Formal minutes
Tuesday 4 March 2008
Members present:
Mr James Arbuthnot, in the Chair
| Mr David S Borrow
Mr David Crausby
Linda Gilroy
Mr David Hamilton
Mr Mike Hancock
| | Mr Adam Holloway Robert Key
Mr Bernard Jenkin
Mr Brian Jenkins
John Smith
|
Draft Report (The future of NATO and European defence),
proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph
by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 5 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 6 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 14, after "Alliance" to
insert "becoming more important than NATO in the minds of
many EU members of NATO".—(Mr Bernard Jenkin.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 6
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
John Smith
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 7 to 35 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 36 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, at the end, to add "and the
rising importance of EU defence".—(Mr Bernard Jenkin.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 6
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
John Smith
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 37 to 166 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 167 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, after "capabilities."
to insert "We are concerned that some European nations regard
pooling of resources as a way to avoid spending more money on
defence.".—(Mr Bernard Jenkin.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4 Noes, 6
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Robert Key Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
John Smith
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 168 to 239 read and agreed to.
A paragraph—(Mr Bernard Jenkin)—brought up
and read, as follows:
Under the Lisbon Treaty the European Defence Agency (EDA) is
given treaty status and is granted wide powers.
Under Article 28A (3) the EDA "shall identify operational
requirements" and "shall participate in defining a European
capabilities and armaments policy". Under Article 28D (1b
&c) the EDA is tasked to "promote harmonisation of operational
needs and adoption of effective, compatible procurement methods"
and "to propose multilateral projects". The UK has
no veto either over the decisions defining the Agency's statute
(Article 28D (2)), or over membership of the EDA, or over decisions
of the steering board (Article 9 (2) of the EDA Statute CJA 2004/551/CFSP),
all of which are to be taken by QMV. Article 28D (2) also obligates
the Agency to "carry out its tasks in liaison with the Commission
where necessary". This, together with "leading role
in the Agency's structure" granted to the High Representative
who is also a member of the Commission under the EDA Statute [CJA
2004/551/CFSP, preamble (9)], gives the Commission influence over
the work of the EDA.
Ordered, That the paragraph be read a second time.
Question put, That the paragraph be added to the Report.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 7
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
Robert Key
John Smith
Paragraph disagreed to.
Paragraphs 240 to 243 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 244 read.
Amendment proposed, in lines 22 to 23, to leave out from "The
Defence" to "products" and insert "Recognising
that the EDA has a very limited budget at present, we would be
concerned if the lack of a national veto in EDA led to pressure
for "developing defence capabilities" and "European
armaments cooperation" which excluded interoperability with
the United States, so that, for example, the Defence Procurement
Code became a vehicle for European protectionism by excluding
American products.".—(Mr Bernard Jenkin.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 7
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
Robert Key
John Smith
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 245 to 265 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 266 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 9, after "relations" to
insert "by affirming that key decisions about future EU operations
will be taken and implemented through the Berlin Plus arrangements
rather than unilaterally by the EU".—(Mr Bernard
Jenkin.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4 Noes, 6
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Robert Key Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
John Smith
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 267 to 273 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs—(Mr Bernard Jenkin)—brought up and
read, as follows:
For the foreign secretary to claim that
Permanent Structured Cooperation is "focused solely on developing
EU Member State [military] capability", he must be satisfied
that the PSC does not constitute any kind of obligation on the
UK. The Protocol states:
"member states participating in permanent structured
cooperation shall undertake to.... (b) bring their defence apparatus
into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by
harmonising the identification of their military needs… [and]
(c) take concrete measures to enhance the availability, interoperability,
flexibility and deployability of their forces, in particular by
identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces,
including possibly reviewing their national decision-making procedures."
While decisions within PSC are explicitly by unanimity only,
a Member State which "no longer fulfils the criteria or is
no longer able to meet the commitments" laid out in the Protocol,
members of the PSC may decide by QMV to suspend it [Article 28E
(4)]. This may place great pressure on Member States participating
in QMV to acquiesce to a majority view rather than risk suspension
or expulsion.
The foreign secretary also accepted that "forces could
be deployed under PSC" [Hansard, 20 February 2008 col 381].
If military deployments were agreed within PSC from which a member
state had been excluded, this would amount to their loss of the
veto over key aspects of EU military policy. Moreover, even if
expelled, non-members of PSC remain under obligation to "support
the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly
in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply
with the Union's action in this area….. They shall refrain
from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union
or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international
relations." [Article 11 (3) and (4)] Again, this would
place great pressure on Member States participating in PSC to
acquiesce to a majority view rather than risk being placed in
such a situation.
Along with the incorporation of the European Defence Agency
into the EU structure, governed by QMV and with its formal relationship
with the EU Commission, the powers given to the establishment
of PSC in the Lisbon Treaty provide for flexibility and dynamism
for decision making in EU defence policy which is wholly lacking
in NATO. We would be concerned if this led to further duplication
of NATO functions or threatened the primacy of NATO in UK defence
policy. However, we welcome the Government's assertion that neither
the EDA nor the PSC will undermine NATO.
Ordered, That the paragraphs be read a second time.
Question put, That the paragraphs be added to the Report.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 7
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
Robert Key
John Smith
Paragraphs disagreed to.
Paragraph 274 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 275 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 23, after "matters" to insert
"which are concerns the government expressed in its 2003
submission to the Constitutional Convention opposing the principle
of PSC" ["The UK has made clear that it cannot accept
the proposed ESDP reinforced cooperation provisions. While we
support Member States making higher capability commitments and
co-operating with partners to this end, the approach described
here - a self-selecting inner group - undermine the inclusive,
flexible, model of ESDP that the EU has agreed." Submission
to Constitutional Convention].".—(Mr Bernard Jenkin.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4 Noes, 6
Mr Mike Hancock Mr David S Borrow
Mr Adam Holloway Mr David Crausby
Mr Bernard Jenkin Linda Gilroy
Robert Key Mr David Hamilton
Mr Brian Jenkins
John Smith
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 276 to 282 read and agreed to.
Annexes (List of abbreviations; Committee visits; NATO members
and partner countries; Defence spending by NATO and EU member
states; and Text of the North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949) and
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Ninth Report of the Committee
to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.
Ordered,
That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance
with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing
with the Report, together with written evidence reported and ordered
to be published on 19 June, 11 December and 15 January.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 11 March at 10.00 am.
| 
