Jo
Swinson: The Minister is right that all those areas in
which the Government need to work more closely with other member states
are important. However, my
question was about how the Solana review says that the problems of lack
of co-ordination were identified five years ago and
yet: “Progress
has been slow and incomplete.”
There is good will from
our Government and others in the EU in trying to make this work and to
make the co-ordination happen. Therefore, what are the barriers that
have made progress in this national security priority “slow and
incomplete”?
Caroline
Flint: As I have said, this area is quite difficult. It
involves the work of many organisations not only within the EU, but
outside it. That is why we are working with the EU and why the Czech
presidency is looking at the effectiveness of missions to see what
lessons we can learn for future
improvement. We
have our own national security strategy in this area. The EU security
strategy complements what we are trying to do, which is right. We must
take it off the paper and find the means by which we work best
together. To do so, we must prioritise and constantly look to see what
is working and learn lessons from what is not working. There is a move
to see how strategic planning can be better and how there can be better
co-ordination across the EU, particularly in the Commission. We must
work together to ensure that we can implement the measures necessary to
track down these individuals and bring them to
justice.
Mr.
Clarke: Following the line of questioning from the hon.
Member for East Dunbartonshire and the responses, may I focus on the
situation in the western Balkans, as set out on pages 30 and 31 of the
documents? I say to my right hon. Friend that, developing proper
co-ordination between the EU, NATO, the UN and interior Ministers is
essential in combating drug and people trafficking and in
counter-terrorism. Does she agree that one reason for the failure to
get the necessary co-ordination in the western Balkans, which would
help the security of this country, is the opposition of political
forces that refuse to contemplate the working together that is
essential to make an impact on this appalling attack on the stability
of our
society?
Caroline
Flint: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As a former Home
Secretary, he probably knows as much, if not more, than anyone in this
room about the difficulties in this area. As a Home Office Minister, I
was involved in various bilateral projects with other countries to
tackle organised
crime. My
right hon. Friend is right that one difficulty in the Balkans is that
some politicians do not want to look beyond the issues that divide
communities and focus instead on the bigger picture. There are
differences between the countries in the region. The vast majority of
people living in the western Balkans are very positive about being part
of the European Union family. They see greater prosperity and a more
profound sense of security to protect them from organised crime and
from hostilities breaking out as they have in the
past. When
I meet political representatives from any Balkan country, I emphasise
how important it is for them to see the bigger picture—what can
be achieved for everyone. That is crucial because crime does not
respect boundaries. In the Balkans it can seep across the borders. When
I was in Zagreb not long ago, I was pleased that there was
a conference for Justice Ministers from across the region to talk about
measures they could take to reform their judicial systems to enable
people to get quicker access to justice. There is often a logjam in the
courts, which can make people feel that they do not receive justice and
can result in them losing faith in the justice
system. This
matter is important for families living in the western Balkans, but
ultimately it is important for us. The drugs, people and other
commodities that are trafficked by organised crime end up on the
streets of the
UK.
Mr.
Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I
understand that, under the Standing Orders, it is within your gift to
extend the question session by up to 30 minutes and that we
would lose that time from the subsequent debate. Bearing in mind that
Members are still asking a number of questions—I have a whole
range still to ask, not least about helicopters—and that the
European Scrutiny Committee was so keen that we should debate these
matters, would you extend the question session by half an hour? That
would still leave us an hour for debate. I hope you understand that I
am asking this now because we have only five minutes left of the
question session.
The
Chairman: The hon. Member is absolutely right: the
Chairman does have that discretion, and, at 5.30 pm, I will
decide whether to exercise it. We will continue until that
time.
Mr.
Francois: In that case, Mr. Illsley, I had
better get a question in quickly, just in case. Coming back to the
headline goals, it is stated, on page 41 of the bundle,
that: “new
contributions to the Force Catalogue have been announced by some Member
States”.
Will the Minister tell
us what new contributions there have been, and whether the United
Kingdom has announced that one of those new contributions comes from
the UK? If she cannot answer that now, will she endeavour to address
the original question about our contribution to the headline goals and
whether there has been any recent, new contribution above that? If she
cannot answer that now, will she answer it when she replies to the
debate? I think those are reasonable questions to
ask.
