Mr.
Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend in
the debate, which is lively for a European Committee. I will say one
thing at the outset that might find common ground across the
Committee—none of
us has yet made this point, but we should. British servicemen and women
and civilians, as well as other Europeans and members of other nations,
are taking part in the missions described in the documents, and I am
sure that members of the Committee, whatever their view of the
framework in which that takes place, will want to take the opportunity
to pay tribute to those people, their endeavours and what they are
undoubtedly achieving in some parts of the world. That can be said
without prejudice to any view one has on how that has all come about.
Whatever one’s views on the political background, that should
not detract from the contribution those servicemen and women and
civilians are
making.
Mr.
Francois: I would like briefly to endorse everything my
hon. Friend has just said. In a non-partisan spirit, I would like to
say that I remember seeing the right hon. Member for Norwich, South at
a parade in his constituency when the Royal Anglians came back from
Afghanistan. He was there to welcome them back, and he knows that I was
in the crowd. I am sure that there is cross-party support for what my
hon. Friend has rightly said.
Mr.
Clappison: I will now come to the partisan part of my
speech, having made that non-partisan observation. When one sees the
range of missions the EU is undertaking—I think that there are
16 in total—one is tempted to ask what this is all about
and why the EU is apparently so shy of talking about what it is all
about. In answer to the right hon. Member for Norwich, South, whom I am
sure makes a powerful case on those matters, the fact is that we do not
often have the opportunity to hear that case being made, because there
is so little discussion of what is taking place in European security
and defence policy, both publicly and in this House. The concerns of
the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee were well founded in
that regard, because we should bear it in mind that we are debating a
review of the European security strategy, a report of the French
presidency and three important declarations. I will take the
Minister’s definitive judgment that they are not legally
binding, but they are certainly morally binding, because they set out
what this country is expected to do in defence in several important
respects, in terms of capability and measures to be
taken. All
those matters and documents have already been agreed—they were
agreed when they came before the Council in December. Today we are
debating something that has already been agreed, and regardless of the
effect the documents will have or whether they are binding, they
already have that effect. In this debate, we can in no way, shape or
form influence the Government’s thinking on those matters, draw
them to public attention or contribute to a wider debate, because
agreement has already been
reached. This
is not the first time that that has happened in a scrutiny Committee.
It is a bit like having a debate about Bills after they have become
Acts of Parliament and taken legal effect—in other words,
starting to debate their details after they were rubber-stamped in the
first place. That makes a mockery of what Parliament is supposed to be
about, which is scrutinising the work of the Executive and the
commitments that they are entering into on behalf of this country. We
are debating something
that has already taken effect. Why is everything accomplished in this
way? Why, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh
rightly said, was there so little debate about European security and
defence policy when the treaty of Lisbon was debated in the House? Why
was there not a referendum, in which the right hon. Member for Norwich,
South and other Members could have made their case and tried to
persuade public opinion? Why did we not hear anything about
it? We
have heard talk about how the whole issue goes back to the St. Malo
declaration, which is quite right. That declaration is probably the
starting point, if we are forming a view of what this is really all
about and where it is leading. What we are debating today has to be
seen against the background of the provisions of the St.
Malo treaty, which required this country to enter into a commitment
that the European
Union “must
have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military
forces, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so in
order to respond to international
crises.” That
was an important commitment for this country to
take. What
is also interesting is that the manifesto on which the party that
entered into that commitment stood in 1997 made no mention whatsoever
of any such commitment or any developments in the European field.
However, that significant development was entered into at St. Malo in
1998. Since then we have seen what can only be described as mission
creep on behalf of the European Union—I sometimes think that
mission creep is in the DNA of the European Union. We have seen various
missions of an increasing number: civilian missions at first, then
civilian-military missions, then purely military missions, as in the
case of the operations taking place off the coast of Somalia. They are
all no doubt part and parcel of the process initiated at St. Malo. Inch
by inch, step by step, the European Union is developing the capacity
for autonomous military action and taking every opportunity to deepen
integration. A
particularly important step taken in the documents before us is in the
provisions for the establishment of a joint civilian-military
strategic-level planning structure, which has been on the agenda of a
number of other European Union countries for some time—since at
least 2003. I am not so sure that it has always been on the agenda of
Her Majesty’s Government, and the present Government have on
previous occasions circulated a discussion document on the European
Union that did not regard that prospect warmly at all. However, we now
seem to have this civilian-military planning structure, which is what
was wanted by other members of the European Union. It is taking us a
step further toward the creation of the capability for autonomous
European Union action, which many political leaders in the European
Union are much more explicit about than the political leadership of
this country—certainly the present leadership—and see
very much in terms of movement towards a common European defence. That
commitment was long ago entered into, but it has been deepened by the
treaty of Lisbon and by the formation of a European Union army, is
explicitly talked about in other countries and by the leadership of
other countries, but was never mentioned in this
country. It
is impossible not to see the developments that we are discussing today
against that general background, or the matters contained in the treaty
of Lisbon—the
new commitments entered into—which organisations such as the
joint military-civilian planning capability mentioned in the documents
have to be seen as part of. There is the new mutual defence commitment.
The Minister was eventually quite right in her analysis, but she must
face the fact that it is an obligation—there is no doubt about
that—which has as much force as any other obligation that this
country has ever entered into by way of a military pact or alliance,
including NATO. That point is relevant, because the document under
discussion
states: “If
a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the
other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and
assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article
51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member
States.” As
the Minister said, we ultimately have the option of whether or not we
go along with that. Of course, states always have an option as to
whether they fulfil their obligations. The Minister is looking
quizzical, but the obligation under discussion is the same as any other
mutual defence obligation that has ever been entered into by this or
any other country. Any country always has the opportunity not to go
along with an obligation in an hour of need; it may rat on the
obligation, as it were, as this country has very occasionally done in
the past, to its discredit. However, it is an obligation in
the same way as any other, and it is contained in the
framework of the EU
treaty. The
same goes for the terrorism solidarity clause, which is also a very
important development as far as the EU is concerned. The right hon.
Member for Norwich, South asked whether the Conservative party opposes
the provisions, but a more interesting point, which the Government
could have addressed had there been an opportunity to debate it, is why
the Government originally opposed provisions such as the mutual defence
commitment and the terrorism solidarity clause during discussions in
the Convention, before changing tack and stating that the provisions
were either a good thing all along, or did not matter—or
possibly both those things. All three attitudes have been outlined at
different times, but we have never had the opportunity to debate
them. I
return to the point that I began with: it is not a small matter that we
should have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the obligations
that this country enters into before they are entered into. That is the
purpose of parliamentary debate, which has been denied us, and that is
why I think the Chairman of the ESC was so exercised. Ministers assure
us that they are going to give us better communication and more
upstream opportunities to debate and scrutinise matters, but they then
enter into commitments at the Council before the Committee even knows
of the existence of such commitments, let alone of the opportunity to
scrutinise
them. The
situation is part and parcel of a process that we have seen far too
often in the past. It really is time for the Government to come clean
and give us their view of the issue in relation to the documents under
discussion, and where it is leading us. We need an open and proper
debate about European security and defence policy, so that the
Government can argue their case to Parliament and the country, rather
than concealing everything. The process is secretive at present.
Everything is happening as if by magic; we are moving forward inch by
inch, but
nobody asks why we are doing so. It is time for us to have a proper
debate, and for the Government to admit what is really going on and to
say where they
stand. 6.8
pm
Jo
Swinson: I am pleased that we have had a debate on the
documents and the motion before us. I was interested to hear the hon.
Member for Rayleigh say that the motion states that we must support all
types of Government policy, so I hurriedly re-read the motion, and
found that, while it mentions supporting the Government, the actual
wording is:
“and supports
the Government’s position that UK and European security are
enhanced by action coordinated at an EU
level.” That
is perhaps not quite as unpalatable as I thought when he spoke of
having to sign up to everything that the Government propose on the
issue. It is pretty difficult to disagree with that statement, but I
have enjoyed watching the Conservatives try to do
so. At
some stages, the debate has felt like a dÃ(c)jà vu
experience of the Lisbon treaty debates that we had around this time
last year. Thankfully, we have not strayed too far into the territory
of those debates, although they are indelibly ingrained in my
memory.
