Mr.
Francois: One of the problems with these documents is that
they mention many different initiatives in which the UK might be
involved, but often they are not specific about whether or not we are
involved. It would have been helpful if the documents told us that.
That is why I am asking the Minister a number of questions on this
topic. Is
it intended that we will definitely be involved in the European carrier
group interoperability initiative, to give it its correct title, which
is on page 42 of the bundle? If that is so, does that relate to our
current carriers or only to our future carriers, the construction of
which I am afraid to say has been delayed on several
occasions?
Caroline
Flint: I will establish that. My understanding is,
yes— [Interruption.] I was going to say
that I am happy to provide for the Committee a table of those
operations to which we and others are signed up. That will be helpful
to all concerned if I cannot provide chapter and verse today. However,
my understanding is that we are involved, and I will endeavour to find
out some more information on the hon. Gentleman’s second point
about what that means for our carriers.
Mr.
Francois: I thank the Minister for that commitment to
provide a table, but perhaps she will still be able to answer that
question by the end of the sitting. I am grateful for the commitment,
nevertheless, because I am sure that the Committee will find that
information interesting. It would have been even more helpful to have
it in front of us this afternoon.
Page 58 of
the bundle, on EU-NATO relations, mentions
the “theatres
in which the joint organisations are jointly committed”.
The Minister
may know that, under the so-called Berlin Plus agreement of 2002, in
such circumstances, NATO is usually given a right of first refusal.
Will she confirm that, under the documents before us, that still
remains the position?
Caroline
Flint: As I understand it, that is the case. As I outlined
earlier, part of what we are trying to do is to ensure that there is
closer communication between the EU and NATO, so that we avoid
duplication and can be as effective as possible. For example, on the
crisis management and planning directorate’s relationship with
NATO, we support it having a NATO liaison officer, so that we can
better ensure a more structured exchange of information and
co-ordination, and so that we can all do the best that we can, whether
through NATO or the EU.
Mr.
Francois: Page 30 of the bundle states
that “the
Council assessed operation
ALTHEA”— in
Bosnia— “and
approved the recommendations made in the Secretary-General/High
Representative’s six-monthly report on the
operation.”
What were those
recommendations, and can we now see a copy of the report? The Minister
may recall that we have touched on the issue in previous such
Committees, so are the Government now prepared to make available a full
copy of the report?
Caroline
Flint: I will have to seek some advice on
that.
The
Chairman: Given that the hon. Member for Rayleigh is the
only Member who wishes to ask questions, and that he has the
opportunity to speak immediately after the Minister in the debate, it
is time to move to the motion on the Order Paper.
Motion
made, and Question proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 16686/08, French
Presidency Report on European Security and Defence Policy, and No.
17104/08, Report on the Implementation of the European Security
Strategy—Providing Security in a Changing World; welcomes the
French Presidency’s report and the High Commissioner’s
review; and supports the Government’s position that UK and
European security are enhanced by action coordinated at an EU
level.—(Caroline
Flint.) 5.43
pm
Mr.
Francois: Thank you, Mr. Illsley, and thank you
for extending our deliberations for 15 minutes or so to allow us to ask
some further questions. I have some others, and I shall try to
incorporate them into my remarks.
The motion
before the Committee asks us to take note of and welcome two EU
documents—the French presidency’s report and the High
Representative’s report on European security and defence policy
and the implementation of the European security strategy—and to
endorse Government policy, for good measure. Before moving on to the
documents, because the package includes the French EU
presidency’s report, I should like to welcome President
Sarkozy’s decision that means that France will rejoin
NATO’s integrated military command structure. It is an historic
decision that brings one of the EU’s serious military powers
back into the transatlantic alliance’s inner structure. It
should be viewed as a window of opportunity for closer co-operation
inside the NATO alliance and it will also help NATO to prepare for the
challenges of the 21st century. Given the importance of that decision,
I am grateful to have been allowed to place my comments on
record. Turning
to the documents themselves, the first document, the French presidency
report on the European security and defence policy, is a description of
current EU missions, including, among others, Operations ALTHEA in
Bosnia and Atalanta off Somalia, EUPOL in Afghanistan and EULEX in
Kosovo. The document further sets out the EU capabilities envisaged to
meet the needs of those missions, including civilian capabilities and,
importantly, force projection.
