Documents considered by the Committee on 28 October 2009, including the following recommendation for debate: Dairy market situation - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


2  EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE COLLEGE

(30713)

Council Decision establishing a European Security and Defence College (ESDC) and repealing Joint Action 2008/550/CFSP.


Legal baseArticle 14 EU; unanimity
DepartmentForeign and Commonwealth Office
Basis of considerationEM of 23 June 2009
Previous Committee ReportHC 19-xxii (2008-09), chapter 2 (1 July 2009); and see (29699) —: HC 16-xxiii (2007-08), chapter 20 (4 June 2008) and (26630) — HC 34-i (2005-06), chapter 49 (4 July 2005)
Discussed in CouncilTo be determined
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionNot cleared; further information requested

Background

2.1 The European Security and Defence College (ESDC) was originally proposed by France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium at the so-called "Chocolate" Summit at Tervuren in April 2003, to provide training in what was described (in his 25 June 2005 Explanatory Memorandum by the then Minister for Europe, Mr Douglas Alexander, that accompanied the original Joint Action) as "the broad range of political, institutional and operational issues which are central to ESDP [the European Security and Defence Policy], with the aim of promoting better understanding of ESDP amongst the relevant Member State civilian and military personnel".

2.2 It has

—  a Steering Committee, comprising one representative from each Member to, inter alia, establish the annual academic programme of the ESDC, select the Member State institutes which will host the ESDC activities, and agree the annual academic programme;

—  an Executive Academic Board comprising senior representatives of the institutes providing training each academic year with a main role of implementing the agreed annual academic programme through the ESDC network, developing curricula, reviewing standards and preparing evaluation reports;

—  an Administrative Secretariat of up to three staff within the Council General Secretariat (CGS) in Brussels and carrying out administrative support activities in support of the Steering Committee and the Executive Academic Board.

2.3 Member State institutions and the EU Institute for Security Studies make up the training "network".

2.4 Member States that send personnel for training in the ESDC bear the costs incurred. Member State institutions providing training as part of the ESDC network cover the associated organisational costs. The costs of the administrative secretariat in the CGS are covered by either the existing CGS budget or by those Member States that choose to second staff to work within it.

2.5 The ESDC was to deliver two main courses:

—  the High-level Course, consisting of five week-long residential courses held in five different Member State institutions, intended for senior military and civilian personnel;

—  the Orientation Course, a one-week course to be held around three times a year, in Brussels, providing a broad introduction to the ESDP for military and civilian personnel.

Previous consideration

2.6 The then Minister for Europe explained that the UK was originally sceptical, but a pilot course demonstrated that it would be "an effective means of delivering some of the key elements of ESDP training". So the Government had "engaged with the initiative to ensure that it is based on a proper assessment of needs, and does not duplicate existing Member State training provision", and "ensured that the ESDC will be established as a "virtual network" of existing Member State training institutions, rather than a new 'bricks and mortar' institution. Apart from the small administrative secretariat within the Council General Secretariat, there will be no common funding for the training provision. Member States will bear their own costs for the funding of their students".

2.7 On 18 July 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/575/CFSP establishing the European Security and Defence College.[4]

2.8 It was cleared by the then Committee at its first meeting following the May 2005 General Election. In so doing, the then Committee noted that it seemed as though the UK's success in ensuring that the ESDC would be a "virtual network" aiming to add value at minimal cost in order to improve the effectiveness of an established policy had not been achieved without a struggle; resistance had been necessary not only to proposals for common funding but also to the proposal to give the ESDC a legal personality, which would have undermined the concept of a "virtual" ESDC. Although no legal or policy questions arose, our predecessors felt that a short Report to the House was appropriate, to illustrate the constant battle that had to be fought to restrain expenditure on, and the institutionalisation of, activity which can clearly be carried out effectively at much lower cost, and in order to congratulate the Minister on the outcome.

Amendments to the 2005 Joint Action

2.9 In a helpful and informative Explanatory Memorandum of 2 June 2008, the then Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jim Murphy) recalled that the 2005 Joint Action required the Steering Committee to review implementation of the Joint Action after two years and present a report to the Council. He noted that their report acknowledged that, with the EU's increasingly global role and the continuing development of ESDP, there was an increasing demand for the training provided by the ESDC, and accordingly made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the running of the ESDC and broadening its activities.

2.10 The then Minister went on to explain that the Steering Committee report also made other recommendations that required further investigation, which included increasing the number of Secretariat staff, securing a long-term solution for ensuring adequate access to suitable conference facilities in Brussels, and reviewing the current financing arrangements; and that the Council had commissioned a study of these issues to report by November 2008 with a view to further revising the Joint Action as necessary.

