10 The European External Action Service
| (35271)
—
—
| Review by the High Representative of the European External Action Service (EEAS)
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration
| Minister's letter of 28 October 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report
| HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 17 (4 September 2013); also see (33638) —: HC 428-xlix (2010-12), chapter 1 (1 February 2012); (31439) 8029/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10), chapter 1 (7 April 2010); also see (31445) — and (31446) 8134/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10), chapter 2 (7 April 2010)
|
| Discussion in Council
| To be determined |
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
10.1 The process leading to the adoption of Council
Decision 2010/427/EU, which established the EEAS in January 2011,
and the Committee's consideration of the report on its first year
of operation, are set out in detail in our previous Report.
10.2 All in all, though these were early days, we
concluded that the earlier report was an appropriate moment for
the several issues raised therein to be debated in European Committee
B. That debate took place on 18 June 2012, at the conclusion
of which the Committee adopted a motion in which it said that
it:
"supports the Government's
policy of engaging actively with the European External Action
Service to encourage the EU to make the best use of its collective
weight in the world where the Member States of the EU agree to
act together, and thus to complement our national diplomatic efforts
to promote British and European prosperity, security and values."[25]
Our initial assessment
10.3 We reported on this Review in September, and
the full background is set out in the first report under reference.
10.4 We noted that the December European Council
would discuss proposals on "CSDP Effectiveness and Impact",
"Capabilities" and the "European Defence Industry".
In our consideration of a Commission Communication on this latter
in a separate chapter of our previous Report, we reproduced a
letter to the Committee in which the Minister set out the Government's
objectives for that European Council under each of these headings.[26]
The HR's proposals on the first two headings were expected in
September: we reminded the Minister that we expected them to be
deposited for scrutiny in the normal way. We also sought the Opinion
of the Defence Committee on the significance of the Communication,
in accordance with Standing Order No. 143 (11).[27]
10.5 We also noted the "read across" between
the HR's review and the first two headings, and the likelihood
that it would be appropriate to debate the HR's review before
the December European Council. Before then, however, we asked
the Minister to let us know how the discussions on it had progressed
by the end of October — particularly with regard to the
issues of concern that he had highlighted — and how the
review was to be handled thereafter.
10.6 In the meantime, we retained the document under
scrutiny.[28]
The Minister's letter of 28 October 2013
10.7 The Minister says that, since the first substantive
exchange of views in September (including at a meeting of EU Foreign
Ministry Permanent Secretary-equivalents), COREPER Ambassadors
have started looking at the individual recommendations "in
small batches"; and that these discussions will continue
until mid-November, with a view to the 17 December General Affairs
Council agreeing Conclusions on the review.
10.8 The Minister then continues as follows:
"Discussions so far
have revealed many areas of common ground between Member States,
particularly on those recommendations that would improve the functioning
and efficiency of the EEAS and strengthen the coordinating role
of the High Representative in her dual capacity as Vice-President
of the Commission. We continue to stress that any reforms must
be delivered within existing resources. We oppose the 3.1% budget
increase which the EEAS requested earlier this year as part of
wider negotiations on the EU's 2014 annual budget. The Council
position is that the increase should be limited to 1.74%. Trialogue
negotiations with the European Parliament on the EU's 2014 budget
are entering the final stages and may conclude at the ECOFIN Council
on 11 November.
"We are mindful of the
read-across between the EEAS review and the December European
Council on defence and are supportive of proposals that further
entrench the Comprehensive Approach to Crisis Management. Whilst
there are currently no major pushes for institutional reform ahead
of the December European Council, we remain alert, particularly
given that streamlining of crisis management structures is one
of the review's medium-term recommendations. I will shortly be
submitting an Explanatory Memorandum on Baroness Ashton's report
on the Common Security and Defence Policy ahead of the December
European Council. We have made clear that any decision on enhancing
security expertise in EU delegations must be agreed case-by-case
basis when there is a clear operational requirement. We have
also argued that such expertise could be provided by either a
civilian or military expert seconded by a Member State that would
cover all costs.
"Many Member States want to strengthen the coordination
function of EU Delegations in the consular field but we continue
to argue strongly that providing consular assistance is a national
prerogative and that the Treaty provides only for the EEAS to
support Member States in their consular work.
