| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
10.30 pm
Amendment No. 22 seeks to exclude the provision on entrusting the implementation of European security and defence policy tasks to a group of member states that are willing and have the necessary capabilities for such tasks. Although this is a new treaty article, it reflects current practice. The EU Committee report noted:
“The provisions on the European Defence Agency and on crisis management missions are a codification of current practice and will therefore have little impact on the European Security and Defence Policy”.
The Council already decides by unanimity to entrust the implementation of an ESDP operational mission to the group of member states willing and able to lead or participate. This is the case, for example, in the recent missions to Chad, where France is the lead nation, with some 10 other member states providing forces. Let me remind the House that the launch of any EU operation requires unanimity. Lisbon treaty Article 1.49.C4—new Article 42.4.TEU of the consolidated treaty—says:
“Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission ... shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously”.
I repeat—any decision to deploy UK troops for an EU-led operation will continue to rest with the UK Government.
Finally, Amendment No. 99 seeks to exclude the provision that allows, in principle, enhanced co-operation to be established for matters with military and defence implications. The procedures for enhanced co-operation originate in the treaty of Amsterdam, but they have never been used. Enhanced co-operation allows a group of member states to work together without affecting those that do not want to. Under the Lisbon treaty, the process would be triggered when at least nine member states want to co-operate in a specific area. The Lisbon treaty makes clear that any decision to set up enhanced co-operation in the area of CFSP, including in areas with military or defence implications, will be taken by the Council acting in unanimity. Enhanced co-operation with military or defence implications cannot take place without the approval of the UK Government. As I have said, it has never been used and there is no proposal for it to be utilised. We would consider any future proposals on their own merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked a couple of questions. He asked me about the defence industry and procurement. The UK Government support improved co-operation among Governments in order to provide Europe with a strong defence, industrial and technological base. This will help the development of military capabilities, the importance of which we have heard
6 May 2008 : Column 546
I finish with a quotation from the successor to my noble friend, Lord Robertson. The present Secretary-General of NATO, who was referred to during the debate, said on 29 January 2007 that,
- “an ESDP must be seen as an opportunity, not a danger. And no one today would still seriously assert that NATO and the EU are rivals whose aim is to drive each other out of business”.
I am afraid that the Secretary-General may have been a little optimistic, because some voices are still saying that NATO and the EU are set on a collision course. That is nonsense and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend rises to wind up, I notice that the noble Lord—somewhat unusually and giving considerable pleasure to many of us—quoted, with approval, President Bush, when he said that there was a necessity for European countries to increase their military investments. One question I put to the noble Lord that he has not answered—he may want to come back to it at Report—is: where is the money for this dangerous dream? Where is the money for lift and intelligence? Or are we going to go on relying on the United States for that?
I think the noble Lord said that the Government do not approve of an independent command centre or independent military centre in Brussels, in which case we look forward to the conflict that their position will create with the Poles, the French and others. I noticed that in his reply the noble Lord did not mention the Farnborough agreement. Maybe that is something that we can come back to on Report. I want to put those matters on the record before we move on from this amendment, unless the noble Lord has more precise information to give at the moment.
Lord Astor of Hever: This has been a very useful debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, spoke with great authority as a former Secretary of State for Defence and an eminent Secretary-General of NATO. The noble Lord said that he is passionate about Europe; I am also passionate about Europe. I worked in France for 11 years, and I spend a lot of time out there.
I was very reassured by what the noble Lord said, and I make no apologies for raising these issues. None of us wants to see NATO being undermined by these provisions. It has served us well for 60 years, and we do not want to drive a wedge between us and our transatlantic allies. I very much hope that the noble Lord is right in his reassurances. The noble Lord was angry at the impotence of Europe, but that will continue as long as European countries have such small defence budgets or where they are so reluctant to share their capability with their allies.
6 May 2008 : Column 547
The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, said that I am raising doubts. We all want NATO and the EU to succeed. It is important that the amendments were tabled to enable us to debate all these important issues. I was heartened by the noble Lord’s confirmation of his party’s support for the primacy of NATO. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, had yet another swipe at my party. Of course the United States wants to see a greater defence capability in Europe, but not all Americans whom I have spoken to share the noble Lord’s optimism that this will happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, spoke about a European army, and he was concerned that it would happen bit by bit. My noble friend Lord Blackwell was concerned at the apparently different meanings and intentions of the treaty of Lisbon. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked the Minister about the Farnborough agreement of 2000, and he asked where the money is for what he described as “this dangerous dream”. I thank the Minister for his very full response to the amendments. As he said, the defence of our country is more important than anything else. The noble Lord addressed our amendments in great detail, and I was assured by his words about a NATO-friendly ESDP; time will tell whether that remains the case. I was assured by his general assurances on the primacy of NATO.
I said at the outset that, with the exception of Amendment No. 18A, these were probing amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that Amendment No. 20 was a wrecking amendment. I said that it was a probing amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 18A, I was grateful to the Minister for his strong assurance that there would be no question of the EU forcing British troops to engage in any military activity against our will. The noble Lord included the word “Parliament” in the decision-making. On that basis, and his assurances on our other amendments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 21 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 21A not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 21B:
“(i) Article 1, paragraph 49(c), inserted Article 28A TEU, replacement paragraph 7, relating to a Member State’s obligation of aid and assistance; and(ii) ”The noble Lord said: The provision highlighted in the amendment is an example of our concern with the provisions that this treaty establishes on European defence. As my noble friends have pointed out, during the European convention in 2003, the Government held a very different opinion on some of the paragraphs in this treaty on the issue of providing aid and assistance for mutual defence. They stated categorically that they,
6 May 2008 : Column 548
They were quite right. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government’s views on this provision have so radically changed.
Paragraph 7 of the inserted Article 28A clearly duplicates NATO’s Article 5 and, as Her Majesty’s Government have said:
As I made clear in the debate on the previous group of amendments, I do not believe that this treaty will in any way increase the European capability for defence, within or without NATO. The idea that ESDP will be able to implement an effective campaign against an aggressor without NATO or the USA is a fantasy. The inclusion of the phrase,
- “this shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States”,
shows how resistant many European countries, for example, Ireland, Austria and Sweden, are to any threat to their neutrality.
This provision at least mentions NATO, but between the right to neutrality and the obligation to abide by NATO commitments, there is nothing left of this obligation for mutual defence. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his amendment, which seeks to exclude the provision on mutual aid and assistance from the scope of the Bill. This new provision reflects the reality that EU member states would come to the aid of other member states in the unlikely event that they were the victim of armed aggression on their territory. The crucial point to make is that the obligation to provide assistance falls on individual member states, not the institutions of the European Union.
The provision does not provide a basis for the development of an EU collective defence organisation to rival NATO. In fact, as the EU Select Committee report noted, the treaty clearly states that for its members NATO remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. The Lisbon treaty confirms rather than changes that. The committee report made it clear at 7109, which states:
“The mutual assistance clause, which is examined below ... is even more forthright, as it states that NATO remains the ‘foundation’ of the collective defence of those Member States who are members of it and the forum for its implementation’. It further states that commitments and cooperation under the CSDP ‘shall be consistent with commitments’ under NATO. This is a new provision and represents a strengthening of the reference to the role of NATO in the Treaties”.
We accept that we have an obligation to come to the aid of an EU member state in the specific circumstances that it has 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 to decide according to the specific circumstances of the time.
Instead of taking away from NATO, this particular change in the Lisbon treaty strengthens NATO by emphasising in the treaty itself how NATO is the prime organisation.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. He mentioned the Committee in
6 May 2008 : Column 549
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 pm
Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 23:
“(i) Article 1, paragraph 50, inserted Article 28D TEU, relating to the European Defence Agency; and(ii) ”The noble Lord said: I also speak to Amendment No. 24. Once again, we are considering a provision that sets up an EU institution but adds nothing to defence capabilities and might actively harm NATO’s effectiveness.
The history of the EDA is illuminating. It was proposed in the 2003 constitution, which was of course summarily rejected. This did not prevent the actual creation of the agency. The EDA is up and running, and we are now being asked retrospectively to legitimise it. The EDA, as set up by this treaty, has a wide remit. It is to infer identifying members’ capabilities and evaluate how well they are meeting their commitments. It will promote harmonisation and compatible procurement methods, and so on.
All that sounds very sensible until one remembers that it completely disregards NATO. As I have already said, EU capabilities are derisory, and members’ commitment to meeting its military objectives minimal. With this provision, we are committing ourselves to harmonising our military capabilities with the weakest of our NATO allies instead of the strongest. Greater interoperability is indeed desirable, but our military equipment will be useless if it is not interoperable with US equipment. What is the point of developing joint procurement projects with countries whose defence spending levels are too low to purchase the end products?
