16 European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)
and Lebanon
| (35213)
—
—
| Council Decision on the Union position within the Association Council established by the Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Lebanon, with regard to the adoption of a Recommendation on the implementation of the second EU-Lebanon ENP Action Plan
|
| Legal base | Article 29 TEU; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 22 July 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (34824) 8044/13: HC 83-iii (2013-14), chapter 22 (21 May 2013) and (34640) 17814/13: HC 86-vi (2013-14), chapter 12 (19 June 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
16.1 The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) aims to promote security,
stability and prosperity among the EU's neighbours through implementation
of political and economic reforms. It applies, in the East, to
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and,
in the South, to Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,
Morocco, the occupied Palestinian territory, Syria and Tunisia.
Bilateral Action Plans detail the planned reforms agreed between
the EU and partner countries (Algeria, Belarus, Libya and Syria,
while covered by ENP, do not participate fully in it and do not
have agreed Action Plans). In addition to these bilateral components,
the ENP comprises a number of regional and multilateral initiatives.
16.2 Implementation of the ENP is supported by the European
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) with a budget
in 2007-13 of some €11.5 billion.[53]
16.3 Our Report under reference deals with the Joint
Communication on the European Neighbourhood Policy, "European
Neighbourhood Policy: Working towards a Stronger Partnership",
which is the second report since the major overhaul of the ENP
in summer 2011. The new ENP's main features are political association
and economic integration, the mobility of people, more EU financial
assistance, a stronger partnership with civil society and better
cooperation on specific sector policies. The Joint Communication
reviews progress made by ENP partners against the jointly agreed
reform objectives.
16.4 As is customary, individual progress reports
(covering Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan,
Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Territories, Tunisia
and Ukraine) assess progress made by these ENP partner countries
in implementing reforms agreed with the EU and where further action
is required. There are also two regional reviews covering the
Southern Neighbourhood and the Eastern Partnership (and a Statistical
Annex, which provides selected political, economic, mobility and
assistance related indicators, statistics and graphs). The key
points of this mass of documentation is summarised in, and commented
upon by the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington), in our first
Report under reference.
16.5 In that same Report, the Minister says of the
assessment of performance under the current ENP Action Plan —
against the backdrop of the ongoing crisis in Syria — that
some positive steps were made against objectives, but progress
on reform largely stalled:
"Whilst many of these challenges stem from
the crisis in Syria, the country progress report highlights that
more efficient and effective institutions, especially effective
border management and law enforcement, would contribute to the
stability, as would a resumption of inclusive national dialogue.
The country is now host to nearly one million Syrians, including
almost 400,000 refugees, which impacts on Lebanon's security,
stability and economy. Lebanon's human rights standards
still fall short of their international obligations.
"We agree with the EU that limited progress
has been reported in these areas over the past year."
[54]
The new EU-Lebanon Action Plan
16.6 Lebanon and the European Community first established
contractual relations in 1965 by signing a Trade and Technical
Cooperation Agreement. Both the 2002 Association Agreement and
the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Action Plan, adopted in
2007 for a period of five years, contributed significantly in
developing the bilateral relations. The validity of the first
EU-Lebanon ENP Action Plan expired in January 2012 and was extended
for a period of one year or until a new Action Plan was adopted.
16.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 22 July 2013,
the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) explains that this
second Action Plan was negotiated between August 2012 and January
2013; outlines the priority objectives for EU-Lebanon partnership,
covering a broad range of subjects, and elaborates specific benchmarks,
indicators, timelines and possible EU interventions for each of
them; and "will be the key document that will guide the EU's
bilateral relations with Lebanon for an initial duration of three
years from its adoption".
The Government's view
16.8 The Minister says that "UK Ministers have
been vocal in their commitment to working in support of the EU
and its Neighbourhood Policy post-Arab Spring".
16.9 He continues his comments thus:
"The UK is supportive of Lebanon's reform process,
and keen to see the EU use its incentives to encourage further
reform, which is crucial at this time given the pressures Lebanon
is facing as a result of the Syria crisis.
"The Action Plan concerns the relationship between
Lebanon and the European Union, rather than EU Member States.
