---

Europe in the World (EUC Report)

rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Europe in the World (48th Report, HL Paper 268, Session 2005–06). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this report was prepared by Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee and concluded just prior to theend of the last Session. At the time I chaired the sub-committee, and I am grateful to the present chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for allowing me to present this report to the House. My thanks are due also to the witnesses in the inquiry: Mr Hoon, the Minister for Europe; Mr Robert Cooper, the director-general of external economic relations in the Council secretariat; Ambassador José Cutileiro, special adviser to President Barroso; Mr Patrick Child, chef de cabinet to the External Relations Commissioner; my noble friend Lord Brittan of Spennithorne,a former Vice-President of the Commission; andMr Erwan Fouéré, the European Union Special Representative to Macedonia. I also thank the members of the then sub-committee for their work and our then Clerk, Dr Emily Baldock, for her help in organising the inquiry and preparation of the report, all within a tight timetable. At Hampton Court in 2005, Dr Solana, the High Representative, and the President of the Commission were asked to address co-operation on external relations which led to the communication entitled ““Europe in the World: Some Practical Proposals for Greater Coherence, Effectiveness and Visibility””. The communication formed the basis and subject of this inquiry. In June 2006, the European Council welcomed the communication and agreed to a stock-taking on its implementation at the end ofthe Finnish presidency. The presidency conclusionsof December 2006 make no more than a nod inthe direction of the communication and its recommendations. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what progress is being made and confirm that there is indeed political will among member states to take matters forward. The common foreign and security policy hasbeen a rapidly growing area of activity and is of considerable importance—too important to be left on one side following the French and Dutch rejection of the constitutional treaty. The sub-committee was supportive of the Commission’s aims expressed in the communication and decided to examine them in more detail from a positive point of view to see what could be done within the existing treaties and whether the proposals could go further. The communication points out that Europe faces both economic and security challenges: the growth of the new economies in Asia and elsewhere, terrorism, organised crime and regional conflicts to name but some. The Commission proposed that member states and the European institutions examine how to work together to develop and implement external policies; how to increase effectiveness of all policies and actions, external and internal; and how to strengthen accountability and increased visibility of European Union policies. The Union has a number of what the Commission describes as ““external policy assets””, including enlargement, which itself is an instrument for the extension of peace, stability and democracy, and should continue to be so for so long as the aspirant countries remain convinced of the genuineness of the EU’s intentions; the European neighbourhood policy, offering a stake in the internal market and helping the process of reform in the countries to which it applies; trade, which was outside the remit of the sub-committee and this report; development policies which offer specific instruments, especially through the medium of the European development fund dealing with governance and peace-keeping; the common foreign and security policy, which offers relations with strategic partners around the world; and lastly, disaster response and crisis management work in the field through the European security and defence policy—the ESDP. There are many examples of humanitarian assistance and civil protection work that has been undertaken, and the police missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo all demonstrate the growth and development of the ESDP. Although member states, the Commission and the Council all have their own role in external relations, the European Union itself has a growing and wide responsibility on the international scene, but even if the objectives are clear, implementation falls to different parties. The three must therefore work together to ensure that whenever possible there is a unified global presence. The Commission advanced the convincing argument that there is a link between the internal and external policies of the Union. The development of an energy policy and justice and home affairs are but examples. Chapter 2 of the report looks at the Commission’s proposals for greater coherence in external affairs. There is undoubtedly a need for improvement. The committee has noted this in a number of previous reports. The constitutional treaty would have brought institutional change, in particular the abolition of the rotating presidency, the Foreign Minister with a place in both the Commission and the Council and the External Action Service. It is worth noting the evidence of Robert Cooper from the Council, who noted: "““The EU’s ambition is to speak with one voice and it is a very laudable one, but then we send three people to do it—the Presidency, the High Representative and the Commissioner””." The treaty would have fused these three. How successful will the Commission’s proposals be and do they go far enough? Are they possible within the treaty as it stands? We believe that it was possible to go further and that the institutions and the member states should continue their search for new ways forward. However, without the constitutional treaty or something similar, it has to be recognised that there are limitations. In the opinion of the committee, the Commission’s proposals do not amount to cherry picking, and in any event I would say that if something is a good idea, why not do it? Chapter 3 examines the proposals to improve strategic planning. In particular, the Commission proposes a meeting at the beginning of each presidency between the President of the European Council, the presidency Foreign Minister, the Commission President, the External Relations Commissioner and the High Representative. They propose likewise the attendance of the High Representative at the meetings of the Relex commissioners. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, pointed out that as the High Representative would not have a clear position at those meetings, his influence would depend upon his own personality. In their response, the Government referred to difficulties in achieving these meetings because of the extensive travelling of the High Representative. Nevertheless, in the report we welcome the proposals. But if they are not to be mere window-dressing, then, as Robert Cooper also told us, it is the day-to-day co-operation that really matters. Officials in both the Council and the Commission need to work together and build relationships. We noted the encouraging examples of the Commissioners and the High Representative working together. If that leads to the presentation of joint papers for discussion in Council, it will be an improvement. It is a pity that the paper which is the subject of this report was not produced jointly. It would have had greater force had it been. Nevertheless, there is evidence that joint papers are now accepted. We noted that in the papers to be produced in connection with the Africa strategy on which the committee reported earlier. Typical of the problems that exist is the existence of the Commission’s own crisis centre and the Council’s situation centre. If the centres cannot be amalgamated, and apparently they cannot be, then the problems of sharing information and