European Union (Amendment) Bill

I should like the noble Lord to continue to hear what I have to say. At one level it would be a decision for the Executive too. It would be the British Government of whatever colour who would say, ““We don’t think this is an occasion for British troops””. They would have the absolute right—this is what seems to be denied elsewhere—to say ““No. No British troops””. All decisions regarding whether particular member states wish to participate in an agreed ESDP operation, whether by providing troops or other assets, are for those members states to take by themselves. All forces are offered to the EU on a voluntary basis. That has been the case since ESDP began. There is nothing in the Lisbon treaty that changes that. We have just discussed the Government’s proposals to give Parliament a say—this is the second limb of Amendment No. 18A—over the deployment of our Armed Forces into conflict overseas. The White Paper has been referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to what the Prime Minister said just after he took office. The White Paper published in March of this year outlines proposals granting Parliament the power to approve such deployments. A draft resolution seeking to implement these proposals has been released. That draft resolution is designed to achieve parliamentary oversight of UK deployments while maintaining the operational flexibility necessary to address emergencies or maintain secrecy. Furthermore, the choice of a resolution as a mechanism for the changes eliminates the liability of forces personnel to indictment. There are matters still to be considered in relation to those proposals. They are being considered and discussed as we speak. It would not be appropriate to seek to anticipate that discussion further here. Amendment No. 109 seeks to exclude the common security and defence policy from the scope of the Bill. I hope I have made the Government’s position clear on that. We think it brings benefits to the UK in terms of enhanced security and greater global stability. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, in his excellent speech, mentioned a number of ESDP missions that the EU has. I am not going to repeat them. They are around the world in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. In some of the most difficult parts of the world the EU has played a noble role in trying to sort out those problems. It is for that reason in itself that we would reject Amendment No. 109, which, as I said earlier, I take to be an amendment to raise discussion. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would seek to exclude the provision on the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, talked about this issue. Noble Lords will know that the provision on common defence is not new. As noted by the European Union Committee report, it was first established at Maastricht. The references to a common defence draw directly on the Maastricht language. The Lisbon treaty retains the clear requirement that any move to a common European Union defence would require two conditions to be met, just as in the current treaty on European Union. First, such a move will only be, "““when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides””." We retain a veto over any such decision. In addition, the Lisbon treaty goes on to make clear: "““It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements””." It is the double lock that we hear so much about—unanimity in Europe and then each country following its own constitutional requirements before that could happen. The possibility of any British Government of whatever complexion going down this road is so remote that it seems to me that it is extraordinarily unlikely that it would happen. Some noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, in particular, referred to the wording regarding common defence,. The Lisbon treaty states that a common defence policy, "““might lead to a common defence””." Regarding a common defence policy, it also states: "““This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides””." I should have thought that any reasonable analysis of that use of language suggests that is simply two ways of saying the same thing.