§ 11. Mr. Syd Rapson (Portsmouth, North)If he will make a statement on recent progress towards the headline goal on European Defence. [138582]
§ 13. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)What recent discussions he has had on the European security and defence policy project with (a) the EU's Foreign Affairs Commissioner and (b) French Ministers. [138584]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)As I have already made clear today, I attended the capability commitments conference on 20 and 21 November in Brussels, where European partners—both in the European Union and outside it—identified the type and level of forces that they might be able to make available to Petersberg operations. Those constitute not a standing European army but a pool of potentially available national forces. The UK contribution to the headline goal was announced to the House on 20 November.
628 I last met Javier Solana and the French Defence Minister at the conference.
§ Mr. RapsonFollowing the success of the conference, what other countries outside the European Union but in Europe have volunteered forces and facilities for the purpose of the Petersberg tasks?
§ Mr. HoonAt the conference there was a meeting not just among the 15 EU member states but among the 15 applicants for membership, all of which expressed willingness to participate in an appropriate way—according to their national capabilities—and all of which strongly supported the idea of developing a European capability. That contrasts with what I described to the House on 20 November as the complete isolation of the Conservative party, which appears in this context to be opposed not only to every European nation, but to the United States Administration.
§ Mr. RobathanI am sure that every Conservative Member applauds greater co-operation with our European allies in defence, and would applaud any greater commitment on their behalf to increasing their defence spending. But will the Secretary of State tell us his assessment of the motivation behind the enthusiasm of the French for the project, especially given that they left the NATO military structure in 1968 and show no inclination to return to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us his assessment of Turkey's reaction, given that throughout the cold war it was a vital European ally on the southern flank of NATO? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what financial commitment any of our European allies have made to extra defence spending specifically for this project, in terms of training, headquarters planning or, indeed, C3I—command, control, communications and intelligence.
§ Mr. HoonI am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously inviting me to assess French motivation. I find it difficult enough to understand the psychological obsessions of Conservative Members when it comes to questions affecting Europe.
Turkey attended the meeting that I mentioned, and offered its own contribution to satisfying the headline goal. Indeed, it did so in terms that indicated its enthusiasm about participating in an improvement in European military capability. [Interruption.]
As for finance, if the hon. Gentleman—instead of shouting from a sedentary position—gave a moment's thought to what is being attempted in terms of improving European capabilities, he would realise that satisfying the headline goal will require some countries to contribute extra expenditure. That is precisely the purpose of establishing the goal and trying to work towards it.
§ Mr. CasaleIs not recent progress in European defence a result not only of Britain's leadership in Europe but of the qualitative shift in the relationship between Britain and individual European nation states?
Do not the idea of a rapid reaction force in general, and the idea of a headline goal in particular, have their origin in British-Italian diplomatic initiatives, some of which go back to the time of the Maastricht treaty, when Lord Hurd was Foreign Secretary? The last Government, however, 629 lacked the support of other European nation states for the bringing to fruition of such initiatives, whereas this Government are demonstrating that they can deliver what is best for Britain through constructive engagement with Europe.
§ Mr. HoonI have certainly been puzzled in recent days by the attitude of certain elements of the Conservative party—what I might call their "ground zero" attitude to any event that took place before May 1997.
The Conservatives have a track record, and as far as European defence co-operation is concerned it is quite a good one. I find it astonishing that the present incumbents of the Conservative Front Bench, and large sections of the present Conservative party, seem to want to deny any involvement in effective European co-operation in the past. Fortunately, however—as I said earlier—the Conservatives' former Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd, as well as their former party chairman, all have rather better memories than their present Front-Bench team.
§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)I absolutely agree that we need greater European capability and greater European co-operation. I agree with Lord Healey and Lord Owen; but I also agree with Lord Hurd, who stated clearly in 1993:
A common foreign and security policy does not transform the European Union into a defence organisation.—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol.222, c. 179.]Before the Secretary of State starts going on about Maastricht, perhaps he will bear in mind what was said when the legislation went through—although he, it must be said, voted against it.Last week, did not we yet again have the Prime Minister being a little economical with the truth? When he decided to say why he voted against these very proposals in 1997, he said that they
would have meant that NATO and European defence ran alongside one other.—[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 301.]That was his fear, but is not the reality the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to exactly that? There is not one single link between NATO and the European Union force. General Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said the other day that he would play no direct part in the European endeavour, and that all he had was the prospect of linking NATO and the European Union together, so that is the reality. Will the Secretary of State answer this simple question: is the proposal not exactly the same as that refused in 1997 by the Prime Minister?
§ Mr. HoonWe have made it clear in the negotiations, in which we have been closely involved, that there will be a close link between the European Union rapid reaction capability and NATO planning processes. Indeed, much of the work on describing the scenarios that are part of the headline goal was done in NATO planning units. That will continue. We have made it absolutely clear that we anticipate the use of NATO planning processes in order to achieve deployment of any rapid reaction force, in a situation where, formerly, NATO itself was not engaged.
As for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, it is all very well agreeing with all manner of people who appear to be putting forward contradictory views. The real 630 question for him is whether he agrees with Baroness Thatcher, who is clearly leading the Conservative party on the issue.
§ Mr. Duncan SmithHere we go again. The Secretary of State does not bother to answer the question. All Ministers do is try to claim that our position will end co-operation and production on EFA—European fighter aircraft—and so on. Soon they will be talking about its being the end of televisions in Europe and of bath tubs. They never deal with the key point, which is: what is the initiative for? The reality is, as he knows, that the French said clearly in 1999, "You would never get a right of first refusal for NATO." If we do not get that right of first refusal, we will have NATO and the EU in due course disagreeing about which will operate. Is not that the point? There is no military capability enhancement. It is far from being a European rapid reaction force. It is not even European. It certainly is not rapid. But it is reactionary, anti-US and anti-NATO.
§ Mr. HoonPerhaps it might help if I said it a little more slowly. I shall try to explain it in such a way that the Defence Secretary can understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"]—so that the shadow Defence Secretary can understand it—[Interruption.] I already understand it. Let me make it clear. NATO fully supports the European Union's work on European defence. It absolutely unequivocally supports what is happening, as do the current Secretary-General of NATO, the United States President and the United States Defence Secretary. They have all said categorically that it is good for both European defence and NATO. Is the shadow Defence Secretary saying that they have all got it wrong—each and every one of them—and only he knows the truth? If that is his position, no one will believe it.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)If the position gets even worse, and in order to maintain the peace, about which we are all concerned, has any discussion taken place at European level about using the rapid reaction force to stop rival Tory factions from tearing each other apart over Europe? Is that a possibility?