Mr.
Clarke: The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked what all this
is about. The answer is that it is about the security and defence of
this country and the question of whether the European Union can enhance
that security and defence. It is about security and defence in a wide
range of different areas, some of which have just been outlined by the
hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, which is a critical
issue.
The hon.
Gentleman went on to ask why there is so little public discussion of
these issues. One of the reasons for that is that the main Opposition
party, as we have seen this afternoon, has focused entirely on
questions of process and not at all on the questions of substance,
which are referred to throughout the documents that we have been
dealing with today. It is important that all parties in this House
focus on the substance because the substance, whether it is about the
Balkans, the middle east, Afghanistan, drugs or whatever it might be,
poses massively important questions.
That was
illustrated in
the—
Mr.
Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Clarke: I will give way in just a second. I am
going to refer to the hon. Member for Rayleigh. I will make my
introductory remarks and then I shall give way. What the hon. Gentleman
had to say this afternoon was both synthetic and extraordinary in
character. I will illustrate why, but before doing so I shall give
way.
Mr.
Francois: I wanted to contend with the right hon.
Gentleman’s point that we did not raise issues of substance.
Even he would accept that I asked the Minister a number of specific
points based on the documents—in most cases I gave her the page
reference. I asked her a range of specific questions. On some occasions
she was able to give me an answer and on others she was not. Therefore,
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman might reconsider that. I
asked the Minister some direct questions about the documents
themselves.
Mr.
Clarke: I respect the hon. Gentleman and I appreciated his
nice remarks about me and the Royal Anglians, but—perhaps it is
unfair to say it—I felt that he was seeking to make debating
points, rather than points of substance in the discussion. That is why
I described his position as both synthetic and extraordinary.
The hon.
Gentleman’s position is synthetic because the evolution of a
European security and defence policy is long, difficult and
complicated. It does not happen at one moment, such as the St. Malo
event, which was very important. It evolves in a series of discussions,
in the Council of Ministers, in inter-governmental discussions, in the
European Parliament and at the Commission. The reason why I referred to
the decision of the Conservative party to leave the European
People’s party is that the EPP is a central part of the
evolution of those discussions—both at inter-ministerial level
and in the European Parliament. The reason that I used the word
“synthetic” is that the best way that the Conservative
party could influence these important debates is by playing a full role
in that European discussion. That, in my opinion, is what it should
do. I appreciated
the invitation from the hon. Member for Rayleigh to the launch event of
the new Conservative group, when it emerges. Large as I am, I would
probably double the size of those present if I were there. It is going
to be a tiny, split, miniscule group of the most extraordinary
insignificance. What is most surprising is that that should be the
position of the Conservative party.
Mr.
Francois: I will say just this. I look forward to making
the right hon. Gentleman eat his words.
Mr.
Clarke: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s
efforts to do that. What was also extraordinary this afternoon, and I
shall conclude with this, was that the discussion on the Lisbon treaty
from the hon. Members for Rayleigh and for Hertsmere failed to clarify
an absolutely substantial point. They stated that, out of article 28 of
that treaty, there were from their point of view, unacceptable
consequences for the defence of this country. I draw the conclusion
that, if that treaty were ratified, and those unacceptable consequences
were to happen, the logical position for the hon. Member for Rayleigh
would be to say that in those circumstances the Conservative position
was to leave the European Union.
The hon.
Gentleman ducked that question in the same way that his other party
leaders have done. However, the consequence of the way he has advanced
this argument is to put himself in a narrow corner. He is saying that
the Lisbon treaty is so unacceptable that it threatens the defence of
the nation. I think he is wrong. The consequence of his position is not
just that we will look at the
situation—
Mr.
Francois: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Clarke: I will give way in a second. The Conservative
position would be to withdraw from the European Union. That is a
serious matter, and I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman
said on that
point.
Mr.
Francois: The right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my
mouth. I have said from this Front Bench what I believe, and it will be
in Hansard. I will not allow him to say what I have said. He can
speak for himself, and I will speak for my party and for
myself.