However, the UK is supportive of the aims and objectives stated
in the Action Plan, which requires a stronger commitment to major
reforms crucial for Lebanon's fragile stability. The priorities
identified by both parties are in keeping with the UK's own objectives
in Lebanon, in particular: reform of the justice system towards
greater independence of the judiciary, election reform with an
aim to bring the country in line with international standards,
an increased focus on human rights, including those of Palestinian
refugees and further support for the security sector. We therefore
support the Action Plan, even though we recognise that the current
difficult political and security situation in Lebanon will impact
on the ability of the Lebanese authorities to achieve all the
objectives and benchmarks stipulated."
16.10 The Minister also comments on the use of a
Council Decision as follows:
"The UK does not agree that a Council Decision
citing a substantive Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
legal base is the appropriate mechanism for adopting the EU's
position within the Association Council with regard to the adoption
of a recommendation to adopt the Action Plan. The Action Plan
itself does not contain any legally binding obligations and moreover
the Association Council will simply 'recommend' its adoption to
the Parties to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement. The UK considers
that the Council is being asked to adopt an EU position that is
essentially political and therefore should properly be adopted
by way of Council Conclusions adopted by consensus. Furthermore
the Action Plan covers a broad range of subject-areas and it is
unlikely that they would all fall within the Union's CFSP."
Conclusion
16.11 This latter is an issue that we have explored
at length with the Minister, both in relation to the earlier EU-Palestine
Action Plan[55]
and, more generally, in the evidence that he has given to the
Committee during the course of its inquiry into the scrutiny process
in the House.
16.12 The Minister contended that the Council
Decision by which that earlier Action Plan was adopted was not
legally binding. At issue for the Government then was a desire
for a policy document such as an ENP Action Plan not to be legally
binding: for the Committee, to ensure that all ENP Action Plans
are depositable documents.
16.13 The Minister said (in a letter to the Committee
of 22 March 2013) that the Government had argued consistently
that a Council Decision was not the right means to adopt a text
of a political nature; and that the Council Decision for the EU-Palestine
Action Plan was not a legally binding decision pursuant to Article
288 TFEU. He went on to say:
"There is no substantive legal base cited
on the face of the Council decision. As the I/A cover note for
the decision acknowledges, the text of the Action Plan is of a
political nature having no legally binding effects for the Parties;
and the position to be approved by the Council is not based on
Article 218(9) TFEU. On the basis of the I/A cover note, it is
clear that this act of the Council is not a decision as provided
for in Article 288 TFEU but rather a sui generis Council
decision that creates political rather than legal commitments.
The Council decision and the cover note were agreed by consensus
on 18 March."
16.14 We deemed this a novel argument, because
the Treaties do not provide for non-legally binding Council Decisions
such as this.
16.15 Most recently, when giving evidence to the
Committee's inquiry on 3 July, the Minister was asked if he would
agree to our revised Standing Order referring to action plans
by name as depositable documents; and responded thus:
"No. The problem with action plans is that
they cover such a wide range of documents. They are not defined
in the treaties in any way. Sometimes action plans can be documents
that are politically important; they will define the EU strategy
towards a particular country or region of the world. We do try
in Government, where that is the case, to submit them for scrutiny.
If they are issued as Council decisions or Commission communications,
first of all, they are depositable under the scrutiny process
anyway. The enlargement strategy, which was a communication, and
the joint communications of the EAS and the Commission on the
counterterrorism action plan for the Horn of Africa and Yemen
were caught by scrutiny."[56]
16.16 Our view continues to be that ENP Action
Plans, in whatever form they are to be adopted, should be depositable
documents precisely because they are political commitments, and
ones that — as the Minister says here (c.f. paragraph 15.7
above) —do indeed define EU strategy and policy towards
a country or region. If they do not, then they are mis-named:
and if they are thus named, they should be subject to the normal
scrutiny process.
16.17 As we have indicated, it may be that our
Standing Orders will have to be amended to include strategies
and action plans specifically if they are not to be adopted by
Council Decisions in the future. But that is for another time.
16.18 For now, we would be grateful to be kept
informed of developments in agreeing the procedure to be adopted
for this and other Action Plans,[57]
not least because of its consequences for Parliamentary scrutiny.
16.19 In the meantime, we shall continue to retain
this Council Decision under scrutiny.
53 See http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm for
full information about the European Neighbourhood Policy. Back
54
See headnote. Back
55
See headnote: (34640) 17814/13: HC 86-vi (2013-14), chapter 12
(19 June 2013). Back
56
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/uc109-iii/uc10901.htm,
Q562. Back
57
See our consideration of the proposed EU-Morocco Action Plan (34882)
8838/13 at chapter 12 of this Report. Back
| 
