HL Deb 23 July 1998 vol 592 cc121-2WA
Lord Avebury

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will list the organisations whose European Commission grants were suspended following the judgment of the European Court of Justice in case C-106/96 and the amounts involved in each case; why they did not take concurrent steps, as holders of the Presidency of the European Union, to secure agreement on measures to safeguard recipients against the effects of the ruling in the event of the action succeeding, instead of waiting until after the judgment; what action they have taken to restore this funding, in accordance with the assurances given by the Prime Minister to the European Parliament on 18 June; whether they have met the deadline of 17 July set by the meeting between the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and representatives of the European Commission and the European Parliament for solving the problems created by the Court's ruling; and whether they will seek to compensate the organisations concerned for the disruption of their activities caused by the interruption of legitimately expected funding. [HL2807]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

No existing grants to organisations have been suspended following the judgment of the ECJ in case C-106/96. The making of new grants from a number of budget lines was, however, suspended while the European Commission carried out a review to establish whether funds could be used in accordance with the ECJ's ruling.

Responsibility for the execution of the budget is solely a matter for the European Commission. The Government have, though, repeatedly urged the Commission to take account of the likely consequences of the ECJ's ruling by bringing forward proposals for a legal base for community expenditure where appropriate.

In line with the assurances given by the Prime Minister to MEPs on 18 June, the Government have worked actively and constructively to enable funding to be released while ensuring that the European Court of Justice's ruling is respected. At a meeting of budget Ministers with representatives of the European Commission and European Parliament on 17 July, a series of measures were agreed which meet these objectives. These measures include:

  • approving the Commission's readiness to continue operation of certain lines for which legislative proposals were currently being considered;
  • noting that the Amsterdam treaty would make it possible to adopt a legal base dealing with the fight against social exclusion and that the Commission would consider the scope for refocusing budget lines so that they could be regarded as preparatory for such proposals;
  • committing the European Parliament and Council to seek to accelerate the examination of legal bases that have been proposed but not yet adopted.

At the same meeting a legal base was agreed for 200 mecu of funding for NGOs involved in development work. This alone accounts for (and resolves the problems with) over two thirds of the value of the budget lines where the Commission have suspended implementation.

Finally, the institutions have agreed to a joint declaration which sets limits on the level of spending on pilot and preparatory actions together with a clearer definition of the areas where the treaties give the Commission the right to spend autonomously (without a legal base).

The Commission have promised that all legitimate expectations of funding from the 1998 budget will be met. The question of disruption of funding does not therefore arise.