the EU was not ready to move
to a combined non-discrimination agency at this moment in time,
and that I commented to your Committee that the UK began by creating
separate non-discrimination agencies and is only now beginning
the process of integrating them together under the planned UK
Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
2. Recommendation 101 (administrative question—management
board)
The structure and composition of the management
structure of the Institute is one of the key issues that is still
under discussion between the European Parliament, European Commission
and the Council of Ministers. The Government understands that
each of the Member States of the European Union will wish to be
involved in such institutions as the European Gender Institute,
both for pragmatic reasons (to ensure that funds are spent efficiently
and effectively) and for policy reasons (to ensure that their
national ideas, innovations and experiences contribute to the
European debate). It may be that each Member State ultimately
has a place on the Board, or may be represented via other fora,
such as an Advisory Forum. The Government will examine management
structure proposals on their merit, with the core criteria being
that structures should be efficient, cost effective and proportionate
to the size of the Institute. We will continue to push for this
to be the case in Council Working Groups in April and May.
3. Recommendation 102 (administrative question—Director/equality
organisations/NGOs)
The Government agrees with the Committee that
the Director should have adequate authority, with proper accountability
and that equality organisations and NGOs will be key stakeholders
for the Institute.
4. Recommendation 103 (budget)
An overall agreement on the EC budget for the
period 2007-13 was reached at the European Council in December
2005. This now needs to be agreed with the European Parliament
as part of the negotiations on the Inter Institutional Agreement.
The Budgetary Authority will then have to decide the scope and
level of funding available for the European Gender Institute.
The UK continues to believe that the institute should have no
additional impact on the existing EU budget and that the level
of funding for, and scope of, the institute will have to be consistent
with this.
5. Recommendation 104 (legal base—incentive
measures)
The Government hopes that the judgment in the
ENISA case (which is now expected to be delivered on 2 May 2006)
will provide a clearer understanding of the legal position in
respect of what constitutes an "incentive measure".
6. Recommendation 105 (legal base—general
approach)
The Government agrees that it is important for
departments to take a consistent approach towards legal bases
for proposals which create agencies. Our current position, as
stated in previous correspondence, is that we take the view that
generally agencies should not be set up using incentive measures
legal bases, though we recognise that there are respectable arguments
to the contrary. We shall however review these arguments in light
of the judgement in the ENISA case once it is delivered in early
May 2006. We can also confirm that steps are being taken to provide
guidance to departments in order to ensure that there is a consistent
approach across the board in respect of these proposals.
I note that your Committee has also taken an
interest in the proposals for a new European Fundamental Rights
Agency, which is a dossier led by the Department for Constitutional
Affairs (DCA). DCA officials reported to Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) officials on my colleague, Cathy Ashton's Committee
appearance on 1st March, to discuss this matter. I understand
that there was some discussion on the relationship between the
two new European Agencies under discussion. I believe that my
reply to your recommendation number 100 deals with the issue of
the merits of two bodies, rather than a single entity; and that
my reply to your recommendation 101 deals with the structure of
the management board. We agree that there should be good linkages
between the two bodies. As for the location of the European Gender
Institute, this issue has not yet arisen for formal discussion,
although several EU Member States have begun campaigning to host
the Institute.
I do hope that we will be able to resolve our
differences on the proposal for a European Gender Institute, upon
your return from the Easter Recess (I believe that the next scheduled
meeting of your Committee is on 27 April) and that your Committee
will be able to lift Scrutiny. If the final phases of negotiations
develop well in April and May, then the UK will wish to expedite
agreement at COREPER on 17 May, in readiness for the Employment
Council on 1 June.
6 April 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Meg Munn MP
Thank you for your letter dated 6 April, constituting
the Government's Response to the above Report, which was considered
by Sub-Committee G on 27 April.
We are sorry that the Government continues to
favour the establishment of a separate European Gender Institute
and do not see how we can "resolve our differences"
on that point and lift scrutiny, as you ask, at this stage.
As you know, the Gender Institute Inquiry Report
concluded that the case for a separate Institute had not been
demonstrated. It recommended that further consideration should
be given to the alternative of incorporating the gender equality
work with the activities of the proposed European Fundamental
Rights Agency, on which the Committee was already carrying out
an Inquiry.
The Fundamental Rights Agency Inquiry Report,
which was published on 4 April (HL Paper 155) included recommendations
in favour of incorporating the work proposed for the Institute
with that of the Agency. That remains our position. Moreover,
since that Report has been recommended for Debate in the House,
we regard the Gender Equality Institute Proposal as still being
held under scrutiny by the Committee until the Debate takes place.
We also note your comments on other aspects
of the Gender Institute Report which may also be addressed in
the Fundamental Rights Agency Debate.
27 April 2006
23 Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of
Session 2005-06, HL Paper 243, pp 595-596. Back
24
Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of Session 2005-06,
HL Paper 243, pp 598-599. Back
25
Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of Session 2005-06,
HL Paper 243, pp 596-598. Back
26
Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of Session 2005-06,
HL Paper 243, pp 599-600. Back
| 