The rules and procedures of the EDA are to be decided by QMV. Countries that have no intention of providing troops, equipment or money to build the military capability of Europe are to have a say in the procurement of equipment by those few countries that, through NATO, are expected to carry out all Europe’s obligations. What we have here is a waste of money. As General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, the chief of defence materiel, defence equipment and support in the Ministry of Defence, so clearly laid out in January, this waste of money actively reduces our military capability. As he put it:
“It is inevitable that our top priority will be current operations and the equipment needed to support them ... We need to think carefully about priorities when every pound sterling or Euro spent on international institutions is a pound or Euro I cannot spend on equipping and supporting deployed front line forces”.
Once again, we see the Commission getting involved where it has no business to be. Defence is a matter that should remain squarely in the hands of the national Government. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper): If Amendment No. 23 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24 because of pre-emption.
6 May 2008 : Column 550
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: The noble Lord, for whom I have great respect, has got this completely wrong. I put to him the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch: where do we get the money from? One of the ways that Europe can find the money for the required capabilities, including the heavy airlift planes that are currently so vitally necessary, is to do so collectively and not individually. The United Kingdom is currently the only country in Europe with heavy lift. We have five C17s leased—or maybe partly bought—from the Americans, a decision taken during my time at the MoD. There is literally nothing else in the European arsenal for that, yet we know that it is required.
If European countries are willing, through the European Defence Agency—which was, as I said, instigated as a British idea—to get the heavy-lift aeroplanes on a collective basis, then they are available for NATO missions just as much as for any European Union mission. The model is the AWACS fleet. Individual nations, apart from Britain and France, cannot really afford—and could not use—the advanced early-warning aircraft. It therefore made sense for NATO at that time collectively to buy a fleet of AWACS planes. They are literally used all the time. They were used after 9/11 to protect the Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City as part of our Article 5 commitments, and they were used to protect pretty well every European summit and a lot of other summits as well. That is the model. If we can, through another constituency, not just NATO, but through the European Union get collective ownership of some of these scarce capabilities, the money will be well spent. It will move away from the old territorial defence much more to collective defence, and it will be equally available to NATO when it needs it as it is to the European Union. I would have thought that he, especially, and the Opposition, generally, would be applauding the concept of the collective purchase of the equipment that is required. That is basically what the European Defence Agency is about. It is no more sinister than that. It is a device to make sure that European nations get the capabilities so that they are available when the European Union or NATO requires them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, obviously has different contacts in Washington from some of the rest of us. No less a person than the Minister has prayed in aid President Bush asking where the money is coming from in Europe to pay for all this.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on his introduction of this amendment, if that does not trouble him too much, but I recommend that he reads the Farnborough agreement, about which I have not had an answer this evening. Perhaps he will study in particular Article 46, which states:
- “recognise the need to co-operate in establishing a long term master-plan that would present a common view of their future operational needs. This would constitute a framework for harmonised equipment acquisition planning and would provide orientation for a harmonised defence related R&T policy”.
There is an assumption that all this is running in parallel with the interests and needs of the United
6 May 2008 : Column 551
Lord Bach: It is not at the expense of the special relationship. The quotation from President Bush, which I am pleased to have used, suggests that it is the noble Lord who on this occasion is out of kilter with what is being said and thought in Washington. There is not the concern that he expresses. That is, if I may use the French word, passé—it is the past. There was concern some years ago. I remember when I used to debate regularly with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, there was concern about the emergence of European defence, but that is gone. The Americans are pleased and delighted by it. The quotations I used are real quotations from the President himself. It is the noble Lord who has been left behind by history a bit here.
Let me talk about the EDA. The British should be proud of having thought up the idea. It had a very distinguished first chief executive, who was a very eminent member of the Ministry of Defence senior Civil Service before he took on that important job.
Improving the military capabilities of EU partners is a key UK objective. No one will disagree and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, would not. Improving these capabilities allows the European Union to share the international burden for crisis management more effectively and is to our direct benefit as a country. For example, the EDA is overseeing a five-member-state project to improve the interoperability between civilian and military radios. Such work will provide real benefits to the civilian side and to the military personnel working together in theatres of operations as they do.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, suggested that there was no mention of NATO. The EDA focuses on EU capability development, as would be expected of an EU agency. However, the EU-NATO capability group, at which the EDA participates, works to ensure that the capability development in the two organisations is complementary.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |