4 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 15 November 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-xx (2013-14), chapter 10 (6 November 2013) and 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; for debate on the floor of the House
|
Background
4.1 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 earlier Reports.
4.2 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."[15]
Our initial assessment
4.3 We reported on this Review in September,
and the full background is set out in our report under reference.[16]
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) had many positive
things to say (see our report under reference). But there were
some proposals that the Government could not accept or about which
it was uncertain, e.g.:
- the EEAS should not have a
role in providing consular assistance, this being a Member State
competence;
- defence engagement should remain primarily the
responsibility of individual Member States; he was therefore cautious
about attempts to establish a formal network of military and civilian
security experts in EU delegations;
- any threat of competence creep on
the part of the EEAS: it should continue to complement and support
— and not replace — national diplomatic services;
- any recommendations formally adopted must be
taken forward on a resource neutral basis, in line with the 2010
EEAS Council Decision.
4.4 The Committee pointed up its "read across"
to the proposed December European Council discussion on CSDP Effectiveness
and Impact, Capabilities and the European Defence Industry; 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. In the meantime,
we retained the document under scrutiny.[17]
4.5 The Minister's response of 31 October 2013
added little of substance, largely because the relevant COREPER
discussions appeared to have made little headway on the issues
of concern, and would not do so before mid-November; with a view
to agreeing Conclusions on the review at the 17 December General
Affairs Council.
Our assessment
4.6 Most of the short-term recommendations
— concentrating as they did on the sort of relatively straightforward
improvements to organisation and functioning that were to be expected
after two years' operational experience — were, as the Minister
suggested, uncontroversial,. However, in addition to those about
which the Minister continued to express concern — further
development of a network of military and civilian experts in delegations;
a possible consular role for EU delegations — there were
some about which the Minister remained silent. We therefore asked:
- if he was 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
- for 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).
4.7 We also asked about the outcome of proposed
review of EUSR roles, appointments, mandates and financing (no.
4).
4.8 With regard to the Medium-term recommendations,[18]
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
was rightly sceptical — we asked to know more about the
following 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)".
4.9 The Minister had nothing to say about the
notion that what was lacking in terms of political accountability
in the only area that remained the preserve of Member States was
increasing the involvement of the European Parliament. We therefore
asked if he agreed with this diagnosis and prescription, 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.
4.10 In his 27 August 2013 Explanatory Memorandum,
the Minister referred to "Baroness Ashton's assertion that
the EEAS had 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 was silent about this too. We therefore asked to know:
—
what capacities for engagement with national Parliaments in Member
States had been developed by the EEAS; and
— how this engagement with national Parliaments
was to be further strengthened.
4.11 We asked for this information to be provided
no later than 18 November (by which time the COREPER discussions
should have been completed), so that it could be taken into account
in deciding if a debate was warranted, prior to the adoption of
Council Conclusions in December.
4.12 In the meantime, we continued to retain
the document under scrutiny.
4.13 We also drew this chapter of our Report
to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Committee.[19]
The Minister's letter of 15 November 2013
4.14 The Minister begins his response as follows:
"The Government does not support the recommendation
that the EEAS should in future chair all the major external action
working groups. The current arrangements, agreed through a Council
Decision in November 2009, provide for the EEAS to chair some
working groups and the rotating Presidency to chair others. We
believe these arrangements work well and see no need to reopen
them. My officials were in good company in opposing this recommendation
at the COREPER Ambassadors' meeting on 29 October and will continue
to do so as discussions continue.
"The Government has no objections to greater
use of joint reports and mutual sharing of information between
Member States, as long as this does not place any formal obligation
on them. Indeed the UK has contributed actively to recent joint
reports by EU Heads of Mission around the world and we see these
as useful in ensuring that discussions in Council are grounded
in a shared analysis of political realities. There are a number
of EU IT systems used to share different types of classified or
sensitive information. In principle, we support the implementation
of such systems to facilitate more effective and efficient sharing
of information, although of course we look in detail at each individual
proposal."
4.15 With regard to the EU Special Representatives
(EUSRs), the Minister says that discussions continue in Brussels
in the context of the EEAS review:
"The Government's priority remains to achieve
a system that ensures that EUSRs are as effective, efficient and
accountable as possible. This means ensuring that tangible outcomes
are delivered, value for money secured and sufficient time given
for Member States to review and revise mandates as circumstances
change and for these decisions to be subjected to the necessary
scrutiny of national Parliaments. Building on the review recommendation,
on 14 October the EEAS, with the support of the European Parliament,
circulated a detailed proposal setting out the "possible
modalities and timetable" for a full transfer of EUSRs into
the EEAS. The change would have seen funding for EUSRs move from
the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) budget to the EEAS
budget. We were concerned that this would lead to a reduction
in Member State oversight of EUSRs and of their budgets. Along
with a number of other Member States, we opposed this proposal.
In keeping with our objectives, we have agreed to consider the
possibility of the creation of a shared service centre for EUSRs
(in line with the review's second medium-term recommendation)
that would not affect Member State oversight, as long as this
resulted in clear financial savings through pooling of back-office
functions. Any final decision will depend on the detail of the
proposal."
4.16 With regard to our questions about the medium-term
recommendations, the Minister says:
"As you note, we remain cautious about the ambiguous
proposal to "address residual competence issues". We
remain firmly of the view that the General Arrangements for EU
Statements in Multilateral Organisations agreed in autumn 2011
provide clarity on those aspects of EU external representation
which Lisbon left ambiguous, and remain the right framework for
the EU's role in multilateral fora. Officials remain vigilant
for any attempts to undermine or water down implementation of
the General Arrangements.
"Equally, the Government does not support increasing
the involvement of the European Parliament in CFSP. Any revisions
to the Declaration on Political Accountability must respect the
balance of powers between the institutions as laid down in the
Treaties and will require Council agreement where they affect
the powers of the Council. As I set out in my Explanatory Memorandum,
we attach high priority to the role of national Parliaments in
this field. That is why, for example, we continue to press the
EEAS to submit proposals for EUSR mandates, CSDP missions and
other proposals as early as possible to allow sufficient time
for scrutiny by both Houses. And it is why we welcome direct contacts
between the EEAS and national Parliaments, including their meetings
with MPs from the Foreign Affairs Committee, their input to the
recent House of Lords report on the EEAS review, and their participation
in the six-monthly Interparliamentary Conference for CFSP and
CSDP, which Baroness Ashton attended when it last met in Vilnius
from 4-6 September. We will use the review to encourage the EEAS
to maintain and reinforce these contacts with national Parliaments
and to remain vigilant against moves by the European Parliament
to overstep its mandate."
Conclusion
4.17 The Minister concludes by welcoming
the Committee's engagement on the EEAS review process and saying
that he stands ready to answer any further questions. There are
several, in the sense that, though the Minister's positions are
clear, it is far from clear to what extent they are shared by
other Member States. The Conclusions that will be adopted by
the 17 December General Affairs Council will thus be crucial.
4.18 Beyond that, we are unsure of the timing
of the proposed revision of the High Representative/Vice-President
of the Commission's declaration on political accountability; or,
therefore, of the possible content either, other than what is
mentioned in the relevant recommendation in this review.
4.19 In the meantime, the Minister's views
notwithstanding, the European Parliament (EP) is being encouraged
by the EEAS to be actively involved in re-shaping the role of
the EUSRs, and far more so than are national parliaments. We
also doubt, pace the Minister, that the EP will be content
with not pursuing the notions of intensifying EP input to upstream
policy planning; of access to classified information, including
political reporting from EU delegations (which presumably includes
input from UK embassies and high commissions); and of support
for EP visits in third countries (ditto).
4.20 The Minister is vague about when, and
in what form, the review of EUSRs will emerge. We would therefore
like him to let us know, within ten working days, whether this
is to be in the form of a report that will be deposited for scrutiny
in the normal way. In our view, that is the only format that
would be consistent with the House's role in assessing these no
doubt important proposals prior to their adoption.
4.21 We think that all these questions should now be examined and debated on the floor of the
House. This will enable the Minister to outline the elements that he will be seeking to have included in, and excluded from, the Conclusions that will be adopted by the 17 December General Affairs Council, as well as to explain how he is planning to make sure that the EP does not “overstep its mandate.”
4.22 We recommend that this debate should
take place as close as possible to, and before, the 17 December
General Affairs Council.
4.23 We are again also drawing this chapter
of our Report to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
15 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
16
See (35271) -: HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 17 (4 September
2013). Back
17
See headnote: HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 17 (4 September 2013). Back
18
Which are set out in the Annex to our previous Report. Back
19
See headnote: HC 83-xx (2013-14), chapter 10 (6 November 2013). Back
| 
