15 Making EU Aid More Effective
| (a)
(27333)
7066/06
COM(06) 85
+ ADD 1
(b)
(27334)
7067/06
COM(06) 87
(c)
(27335)
7068/06
COM(06) 88
|
Commission Communication: Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness - The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006-2010
Commission Communication: EU Aid: delivering more, better and faster
Commission Communication: Increasing the impact of EU aid: A Common framework for drafting country strategy papers and joint multi-annual programming
|
| Legal base | — |
| Documents originated | 2 March 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 March 2006
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EMs of 14 March 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None. But see HC 34-i, para 4 (4 July 2005); HC 34-v, paras 3 and 4 (12 October 2005); and HC 34-vii, para 13 (26 October 2005), HC 34-xii, para 10 (30 November 2005) and HC 34-xv, para 12 (18 January 2006).
|
| Discussed in Council | 10-11 April General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
15.1 The 2000 United Nations General Assembly agreed to eight
UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015
— the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, achievement
of universal primary education, promotion of gender equality and
female empowerment, reduction of child mortality, improvement
of maternal health, combat of HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases,
environmental sustainability and a global partnership for development
— each with associated targets and benchmarks to measure
progress. A Millennium Review Summit was held at the 2005 UN General
Assembly, when heads of state and government reviewed, and decided
on measures to accelerate, progress.
15.2 On 4 July and 12 October 2005[52]
we considered three Commission Communications:
- an overview of the EU's contribution
to achieving the MDGs and identifying the measures that need to
be taken by the EU to reach these goals, particularly in Africa;
- an overview of the state of implementation of
the eight "Barcelona Commitments" which the EU made
at the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development in March
2002, assessing which of these commitments need to be reviewed
and presenting proposals for new commitments on financing and
aid effectiveness; and
- a review of eleven priority non-aid policies
where the EU could assist developing countries to attain the MDGs:
trade, environment, security, agriculture, fisheries, social dimension
of globalisation, employment and decent work, migration, research
and innovation, information society, transport and energy.
Together, they formed the Commission's April 2005
"Millennium Development Goals" package, which
subsequently formed part of the preparation for the UN High-Level
Meeting on Financing for Development (held on 27-28 June 2005,
to review progress since the Monterrey Conference and prepare
the meeting on Financing for Development at the Millennium Review
Summit itself) and the G8 Summit in Gleneagles (6-8 July 2005).
They were debated in the European Standing Committee on 3 November
2005.
15.3 On 12 October we also considered the Commission's
draft Declaration on Development Policy,[53]
which was debated in the European Standing Committee on 17 November
2005 and adopted — as the "European Consensus on
Development" — by the December 2005 European Council.
15.4 That Council also adopted the EU Strategy
on Africa, which we considered on 26 October, 30 November
2005 and 18 January 2006.[54]
Together, they form the backdrop to these three further Communications.
The Communications
15.5 All three relate to the central consideration
of how to improve the effectiveness of the even larger volumes
of aid that have now been committed by what was already, collectively,
the biggest global aid donor, and which has also incorporated
ten (and soon to be twelve) new Member States, with little experience
of development work; and which have the MDGs and, above all, poverty
alleviation, and Africa as the focal points. Collectively, they
comprise the Commission's "Aid Effectiveness Package".
(A) FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT AND AID EFFECTIVENESS
- THE CHALLENGES OF SCALING UP EU AID 2006-10
15.6 The Council invited the Commission to monitor
the implementation of the new EU commitments to accelerate progress
on achieving the MDGs and to report progress annually on the financing
and effectiveness of aid, including for Africa. This first assessment
is based on Member States' contributions of late 2005 and is supplemented
by a Commission Staff Working Document, which provides a detailed
evaluation of progress.
15.7 The Commission's analysis of the prospect for
meeting the new aid targets is somewhat downbeat. It says that
though there were additional aid flows of €2.3 billion in
2004 over 2003, this did not constitute any real increase in percentage
terms; and that "the collective result in 2006 will depend
on those [Member States] that are still below the minimum threshold
of 0.33%" (which, from the associated table, boils down to
the 10 new Member States). It then notes that the Financial Perspective
package 2007-13 agreed by the December 2005 European Council "concluded
that the EC budget for
external actions shall increase annually by 4.5%, and allocated
an additional €22.682 billion for cooperation with ACP countries
during 2008-2013 under a 10th European Development Fund (EDF):
"These decisions have consequences: Should
they be confirmed, the real share of the EC's contribution
(from EC budget and EDF) to [the ]EU's collective ODA would
decrease from today['s] 20% to 15% by 2010 and 13% by 2013. Moreover,
if MS honour their ODA pledges they will have to provide around
90% of the additional EU aid bilaterally.
"Against this background, the EU must face a
double challenge to ensure its credibility as a key global donor,
as indicated by the European Consensus for Development:
- The Council Conclusions do
not secure appropriate funds for the EC to respond to the expectations
of partners resulting from the ambitious EC and EU Association/Partnership
Agreements concluded with many partner countries worldwide.
"If MS's national aid systems came also under
considerable strain due to the scaling up of aid that would undermine
the commitment to make the EU collectively a stronger, more effective
aid performer.
"Hence and to ensure a global EU coherence and
visibility it is crucial to put in place appropriate structures
and ways also at EU level that facilitate the coordinated and
complementary channelling of MS' bilateral and EC aid. The Commission
will contribute to this effort by developing different types of
host structures open to MS' voluntary contributions, such as the
European trust fund for infrastructure in Africa, call for proposal
mechanisms as applied under the ACP Water and Energy Facilities,
or the exploration of the feasibility of common instruments to
respond to global challenges related to the fall in commodity
prices and natural catastrophes (for example an EU-FLEX or similar)".[55]
15.8 Turning to the new intermediate targets for
2010, the Commission says that preliminary estimates show that
the majority of Member States have introduced the necessary measures
to attain the 2010 ODA targets: six will provide 0.7% or more
of their GNI as ODA, with Sweden keeping its ODA at 1.0% of GNI
and Luxembourg endeavouring to attain that level; a further four
MS will allocate around 0.6% of their GNI for development aid
and others foresee progressive year-on-year increases to reach
0.51% ODA/GNI. But, the Commission notes, while ODA flows are
expected to grow consistently, "a significant proportion
of the increase seems related to debt relief operations (notably
Iraq, Nigeria throughout 2005-2007)", and recalls that the
Monterrey Consensus underlined the need to ensure that resources
provided for debt relief do not detract from ODA resources intended
to be available for developing countries. "The challenge
ahead consists of introducing the necessary dynamics in MS' budget
planning to reach sustained higher ODA levels in view of the 2010
goals, especially in countries that are still far from attaining
the 2006 baseline target. There is a noticeable trend among MS
to backload the required growth of aid budgets".
15.9 Regarding the ten new MS, the Commission says
they have agreed to "individual baselines adapted to their
specific situation" and have "committed themselves to
striving towards reaching the 'acquis' of the EU in 2002
by 2015 (0.33% ODA/GNI) through gradual increases of their ODA.
and an intermediate target of 0.17% by 2010". It regards
their overall performance as "impressive, especially when
compared with other big OECD/DAC donors. If current trends are
confirmed, the combined ODA volume would increase more than six-fold
between 2003, the year prior to accession to the EU, and 2010
and reach the 0.17% baseline target" and concludes that "whereas
some countries have planned for progressive aid increases, others
need to step up their efforts and adapt their ODA budgets, especially
through allocations other than their contribution to the EC budget
and the 10th EDF. By 2010, the combined aid levels of the EU10
would equate to the projected ODA/GNI ratio of the US.
15.10 On Africa, it says that:
"The EU undertook to raise aid to Sub-Saharan
Africa and to ensure that half of the envisaged collective aid
increases as of 2006 will be allocated to Africa. Whereas the
G8 — building largely on the EU's financial efforts —
also promised aid increases for Africa towards 2010, the EU pledge
has so far not been matched by commitments from others, neither
in scope nor in terms of verifiable indicators. The promise on
Africa pertains to the collective EU effort avoiding interference
with national aid priorities of individual MS. Further work on
the division of labour needs to ensure a fair burden-sharing amongst
EU donors and with international partners".
15.11 The Commission's consequential proposals are
helpfully summarised by Secretary of State for International Development
(Hilary Benn) in the first of three Explanatory Memoranda of 14
March 2006 as follows:
- "On the commitment to
increase financial resources for Official Development Assistance
(ODA) (EU15 to reach, by 2010, an individual baseline of 0.51%
and the new EU10 of 0.17% ODA as a percentage of GNI):
- to encourage Member States whose ODA levels are
still below the baseline to make efforts to reach set targets
for 2006 and in 2010;
- to call on Member States to contribute to common
EU and other aid instruments, especially for Africa, to ensure
effective use of forthcoming aid increases;
- to ensure further developments in debt relief
remain in keeping with the spirit of the Monterrey consensus;
and
- to call on other donors to commit more to ensure
proper MDG financing
- To continue to consider innovative sources of
finance and monitor implementation of current initiatives, notably
the International Finance Facility (IFF) for Immunisation (IFF-Im)
and a levy on airline tickets.
- To support the establishment of strong monitoring
processes for commitments on aid effectiveness agreed at the 2005
DAC High Level Forum by the end of 2006. Other proposals on aid
effectiveness are to endorse the nine deliverables contained in
the Action Plan on the effectiveness of EU aid (Communication
7067/06);[56] to support
the establishment of EC aid rules favouring co-financing with
Member States and other donors; to agree principles for enhancing
the division of labour amongst donors; and to agree on a concerted
EU strategy to address a scaling-up of EU aid;
- To undertake more analysis by the Commission
of ways to ensure more predictable aid including through a multi-annual
'Millennium Development Goal contract';
- To continue to support the development of instruments
to mitigate the impact of external shocks on developing countries.
This would include, among other things, support towards market-based
insurance schemes such as the Global Index Insurance Facility
(GIIF);
- To continue further untying of food aid and food
aid transport.;
- To call on the International Task Force on Global
Public Goods for a prompt release of its final report;.
- To create an informal EU coordination mechanism
between European Executive Directors from the Regional Development
Banks (RDBs); to ensure systematic EU coordination meetings prior
to key IFI Board decisions; and to share with the Commission Board
documents of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Regional
Development Banks;
- To implement the 2005 Council Conclusions on
'Aid for Trade' (15579/05), especially the €1 billion p.a.
aid volume targets by both Member States and the Commission by
2010; to contribute to more mainstreaming of trade into poverty
reduction and development strategies; and to further improve EU
coordination at headquarters and field level on trade-related
assistance".
The Government's view
15.12 The Secretary of State says:
"We are strongly supportive of the new aid volume
targets. To meet these targets, the UK will need to spend 0.51%
of its GNI as ODA by 2010. ODA targets have already been agreed
in HMG's 2004 Spending Round (SR2004), including a UK ODA target
of 0.47% of GNI by 2007-08 reaching 0.7% by 2013.
"We welcome the call for all Member States to
respect their commitments on ODA levels if we are to achieve the
MDGs. We see EC channels as one modality for scaling-up aid, but
not necessarily the preferred one.
"A large proportion of ODA commitments may be
met by debt stock cancellations rather than new ODA flows. We
therefore support the Commission's call for debt relief efforts
not to detract from new ODA resources, and are encouraging others
to adopt this line.
"We support the proposals to ensure proper financing
for the MDGs, especially in Africa, also in the form of debt relief.
Both proposals are consistent with UK policy and practice.
"More aid will not be sufficient for those countries
requiring immediate support to achieve the MDGs. The UK therefore
strongly supports the work that has been done on innovative sources
of financing, notably the frontloading of aid through the International
Finance Facility (IFF). The IFFIm pilot is well underway and will
start disbursing funds shortly. We are working jointly with France
on the main IFF and will encourage others to join. The UK already
has an air ticket tax.
"We support work to improve the effectiveness
of European aid, turning into reality the important commitments
of the 2005 Paris DAC High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Overall,
we welcome the Commission's efforts to focus Member States on
action following these commitments.
"We welcome the Commission's initial work on
promoting more predictable and less volatile aid mechanisms, including
the idea for a multi-annual 'Millennium Development Goal contract'.
"We endorse the Commission's call for more
coordinated and speedier responses to mitigate the impact of exogenous
shocks. However, we believe that the Commission overplays the
significance of the Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF) and
downplays the importance of the IMF's Exogenous Shocks Facility
(ESF). The introduction of the ESF in 2005 is the major recent
change in this area. We are a strong supporter of the ESF and
were the first to announce financial support (£50 million
over five years). France has also contributed, and several other
non-EU donors will follow suit.
