| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hoon: Conservative Members have quoted different people from the United States in the same way as the hon. Gentleman has quoted figures from European countries. I entirely accept that some people in all countries will resist the proposals and will say that they are not sensible. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot cite a single figure from the Governments in any of the 30 states represented around the table on Tuesday, the United States or Canada who is opposed to what we are trying to achieve--strengthening the European pillar of NATO by strengthening NATO itself.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Although I accept the need for an enhanced European defence capacity, will the Secretary of State answer the question that has been pressed on him by many right hon. and hon. Members? Why cannot that enhanced capacity be achieved within the framework of NATO? He has not dealt with that question fully or properly, so will he please do so now?
Mr. Hoon: I made it clear in my statement that the proposals can and will be implemented in the framework of NATO and in support for the common security policy of the European Union. However, they will not involve any duplication of forces or planning. That is why we have made clear the need for full transparency between the European Union's processes and those of NATO. If we are to deploy the single forces that we have available to those bodies, there must be absolute consistency between the two approaches. That is clear. It is what I said in my statement, so it should not be a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): If there are operations in which NATO as a whole is not engaged and we are,
therefore, operating under the Feira summit arrangements with the European Union acting in an autonomous fashion in an international crisis, the policies that are pursued will be inconsistent, by definition, with the fact that NATO as a whole is not engaged and will mean the United States takes a different view. In such a case, what arrangements will be put in place to deal with questions of military intelligence of the kind that were raised during the Falklands war?
Mr. Hoon: The phrase, "NATO as a whole is not engaged", has been included to deal with the situation described by the hon. Gentleman. It would allow access to NATO assets and capabilities by an autonomous European Union force when NATO as a whole is not engaged. That was agreed at Washington by the NATO nations.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): The Secretary of State has acknowledged that greater European defence co-operation, which is entirely welcome, could take place within NATO. Does he accept that that was the Government's policy until the 1998 St. Malo agreement? Why was that policy changed?
Mr. Hoon: That policy has not changed. I made it clear in my statement that this agreement is a development of not only this Government's policy but the previous Government's policy, which he supported.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): I am sure that we can all agree on one thing: if forces--men and material--are committed on operations to the European force, they are not available to NATO, the UN or to act in our national interests. The Secretary of State failed to explain in his long statement why it is in our national interest to fritter away already overstretched forces.
Mr. Hoon: We are not doing that. Any international deployment of British forces would have to be reviewed carefully if a direct threat to Britain's vital national interest arose. That would be the case for deployment in the context of NATO or the UN. If there were a threat to the United Kingdom, we would withdraw those forces where necessary. That is the position already. We are not changing it at all.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when we finally borrow the four wide-bodied jets from the Americans, they will be the only ones this side of the pond, so the force can go nowhere without American support?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows--at least, I thought he knew, because he has served on the Defence Committee--that a number of heavylift assets are available to us. We will be augmenting those by the lease of C-17s and the construction of the A400M. Frankly, he could have more vigorously criticised his Government for failing to take those decisions, certainly during the five years when he was a Member of the House under that Government. The reality is that we have taken those decisions and those assets will be increasingly available to us.
Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon): The tone of the Secretary of State's statement and his response to
questions has been a disgrace. If people needed proof that this agreement was all about European politics and nothing to do with defence, they have had it this afternoon.When the policy U-turn was announced two years ago, Madeleine Albright set three tests: that there should be no duplication of expensive military assets, no discrimination against non-European Union members of NATO and no risk of decoupling the United States from the defence of Europe. The Government have, I believe, breached all three, and the development risks seriously undermining NATO.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quote the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, in response to Monday's meeting. I have also quoted her, and she was eminently satisfied. All three tests were satisfied; all three tests were achieved. That is why it is important that Britain continues to lead the way on European defence.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Does the Secretary of State accept that many Conservative Members have been fighting for 20 years and more to support NATO, irrespective of their views on the European Union? Does he also accept that it is not normal for a Government continually to push the Chief of the Defence Staff to endorse their political positions? As they have chosen to do so, will the Secretary of State comment on what the Chief of the Defence Staff said a few days ago in answer to a question from a Member of Parliament who asked why anything that could be done outside the NATO structure could not be done within its structure?
- I suppose it could have been done within the NATO framework and in some ways it would have been easier.
- It was decided by the EU governments that this was the way it would be done.
Mr. Hoon: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Chief of the Defence Staff. I should make it absolutely clear that nobody pushes the Chief of the Defence Staff forward--absolutely no one. I have far too much respect for a man whom the Conservative party appointed when in government ever to push him forward to deal with any issue. He chooses to comment when he chooses to comment. Certainly--perhaps this is the hon. Gentleman's difficulty--he has consistently supported the idea of more effective European co-operation. He recognises that that is good for the armed forces and their ability to participate in crisis missions.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): As the British armed forces appear to be out of date and under repair or, in the case of their equipment, late in delivery, and their men, women and machines are under immense stress, what specific commitments have been given by continental Governments on their forces' equipment, so that if their forces are used they can be well equipped with compatible equipment? Will he cite an example of
where the force might act in the event of American disapproval? If the force did not have such approval, would it be capable of acting?
Mr. Hoon: I assume that the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments referred to the recent Public Accounts Committee report. If he studies that carefully, he will find that nearly every aspect of criticism relates to projects begun under the previous Conservative Government. We are trying to resolve the delays that are inherent in the process of procurement from that time. Indeed, the PAC report indicates that there is now progress in that respect and, indeed, congratulates the Government on the steps that they are taking.
On the capability question, I said in response to a previous question that one change that we have negotiated in the present European process is a much more effective mechanism for reviewing contributions from all participants, to ensure that they are genuinely rapidly deployable forces and have the qualities that are required to participate in such a force. So, there is a step change in improvement in the way in which we can take forward the capability.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Why was the language of the statement so defensive? Why did the statement seem to have been composed on the back of an envelope? Why is the red line behind the Secretary of State so very thin?
Mr. Hoon: If the language was defensive--[Hon. Members: "Offensive."] I apologise if I misheard the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not intend the language to be offensive to him. He has always approached these matters extremely courteously. We are seeking to address the real issues, but there are those on his Front Bench who would mislead the public by trying to present a completely misrepresented account of what we are trying to negotiate. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he was offended by the tone of my remarks, but I do not necessarily extend that to the Conservative Front-Bench team.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |