HC Deb 11 November 1998 vol 319 cc283-305

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Hanson.]

9.33 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

At the end of this debate, for the first time, at your request and indeed instruction, Madam Speaker, the House will observe the two-minute silence while the House is sitting. It is appropriate that we are debating defence in the context of Europe. It is also appropriate that we should mark the 80th anniversary of the armistice, which followed a 100-day campaign of victory by the greatest land force ever assembled by this country.

Contrary to popular myth, that was a highly professional, well-led and supported military force which comprehensively defeated an aggressive, expansionist and militaristic enemy. That army was a citizen's army. It, and the professional army from which it grew, had paid a fearful price to achieve a world war-winning level of competence. We should be proud of their achievement.

We will also remember the price that was paid by hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and by millions of our fellow European citizens in the wars that have scarred this continent this century. That is why I believe that defence remains the most important responsibility of any Government, and it reminds us of the importance of today's debate.

I put in for this debate because something is happening with defence policy in the European Union and the House has not been told. Now is the chance. We look forward to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in the anticipation that it will be followed by a two-minute silence not only of remembrance, but, I hope, of stunned astonishment that we have learnt something from him about the Government's European policy.

On 1 July, the Financial Times reported: Tony Blair has recognised that his ambition of carving a powerful role for the UK within the European Union could take 10 years and has commissioned a sweeping review of the UK's approach to the EU. Officials said it was crucial for the UK to demonstrate it favoured closer integration in a number of areas, such as foreign and defence policies.

On 2 October, we seemed to have arrived at the conclusion of that exercise, when the extremely well-informed Robert Peston of the Financial Times reported: The government is putting the finishing touches to a blueprint on Europe, which it hopes will pave the way for Britain to play a leading role alongside France and Germany. The blueprint includes a controversial recommendation that the European Union should assume a defence capability—a move which would signal the biggest shift in policy since Labour took office. Mr. Blair … is expected to make a decision ahead of this month's EU summit where member states will discuss the future of the Union. To this end, the Foreign Office, with guarded support from the Ministry of Defence, is recommending that the Western European Union, the EU's embryonic defence arm, should be scrapped.

Those reports did not pass unnoticed. They were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) in the strategic defence review debate, but they were not referred to specifically by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in his reply on each day of those debates, so imagine our surprise on reading The Times headline of 21 October: Britain to back defence role for Europe.

One might have been forgiven for thinking that the article could have been reporting our debate, but no. Philip Webster reported: Britain is prepared for the first time to give the European Union a defence arm that would allow members' troops to co-operate in mounting military operations, the Prime Minister signalled last night. Tony Blair made plain that he was ready to drop Britain's longstanding objections to the EU having a defence capability". As the House was debating defence at 4.30 on Tuesday 20 October, the Prime Minister was talking to journalists from six leading European newspapers, including The Times, Le Monde and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Just in case anyone tries to suggest that Philip Webster was exaggerating what the Prime Minister was saying, let me point out that, following that interview, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the Blair Government has decided to give its European partners a pleasant surprise for once. The informal meeting of "Heads of Government in P6rtschach at the weekend will provide the setting. It said that the Prime Minister announced for the first time that London would abandon Britain's long-standing opposition to a firmer structure to Common Foreign and Security Policy. That means that London will no longer oppose the appointment of a Mr. CFSP. That is not exactly news, as the previous Conservative Government, in their 1996 White Paper, said that they were ready to look at the idea of appointing a single figure to represent the policy of the Union to the outside world. I assume that the Labour Government have picked up Conservative policy in this area, as they have done in many other areas. When they followed Conservative policy on the economy, they did rather well; having abandoned it, they are in trouble.

Perhaps the Government should re-examine their policy on the Territorial Army and follow Conservative policy. We very much regret the rumours about an announcement in the House next Monday on the Territorial Army, some three weeks before the Army is ready for that. It is disgraceful that the announcement is being dragged forward to get it out of the way before Prorogation, much to the danger of the TA.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

On what does the hon. Gentleman base his speculation about an announcement next Monday?

Mr. Blunt

I was informed by someone in the BBC—presumably a most reliable source.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence answered two parliamentary questions on the matter yesterday—as reported in Hansard this morning—and confirmed that there will be a statement on the Territorial Army next week.

Mr. Blunt

It is much to be regretted that the Army is having to drag forward any announcement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)

Why is the hon. Gentleman complaining about the matter being brought early to the House? In view of all the ill-informed speculation, I would expect him to want the House to be informed. Why is he complaining about the House being given early information? I fail to follow his logic.

Mr. Blunt

It is very simple—a most ungainly exercise is taking place inside the Territorial Army, as different parts of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association and different regions are engaging in what my local TAVRA representative referred to as "horse trading" over which units would be placed where, which would survive and which TA centres would be sold. The speed with which this is happening means that the TA will be left inadequately staffed. We regret the fact that the Government are taking no notice of the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence that they should think again because their policy is misconceived. However, this is a diversion from European Union defence policy, to which I shall now return.

The previous Conservative Government had accepted a Mr. CFSP—a Mr. PESC in France. As the German for "common foreign and security policy" is "gemeinsame aussen and sicherheitspolitik", the Germans are happy to have a Herr GASP—or perhaps a Fraulein GASP.

Although the news about a Mr. CFSP was not news, the conclusion drawn by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from the Prime Minister remarks was. It said: In the medium term, London is therefore now also questioning the role of the Western European Union … to which 10 or the 15 EU Member States belong. For as soon as the European Union adopts its own 'security policy identity', which the British government no longer intends to oppose, the WEU would become superfluous. Its political role would fall"—

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh)

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the debates on 24 and 25 October, but I want to quote back to him what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. At a meeting at which I was present, my right hon. Friend said: Nato must remain the cornerstone of European defence but Britain would consider reinforcing the Western European Union"— the very point—

Mr. Key

Carry on with the quote.

Mr. Cunliffe

I am going to do that. My right hon. Friend continued: creating a more distinct European dimension within NATO or even merging the WEU and the EU. Perhaps the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) would respond to that. A week after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the remarks quoted by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was quite clear on what the exercise was all about.

