11 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 24 September 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)
|
| 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); further information requested
|
Background
11.1 Prior to the coming-into-force of the Lisbon Treaty, in 1999,
the office of High Representative for Common Foreign and Security
Policy was 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 expressing
the EU position internationally.
11.2 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.
11.3 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).
11.4 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.
11.5 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."
European Council Guidelines on the EEAS
11.6 On 30 October 2009, the European Council agreed
on guidelines for the European External Action Service (EEAS).[29]
The future HR was invited to present a proposal for the organisation
and functioning of the EEAS as soon as possible after the entry
into force of the Lisbon Treaty, with a view to its adoption by
the Council at the latest by the end of April 2010.[30]
This was endorsed by the December 2009 European Council.
11.7 According to the guidelines, the EEAS will be
a single service under the authority of the High Representative,
with an organisational status reflecting and supporting the High
Representative's unique role and functions in the EU system. The
EEAS will help the High Representative ensure the consistency
and coordination of the Union's external action as well as prepare
policy proposals and implement them after their approval by Council.
It will also assist the President of the European Council and
the President as well as the Members of the Commission in their
respective functions in the area of external relations and will
ensure close cooperation with the Member States. The EEAS should
be composed of single geographical (i.e., covering all regions
and countries) and thematic desks, which will continue to perform,
under the authority of the High Representative, the tasks currently
executed by the relevant parts of the Commission and the Council
Secretariat. Trade and development policy as defined by the Treaty
should remain the responsibility of relevant Commissioners of
the Commission.
11.8 With respect to its staffing:
— EEAS
staff will be appointed by the High Representative and drawn from
three sources: relevant departments of the General Secretariat
of the Council, of the Commission and of national diplomatic services
of the Member States. Recruitment will be based on merit, with
the objective of securing the services of staff of the highest
standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, while ensuring
adequate geographical balance;
— in order to enable the High Representative
to conduct the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the
EU's crisis management structures should be part of the EEAS,
under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative.
11.9 The EEAS should be a service of a sui generis
nature, separate from the Commission and the Council Secretariat,
with administrative budget and staff management autonomy and its
own section in the EU budget, to which the usual budgetary and
control rules will apply, and which the High Representative will
propose and implement. It is to be guided by cost efficiency and
aim at budget neutrality.
11.10 Overseas, the Commission's delegations will
become Union delegations under the authority of the High Representative
and be part of the EEAS structure. They will contain both regular
EEAS staff (including Heads of Delegation) and staff from relevant
Commission services. All staff should work under the authority
of the Head of Delegation. EU delegations should work in close
cooperation with diplomatic services of the Member States and
play a supporting role as regards diplomatic and consular protection
of Union citizens in third countries.
The first Council Decision
11.11 In March 2010, the HR presented a draft Council
Decision. The previous Government submitted this for scrutiny
shortly before the dissolution. This included detailed views from
the then Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant), which are set out
in the previous Committee's report of 7 April 2010.[31]
The previous Committee's assessment
11.12 When it considered this draft Council Decision,
the previous Committee began by expressing its appreciation of
the assiduousness of the then Minister for Europe in keeping it
informed about the development of this proposal, and for having
submitted his Explanatory Memorandum so soon after its publication,
so that it could be considered before the dissolution of Parliament.
11.13 The previous Committee noted that, while the
draft Council Decision had remained faithful to the guidelines
and timeline endorsed by the European Council, it was somewhat
short of the finished article—for example, the Annex, which
lists the departments of the Commission and Council Secretariat
to be transferred to the EEAS, was incomplete.
11.14 The previous Committee also noted that the
then Minister did not refer to adoption of the Decision before
the end of April, but said instead that that the Council would
be "seeking political agreement" on it by then—a
formulation normally used in the context of co-decision. This,
the previous Committee felt, perhaps unconsciously acknowledged
the elephant in the room, i.e., the European Parliament (EP).
The HR had said that her proposals "shall take effect on
the day of the adoption of the amending Budget of the European
Union providing for the corresponding posts and appropriations
in the EEAS"—put otherwise, could be implemented only
as and when the European Parliament did so. And all the indications
thus far were that it was endeavouring to make its agreement to
this and the associated staff and financial regulations dependent
on changes to this Council Decision, particularly with regard
to the Deputy Secretary General positions. Powerful voices there,
it seemed, wished to see three political Deputy Secretaries General,
broadly reflecting the political balance of the EP, who would
deputise for the HR when necessary—bizarre notion, the previous
Committee felt, but one that was nonetheless in play, in a situation
in which the EP had demonstrable leverage.
11.15 The previous Committee also noted that the
crucial proposals in Article 8—about who was to do what,
when and with whom concerning the plethora of EU external programmes
and instruments—remained open to discussion. The complex
arrangements set out therein seemed much more to reflect unresolved
"turf wars" and the inherent difficulties of a position
that had a large footprint in two institutions than a formula
consistent with the "principle of cost-efficiency aiming
towards budget neutrality". As a consequence, the previous
Committee was unable to understand the division of responsibilities
between the EEAS and the Commission in the programming of the
EU's external cooperation programmes, particularly with respect
to development and neighbourhood policies in Article 8(4) and
(5).
11.16 On the plus side, the previous Committee found
the previous Minister's position on the provision of consular
services to UK citizens overseas "commendably clear and robust."[32]
Even so, the previous Committee noted, he had nothing to say about
what impact he thought the creation of a world-wide EU diplomatic
service, delivering technical assistance and in charge of an expanding
EU common foreign and security policy, would have on Britain's
capacity to promote her own bilateral interests in the major centres
of power and opportunity, which would remain crucial to our future
as a global economic and political actor.
11.17 With a general election imminent, the normal
option of holding the Council Decision under scrutiny while the
Minister provided further information between the date of the
meeting and the end April was not available to the previous Committee.
The option of a debate ahead of adoption was also not possible.
But the previous Committee did not feel able, on the basis of
the information presently available, to clear it. In all the circumstances
— and recognising that this could not take place until there
was a new Parliament — the previous Committee considered
that a debate was the best option available to it, and so recommended.
11.18 Given the importance of this proposal, which—the
Minister's assurances on consular protection notwithstanding—was
nonetheless likely to be the most significant change in the conduct
of British foreign policy for many years, the previous Committee
recommended that this debate should be on the Floor of the House.
When it took place, it said that it would expect the new Minister
to provide a detailed outline of what had been transferred to
the EEAS and of the arrangements that had been decided upon under
Article 8 between the EEAS and the Commission in the programming
of the EU's external cooperation programmes, and his or her views
on:
— how
they fulfilled the "principle of cost-efficiency aiming towards
budget neutrality"; and
— the impact of this new global diplomatic
service on Britain's ability to promote her bilateral interests.
11.19 In the meantime, the previous Committee retained
the document under scrutiny.[33]
11.20 On 26 April, the EU Foreign Affairs Council
reached political agreement on the proposal.
11.21 Three accompanying measures are required for
the EEAS to take up its work:
- Commission's draft proposal
amending the staff regulations (published on 9 June 2010);[34]
- Commission proposal amending the financial regulation
(published 24 March 2010);[35]
and
- an amending budget (published 15 June 2010).[36]
11.22 The European Parliament has co-decision rights
in the above measures. Though it is only entitled to be consulted
on the Council decision on the establishment of the EEAS, the
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. Negotiations continued thus since
the end of April.
11.23 On 21 June 2009 a further "quadrilogue"
(the HR, the Presidency representing the Member States, the Commission
and EP representatives) was held in Madrid where all parties reached
a political agreement on the establishment of the EEAS.[37]
This agreement was approved by the EP will vote on 8 July 2010
during its plenary session in Strasbourg. It allowed the High
Representative/Vice-President of the Commission to commence the
recruitment process over the summer by advertising vacant posts,
and envisaged the European Parliament then voting on the amendments
to the staff and financial regulations in September and the EEAS
to be up and running by December 2010.