Caroline
Flint: I will try to deal with the question about other
member states and the UK, but let me deal first with what the 60,000
figure means for British troops. The force catalogue is a list of all
the forces that nations are willing, but not committed—I
emphasise that—to provide for EU operations. They are national
forces and will always remain so. On one level, then, we are prepared
to provide all our forces that are suitable for operations within the
EU level of action, but we will decide on a case-by-case basis which
British forces to provide to any particular crisis. We take the same
attitude to our engagement with NATO, the UN or any other coalition or
actionable operation. In that sense, our offer to the EU is no
different.
Those forces
are single-hatted, as national forces, but they can also be
multi-hatted, as we could provide them for an operation run by any
suitable organisation. There
are many organisations in which we provide forces, whether to the UN,
NATO or the EU. Technically, all our forces that are suitable for
operations within the EU level of ambition are there, but we decide in
each case how many to provide. That is why it is quite difficult to
say, on the basis of the 60,000 figure, how many we will provide.
Presumably, if we were to add up the standing armies or forces across
the 27 member states, we would have some idea of how many are
available. I reiterate that it is for us to decide that on a
case-by-case basis, as it is for every other member state. That seems
quite
sensible. Mr.
Francois: I think that answer will bear very careful
reading in the morning, but perhaps the Minister will address my
question about new contributions when she replies to the
debate. On
a related point, page 42 of the bundle mentions a European airlift
fleet that has been signed up to by 12 member states, but,
unless I am mistaken, it does not say which states. Will the Minister
tell us which 12 member states have signed up, and
specifically whether the UK is one of
them?
Caroline
Flint: We are one of them, and, during the debate, I shall
tell the Committee who the other 11
are.
Mr.
Bailey: Given that international problems requiring some
sort of military intervention often occur as a result of problems with
development, poverty or the alienation of particular groups, does the
Minister agree that it is important that the EU, perhaps in conjunction
with other bodies, identifies such areas? Moreover, does she not think
that in the development of the European security strategy, the EU
should target potential areas for development aid to prevent any crises
emerging in the future with all the costs and problems involved in EU
military intervention?
Caroline
Flint: I agree with my hon. Friend that intervening in a
crisis is one thing that we can do, but we should also consider trying
to prevent conflict in the first place. One of the reasons why we are
engaged in the Balkan countries in so many different ways is that we
want to enable them to reform aspects of their societies because that
will put them on a more peaceful, democratic and outward looking
pathway. We are involved in many countries in Europe and elsewhere. We
provide aid bilaterally to many countries around the world. Moreover,
funding that comes from the EU is used both to prevent conflict and,
where there has been conflict, to sustain the peace. Such hard and soft
matters, as they have been described, are very important.
In
Afghanistan, we have seen that work is needed to reduce the violence in
the country, to put it on a stable footing, to police it and to develop
a rule of law. Developmental funds are needed to support people into a
more prosperous way of life and encourage them away from producing
crops of poppy for opium. That is all part and parcel of trying to have
a sustainable outlook. We can go into a conflict situation, but
securing peace and stability is a much longer mission. The EU
recognises that—as do we. We could always do such work better,
and things do not always work as well as we might like them to.
Sometimes, there are problems with the way in which different
approaches are implemented on the ground, but the principle is a good
one and we will continue to support it. The
Chairman: Order. We have now come to the end of the
allotted time for questions, but as there are several Members who are
still trying to catch my eye, I will use my discretion to extend
question time for a short period
further. Mr.
Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): What a
pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Illsley. May I refer the Minister to the EU police mission in the
Palestinian territories. In paragraph 47, it
says: “The
Mission has started to draft its strategy for assisting the Palestinian
courts and the prison sector. This document should be finalised by the
beginning of
2009.” Will
the Minister tell me whether that document has been finalised and if
so, where will we find a copy of it?
