| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Standing Committee
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 29th March.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Lords messages
7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion
REGULATORY REFORM BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
- That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of orders under the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to orders under the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.--[Mr. Clelland.]
European Security and Defence Policy
11.10 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I beg to move,
- That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27th November 2000 relating to the Presidency Report to the Nice European Council on the Common European Security and Defence Policy (document 14056/3/00) and the three unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the FCO on 22nd and 23rd January relating to the establishment of permanent CESDP bodies; welcomes the Government's approach to a Common European Security and Defence Policy; and supports the Government's intention to pursue this initiative in the EU and in close co-operation with NATO.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members must not--[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members cannot wave papers and bob up and down in their seats while the Minister is addressing the House.
Mr. Vaz: I am delighted that I have such a large following that Opposition Members have turned out for this debate.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister introduced the motion by saying that it stood in his name and those of his hon. Friends, but none of his hon. Friends appear on the Order Paper.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Vaz: I shall explain why the agreements reached at the Nice European Council and the subsequent decisions of the January General Affairs Council represent a good outcome for Britain, Europe and NATO.
The House will recall that the European Union's security and defence policy results from an initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1998. The goals of that initiative have not changed and are fully reflected in the agreements reached at Nice. We want to create a Europe where nations invest in better military capabilities. We want to strengthen Europe's contribution to NATO and to enable Europeans to act where NATO as a whole is not involved.
Nice represented a major step towards securing those goals. The Council agreed on permanent structures for EU political and military bodies, and on inclusive arrangements to involve non-member states in European security and defence policy. It proposed comprehensive consultation and co-operation agreements between the EU and NATO.
The results of Nice have been widely welcomed. The new United States Administration support the emphasis on capabilities and the relationship with NATO. On 23 February at Camp David, President Bush said:
- "The United States welcomes the European Union's European Security and Defence Policy, intended to make Europe a stronger and more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community."
-
Although the ESDP has been welcomed by the United States, its domestic reception here has, at times, been mixed. I fear that a great deal of that is down to misunderstandings created by the Conservative party, so I welcome this opportunity to put the record straight.
- "where NATO as a whole is not engaged".
- "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making".
Hon. Members might like to recall that the Petersberg tasks were agreed by the previous Government as the scope of activity for the Western European Union, so it is somewhat hypocritical to criticise the European Union for being ready to take on the same roles. Moreover, it is worth recalling that the Maastricht treaty signed up EU member states not only to the prospect of a common EU defence policy, but to "a common defence". It is worth reminding the House that one of the Members who signed the Maastricht treaty was the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is now shadow Foreign Secretary. Those who sound completely false alarm bells about the threat to NATO were happy to sign up to the prospect of the EU replacing NATO.
The Government have changed the perspective by taking the lead in European defence rather than taking fright. We have shaped the debate and designed the policy in a way that ensures that NATO's pre-eminent role remains unchanged. To make that clear, the report states:
- "NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members and will continue to play an important role in crisis management".
The report also makes it clear that there is no such thing as a European army. It states:
- "This does not involve the establishment of a European army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions."
I have clarified what the ESDP is not; I shall now explain what it is
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, as well as being shadow Secretary of State for Defence, has taken over the role of shadow Foreign Secretary from the right hon. Member for
Horsham. The hon. Gentleman went to Washington to pour poison into the ears of the Administration. That caused our difficulties.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister claims much credit for moves away from Maastricht and other treaties. Why, in 1997, did the Prime Minister describe the proposals to which the Minister signed up at St. Malo and Nice as "ill-judged transplant" operations, which he voted out?
Mr. Vaz: Let us begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Horsham, who signed the Maastricht treaty in 1992, and to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who agreed the Petersberg tasks the next year. That is where European defence originated. The continuation of that policy at St. Malo began under the previous Government.
Mr. Duncan Smith indicated dissent.
Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take credit for it, but he must. He must also give due credit to the right hon. Member for Horsham.
First and foremost, European defence is about more effective European armed forces. It is about enhancing Europe's contribution to NATO, strengthening our ability to support United Nations or Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe operations, and making it possible for EU nations to respond to crises.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |