5 European Defence
| (35234)
12773/13
+ ADD 1
COM(13) 542
| Commission Communication: Towards A More Competitive and Efficient Defence and Security Sector
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Defence
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 28 November 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-xx (2013-14), chapter 14 (6 November 2013) and HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 23 (4 September 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | 18-19 December 2013 Defence European Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Committee B before the December European Council
|
Background
5.1 The Commission begins this Communication with two quotations.
"The world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military
missions to help stabilise the situation in crisis areas. ...We
need to reinforce our Common Foreign and Security Policy and a
common approach to defence matters because together we have the
power, and the scale to shape the world into a fairer, rules based
and human rights' abiding place."[24]
"The Council reiterates its call to retain and
further develop military capabilities for sustaining and enhancing
the CSDP. They underpin the EU's ability to act as a security
provider, in the context of a wider comprehensive approach [and]
the need for a strong and less fragmented European defence industry
to sustain and enhance Europe's military capabilities and the
EU's autonomous action".[25]
Our initial assessment
5.2 We reported on this Commission Communication
in September, and the full background is set out in the Report
under reference.
5.3 It seemed likely to us that this Commission
Communication would warrant debating before the December European
Council. Although some of the specific proposals might be welcome,
other proposals and calls for "a strategic approach
covering all aspects of military and non-military security"
and for "a wider political debate on the implementation of
relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty" were potentially
more controversial.[26]
However, before taking a definitive view, we sought the Opinion
of the Defence Committee on the significance of the Communication,
in accordance with Standing Order No. 143 (11). The Commission
Communication was also retained under scrutiny.[27]
5.4 The Defence Committee's Opinion is set out
in full in our most recent Report. It concluded thus:
"The Committee
therefore agrees with your Committee's provisional conclusion
that the document warrants further debate in advance of the December
European Council, and we share your Committee's broader concerns
about the implications of some of the document's specific proposals."
Our assessment
5.5 In view of our colleagues' Opinion,
we were more minded than ever to recommend this Commission Communication
for debate. But in the first instance we asked the Minister to
tell us about the outcome thus far of the discussions that, in
August, he said the Government proposed to have with the Commission
and other Member States prior to the December European Council,
"to ensure that our areas of concern are properly addressed
and that UK interests are fully taken into account when taking
forward any of these actions".
5.6 We asked to have this information no later
than 15 November, so that it could be taken into account in deciding
if a debate was indeed warranted, prior to the discussion at the
December European Council.
The Minister's letter of 28 November 2013
5.7 The Minister begins by offering his apologies
that his response is later than requested:
"Unfortunately, communication problems, possibly
technical, between your Committee's clerks and this Department
meant the first we were aware of your request was 25 November:
I have endeavoured to provide a response as quickly as possible."
5.8 The Minister then continues thus:
"Since the publication of the Communication,
we have continued to take a firm but positive approach with the
Commission. We have welcomed those elements that complement our
own growth agenda such as the focus on the internal market, attempts
to encourage less efficient industry to leave the defence market
and proposals relating to the support of SMEs. Where we have
concerns, which revolve around issues such as national sovereignty,
duplication and interference with exports, we have taken a firm
line and have used a number of channels to ensure the Commission
are well aware of those issues.
"We have held a number of discussions on the
Communication with the Commission and Member States in the lead
up to December Council. Of particular note, the Secretary of State
for Defence set out our concerns to the Commission when they presented
their Communication at the NATO Ministerial Informal in Vilnius
in September. Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology
and FCO Minister for Europe also wrote to the Commissioners Barnier
and Tajani, the joint owners of the Communication, to set out
our concerns and invite them to a bilateral meeting. These concerns
were then further expanded upon by a letter sent to senior Commission
officials that was also sent to key Member State foreign and defence
ministries to ensure that the UK position was well known across
the EU.