Paragraph
48 says that after a fact-finding mission in
2008, “evaluations
in the field have been launched with a view to a possible expansion of
the EUPOL COPPS mandate at the beginning of
2009”. Has
that review now been finalised and has there been an expansion of the
police Mission
mandate?
Caroline
Flint: One key recent achievement has been the expansion
of the mission’s rule of law section, which focuses on
police-related criminal justice issues. That was an area in which it
was felt that the mission could do more. A detailed assessment of the
criminal justice system was produced in January, and it is now working
on an action plan. I am not sure whether that ties in with the hon.
Gentleman’s question. I am happy to look into the matter and
find some more detail on that and the other matters that he has
raised.
Jo
Swinson: I want to ask the Minister about arms control,
which has a huge impact on security in the EU and beyond. In
particular, what assessment has she made of the effectiveness of the EU
conduct on arms control? It seems to me that the policy has been broken
on numerous occasions, and yet no measures have been taken to enforce
it.
Caroline
Flint: We fully endorse the EU’s continuing strong
support for a global legally binding arms trade treaty. We have been
encouraged by some of the progress that we have been able to make
through the UN
process. Regional
seminars were authorised by the Council in January, the idea being that
those will help considerably in raising global awareness of the need to
regulate the responsible trade in arms through an arms trade treaty.
Agreeing a single, uniform, globally agreed set of export control
standards will stop irresponsible traders exploiting the gaps between
export control systems, thus starving illicit arms traffickers of
weapons and conflict and, in doing so, save many lives. That will also
prevent the conflict that undermines development and democracy, which
is linked to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West
Bromwich, West. We in the EU are
working together to promote a system of global high standards in arms
export controls. Some work was undertaken earlier this year and that is
feeding into the
process. Jo
Swinson: Further to that point, the UK is a signatory to
the EU code of conduct on arms control, which says that member states
will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the
proposed export might be used for internal repression. Although it is
right that we in the UK should encourage other countries to adopt
higher standards, in preaching to other countries should not the
Government also get their own house in order first? In the first
quarter of 2008, the UK exported nearly £19 million-worth of
weapons to Israel, some of which, one must imagine, were used in the
internal repression in Gaza at the start of this year. What efforts and
changes will the Government make to ensure that they take into account
fully the human rights abuses that may occur as a result of UK arms
sales to other
countries?
Caroline
Flint: I am pleased that, over a number of years, we have
looked at how we should tighten up controls on arms exports. That is
something that we should be pretty proud of. As my right hon. Friend
the Foreign Secretary has said in recent debates on this matter, we are
unaware that any of the weapons that we have exported to Israel have
been used for repression. Clearly, we would not want that to be so. I
think that my right hon. Friend has stated that in the House on a
number of
occasions.
Mr.
Bailey: Further developing the theme of conflict
prevention in more troubled areas of the world, does my right hon.
Friend agree that, given the experience that EU forces have developed
in different parts of the world, they could potentially play a valuable
role with other organisations, including the African Union and the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in developing their own
capability in respect of conflict
prevention?
Caroline
Flint: Yes, that is a good idea. Lessons that can be
learned from anything that we do, including when things have worked
well and when they have not, are all useful. As I indicated in my
opening contribution, the Czech presidency has already begun reviews of
some missions in three areas, which are informing the EU internally on
what we should learn and how we should do things in future. I note my
hon. Friend’s point. It might be about what we share with other
countries, particularly organisations such as the African Union, and
about what we can do in these
areas. One
of the experiences of the EU being involved in various civilian and
military missions is that often we are not the only organisation on the
ground. Therefore, we will often share with other organisations playing
different roles how we do things. They will see how we do things from
an EU perspective, and vice versa. I hope that that has informed what
we can do and what we can
achieve. Let
us not forget what happens in many areas, particularly on the civilian
front. For example, we have brought a number of Iraqi police officers
to this country as part of our contribution to their training, so that
they can
prepare for law enforcement in Iraq in a way that is respected and
trusted. That is a major contribution that is really sustainable for
Iraqis of this generation and generations in the
future. | 
