European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 23: 23: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ““excluding”” insert— ““(i) Article 1, paragraph 50, inserted Article 28D TEU, relating to the European Defence Agency; and (ii) ”” The noble Lord said: I also speak to Amendment No. 24. Once again, we are considering a provision that sets up an EU institution but adds nothing to defence capabilities and might actively harm NATO’s effectiveness. The history of the EDA is illuminating. It was proposed in the 2003 constitution, which was of course summarily rejected. This did not prevent the actual creation of the agency. The EDA is up and running, and we are now being asked retrospectively to legitimise it. The EDA, as set up by this treaty, has a wide remit. It is to infer identifying members’ capabilities and evaluate how well they are meeting their commitments. It will promote harmonisation and compatible procurement methods, and so on. All that sounds very sensible until one remembers that it completely disregards NATO. As I have already said, EU capabilities are derisory, and members’ commitment to meeting its military objectives minimal. With this provision, we are committing ourselves to harmonising our military capabilities with the weakest of our NATO allies instead of the strongest. Greater interoperability is indeed desirable, but our military equipment will be useless if it is not interoperable with US equipment. What is the point of developing joint procurement projects with countries whose defence spending levels are too low to purchase the end products? The rules and procedures of the EDA are to be decided by QMV. Countries that have no intention of providing troops, equipment or money to build the military capability of Europe are to have a say in the procurement of equipment by those few countries that, through NATO, are expected to carry out all Europe’s obligations. What we have here is a waste of money. As General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, the chief of defence materiel, defence equipment and support in the Ministry of Defence, so clearly laid out in January, this waste of money actively reduces our military capability. As he put it: "““It is inevitable that our top priority will be current operations and the equipment needed to support them … We need to think carefully about priorities when every pound sterling or Euro spent on international institutions is a pound or Euro I cannot spend on equipping and supporting deployed front line forces””." Once again, we see the Commission getting involved where it has no business to be. Defence is a matter that should remain squarely in the hands of the national Government. I beg to move.