"We have also strongly represented the UK position
in the Letter of Intent (LoI)[28]
forum where we were able to broadly agree red lines and areas
where we would need to seek more detail from the Commission on
its intent.
"Whilst we have been unable to establish a meeting
with the Commission at Ministerial level before the December European
Council, officials from the FCO, BIS and the MOD met with senior
Commission officials in London on 8 November to re-enforce our
key messages. The topic also featured in the Secretary of State
for Defence's meeting with Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French Minister
of Defence, on 28 October. Most recently, in the EU Foreign Affairs
Council held on the 18/19 November, we were able to work with
our partners to ensure the Conclusions clearly stated that any
Commission activity on the Communication would be taken forward
in consultation with Member States.
"We are encouraged that the Commission seems
to be taking many of our messages on board. It has been keen
to stress that it sees the December meeting as the start of a
consultation process and that it would not look to push proposals
that Member States were not happy with. In particular, in relation
to specific UK concerns, Commission officials were keen to reassure
us that it would not duplicate the activities of military organisations
in the fields of airworthiness and standardisation, it would not
look to take action in the area of exports if Member States were
not happy and that Member States would be consulted fully in developing
its proposed Preparatory Action on CSDP research. In addition,
on its proposals for a pre-commercial procurement scheme, there
would be no active Commission involvement beyond funding (they
wouldn't own IPR for example), it would be civil-focused and open
to all to Member States. And, importantly, Commission officials
responded positively when we stressed the importance of establishing
a formal Commission/Defence Ministries mechanism to oversee implementation.
"That said, there are many areas of the Communication
where we still have concerns. To this end, we have repeatedly
made clear our opposition to the Commission owning or operating
military or related dual-use capabilities, our concerns over intervention
in government to government sales, any incentives which might
distort the defence market or impede our industry's ability to
work with essential non-EU suppliers. And it continues to support
proposals which we believe could lead to unnecessary regulatory
interference in the defence market. We are therefore continuing
to work hard — across Government and with our international
partners, including through the LoI and the European Defence Agency
— to challenge robustly these areas and ensure that UK interests
are fully taken into account both in preparations for the December
Council, for example through the 18-19 November Foreign Affairs
Council and the 2-3 December Competitiveness Council, as well
as in taking forward any of the Commission actions post-December."
Conclusion
5.9 With regard to the Minister's delay in
responding, we note that: a copy of the Committee's report was
forwarded to his Department immediately after the Committee's
meeting on 6 November.
5.10 With regard to the substance of the Minister's
letter, it is plain that the Government's sustained campaign has
had some success. However, although the Minister is careful not
to point fingers, we find it extraordinary that, throughout this
period, it was not possible to (as he diplomatically puts it)
establish a meeting with the Commission at Ministerial level before
the December European Council.
5.11 Moreover, as he says more bluntly, there
are many areas of the Communication where he still has concerns;
and they are substantial: from the Commission owning or operating
military or related dual-use capabilities, over intervention in
government to government sales, to incentives that might distort
the defence market or impede UK industry's ability to work with
essential non-EU suppliers; and other proposals that the Commission
continues to support which he believes could lead to unnecessary
regulatory interference in the defence market.
5.12 Although time is now short, we consider
it imperative that this Communication is debated in European Committee
before the December European Council meeting, so that the House
can find out more detail about the areas of the Communication
about which the Minister remains concerned, and express its own
views.
5.13 We so recommend. In the meantime, the
Communication remains under scrutiny.
24 European Commission President Jose Barroso's "State
of the Union 2012 Address", 12 September 2012, available
at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-596_en.htm. Back
25
19 November 2012 Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions on Military
Capability Development. See http://www.consilium.europa.eu//uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/133560.pdf. Back
26
Article 42 TEU, which is the underpinning of the proposals in
the Commission Communication, is reproduced at Annex 1 of our
previous Report. Back
27
See headnote: HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 23 (4 September 2013). Back
28
France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and UK. Back
| 
