Caroline
Flint: I have read some of it but not all of it.
Caroline
Flint: I have been briefed on some of
it.
Mr.
Francois: That is an extraordinary answer. The Minister
for Europe has not read all of the Lisbon treaty. That is an absolutely
extraordinary revelation. It is a bit like the Irish Prime Minister
saying that he had not read it before the referendum. That is an
incredible answer. If she is Minister for Europe, why has she not read
the treaty?
The
Chairman: Order. The Lisbon treaty is not entirely
relevant to the documents under debate.
Mr.
Francois: With respect, it is mentioned a number of times
in the documents.
The
Chairman: It is related, but it is not the document under
debate this afternoon. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in
mind.
Caroline
Flint: The Lisbon treaty’s mutual assistance
clause, article (1)49, is in accordance with article 51 of the UN
charter, which states that countries
have “the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed
attack
occurs”, and
as such—
Mr.
Francois: You are supposed to be Minister for Europe; how
can you not have read the
treaty?
Caroline
Flint: As such, they may come to each other’s
assistance in the face of armed aggression on their territory. Article
1(49) reflects the reality that EU member states would wish to come to
the aid of other member states in the unlikely event that they were the
victim of armed aggression on their territory.
The mutual
assistance clause does not imply the development of an EU collective
defence organisation to rival NATO. Any obligation to provide
assistance falls on individual member states, not the institutions of
the EU. The European Scrutiny Committee report recognises that
position. We accept, however, that we would, under the Lisbon treaty,
have an obligation to come to the aid of another EU member state in the
specific circumstance that it suffered an armed aggression on its
territory. The judgment of
what “all
the means in their
power” involves
in practical terms is for the UK Government and Parliament to decide,
according to the specific circumstances of the time.
The treaty
recognises that NATO will remain the foundation of collective defence
for its European members and the forum for its implementation.
Therefore, the Lisbon treaty retains the clear requirement that any
move to a common European Union defence would require two conditions to
be met, just as in the current treaty on European Union. First, such a
move will be made
only “when
the European Council acting unanimously so
decides”. We
retain a veto over any such a decision. That is a rather more expansive
answer, but basically in line with what I said
before.
Jo
Swinson: I would like to question the Minister on conflict
prevention, which is mentioned in the presidency report. The strategy
is understandably very much concerned with weapons of mass destruction
and their proliferation. I was pleased to see that, although the
strategy itself does not mention small and light weapons, the
presidency report does, talking about an update on the implementation
of the European strategy to combat SALW. Given that SALW kill far more
people than WMD—it is estimated that more than 300,000 are
killed by these weapons every year and 1 million are
injured—does the Minister think that their inclusion in the
presidency report indicates that the EU is starting to recognise this
as more of an issue, alongside WMD? Does she believe that SALW should
be listed in the strategy, alongside non-proliferation of WMD, as a key
security issue that the EU needs to address as a matter of
urgency?
Caroline
Flint: The answer is, pretty much, yes. We fully support
the EU small arms and light weapons strategy and remain committed to
the full implementation of the EU-UN programme of action to prevent,
combat and eradicate the illicit trade in these arms. Our goal is to
reduce the threat to peace, security and development posed by the
uncontrolled spread and accumulation of these weapons. Therefore, it is
absolutely right that they should have a place in the discussions on
arms proliferation. These weapons can be destabilising within countries
and also cross borders. In addition to our work through the EU, the UK
has provided more than £31 million since 2001 in support of
measures to reduce the supply, demand and availability of these weapons
as part of our overall contribution towards maintaining global peace
and security. Again, we welcome this move from the EU, but we of course
need to see how it progresses and what can be
achieved.
Mr.
Clappison: I hope that this question is in order. The
issue that it deals with—the three declarations—is
contained in the documents, Mr. Illsley, and the hon. Member
for West Bromwich, West did make reference to it in his opening speech,
as did the Minister. Can the Minister tell us whether the three
declarations in the document—on strengthening capabilities, the
enhancement of ESDP and strengthening international security—are
binding?
Caroline
Flint: No. I think I said that earlier in my opening
remarks.
Mr.
Francois: The documents refer on a number of occasions to
the European Defence Agency, which has already been set up. What is the
legal, treaty basis under which it was
created?
Caroline
Flint: I will seek to answer that point
shortly.
Mr.
Francois: The EDA is referred to a number of times. What
lies behind the question is some controversy about the fact that the
EDA was set up without a formal treaty base. Can the Minister explain
the Government’s position on
that?
Caroline
Flint: Clearly, our support for the EU security defence
policy is not about supporting a European army but about providing
support where we can collectively come together and have an impact on
security and defence issues. To that end, we support the activities we
have undertaken with the European Union and would seek to do more. We
do not see that as being in conflict with anything we might do
nationally, so we do not see the problems that the hon. Gentleman seems
to be suggesting in relation to some of the structures and other
elements that have been set up but are not operational. Operation stays
with member states when they take part. Strategically, they need to
have better planning and coherent submissions that we undertake and
take part
in.
Mr.
Francois: There is a lesson for the Minister here. If she
is going to come before a Committee, she should do her homework. After
all that boilerplate, can she just tell us under what basis this
organisation of which Britain is now a member was
created?
Caroline
Flint: I think it is the Nice treaty that we work under,
in terms of the European Union. If we go to Lisbon, we will be under
the Lisbon treaty. That is the treaty that is being reformed and
amended. That is how the EU operates.
Mr.
Francois: The Minister is quite right that the
Lisbon treaty—which I have read—formally constitutes the
European Defence Agency, but is she saying that the EDA was constituted
under the treaty of Nice, because I am not sure that that is
correct?
Caroline
Flint: I will verify that fact for the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Clappison: The secretary-general—the High
Representative—is to present a report to the Council in May on
planning for EU-led operations at strategic level. Have the Government
received a draft copy of that
report?
Caroline
Flint: I have not seen a copy of that report. I
can check whether it has gone through
officials.
Mr.
Clappison: Will the Minister say a few words on how that
planning structure will stand in relation to
NATO?
Caroline
Flint: In relation to the EU’s ability to do its
job better, the idea is that the newly set-up crisis management
planning directorate will enable us to see how we can make missions the
best value for money possible, get better coherence and avoid
unnecessary duplication with other partners such as NATO and the UN.
That
has developed pretty well over the last few years in relation to these
activities and it is something that we want to continue to support. The
ESDP is not in competition with what we do in NATO. It is there to add
value in different ways. Sometimes there are simultaneous NATO and EU
operations in countries. Therefore, I hope that all hon. Members would
agree that it would be common sense for there to be greater
understanding of what different missions are doing so that commanders
on the ground can work together to ensure that they are effective. That
discussion has got pretty much full support all round and I hope that
it would be welcomed in this House. My understanding is that NATO
welcomes greater clarification and coherence in this matter. All the
efforts to improve civilian planning and capability, crisis management
and planning and so forth are aimed at trying to achieve
that.
Mr.
Francois: On page 84 of our bundle, in her letter to the
Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister states that
the so-called 2010 headline goals allow for 60,000 troops to be
deployable within 60 days. How many of those 60,000 troops
are British and which units are they drawn from or earmarked to come
from? Are any of them also double-hatted in any other NATO or solely UK
role?
Caroline
Flint: This and some of the other measures in the
declaration are about thinking through how we can respond to different
threats. As far as I am aware there is no precise measurement of how
many of those 60,000 the UK would provide, because we respond to
situations on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, there are discussions
about how we can meet that capability and what standard of readiness is
required. I would have to look further at double-hatting. Again, part
of the capability is to look at what we should be able to do. For
example, we have worked with the French on funding for helicopters. In
some of the conflict countries helicopters are often a suitable piece
of equipment to transport people in and out and to do the job. That is
an area where I understand that we have been particularly successful in
building the fund and therefore ensuring that we are capable of
providing, at pretty short notice, the type of equipment that might be
needed, including helicopters. Again, that is something that is being
worked through by the various structures that look at the potential
demands and needs in this
area.
Mr.
Francois: I understand the point about helicopters. In
fact, I will come to that. However, I want to make a point about
troops. I would not expect the Minister to know the details down to the
last infantry section—in all fairness, I do not expect her to
give me an absolutely precise number—but in broad terms are we
talking about a battalion, a regiment, a brigade? What is the
approximate size of the UK force that it is envisaged will contribute
to that headline goal of
60,000?
Caroline
Flint: As I have already said, I do not want to give a
figure here when I have clearly said that it is something on which I
will provide more detail later, should it become available. I do not
think that 27 member states have been asked to provide that
amount of detail,
but I stand to be corrected. I will try to provide a clearer
answer to that question before the end of the
debate.
Jo
Swinson: I want to look at the section on terrorism and
organised crime, particularly in the Solana review, which is on page
94. I found the section slightly unbalanced because the vast majority
of it was on terrorism. Although Europe undoubtedly faces great
challenges from terrorism, organised crime is of equal concern,
particularly when many of the day-to-day problems facing our
constituents—the drugs on our streets, the trafficking of people
into the sex trade in this country and the proliferation of weapons
within our communities—are often the result of organised
crime.
I would like
to hear the Minister’s view on whether organised crime is being
given enough priority within the European Union, with particular regard
to a paragraph on page 95, which talks about the need for better
co-ordination on these issues. It says in
conclusion: “Progress
has been slow and
incomplete.” I
am interested to hear what the Minister thinks the barriers have been
to better co-ordination on terrorism and organised crime, and also what
she thinks might be done to address those issues, because they are
clearly vital for everyone in the country and
beyond.
Caroline
Flint: The hon. Lady is right to draw some links between
terrorist activity and organised crime, because I am afraid that, as we
are only too well aware, the funding of terrorist activities can often
involve that type of criminal activity.
We are
looking at a number of things, such as how we might develop closer
co-ordination on criminal matters through the sharing of information
between European authorities, especially where there is a link to
terrorist financing. We are also looking at how we can step up
co-operation on counter-terrorism technical assistance overseas,
particularly in Pakistan and the Sahel region, which are facing an
increased terrorist threat that directly threatens EU
interests. Most
recently, it has been agreed, at either a General Affairs and External
Relations Council or another council, that, on Afghanistan, we should
be looking at matters much more regionally, in terms of the impact in
Pakistan, and we have been considering some of the obvious joint work
that needs to be done in both countries.
We recognise
that we need to ensure that all member states have a broader and deeper
understanding of the threat of terrorism. However, they also need to
understand where organised crime fits into that picture. Therefore, we
are looking at how we can work better in this area and make the
necessary links. That is not always easy, because, as the hon. Lady
will recognise, sharing of information in these areas is obviously
hugely important and the more information we share, the more risks we
may open ourselves up to. Nevertheless, that is something that we are
trying to work through as we examine the different ways that we work
together across the European Union.
| 