"COREPER has yet to
consider the majority of the recommendations, including those
relating to EU Special Representatives and EU external representation
in multilateral fora. On the former we will continue to focus
on value for money and challenge the current practice of appointing
all EUSRs at the top of the salary scale (AD16). On the latter
we will press for continued adherence to the General Arrangements
endorsed by the Council in October 2011, with decisions on the
EU's status in international organisations being taken by the
Council on a case-by-case basis.
"We understand that
some Member States would like Baroness Ashton's successor to be
tasked with taking forward those recommendations on which there
is no agreement by December 2013. Some of these recommendations
would require changes to the EEAS legislative framework, including
reopening the 2010 Council Decision that established the EEAS.
As I set out in the August EM, we are cautious about proposals
to re-open the Council Decision, since this could pave the way
for lengthy institutional debates that would detract from the
EEAS' work on key foreign policy priorities. We are not alone
in this concern, and will continue to work with like minded colleagues."
Conclusion
10.9 Most of the short-term recommendations are,
as the Minister suggests, uncontroversial, concentrating as they
do on the sort of relatively straightforward improvements to organisation
and functioning that are to be expected after two years' operational
experience. However, in addition to those about which the Minister
continues to express concern — further development of a
network of military and civilian experts in delegations; a possible
consular role for EU delegations — there are some about
which the Minister remains silent. We would like to know:
— if he is content
with the notion that the EEAS, and not the Presidency, should
in future chair all the major external action Working Groups (no.
1); and
— his views on the
greater use of joint reports and mutual sharing of information,
and on the "full implementation of system [sic] for exchange
of sensitive and classified information (including with non-resident
EU ambassadors") (no. 15).
10.10 We would also like to know about the outcome
of proposed review of EUSR roles, appointments, mandates and financing
(no. 4).
10.11 With regard to the Medium-term recommendations,
in addition to the ambiguous proposal to "Address residual
competence issues to ensure that EEAS and EU delegations are the
single channel for EU external relations issues, including in
areas of mixed competence and in multilateral fora including the
UN system, OSCE etc." — with regard to which the Minister
is rightly sceptical — we would also like to know more about
the recommendation:
"As part of the forthcoming institutional
transition, revise the HRVP declaration on political accountability
(e.g. to address who can represent HRVP in EP debates; intensify
EP input to upstream policy planning; access to classified information,
including political reporting from EU delegations; support for
EP visits in third countries)".
10.12 In his Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister
refers to "Baroness Ashton's assertion that the EEAS has
developed its capacities to engage with national Parliaments in
Member States", and to his "hope that ongoing discussions
with the EEAS can include consideration on how to further strengthen
this engagement." Now, however, he is silent about this;
and also about the notion that what is lacking in terms of political
accountability in the only area that remains the preserve of Member
States is increasing the involvement of the European Parliament.
10.13 We would therefore like to know if he agrees
with this diagnosis and prescription regarding enhancing political
accountability, and especially: the notion of intensified EP input
to upstream policy planning and what form that might take; and
of access to classified information, including political reporting
from EU delegations.
10.14 We would also like to know:
— what capacities
for engagement with national Parliaments in Member States have
been developed by the EEAS; and
— how this engagement
with national Parliaments is to be further strengthened.
10.15 We would like to have this information no
later than 18 November (by which time the COREPER discussions
to which he refers should have been completed), so that it can
be taken into account in deciding if a debate is warranted, prior
to the adoption of Council Conclusions in December.
10.16 In the meantime, we shall continue to retain
the document under scrutiny.
- We are also drawing this chapter of our Report
to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
25 The record of the debate is available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmgeneral/euro/120618/120618s01.htm
(Gen Co Deb, European Committee B, 18 June 2012, cols.
3-26). Back
26
See (35234) 12773/13: HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 23 (4 September
2013). Back
27
We now consider both the Defence Committee's Opinion on this Commission
Communication and the HR's formal proposals for the December 2013
European Council elsewhere in this Report; see, respectively,
(35234) 12773/13 at chapter 14 and (35417) - at chapter 12. Back
28
See headnote: HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 17 (4 September 2013). Back
| 