Under force
projection, we see a large number of initiatives, including the
establishment of a European airlift fleet and a training programme for
helicopter pilots—I promised that I would mention helicopters
again, Mr. Illsley, and I have kept my word—the
potential for deployment of an EU air base, unmanned air vehicle
capability and initiatives in the field of space and
communications. Page 62 of the bundle invites the current Czech
presidency to develop the headline goals for 2010 and to support the
European Defence Agency.
The second
document—the High Representative’s report, on page 87 of
the bundle—is also important, although of course the documents
generally are important. Page 87 raises a number of further issues,
such as cybersecurity, Iran, climate change and terrorism.
Given the
importance of those issues, I was surprised to read on page 9 of the
bundle that the Government did not deposit the documents, or at least
the European security strategy, before their adoption. It is my
understanding that the scrutiny reserve is designed especially to allow
the House to express its views before adoption, yet in this case, the
Minister has given no compelling reason why that did not happen.
Perhaps she can have one last go at it before she sums
up.
Mr.
Clappison: On the point about ministerial willingness for
documents to be scrutinised before their adoption, is my hon. Friend
aware that the permanent under-secretary committed the Government to
keeping the House and the European Scrutiny Committee more
informed of events in foreign affairs, and that the Foreign
Secretary expressed a commitment to upstream scrutiny of European
documents? How does my hon. Friend think that can be reconciled with
what seems to have happened in this case? The declarations have
appeared and become part of the European corpus without being debated
in the House or scrutinised in any way before
adoption.
Mr.
Francois: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister
seems still to be struggling midstream rather than moving upstream. On
a related point, I note that, like me, the European Scrutiny Committee
found the FCO’s explanatory memorandum not very explanatory. To
use its words on page 9 of the bundle, the explanatory memorandum is
“sketchy”. For instance, the memorandum does not explain
clearly to which initiatives, of a number described in the documents,
the UK has signed up, or any rationale for or against doing
so.
For example,
the memorandum states that 12 states have signed a declaration of
intent to establish a European airlift fleet. The Minister gave a clear
answer: she said that we were involved in the project. If we knew that,
why could the information not have been communicated to the European
Scrutiny Committee? She kindly offered a table, which I have
acknowledged, but why could it not have been made available earlier and
given to the ESC?
On page 77 of
the bundle, in the FCO’s explanatory memo, the Minister refers
to the capabilities headline goals for 2010, which already commit the
EU to providing 60,000 troops at 60 days’ notice. However, the
documents also state that new contributors to the force catalogue have
been announced by some member states. Given the importance of the
document, not least at a time when UK forces are already
overstretched—senior Ministry of Defence members have
effectively admitted as much—I would be grateful if the Minister
explained in her summing up how many of those 60,000 troops are
envisaged to be British. They need not be counted to the last
infantryman, as I said earlier, but roughly how many? Where will they
come from if required?
To reiterate a
point, I should also be grateful if the Minister would let us know
whether the UK is one of the states to have recently committed to the
new contributions referred to in the European Council in December.
Similarly, how many warships have been committed to the headline goals,
and how many aircraft from the Royal Air Force? It has been indicated
that transport aircraft are in the mix to some degree, but it would be
interesting to know whether that applies to fighters, bombers and the
like as well.