Mr. Blunt

I look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State exactly what the Government are up to. The House should have the benefit of a clarification of the Government's policy. That is what this debate is about and I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response to it.

I was quoting the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. It stated: The WEU would become superfluous. Its political role would fall to the EU and its military role to NATO. Blair's ideas are supported by the Foreign Officeand Defence Ministry, although the latter has certain reservations. We look forward to hearing what those are. It continued: In the long term, this would mean the establishment of something akin to a European Foreign and Defence Ministry. Le Monde directly asked the Prime Minister: Do you support the idea of abolishing the WEU and transferring its military resources to NATO? He replied: There are all kinds of ideas and many admit that the WEU is less than the ideal instrument which we need. I believe that we must think in a more imaginative way than we are doing. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the WEU. What conclusion are people supposed to draw about the future of the WEU from those remarks?

The Prime Minister is considering a very substantial change which, in the light of the Amsterdam treaty, would stand the whole of the Government's approach on its head. I wonder whether other Ministers knew of it. There are rumours of Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence papers for and against the ideas suggested—yet, when Defence Ministers were debating defence in this House, particular points were put to them, but they were unable to say whether those ideas were being considered.

Mr. Spellar

I am aware that the best way to keep a secret in this country is to make a speech on the Floor of the House. I refer the hon. Gentleman to column 1176 of Hansard on 20 October, where I dealt precisely with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples).

Mr. Blunt

I read those remarks carefully because I had assumed that the Under-Secretary would deal with the matter. However, they do not bear any resemblance to what the Prime Minister was saying on the same day to journalists from The Times and other European newspapers.

Mr. Spellar

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what incompatibility he perceives between my comments at column 1176 and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said?

Mr. Blunt

Yes. The Prime Minister spoke about the potential abolition of the Western European Union, but there was no suggestion of that in the Under-Secretary's remarks in the House. He spoke about the importance of NATO in European defence, and we all agree with that. However, the institutional framework in which NATO will operate and the relationship with the European Union are central to the issue. The problem is that the Prime Minister is dealing with a big idea, but he has no idea of the detail. Indeed, I shall shortly put some detailed points to the Under-Secretary. When we debated defence, what did the Under-Secretary know about the proposals for the WEU? What does he know about them now?

The Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues were caught unsighted. The Minister for the Cabinet Office initially denied, in this House, that the Prime Minister had even briefed Philip Webster. He then retreated behind the solecism that it was not a briefing, but an interview on the record—a distinction lost on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which described the meeting with the Prime Minister as "a pre-summit briefing".

The Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister was simply saying that he wanted some imaginative thinking on how to enhance the European contribution to NATO. If that is what the French thought the Prime Minister was up to, he would have got extremely short shrift at the summit in Austria. What is certainly the case is that Members of this House did not know what the Prime Minister was doing. I raised the issue in our debate on the Army, but did not have the benefit of a response from the Under-Secretary. I raised it through an early-day motion, to which I have had no reply. The Under-Secretary' s colleagues, the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the matter on the Floor of the House, and asked for a statement and an explanation.

The Times also quoted the Prime Minister as saying: All I am saying is that we need to allow fresh thinking and it is important for Britain to be part of that thinking … and not for us simply to stand there and say 'we are not part of this'. May I suggest something revolutionary? What about Parliament being exposed to this fresh thinking? Although we look forward to the Under-Secretary's reply, we probably need the Prime Minister here to answer the debate. The Prime Minister may think that his colleagues do not need to be aware of his proposals, but the House should be made aware of them.

In the Prime Minister's absence, it is a pity that—I say this with due respect to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence—the Minister for the Armed Forces will not be replying to this debate, as his experience as the Minister with responsibility for Europe and the man who signed the Amsterdam treaty would equip him admirably to provide that reply. Then again, as a fellow Oxford-educated public schoolboy socialist, the Under-Secretary may have the advantage of having a clearer insight into the Prime Minister's thought processes. In the absence of a communiqué from the summit in Austria, where ideas and proposals were floated by our Prime Minister, and in the absence of any statement to the House, we seek guidance.

My approach to the Minister is made in a spirit of genuine inquiry. What is going on? We can hardly be blamed for being suspicious. Are the proposals merely an exercise in image building—an attempt to curry favour with our partners? Are they, as I fear, concession of a substantial position and the British interest, with no substantive proposals, strategy or endgame in mind? They seem horribly reminiscent of other of the Government's constitutional proposals—which sound good, but are out of control and are damaging once battle is joined over the detail, when Ministers belatedly discover that the initiative has passed to those who do not share the United Kingdom's agenda.

I hope that the Minister will answer some specific questions. Are the Amsterdam arrangements for the relationship between NATO, the WEU and the EU to be reviewed? If so, why? The arrangements have hardly begun. Why cannot the arrangements be given a chance to bed down and to work?

Perhaps the Minister can tell us when the Amsterdam treaty came into force or will come into force. I have been unable to ascertain the date. The treaty states that it will come into force on the first day of the second month following that in which the instrument of ratification is deposited by the last signatory State to fulfil that formality. The Minister will know, or certainly should know, that that date is important, as the protocol to article J.7 of the treaty states: The European Union shall draw up, together with the Western European Union, arrangements for enhanced cooperation between them within a year from the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Has that happened yet? Are the Government's proposals part of that process? If so, surely scrapping the Western European Union is hardly consistent with the treaty of Amsterdam.

When does the Minister believe that the next intergovernmental conference will be held to negotiate the new treaty which will do away with the Western European Union and rewrite the treaty of Amsterdam? Will he tell us what he believes to be the future of the WEU?

In the proposals, how are the aspirations of the neutral countries that are already inside the EU to be accommodated? Are the Government prepared to concede that the structure should be in the second, or CFSP, pillar of the European Union? If the WEU is no longer to exist, does it matter whether it is in the second or fourth pillar? What are the issues at stake?

Has any thought been given to enlargement? If the EU comes with an explicit security guarantee, will not that cause problems for the Baltic states? Would not an implicit security guarantee far more effectively enhance their security, without the risk of provoking Russia, which will be in God knows what condition in 10 years?

If we are to have a single money and a single economy—something to which the Government are, in principle, committed—why do we not move towards a common defence policy, and not least down the road of defence specialisation, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Although such a policy would be the end of our ability to act independently, it would force us to face up to the fact that, if economic and monetary union is not to fall apart, democratically accountable institutions have to be created at the European level to deal with issues of wealth redistribution, fiscal policy, macro economic policy and monetary policy. Why should such institutions not be created to deal with defence as well? It is the logical end of the path that the Prime Minister is taking us down.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good case on why we should be given a better explanation. From his own experience in both the forces and the Ministry of Defence as a special adviser, can he think of any occasion in the recent past on which a common defence policy, if one had been created, would have affected our capabilities? Does he think that we as a country would have been able to act as well and effectively as we did in the Gulf, for example, if we had had a common defence policy, as is now being described?

Mr. Blunt

The short answer is no; neither in the Gulf war nor in the Falkland Islands would we have been able to act as effectively. If we had had a common defence and common defence forces in the absence of common democratic structures at the European level to direct those forces, those events certainly would not have happened. If we had had European-level direction—which we shall assume was democratically accountable, within the United States of Europe, about which some Labour Members are probably enthusiastic—would it have been prepared to support the United States in the Gulf? Would it have been prepared to support the United Kingdom's interests in the Falklands Islands? I think that those questions would have been answered in the negative.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the Falklands war broke out and there was some havering in Washington, on the first morning after war started, the first national leader to telephone Mrs. Thatcher to offer her complete and unconditional support was President Mitterrand. He immediately provided to the Ministry of Defence details of how the Exocet missiles were organised and operated. The great complaint was that British arms exporters were running to their clients in Arab countries saying, "You can't trust the French; they'll give away the details of their Exocets. Buy British, not French."

Mr. Blunt

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman's comments are perfectly correct; the French did us an enormous favour in allowing the fleet to exercise against Super Etendards equipped with Exocets on their way down to Ascension island. However, had the Spanish and Italian Governments been part of a European set-up, how keen would they have been to support the policy of retaking the Falkland Islands from the Argentines? It begs the question of what capability the United Kingdom would have had to act in recovering our possessions.

Mr. Robathan

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time, especially as we are dealing with a slight distraction from his main theme. Leaving aside the Falklands—although we could discuss the mechanics who were assisting in servicing the Super Etendards that were flying against the British fleet during the Falklands war—does he recall Mitterrand's actions, up to the 59th minute of the 11th hour, in undermining western diplomacy against Iraq in the Gulf, and also the assistance that the Belgian Government gave us? Mitterand sent a delegation to Iraq about one day before war broke out, contrary to the policy of the other western Governments, and the Belgians failed to supply us with ammunition, because they thought that doing so might upset their Iraqi contracts.

Mr. Blunt

The interventions are extremely interesting, because they demonstrate that different European states have different national interests. I think that the question of whether they can be brought together at some European level would have to be answered in the negative.

We need to know the Government's endgame. If we believe that British independence of action is worth preserving and that our country's alliance with the United States should be central to our foreign and defence policy, we should have some answers to the questions that I have asked the Minister. This is a constitutional adventure too important to be left to the Prime Minister's sound-good politics. His colleagues who have a better eye for detail and the potential pitfalls ahead need to get a grip on the policy. I look forward to hearing that the Ministry of Defence, at least, knows where the policy is headed.

9.58 am
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh)

I shall concentrate on the new emerging Europe, which introduces a further dimension and perspective that calls for review, although I still accept the common defence policy.

Let me declare my interest as deputy leader of the British delegations to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I have spent the past 10 months producing a rapporteur's report on our intelligence section rapid response control and command system, which will be presented to the WEU in Paris in the first week in December. I was, therefore, somewhat alarmed by the statement in October which attempted to define the British review policy.

I hope that the new emerging Europe will play a positive part in establishing peace, stability and security throughout Europe and the world. The current and previous British Governments genuinely supported that aim. I remember the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), clearly and distinctly spelling out his support for the WEU at a conference at Church house about six months before the general election.

In my view, Europe must be a community of free member states. I reject the concept of a European super-state. The European Union must be based on a sharing of national interest and not on the surrender of national identity. That is particularly important in relation to defence.

I see no case for merging the common foreign and security policy into the bureaucratic machinery of Brussels. The establishment of a European army would limit our freedom and flexibility in respect of engagement in any war or military crisis—for example, in Kosovo or anywhere in the Balkans, which are somewhat volatile at present. However, the nations of Europe need each other. We are interdependent and carry the weight of great trading blocs, so it is imperative that we present a common front to the world. Our foreign and security policy must first be a defining expression of national identity. We must then proceed to unite Europe in a common defence policy while continuing to maintain and safeguard our independent national interest.

In my view, the best way in which to achieve that aim is to strengthen the WEU and give it a more positive role working with the United States, which always has been and, for at least the next 20 years, will continue to be, the cornerstone of our European defence. I see no reason to change something that has worked incredibly well.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will respect the views of all right hon. and hon. Members on defence issues. I believe that we should take an open view on how we should safeguard our future and that of our European colleagues. I make no apologies for having voted—first at the Council of Europe and then at the WEU—in favour of welcoming former eastern bloc and Soviet Union nations.

When I met Vice-President Gore some 18 months ago, we discussed the European dimension. We should bear in mind the fact that America has 300,000 troops in Europe, and that maintaining them there represents an economic problem. It is clear that Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and other emerging nations will have to take a positive role in any European defence system, so it is necessary to review our commitments in Europe. In my view, the WEU should take an important role. It has the experience and expertise, and is modernising its approach, as is clear from my rapporteur's report.

We have always supported the NATO alliance, for which we should be extremely grateful in terms of our security in Europe over the past 40 years. Mainly thanks to NATO, we have seen the total elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Certain former Soviet nations are still haunted by their relations with NATO in the past and, even though they are now co-opted members on certain consultative committees, they remain wary of the United States.

We should be firmly committed to the enlargement of Europe to the east and accept the necessity to embrace and support the new democracies of eastern Europe. We would be foolish not to do so. History will judge us harshly if we leave the door shut in their faces or allow their countries to slide back into totalitarianism. That applies equally to economic and military matters.

