| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.20 am
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing a debate on this important issue, but it was a pity that his Euro-scepticism so coloured his speech, especially towards its conclusion, when he spent some time on the common agricultural policy. His political attitude to the Union, which is very different from mine, means that he found himself in a way contradicting his own knowledge of defence questions, and adopting what in my view are unrealistic positions.
Co-operation and yet more co-operation is the name of the game. That has long been argued by Liberals both in the House and elsewhere; it is not a new position. I remember vividly that almost 20 years ago, in 1977, in the European Parliament of which the hon. Gentleman is so disdainful, my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn was responsible for producing a trail-blazing report on common weapons procurement in Europe. We have come some way since those days, but not far or fast enough.
As recently as 13 June, the Institute for Public Policy Research produced a document called "About Turn, Forward March with Europe". I shall quote briefly from the press release that accompanied the publication of the book, which was edited by Jane Sharp, the director of the defence and security programme at the IPPR. Apparently the document
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who speaks on such matters for our party, expressed the same feeling a couple of years ago in the Defence Industry Digest, succinctly and with the clarity that his legal mind gives him:
I do not know whether the swear word "Maastricht" passed the hon. Gentleman's lips, but it certainly hovered in the air above him, so it might be useful if I remind the House exactly what the Maastricht treaty said when we passed it. As I recall, the Minister of State was most active at that time. The treaty called for the European Union to develop political co-operation, in particular through the implementation of
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that the Western European Union was possibly over-influenced by the European Union, partly but not entirely because of its location in Brussels. I believe that he said that it was subject to the risk of dread diseases by being stationed there. I am not sure whether I know what he means by the idea of "over-influence". The EU is not a monolith apart from the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom is part of it. The hon. Gentleman may not be happy about that, but it is a fact.
The United Kingdom's aim must be to work within the WEU, NATO and the EU. We must sit down with our colleagues there and work out political objectives. In our view the main flaw in previous defence reviews has been the fact that they have often been Treasury driven, rather than our having sat down and asked what we are capable of doing, who we are doing it with, how the activity should be shared out together, what we are prepared to undertake and what we are not prepared to undertake.
For example, we were prepared to undertake to try to control the situation in the former Yugoslavia, but if there were a widespread repetition of the Chechnya conflict in the Soviet Union I do not think that we would endeavour to intervene, because we do not have the capacity to do anything about such matters. We must draw lines, too.
I shall conclude by referring to the former Yugoslavia, because the hon. Gentleman touched on arms control at the end of his speech. I find the lifting of the arms embargo, which I believe took place yesterday, worrying. I do not think that it contributes much to the safety of our troops there, and I am sure that the French would agree with me. I should like to know what the Government's position is.
According to The Guardian today:
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
I am grateful to be called and particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for choosing this subject for this morning's 11 o'clock debate. I do not think that we have debated a more important subject in the past few weeks. The importance of it is highlighted by the fact that it takes place in the interim between the first and second rounds of the Russian presidential elections. Whether my hon. Friend chose today and the subject for his debate knowing that that might be the backdrop or it was simply a gift from the Prince of Serendip does not matter. I congratulate him on the subject and the timing of the debate.
I agree wholeheartedly with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said--in fact, almost 95 per cent. of it. Before we came into the Chamber, my hon. Friend confessed that he was going to make one or two generalisations. On the contrary, he made a highly detailed, well-argued and tightly constructed speech, which would have done the Europeans great credit. When I say the Europeans I mean
those in the 16th and 17th centuries who created those wonderfully detailed tapestries in the low countries. My hon. Friend's speech was excellent and taught us much.
It is regrettable that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and I are the only Conservative Back Benchers present--he to make the speech and I to listen to it. Parliament is diminished and those whom we represent are less well served when such speeches are listened to only by those who have to be present and one or two others who feel it of interest to be present. I trust that what my hon. Friend said will be reported widely and digested with pleasure.
"asserts that Britain can no longer afford, either politically or financially, to pursue a foreign and defence policy separately from her major European partners."
That contradicts what the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said. The press release continues:
"Britain must integrate more deeply with France and Germany at all levels of defence planning and procurement.
and so on. That is a good basic position, very different from that outlined by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
The link with the United States in NATO remains vital but Britain has to recognise that the special relationship with Washington is over. Britain can best influence world events in future as part of a strong and cohesive Europe.
The book is critical of much conventional thinking about defence",
"The European Union consists of many middle-ranking powers none of which can really afford"--
again the word "afford" is used--
"to maintain a full range of capabilities but which collectively form an extremely formidable alliance. Burden sharing, force specialisation and common procurement are all areas that should be examined. Once the CFSP has developed there may be scope for greater equality in expenditure on security among member states. Britain and France, which"--
as the hon. Gentleman said--
"provide most of the capability, should be recompensed by those who spend less."
The German position, which the hon. Gentleman also touched upon, is changing and will continue to change. It has already changed, when Germany sent troops into former Yugoslavia, and it will change further. It will not remain static. The Franco-German Eurocorps and the British-Dutch marine force have developed slowly, but I think that those exercises point in the right direction.
"a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
The language is cautious, very likely because of the United Kingdom's reservations, but the intent is clear. The treaty both sets an objective and recognises technical and financial realities.
"The Bosnian Serbs will face the most radical cuts in the region"--
the lifting of the embargo is based on concomitant cuts--
"leaving them with 500 artillery pieces and 137 tanks, nearly halving their present force. The poorly-armed federation would have to acquire significant amounts of new equipment to reach its new ceilings of 273 tanks and 1,000 pieces of artillery."
Then cometh the crunch:
"However, much will depend on verification procedures and these must rely on trust, a rare commodity."
It is indeed a rare commodity, which is still, sadly, virtually absent in the former Yugoslavia. Considering the risks that we and other western European countries--notably France and the Netherlands, as well as, of course, the Americans--have taken on ourselves to try to sort out a dreadful position, opening the floodgates to more arms entering the region is a mistake.
11.30 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |