Mr.
Cash: On a point of order, Mrs. Dean. I notice
that in the Government’s description of the situation, it says
that the French presidency has the goal of obtaining a first reading
deal between the Council and the European Parliament by the end of the
year. Those of us who are familiar with such things know that it means
that they are fast-tracking the matter to obtain a decision under the
co-decision procedures, the effect of which would be largely to bypass
the Westminster Parliament. That would be the net result of using that
procedure, which is being used
increasingly—
The
Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. I will now
rule on the issue that has been raised. I am mindful that it was
referred to the Committee by the European Scrutiny Committee, and not
by the Government. The Minister has set out the position regarding the
document and although I understand the points raised by hon. Members, I
am not prepared, on the basis of the exchanges that I have heard, to
allow a dilatory motion to be moved. We shall now return to questions
to the
Minister.
Dr.
Murrison: We were talking about directive conflicts before
we were diverted, and I was going to ask the Minister about NATO. The
stated aim of the directive is to harmonise defence procurement
arrangements across the European Union, but there is precious little
mention of NATO in the documents before us. What conclusions has the
Minister drawn from the apparent airbrushing of the organisation that,
unlike the nascent military agencies of the European Union, keeps
Europe safe and
secure?
Mr.
Davies: I am
tempted— [Interruption.] Well, it may be, as
a matter of fact. I am tempted to respond to the Eurosceptics on the
other side of the House who are so paranoid about the EU by saying that
if a Commission document had mentioned NATO, they probably would have
said that it was an impertinence and that NATO had absolutely nothing
to do with the EU.
May
I respond to the pragmatic and practical issues that have been raised?
The directive is designed to address a situation in which there is a
single market with a public procurement directive that is valid
for all sectors of economic activity outside the defence
procurement area. It follows that it is necessary to provide a special
regime for security and defence equipment in the single market and
therefore to provide explicit
derogations. Clearly,
NATO countries that are not part of the EU are not part of the single
market; at least, they are not part of the decision-making structure,
even if they may benefit from the single market in various ways. It
follows that it would be not only inappropriate, in the sense that the
EU has no jurisdiction over countries that are not members of the EU,
but pragmatically absurd to try to extend the directive to countries
that are not formally part of the single
market.
Mr.
Jenkin: I return, therefore, to the security question,
from which the Minister has not excluded intervention by the European
Court of Justice—perfectly properly, because that opening exists
in the draft directive. Can he read to the Committee the change of
wording in the documents that we do not have before us that explains
why he is now reassured on what was a key concern of the Government, so
that we can understand more fully the
situation?
Mr.
Davies: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, as he
has already misquoted me once in these proceedings, I do not want him
to misunderstand me again. I made it absolutely clear that it is always
possible for the Commission to ask the European Court of Justice to
look at a particular issue, but I have not in any way suggested that
that is remotely likely to happen in this case. I believe that I said
there was not even a one in 10 billion chance. Therefore, he has
absolutely no authority to leave this Committee and say that I am
raising the possibility, danger or risk of that
happening. As
for reading out the differences between the two drafts, that might seem
at first sight like a good way of resolving the problem, but it would
not help. First, the exercise would be extremely long and tedious.
Secondly, I cannot read out certain bits of the incremental wording but
not other bits without giving the hon. Gentleman a distorted
picture. The
only sensible solution is for me to write to all members of the
Committee as soon as I can and provide the latest text that I have. If
I write next week, there may be a new text that might be more helpful
to the Committee than the text I have before me now. That was the point
that I made earlier, and it is germane to the way in which we deal with
fast-moving, decision-making
issues.
Dr.
Murrison: May I press the Minister on security of supply,
in particular, what I believe is article 15 of the document that we are
debating today, although I cannot be entirely sure, of course, because
the up-to-date document may have it as article 16, 17 or 18 if other
articles have been added? We are left to
guess. It
is all very well letting a contract in another country, but if that
country’s Government then decide to withhold an export licence,
we lose our security of supply. Article 15
apparently guarantees that security of supply will constitute legitimate
grounds for seeking a derogation, but Britain has had its fingers
burned in the past when relying on those in the EU who style themselves
allies. I note the case of the Belgian Government, who declined an
export licence for ammunition during a time of tension; namely, the
first Gulf war. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will not
accept any filleting of article 15 by the European Parliament, as it
would reduce our ability to insist on robust security of
supply? Mr.
Davies: The hon. Gentleman should know that there has been
a great deal of discussion on this matter and that we have made several
proposals, which we hope will be accepted by our partners. I cannot
predict what the European Parliament will come up with, but we will do
our best. He is aware that we have a problem always with qualified
majority voting. It is a great priority of ours to get an acceptable
solution for security of supply. He rightly said that that is
enormously important to us. As I said earlier, we are reasonably
optimistic and shall continue to work very carefully on the issue. The
directive, of course, leaves it to member states to satisfy themselves
on security of supply and does not prescribe the methodology to be
adopted. We believe that that is the right
position.
Dr.
Murrison: I thank the Minister for that useful response.
He mentioned QMV, and I am pleased that he pre-empted my next question,
which was to ask what guarantee he will get that a clause will not be
forthcoming in the European Parliament that would do just
that—namely, fillet article 15 to our great disadvantage, given
our previous experience? Does he agree that history is a guide to the
future, and that the UK might decline to entertain tenders from
countries that have proved themselves to be unreliable—if I can
put it like that? Would that be one of the safeguards that he just
described?
Mr.
Davies: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who
earlier was expressing concerns about reciprocity, now seems in favour
of a particularly radical form of reciprocity—in other words,
taking revenge on people who did not supply us in the past. My answer
to his question is, “No
way!”
Dr.
Murrison: To be clear, I refute the Minister’s
last, rather snide point. The Belgian Government denied an export
licence for munitions during the first Gulf war. Does he not learn the
lessons of the
past?
Mr.
Davies: Indeed, we do, and I hope that this directive will
make it impossible for such a situation to arise again. Perhaps I
misheard the hon. Gentleman—no doubt the record will make it
clear—but I thought that he was suggesting that we should take
reprisal measures for that particular act. I rejected that
suggestion.
Dr.
Murrison: Would the Minister like to read Hansard
tomorrow morning—we most certainly will—and perhaps
correct the rather pejorative terms that he used, especially
“reprisal”?
Mr.
Davies: I am very happy to read Hansard tomorrow
morning, and will be interested to see whether my understanding of what
he said was correct.
Dr.
Murrison: On procurement during military operations, as we
understand it—the version of the directive that I have seen
makes this reasonably clear, I think—in the event of operations
outwith the EU, there will be a derogation in respect of local
suppliers. In other words, local suppliers could supply a member state
without transgressing the directive. Has the Minister considered the
situation in respect of conflicts within EU borders? Given that it is
expanding rapidly and that some of the recently acquired member states
are perhaps less stable than our own—some of the situations in
those areas are quite challenging—perhaps confining that
derogation to the boundaries of the EU might not be wise. What
provision will he make perhaps to erase that particular qualification,
given that in the future it might be expedient to have such a
derogation for operations within the
EU?
Mr.
Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind me
laughing rather visibly, because clearly his proposal is utterly
absurd. If I had time, I would be tempted to lecture him on the history
and purpose of the EU. It has been a vehicle for peace and has resolved
endless territorial disputes over which blood has been shed down the
centuries. One thinks of Alsace-Lorraine, the Alto Adige and
Transylvania. Those matters have been resolved as a result of the
creation of the
EU.
Dr.
Murrison: It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask
the Minister. I was trying to be helpful by simply putting to him the
case that, in the event of a conflict in which the military were
involved within the European Union—if he has a crystal ball, I
wish he would lend it to me, because sadly I do not have one—it
is more than possible, given the situation in the world today, that we
might be engaged in operations within the
EU.
The
Chairman: Order. Will you come to the question, Dr.
Murrison?
Dr.
Murrison: I will, Mrs. Dean. I suggest that it
might be helpful to remove the qualification on this perfectly sensible
clause that it should apply only outwith the boundaries of the European
Union. It was not meant to be an argumentative point at all, and
frankly, I do not need a lecture in European history from the
Minister.
Mr.
Davies: The hon. Gentleman is very badly in need of a
lecture from someone on European history, and those on the Conservative
Front Bench, no less, have displayed the most extraordinary attitude of
mind this evening by actually thinking that we might be declaring war
on another member of the European Union. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman
dreams of somehow restarting the 100 years
war.
The
Chairman: Order. May I clarify that there should be
questions?
Dr.
Murrison: I shall put it in the form of a question so that
the Minister can understand it. Does the Minister understand that in no
way is anyone proposing that one member of the European Union will wage
war on another? I would have thought that he could understand that.
Could he not? My point is that the British military and other member
states are involved in operations of
various sorts within Europe, and it is quite
possible that the derogation that has been put in the directive might
be found restrictive. That is all that I am saying, so will he please
retract the suggestion of insanity that he is imputing to the
Conservative Front Bench by suggesting that we might want to wage
war?
Mr.
Davies: The hon. Gentleman is talking about operations,
and in this context I take it that he means military operations, within
the European Union. I repeat that I have never before heard such an
absurd thing said in the House. The answer to his question is simply
that we do not envisage any such possibility, and there is no reason
whatsoever to legislate for it. The directive provides for urgent
procedures anywhere. If we were engaged in an operation near to the
European Union and it became necessary to procure certain items
locally, and most efficiently, from within the nearest member state, we
could use the urgent procedure provision set out in article
20.
Dr.
Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out
article 20, but I am not clear to which article 20 he refers and in
which document it can be found, so he finds me at a disadvantage. Let
me be clear that we are not talking about war fighting. This country is
involved in a variety of military operations around the world, and it
is possible that we will again be involved in peacekeeping and
humanitarian operations in Europe. In the event that the European Union
was attacked by a neighbour, we would have to mount defensive
operations, and I thought that that was fairly clear. Will the Minister
please reflect on some of the remarks he has made in response to what
was meant as a helpful suggestion to make the legislation ever so
slightly and incrementally
better?
Mr.
Davies: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is
retreating rapidly. He is now talking about military conflict that
results from a territorial attack on the European Union, whereas he had
been talking about military operations—there is no doubt that I
heard him correctly—conducted within the European Union, which
is quite a different
matter.
Dr.
Murrison: I will not prolong this point, you will be happy
to learn, Mrs. Dean, but I think that the Minister is guilty
of indulging in semantics. Perhaps he might reflect on his
understanding of the words “operation” and
“military” and look at Hansard tomorrow, and I
will be perfectly happy to have his second apology of the day
then.
Mr.
Davies: I cannot conceive of anything that I have said in
the last exchange that could possibly call for an apology on my part. I
would be delighted to repeat every answer that I have given to the hon.
Gentleman, had I the time to do so.
Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 16488/07 and
Addenda 1 and 2, draft Directive on the co-ordination procedures for
the award of public contract in the fields of defence and security; and
endorses the Government's approach to the negotiations and its view
that if, following European Council agreement on a text and
negotiations with the European Parliament, the document remains within
the UK's negotiating position, the Commission draft Directive could be
supported.—[Mr. Quentin
Davies.]
6.10
pm
Dr.
Murrison: At this point, perhaps we might just calm down.
We have had a useful debate, during which we have asked a large number
of questions and had some answers. I am grateful for the extension of
the question time, Mrs. Dean. I am grateful particularly to
the civil servants for those answers, which have helped us to fill in
the holes in the great pack of stuff that we have been provided with to
inwardly digest. I am still struggling to work out what we have been
debating, because we have not had the document that the Minister
clearly had in front of him—we remain at a distinct
disadvantage. Nevertheless, we have got some answers and for that we
should be
grateful. The
stated ambition of the directive is to harmonise defence procurement
across the European Union. NATO has kept us safe for 60 years
and—God willing and providing the European Union and
supranational institutions do not mess it up—it will keep us
safe for another 60 years. We have not had any explanation today about
how NATO and the European Union will work together. The United Kingdom
is a truly great European nation that punches well above its weight in
terms of defence, the industrial base and research and development. It
is difficult to see what contribution to European defence will be made
by the sorts of institutions that produce much of the literature that
we have been debating
today. The
European Union has not put a single boot on the ground, a single
gunboat into the sea or a single aircraft in the air. However, it is
quite good at line diagrams, crossing and criss-crossing with NATO. It
is also good at flag waving—it likes to do things that obviously
have something in it for the EU—although that is not necessarily
to do with defence, but to do with presentation. That calls to mind,
particularly, its intention, as we understand it, to send a flotilla to
the east coast of Africa to work in parallel with NATO and the
Americans in that theatre. It seems to be form rather than function
that inspires the way that the EU thinks about defence. We also hear
about ambitions to participate in central Africa. We will have to watch
that project with interest. However, all the while it seems that the
European Union is trying to establish for itself a defence
identity. The
European Defence Agency offers us no tactical strategic or
technological advantage that NATO bilateral or multilateral
arrangements and the UK industrial base do not already provide. We must
note that the EDA and the European defence and security policy have not
added significantly or, I would argue, at all to the sharp end of
European security. Britain does not have precisely the same interests
as other EU countries. Indeed, the overlap is not very great at all.
How can anyone who has taken any interest in world events in recent
years doubt that? In operations past and present it is not France and
Germany—least of all the Belgians and the Spanish—that
have stood shoulder to shoulder with the British armed forces, but the
Americans. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex was right to
underscore that central truth. It follows that interoperability with
the US should be our principle
concern. Let
me make it quite clear for the record that we Conservatives do not
believe that the European Commission and Europe’s supranational
institutions should have
any defence competency. That is not its function, in
our opinion. The EU has shown how incompetent it is in this
respect. At a time when
we are struggling to put an army on the ground in Afghanistan, we have
to ask what the EDA’s priorities are. We know full well from
today’s debate that the EDA’s priority is the
harmonisation of defence procurement encapsulated in the latest
directive, whichever version one wishes to take. I have two tests for
the directive: first, the extent to which it will help to erode
appropriate sovereignty as defined in the Government’s DIS; and
secondly, whether it will benefit the UK's industrial base. Since
industry overall appears agnostic—the Minister has not cited any
examples of industry queuing up to support the measure—and the
Minister in the other place has said that SMEs will not be helped by
the directive, the measure fails the second test. I am not prepared to
take a risk with the first one, and will consequently invite my hon.
Friends to resist the
motion. 6.16
pm
| 