NATO and its participating Governments must confront and resolve three issues. The first is the future of the transatlantic relationship. Certain groups in America favour a gradual withdrawal of troops as soon as Europe can take care of itself. Secondly, we must review NATO's wider security function, including its possible use of out-of-area missions. Thirdly we must consider the future of "Partnership for Peace" and the recent NATO enlargement.

We must also redefine the transatlantic relationship so that any British Government, of whatever political disposition, will know which direction to take.

We must also consider NATO's wider security role. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who has a great interest in defence matters, spoke about the role of our defence forces. I have just visited one of our frigates in the Gulf, HMS Cumberland, where I was informed of the importance of having available aircraft which do not have to fly 3,000 miles to a military emergency. Mobility is crucial to the question whether we merge certain parts of the Air Force and the Navy in response to the demand for flexibility.

In conclusion, although certain fundamental changes have not been made, and I have read from A to Z the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in October, it is clear that there is a flexible approach—

Mr. Blunt

Which of the Prime Minister's speeches has the hon. Gentleman read from A to Z—

Mr. Cunliffe

The one that my right hon. Friend made at the summit at Portschach in October—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is being intervened on. He must wait until the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has finished speaking before responding to him.

Mr. Blunt

If the hon. Gentleman is giving us an account of what happened at the summit in Austria, which so far has failed to be communicated to the world, we look forward to hearing what it is and what authority it carries.

Mr. Cunliffe

Well, what was said was based on the Amsterdam treaty. The Prime Minister outlined the agreement to modernise and strengthen the system of defence control. Most of the quotations that I have are about a better military capability. There are references to more modern, flexible, sustainable and deployable forces and drawing on the lessons of the success of NATO. We all agree on that.

Mr. Key

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has seen the full text of what the Prime Minister said? One of the difficulties is that No. 10, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence have said that there is no verbatim text of the speech. We have all had to rely on press reports. Has the hon. Gentleman obtained a verbatim report?

Mr. Cunliffe

I do not have a verbatim report. I have quotations from Reuters. 1 assume that Ministers have seen them, in view of what they said the week after, which I quoted earlier. Ministers have made it clear that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. I have already talked about tidying up and modernising. There has to be a flexible response with a review. The breakup of the Warsaw pact has meant that there is now a positive military input from some eastern European countries. We did not have that before.

This is an important debate. I have known the Minister for many years and he deserves his current position. I am sure that he will try to inform the House to the best of his ability of present and future policy, as far as is permissible for security reasons.

10.11 am
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on choosing this subject and having the debate on such an appropriate day for considering defence co-operation in Europe.

I returned yesterday afternoon from a meeting of the Western European Union in Paris, where we were discussing the future of the organisation. The impression given by members from other European countries was very depressing, arising from what the Prime Minister had said. Questions were asked about Britain's future co-operation in the WEU. As I drove back across northern France, past the Somme and Picardy, I thought about the trauma of the experiences 80 years ago and what has been achieved since. Sadly, we have had to fight another world war and, in most of the years since the end of the first world war, British troops have been engaged in active service somewhere in the world. Only one year has passed since then without British troops dying somewhere in the world defending people's rights and freedom.

The great war showed the need for European nations to co-operate. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) rightly said—I imagine that most hon. Members and our European partners agree—that, when Britain signed the Amsterdam agreement, we were signing up for a strengthening of the WEU's position in the family of European organisations. Our continued support for the WEU was clearly stated by signing the treaty. There are six organisations covering Europe and our north Atlantic allies, ranging in size from the European Union, with 15 members, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, with 56 members. The WEU was singled out among those six for special consideration. The Prime Minister was wrong to cast doubt on the future of the WEU.

The Secretary of State for Defence will be with us in Paris at the start of December. I hope that, in the hour or so that he will have to present several topics to the Assembly, he will state the Government's position on the WEU clearly. Anything short of that will give credence to the suggestion that Britain is looking for an alternative based on the EU. I do not regard that as a practical solution. It is fraught with difficulties, it would lead to endless, unnecessary argument and it would destroy a lot of the good will of the countries from the former Soviet bloc that have become associated with the WEU and see it as a focal point for making partnership work. "Partnership for Peace" and many other organisations do not have a cat in hell's chance of long-term success unless the WEU is strengthened.

We have to look around at experience of what organisations can deliver. Colleagues at the WEU considered an interesting report over the past couple of days called "New Prospects for Transatlantic Co-operation in Security and Defence", produced by Mr. Blaauw, vice-chairman of the political committee. He is a much-decorated service man who is now an experienced leading politician in the Netherlands. His report points to some of the issues that are sometimes forgotten, including the difficulty of gaining co-operation for the United States to free up some of NATO's assets for use by the WEU.

We ought to ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence to talk to our American allies about greater co-operation with the WEU. Sadly, the Americans are reluctant to do that. It is a pity that they are not more visionary in exploring the opportunities offered by the WEU. Albania, for example, has been ripped apart by strife. NATO and the United Nations could not have gone in, but the WEU did. The policing of Albania by the dark blue berets of the WEU is a significant contribution to bringing some sense to the turmoil there.

The WEU has a real role to play. If European co-operation is to mean more than just co-operation on procurement projects—if it means seeking true partnerships for peace and trying to work out a European dimension for sorting out problems—three things are necessary. First, this House must be paramount in deciding what is in the best defence interests of this country. That should always be discussed here first, not speculated on even by the Prime Minister at conferences elsewhere until he has clearly put his thoughts to the House. Such far-reaching issues, which would have repercussions way outside the United Kingdom, should be dealt with here first.

Secondly, we must make sure that everybody signs up for an organisation that can deliver. The WEU is trying to adapt itself to the new future for Europe. It is trying to accommodate the rights of individual states and make partnership work.

Thirdly, and most importantly for Europe, there must be credibility in Europe for the organisation. The WEU has such credibility. Britain's 36 representatives from all parties and both Houses of Parliament–18 full members and 18 substitutes—have a clear influence in its policy making. As a member of that organisation, I have felt undermined by recent speculation.

Sadly, there has been no attempt to clarify the matter, and this debate is the first opportunity that we have had for that. I hope that the Minister will respond in a robust and up-front manner, and experience suggests that he will defend his position robustly. However, the House will be interested in the factual information that we need.

If we do not get that information today, I am afraid that those hon. Members who are predicting doom and gloom within the WEU—and who are possibly undermining other institutions in Europe—will, sadly, get backing from an unusual source, the British Government. The Government should instead be giving positive backing. They should say that there is a role for the organisation, that Europe does matter, that we want to play a part in it and that we want our role to be within the WEU.

10.20 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on introducing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who took part in the debate. It is important that we discuss defence often. I see no problem with what the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or anyone else says if it means that we have an open discussion. It is healthy to keep all options open, but we should always come here to debate whatever takes place in Europe.

Mr. Blunt

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—to return his compliment. However, we have had to drag the Government here, and Labour Members have been asking for Government statements. Surely he dissociates himself from the fact that the Government have not been prepared to come to the House to make a statement. It has been left to me to drag the Minister here.

Mr. Hoyle

I do not think that the way forward is to score cheap political points, and I shall not enter into that. We want an open debate, and I have confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us clarification.

Members on both sides of the Chamber are never frightened of discussing defence. We have always displayed good, honest views, and that will never change. I am reassured by the statement that NATO must remain the cornerstone of the EU's defence, but that Britain will consider reinforcing the Western European Union, and will try to create a more distinct EU dimension within NATO. We need to be told whether we are to have an EU force, or whether the WEU will continue. I welcome this debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss whether the changes are essential and whether they will work.

The burden on our forces must be remembered. We have mounted operations in the Falklands and the Gulf, and there are problems within the former Yugoslavia. Time bombs ticks way and explode here, there and everywhere. We may even see problems in the Baltic states—we do not know. British forces, rightly, are at the forefront, and are a shining example of our commitment to peacekeeping in Europe and the world.

I believe that the other European nations have a part to play. They must not just sit back, passing judgment on what is right and wrong. They must not pay lip service when problems erupt in the former Yugoslavia because, as we have seen, we cannot rely on the Americans, who do not wish to have troops on the ground. Our troops will have to be there, and that is a problem. Our troops' lives are being risked—not American troops, although the Americans will pass judgment. If we can bring in other European states and ensure that they play a major role—and that their troops are placed in the hot spots of Europe—I will welcome that. It is crucial that the Minister discusses whether we are to have an EU force or the continuation or expansion of the WEU.

We can have that discussion because we have democracy, and Parliament must retain the ability to discuss that issue. The countries we are sending forces to assist do not have those rights or the ability to enjoy that freedom. We must not lose sight of that.

We all look to Europe for future defence procurement mergers, and companies must merge to compete with the Americans. British Aerospace has said that it needs to ensure its future, and we must produce weapons with a European dimension. We all welcome that, and that is the way forward. Otherwise, we will always be reliant on the Americans.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the critical role that American research and development plays in our programmes? Is he aware that members of the Defence Select Committee, on a recent visit to Washington, were told again and again that the exchange of technology—which is principally beneficial to this country—would not be available if our defence industry became subsumed in a wider European defence industry?

Mr. Hoyle

Of course I welcome our work with the Americans, which will continue. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the future large aircraft will come not via the Americans, but via the Europeans. We all beat the drum about the success of the European airbus, and we want to say that the future large aircraft—built in Europe for the world—will have a dual role. European manufacturers have a part to play, but I do not lose sight of our great allies the Americans, and NATO will be the cornerstone of America and the UK.

We need our own defence independence to allow us to fight in the Falklands—if conflict re-emerges—in the Gulf or in Africa, if we decide to try to keep the peace there. I do not want to rely on someone in Europe telling us where we can go. That fear has comes across today, but it is not necessary. I want to reassure everybody that we will have the independence to go wherever we are needed.

Gibraltar is an issue of tactical importance to the UK. We mounted the Falklands and the Gulf operations from there, and we must not allow Spain to come in the back way and take it away from us. We must work together within Europe, and play a leading part in Europe. There is a danger—which has become clear this morning—that the sceptics are allowing their view to cover everything.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that, given problems such as Gibraltar and Spain's designs on it, there is a danger that the development of a common European foreign and security policy might prevent us from looking after British and Gibraltarian interests?

Mr. Hoyle

No, definitely not. I must rule that out completely. I would not want to follow the example of the previous Government, under whom the people of Hong Kong were given back to China when there was no need. We must not allow that ever to happen again. [Interruption.] Hong Kong island was not part of the deal, and we could have held on to it for ever. The previous Government failed to negotiate on behalf of the people of Hong Kong because of their desire to get in bed with the communist Government. After Tiananmen square, the previous Government should have learnt something. They failed to do so. I always say that, if people have no desire to become part of another country, we must not allow that to happen. That is why I stand by the view of the people of Gibraltar, unlike the previous Government who did not stand by the people of Hong Kong, so Conservative Members should not lecture me on that matter. We must remember, and learn from, the previous Government's mistakes.

It is important that we are always willing to discuss, and look at, both sides of the argument and that we arrive at the right decision. Scaremongering is easy, but we should not allow it. There should be open discussion, then we will make the right decision. We can ensure that we look after Europe and that it looks after us. We are a part of it and we must not lose sight of that.

Crucially, we must always remember that British troops will be stretched unless there is some sort of European force—either a WEU or an EU force. British troops are always the first on the ground and they do an excellent job when serving overseas. No one can take that away from them. However, other European nations should tackle some of the problems in Europe instead of leaving it to good old Britain. They have a part to play. Hopefully, as a result of this discussion, or through the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence having discussions, we will find a way forward. If we can ensure that we get the right deal for the United Kingdom and our defence forces, I will not have a problem with it, as long as that independence remains. I believe that it will.

10.30 am
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on his success in obtaining this important debate. I hope that he gets the answers that he sought from the Minister. I also congratulate all those hon. Members who have spoken. As is usual in defence debates, all those who have spoken care and know about the subject.

The House should not have to rely on the Opposition to haul reluctant Ministers to the Dispatch Box. We will haul them here at every opportunity, but how much better it would be if they were less secretive. If the Government were more open, they would not have leaks and the paranoia of the Ministry of Defence over the strategic defence review and the Territorial Army. That gallant soldier, General Sir Michael Walker, Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, would not have to issue letters saying that idle chatter on social occasions about the cuts would imperil military careers, or talk of press revelations eroding trust between military chiefs and "our political masters", and order his troops to avoid deliberate contact with the press or politicians". As the Member of Parliament for Salisbury, I would have a pretty boring time at social events, in my surgeries and elsewhere, if that happened and I regret that it has been necessary for him to say it.

Three weeks ago, the House debated the Government's strategic defence review. At the very moment that the Minister for the Armed Forces was speaking, the Prime Minister was briefing the European press on the future of European defence policy. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister had forgotten to tell the Secretary of State for Defence or, if he had, the latter had forgotten to tell his Ministers who were speaking in the House. That was incompetent. The Prime Minister was incompetent, as was the Secretary of State for Defence. It was a muddle.

The Prime Minister went off to Portschach in Austria to tell the leaders of Europe that they were in a muddle over defence. Last week in Vienna, the Secretary of State for Defence tried to sort it all out. He said in his speech there that it was "a one-off informal conference"—it was so informal that he told the press that it was "a defining moment" for defence policy. The Secretary of State was asked about merging the European Union and Western European Union. He said: We do not rule it out, but it raises a number of difficulties"— I'll say it does. He confirmed that other options include: merging some elements of the WEU with the EU and associating other elements more closely with NATO, or perhaps creating a more distinct European dimension within NATO. Just for good measure, he added that one could also envisage reinforcing and reinvigorating the WEU". So, the Prime Minister forgot to talk to the Ministry of Defence, but both he and the Secretary of State for Defence forgot to talk to the Foreign Office. That was also incompetent.

Yesterday, in another place, Government policy on EU-WEU integration was debated. The Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Symons, said, in column 627 of the Official Report: The Government are not focusing on institutional changes though these may come. By column 629, she had warmed up a little and she said: the relationship between the WEU and Europe on the one hand and the WEU and NATO on the other is one on which a little more clarity from time to time would be helpful. And so say all of us. By column 630, she was firing on all cylinders and she said: the common strategies developed under CFSP are subject to unanimity vote. However, the common positions which flow from those strategies are subject to qualified majority voting unless they are not covered by a common strategy. I hope that point is clear."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 627–630.]

Mr. MacShane

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly because I spent the most invigorating morning with the noble Baroness Symons yesterday in Rotherham and sent her back to the other place all fired up. Is not the hon. Gentleman making an immense meal out of this? I am privy to no papers, but I read in the Financial Times that the proposal was outlined in a paper by Mr. Robert Cooper of the Foreign Office, one of our cerebral gentlemen there. I read all about it before Portschach. So, far from it being sprung on the Austrians, it was widely reported in the press. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes out a subscription to the Financial Times. He will learn much to his advantage.

Mr. Key

First, may I say how surprised, but delighted, I am that the hon. Gentleman has visited Rotherham. I congratulate him. I do not need to take out a subscription to the Financial Times because I can read it in the Library of the House, along with The Sun.

Chancellor Klima of Austria has more definite ideas. He said at Pőrtschach, that a "new dynamic" has developed on the issue in the European Union and that he had observed the emergence of a "commitment" as regards a common foreign and security policy. He said that the Prime Minister's intervention on the subject, which included the "variant" of the "possible integration" of WEU into the EU, reflects a "movement" by London that cannot but be welcomed. Several summit participants commented that the European countries should have a common position on the subject by the time of the NATO summit in Washington in April 1999. However, Mr. Klima made a point of stating that the Vienna European Council should not be expected to indicate the time of a possible merger of WEU into the EU. That is a relief, but it is imposing a pretty tight timetable on the Government for that debate. In Vienna last week, the French Defence Minister, Alain Richard, was clear too, saying: No-one contests the importance of the transatlantic link for our security, but neither does anyone doubt that a Europe with a single currency cannot go long without a real defence and security dimension". He considered that it would be "very useful" for discussions between WEU and NATO on the use of cores of CJTF headquarters in a European command chain". All that evidence shows me that many people in Europe seem to be clear, but that this House is not, even if any member of the Government is.

What of our Italian allies? The Italian Defence Minister, Carlo Scognamiglio said that European military capabilities are not so limited or fragile as widely believed". He said in Vienna that the Europeans can field more soldiers, ships or combat aircraft than the United States. However, he admitted that this numerical reality does not spell the operational truth". According to Mr. Scognamiglio, one of the most striking aspects that emerged from those discussions was the fact that there was a gross lack of mutual knowledge among those forces". He suggested the organisation of joint exercises and the development of exchanges between officers to remedy those shortcomings.

That is fine, but I thought that the Ministry of Defence was clear about the reorganisation of European defence industries—or has it been saying one thing in Brussels and another in the House? On 28 October, the Government published their response to the joint report of the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees on aspects of defence procurement and industrial policy. Recommendations q and I read: The Government does not support the creation of a 'Fortress Europe' … and it has consistently opposed any move towards a system of European preference which it believes is incompatible with the longer term competitiveness of European industry. What of the views of the biggest country in Europe, Germany? Following the recent elections, an unlikely coalition emerged between the Social Democrats—always suspicious about defence—and the Green party—always opposed to defence, to large industries in general and to defence industries in particular.

In Baden-Baden, Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping said that he wanted to strengthen Europe's role in NATO. He said: I would like us to finally overcome our weakness in Europe and formulate a common foreign and security policy". On Thursday, he said on Sildwestrudfunk radio that there must finally be a strong European pillar in NATO, which was not at all the case at the moment—"at least," he added, it is not as strong as it should be". He said that he wanted to tackle that great challenge, but that nothing would happen until the new defence structure commission—Germany's version of the strategic defence review —had reported.

Unlike the British Government, who said that they would complete their review in six months, the German Government have said that the commission will take two years. The French and the Italians expect something to happen by early next year, but Germany is saying, "Hang on a minute. We aren't going to do anything for at least two years and then we'll let the world know what we think."

Of the Greens' demands to cut the size of the Bundeswehr, Mr. Scharping said that it made no sense to deal with abstract figures now and that conclusions for the future of the Bundeswehr could be drawn only after careful assessment of the situation. The coalition expressly agreed to take any budget and business decisions on the Bundeswehr only when the results of the defence structure commission were available.

The realities are different. In the Gulf war, Britain and France joined the US-led military coalition whereas other EU members refused to commit troops. EU members were unable to agree a common approach to diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. In the former Yugoslavia, they took different views on the recognition of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The way forward in resolving the conflict in Bosnia—the when and how of using military force—was in disarray. Peace was established only when the US took the diplomatic and military lead.

In serious crises, the divergent position of EU members will undermine efforts to establish a common approach. The diversity of EU members and the distinctiveness of their national foreign policy traditions often make agreement difficult. The EU lacks the political institutions and instruments that are necessary for an effective common foreign and security policy. It has no collective foreign ministry to provide intelligence, analysis and political advice and it lacks mechanisms to ensure that member states implement common positions once they have been agreed. Mechanisms for collective action via the WEU are only now being developed, although, as I said in last week's Army debate, I welcome them.

The Government must deal with the muddle and confusion in their policy. I recognise that this country has new opportunities, but there is a fixed timetable in which to achieve NATO's new strategic vision. NATO has delivered peace and stability for Europe, whereas the role of the WEU has begun to emerge only since the Petersberg declaration.

The Conservative party does not oppose progress, which is vital; we oppose the Government's confusion. Strong defence is the Government's first duty to the country and their first duty to the House is to tell us of their new policy ambitions—they must not forget that they are accountable to the House. Ministers should not trot around Europe from hotel to hotel, spa to spa and conference to conference, speculating on the future of our defence. Infrequently, they issue communiqués, but mostly we have to rely on foreign press reports and selective press briefings in Whitehall.

In a few minutes, the House will be remembering that, 80 years ago today, the armistice that brought to an end the first world war was signed. Most of us lost relatives in those terrible battles. The loss of life was on a scale unimaginable today, when such carnage would be unacceptable. That is why, if we love peace, the people of these islands will always have to prepare for war.

There are always some who say that the sacrifices of the first and second world wars were futile. They were not futile. It is because our youngest, fittest, brightest and best risked their lives that our Parliament is today debating the future of the common defence of the peaceful, stable and expanding democracies that have grown from the ashes of the countries that twice this century tore themselves to pieces. In the abiding hope of peace and prosperity for Europe in the next century, we will remember them.

10.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing what he rightly described as a timely debate on the European Union and defence policy. He strayed from that important subject by, among other things, disparaging Oxford. I do not know whether he has discussed that with the Leader of the Opposition or with some of his other colleagues; perhaps we are seeing a new fault line in the Conservative party.

I was astonished that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned the leaking of Government papers, especially after the results of the inquiry into the leaking of the White Paper on the strategic defence review. I should have thought that a period of silence on the subject would be appropriate.

As hon. Members know, the Amsterdam treaty will come into force when the final instrument of ratification is deposited. We expect that to be soon, although it will depend on the agenda of other national Parliaments. The treaty provides important new instruments to strengthen the common foreign and security policy. It also clarifies and sets limits on the defence aspects of CFSP and the role of the Western European Union in providing the European Union with access to an operational capability.

The Government have launched a wide-ranging debate in the European Union on the future of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the debate on defence and security issues at the informal European Union summit in Austria at the end of October and, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence reinforced that by leading the discussion at an informal conference of EU Defence Ministers in Vienna last week. Moreover, I dealt with the subject in the House on 20 October.

Hon. Members mentioned the problems that arose during previous crises. It is because of those problems that our aim is to enable the European Union to have a more united and influential voice, which may be articulated with greater speed and coherence through the common foreign and security policy. That voice must be backed up, when the need arises, with effective and prompt military action. The European Union must be able both to decide and to act quickly and effectively to achieve common goals. We believe that that will require some fresh thinking on the future direction of European defence.

Mr. MacShane

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be most welcome if the British Army and, indeed, the European armies, sent their engineering corps and regiments—our Sappers —to help rebuild central America? 1 know that I speak for the Territorial Army engineers in Rotherham, who would be delighted to help to rebuild bridges and roads and to bring some peace and hope to that devastated region. Britain could lead an armada for peace involving our European partners' armies and professional military engineers. Much equipment—including JCBs and bulldozers—is currently mothballed, so let us send it to central America, to show that our Sappers and engineers from other European armies can provide concrete help.

Mr. Spellar

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the enormous efforts of our troops in that appalling emergency. Further discussions are taking place on the most cost-effective and operationally effective ways in which to help in the full-scale reconstruction of the countries in that area, but I am sure that his comments will be considered.

Mr. Blunt

The Minister said that the European Union must have the capacity to act. However, under the Amsterdam treaty, the EU will ask the WEU to act for it. Is he presaging a change in Government policy, whereby such capabilities will be given to the EU?

Mr. Spellar

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, as the later part of my speech will make clear the direction in which we are moving.

The changes are a development of our on-going policy, and accusations about a lack of co-ordination are, frankly, ludicrous. Britain has always sought to build strong foundations for European security. Under the post-war Labour Government, we were a founder member of both the Atlantic Alliance and the Western European Union. Since then, Governments of both parties have contributed to the successful growth and adaptation of those organisations throughout their history, as they have evolved to respond to changing circumstances, just as they must today.

We have played a key role in developing the European security and defence identity within NATO, an initiative launched at NATO's Brussels summit in 1994 under the previous Administration and strengthened in 1996 at Berlin. The first meeting of NATO Defence Ministers at the level of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, 10 days after Berlin, attended by the then Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, warmly welcomed the Berlin agreement and agreed to oversee the implementation of its defence and military aspects. I was slightly confused about whether the hon. Member for Reigate supported those decisions by the previous Administration.

We have also been a key player in developing the Western European Union's ability to enable Europeans to act together militarily: an idea that dates back to 1984, when the WEU was reactivated as the vehicle for developing a common European defence identity.

We are rightly proud of a defence capability that is respected and admired throughout the world, and will be all the more so following the implementation of the strategic defence review. We should also be proud of our readiness to intervene to help those in need and to stamp out violence and repression: to act as a force for good. It is right and proper that we bring our experience to the table and ensure that the debate takes a realistic and pragmatic course, reflecting our own interests, and that European rhetoric is turned into hard-nosed reality.

Contrary to the unfounded assertions of the hon. Member for Reigate, we are not talking about removing defence from the control of national Governments and national Parliaments. Of course, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, member states must retain control of the use of their armed forces and the circumstances in which they are placed in danger.

We do not believe that it would be right for the European Commission or the European Parliament to have any direct role in those decisions; nor must there be any question of undermining NATO or attempting to duplicate it. NATO will rightly remain the foundation of our collective defence, as set out in article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty. That was explicitly recognised for the first time in a European Union context in the Amsterdam treaty.

Our aim is to strengthen Europe's position in the world. Europe's 370 million citizens expect and deserve nothing less. We want to ensure that Europe can speak with authority and act with decisiveness. For that to be a reality, European foreign policy needs to be coherent, responsive and credible.

There is no simple way of achieving that. Partly, it is a question of ensuring that we have sufficient common political will; perhaps even more importantly, it requires the establishment of an effective defence capability to underpin that will; and partly we need to get right the institutional arrangements that link the two.

Mr. Brazier

Does it not show what an exercise in fantasy building the European military dream is for the Minister to speak of underpinning defence capability when it is so clear that countries throughout Europe, with the honourable exception of France, are in the process of slashing their military budgets? Projects are being cancelled in Germany at this very moment.

Mr. Spellar

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should disparage, for example, the very effective joint amphibious capability that we have with the Dutch. That is an excellent example, and we want to develop that relationship. I am sure that he would agree that that is the right way to assert a proper European presence within NATO, which, as he would also surely agree, is the cornerstone of our defence policy.

The positive responses of our European partners to the speeches by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence bear testimony to the timeliness and importance of our approach.

We cannot conjure up shared political will by waving a wand. We need only look at recent experience to see how difficult it is to agree policies that respect and accommodate the diverse interests of all our European partners, whose international postures range from strict neutrality to active interventionism. Having reached agreement, it is equally, if not more, difficult to respond rapidly to changing circumstances.

To take our place in the world we will need to move beyond that, towards a foreign policy that is both forward looking and proactive and has the ability to respond to fast-moving situations. That will provide a response to the criticisms of past practice that have rightly been made in the Chamber.

Mr. Blunt

The Minister has still to address the Government's policy on the Western European Union. Nothing that he has said is inconsistent with a proposal to abolish the WEU. The Amsterdam treaty, which was signed by the Minister for the Armed Forces in his previous capacity, is not even in force yet, and the Ministry of Defence has yet to deny that a proposal to overturn the whole basis of the way in which our defence is treated is actively being considered.

Mr. Spellar

We do not intend to be frightened by the various ghosts that the hon. Gentleman is conjuring up. It will be easier to get through this speech if I am allowed to follow on logically rather than being constantly interrupted.

We will need to exploit the instruments that were created at Amsterdam. The appointment of a high representative for the common foreign and security policy, with real standing and authority, will be a step in the right direction, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for that. We will have significantly advanced our ability to decide and to react, but that will not be enough: we also need to enhance our ability to act.

If Europe is to have a stronger voice in the world, European armed forces will need to be capable of supporting our position. We need to put muscle behind Europe's foreign policy for those few hard cases when the normal instruments of foreign policy—trade, economic and political relations and diplomacy—are not enough.

Hon. Members will be aware of Kofi Annan's statement on his return from Iraq. He said: You can do a lot with diplomacy but, of course, you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up with firmness and force. That is frequently quoted, but it is a perfect encapsulation of what we should be striving to achieve for Europe, especially in those situations in which our North American allies are not directly engaged. We need to be confident that, when we call for action, we have the right means at our disposal to act. Having the right means will contribute, bottom up, to the process of building the confidence and the shared political will that European foreign policy needs.

Mr. Blunt

rose

Mr. Spellar

We need a defence capability that is fit for today's world. We must recognise that future crises may arise anywhere and at any time. We need armed forces that are deployable and sustainable, powerful and flexible, mobile, survivable and highly capable. Those were the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, reflecting the approach that we have taken to modernising our armed forces better to suit their tasks of today and tomorrow.

Mr. Blunt

Will the Minister still not give way? Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Spellar

Effective military capability and collective political will are clearly the key requirements. The institutional arrangements have been the focus of much speculation and coverage.

Mr. Blunt

Surely the Minister must give way now.

Mr. Spellar

If the hon. Gentleman wants me to get to the point that he wants me to cover, he had better stop shouting. The key is to be confident that, when we call for action, we have not only the right means at our disposal but the right mechanisms to act promptly. Mechanisms already exist to turn the common political will of the European Union into military action. The member states have agreed that the Western European Union should support the EU in framing the defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy and that the EU can avail itself of the WEU for operational purposes, relating to the Petersberg tasks, covering humanitarian and rescue operations.

At the Berlin summit in 1996, NATO declared its readiness to provide assets and capabilities to the WEU for European-led operations.

Mr. Blunt

rose

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Spellar

The procedures are cumbersome and we want to consider with our partners and allies whether it might be possible to streamline them to match our aspirations. In other words, once we make a decision, can we be sure that it will lead quickly and effectively to action? That may have institutional implications, but that is not where we are starting from. Our options include breathing new life into the WEU, which is important, but that option has pros and cons.

As we prepare to observe a two-minute silence to remember those who fell or were injured and those who lost loved ones in two world wars and other conflicts during this century, it is right that we recognise the enormous contribution that Europe's security institutions, especially NATO, have made to keeping the peace in Europe over the past 50 years. They remain relevant because they have evolved to reflect changing circumstances. We owe it to succeeding generations to ensure that we continue to work to preserve and to strengthen them. Today, we remember an older generation who secured peace in Europe. Tomorrow, we will continue to work to ensure peace for the next generation.

11 am

Madam Speaker

Order. Let us stand for the two-minute silence.

11.2 am

Madam Speaker

Thank you.

Back to