 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates European Standing Committee B Debates |
European Standing Committee B |
|
Column Number: 1 European Standing Committee BThe Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairman: † Mr. Mike Hancock †Alexander, Mr. Douglas (Minister for Europe)†Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab) †Blizzard, Mr. Bob (Waveney) (Lab) †Brady, Mr. Graham (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con) †Browne, Mr. Jeremy (Taunton) (LD) Cash, Mr. William (Stone) (Con) †Coaker, Mr. Vernon (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury) †Cox, Mr. Geoffrey (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) †Hopkins, Kelvin (Luton, North) (Lab) †Palmer, Dr. Nick (Broxtowe) (Lab) †Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con) †Strang, Dr. Gavin (Edinburgh, East) (Lab) †Younger-Ross, Richard (Teignbridge) (LD) Tom Healey, Keith Neary, Committee Clerks † attended the Committee Column Number: 3 Thursday 20 October 2005[Mr. Mike Hancock in the Chair]EU Common Strategy on Russia2.30 pmThe Minister for Europe (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Thank you, Mr. Hancock, for this opportunity to discuss the road maps for the four common spaces that were agreed at the EU-Russia summit on 10 May 2005. The Government believe that the road maps are an important step in building a stronger, more constructive European relationship with Russia. Better relations between the EU and Russia mean better relations between the UK and Russia. First, I will expand on EU-Russia relations more generally, in order to set this latest document in context. I will then set out our objectives for the relationship and where we want to head with it. Finally, I shall delve a little further into the details of the road maps themselves. Russia is, of course, the EU’s largest neighbour. A strong EU-Russia partnership is vital for our security and prosperity, and for tackling the numerous common threats that we face. The EU is Russia’s largest trading partner. In 2004, more than half of Russia’s total trade was with the European Union, and Russia was the EU’s fourth largest trading partner overall in 2004. The energy ties are perhaps even more important. More than half of Russia’s total energy exports are to the EU. They, in turn, make up more than half of Russia’s total exports to the European Union. Nearly a fifth of the oil, and more than a quarter of the gas, used by the Union is from Russia. The relationship is mutually beneficial. The European Union provides a reliable, integrated energy market to Russia. It offers technology and expertise, particularly in energy efficiency, to those involved in the energy business in Russia. Russia provides Europe with the energy required to keep our economies developing and growing. Its share in our energy markets is likely to grow in future, as our own energy sources run out. In turn, EU member states are investing in manufacturing in Russia, bringing jobs and creating wealth, helping to diversify Russia’s economy and sharing own experience in all sectors of the economy. The relation goes far beyond trade, and official links are being established in almost every sphere of activity. The first satellites of the European Union’s Galileo satellite navigation system will be launched from Russian rockets. We are working together to improve cultural and education links across Europe. Russia is taking part in new educational programmes, allowing young Russians to gain experience of life in the EU. Column Number: 4 Russia is an increasingly important partner in the fight against international terrorism and crime. With its UN Security Council seat, its membership of the G8 and its traditionally important role in international security, Russia will continue to be a key player and partner for the European Union—and, indeed, the United Kingdom—on the world stage. As a result, Russia benefits from the most comprehensive institutional relationship that the EU has with any third country; every year, it takes part in two summits, at least two Foreign Ministers meetings, other ministerial meetings, and numerous official-level meetings—the list goes on. But despite that breadth of relationships, there is far more that we can do together. The European Union and the United Kingdom want an open and integrated market between the EU and Russia. We want to remove barriers to trade to allow our companies to work together more effectively. We want Russia to be a stable democracy operating under the effective rule of law. We want fundamental freedoms to be respected and we want the media to operate freely. We want to work better with Russia to address common threats that affect all of us on the European continent, including organised crime, illegal drugs and, of course, terrorism. The attacks in Nalchik only last week remind us that these are problems that Russia faces, too. We want to be able to work with Russia on the world stage, both in our immediate common European neighbourhood and beyond. We want to work with Russia to strengthen the international order, the prime rule of the United Nations in the world, and all aspects of the European work done by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The road maps for the development of the four common spaces are an attempt to bring together all these elements of the EU-Russia co-operation. The road maps outline steps that will eventually lead to the convergence of EU and Russian activities across a wide range of areas. We should not underestimate the challenges that that would pose, but the rewards are potentially significant. The road map for the common economic space provides for regulatory dialogue on industrial products, and closer co-operation on investment issues, competition and financial services. It plans for closer co-operation on telecommunications and the harmonisation of standard-setting in infrastructure development. It goes further into energy co-operation, as well as co-operation to protect the environment and to implement the Kyoto protocol. The road map for the common space of freedom, security and justice makes it clear that the EU-Russia partnership is to develop on the basis of common values, as set out in international treaties. It provides for a continuing regular dialogue on human rights concerns and plans for increased co-operation in the fight against organised crime, drugs, terrorism and cross-border crime. The road map for the common space of external security plans intensified co-operation between the European Union and Russia on a range of
