17 The European External Action Service
| (a)
(31439) 8029/10
—
(b)
(31747)
11507/10
+ ADD 1
—
|
Draft Council Decision establishing the Organisation and Functioning of the European External Action Service
Draft Council Decision establishing the Organisation and Functioning of the European External Action Service
|
| Legal base | Article 27(3) TEU; unanimity, with the consent of the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter 18 November 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) (31439) 8029/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10), chapter 1 (7 April 2010)
(b) (31747) 11507/10: HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 64 (8 September 2010) and HC 428-iv (2010-11), chapter 11 (20 October 2010)
|
| Discussed in Council | 26 July 2010 Foreign Affairs Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Both cleared (debated on the Floor of the House on 14 July 2010)
|
Background
17.1 Prior to the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in 1999,
the office of High Representative for Common Foreign and Security
Policy had been introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty. Javier Solana
occupied that position thereafter. Together with an increasing
number of officials in the Council Secretariat, he assisted the
Council in foreign policy matters, through contributing to the
formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions.
He acted on behalf of the Council in conducting political dialogue
with third parties. The six-monthly rotating Presidency was in
charge of chairing the External Relations Council, representing
the Union in CFSP matters, implementing the decisions taken and
for expressing the EU position internationally.
17.2 Under the Lisbon Treaty, new arrangements came
into being. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority,
with the agreement of the President of the Commission, appoints
the High Representative. He or she is subject, together with the
President of the Commission and the other members of the Commission,
to a vote of consent by the European Parliament.
17.3 At their informal meeting in Brussels on 19
November 2009, ahead of the entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon (TEU) on 1 December 2009, EU Heads of State or Government
agreed on the appointment of Baroness Catherine Ashton as the
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy (HR).
17.4 The High Representative now exercises, in foreign
affairs, the functions which, so far, were exercised by the six-monthly
rotating Presidency, the High Representative for CFSP and the
Commissioner for External Relations. According to Articles 18
and 27 TEU, the High Representative:
- conducts the Union's common
foreign and security policy;
- contributes by her proposals to the development
of that policy, which she will carry out as mandated by the Council,
and ensures implementation of the decisions adopted in this field;
- presides over the Foreign Affairs Council;
- as one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission,
ensures the consistency of the Union's external action and is
responsible within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent
on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects
of the Union's external action;
- represents the Union for matters relating to
the common foreign and security policy, conducts political dialogue
with third parties on the Union's behalf and expresses the Union's
position in international organisations and at international conferences;
and
- shall be assisted by a European External Action
Service.
17.5 Article 27(3) TEU constitutes the legal basis
for the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of
the EEAS.
"In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative
shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This
service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services
of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant
departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the
Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic
services of the member states. The organisation and functioning
of the European External Action Service shall be established by
a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal
from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament
and after obtaining the consent of the Commission."
17.6 The previous and present Committee's consideration
of the process thus far is set out in their and our previous Reports.[82]
As noted therein:
— between
the first and second versions, though only entitled to be consulted
on the Council Decision on the establishment of the EEAS, the
European Parliament (EP) sought to take advantage of its co-decision
rights on the accompanying measures in order to seek effective
de facto co-decision rights on the Council Decision;
— the outcome nominally favoured the Council
and Member States rather than the EP; but
— the Council Decision was now accompanied
by four non-legally-binding texts;
— the most important of these was the Declaration
on Political Accountability (the others being a Statement to be
given by the High Representative in the plenary of the EP on the
basic organisation of the EEAS central administration; a Statement
of the High Representative on CSDP structures; and a Declaration of
the High Representative with regard to the appointment procedure
she intended to apply in the EEAS).
17.7 Given that the EP had voted in favour of this
package on 8 July, Member States wished to finalise the matter
at the 26 July General Affairs Council. So the Government submitted
both the first (agreed by the Council in April) and the second
Decisions and the accompanying measures for debate on the Floor
of the House on 14 July. At the end of that debate, the House
resolved:
"That this House takes note of European
Document Nos. 8029/10 and 11507/10, draft Council Decisions establishing
the organisation and functioning of the European External Action
Service; European Document No. 8134/10, draft Regulation on the
Financial Regulations for the European External Action Service;
and an unnumbered draft Regulation amending Staff Regulations
of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of
employment of other servants of those Communities; and supports
the Government's policy to agree to the Decision establishing
the External Action Service at the Foreign Affairs Council in
July 2010."[83]
Our previous assessment
17.8 When we first considered these developments
on 8 September, we noted that, had the Committee been in existence
at the time, we would both have confirmed our predecessors' recommendation
regarding the first draft of the Council Decision and also recommended
that the revised version be debated on the floor of the House.
Had we been able to do so, we would also have noted that the arrangements
set out in Article 8 —which are central to the main rationale
of the EEAS, i.e., the greater effectiveness of the EU's external
action and the billions of euros involved — were still no
more reassuring than in the original text, especially given the
Minister for Europe's (Mr David Lidington) statement that: "How
this set up will work in practice remains to be seen."
