---

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon) indicated assent.

Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State is nodding. He is now listening, which is an encouraging sign.

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The response force was part of our policy.

Mr. Jenkin: The Government do not like it when we agree with what they say, but let us see whether they are delivering what they say they agree with. There is much more to do. We need more European capability in NATO to match the threats that we face, but we must resist anything that undermines its cohesion. The Government say that they understand these things, and the Prime Minister said on Thursday:

"We don't want duplication and we certainly don't want competition with NATO."

The test that the House must apply to the Government's policy is simple—does it bear out those wishes?

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): The hon. Gentleman says that NATO needs a European capability, so does he agree that NATO is a basket of resources, including a European resource, and that that flexibility is bound to strengthen rather than weaken it?

Mr. Jenkin: It depends how that basket is constructed and whether that involves duplication and competition with NATO. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Prime Minister, who said on Thursday:

"We don't want duplication and we certainly don't want competition with NATO."

I hope that the hon. Gentleman endorses that—[Interruption.] Well, that does not concur with what the Prime Minister said.

The test that the House must apply to the Government's policy is simple: does it duplicate, and does it create competition with, NATO? Let us look first at the Franco-British declaration at St. Malo in 1998, which launched the concept of an autonomous EU defence, and resulted from a personal initiative by the Prime Minister to soothe EU leaders who were annoyed that Britain would not join the euro. It was, however, immediately obvious that that created a second rival security alliance in Europe—the very competition that the Prime Minister says he is against. The Clinton Administration reacted with fury, and the then Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, railed against what she called the three Ds—duplication of NATO

27 Oct 2003 : Column 32

assets, discrimination against non-EU members of NATO and decoupling of European and north American security.

In November 2001, the Prime Minister saw President Bush and assured him, in the President's own words,

"that European defense would no way undermine NATO . . . that there would be joint command, and that planning would take place within NATO".

Has the Prime Minister kept his word? Did he understand what he started at St. Malo? Even if he meant what he said, can he deliver those assurances without changing his policy? The answers to those three questions are categorically no, no and no. The matter should have been resolved in the EU-NATO agreement known as Berlin-plus, which was signed earlier this year. As our motion makes clear, it provides the EU with assured access to NATO assets to plan and conduct military operations under NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who is always a European military officer. If the Prime Minister believes that European and north American security is indivisible, what more could he ask for? If the EU wants to act militarily, it has all the necessary planning and command structures at its disposal as of right. There is no need for wasteful duplication or dangerous decoupling of security policy. Moreover, it took four long years to agree the settlement between NATO and the EU. The ink was hardly dry on the paper, however, when the Prime Minister met President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder in Berlin last month and agreed to the very competition that he says he is against. A published communiqué has not been released from that meeting, but there was a leak to a German newspaper—[Interruption.] Would the Secretary of State like to publish that communiqué? He shakes his head, so we are to believe that the three Heads of State met in Berlin and that no notes were taken, and that no statement or position was agreed. Of course we know that is not the case. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny it previously, so it is no good denying it now. He is changing his evidence again.

The three Heads of State agreed that

"the EU should have a common capability for the planning and leadership of operations independent of NATO means and capabilities."

If that is not duplication, decoupling and competition with NATO, what is? It does not strengthen NATO; it undercuts it.

Why is duplication of military planning so damaging? The job of a military planning HQ is not to run operations. That is done through the command chain. Military planners work up options, permutations and combinations and run different scenarios so that they can present a range of choices to the military commanders and politicians. NATO, at supreme headquarters allied powers Europe, or SHAPE, as it is known, provides the best multinational military planning capability in the world. Why would anyone in the EU wish to duplicate that? Can the Secretary of State answer that question?

The only answer is that the Government really want to decouple NATO from the EU. Despite what they say, they want competition between the EU and NATO. There could be no clearer evidence of that ambition. [Hon. Members: "What evidence?"] I shall come to the

27 Oct 2003 : Column 33

evidence. The very principle of what the Prime Minister agreed with our EU partners does not contribute to our security, but undermines it. The Prime Minister, having started the process in St. Malo in 1998, is now incapable of stopping it, or is unwilling to do so.

Which of the two faces of our Prime Minister should we believe? Can we believe the Prime Minister who makes promises to President Bush? Can we believe him when he says that he

"will never put at risk NATO"?

Is he sincere when he says:

"No one wants to see European defence develop inconsistently with NATO"?

That sounds like the promise of the two-timer in the morning, who says, "Of course I love you, darling." It is surely more reliable to study what the Prime Minister actually agrees on paper with his EU counterparts than to trust what he says.

The joint declaration at St. Malo makes only cursory reference to NATO, but it launched

"the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces"

and

"the means to decide to use them."

The Nice summit conclusions of December 2000 reaffirmed the need for

"operational planning for autonomous EU operations".

The Franco-British summit conclusions from Le Touquet in February this year claimed:

"The European Union now has the capacity to . . . conduct operations with or without recourse to NATO assets."

The Secretary of State will tell us today, no doubt, that all this is in the process of being resolved. He will try to convince the House that those words on paper are not what they seem, and that whatever demands the Prime Minister faces, his pro-NATO statements will remain operational. True, the proposal for the construction of a EU military planning HQ at Tervuren in Belgium has been dropped, and the idea of an floating EU military headquarters has disappeared. However, Peter Struck, the German Defence Minister, conceded that no separate EU HQ is necessary, but read carefully all of what he said last week. He added:

"For the time being, I'm in favour of putting it in SHAPE",

so it is just a matter of time.

Listen to what President Chirac is reported as saying in the International Herald Tribune on 22 October when he noted that

"our British friends have reservations about the creation of a planning and operational headquarters . . . But we have decided to pursue this project because we think that there will not be a Europe without a defence capacity."

It is as plain as day that the EU's defence ambitions will not stop at SHAPE. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister for Europe saying from a sedentary position, "It's all been shelved." May I read to him again what Peter Struck said? He said:

"For the time being, I'm in favour of putting it in SHAPE".

If the proposal is put on the shelf, it can be taken off the shelf again. What is written down anywhere to prevent the French and the Germans taking it off the shelf again?

27 Oct 2003 : Column 34

It is as plain as day that the EU's defence ambitions will not stop at SHAPE, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): Can the hon. Gentleman explain why every single NATO member, including our two north American allies, supports a European security and defence policy?

Mr. Jenkin: But they do not support—neither does the Prime Minister—the duplication and competition with NATO to which this policy is leading.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): When I was in Washington last week, I had the chance to talk to members of the Administration about the subject. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—they are seriously alarmed by the text of the draft European constitution, which would allow Europe to go ahead with a European defence, including operational undertakings, without the permission or agreement of our north American allies. They are particularly alarmed that the White Paper issued by the Government does not promise to reverse those parts of the treaty text. My hon. Friend is right that the Government's assurances are completely hollow unless they make it a red line veto issue decisively to change the draft constitution from its present form.

---