"Untying will generate better value from EU
development spending by securing competitive prices and purchasing
from the most appropriate sources. We are committed to extending
the scope of the OECD/DAC Recommendation on Untying Aid to LDCs
and support the Commission and Member States efforts to fully
untie food aid and food aid transport. We believe the 2003 Council
Food Aid Convention (1999) negotiating mandate remains relevant
to progressing full untying of food aid and food aid transport
for the revision of the London Food Aid Convention.
"We support the work of the International Task
Force on Global Public Goods. The importance of Global Public
Goods is growing and high. The forum is valuable for promoting
dialogue and raising awareness. We support the call for prompt
release of the final report of the Task Force.
"We recognise the need for reform of the IFIs.
However, we consider the proposals put forward by the Commission
impracticable: Europeans are represented through various
constituencies in the RDBs, mixing both EU and non-EU countries;
there are often diverse views among Member States precluding reaching
consensus; and as the 2nd largest contributor to IDA 14, our influence
is commensurate with our financial stake and we would not
want it to be diminished. Finally, IFIs confidentiality rules
preclude Board documents to be distributed externally before approval.
"Like the Commission, we support more focus
on trade-related assistance. We are keen for EU commitment to
the UK-inspired 'Aid for Trade' initiative to increase countries'
capacity to trade and take advantage of more open markets. We
would welcome more emphasis on responding to trade priorities
in the context of partners' development plans and budgets. At
present too much aid for trade flows are disbursed outside of
country plans and budgets, reducing aid effectiveness, increasing
costs and making co-ordination and coherence difficult to achieve".
(B) "EU AID: DELIVERING MORE, BETTER AND FASTER"
15.13 The second Communication relates to the joint
commitment of the MS and the Commission, at the November 2004
General Affairs and External Relations Council, in Paris at the
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) High Level Meeting in March
2005 and in the run up to the UN Summit, to change practices and
improve the impact of development aid in order to help partner
countries meet the Millennium Development Goals.
15.14 The Secretary of State again helpfully summarises
the Communication as follows:
"This chapeau paper takes these commitments
and puts them into an action plan arranged around three axes:
casting a glance at EU aid, leading the Paris Declaration Agenda
and boosting the EU consensus. Nine deliverables are highlighted.
Each is defined as having either an immediate or short term timeframe.
Immediate deliverables have already been developed and are ready
for immediate adoption and implementation in selected countries.
Short term deliverables will be developed during 2006 and implemented
in the field by 2010.
- Axis 1: Casting a glance at
EU Aid
- Donor Atlas (immediate
timeframe): A new version of this reference document which reports
on patterns of development assistance
- Compendium EU (short
term timeframe): This provides partner countries and other development
actors with an overview of all of Member States' current rules
and procedures
- Monitoring mechanism
(immediate timeframe): This is the subject of the accompanying
Aid Effectiveness package Communication (COM(2006)85)[57]
and tracks international and EU specific development commitments
- Axis 2: Leading the Paris Agenda
- Roadmaps (immediate
deliverable): Roadmaps identify concrete harmonisation issues
that require implementation by all EU donors active in a given
country.
- Joint programming
(immediate deliverable): This offers a common framework for regrouping
the duplicating building blocks of Member States programming systems
with the aim of reducing transactions costs. This deliverable
is the subject of the accompanying Aid Effectiveness package Communication
(COM(2006)88)[58]
- Joint arrangements
(short term deliverable): This aims to develop a template - to
be agreed between the donor community and the partner country
- to promote single disbursement and reporting mechanisms.
- Axis 3: Boosting the EU Consensus
- Division of labour
(short term deliverable): This aims to improve aid effectiveness
by ensuring that donor aid is better joined-up in country (reducing
duplication etc. and thus the administrative burden on partner
countries)
- Co-financing (short
term deliverable): This will define a strategic approach to co-financing
by EU donors to allow them to undertake more joint activities.
- EU vision (short term
deliverable): This aims to stimulate the European debate on development
and promote best practice, through a network of development research
centres and 'European Development Days'."
The Government's view
15.15 The Secretary of State says:
"We welcome the Commission's wish to refocus
attention on our joint aid effectiveness commitments. We are already
working collectively on these issues and will continue to work
to ensure EU development aid is focussed on the needs of partner
countries, will lead to reduced costs for governments and builds
on the principles agreed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.
"We are pleased to see specific actions recorded
against roadmaps for harmonisation processes in country and continued
emphasis on developing joint working practices (strategies and
financing arrangements). We particularly welcome action at country
level to ease the congestion of donors in sectors and the burden
this places on partner governments dealing with them. We see the
EU Donor Atlas and country mapping work as useful in this respect.
"We are concerned that the process for promoting
joint multi-annual programming is not inclusive enough and has
been rushed to meet the Commission's need for new guidelines for
the Community programming exercise (2007-2013). Other Member States
share this concern. We would prefer a two-pronged approach that
will allow the new format for Community programmes to go ahead,
while work on a joint multi-annual framework - also involving
Member States bilateral aid - can continue in slower time.
"We would
also prefer to see the chapeau paper confined to actions on aid
effectiveness and leave issues around the visibility of EU aid
aside. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness represents an
important shift of focus to partnerships with developing countries
and sets challenging commitments on both sides for improving development
aid. We should not lose this focus".
(C) "INCREASING THE IMPACT OF EU AID: A COMMON
FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFTING COUNTRY STRATEGY PAPERS AND JOINT MULTI-ANNUAL
PROGRAMMING"
15.16 This final part of the "Aid Effectiveness
Package" elaborates on the EU commitment at the DAC high-level
forum to the gradual introduction of joint multiannual programming
by revising "the CSP framework" (of Country Strategy
Papers, introduced in 2000). The Commission says "it has
become increasingly clear that coordinated programming, carried
out jointly at European level, can make an even more significant
difference in terms of the effectiveness of aid and achievement
of the MDG … Joint multiannual programming should facilitate
policy coordination, promote harmonisation of procedures and enable
decisions to be taken concerning complementarity. It should enable
donors gradually to align their activities on the partner country's
multiannual programming cycles (poverty reduction strategies and
budget processes) and increase the scope for Member States and
the Commission to synchronise their programming process and thus,
in the long term, bring down transaction costs considerably. The
breakthrough at European level came in November 2004 when, in
its conclusions, the Council expressly called on the Commission
to revise the 2000 CSP framework to incorporate provisions making
multiannual programming possible. The principle of joint programming
was reaffirmed and strengthened in the new 'European Consensus
on Development', the EU's new development-policy statement published
in December 2005."[59]
Once revised, the framework
would be applicable to all Community aid for the next programming
cycle, starting in 2007.
15.17 The document then sets out the basic elements
to be included and the various stages of drafting CSPs, dividing
the revised framework into three sections:
- the guiding principles for
programming;
- a summary of the nine essential components of
future CSPs, with a proposal for a common format; and
- the main stages of the procedure for drawing
up future CSPs and arrangements for joint multiannual programming.
15.18 The Commission's guiding principles are:
- A partnership framework:
strategies based on co-operation and partnership agreements, consistent
with regional strategies;
- Compatibility with the objectives of the European
consensus (eradicate poverty through sustainable
development, meet the MDGs and promote democracy, good governance
and respect for human rights);
- Consistency with the
objectives of development policy and other policies that define
relations with the partner country;
- Differentiation in
view of the diverse nature of the EU's partners and the challenges
facing them;
- Cross-cutting themes
must be borne in mind;
- Division of labour, complementarity and harmonisation:
everything geared towards maximising the sharing of information
between all concerned and complementarity with the activities
of Member States, other donors and multilateral agencies;
- Budget support, general
or sectoral, for implementation wherever possible;
- Focus (with flexibility);
- Ownership by the partner country
and alignment with the partner country's agenda;
- A results-based approach: key indicators
for measuring the impact of aid;
- Involvement of civil society:
non-state actors, the private sector, parliaments and local authorities;
and
- Learning from the past and reviews:
experience of the partner countries and of donors, external and
internal evaluations, strategies adjusted in the light of the
findings.