11.24 The key elements of that agreement are summarised
in our previous Report. In summary, the Committee judged the outcome
to be nominally much more in favour of the Council and Member
States than the European Parliament was seeking.[38]
The revised Council Decision
11.25 Against this background, a revised Council
Decision was promulgated on the establishment, organisation and
functioning of the EEAS. The
Decision explained that provisions should be adopted relating
to the staff of the EEAS and their recruitment and the Financial
Regulation should be adopted in order to ensure budgetary autonomy
necessary for the smooth operation of the EEAS. In particular
the High Representative would be the Appointing Authority, in
relation both to officials subject to the Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities and agents subject to the
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, and also have authority
over the Seconded National Experts ("SNEs") in post
in the EEAS. The number of officials in the EEAS would be decided
each year as part of the budgetary procedure and be reflected
in the establishment plan.
11.26 The Decision went on to explain how the EEAS
should function including in relation to the following:
- Nature and Scope:
the EEAS will be administratively autonomous, separate from the
Commission and the Council Secretariat and with its central administration
headquarters in Brussels and include EU delegations to third countries
and international organisations;
- Tasks: as well as
supporting the High Representative the Decision states that the
EEAS shall assist the President of the Commission, the Commission
and the President of the European Council;
- Co-operation: the
Decision outlines the ways in which the EEAS will work with the
Council Secretariat and Commission services in order to ensure
that there is consistency between the different areas of the Union
External action;
- Central Administration:
as well as being managed by a Secretary General under the authority
of the High Representative and assisted by two Deputy Secretaries-General,
there will be a number of Directorates General comprising geographic
desks covering all countries and regions of the world as well
as multilateral and thematic desks;
- Union Delegations:
the High Representative is responsible for the EU Delegations;
the Decision outlines how the delegations will work, including
how the delegations will get their instructions, and makes clear
that, inter alia, implementation of development spending remains
the responsibility of the Commission;
- Staff: the Decision
explains who shall comprise the EEAS, how they will be recruited
and that changes will need to be made to the staff regulations
to take account of the EEAS and give a base for staff terms and
conditions;
- Budget: the Decision
makes it clear that the High Representative shall act as authorising
officer for the EEAS section of the General Budget;
- Programming: the Decision
sets out the way in which the EEAS and the Commission will work
together on programming and implementation cycle for the key geographic
and thematic financial instruments.
11.27 The Minister for Europe (David Lidington) said
that the purpose of his accompanying Explanatory Memorandum of
9 July 2010 was to highlight where there had been notable changes
from the text submitted by his predecessor, resulting from discussion,
then political agreement of the text at the 26 April General Affairs
Council and subsequently in consultation with the EP.
11.28 Referring to the June 21 "quadrilogue",
the Minister said that, upon adoption, the final text of the Decision
would be accompanied by a number of additional documents namely:
— a
Declaration on political accountability;
— elements for a Statement to be given
by the High Representative in the plenary of the European Parliament
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 intends to apply
in the EEAS.
11.29 The Minister said that the purpose of these
accompanying Declarations and statements, which formed part of
the overall political agreement, was "to provide welcome
clarity around some elements of the text of the Decision."
11.30 The Minister's further detailed observations,
in both his Explanatory Memorandum and a further letter of 13
July 2010, are set out in our previous Report.[39]
11.31 The EP having voted in favour of this package
on 8 July, and Member States wishing to finalise the matter at
the 26 July General Affairs Council, the Government submitted
both Decisions and the accompanying measures for debate on the
Floor of the House on 14 July.
11.32 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."[40]
Our assessment
11.33 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 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—are still no more
reassuring than in the original text, especially given the Minister's
statement that: "How this set up will work in practice remains
to be seen."
11.34 We would also have asked the Minister to explain
what he meant by "a senior development stakeholder and sufficient
development policy capacity to support the strategic programming
and lead on sector and country spending allocations", and
to outline what he plans to do with regard to the effective implementation
of "the myriad of implementation issues to be worked through
over the next six months and beyond, including around appointing
the senior management team, the detail of the day to day handling
of crisis management the reporting lines to the Development Commissioner
and ensuring sufficient development expertise in the EEAS to carry
out programming of the financial instruments."
11.35 We would also have noted that something else
that remains to be seen too is the extent to which the establishment
and operation of the EEAS is able to conform to "the principle
of cost-efficiency aiming towards budget neutrality."
11.36 The debate notwithstanding, we hoped that,
between now and the review in 2013, the Minister will take every
opportunity to see to it that (as he puts 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.
11.37 We would also have highlighted the Declaration
on Political Accountability (which we reproduced at the Annex
to our previous Report), upon which the Minister was silent in
both his Explanatory Memorandum and his letter. During the debate,
the Minister was asked to clarify the legal status of those documents
and the degree to which they are relied on, and to provide the
House with reassurance that the agreement does not give the Commission
or the European Parliament any greater power over the budget for
the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He replied 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."[41]
11.38 We thought that the first sentence was self-evident,
and the second ambiguous. The EP had made plain its belief that,
under these arrangements, it will have greater oversight of EU
external action: otherwise, we felt, what would be the point of
its negotiating such a Declaration? Reading the text itself, a
number of questions arose. Point 1 talks of "exchanges of
views prior to the adoption of mandates and strategies in the
area of relevant EP Committees" and "enhanced"
briefings that "relate in particular to CFSP missions financed
out of the EU budget, both to those being implemented and those
under preparation". Then, in Point 10 at the end, the Declaration
says:
"The HR will play an active role in the upcoming
deliberations on the updating of existing arrangements regarding
the financing of CFSP contained in the 2006 IIA on budgetary discipline
and sound financial management, based on the engagement with regard
to the issues set out in point 1. The new budgetary procedure
introduced by the Lisbon Treaty will apply fully to the CFSP budget.
The High Representative will also work for greater transparency
on the CFSP budget, including, inter alia, the possibility to
identify major CSDP missions in the budget (like the present missions
in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Georgia), while preserving flexibility
in the budget and the need to ensure continuity of action for
missions already engaged."
11.39 We therefore asked the Minister to set out
his views on the significance of this Declaration in greater detail,
noting that, in the final analysis, CFSP activity depends upon
the level of funding and who controls it. We asked in particular
that he clarified:
— the
full import of the first sentence of Point 10;
— what the new budgetary procedure was
and how it might "apply fully to the CFSP budget";
— what he understood by "greater transparency
on the CFSP budget";
— what the import was of the words "the
possibility to identify major CSDP missions in the budget (like
the present missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Georgia), while
preserving flexibility in the budget and the need to ensure continuity
of action for missions already engaged."
11.40 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.[42]
The Minister's letter of 24 September 2010
11.41 The Minister begins his letter by saying that
he shares the Committee's concern that it is not yet fully clear
how the effectiveness of EU development spending will be guaranteed
by the structure of the EEAS. He continues as follows:
"On balance, I believe the text of the Decision
agreed in July is an improvement on the original April 2010 draft
— e.g. the clear reference to development programming 'under
the responsibility of the Development Commissioner'. I do not
yet have information regarding how many staff will work on development
programming in the final structure of the EEAS. However, I have
raised our concern with Baroness Ashton that the information we
have so far received regarding the structure of EEAS headquarters
has to date included no reference to who will take on responsibility
for this important work, despite the text of the Decision that
you reference. The same uncertainty still applies to other important
areas such as crisis management. I will certainly update the Committee
as soon as we obtain reliable information in this regard. The
picture is likely to become clearer after Ashton has put in place
her top team and clarified the division of portfolios —
a process she aims to complete by November."
11.42 The Minister then says that the budget is 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 draws 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."
11.43 The Minister says that, as the Committee pointed
out, the Council Decision establishing the EEAS provides for the
aim of budget neutrality:
"We are pressing hard for this. The High Representative
has committed to seek efficiency savings of at least 10%, and
this commitment is repeated in the amending letter for 2011, which
also recalls 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.'