2.11 In the meantime, the then Minister explained that in order to incorporate those findings of the report that did not need such further investigation, a number of revisions to the original Joint Action had been proposed (set out in our previous Report). He reaffirmed the Government's support of the work of the ESDC — "in particular its development of an internet-based ESDP Distance Learning System" — and the proposed changes to the Joint Action, as a series of practical measures that would "allow the college to conduct a broader range of training activities of use to Member States [and] … improve the day-to-day management of the college's activities without the need for major changes to its current organisation."

2.12 He noted that as the ESDC operated on a "costs lie where they fall basis", the UK did not provide a regular contribution to support the college's activities, but was nonetheless "actively engaged in the college's activities", and routinely sent officials on the ESDC's training courses, and had provided expert speakers on a number of occasions and hosted a module of the High Level Course.

2.13 The Minister also welcomed the further review commissioned by the Council to report in November 2008, which would "look into the long-term impact that developments in ESDP will have on the college's future activities and what steps will need to be undertaken to ensure that the college can continue to meet Member States' requirements."

Our assessment

2.14 Although modest and sensible, and with no financial implications, we considered the proposed changes warranted a Report to the House for two reasons.

2.15 First, the story so far illustrated that the Government's original approach was well-judged. Secondly, we felt the temptation might arise, in the further consideration of some of the more substantial issues raised in this review, to use another review — that of the European Security Strategy — to argue that "the long-term impact of developments in ESDP" and the alleged difficulties of ensuring adequate access to suitable conference facilities in Brussels to which the Minister referred might now necessitate common funding and giving the ESDC "legal personality". If so, we trusted that the Minister would resist these or any other such suggestions with the same determination as had his ante-predecessor.

2.16 We cleared the document, and looked forward to scrutinising the outcome of the further consideration of the review at the end of the year.[5]

2.17 Council Joint Action 2005/575/CFSP was replaced by Council Joint Action 2008/550/CFSP of 23 June 2008 establishing a European Security and Defence College.[6]

Further proposed amendments to Joint Action 2008/550/CFSP

2.18 In addition to his Explanatory Memorandum of 23 June 2009, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ivan Lewis) enclosed a copy of the study,[7] and said that the French Presidency had taken up "a number of these recommendations and proposed a number of changes", including:

—  housing the college in permanent accommodation;

—  an increase in the number of Secretariat staff from three to 17; and

—  a dedicated budget of up to €3.6m per annum.

2.19 He went on to explain that, following extensive negotiations in Brussels, the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 8 December 2008 endorsed a much more modest version of the Presidency proposals, and that the Joint Action now needed to be amended for these proposals to be implemented. The changes to be incorporated into the new Joint Action are set out in our previous Report.

2.20 The Minister went on to say that:

—  the ESDC maintained strong support amongst Member States and demand for ESDC courses continues to grow;

—  the Government supported the work of the ESDC — in particular its focus on both civilian and military training — and its potential for further development along UK policy lines, without duplicating or undermining NATO training arrangements

—  despite "very strong opposition from the majority of Member States", the government, to ensure cost effectiveness and a better deal for the UK and ESDP, had successfully negotiated a significantly more modest deal which would still allow the college to conduct a broader range of training activities of genuine use to Member States and improve the day-to-day management of the College (details in our previous Report).

—  this included a dedicated budget (for additional staff costs, installing and running the IDL System, developing and producing training materials, managing an Alumni Association etc.) of €850,000 for the first 12 months (down from an initial Presidency proposal of €3.6 million per annum). The ESDC shared budget would be capped until the Joint Action was renegotiated in four years time;

—  he had initially shared the Committee's concerns over giving the College legal capacity. But now giving it the necessary legal capacity to fulfil its tasks and realise its objectives would be useful in practical ways; it would be able, for example, to enter into staff contracts, and contracts for equipment such as IT equipment to install its Internet-Based Advance Distance Learning System as supported by the UK and to print teaching materials. It would also be able to open a bank account. Giving the College the necessary legal capacity would not mean that the College could increase the size of its budget or act outside the scope of the powers given to it under the Joint Action by the Member States.

Our assessment

2.21 We agreed that the Minister and his predecessor had done well in holding to the Government's original position, that the ESDC should be a "virtual network" of existing Member State training institutions, rather than a new "bricks and mortar" institution — at least for a further four years.

2.22 We were less pleased, however, that we had heard nothing from any Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister concerning the recommendations emanating from the review, let alone what line the Government proposed to take. Not only did this ignore what we had asked in our report of a year ago; it also illustrated precisely the sort of "upstream" scrutiny issue that we had discussed in extenso with the previous Minister for Europe, which had concluded with the Committee saying that one of the things that it needs to do its job properly is not to be taken by surprise when presented with a piece of draft legislation.[8] We asked the Minister to explain how this had happened, and what would be done to ensure that it did not happen again.

2.23 We would also asked him to explain, if the ESDC was to continue as a "network", why (under Article 2: Legal Capacity) one of the reasons given for its acquiring a legal capacity was "to acquire equipment, including teaching equipment" (our emphasis). Was this a stepping stone, from teaching materials to hired class rooms to a new "bricks and mortar" institution? Or was there a more innocent explanation?

2.24 In the meantime we retained the document under scrutiny.

The Minister's letter of 14 July 2009

2.25 The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Ivan Lewis) begins his letter by thanking the Committee for its appreciation for the work undertaken by the Government during negotiations "to ensure that the College remains a virtual network, resisting intense pressure from the Council Secretariat and the majority of Member States who supported the recommendation for a permanent building to house the College."

2.26 With regard to the Committee's question regarding the ability afforded to the College to "acquire equipment, including teaching equipment", the Minister says that the equipment refers to the Council Secretariat's recommendation (Future Perspectives paper, reference 16631/08, 1 December 2008, p25) to "provide the ESDC with its own budget to cover the expenditures for staff and IDL [Internet Distance Learning] equipment". He sees that as "a welcome reinforcement of the network principle of the College."

2.27 The Minister goes on to express his regret that the Committee "feels it has not been sufficiently briefed on the Government's strategy with regards to the College", and continues as follows:

    "This was certainly not deliberate. During the course of both the French and Czech Presidencies we were involved in fast-moving negotiations with our European counterparts to ensure that the most cost-effective solution was found for the College to provide a service that genuinely adds value. We felt that it was important to ensure that the Committee received a realistic understanding of where the final negotiations might end up and have tried to convey this to the Committee, giving members enough time to express their opinions.

    "I am committed to engaging with the Committee. Parliamentary scrutiny is a top priority for the Foreign Office and we are currently striving to satisfy the Committee's requests, within practical limits. As I write, discussions on the College are still ongoing and we will continue to take the Committee's views on board and meet regularly, at official level, to improve the scrutiny processes. The Foreign Office will continue …. to increase the level of correspondence with the Committee on areas of interest."

2.28 The Minister concludes his letter by referring to the part of his earlier Explanatory Memorandum in which he explained that the relevant working group in Brussels "was still discussing the finer details of the ESDC expansion agreement, parts of which are centred on an area that is of fundamental concern to the UK — the budget." This issue, he says:

    "has not yet been resolved but could be concluded and recommended to go to the Council for agreement at short notice. When the Presidency announces the exact timing of when this will go before Council, we will inform the committee. Should there be insufficient time for this to pass scrutiny, we will then use our scrutiny reserve in order to allow Parliament to complete its work."

Conclusion

2.29 On our substantive query, the Minister's view that, through acquiring a legal personality, the ESDC's ability now "to acquire equipment, including teaching equipment" is "a welcome reinforcement of the network principle of the College" implies that he does not see any danger that this will strengthen the hand of those who would like to see a much more costly "bricks and mortar" institution. We hope that he is right. We shall know in four years' time, when the Joint Action is next reviewed.

2.30 Turning to the scrutiny issues, for some unexplained reason, the Committee did not receive the Minister's letter until three months after he signed it, which suggests that, his words of assurance notwithstanding, there is still room for improvement in the process of getting correspondence from his Private Office to the Committee.

2.31 Beyond that, the Committee has long recognised that ESDP negotiations are often fast-moving and that, at times, this puts the scrutiny process under strain. However, this would not appear to have been one of those occasions. The Committee is not seeking a blow-by-blow advance warning system; only, as it has said before, not to be taken by surprise when presented with draft legislation. In this instance, there is no reason why the Minister could not have responded to the Committee's earlier request, and outlined the review findings, the Government's view and what it hoped to achieve in the subsequent negotiations.

2.32 Three months ago, the Minister says that discussions on "an area that is of fundamental concern to the UK — the budget" had yet to be concluded. We should be grateful if he would let us know what the present situation is.

2.33 In the meantime we shall continue to retain the document under scrutiny.



4   OJ No. L 194, 26.07.05, p.15. Back

5   (29699) -: HC16-xxiii (2007-08), chapter 20 (4 June 2008); see headnote. Back

6   OJ No. L 176, 4.7.08, p.20. Back

7   The executive summary of which is at Annex 1 of this chapter of our Report. Back

8   (30691) 10665/09; see HC 19-xxi (2008-09), chapter 7 (24 June 2009). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 6 November 2009