15.19 The proposed format for the CSPs includes the
following essential components which, the Commission says, past
experience has shown make for high-quality programming:
- the framework for relations
between the donor and the partner country;
- an analysis of the political (internal and external),
economic, commercial, social and environmental situation;
the partner country's agenda, including the
development strategy;
- an analysis of the viability of current policies
and of medium-term challenges;
- an overview of past and present co-operation
with the donor;
- a description of the state of the partnership
with the country; and
- the donor's co-operation strategy and specific
objectives, consistency with other external aid instruments and
policies, and complementary with other donors; all leading to
- a National Indicative Programme (NIP) with measurable
objectives, with performance indicators, the contribution to be
made by the various donors and the nature and scope of the most
appropriate support mechanisms; to include
- various standardised annexes.
15.20 The Commission says it will take a gradual
approach, starting immediately with the ACP countries, followed
at a later date by Asia, Latin America and the countries covered
by the European Neighbourhood Policy and Russia. It points out
that most of the components are to be found in the strategy documents
drawn up by the Member States bilaterally, and says that the new
CSP framework, with its "essential components", could
also be used by the Member States.
The Government's view
15.21 The Secretary of State describes the Communication
as:
"…a useful starting point for Member States
and the Commission to jointly promote development aid that is
focussed on the needs of partner countries, reduces transaction
costs for governments and builds on the principles agreed in the
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. In particular, we are
looking for a framework that recognises the leading role of partner
governments, encourages alignment of donor programming cycles
to those of the partner country, builds on ongoing joint strategy
work in country, draws on existing analysis and encourages a mutual
accountability relationship where both donor and partners are
judged on their performance."
15.22 However, he goes on to say that:
"We, and many other Member States, are concerned
that insufficient time has been given to this process, not the
least to ensure greater ownership across all involved parties.
The imminent start of the Commission programming cycle would explain
their wish to make fast progress. Together with others, we are
therefore considering a two-pronged approach; one that would give
the Commission the authority it needs for its own programming
needs while taking forward work on joint multi-annual programming
in slower, more considered time.
"In particular, we are looking for a framework
that can work convincingly when initiated at the partner country
level, under partner country leadership and encompassing all donor
aid, not just the EU. We also want the core of the analysis underpinning
such a framework to be joint and shared, not commissioned just
for this process.
"We are involved in intensive discussions in
Brussels with the Commission and other donors to resolve these
issues."
15.23 Those discussions, the Secretary of State says,
will take place this month in the Development Committee Working
Group in Brussels, aiming at Conclusions being adopted at the
"development" General Affairs and External Relations
Council on 11 April 2006.
Conclusion
15.24 When we considered the final version of
the EU Africa Strategy, we commented that the key question now
was the extent to which its vital but ambitious aims were likely
to be achieved, and that effective implementation would demand
an unprecedented level and effectiveness of co-operation between
Member States and the Commission, and between them and the UN,
the AU, the IFIs and other bilateral donors; an unprecedented
level of commitment and delivery on the part of African partners;
and, above all, the EU to "put its money where its mouth
is".[60]
It is clear that the Commission is concerned that the last of
these is by no means assured. It is therefore right and proper
that it should draw attention to where Member States, and others,
need to live up to their commitments. And, as the Secretary of
State acknowledges, there is also much good sense and good intention
in what the Commission says about the need for, and how to work
towards, the improved co-ordination and coherence that will be
required to achieve the extra bang for the Euro that, should history
be any guide, is likely to be needed to make up for shortfalls.
15.25 But, as the Secretary of State points out,
there are also several areas where the Commission, not for the
first time, tries to force the pace or allows its ambitions to
run ahead of what is required or is side-tracked into non-priority
issues. It would seem, however, that several other Member States
are of the same mind, that the Development Commissioner is aware
of and responsive to these concerns, and that the likelihood therefore
is that the right balance — reflecting the complementarity
that Community policy shall have towards the policies pursued
by Member States, as embodied in Art 177 EC — will be found
in the Conclusions that are finally adopted. And should that scenario
not transpire, then we are confident that the Secretary of State
would not agree to any Conclusions that contradicted his caveats.
15.26 We therefore clear the Communications, but
ask that the Secretary of State writes to us after the Council
meeting to confirm that the points that he has highlighted have
been satisfactorily resolved.
52 See headnote. Back
53
Ibid. Back
54
Ibid. Back
55
COM(06) 85, page 5. Back
56
Document (b) above. Back
57
Document (a) above. Back
58
Document (c) above. Back
59
COM(06) 88, page 5. Back
60
HC 34-xv (2005-06), para 12 (18 January 2006). Back
|