"I have urged the High Representative to be
both more ambitious and more precise. 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."
11.44 The Minister then turns to the status of the
High Representative's Declaration on Political Accountability,
which accompanied the EEAS Decision:
"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."
11.45 Regarding the CFSP budget, the Minister says:
"…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."
11.46 With regard to the import of the words "the
possibility to identify major CSDP missions in the budget (like
the present missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Georgia), while
preserving flexibility in the budget and the need to ensure continuity
of action for missions already engaged.", the Minister says:
"Again, we understand this to be about how the
CFSP budget is presented rather than a substantive change. The
underlying principle for spend on civilian CSDP missions, whose
platform costs are funded from the CFSP budget, is that they should
have available to them the funding required to implement the tasks
in their mandates. This requires surety and continuity of funding.
However, as crisis management operations must be flexible, it
is not always possible to predict precisely what funds will be
required throughout the whole year to respond to developments
in theatre. As such, it is essential that additional funding can
be made available, or existing funding shifted, to cover new priorities
as they emerge in year. The words therefore imply that the High
Representative will provide as much up front clarity as possible
on budgetary requirements for specific missions, while also preserving
the necessary 'flexibility' to respond to real world events."
Conclusion
11.47 We are grateful to the Minister for his
response, which addresses our concerns as far as is possible at
this juncture. But major uncertainties continue to obtain.
11.48 First, about how the effectiveness of EU
development spending will be guaranteed by the structure of the
EEAS, and "other important areas such as crisis management",
with respect to which the Minister for Europe promises a further
update "as soon as we obtain reliable information in this
regard." We look forward to receiving it.
11.49 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 reproduce
at the Annex to this chapter of our Report 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 should be grateful if the Minister would keep the Committee
informed about the Government's endeavours, —which we endorse
— and in particular if, and when, a Council statement is
issued on this matter.
29 A paper presented by the then EU Presidency, available
at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14930.en09.pdf.
Back
30
The extract from the European Council conclusions reads thus:
"The European Council takes note
of the preparatory work in view of the entry into force of the
Lisbon Treaty (doc. 14928/09). It endorses the Presidency's report
on guidelines for the European External Action Service (doc. 14930/09)
and invites the future High Representative to present a proposal
for the organisation and functioning of the EEAS as soon as possible
after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with a view to
its adoption by the Council at the latest by the end of April
2010. In this context, it also recognises the need, as underlined
in the European Security Strategy, for the European Union to become
more capable, more coherent and more strategic as a global actor,
including in its relations with strategic partners, in its neighbourhood
and in conflict-affected areas." Back
31
See headnote: (31439) 8029/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10), chapter 1
(7 April 2010). Back
32
For the Committee's consideration of this matter, see (29353)
5947/07: HC 16-xvii (2007-08), chapter 1 (26 March 2008) and the
subsequent debate in the European Committee on 23 June 2008, the
record of which is available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmgeneral/euro/080623/80623s01.htm. Back
33
See headnote: (31439) 8029/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10), chapter 1
(7 April 2010). Back
34
The proposal can be found at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0309:FIN:EN:PDF.
Back
35
The proposal can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/documents/sound_fin_management/financial_regulation/comm_2010_0085_en.pdf.
Back
36
The proposal can be found at: http://www.ipex.eu/ipex/webdav/site/myjahiasite/groups/CentralSupport/public/2010/COM_2010_0315/COM_COM(2010)0315_EN.doc. Back
37
The text of the agreement can be found at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st11/st11507.en10.pdf. Back
38
See headnote: (31747) 11507/10: HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 64
(8 September 2010). Back
39
Ibid. Back
40
The text of the debate is available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100714/debtext/100714-0003.htm#10071434000003.
Back
41
HC Deb, 14 July 2010, col
1056. Back
42
See (31747) 11507/10: HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 64 (8 September
2010). Back
| 
