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 base | Article 14 EU; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 23 June 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 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 Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not 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
| 
