HC Deb 06 June 1995 vol 261 cc11-2
11. Mr. Jim Cunningham

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the progress that has been made on a common European security and defence policy. [25104]

Mr. Rifkind

The United Kingdom has sent to its allies our proposals for improving western European defence co-operation within the NATO framework.

Mr. Cunningham

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Labour party that British troops involved in military operations overseas should be answerable to the British Government and to Parliament? Does he further agree with the Labour party that we should not opt for a European army?

Mr. Rifkind

That is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government and it may be the view of the hon. Gentleman, but I have yet to hear it expressed so eloquently by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Mans

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the future defence of Britain and the continent of Europe should depend on NATO, not the Commission in Brussels, and that in future we should enhance the European pillar of NATO, using its well-tried and tested command and control set up? Does he further agree that, when we need bilateral arrangements with our neighbours in Europe, they should be secured through the NATO command and control set-up, whenever that is possible?

Mr. Rifkind

I unreservedly agree with my hon. Friend. There is a good case for closer western European co-operation to strengthen NATO's overall capability. I believe that NATO and WEU can work closely together, as they have over the past 40 years.

Dr. Reid

Since the Secretary of State seeks an eloquent response from us on a European army, I shall give him it as eloquently as possible: no. We obviously wish to reinforce European defence co-operation, but does he agree with our view that the immediate issue is not how to pass more power to European defence institutions but how to render their existing power more effective and open? Does he agree, therefore, that there is no question of Britain giving up our national veto on national security matters, and that the way ahead lies in further intergovernmental co-operation and not in giving further power to European defence institutions?

Mr. Rifkind

The hon. Gentleman would sound a more convincing supporter of our national veto on defence and security matters if his party were not so anxious to get rid of the veto on so many other issues.