HC Deb 09 July 2001 vol 371 cc533-5
9. Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

What representations he has received concerning the European security and defence policy. [1191]

11. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)

When he last met the NATO Secretary-General to discuss European security. [1193]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)

I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on European security and defence policy. I have also discussed the policy with Lord Robertson—most recently on 25 June. NATO members, including the United States, have recognised the importance of improving the defence capabilities of European partners, to allow Europe to act when NATO as a whole is not engaged and to contribute to the improvements identified in the European Union's headline goal and NATO's defence capabilities initiative.

Dr. Spink

How does the Secretary of State explain the crystal-clear contradiction that exists, given that the Prime Minister told the US President in February that planning for any EU military operation would take place in NATO, yet the EU military staffs have made it clear that high-level and operational planning will be undertaken by their organisation? Will the Secretary of State tell us which of those statements is true?

Mr. Hoon

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House—although he could possibly have spent the interim period reading about the arrangements for the European Union and NATO more carefully. Had he done so, he would have identified the fact that operational planning will be a matter for NATO. [Interruption.] Operational planning will be a matter for NATO; I have said it twice so that the hon. Gentleman can get that point quite clearly into his mind.

Mr. Amess

Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House last year that defence spending among European nations was growing? In the light of that, will he explain whether he agrees with his former colleague Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO, who said that Europe's response to the defence capability initiative was totally inadequate?

Mr. Hoon

The two observations are not necessarily inconsistent, in the sense that what is important about the defence capabilities initiative is that European nations develop particular kinds of capabilities that are consistent with the aims of the Helsinki headline goal, and relate to the need to deal with modern issues. Instead of having large numbers of forces deployed on the west German plain to confront the threat from the Soviet Union, we now need rapidly deployable forces along the lines envisaged by the strategic defence review. Although we certainly urge our European partners to increase their defence spending, we also urge them to spend their defence money in a different way—on satisfying the Helsinki headline goal as well as on the defence capabilities initiative.

Roger Casale (Wimbledon)

As well as ensuring that European funds are spent more effectively in, for example, combat and peacekeeping areas such as the Balkans, is not one of the benefits to Britain of participating in the European defence initiative the fact that, over time, other European countries will spend more on their own and on European defence in general? Will my right hon. Friend use his contacts with our European partners to urge them to spend more, and to make sure that the money is spent more effectively?

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. He is right. It is important that European nations spend their defence money more effectively than they have in the past, and this country recognised that point before we conducted the strategic defence review. The review was broadly supported by Members on both sides of the House, and it is important that the lesson is also learned elsewhere.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)

Does the Secretary of State not agree that the Prime Minister is in danger of becoming habitually inexact about what he has arranged for the euro-army—or the European defence force, as he calls it? Did the Prime Minister not come to the House at one stage and say that any significant operation that the force carried out will require NATO assets and … will be planned at NATO"?—[Official Report, 11 December 2000: Vol. 359, c. 349.] However, General Schuwirth, who is now a member of the military staff, has said: If necessary, we engage in high-level-planning. Is not the reality that what the Prime Minister signed up to at Nice and what he tells the House and the country are two completely different things? Are the Prime Minister and his Government not becoming rather like the pushme-pullyou? When they go to Washington, they are against, when they go to Brussels, they are in favour, and when they come to Parliament, they are in denial.

Mr. Hoon

I should have thought that it was rather dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to refer to Dr. Dolittle—but as he hopes to be busy in due course, perhaps we can depend on him for further literary references in future.

I have made the position absolutely clear: operational planning will be conducted in NATO. That was agreed at Nice.

Mr. Duncan Smith

indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoon

It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head to suggest that he knows best. If he examines the Nice agreement carefully, he will see that there was an acceptance right across the European Union that operational planning will be conducted through NATO.