European Union (Amendment) Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 10:00 pm on 6 May 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Bach Lord Bach Government Whip, Government Whip 10:00, 6 May 2008

Perhaps the noble Lord will give me the opportunity of giving them. For him to say that there is a huge difference between Maastricht and what is stated in the Lisbon treaty is absolutely against the use of a good sense of language. It is quite clear that the "will" that appears in the Lisbon treaty applies only if and when there is unanimity in the Council. The position is absolutely the same. So, Members of the Committee should be aware that the Lisbon treaty does not alter the current situation with regard to EU member states such as the UK which are also members of NATO. As the Select Committee report noted, the treaty makes it clear that the collective defence of such member states will continue to be organised and implemented through NATO.

At paragraph 7.112, the EU Committee report says:

"What will not change is that a unanimous European Council decision will be necessary before the EU moves to establish a common defence".

That is how it was at Maastricht and that is how it is now.

Amendments Nos. 21A and 101 would seek to exclude the provision on member states making their civilian and military capabilities available to the EU to undertake operations and missions within the remit of the common security and defence policy. The provision reflects practice since the establishment of the policy. There is no standing EU army. Indeed, EU member states offer on a voluntary basis civilian military capabilities and forces to the Union. After the European Council has decided by unanimity to undertake a mission or operation, those member states which are willing and able to participate in a specific mission will provide national forces during the force generation process. This reflects the reality that all of the EU forces belong to the member states and not to the Union itself. We welcome the fact that the treaty emphasises that common security and defence objectives will be pursued by means of member state capabilities.

Amendment No. 22 seeks to exclude the provision on entrusting the implementation of European security and defence policy tasks to a group of member states that are willing and have the necessary capabilities for such tasks. Although this is a new treaty article, it reflects current practice. The EU Committee report noted:

"The provisions on the European Defence Agency and on crisis management missions are a codification of current practice and will therefore have little impact on the European Security and Defence Policy".

The Council already decides by unanimity to entrust the implementation of an ESDP operational mission to the group of member states willing and able to lead or participate. This is the case, for example, in the recent missions to Chad, where France is the lead nation, with some 10 other member states providing forces. Let me remind the House that the launch of any EU operation requires unanimity. Lisbon treaty Article 1.49.C4—new Article 42.4.TEU of the consolidated treaty—says:

"Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission ... shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously".

I repeat—any decision to deploy UK troops for an EU-led operation will continue to rest with the UK Government.

Finally, Amendment No. 99 seeks to exclude the provision that allows, in principle, enhanced co-operation to be established for matters with military and defence implications. The procedures for enhanced co-operation originate in the treaty of Amsterdam, but they have never been used. Enhanced co-operation allows a group of member states to work together without affecting those that do not want to. Under the Lisbon treaty, the process would be triggered when at least nine member states want to co-operate in a specific area. The Lisbon treaty makes clear that any decision to set up enhanced co-operation in the area of CFSP, including in areas with military or defence implications, will be taken by the Council acting in unanimity. Enhanced co-operation with military or defence implications cannot take place without the approval of the UK Government. As I have said, it has never been used and there is no proposal for it to be utilised. We would consider any future proposals on their own merits.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked a couple of questions. He asked me about the defence industry and procurement. The UK Government support improved co-operation among Governments in order to provide Europe with a strong defence, industrial and technological base. This will help the development of military capabilities, the importance of which we have heard about and which lies at the heart of this debate. Do we support military command HQ? We do not believe that an EU operational headquarters would be the best use of scarce resources. That is why we agreed on an EU operations centre that can be activated when necessary.

I finish with a quotation from the successor to my noble friend, Lord Robertson. The present Secretary-General of NATO, who was referred to during the debate, said on 29 January 2007 that,

"an ESDP must be seen as an opportunity, not a danger. And no one today would still seriously assert that NATO and the EU are rivals whose aim is to drive each other out of business".

He went on:

"Such discussions are now altogether obsolete if they ever existed in the past".

I am afraid that the Secretary-General may have been a little optimistic, because some voices are still saying that NATO and the EU are set on a collision course. That is nonsense and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.