§ 10. Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)When the Secretary of State will next meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the future of NATO. [1550]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)Tomorrow.
§ Mr. WintertonI am grateful for that brief and succinct reply. Last year, the Secretary of State for Defence gave the impression that defence spending among European Union nations would increase. Why have the International Institute for Strategic Studies and President Bush of the United States both noted that European defence spending is, in fact, falling? Is it not now essential to repair the damage done to US-British relations by the Labour Government's desire for a European army?
§ Mr. BradshawNo damage at all has been done to US-British relations. Perhaps President Bush is the best judge of that. He said:
The United States welcomes the EU's European Security and Defence Policy intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community".
§ Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)When Ministers meet their American counterparts, as well as welcoming the fact that the US Administration have changed their approach to the European defence policy, will they also welcome the fact that there appears to be a growing recognition, particularly in the Senate, of the importance of the American Government having a detailed discussion with Russia, and that any move beyond the anti-ballistic missile treaty should take place on the basis of co-operation, not unilateralism?
§ Mr. BradshawYes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we welcome President Bush's willingness to engage not just with us and our European Union and NATO allies but with Russia and China on the important issues of international security.
§ Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)I join other hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his post.
May I ask the question another way? European Union politicians, such as the Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel—whom I am sure the Minister knows well—talk openly and confirm that the real reason for the European army is to realise Europe politically with a European security and defence policy. Not just the International Institute for Strategic Studies but a succession of reports 659 have shown that European defence spending, far from increasing to pay for better equipped forces, continues to fall by 5 per cent. a year in constant dollar terms. Notwithstanding the announcements to be made later today, spending on new defence equipment in Europe is at its lowest for decades and NATO officials have complained about gaping holes in our procurement. Therefore, does the Minister not think that it will be an uphill battle for the Secretary of State to prove to the Americans tomorrow that Europe's grand designs and diminishing defence spending will strengthen NATO rather than weaken it? Unfortunately, is it not true that NATO is not safe in the Foreign Secretary's hands?
§ Mr. BradshawThere is rather a lot in that question. The hon. Lady and most of her colleagues on the Opposition Benches need to have a little more confidence, particularly in Britain's ability to win arguments with Belgian politicians. She has a serious point on European defence capabilities that was also made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). All of us in the House share the view that the European defence force and Europe as a whole need to improve their defence capabilities. That is partly a matter of spending more, but it is also a question of how we spend the money. At the moment, compared with the United States, we get very little capability for what we spend.