European Union (Amendment) Bill

Indeed, and that rather goes back to what is in this as well, which is why I went back to the treaty and the consolidated text. The wording in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is what I read out, and which was supplemented by my noble friend Lord Anderson. The wording of the treaty is in fact what we can go back to. I fear that there has been a lot of discussion about something that can be proven by simply going back to the treaty, which is explicit. Nothing I have read has moved me from that opinion, but if noble Lords can prove differently, that could change. I shall move to the issues that have been raised in the amendment and perhaps put a little flesh on the bones or, in my new description, colour-in a bit some of the questions raised about the responsibilities of the roles. Amendment No. 4 focuses on the powers and duties of the President of the European Council and the post of the high representative, which are clearly set out in the Lisbon treaty. I shall go through quickly what it says about the role of the full-time president of the European Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reasonably wants to know what the job is. The treaty states: "““The President … shall chair and drive forward its work … ensure preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council working in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council … shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus … and present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council””." At that level and capacity the president shall, "““ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative””," and, "““shall not hold a national office””." That is the job description. I accept that the detail on what the person will do on a daily basis is not in the treaty, nor would we expect it to be, but it gives us part of the colouring-in on what the role is meant to be. Noble Lords may not agree with the role but as my noble friend said, while the rotating presidency might be beneficial in many ways, it creates issues of continuity in some of the extremely high level negotiations that take place. We shall talk in more detail later about the role of the president. In discussions with the European Union, President Putin of Russia has met 16 different presidents of the Council because of the changeover, many of whom will have had different priorities because of their status. They are running their own countries as well, so when President Sarkozy becomes president of the Council he will also be running France. That is an arduous additional responsibility for many, and I am delighted that the European Union has decided to move to a much more sensible way of taking the matter forward while ensuring that it is done properly, the person is appointed correctly and that it is for two and a half years, plus two and a half, making a maximum of five years. Within the text we also have the high representative’s role concerning the EU’s common foreign and security policy, contributed to by proposals to that policy, but he will carry it out as mandated by the Council. The same applies to common security and defence, and he will preside over the foreign affairs council. Article 94E of the treaty sets out the high representative’s role as one of the Commission’s vice-presidents and his responsibility for aspects of external relations and for co-ordinating some of the external action. This is meant to be a consolidation and a bringing together of the different aspects of how the European Union operates externally. I am sure that noble Lords will see that that is of huge potential benefit. Amendment No. 164 specifically looks for clarification on a number of questions around the full-time president’s role. Methods of election and terms of office are clear from the Lisbon treaty, which states: "““The European Council shall elect its president by a qualified majority for a term of two and a half years, renewable once””." It is explicit that the president of the European Council, "““shall not hold a national office””." There is no provision regulating previous occupations of candidates but they certainly could not take up that role and currently hold a national office. It is equally clear that the roles of the president of the European Council and high representative cannot be duplicated. It is clear in the text that the president of the European Council should, "““ensure the external representation without prejudice to the powers of the high representative””." Noble Lords have rightly indicated that the high representative brings together the current high representative introduced in Amsterdam and the Commission For External Relations. As I said, it is an important move. The Foreign Affairs Committee in another place concluded that, "““the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has the potential to give the EU a more streamlined international presence and to contribute to the more coherent development and implementation of external policy. We further conclude that it is clear that the High Representative is there to enact agreed foreign policy””." Those words ““enact agreed foreign policy”” are very important in the context of the position—executive or administrative. The high representative is not in that context a policy-maker appearing on the stage as it were to represent the 27 nations. It would be an agreed mandate. The Select Committee on the European Union report on the impact of the treaty similarly concluded that the creation of a high representative foreign affairs and security policy by the president of the Commission represents an important institutional innovation of the Lisbon treaty, which could have significant impacts on the way in which the EU formulates and implements external policy. In the light of evidence the post could bring additional coherence and effectiveness to the EU’s external action. The questions relating to the powers and duties of the president and high representative are clearly answered in the treaty and I do not accept the argument that the amendment seeks to put forward. Amendment No. 155 requests that we lay a report on how the provisions on the high representative and external action service differ from those in the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. It is not necessary. The Lisbon treaty does not change the mandate for the high representative, including the provision that he be supported by the European external action service drawn from existing foreign policy services of the Council secretariat, the Commission and member state secondees. The Government supported these reforms as sensible improvements to the structures for implementation and we continue to support them in the Lisbon treaty. We secured the deletion of what we regarded as a misleading title: Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. The new title makes it absolutely clear that the high representative will represent the agreed views of member states. He will not in any sense be a Foreign Minister.