| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
European Defence Co-operation
3. Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): What discussions he has had about improving European defence co-operation. [83501]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We have had full and intensive discussions with NATO allies and European partners since last autumn, most recently at the NATO Washington summit and the WEU Bremen ministerial meeting. We look forward to further discussion at the Cologne European Council.
Mr. Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the general principle of defence co-operation is important, what really matters is the building of practical structures to ensure a rapid response in terms of European crisis management? Does not the current conflict in Kosovo underline more strongly than ever the need for European defence co-operation? Does it not also show that Europe needs to pull its weight on defence matters, within the context of NATO?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lessons of Kosovo are clear. When it comes to collective security, we need a practical mechanism--at the moment, NATO is certainly that practical mechanism--that can both deliver security and engender the stability that Europe needs. Europeans themselves now recognise, however, that the action in Kosovo would have been impossible without the United States. It is a commonly held view that it is time for us to begin to examine, and rectify, the deficits in our own capacity, and move towards a position in which Europe can take responsibility for its own security.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): The Minister will, of course, know that a new European document relating to common strategy in the European Union and Russia is due to be considered in Cologne on 3 and 4 June. Does he agree, in the context of the Petersberg tasks--to which the document refers--that there is no question of the introduction of majority voting, which would result in our going down the slippery path towards majority voting in European defence matters?
Mr. Lloyd: I understand that that is one of the hon. Gentleman's obsessions. Let me assure him that, in this instance, it is an obsession shared by--I think--all the Governments of the European Union.
Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon): Does my hon. Friend welcome the recent visit to Rome by members of the British-Italian parliamentary group to discuss British- Italian defence co-operation? Does he agree that Italy has a key role to play in European defence, both at present in respect of the conflict in Kosovo, and in the future with regard to securing peace and stability in the Mediterranean region? Will he renew his efforts to establish a strong British-Italian defence link in the context of the NATO alliance, but also as a cornerstone of European defence co-operation?
Mr. Lloyd: We welcome the link between British and Italian parliamentarians at any level, but there is no doubt
that Italy's role as part of the NATO alliance in Kosovo is particularly significant. All partners are pulling their weight in Kosovo, and, in the future, that co-operation within Europe will become closer and tighter. What was begun by our Prime Minister and President Chirac at St. Malo has been extended to include the rest of the European Union, and, potentially, those who are willing players throughout the European continent.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): Does the Minister agree that the process of improving European defence co-operation should not take place in a way that might undermine NATO? If he does, why did the St. Malo agreement provide for such co-operation inside and outside the framework of NATO? Can the Minister tell us what steps, if any, have been taken to implement such co-operation outside the framework of NATO?
Mr. Lloyd: Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our national security and, indeed, of the security of the whole of Europe. That is not simply an historical perspective; we know that, even as we speak, NATO is actively helping the move towards a more stable Europe in Kosovo. There cannot be any suggestion that a British Government would work in any way that undermined NATO's role, but there is no contradiction between the decisions made in Berlin and Washington--which refer to a European role within NATO--and the integrity of NATO as a whole. Of course Europeans must do more for their own security, but, in the end, we shall always have NATO there as the cornerstone of our collective security.
MOX Shipment (Japan)
4. Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough): What discussions he has had with overseas Governments regarding the shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [83502]
10. Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington):
What recent representations have been made to him by foreign Governments regarding the proposed shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [83509]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd):
Discussions have taken place between officials and their counterparts in France, Japan and the United States to ensure in particular that appropriate measures are in place for the physical protection of MOX fuel, consistent with internationally agreed commitments and recommendations.
Mrs. Brinton:
I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply, but is he aware of concerns that MOX fuel is not only highly dangerous for the environment, but could be a threat in the hands of terrorists? Can he assure me and the House that the Government will take serious note of international opinion on the manufacture and, indeed, safe transportation of MOX fuel?
Mr. Lloyd:
The reality is that transportation of MOX fuel is undertaken in a way that is consistent with what the public demand, but I must make the point that, as a fuel, MOX is safer than many other similar nuclear materials. In particular, handling it is inherently far safer.
Mr. Brake:
I also thank the Minister for his response, but must press him on the point. Will he impress on other Departments the need for caution and for a plutonium disposal policy that takes into account international concerns, as well as environmental risks, rather than increasing reprocessing and MOX production at Sellafield?
Mr. Lloyd:
Of course I will refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my colleagues in other Departments, but the simple reality is that MOX is a better way to dispose of spent uranium through reprocessing. The advantage of MOX is that, in refuelling, the plutonium is destroyed. Therefore, the proliferation risks from plutonium disappear with that reprocessing cycle. It is a very environmentally and ecologically sound way to get rid of the dangers of proliferation.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North):
In view of the imminence of the decision about the Sellafield MOX plant and the increasing public concern about the transport of all forms of radioactive waste--a concern highlighted by yesterday's revelation about secret attempts by British Nuclear Fuels to negotiate the import of spent fuel from the United States--may I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department or other Departments have conducted any independent research into the proliferation risks of the transport of MOX fuel, particularly with regard to the export of MOX fuel to other countries that are also signatories to the non-proliferation treaty?
Mr. Lloyd:
The export of MOX fuel is covered by the relevant international conventions under the nuclear suppliers group regime. It means that we would not authorise export to countries and Governments where there was no commitment to use MOX solely for peaceful and energy-related purposes, and no agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the conditions under which the fuels were held were adequate to guarantee security against any risk, including, obviously, the risk of proliferation.
The transportation system is very safe. I defy any terrorist to breach it. Even in the more lurid and purple descriptions of what terrorists might want to do, trying to seize shipments of MOX would come very low on the agenda of proliferators.
5. Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
When he plans to visit Cyprus to discuss its accession to the EU. [83503]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin):
Last month, I visited Cyprus to discuss with representatives of both communities the prospects for a settlement and the progress on Cyprus's application to join the European Union. Although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary currently has no plans to visit Cyprus, he and I have regular discussions
Mr. Waterson:
Does the Minister agree that the decision not to deploy missiles in the south of the island is only the latest in a long series of constructive gestures made by the Republic of Cyprus, which consistently have not been met by reciprocal gestures by the regime in the north? Will she confirm that the only criteria that could and should properly be applied in negotiations on Cyprus's accession to the European Union are those that would be applied in the case of any other applicant country?
Ms Quin:
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, let me say that we welcomed at the time the decision not to deploy the missiles, and believe that that was a positive step. Indeed, we urged that the authorities in the north should make similar gestures to build confidence and try to relaunch the peace process on the island. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of Dame Ann Hercus, who negotiates regularly with both communities on the island in trying to move the process forward. Perhaps I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that our own Prime Minister has made a strong commitment to undertaking every effort possible to relaunch the peace process this year.
Moves towards reunification of the island and a peaceful settlement would be very helpful in the context of European Union accession. However, as I have made clear on many occasions, no outside, non-EU country has a veto on Cyprus's accession. We believe that Cyprus's application should be treated on its merits, as other applications are being considered and treated.
Mr. Stephen Twigg (Enfield, Southgate):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to Cyprus's application to the European Union. Does she agree that further progress on achieving a settlement to the Cyprus question will require action by the Governments of Turkey and of the United States? Will she tell the House what representations to that effect the British Government have made to the Administrations in Ankara and Washington?
Ms Quin:
In our contacts with all interested parties, but particularly with Turkey and the United States--with whom we have worked closely on the issue--we have repeatedly urged on all sides efforts to make progress towards a settlement. We shall certainly continue to do so. We feel that it would be quite wrong simply to sit back at a time when EU accession negotiations offer an important opportunity. We believe that European Union membership would be very much in the interests of both communities on the island of Cyprus.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |