TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS
(ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES)
(18244)
9360/97
SEC(97)1222
| Proposal for transfer of appropriations No. 23/97 — Section III — Commission — of the general budget for the financial year 1997
|
| Legal base:
| Article 26(4) of the Financial Regulation; qualified majority voting
|
| Department:
| HM Treasury
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Minster's letter dated 28 April
|
| Previous consideration:
| HC 155-iii (1997-98), paragraph 10 (30 July 1997)
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared
|
Background
7.1 The background
to this proposal is that the 1997 budget had appropriated 10 million
ECU (£7.37 million) of commitments and payments to the reserves
with a view to funding pilot measures to assist refugees within
the European Union. The Commission subsequently produced policy
and operational guidelines proposing 7.1 million ECU (£5.23
million) of support for pilot projects and 2.9 million ECU (£2.14
million) for analysis, evaluation, awareness raising and related
matters. In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Financial
Regulation, the Commission was proposing the transfer of the 10
million ECU from the reserves to permit the expenditure to take
place.
7.2 In the conclusion
of our Report of 30 July we noted that the expenditure proposed
related to a pilot scheme but that the Budget Committee had recommended
that the Council should give a negative opinion on the transfer
on the grounds that it lacked a legal base. We noted that when
an action is clearly a pilot scheme, the lack of a specific legal
base should not normally be a problem. We therefore asked the
Government to explain the reasons for the Budget Committee's decision
and to tell us whether the transfer had now been authorised in
spite of the negative opinion.
The Government's response
7.3 The Government's
response is contained in a letter dated 28 April 1998 from the
Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Liddell), in which she
apologises for the Government's tardy response.
7.4 In her reply
she confirms that the European Parliament notified the Council
on 23 July that on 14 July the Parliament's Budget Committee had
decided to authorise this transfer of non-compulsory expenditure
and that the negative opinion recommended by the Council Budget
Committee did not prevail.
7.5 Explaining
the reasons for the Budget's Committee's recommendation she tells
us:
"Our
reports indicated that the transfer was discussed on 27 June,
and when it was considered again on 11 July "it was rejected
by a qualified majority, in the absence of a legal base for the
proposed expenditure". In the 27 June discussion, it appears
that there was concern both at expenditure being presented as
a pilot scheme to excuse a lack of legal base, and moreover that
the purpose of the proposed expenditure was much more appropriate
to action under the Third Pillar than to a Commission initiative,
on which score also it required a legal base. The Committee anticipated
that the European Parliament, which has the final say on non-compulsory
expenditure, would support the transfer, but all the same felt
that the Council should show dissatisfaction by the negative opinion
which was given".
Conclusion
7.6 This is
another case where the European Parliament has taken a different
view from the Council based, apparently, on the merits of the
proposal rather than the legitimacy of the expenditure. We note
what happened but at this stage see little point in recommending
a debate. The document is therefore cleared.
| 
