11 Security Sector Reform
| (27567)
—
COM(06) 253
| Commission Communication: A concept for European Community support for Security Sector Reform
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 24 May 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 June 2006
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 12 July and 25 August 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxiii (2005-06), para 2 (28 June 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | 12 June General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
11.1 The 21-22 November 2005 General Affairs and External Relations
Council adopted the following conclusion on European Security
and Defence Policy (ESDP) support for Security Sector Reform:
"The Council noted that the PSC[31]
had agreed on an EU Concept for ESDP support to Security Sector
Reform (SSR), and recalled that support to SSR in partner countries
is a core area for EU action as identified in the European Security
Strategy (ESS). A concrete manifestation of this is the ongoing
ESDP mission in support of SSR in the DRC (EUSEC RD Congo). The
Council underlined that this concept will facilitate the planning
and conduct of ESDP missions in the field. The Council furthermore
noted that EU support to SSR would be based on democratic norms,
internationally accepted principles of human rights, the rule
of law, respect for local ownership, and coherence with other
areas of EU external action. The Council welcomed the Commission's
intention to develop an EC Concept for SSR covering first pillar
activities, and agreed that due consideration be given to joining
these two strands within the framework of an overarching EU concept
for SSR."[32]
11.2 For its part, the Commission also notes that SSR has been
an integral part of EU integration, enlargement and external assistance
for many years; that, "through Community instruments, the
EU has supported reform processes in partner countries and regions
in different parts of the world and under a wide range of policy
areas. These include policies and instruments which fall under
Development Cooperation, Enlargement, the Stabilisation and Association
Process, the European Neighbourhood Policy, Conflict Prevention
and Crisis Management, Democracy and Human Rights, and the External
Dimension of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice."[33]
11.3 The Commission then recalls the development
of additional EU capacity to support SSR under its Common Foreign
and Security Policy (CFSP), as reflected in the European Security
Strategy (adopted by the European Council in December 2003); thus
ESDP missions and Community action in the area of SSR "can
complement each other, especially in countries in crisis or post-crisis
situations". It also notes that some EU Member States are
very active in bilateral SSR processes, and that the need for
a more coherent and common EU concept on SSR across the three
pillars has, therefore, been raised by Member States and the Commission
in order to contribute to more effective EU external action in
this area. "This concept paper is the European Commission's
contribution to a clearer and integrated EU policy framework for
engaging in security system reform."
The Commission Communication
11.4 The Communication outlines:
— the
Commission's understanding of SSR and its importance;
— current European Community (EC) support
for SSR and guiding principles;
— the strengths the EC can bring to work
on SSR;
— how overall EU support for SSR might
be strengthened; and
— recommendations for improving the EC
contribution to that overall effort.
11.5 It was endorsed by us on 28 June, when we asked
the Minister to write in a year's time with his assessment of
how effectively the recommendations had been implemented and how
effective inter-institutional coordination and co-operation had
been.
11.6 However, although individual Joint Actions are
being, and will be, submitted for scrutiny, we felt that in a
real sense this was too late in the process, and asked the Minister
and his FCO counterpart why the underlying policy documents were
not submitted in a timely fashion, so that the House could give
its view before the policy was agreed in Council, and in the meantime
kept the Communication under scrutiny.[34]
The Minister's letters of 12 July 2006
11.7 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Department for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas)
apologises for the delay in submitting the Communication and explains
that a fast-moving process within the Council secretariat, scrutiny
staffing constraints in his Department at that time and a mix-up
between DFID and the FCO as to who was leading the process resulted
in a failure to place the normal scrutiny reserve.
11.8 He has also copied to us a letter to the Chairman
of sub-Committee C of the House of Lords Select Committee on the
European Union, in which he elaborates on some of the views in
his original Explanatory Memorandum and highlights:
— the
work being done by the UK-led team (which includes the Commission)
in the OECD's Development Assistance Committee to strengthen complementarity
on SSR, by bridging the gap between what he says is now "a
common conceptual understanding of SSR and actual practice on
the ground" via the development of an Implementation Framework
for SSR; and
— the key role of appropriate and timely
financing for SSR, via the new Instruments for External Action,
and particularly the new Stability Instrument.
The Minister's letter of 25 August 2006
11.9 With regard to the EU Concept for ESDP support
for SSR, the Minister for Europe (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) says that
before the Review of CFSP scrutiny by sub-Committee C of the House
of Lords Select Committee on the European Union in January 2006,
this type of non-legislative document was not routinely deposited
for scrutiny, but that it is now "the sort of document that
we would consider sending to the Committee".
Conclusion
11.10 Given the Department for International Development's
excellent record and consistent commitment to effective scrutiny,
we are content with the Minister's apology and explanation.
11.11 We take this opportunity to reiterate our
request for him to write in a year's time with his assessment
of how effectively the recommendations had been implemented and
how effective inter-institutional coordination and co-operation
had been.
11.12 Non-legislative Commission documents, i.e.,
Communications, have been regularly deposited for many years,
so it is hard to see why Council counterparts have not been until
this year. Be that as it may, we should be grateful if, rather
than considering sending them to us, the Minister would make it
regular practice. This would be consistent at the general level
with our shared commitment to enlarging upstream scrutiny of Common
Foreign and Security Policy and, specifically, with the desirability
of the House being able to scrutinise such conceptual frameworks
in the making, rather than after the event via consequential individual
Joint Actions.
11.13 We now clear the document.
31 The committee of senior officials from national
delegations who, under article 25 of the EU Treaty, monitor the
international situation in areas covered by the CFSP and, under
the general responsibility of the Council, exercise political
control and strategic direction of crisis management operations. Back
32
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/87093.pdf. Back
33
COM (06) 253, page 3. Back
34
see headnote. Back
| 