Mr.
Clarke: I apologise if I have misrepresented the hon.
Gentleman—that certainly was not my intention. However, the
logical consequence of his remarks in this Committee—they are on
the record—is that were the Lisbon treaty to be ratified, his
position would have to be that the UK should leave the EU. I believe
that, secretly, that is his own
position. I
support the Government’s position, which is that UK and European
security are enhanced by action co-ordinated at the EU level. I do not
see how it is possible to oppose that statement. If the Conservatives
decide to divide the Committee, that will be a clear
statement that they do not believe that EU work can enhance our defence
and security. That is a betrayal of our national
interest. Mr.
Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley.
Briefly, before the Minister gets up, may I ask you about a procedural
point? We are debating two different documents which the Government
have put together. We have greater concerns about one than we do about
the other. We have particular concerns about the second document. Is it
possible to have a Division on each of the two documents, or do they
have to be taken as one? We would appreciate an opportunity to vote on
them
individually.
The
Chairman: The documents have to be taken in one motion.
They cannot be split for two separate motions. The motion is as on the
Order Paper, and it refers to both documents, so there will be only one
vote on one
motion.
Mr.
Francois: For clarification, Mr. Illsley. Even
if we object more to one document than we do to the other, we have to
take them
collectively.
6.22
pm
Caroline
Flint: We have had an interesting debate this afternoon. I
very much welcomed the positive contributions of my right hon. Friend
the Member for Norwich, South and the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire. I am afraid that in many of the debates on
the EU that I have taken part in, the Conservative Opposition seem to
spend most of their time portraying the negative aspects of everything
that the EU does, which raises questions about their support for the EU
and whether, should they be in Government, they would be in a position
to represent the UK’s interests in a rounded and constructive
way. I have huge doubts about
that. My
right hon. Friend mentioned the Conservative party’s decision
after the European elections to remove itself from the EPP. I shall be
brief on this, Mr. Illsley. Two of its MPs have decided not
to take the Conservative Whip as a result of that and have remained in
the EPP. We know that Conservative MEPs have a role in the European
Parliament—they sit on several Committees and act as chairmen
and in different functions—and that that would be lost. This is
not only about the Conservatives’ influence in Council but about
their influence in the European Parliament. Given that there is now
much closer discussion between the Council and the European Parliament
about factors that affect the EU, their position is very dangerous in
terms of best representing British
interests.
Mr.
Clappison: Does the right hon. Lady think that she might
have a little temerity in making those remarks? It will be up to the
electorate in June to reach a decision on the decisions that we have
taken and the policies that we advocate. Perhaps we will revisit this
matter after the elections.
The
Chairman: Order. We probably will revisit it after the
elections, but we will not revisit it
now.
Caroline
Flint: It seems that whatever the result of the elections
in June, the Conservative party is committed to leaving the EPP, so I
do not think that the electorate will influence that one way or the
other. Clearly, the Opposition have their own internal problems with
various donors and so on, let alone the right hon. and learned Member
for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on the Front
Bench.
The
Chairman: Order. My comments relate to the Minister as
well as everybody else in the Committee. We will have no further
discussion on Conservative policy towards the EPP or on the dispute
between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government over the
placing of the documents. Let us finish the debate on the documents
before
us.
Caroline
Flint: I will try to address the issues that were raised
during the debate, Mr. Illsley. Whatever the questions about
process, our security and defence missions in recent times have been a
positive outcome of the role of the European Union. Whether in terms of
the financial crisis, conflict prevention or contributing to peace and
security, the EU is at its best when it is dealing with some of these
real issues, which are not only for our wider security but relate back
to the lives of citizens here in the UK. Yes, we should be better at
communicating that. What so often happens in this House is that we
spend a lot of time not talking about the outcome of these missions and
what they have contributed to. That is to the detriment of the role of
the ESDP, which is in the interests of all 27 member states.