Turning to
EULEX, the EU presidency’s report includes a description of the
current EULEX mission to Kosovo. It is an important mission that does
not seek to supplant NATO, and one which we support. When the Committee
last met I was surprised to hear a suggestion from the Minister that
the UK will be scaling down its commitments in Kosovo with regard to
EULEX. The Minister said something about that in her opening remarks. I
wonder if she can expand on that. She is aware of the tensions in the
region and there is a risk that such a move could, in some
circumstances, send the wrong signals. I wonder whether the Minister
can say what the Government’s rationale is, what is the scale of
the change that is envisaged, and what is the timeline? She did touch
on it, but I think that the Committee would be grateful for more
details. Turning
to the European Defence Agency, on page 62 of the bundle, the EU
presidency invites its successor—the Czech presidency—to
support the European Defence Agency in its work. As I indicated
earlier, there is controversy about the legal treaty basis for the EDA.
It has never been formally established as part of a previous treaty,
although it was part of the EU constitution, which is now the treaty of
Lisbon, which is quite specific about the EDA. Some of us feel it is
wrong that the EDA proceeded on the assumption that the treaty would be
ratified when, as we know, it was not, thanks to the sagacious decision
of the Irish to vote it down.
Will the
Minister agree that rather than developing EU defence capabilities to
promote co-operation between EU members, it is more important to our
armed forces to have interoperability with the NATO members they will
be fighting alongside, perhaps in areas such as Afghanistan? Some EU
members are also members of NATO, but it is very important that we
maintain interoperability with our key NATO partners. I would be
interested to hear the Minister’s view on that. We would not
want to be constrained by the EDA in terms of the type of equipment
that we can develop. Traditionally, it has been British policy to want
to source equipment from wherever is most effective for the role of our
armed forces. I hope the Minister can assure us that nothing is being
undertaken with regard to the EDA to fetter that, because some of us
have concerns in that
regard. As
I said, the EDA is formally constituted in the treaty of Lisbon. On
page 101 of the bundle, which deals specifically with the European
security strategy, the High Representative states that in order to
respond to the changing security environment our capacity to address
the challenges must evolve and that
“the provisions
of the Lisbon Treaty provide a framework to achieve
this”. The
treaty does indeed include a number of EU powers, not least in the area
of defence, most of which are included in article 28. However, when we
debated the
defence aspects of the Lisbon treaty in the Committee of the whole House
on 20 February 2008, the timetable for the debate was so limited that
none of the amendments relating to Lisbon on defence were debated. I am
not going to reprise the whole of the debate that we should have had.
Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate that the European security
strategy makes reference to the Lisbon treaty and believes that it
would provide a framework for its implementation. As I am sure all
members of the Committee know, we are firmly opposed to the treaty and
we still believe that the British people should have had a referendum
on
it. The
document asks us to support the defence aspects of the Lisbon treaty,
despite the British people having been denied the referendum that they
were promised by the three parties at the previous election, and
despite the fact that its defence aspects were not—because there
was not time—debated properly in the
House.
Mr.
Clarke: The hon. Gentleman also raised that issue in
questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister. Will he clarify whether
his position is that dissatisfaction with the sections of the Lisbon
treaty dealing with defence means that, should it be ratified, as I
hope it will, the Opposition’s position will be to leave the EU
on that
basis?
Mr.
Francois: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are
committed to membership of the EU. Were the Lisbon treaty to be
ratified without a referendum in Britain, we have said that it would
not enjoy democratic consent and we would not let matters rest
there.
Mr.
Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Francois: No. I have answered the right hon.
Gentleman’s question. He has had his bite of the cherry and will
not get
another.
Mr.
Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
The
Chairman: Order. We are not debating the ratification, or
otherwise, of the Lisbon treaty in any shape or form. We will return to
the documents before the Committee.
Mr.
Francois: I have heard your guidance, Mr.
Illsley, and have been doing these things long enough to take a hint,
but I just want to reiterate that one of our strong concerns is that
the European security strategy appears to recommend the Lisbon treaty
as a framework for its accomplishment, which gives us a real problem
with the Government’s motion. I will finish by telling the right
hon. Member for Norwich, South, who I am sure has read some of the
treaty, that we very much look forward to forming a new group in the
European Parliament after the European elections in June, and if he
likes, I will invite him to the
launch. 5.56
pm
| 
