European Union (Amendment) Bill

No. I have only eight minutes and I want to make some progress. Paragraph 220 states:"““the creation of the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and of the European External Action Service, represent major innovations in the EU's foreign policy-making machinery.””" It goes on to say that the new post and service do not"““risk undermining the Common Foreign and Security Policy's intergovernmental nature””." However,"““the Government is underestimating, and certainly downplaying in public, the significance of their creation.””" I therefore welcome the fact that today the Foreign Secretary started to make the positive case for the proposals. I personally believe that more should have been done last year, before the intergovernmental conference in June and again before the intergovernmental discussions in October, to explain things to the public and Parliament. The Committee is critical—I do not resile from that—of the fact that we were not in the loop last June, when those issues were under consideration. However, that does not mean that the treaty proposals should be opposed, and I should like to make a number of other points on that. The Lisbon treaty raises concerns about how the post of high representative for foreign affairs and security policy could work. The Committee wants more information about that as we fear that the relevant individual, whoever they are—whether Mr. Solana or a successor—could face work overload because of the large burdens of foreign policy representation, chairing Council of Ministers meetings and having a role in the Commission. That issue needs to be considered in some detail. In addition, as has already been mentioned, the Lisbon treaty provides for the high representative to speak at the United Nations Security Council. However, as our report states in paragraph 157, that"““will make little difference to current practice. It will not undermine the position of the UK in the United Nations system nor the UK's representation and role as a Permanent Member of the Security Council.””" The reshaped role of the president of the European Council has already been mentioned. We believe that that"““could help to generate consensus among EU leaders and lead to greater continuity in the chairing of the European Council. However, we are concerned by the current degree of uncertainty which surrounds the role and by the potential for conflict with the High Representative in representing the EU externally.””" However, we need more information about how that will work in practice. There is also the question of how the external action service will work. We believe that it may reduce"““duplication between the Council Secretariat and the Commission””" and facilitate"““the development of more effective EU external policies, operating in parallel with rather than as a substitute for national diplomatic services.””" We also believe that the service offers the opportunity for"““a greater intermingling of national and EU personnel and careers.””" However, we are concerned about how that will work in practice and we want to be sure that British Foreign Office officials seconded to the service see it as a good move in their career development. They should be able to come back to our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and have a proper representative role. We want working for the service to enhance career prospects. Finally, we believe that"““the Commission's loss of the right to make Common Foreign and Security Policy proposals is welcome because it represents an important assertion of the intergovernmental nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.””" We all want more effective co-operation and co-ordination between the European Union's 27 member states. However, there has been ambiguity about how the foreign and security policy works because of the role of the Commission. The treaty clarifies that issue: it makes it explicit that the policy is intergovernmental. It moves current Commission staff away from the Commission and puts them under the high representative, who is accountable to the Council of Ministers. The process is therefore clearly intergovernmental and will work only if very competent people are in those jobs. We need to ensure that high-level people are appointed and that high-level people from our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office play a role in the process. In that way, when the treaty is adopted by the 27 member states next year, and when it begins to come into effect in 2009, we will be sure that British personnel and influence are at the heart of the new European Union foreign and security policy structures—not marginalised as, sadly, they would be if some Members of the House had their way.