Finally, the road map for the common space of research, education and culture outlines a series of initiatives designed to improve EU-Russia co-operation in those spheres. Russia faces many of the same challenges as the EU and it is only natural that we should pool our intellectual resources to promote economic growth and competitiveness across the continent. The recent EU-Russia summit held in London on 4 October was the first opportunity to take stock of progress on the road map since May last year. I am pleased to say that despite the short time since those agreements were adopted, we have made the first steps towards implementing them. Under the first road map, we had a good discussion on energy co-operation and climate change. The Commission has already launched proposals for our regulatory dialogue in many areas of industrial production. Under the second road map, the Prime Minister and President Putin welcomed the conclusion of facilitated visas and readmission agreements. Those will ease travel between the European Union and Russia and help tackle the threat of illegal immigration. There were also good exchanges on combating terrorism and the importance of protecting human rights while tackling terrorism. Elsewhere, we had good talks with the Russians on fighting organised crime and drugs and I am pleased to say that we have agreed a programme of priority actions to improve co-operation on that. Under the third road map, we had good exchanges on Moldova, Iran, the western Balkans and the middle east. President Putin said that Russia was prepared to discuss with the European Union any issue affecting our common European neighbourhood. We welcome that willingness to engage, which has not been all together forthcoming in the past. There was a brief discussion at the summit on ongoing co-operation under the fourth road map. Only a short time has passed since those road maps were agreed, but we are already making progress towards implementing them. I am under no illusions that this will be a difficult and, at times, slow process, but with commitment from both sides, we can bring benefits to the citizens of the European Union and Russia. The road maps for the creation of the four common spaces provides a good framework for working with Russia and meeting our objectives for EU-Russian relations in the medium term. They are comprehensive and cover all issues that are important to both the European Union and Russia. Most importantly, they were agreed jointly, so we know that we have the support of both sides to make them happen. The priority for the United Kingdom during the remaining months of our European Union presidency and
The Chairman: The road maps should have been in place for your officials, Minister. At one stage, I thought that they were lost in the Corridor. We have until 3.30 to question the Minister on his statement. I shall take alternate questions, and there will be plenty of time for Committee members to ask more than one question. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): It is a pleasure for Conservative Members here to take a break from Kremlinology to talk about Russia instead. I thank the Minister for his opening statement and I congratulate him and the Government on progress in an extremely important relationship. That relationship is not easy, as the Minister has recognised, but it must continue. I have a number of questions. First, I should like to focus on external security and on concerns that are raised periodically about the co-operation of the Russian state with some other countries. That was raised most recently by The Sunday Telegraph, which this week suggested that Russian scientists had been sent to help develop the Shahab-5 missile project in Iran; there is also close Russian co-operation on the development of civil nuclear power plants in Iran. How meaningful is the joint commitment to pursue non-proliferation set out in the road map for external security? Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am also grateful that my officials have arrived. Mr. Hancock was concerned at their absence, and in that he was more than matched by this Minister. I will try to answer the question in the broad terms of our view of Russia’s engagement with Iran generally. Then, if there are specific questions about the scientists, I will endeavour to answer them or I will ensure that an answer is forthcoming. In the Foreign Office’s view, Russia shares our concerns about the Iranian nuclear programme and the recent turn of events that we have witnessed in Tehran, although it is right to acknowledge, as was implied in the question, that we have differences on tactics for engagement with the Iranian regime. We have worked closely with Russia on the issue and have been in constant contact as the situation has developed. For example, the matter was discussed in depth at the EU-Russia summit on 4 October, which I mentioned; both Prime Minister Blair and President Putin were involved. I can assure Members that we will continue that approach. We have worked carefully during recent months to try to secure international consensus on our approach to Iran. As the Foreign Secretary recently commented, we have managed to persuade the Iranians by diplomatic means to continue to suspend their enrichment of nuclear fuel. If one looks at the broader history of engagement with Iran, there is no doubt that the E3 process has now garnered wider international
Let us reflect on the most recent resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency. There was a significant degree of isolation for Iran at that meeting, which is tangible evidence of the fact that the kind of co-operation there has been with the Russians is bearing fruits in the degree of consensus that we are able to secure. It is right to acknowledge, as I sought to do in my introductory response to the questions put by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), that there have been disagreements about the initial tactics and the level of engagement previously with Russia. However, I would urge caution to Members who read the kind of reports that were in the British newspapers following Condoleezza Rice’s recent visit to Russia. They do not accord with the Foreign Office’s sense about the constructive role that Russia continues to play in what is a multilateral diplomatic effort. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): I thank my right hon. Friend for an interesting introduction. Does he not agree that there is everything to be gained by drawing Russia closer to the European Union, both politically and economically? Does he also accept that the coolness of Europe and Britain to Russia in the past decade or two has not been wise? Mr. Alexander: I certainly agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend in his initial observation that there is a huge amount to be gained by closer and more effective co-operation and higher levels of understanding and trust between individual member states of the European Union, including the United Kingdom, and Russia. It is important to recognise the extent to which the geopolitical context of either the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia or the wider relationship between the European Union and Russia has transformed and evolved over recent years. There is no doubt that Russia has made a significant journey during the past 15 years. Many would have wished there to be even more expeditious progress, but when one recalls how divided Europe was only 15 years ago, it reminds us how much progress has been made and how great the potential gains for further co-operation in years to come are. Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): We have heard two important questions. I want to quiz the Minister on how questions put in this debate will to be reflected in what he and Government officials say in the EU? In short, how will what we say today have any impact on the summit in a few months’ time? I ask that because a previous Minister for Europe told the European Scrutiny Committee that he would ensure that the final paper was put to the Council and that the Committee would be able to scrutinise it in good time before approval. However, it then
Will the Minister give us some indication of how our input today will be reflected in what the he says in the EU at Council? What is the Council process in respect of those negotiations? Mr. Alexander: It is a reasonable question. To assist the Committee I will explain the circumstances in which our normal practice, whereby the documents would have been laid before the European Scrutiny Committee ahead of their being adopted at the summit, was not able, in the circumstances, to transpire. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right to recognise that these are non-legally binding political instruments; therefore we are not technically obliged to give them the level of scrutiny given to legal instruments in normal circumstances. However, we made the judgment, and I understand that that would have been reflected in the terms of the correspondence between my predecessor and the Committee. Given the significance of the documents that we are discussing, it was right that the Committee should take a strong interest in what is a highly important relationship for the EU. It is therefore a matter of regret that, despite our best efforts, it was not possible to have this debate before the parliamentary recess this year and ahead of the EU-Russia summit of 4 October. On the basis of my questioning of officials before this debate, I can say that the documents were not scrutinised prior to the original summit because the documents were not agreed until the summit, so it was not possible to secure the ideal level of scrutiny. On how this debate is taken forward, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have agreed with the Chairman of both Committees that I will update the Scrutiny Committee on the implementation of the four common spaces documents, in writing, directly after each EU-Russian summit. I sent the first of those updates earlier this week. Of course, I will bear in mind the representations on the broader issue of the road maps that I receive today in this Committee. Those will certainly weigh in my mind when framing the right response, both for the United Kingdom while we hold the presidency of the European Union and more broadly as we define Britain’s position in further EU-Russia summits in years to come. Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that no issue has a bigger international dimension than climate change? It threatens all the peoples of the world. Does he also agree that the contribution that Russia makes in this context is important? Can we and the European Union work with Russia in this area? Mr. Alexander: I am aware of my right hon. Friend’s long-standing concern about environmental issues, both as a colleague and, not least, as a friend. He is right to point out the significant role that Russia can play, both as a country that made a significant and
In specific terms, the EU launched a €2 million project with Russia in July to help Russia with Kyoto implementation; at the same time, we launched a structured dialogue with Russia on climate change. The United Kingdom, together with many other EU member states, is working closely with Russia to share our experience of emissions registers and emissions trading systems. As we look forward to a G8 summit in Moscow next year, and given the significance attached to climate change during the Gleneagles summit between 6 and 8 July this year, it seems likely that that will be one of the issues to which the G8 will return under the Russian chairmanship. Mr. Brady: The Minister kindly said that he might be prepared to venture on to the slightly more specific subject that I raised of co-operation between Russia and Iran, especially on the Shahab 5 missile project. Has the subject had enough time to work its way to the front of his mind from the back of his mind—or from elsewhere in the Room? Mr. Alexander: It may have moved from the back of my mind to the front of my mind, but whether I can offer the hon. Gentleman more detail, only time will tell. The record will reflect the fact that I offered to deal with more specific questions either directly today or in due course. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific concern in relation to missile technology, it may well fall into the domain of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I am certainly happy to pass on any specific queries that the hon. Gentleman has, so that we can ensure that a full and detailed reply is forthcoming. Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I, too, congratulate the Minister on his helpful opening statement. Will he say a little more about the EU-Russia facilitated visas and the readmission agreements, and in particular what they mean for the UK? Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it is on one of the key issues to emerge from the summit between President Putin and Prime Minister Blair. The facilitated visa agreement extends only to Schengen countries. Britain is not a signatory to the Schengen agreement, which eases procedures for issuing visas to various categories of applicant, including business people, students and those involved in cultural exchanges. That said, I do not want to leave the Committee with the impression that Britain is now at a disadvantage to the Schengen countries in relation to visa facilitation. My understanding of the specific undertakings made in the visa facilitation agreement is that, while it is a significant step forward for Schengen countries, it does not reflect the established practice in respect of the issuing of British visas to Russian
Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): When Gerhard Schröder was Chancellor of Germany, he seemed to enjoy a good personal relationship with President Putin of Russia. Will the Minister offer an assessment of how the change in the chancellorship of Germany and the leadership of the Government being in the hands of another political party will influence overall relations between the EU and Russia? Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is entirely accurate in recognising the extent to which a great deal of mutual work was undertaken by President Putin and Chancellor Schröder to establish an effective working relationship. That in part reflects their personal circumstances and the fact that, for different reasons, each man felt that his family’s lives had been associated directly with the interests of the other man’s country. It is a matter of record that Chancellor Schröder has adopted a Russian child, and I understand that his father or grandfather was lost on the eastern front. There was a genuine and personal bond between the two individuals. That said, it is fair to place on the record the fact that our own Prime Minister Blair has established an effective and strong working relationship with President Putin, which was manifested once again at the recent summit in London. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about the impact of the arrival on the international stage of the new Chancellor of Germany, Chancellor Merkel, either on EU relations with Russia or on Germany’s direct relations with Russia, I am reminded of the American politician, who said, “I don’t make predictions, least of all about the future.” In all candour, it is too early to predict what the personal chemistry will be. However, it is right to recognise how strong German investment in Russia has been in recent years—consider, for example, manufacturing exports to Russia from Germany. Clearly, German has an enduring strategic interest in maintaining close and effective working relationships with Russia. That has enriched and strengthened the European Union’s dialogue with Russia in recent years. Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): Although I agree with the Minister that there have been many welcome developments in Russia during the past 15 years, it is generally accepted that there have also been setbacks and areas where matters have become worse, in particular, in economic criminality. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is especially important that we help Russia to develop a stable, economic system with as little corruption as possible, perhaps by providing assistance drawn from our expertise in the City ? Column Number: 11 Mr. Alexander: I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I recently met one of the vice-presidents of BP and discussed the legal certainty and the environment in which British companies that are now making significant investments within Russia are operating. I suppose that the central point to emerge not only from that conversation but from general observations is that it is clearly in the interests of Britain, as one of the significant foreign direct investors in Russia, to see the changes to which my hon. Friend refers take place. That is equally vital to the interests of the Russian people themselves. Notwithstanding the real progress that has been made in recent years, given the oil price, in terms of the balance of payments and the fiscal income derived from energy prices within Russia, the country continues to face real challenges in being able to uphold and maintain a level of certainty for international investors, given that global capital is more fleet of foot today than it has been at any time in human history. At the same time, the oil price now offers huge potential to energy producers such as Russia to make the sort of changes and diversification within their economy that will offer genuine prospects and opportunity to the many millions of Russians who are still out of work. Mr. Brady: Mention has already been made of former Chancellor Schröder’s close relationship with President Putin. One of its effects was to help foster the close links between German energy companies and the Russian Government and Russian energy companies. I gather that since 2000 former Chancellor Schröder and President Putin have met 20 times, often to discuss energy issues. How much contact have members of the British Government had with their Russian counterparts to discuss such issues? In particular, how much such contact has there been between the Prime Minister and President Putin? |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 21 October 2005 |