Mr.
Francois: I thank the Minister for that reply, although
she did not give us any sign of how long the resolution of the dispute
might take. On the Croatian fisheries chapter, which also is referred
to on page 33, is the Minister aware of any resolution of the dispute
relating to Croatia’s self-declared exclusive fishing zone? As
she will know, fisheries are always a very sensitive issue in the
European Union. Will dismantling of that zone by Croatia be a condition
of entry—yes or
no?
Caroline
Flint: I am happy to investigate whether information on
that can be provided to the Committee before the end of the sitting. If
it cannot, I shall write to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Francois: We look forward to hearing about that before we
conclude, hopefully.
Page 35 of
the bundle
says: “The
Commission further recommends that the Council set up the ad-hoc
technical working party for the drafting of the Accession Treaty, on
the basis of texts prepared by the Commission. This group may work in
parallel to the negotiations and could therefore start its work during
the first half of
2009.” That
would clearly be an important development. Has the technical working
group to draft the Croatian accession treaty been formed? Has it met
and, if so, does it include a British
representative?
Caroline
Flint: Again, I will try to give the Committee that
information. If I cannot, I will write after the end of the
sitting.
Mr.
Davey: Does the Minister agree that the accession of
Turkey would be a fantastic development for the European Union for many
reasons, whether because it
would be the first Muslim country to join the European Union, because of
the economic impacts or because of the overall benefits of such a major
country joining the EU? In the chapter on Turkey in the bundle, an
awful lot of progress is recorded on both the economic and political
sides. Will she share with the Committee her thoughts on the remaining
obstacles? Clearly there are issues of human rights and judicial
reform. How does she balance those, and the issues involving the
relationships between Turkey and Greece, and Turkey and Cyprus, with
progress on the Greek and Turkish Cypriot peace
agreement?
Caroline
Flint: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s positive
comments about Turkey. Progress has undoubtedly been made, but more can
be done. I am optimistic, given the constitutional case carried out
last year, which might have contributed to a delay, that the recent
appointment of a new EU negotiator will give a fresh impetus to Turkey
to make progress in some of the areas identified in the report as
requiring more work.
Cyprus has
been one of my priorities since I came into this job. I have made one
visit to Cyprus and plan to go there again this weekend. In my visit to
Ankara just before Christmas, I was pleased to make a point about the
importance of Turkey’s role in a positive approach to the
current discussions between President Christofias and Mr.
Talat.
Turkey has
said publicly that it supports the discussions. I hope that over the
course of the next six months we will see further positive, visible
support for some of the confidence-building measures identified by the
parties on the island. Alongside that, of course, are other matters
relating to the Ankara proposals that need to be addressed but, again,
it is an important matter in which Turkey can play a positive role in
relation to the UK, as well as other partners that are keen to support
the processes of engagement and discussion on the
island.
Mr.
Davey: I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly
the details about Cyprus—I wish her well in her trip this
weekend. Will she reassure the Committee that when the Council of
Ministers discusses the issue, the UK’s voice will be loud and
strong in favour of the European Union doing everything that it can to
speed up the negotiations? I welcome the appointment of the EU
negotiator, but we must remember that Turkey has been a candidate
country since 1999. No other country has waited so long. Many of us
suspect that the obstacles are not so much the criteria that the EU
rightly wants Turkey to meet, but political objections within certain
EU countries. It is thus even more vital that the UK is loud, clear and
vocal in its support for
Turkey.
Caroline
Flint: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Turkey has made progress, although how much progress is not always
completely understood.
In October
2004, the European Commission recommended the development of a dialogue
between EU member states and Turkey on Turkey’s progress to
encourage mutual understanding by bringing peoples together. In
December 2004, the European Council endorsed the European
Committee’s recommendation and broadened its scope by
stipulating that
“parallel to
accession negotiations, the Union will engage with every candidate
State in an intensive political and cultural
dialogue”. That
dialogue is welcome, and I am about to write to the European Scrutiny
Committee to update it on progress of the dialogue relating to
Turkey.
