Ministers' Deputies / Rapporteur Groups

GR-PBA
Rapporteur Group on Programme, Budget
and Administration

GR-PBA(2012)19        14 September 2012[1]

 

Programme and Budget 2012-2013: Subordinate Intergovernmental Committees

Extracts of synopses of the competent Rapporteur Groups

Item to be considered by the GR-PBA at its meeting on 27 September 2012

 

The competent Rapporteur Groups have examined the draft terms of reference of the Subordinate Intergovernmental Committees, as they appear in document CM(2012)91-rev, with a view to advising the GR-PBA on the content of the terms of reference in their areas of competence.  The extracts of the synopses of the relevant meetings of the Rapporteur Groups are set out below.

* * *

Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation (GR-J)^[2]:

Meeting of 5 July 2012:

“24/12  Draft terms of reference of subordinate bodies

a) European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) - draft terms of reference of the Group of Experts on Dangerous Offenders (PC-DD)

b) European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) - draft terms of reference of the Committee of experts on Transnational Organised Crime (PC-COT)

c) European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) - Draft terms of reference of the Committee of Experts on Parental Dispute Resolution (CJ-RCP)

CM(2012)91, DD(2012)652

7.         The Chairman introduced the item by recalling that the Group was invited to examine the substance of these draft terms of reference and indicate their priority and that the financial implications would be examined by the GR-PBA in September. Some delegations made general remarks, one of them indicating that it did not agree with the creation of any new sub-committees and another one stating that its priority was that there would be sufficient means for the implementation of the Brighton Declaration. It did not consider any of the three sub-committees to be a priority. Other delegations were in favour of the creation of the proposed sub-committees. The Director of Information Society and Action against Crime noted that the adoption of these draft terms of reference would not in any way affect the follow-up to the Brighton Declaration. He recalled that the draft terms of reference had their basis in the terms of reference adopted for the steering committees concerned, as well as in the Programme and Budget 2012-2013.

8.         The Chair concluded the general discussion in the sense that there was no consensus on the creation of the proposed sub-committees and the item would be transmitted to the GR-PBA for consideration of financial implications in the light of the discussion within the GR-J.

9.         The detailed examination of the three draft terms of reference gave rise to the following comments:

a) Group of Experts on Dangerous Offenders (PC-DD)

Several delegations considered that this group was a priority (and the priority among the three groups that had been proposed). The size of the CDPC’s sub-committees was questioned. The Director noted that the size (1/3 of the committee membership) was the preference of the CDPC. The work would cover sensitive issues and the CDPC had wanted as many legal systems as possible to be represented as well as a wide range of legal expertise – a multi-disciplinary approach was called for. A number of delegations considered 17 members excessive, others defended this format. The Group agreed to transmit the draft terms of reference unchanged to the GR-PBA for a final recommendation as to the size of the group.

b) Committee of experts on Transnational Organised Crime (PC-COT)

These draft terms of reference was a priority to a number of delegations, whereas others considered that there was no added value of this group. It was stated that the formulation of the draft terms of reference should be fine-tuned in order that to correspond better to the mandate given to the CDPC itself. Some of the tasks contained in the draft terms of reference could according to a number of delegations be carried out by the Secretariat. The size of the group was also questioned. The GR-J asked the secretariat to revise the text and to redistribute it with a deadline for delegations to submit written comments. The revised draft would be on the agenda of the Group’s September meeting.

c) Committee of Experts on Parental Dispute Resolution (CJ-RCP)

Some delegations supported these draft terms of reference, whereas a few delegations had strong reservations as to the feasibility, also considering that this work was carried out in other international fora. The point was made, however, that not all member states participated in that work. Amendment proposals had been submitted by one delegation in document DD(2012)652. These amendments were approved. The Group also agreed that the terms of reference should be changed so as to reflect better the wording of the terms of reference given to the CDCJ. It thus asked the secretariat to revise the draft terms of reference, which would be sent to delegations for approval by a written procedure[3] before being transmitted to the
GR-PBA for further consideration.”

Meeting of 6 September 2012:

“26/12   European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) –

d. Draft terms of reference of the Committee of experts on Transnational Organised Crime      (PC‑COT)

                CM(2012)108, CM(2012)108-add, DD(2012)726

5.         Finally, the Group resumed consideration of the revised draft terms of reference of the Committee of experts on Transnational Organised Crime (PC‑COT) (document DD(2012)726), together with document DD(2012)759 containing comments received from six delegations before the deadline of 31 August 2012. In the discussion that followed, several delegations maintained their reservations against the creation of this sub-committee, while referring to work carried out in the field covered by the draft terms of reference in other international fora. They considered that other methods could be found for carrying out this work than the creation of a sub- committee. A number of other delegations expressed their support for the creation of the sub- committee, indicating inter alia that this activity was clearly covered by the CDPC’s terms of reference and that the proposal to create a sub-committee was part of a “compromise package” agreed by the CDPC when considering the implementation of its terms of reference. The sub-committee would ensure the necessary transversality in carrying out this activity and would take account of work in other international fora. The revised version of the draft terms of reference would make the sub-committee much less costly than the original proposal.

6.         In conclusion, the Chairman noted that the draft terms of reference would be transmitted to the GR‑PBA for further consideration in the light of the discussion held in the GR-J, before their possible adoption by the Deputies.”

Rapporteur Group for Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC)^[4]:

“5.        European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS)

b. Draft terms of reference of the Committee of experts on linguistic integration of adult migrants (CS-LING)

CM(2012)91, DD(2012)646

16.        With regard to the draft terms of reference of the Committee of experts on linguistic integration of adult migrants (CS‑LING) (pages 11 and 12 of document CM(2012)91), whilst some support was expressed for the relevance of the topic, the majority of delegations which took the floor expressed reservations as to the creation of this committee of experts. These delegations in particular pointed to the aim of the reform to reduce committees and their opposition as to using the reserve fund to finance such a committee. If the terms of reference should be approved, delegations considered that the committee should be financed by the ordinary budget already allocated to the activities concerning Roma and migration and should not be covered by the reserve. One delegation asked whether an existing body could not carry out the work envisaged and further enquired as to the added value of this work to that going on in other organisations. One delegation proposed an amendment to the effect that linguistic training would be limited to the language of the host country.

17.        In response to the questions raised, the secretariat, while acknowledging that delegations had not shown enthusiasm for the proposal, recalled that the linguistic integration of adult migrants was one of the three areas in the field of migration which the Committee of Ministers had agreed as an area to be addressed in 2012-2013. Also acknowledging that budgetary decisions may have an influence on the final decision regarding its creation, it pointed out that this issue was not being dealt with by other international organisations, particularly as the basis for the work is the Council of Europe Common European Framework of Reference for Languages which will be adapted for the use of migrants. The secretariat considered it difficult to envisage another committee carrying out the work which required expertise both in the field of integration of migrants and with regard to the linguistic dimension.

18.        The Chair concluded that whilst many delegations had expressed reservations or did not support the creation of this committee, there was no consensus on the issue. The discussions would be continued in the framework of the GR-PBA and the issue would return to the GR-SOC thereafter.”