Mr.
Francois: This cannot be a dÃ(c)jà vu
experience of the Lisbon treaty debates, because during those debates
we barely got the chance to mention defence at all. At least we have
debated it a bit this afternoon.
Jo
Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is right; there was not enough
time during the Lisbon treaty debates to cover all the different
elements as much as we would have wanted. None the less, the character
of some of the exchanges in this debate have not been very different
from some of the debates that we had at that time.
I return to
the
statement: “UK
and European security are enhanced by action coordinated at an EU
level.”
Those are sensible
words. It is an important principle that protecting our national
security involves working with other countries, and it is something
that even the official Opposition recognise from time to time. I have
lost count of the number of debates on foreign affairs that I have been
involved in where the Conservative Front-Bench team has called for
more, better co-ordinated action from the EU, be that in the middle
east, the Balkans or in Burma. It is important to recognise that in
order to do that, we must have European institutions. Obviously, we
must scrutinise what those institutions do, and that is why debates
such as this are significant. However, international co-operation,
particularly at an EU level with our closest neighbours, is very
important.
Some suggest
that we must choose between a strong relationship with Europe and a
strong transatlantic relationship. That is a false dichotomy. The US
President, Barack Obama, has made it clear that he wants to work
alongside Europe on security and defence issues, and that he wants
Europe to work more closely together on those matters.
The EU and
NATO must work better on those issues. Some seem to think that the EU
should be a sort of trading body dealing with economics, and that we
should turn to NATO for our security. Unfortunately, in this
globalising world that is no longer a possibility. We must ensure that
we engage with other EU countries on defence issues. We cannot put
defence and security into one little box and say that it has nothing to
do with other issues such as economic development. Economic development
is hugely connected to our security. A lot of academic research has
shown that, and I am glad that it has been recognised in those papers
that helping with international economic development can assist the
stability of other countries, as well as help our own stability and
security. The EU has
some way to go in terms of fair trade, for example, or helping other
countries to develop. The common agricultural policy leaves a lot to be
desired and some of the protectionism that we sometimes see from the EU
does not assist with that cause. I know that the Government raise those
issues in Europe and they should continue to do so strongly.
Environmental
matters are an area where the EU has proved successful in improving air
pollution and marine pollution, and in bringing countries together to
help to fight climate change. The impact of climate change on security
is important. Again, we need only to read reports from scientists about
the changes in temperature that we will see. It is now expected that
that change cannot be kept to an average rise of 2° by the end
of the century; potentially it can be kept only to a 4° rise.
The huge change in levels of natural disasters and water availability,
and the associated migration and fight over resources that will come
from that, will be a driver of conflict in the coming decades. It is
right to make climate change one of the priorities when we discuss
security in the
future. Because
those issues are inextricably linked, a joined-up approach is vital and
that is why the EU must be involved. In these documents and the review
of the European security strategy, I welcome the inclusion of issues
such as climate change, energy security and the development-security
nexus. Discussions on security and the strategic partnership have taken
place between the EU and NATO.
I welcome the
inclusion of the responsibility to protect. That is a relatively new
doctrine within the international legal system, but it acknowledges an
important trend since the end of the cold war of recognising that we
have a shared international responsibility for humanitarian concerns
around the world. It is important that the criteria for any
intervention are explicitly stated and agreed by UN member
states.
As I
mentioned earlier, nuclear disarmament and fighting weapons of mass
destruction are important issues for global security. However, we must
not lose sight of the regulation of small and light weaponry, and the
EU’s major role as a producer and exporter of those weapons. It
is good that the EU supports our arms trade treaty but, as I mentioned
in my questioning earlier, the UK and the EU also need to practise what
we preach on those issues, to avoid charges of hypocrisy when telling
other countries what to do.
In
conclusion, I welcome this afternoon’s opportunity to debate
these matters. Various hon. Members have highlighted areas where there
obviously needs to be better working—both from this Government
and from
the EU. I hope that the Government will take on board all those points
raised and make sure that those issues are pressed forward strongly in
Brussels. 6.15
pm
| 