I shall make
only one point about scrutiny. I have been in contact with the Chairman
of the Scrutiny Committee since the evidence session on 4 February.
There are some areas where we differ, and I am not sure that that will
be bridged. I have suggested a number of ways in which we can keep the
House better informed. The scrutiny reserve resolution sets the
boundaries of scrutiny and we respect the reserve. This is why the FCO
deposits over 135 explanatory memorandums each year. Of course, the
House may want to have Adjournment debates or Question Times. I
understand there was a proposal to have EU questions in Westminster
Hall, but the then shadow Leader of the House was against it. We are
looking at ways in which we can improve
scrutiny.
Mr.
Francois: Was it perhaps because the feeling was that
those questions should take place in the main Chamber and not be
relegated to Westminster
Hall?
Caroline
Flint: I have been looking into EU questions recently.
Every Department that answers questions in the Chamber can be asked
European questions. In fact, a number of questions that have come to me
in relation to various areas such as climate change have been
transferred to the domestic lead Department. There is no reason why
there should not be questions that can be asked of domestic Departments
or the Foreign Office itself. The Westminster Hall proposal was over
and above that. I was not in this job then, but I understand it was
decided against at the time. I became an MP in 1997 and since then we
have tried to look at how we can
use all the space within the House, including Westminster Hall. That has
been an innovation during my time here. It has proved valuable and it
is certainly well
used. The
EDA was established by a common foreign and security policy joint
action. The legal basis is article 14 of the Nice treaty on the
European Union, which I referred to earlier. Nice allows EU member
states to collaborate on foreign and security policy. It was set up as
a voluntary agency for member states to join, as with many other
European agencies. The Lisbon treaty provisions do not alter the
fundamental principles of ESDP, which were established in 1999 and
which we
support.
Mr.
Francois: The Minister has made a general reference to
Nice. Can she confirm whether the Nice treaty refers to the
EDA?
Caroline
Flint: No. But as I outlined, it allows EU member states
to collaborate on foreign and security policy. As I have mentioned a
number of times, unanimity remains the primary method of decision
making. The UK will always have a veto on whether the EU should
undertake a particular operation. We can offer military or civilian
assets on a voluntary basis. The UK always decides for itself whether
it will contribute to any operation. There is no European army. The
hon. Gentleman asked me about depositing a report on Athena in a
previous debate. I have written to him about this and a summary of the
report has been placed in the
Library.
Mr.
Francois: The right hon. Lady has written to me on that,
but the issue was that people did not want to see the summary; they
wanted to see the whole report. The question remains: why can the whole
report not be published—not just a carefully worded summary, but
the main text? Why are the Government so reluctant to allow the public
and, indeed, parliamentarians to read
it?
Caroline
Flint: As I said, I will find out more detail on that, but
I want to make it clear that I have responded to the hon. Gentleman and
have put some information in the public
domain. The
hon. Gentleman also asked if the United Kingdom was making new
contributions to the latest force catalogue. The answer is yes. I
explained in my first answer that our forces remain national and that,
in practice, we could make any of them available to any suitable
organisation—whether it is the European Union, NATO, the UN or
some other coalition. We have now formalised that decision by making
exactly the same offer of forces to the EU and NATO, which is all our
forces, all our warships and all our aircraft. Of course, the only
exception is our nuclear deterrent, given the specific nuclear role of
NATO.
Mr.
Francois: The Minister has just made a very important
statement. On the new capabilities, about which we asked her before, is
she saying that, in effect, the UK has now theoretically made all and
any British forces available to contribute towards the headline goals
excepting, as she said, the nuclear deterrent? Theoretically,
everything else is now in the pot, is that
right?
Caroline
Flint: I think what I said was yes. We have formalised
that position by making exactly the same offer of forces to the EU and
NATO. The difference
between all our forces and the previous contribution to the EU is very
complex and relates to a lot of different categories. I am happy to
write to the hon. Gentleman about
that.
| 