17.9 Also, with regard to the significance of the
Declaration on Political Accountability, we noted that the Minister
had been silent about it in both his Explanatory Memorandum and
his accompanying letter; and that during the debate had said only
that: "Declarations are not legally binding. They are statements
that provide a political context for a Council decision and how
it will operate as it is taken forward". The Committee noted
that the first sentence is self-evident, and the second ambiguous;
pointed out that the EP had made it plain its belief that, under
these arrangements, it would have greater oversight of EU external
action (otherwise, we felt, what would be the point of its negotiating
such a Declaration?); and asked some questions about the significance
of this Declaration and various points in the agreement between
the HR, Presidency, Commission and EP representatives, based on
the notion that, in the final analysis, CFSP activity depends
upon the level of funding and who controls it.
17.10 We said that we would also have noted that
something else that remained to be seen too was the extent to
which the establishment and operation of the EEAS was able to
conform to "the principle of cost-efficiency aiming towards
budget neutrality."
17.11 The debate notwithstanding, we hoped that,
between now and the review in 2013, the Minister would take every
opportunity to see to it that (as he put it) "unnecessary
duplication of tasks, functions and resources with other structures
[are] avoided [and] all opportunities for rationalisation [are]
used", and to ensure that mechanisms are devised that are
able properly to assess the effectiveness of the arrangements
that will now be put in place governing the planning and implementation
of the EU's external action.
17.12 We also asked to know under what authority
the HR had negotiated this Declaration, and the extent to which
Member States were involved in its drafting.[84]
The Minister's previous letter of 24 September
2010
17.13 The Minister for Europe began by saying that
he shared the Committee's concern that it was not yet fully clear
how the effectiveness of EU development spending will be guaranteed
by the structure of the EEAS. He believed that, on balance, the
text of the Decision agreed in July was an improvement on the
original April 2010 draft. He did not yet have information regarding
how many staff will work on development programming in the final
structure of the EEAS. However, he had raised his concern with
Baroness Ashton that the information so far received regarding
the structure of EEAS headquarters had to date included no reference
to who would take on responsibility for this important work; the
same uncertainty still applied to other important areas such as
crisis management. The Minister undertook to update the Committee
as soon as he obtained reliable information in this regard. The
picture was likely to become clearer after Baroness Ashton had
put in place her top team and clarified the division of portfolios
— a process that he said she aimed to complete by November.
17.14 The Minister then said that the budget was
another area of concern. Noting that Member States having agreed
an additional uplift to the EU budget of €9.5 million to
fund the establishment of the EEAS in 2010, the Minister drew
attention to an Amending Letter to its draft EU budget for 2011
published by the Commission on 15 September, asking for an additional
€34.4 million, explained as follows:
"EUR 29,2 million requested as additional
appropriations in relation to the full-year cost of the new human
resources (100 new AD posts, 60 local agents in delegations and
10 contract agents at headquarters) requested in draft amending
budget 6/2010, and EUR 5,2 million requested for 18 additional
posts and strengthened security of the EEAS definitive premises
in 2011."
17.15 The Minister said that, as the Committee had
pointed out, the Council Decision establishing the EEAS provided
for the aim of budget neutrality. He was "pressing hard for
this." Noting that the High Representative had committed
to seek efficiency savings of at least 10%, and that this commitment
was repeated in the amending letter for 2011, he recalled that
the amending letter also said that:
"The establishment of the EEAS has to be
guided by the principles of cost-efficiency, budget neutrality,
and sound and efficient management, also taking into account the
impact of the current economic crisis on national public finances
and the required efforts for fiscal consolidation."
17.16 The Minister said that he had "urged the
High Representative to be both more ambitious and more precise",
and that:
"Officials are analysing the amending letter
carefully, identifying opportunities to seek savings during negotiations
in the coming weeks. We have requested a specific plan showing
how the savings will be found between now and 2013, for example
through eliminating duplication of activity by the Commission
and Council Secretariat units transferring into the EEAS. We will
pursue this as part of negotiations on the EU budget for 2011
(including the EAS), which are due to be finalised in mid-November.
We are also seeking allies amongst other member states to support
us on this point."
17.17 With regard to the High Representative's Declaration
on Political Accountability, the Minister said:
"The Declaration is not legally binding.
Nor does it confer greater power on the European Parliament. It
was negotiated under the personal authority of the High Representative,
largely as a response to issues raised by the European Parliament.
COREPER was given the opportunity to comment on the declarations
in draft, but the High Representative reserved the right to decide
on the final wording herself. As you rightly note, the European
Parliament was able to exert some leverage over the EEAS Decision
due to its control over the budget. The High Representative therefore
had to go some way to responding to the European Parliament's
concerns without conceding too much on key issues of principle
embodied in the text of the EEAS Decision. This Government urged
the High Representative to stand firm in her negotiations with
the Parliament and we will continue to do so in the months ahead.
17.18 Regarding the CFSP budget, the Minister said:
"the declaration sets out a change in how
spending through the CFSP budget, which includes civilian CSDP
missions, is presented to the European Parliament rather than
a substantive change in budgetary practice. The UK supports increased
transparency for all EU funding for projects around the world.
