Bill
Rammell: Words can mean different things to different
people.
Mr.
Cash: The question is who is to be master? That is
all.
Bill
Rammell: I was referring to the fact that the hon.
Gentleman says that he is committed to a European Union of member
states. That is the European Union that I am committed to, although I
think that we place a different interpretation on how that maps out in
practice.
I agree that
we should learn lessons from the process of enlargement as it happens.
We should put that into context, given that in recent years we have had
the most significant expansion of the EU since it came into being as
the European Economic Community. As I said a moment ago, we are no
longer setting target dates for membership; instead, we are rightly
taking a conditions-based approach and seeking to ensure that the
states that come into membership have the effective standards that we
need to maintain the situation throughout the European
Union.
Mr.
Cash: Does the Minister accept that the dismissal of Marta
Andreasen in relation to matters of accountancy and proper principles
of accounting in the European Union was an example of the European
Commission failing on the standards that it would propose for others?
Does he agree that the arrangements for the treaty of Lisbon, which
simply endorse such things, run contrary to the assertions that he just
made, because it is implicit, in aggregating the existing treaties into
the new arrangement, that we have no business in doing anything other
than having a referendum here and renegotiating all treaties from 1956
to the present
day?
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just offered a
broad interpretation of the parameters of the debate, but I know that
the Minister is sufficiently experienced and, no doubt, wise to avoid
straying outwith order in responding.
Bill
Rammell: Tempting though it is to go down that path, I am
not sure what I can say in reply to the hon. Gentleman. However, it is
critical that problems of fraud are tackled within the European Union.
I believe—it is clear in the legislative
arrangements—that that is the fundamental responsibility of
individual member states. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that it
would be exceedingly helpful if the Court of Auditors, where it has
identified such problems, also identified the country in which they
arose. That would provide a healthy incentive to each member state to
ensure that does everything it can to tackle fraud in terms of
benchmarking and tackling vested interests and
self-interest.
Jo
Swinson: The Minister mentioned the recent Romanian
elections. Obviously, it is important that there is cross-party
consensus in the country on tackling corruption and improving the
judicial process, so that progress continues whoever wins an election.
With that in mind, does the Minister have any views on the outcome of
the elections? Does he think that the progress that the Romanians have
made will be reinforced, or could it be
accelerated?
Bill
Rammell: The Romanian Government are in the process of
being formed and the indications are that the process of reform will
continue. Rightly, much of the debate has focused on Bulgaria, but it
is important to make it clear that Romania has made significant
progress against the criteria set by the Commission on justice and home
affairs. Further work needs to be undertaken
but—rightly—we will do everything in our power to support
the Romanian authorities to meet those
standards.
Mr.
Francois: Mr. Bercow, I shall obey the
strictures that you placed on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone not
to stray beyond the parameters of the debate, although I will say that
he was dead right about need for a
referendum. Have
Bulgaria or Romania requested UK assistance in their efforts to combat
corruption and problems in their judicial systems? If they have, will
the Minister tell the Committee what assistance Her Majesty’s
Government have provided?
Bill
Rammell: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to assistance
from the European Commission, as opposed to member
states?
Mr.
Francois: I was asking specifically what Britain and our
police and judicial authorities have done to assist the Bulgarians and
Romanians?
Bill
Rammell: My apologies: I misunderstood the question. In
the run-up to accession, we undertook a number of actions in Bulgaria,
including helping to provide better legal training, as well as training
that enhanced magistrates’ professionalism and overall
performance. We also took action on prosecution office reform, border
justice—enhancing the capacity of respective judicial bodies to
prosecute and punish border-related crime more effectively—and
customs training, and we have made particular efforts on money
laundering, which is
important. In
Romania, additionally, we strongly supported the setting up of the
National Integrity Agency, and we are supporting—the Home Office
is leading on this—an 18-month, EU-funded twinning project,
worth€1.3 million, to help the Romanian authorities to tackle
corruption in public administration. We have worked with the Romanian
Government to provide practical advice and support on judicial reform
and the fight against corruption, with the help of British judges. We
have also supported a project on the training of judges on sentencing
in corruption cases and a project that monitors local
administration.
Mr.
Cash: Referring back to the Minister’s reference to
the National Integrity Agency, I notice that in our European Scrutiny
Committee report, in relation to the question of the new criminal
procedure code and so forth, there is a very interesting
sentence:
“Rules
to protect confidentiality of whistle blowers need to be
developed.” In
the light of recent examples that we have had here in this Parliament,
does the Minister agree that the notion that the European Union, the
Commission and no doubt the Minister himself would endorse the idea of
rules to protect the confidentiality of whistleblowers and that those
rules need to be developed shows that there are lessons for everybody
in the European Union, without
exclusion?
Bill
Rammell: I take it that that question is in
order.
Mr.
Blunt: Of course it is in
order.
Bill
Rammell: The hon. Member for Stone really does tempt
me.
Mr.
Cash: I am just referring to the document before
us.
Bill
Rammell: I think that it is right that the authorities
proceed with the actions that have been undertaken in this Parliament
and elsewhere, and that we reach a conclusion on those
matters.
Jo
Swinson: I want to press the Minister further regarding
the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Rayleigh about the assistance
that the UK has provided to Romania and Bulgaria. He read out a list of
impressive-sounding projects, but at the beginning he had said that
that was pre-accession. I just wanted to clarify whether that was the
case for all the projects that he listed, because the
Commission’s report in July 2007 suggested that EU member states
should step up their assistance and support for Romania and Bulgaria.
Did any of the projects that he mentioned begin after that report was
published, or, indeed, did any other projects happen as a result of the
Commission’s report in July
2007?
Bill
Rammell: The initial programmes in Bulgaria that I
referred to were pre-accession. Since then, we have also invested in
Bulgaria’s future through EU funds. For the current budgetary
period, roughly £1 billion of UK money is available
to Bulgaria through the EU and there is ongoing support to help the
process of reform, which is part of our ongoing bilateral dialogue. I
referred earlier to the discussions that my right hon. Friend the
Minister for Europe had when she was recently in Bulgaria. A key part
of the way that we encourage and help the process of reform is through
that
dialogue.
Mr.
Cash: Does the Minister agree that, just as in the case of
alleged or actual breaches of human rights under article 6 of the
European convention, with which I know he is familiar, corruption,
fraud and similar problems to those that we are discussing in relation
to Bulgaria and Romania could, after several warnings, lead to
countries being shown the door, with respect to the question of how
they carry on their affairs? If not, does he not agree with me that
what will happen is that the whole idea of the European Union, in
whichever shape or form it ultimately develops, will be totally
undermined? If the rule of law is destroyed, democracy is destroyed and
if democracy is destroyed, everything will implode and we will be left
with a disastrous mess.
Bill
Rammell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We
need to be clear that if Bulgaria and Romania fail to address the
benchmarks adequately, the Commission may apply the safeguard measures
allowed within Bulgaria and Romania’s accession treaties. Those
measures would include the suspension of member states’
obligations to recognise and execute Bulgarian or Romanian judgments
and judicial decisions. There is a policing mechanism and a sanction in
place. I do not think that we are at the stage of needing to impose
that safeguard mechanism, but that is why further progress needs to be
made, why the oversight needs to continue and why we need to make a
real and genuine judgment on the real degree of progress that is being
achieved.
Mr.
Francois: What is the Minister’s assessment of
whether Bulgarian and Romanian organised crime—in particular, I
highlight drug trafficking and people trafficking—has expanded
into other EU member states since those countries joined the EU? If he
believes that there is any evidence that it has expanded into the
EU—many commentators would argue that, to some degree, it has
done—can he give us any examples of police and judicial
co-operation that has been undertaken in an attempt to combat that
expansion?
Bill
Rammell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that throughout
the EU there is police and judicial co-operation to try to tackle
crime, particularly strongly organised crime.
The hon.
Member for Reigate asked earlier about the percentage of funds in
criminal, gangster hands. I will look further into that issue. Frankly,
it is difficult to arrive at an estimate, but we need to ensure that
that is
considered. I
have been asked whether there has been an increase in such criminal
activity in other member states. I do not believe that there is
evidence to back that up, but we need to have oversight of that in
every member state and ensure that we are doing everything possible,
through co-operation, to tackle the issue. I believe that
Britain’s membership of the European Union is in our national
interest, because we are more effectively able to tackle such
cross-European organised crime if we are at the heart of Europe and
part of it, rather than on the
outside.
Mr.
Blunt: I should be grateful if the Minister gave us some
sense of the order of magnitude. Is this something happening at the
margin, involving, say, 5 per cent. of the funds, or are half the funds
being diverted away from the objectives of European Union expenditure?
I appreciate that it is likely to be impossible to provide precise
percentages.
Bill
Rammell: I genuinely cannot provide that estimate. I said
earlier that I would provide the hon. Gentleman with an estimate in
writing. Having said that, it is difficult, given that we are talking
about criminality, to make a forensic distinction. Nevertheless, I will
look at that matter again and will write to
him.
Mr.
Cash: In relation to the Minister’s comment that
being at the heart of Europe is the place where we can sort all these
matters out, will he consider the serious
breaches that are not being remedied, as we can see? This is a
continuous process. Does he agree that, despite warnings, clear
statements made before accession and subsequent remonstrations, the
situation has only marginally improved and there is a need for a
continuous re-assessment of the basis of the situation, so that we are
able to form a judgment on the Government’s thinking about how
far and how long one can continue swallowing this rather difficult
medicine?
Bill
Rammell: I am slightly puzzled by that question because I
understood that the hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was in favour
of enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement needs to be
conditions-based. There has been a shift in the way that such matters
are handled collectively across the European Union. We do not set
target
dates. We
need to recognise that, although there is further progress to be made
in respect of Romania and Bulgaria, their accession to the European
Union has brought significant benefits. They are, for example, key
strategic partners of the United Kingdom and have supported us in the
European Council on many issues, particularly difficult ones, including
Kosovo independence and enhanced co-operation in the Black sea region.
There are real benefits to the process of
enlargement.
Mr.
Francois: Unlike the Minister, I do not believe that we
need to give further powers to the centre in the European Union just to
allow police authorities to co-operate more effectively. I disagree
with him on that. May I ask him a specific question? For the avoidance
of doubt, I am not asking him to give any operational details—I
am not seeking that and would not expect it. Has the UK Serious
Organised Crime Agency provided any active assistance to the judicial
authorities in Bulgaria and/or Romania? An in-principle yes or no
answer would
do.
Bill
Rammell: With respect, police and judicial co-operation
does not have to happen through accretion of power to the centre. It is
much more likely that effective mechanisms would be in place to ensure
that co-operation takes place if a country is in the European Union
rather than outside it. In terms of SOCA and police and judicial
authorities, I said earlier that co-operation takes place across the
European Union. That helps us ensure that we do as much as we can to
tackle organised
crime.
Mr.
Francois: I heard what the Minister said, because I was
listening carefully, but can he confirm that that co-operation across
the EU includes Bulgaria and
Romania?
Bill
Rammell: Co-operation covers the whole European
Union.
Mr.
Clapham: The Minister will be aware that Bulgaria is
constructing a national database on organised crime, which will link
into that integration and bring to justice people who are involved in
organised crime. We know that that is happening. Will the Minister tell
us whether the UK is involved in the construction of that database, or
is just the EU providing the resource?
| 