intelligence need to be addressed. The European Union is represented at a number of international organisations and the Commission’s proposals include early work to enable joint presentation of a European Union position. The Commission has considerable resources and these should be available to the presidency at short notice. We recognised that the Commission’s proposals for its participation in the euro-zone meetings are sensitive and largely matters for members of the euro-zone. In Chapter 4 we looked at the presence of the European Union in the field and at the relations between the Council and the Commission. The Commission proposes that Council and Commission should consider the double-hatting of European Union special representatives where appropriate and that the positive experience of Macedonia should be drawn upon. We were extremely fortunate to hear evidence from Mr Erwan Fouéré, the European Union Special Representative in Macedonia. He was sure that double-hatting is a good idea per se and that Macedonia is not a special case. He was enthusiastic even on areas of overlap of competence. He obtained joint instructions and—far from creating conflict between the institutions—co-operation and contacts between different desks in different offices have been boosted. It is clearly of benefit in Macedonia and should be seriously considered especially in other parts of the Balkans. It is important to note, however, that this recommendation is based on the special representative being in the country and not in Brussels, and that the special representatives are, as in the case of Mr Fouéré, people of sensitivity who can work with both institutions. To have worked for both is a considerable help. The Commission also looks for better use of Commission delegations, the special representatives and the embassies of member states. This has to be common sense and we urge the Government totake a pragmatic view about co-operation betweenthe presidency, the member states, the special representatives, the ESDP mission representatives and Council secretariat officials. We referred to this in our previous report on Africa and again make the case in respect of Addis Ababa and the western Balkans. In Chapter 5 we looked at co-operation between EU institutions and member states. The Commission looks for greater co-operation between member states in the area of consular assistance, especially in disaster situations. We had some doubts about this and particularly the Commission’s desire for its delegations to play a supporting and complementary role. On balance—and witnesses confirmed this—consular assistance is a matter for member states. Nevertheless there may be a role for Commission delegations to offer support in crisis situations. The Commission could explore this further with the Council and member states. While there may be reservations on some elements—and those reservations may be legitimate—they should not be used as an excuse to preclude common sense and practical measures of co-operation between member states and the different offices of the Union. There may well be cases where it would be sensible for premises to be shared. That would have to be on a case-by-case basis and subject to the agreement of all parties in all cases. We welcome the Commission’s proposals for staff exchanges between the diplomatic services of the member states and its own staff.That was supported by our witnesses. The United Kingdom and others have a wealth of experience to share with the European Union, and we welcome the Government’s support for this. Chapter 6 of the report deals with the need for improved accountability and the greater visibility of policies. The chairmen of the foreign affairs committees of national parliaments meet during each presidency on the initiative of the parliament of the presidency country. In addition, the European Parliament calls meetings of representatives of national parliaments’ foreign affairs committees. These all provide for a useful exchange of views,and it is suggested that the External Relations Commissioner and the High Representative attend to brief participants as a matter of course. The committee welcomed that. In my experience the meetings, particularly those at which Mr Solana has been present, have been useful. In their response the Government see no problem with the suggestion, but, in the interests of parliamentary involvement, I ask the Minister to take the matter forward by confirming that the Government will actively promote the idea, which will need forward planning by the institutions, the presidency and the presidency parliaments. Greater visibility for European Union initiatives and foreign policies is a matter to which the Government should give due prominence, and they should be prepared to give credit to the EU for its successes. Too often the temptation is to take the credit nationally. Without due recognition of what we are able to achieve jointly, it will not be possible to establish the credibility and desirability of the European Union’s policies. I thank the Ministerfor the Government’s response, and note thatthe committee’s recommendations are generally supported. I hope that in speaking to the report I have conveyed to your Lordships the importance that the sub-committee placed on this communication. I commend the report to the House, and invite your Lordships to take note of the same. I crave your Lordships’ indulgence to add my personal thoughts on this subject. Surely it is crucial that in the area of common foreign and security policy we do everything possible to achieve a unified and coherent European policy. Of course we shall not always succeed, but it must always be worth trying. Whatever other relationships we wish to pursue, the relations with our partners and neighbours in the European Union are of importance. Angela Merkel, in her recent speech to the European Parliament at the commencement of the German presidency, said that foreign and security demands are being made upon the EU from all sides, and referred to the western Balkans, Kosovo, the Middle East, the neighbourhood policy and the Black Sea region. There is the whole question of our relations with Russia. The new members from central and eastern Europe will expect and deserve more than self-interested bilateral policies from the large, older member states. There are the questions of the new neighbours: Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia. Is there to be a European neighbourhood policy-plus, or have the Germans already lost that in the face of Mediterranean interests? Future enlargement also looms large for the western Balkans, to say nothing of Turkey and many more. Are we going to equip the European Union to deal with those issues more effectively than at present or refuse to consider changes merely because they were part of the constitutional treaty? If there is to be a political commitment to trying to achieve a genuine, common, successful European foreign policy, we need to address the issues wherever possible, particularly the rotating presidency and the role of the High Representative as Foreign Minister. We cannot play games and say that any proposals in the treaty must either be rejected or, if supported, go to a referendum. I hope that the leaders of political parties will start to give a lead, not just to other Governments but to their own electorates. I hope we shall hear from the Front Benches in your Lordships’ House that they too support treaty amendment to achieve the changes I have referred to without any commitment to a referendum, and at the very least will support the finding of as many ways as possible to make progress within the existing treaties and support the initiative of the Commission, as set out in the proposal. I beg to move. Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Europe in the World (48th Report, HL Paper 268, Session 2005–06).—(Lord Bowness.)