Bleak outlook for social schemes

Date: 01/05/1997

By Simon Coss

ATTEMPTS by the European Commission to prevent many of its high-profile social action programmes being torpedoed by national governments in future seem doomed to fail.

The past 18 months have seen proposed schemes aimed at helping the elderly, the disabled, those on the margins of society (the 'socially excluded'), and a series of job-creation initiatives rejected by social affairs ministers.

The problem centres on the legal basis the Commission uses to justify such schemes.

As the EU treaties make no specific provision for setting up social action programmes, the institution's Directorate-General for social affairs (DGV) is forced to rely on Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome. This so-called 'catch-all' clause allows the Commission to propose action in areas not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the treaties.

But the catch-all clause itself has a catch. Any measures proposed under Article 235 must be adopted unanimously by all 15 EU governments. “Problems with Article 235 have put a block on certain activities where we feel there is room for action at European level,” explained one DGV expert.

The Commission wants a specific 'social programmes' clause - allowing such schemes to be approved by qualified majority voting - inserted into the revised Maastricht Treaty being discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference. The IGC is set to discuss social affairs early next month, but the Commission has already floated its ideas among national negotiators - and appears to be fighting a losing battle.

Germany, which has led the way in blocking the social programmes, insists it will not countenance any loss of its ability to veto schemes.

“We are completely against any new clause and have made it perfectly clear we cannot accept such a move. The Commission will have to stick with Article 235 and provide us with a lot of very good reasons for approving its programmes,” said one Bonn source.

Publicly, the Germans argue that under the principle of 'subsidiarity', such initiatives are best taken at national or regional level. Privately, some put a less principled interpretation on Bonn's action. “The finance ministry has said that there is no new money,” explained one diplomat.

The other main culprit in blocking the schemes is the UK. Future British policy in this area will depend to some extent on the outcome of tomorrow's (1 May) general election, although it seems unlikely that even a 'pro-social affairs' Labour government would agree to qualified majority voting in this area.

A new Conservative administration would insist that any new clause was included in the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty - from which it has an opt out.