There will be
specific opportunities in 2009 for Turkey to demonstrate what it is
doing in its near region, in terms of peace and stability and regarding
its importance in relation to energy supply. It will also be a member
of the G20 summit in London on the worldwide financial situation, so
there are opportunities for Turkey to promote its positive agenda and
the contribution that it can make—perhaps more so to our
colleagues in other member states who are less positive than us and
other members.
Barry
Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): I am delighted to hear that
the Minister is going to Cyprus this weekend to pursue this agenda.
When she does, will she make it clear to Mr. Christofias and
Mr. Talat—and transmit a message to the Turkish
Government—that the rights of the Cypriot community, many of
whom are represented in this country, to receive compensation for land
that they have lost in the north of Cyprus should be a very important
part of negotiations? Will she be sure to express the real concern of
the British people on that point in support of the Greek Cypriot
community?
Caroline
Flint: As I said in a recent Adjournment debate on Cyprus,
property rights and other issues of land are among a number of matters
that are of major concern to both Turkish and Greek Cypriots on the
island. I know that the two leaders will be seeking to address this
issue, and we stand by to support the process in whatever way we can.
That was why I was pleased to be able to provide additional money for
the de-mining activity in the buffer zone. Both men are very much aware
of the agenda of items that will have to be worked through and
resolved. We are trying to support that process through our visits to
Cyprus, through our high commissioner there, and by working with
diaspora communities here in the UK—there are at least 300,000
Cypriots in this country. We stand ready to help in whatever way we
can.
Barry
Gardiner: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those
remarks. Has she noted the comments of Mr. Erdogan about
Hamas and attacking Israel, which were featured quite prominently in
yesterday’s and today’s newspapers? Does she share the
concern that many of us have that a candidate country for the European
Union is expressing the views that he has reportedly
expressed?
Caroline
Flint: I have to admit that I have not seen the report,
but I will arrange to read it after this sitting. All I can say, in
general, is what I said in reply to an earlier question. Turkey has a
positive role to play in relation to the middle east and other
countries in the near region. So far, it has played a constructive
role. As a member of the Security Council, I think it is aware of its
responsibilities and opportunities in relation to discussions about
peace and stability in the
region.
Barry
Gardiner: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s remarks.
I agree that it is important that Turkey achieves accession to the
European Union, but it must be done on the right terms and in the right
way, expressing all the norms that we wish to see as part of European
democracy.
Mr.
Cash: I want to follow on from the questions about Turkey.
In so doing, I pay due tribute to Turkey for its remarkable
contribution to NATO, and I also pay some regard to the argument that
it is the bridge between east and west. However, does the Minister
acknowledge that the problems that would come from a country with an
extremely high economic ratio of poverty to gross domestic product
could cause considerable difficulties, given the economic circumstances
that are engulfing the world at the moment?
Furthermore,
we must consider what would happen if free movement of labour was to be
introduced on the scale that might be envisaged. A constitutional court
case was brought against the governing party, which was a focal point
for anti-secular activity. There is a problem, therefore, as tensions
could develop and it would be unwise not to make assumptions about
whether the religious propensities of the present Government could grow
to such an extent that we could be faced with serious instability in
the
region.
Caroline
Flint: On one level, it is the luxury of these debates
that we can speculate on what may or may not happen. Regarding where we
are now, Turkey is a country that, particularly in the last 10 years,
has really wanted to move towards Europe and also to reform and
modernise the way in which it is run. There is probably some
frustration in Turkey about the time that it is taking to join the EU.
Despite that, there is still a sense of optimism among Turkish people
about what the benefits of being a member of the EU would be, not only
with regard to gaining access to a wider economy and market, but in
terms of democracy and human rights. We should never forget about that
side of the challenge and the bargain.
In recent
times, Turkey has been looking at ways to improve its economy—we
talked about that when I visited Ankara just before Christmas. Turkey
has a relatively strong economy because of some of the actions that it
has taken. There are parts of Turkey where the overall economic
situation is particularly difficult, for example in the south-east, and
that was why we were pleased that the Turkish Government announced last
year an investment package of projects to regenerate that region. Now
we want to see that action plan being implemented. As I say, we are
pleased that the Turkish Government are aiming to regenerate the
poorest parts of the country because that is what we want to see
happening in those countries that seek to become members of the
EU.
