EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY
STUDIES (EUISS)
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Sub-Committee C on 7 December considered the
proposed Council Joint Action amending Joint Action 2001/554/CFSP
and cleared it from scrutiny.
The Sub-Committee noted the report of the Secretary
General/High Representative (SG/HR) with interest and are aware
of the work done by the Institute. However the Sub-Committee have
requested further information about the implementation of the
proposals which seem to open up the potential for increased expenditure.
The Sub-Committee would like specific examples
of the type of additional activity the SG/HR and the Institute
have in mind (revision of Article 2). What sort of tasks would
the Institute undertake from third parties, who might those third
parites be and what sort of income is it envisaged that the work
would generate (Article 11 (3))? Assuming a Deputy Director will
be appointed, how has budgetary provision been made? The budget
has shown only a modest incease in the last four years and is
to be agreed by unanimity, and not by qualified majority vote.
Is it envisaged that the budget will continue to be restrained,
and how will this be managed if the proposals for change are adopted?
We would also be interested in the Government's
views on the questions raised in the SG/HR's report about the
longer term role of the ISS and its relationship with the Presidency,
the Political and Security Committee and with the Commission,
and the SG/HR's comments in paragraph 1.3 of his report about
the location of the ISS. Would this require a modification of
the Joint Action? The Sub-Committee also expressed the hope that,
in view of the increasing importance of the EU's actions under
the ESDP, the ISS should ensure that it has sufficient military
expertise on its staff to make its contributions relevant.
12 December 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 12 December requesting
further information about some of the changes made to the European
Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) Joint Action.
The EUISS has established a broad network of
contacts both within and outside the EU. As a consequence this
has led to the Institute receiving enquiries from a range of third
parties, comprising commercial companies, NGOs, and other research
and academic institutes, such as the European Security and Defence
College, who would like to utilise the Institute's international
expertise. At present it is not known where the majority of work
would come from or what income it might generate, however, given
the level of interest, it was thought appropriate to amend the
Institute's mission statement to allow it to explore the possibilities.
One of the reasons behind the establishment of the Deputy Director
position was to assist the Director in some of the day-to-day
management duties so that more time could be spent on developing
the Institute's activities.
In establishing the Deputy Director position
it was agreed that this would be budget neutral and funded from
the existing budget through efficiencies. Our policy for increases
to the EUISS' budget is that these should not be beyond the French
rate of inflation, a policy that is supported by all other Member
States who contribute to the EUISS' budget. The proposed changes
will not alter this position. On the contrary, by allowing the
EUISS to take on outside work, the hope is that it will enable
it to generate extra income and so avoid the need for Member States
to increase their contributions beyond the French rate of inflation.
With the continuing evolution of CFSP and ESDP
it is not possible to say with any certainty how the EUISS' role
and relationship with other EU bodies might evolve over the long
term. We do not however foresee it changing dramatically from
the role it currently plays. The EUlSS has an important and unique
role in providing Member States with research and analysis and
we will continue to support those activities.
The EUISS was formally a subsidiary body of
the Western European Union and was based at its offices in Paris,
from where it has continued to operate. The EUISS has not indicated
previously that a move to Brussels would be beneficial to its
work. Should it do so in the future, we, along with other Member
States, would consider the merits of a move at the appropriate
time. Whether a change of role or location would require a modification
of the Joint Action, could only be considered once the extent
and scope of any changes are known.
As an academic institution we would not expect
to see a serving member of military staff working within the EUISS.
However, we agree that it is important for it to have sufficient
access to the relevant expertise when appropriate. I can assure
you that we and other Member States will continue to ensure that
this remains the case.
9 January 2007
| 