The Government will continue to push for more realistic estimates
of expenditure and improved prioritisation in line with best
budgetary practice. In particular, we continue to challenge the
Commission and CSDP missions on the rationale and justification
for new items of expenditure."
Our assessment
17.19 We felt that, though the Minister's response
addressed our concerns as far as was possible at that juncture,
major uncertainties continued to obtain.
17.20 First, about how the effectiveness of EU development
spending would be guaranteed by the structure of the EEAS, and
"other important areas such as crisis management". We
looked forward to receiving his promised further update, once
he had obtained "reliable information in this regard."
17.21 Secondly, the threats to the "principle
of cost-efficiency aiming towards budget neutrality" embodied
in the European Council's original guidelines and in the Council
Decision establishing the EEAS. With that in mind, we drew attention
to the passage on this issue during the debate on the Floor of
the House on 13 October 2010 on the draft EU Budget for 2011.
There, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
provided further information about the proposed increase in the
EEAS budget for 2011 and noted what she described as "unhelpful
suggestions from the Commission in the future that additional
spending at EU level could be offset by savings in member states'
diplomatic services", which suggestions were "completely
unacceptable to the UK." She also noted that the Government
has "pushed, thus far successfully, for the Council to state
on the record that the term 'budget neutrality' for the EEAS applies
solely to the context of the EU budget" in order to counter
the Commission's suggestions. We asked the Minister for Europe
to keep the Committee informed about the Government's endeavours,
—which we endorsed — and in particular if, and when,
a Council statement on this matter was issued.
The Minister for Europe's letter of 18 November
2010
17.22 The Minister begins by agreeing with the Committee's
assessment that major uncertainties continue to obtain. However,
he says, some progress has been made, which he sets out as follows:
"The High Representative has since your
letter appointed Pierre Vimont as Secretary General of the European
External Action Service, and David O'Sullivan as the Chief Operating
Officer. She also appointed the two Deputy Secretaries General:
Helga Schmid, for political affairs; and Maciej Popowski, for
inter-institutional affairs. The appointment of a Secretary General
will allow the EAS to make progress on defining its objectives.
We expect the appointment of the six Managing Directors shortly.
We will be working closely with all of these officials, as well
as the High Representative to maximize our influence on the direction
of their work, setting out the areas where we would like to see
the EAS focusing its efforts, harnessing EU resources to achieve
improved outcomes. These include crisis management and development
programming, as you say.
"We want to see the EAS focus on the neighbourhood,
on strategic relationships with emerging powers such as China
and India, on the external aspects of internal policies such as
energy and climate change, and on important foreign policy priorities
like Iran, Gaza and Sudan. We also want the EAS to retain a clear
focus on poverty eradication, in line with the UK's overseas aid
commitments. At a recent informal development ministerial meeting
we reminded the High Representative that we want to see a development
focus built into the EAS. All of this will inevitably take some
time to set out in detail. In the meantime we will continue to
stress the importance of improving the impact, effectiveness and
value for money of crisis management operations and other development
work. This includes working to change the practices of the Brussels
structures that manage and set the direction for missions, but
also on the detail of specific operations. In relation to the
establishment of the EAS, the UK has argued for the remainder
of the Commission development services to be merged into one department.
This will cut duplication and cost. I am pleased that the Commission
announced recently that it will go ahead with this merger.
"Regarding budget neutrality, we lobbied
hard in Brussels and EU capitals to contain the amending budget
for the EAS for 2011, and to ensure that it was accompanied by
an acceptable definition of budget neutrality.
"We were satisfied that, following our lobbying,
the uplift for 2011 requested was less than half originally trailed
in the summer, and in budget committee negotiations we succeeded
in shaving an additional €6m from the existing spending being
transferred into the EAS budget. We also ensured that the Amending
Letter was accompanied by a Council declaration defining budget
neutrality in the context of EU spending only, recalling that
the choice of premises for the EAS must be a part of this, and
calling for a plan for how to achieve efficiency savings to be
drawn up as a priority, and then subject to regular review. ……
We intend that the new Chief Operating Officer should set out
these saving plans as a priority task now that he has been appointed.
There has been significant press coverage of the decision to move
the EAS Headquarters into the AXA building at a cost of €12m
per year. We have been told that this represents a substantial
saving on current arrangements, whereby the staff are housed across
8 separate buildings at a combined cost of €25m per year,
but we will probe into the detail of these figures to ascertain
whether or not this assessment is accurate. We will continue to
press for austerity in the EAS, and across the European administration."
Conclusion
17.23 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information, which we are again reporting to the House
because of the widespread interest in the new European External
Action Service.
17.24 It is now several months since the scrutiny
process was completed. The Minister has set out clearly what he
regards as his achievements thus far and his goals for the future.
We think that the time has now come for interested Members to
take these matters forward in other ways.
17.25 With that in mind, we are also drawing this
chapter of our Report to the attention of the International Development
and Foreign Affairs Committees.
82 See headnote. Back
83
The text of the debate is available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100714/debtext/100714-0003.htm#10071434000003.
Back
84
See (31747) 11507/10: HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 64 (8 September
2010). Back
|