The point
relating to labour from Turkey was presumably about labour coming to
the UK. We can put in place whatever controls we need. With Bulgaria
and Romania, we negotiated arrangements that enabled UK Ministers to
decide when to allow workers from those countries to gain access to the
UK labour market, and we will ensure that the necessary arrangements
are also agreed with other countries joining the EU, including Turkey,
when the time comes. However, Turkey is a country in transition and,
generally, the British public have been pleased with the broad thrust
of the Government’s policies in this
area.
Mr.
Cash: Specifically on the question of the constitutional
court ruling, could the Minister elaborate a little more on the
differences that exist between, on the one hand, the army, and, on the
other hand, those
moving in the other direction? AtatÃ1/4rk originally made decisions
to ensure that Turkey was not taken over by religious ideologues. The
tendency to move in the other direction has caused the army a great
deal of concern. That is a critical issue, because we need not only to
speculate but to look at the
evidence.
Caroline
Flint: Obviously, part of the decision on countries
joining the European Union will depend on the democracy of those
countries’ institutions and the fact that the ballot box rules
in a country. Underpinning that is the way in which the judiciary is
run and the law is implemented. Clearly, Turkey has made progress in
those areas, but it needs to make more. As far as I am aware, one
aspect of last year’s court action was whether the governing
party could exist and participate legally—the action against the
party failed. I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with more
detail. As I said, one aspect of becoming part of the European Union is
Parliament and the ballot box determining who governs the country. No
doubt, given Turkey’s history and the country’s present
position, there are several factors to be
resolved.
Mr.
Francois: Conservative Members also want a solution to the
complex Cyprus problem, so I wish the Minister all the best for her
forthcoming trip. I am sure that she will wish me the same when I visit
the
island. The
extra documents with which we were provided this morning set out the
shift in the Government’s position on Serbia. The conclusions in
the European Scrutiny Committee’s analysis of the matter
say: “we
do not understand
why” the
Minister for
Europe’s “predecessor
did not write after the September
GAERC”— General
Affairs and External Relations
Council— “to
say what had been discussed then and confirming the change in the
Government’s position. We do not consider pre Council
‘signalling’ and a subsequent evidence session with our
counterparts in the Lords’ EU Committee as an adequate basis for
informing this House. We should be grateful if the Minister would
respond to this when she gives evidence to us on 4
February.” I
do not intend to pre-empt the ESC, but given that we are discussing
enlargement, which affects Serbia, will the Minister set out the
Government’s position and explain why it
changed?
Caroline
Flint: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for
my visit to Cyprus. I am sure that I can count on him to support the
process when he visits the island because we all agree that we want to
see the island
reunited. I
think that the record will show that we have consistently endeavoured
to keep Parliament informed about Serbia. However, I understand the
concern voiced by the European Scrutiny Committee. My
predecessor’s letter to the Committee dated 12 September, prior
to the GAERC, made it clear that if Chief Prosecutor Brammertz’s
visit to Serbia confirmed that its co-operation with the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had significantly improved,
the Government would be willing to look at ways in which the EU could
acknowledge that, while maintaining that full ICTY co-operation is a
requirement for Serbia’s EU accession. In the event, despite
Brammertz’s confirmation of significantly improved co-operation,
there was no consensus at the September GAERC on how the EU might
respond to that.
Although I
confirmed to the House of Lords European Union Committee in October
2008 that the Government would be ready to implement Serbia’s
interim agreement on the basis of significantly improved co-operation
with the ICTY, rather than full co-operation, I should also have
confirmed that to the European Scrutiny Committee then, rather than
before the next GAERC. I apologise for that. I am new to my post and
working my way through some of the ways in which scrutiny Committees
are kept informed. Although I am pleased that my explanatory memorandum
on the Council’s enlargement report got an
“excellent” from the European Scrutiny Committee, I have
obviously fallen down in other areas. I underline the fact that I wrote
to the European Scrutiny Committee prior to the December GAERC, but I
accept that the pre-Council “soundings” could have been
improved, so I shall endeavour to do
better.
| 
