Annex: the Committee's letter of 11 December
2013 to the Minister for Europe
The Committee has asked me to respond to your letter
of 4 December 2013 concerning its most recent Report, of 20 November,
on the HR's review of the European External Action Service (EAS).
You will recall that I wrote to you on 28 November,
expressing the Committee's regret that, despite recommending a
debate on the Floor of the House on the Joint Commission/HR Communication
on a comprehensive approach on Syria, the Government had determined
that the debate should be held in European Committee. The Committee
is accordingly even more disturbed by your suggestion that the
HR's review should also be debated in European Committee, thus
once again contradicting the Committee's recommendation.
As I said in my letter of 28 November, the Committee
does not recommend Floor of the House debates lightly. You seem
to regard the Review as dealing only with "technical issues".
In the first place, many "technical issues" are regularly
debated on the Floor. Moreover, in this particular instance,
the Review covers matters that are far from "technical",
as you yourself noted in your original Explanatory Memorandum,
viz:
- the continuing pressure for
the EEAS to have a role in providing consular assistance, notwithstanding
this being a Member State competence;
- ensuring that defence engagement remained primarily
the responsibility of individual Member States in the face of,
e.g., attempts to establish a formal network of military and civilian
security experts in EU delegations;
- any threat of wider competence creep on the part
of the EEAS, thus endangering its role, of complementing and supporting
— and not replacing — national diplomatic services.
The Committee drew attention to others in its most
recent Report. You say that you share the Committee's concerns
about proposals for the increased involvement of the European
Parliament in CFSP, and now they "will not feature in the
General Affairs Council conclusions of 17 December 2013. But this
is a very broad statement. Moreover, increasing the EP's involvement
is an impulse that will not go away: this is why the matter of
the HR's "declaration of political accountability" needs
discussing. The thrust in the HR's paper contrasts strongly with
the absence of any proposals on strengthening the involvement
of the proper custodians of CFSP, namely national parliaments.
An important and relevant area is that of EUSRs:
yet you still do not say if the EUSR review is to be deposited
in the House. We again ask you to do so.
The Committee's intention has long been plain:
- that this EEAS Review, and
the related Commission Communication 12773/13, Towards a
More Competitive and Efficient Defence and Security Sector,
should be debated prior to the 17 December GAC and the subsequent
"defence" European Council — so that the Government
could outline, be questioned on and debate the elements that it
would be seeking to have included in, and excluded from, the relevant
Conclusions; and
- that the outcome of the "defence" European
Council should be debated afterwards, based on the HR's proposals
on CSDP, and with the benefit of the actual Council Conclusions.
The Government was aware of the Committee's request
as long ago as 20 November, and it is hard to escape the conclusion
that a worrying pattern is emerging here: of Committee recommendations
for floor debates being ignored with no satisfactory reason given.
The Committee would be grateful for your comments,
and for confirmation that a debate on the HR's review of the EEAS
will be arranged on the Floor of the House immediately the House
returns from the Christmas recess.
|
