Mr.
Francois: I thank the Minister for that partial
clarification. I shall leave her to her fate when she appears before
the European Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday. Will the Minister confirm
one more thing: is it still the Government’s position that full
compliance would ordinarily be defined as handing over Ratko Mladic to
the
ICTY?
Caroline
Flint: We are working towards that, and we are pleased by
Serbia’s co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia, and with the handing over of certain
individuals. We will continue to look at Brammertz’s report. We
have said that while we support the implementation of the interim
agreement, we retain full co-operation as a condition for the
ratification of the stabilisation and association agreement. We would
like to see all those brought to justice who need to be.
There are
other issues about how fully the Government co-operate with the ICTY.
Where co-operation is full and extensive, we need to see how the ICTY
responds as matters progress. Over the past six months, there has been
a step change in Serbia’s engagement and support, and that has
been particularly helped by its aspiration to become part of the EU.
Serbia knows that it needs to meet requirements on these matters in
order to promote its case.
Mr.
Francois: In fairness, it is right to say that under the
regime of President Tadic, there has been a noticeable difference in
how Serbia has attempted to co-operate and it is right to put that on
the record.
I would like
to ask the Minister a question about Bosnia. On page 27 of our bundle,
the
European—
The
Chairman: Order. You have gone from Serbia to Bosnia and I
do not think that we ought to do that in one question or a
supplementary. I will come back to you in a
moment.
Mr.
Davey: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Rayleigh as
I have a question on Bosnia. This is one of the most depressing
chapters in the bundle. Despite the signing of a civility and
association agreement in 2008, there appears to have been a lot of
backward sliding regarding the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Will the Minister tell us what the European Union and the
UK are doing to try to improve that situation? In the case of Serbia,
the EU has acted effectively as a carrot for reform, but that is not
working in Bosnia and Herzegovina. How do the EU and the UK Government
hope to reverse that rather depressing
trend?
Caroline
Flint: I share with the hon. Members for Kingston and
Surbiton and for Rayleigh their concern about the fragile situation in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sometimes there is a danger that we will take
our eye off the ball and not realise how much more needs to be done.
That is why on 12 September, the Foreign Secretary sent a joint letter
with the Czech Foreign Minister to all EU colleagues, highlighting the
ongoing challenges in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the need for EU
engagement in addressing them. I was pleased to meet the High
Representative, Miroslav Lajcak, who attended a meeting of the General
Affairs and External Relations Council where there was a discussion on
that. However, more needs to be done.
Recently, we
have heard that Mr Lajcak will be resigning his position—I do
not know whether that was the subject of another question—and
the international community will need to find a credible successor to
continue to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina. One of the big challenges is
about how representatives of different ethnic groups within the country
can find a vision for the country as a whole and move it forward. We
will continue to work towards that.
The Foreign
Secretary visited Sarajevo on 10 November and relayed the concerns of
the European Union about the pace of reform and the political climate.
He urged Bosnian politicians to focus on making the necessary reforms
to allow for the closure of the Office of the High Representative and
for further EU integration. In 2009 we will continue to focus on that
situation, as will the EU.
The
Chairman: Order. I will come back to you in a moment, Mr
Davey, but it is almost half-past 5. Members of the Committee are
clearly enjoying asking questions, so I am perfectly happy to let this
run for a further half hour. However, the debate must still finish at 7
pm. Andrew
Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): On a point of order,
Mr. Wilshire, I am not a member of the Committee, but I am
exercising my right to attend and speak. I have refrained from asking a
question because I want to contribute to the substantive debate. It
seems to me that Standing Orders surely have to be adhered to with
regard to my submission, because they are fixed.
[Interruption.] I understand that they can be
varied, and beat my breast about it, but although one certainly has the
opportunity to ask questions, one must also develop the
arguments.
The
Chairman: You can still ask a question, Mr.
Mackinlay—I was going to call you but you slipped out of the
Room. I refer you to Standing Order No. 119(9), which gives
me the discretion I have just
used.
Mr.
Davey: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply.
Clearly, however, the theory of enlargement is that it will act as that
carrot, and one of the European Union’s historical challenges is
to try to get all countries in the
western Balkans into the EU so that we can see long-term, sustainable
peace and security in the region under the EU blanket. May I press the
Minister further on that, because we have seen such backsliding? How is
that carrot being communicated to the political parties and the
population in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Does she think that that is not
operating as a carrot? It appeared to do so in the recent Serbian
elections. If that no longer has the stimulus we require, we need to
think of other
strategies.
Caroline
Flint: All I can add to my previous answer is that we
acknowledge that and are concerned about what is happening in that
country. The Government and other representatives continue to urge
politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina to make the necessary compromises
for further progress on the reform agenda. Clearly, that has also been
backed up by the EU, and it is important constantly to re-examine the
situation. The resignation of the High Representative focuses the
attention not only of the European Community, but of the wider
community on who will take up that post, the task they need to perform
and how the EU will work with them, and I am sure that we will continue
to discuss that.
We also have
the EU Special Representative there, and how that person works with the
High Representative is an important part of making progress, but it is
not easy, and part of the challenge is to get the politicians in that
country to see the wider picture. On the positive side, hopefully the
progress made by neighbouring Balkan states, particularly in overcoming
ethnic divides, will spur what can be achieved. During my visit to
Zagreb, I was pleased to find a conference being held there on the
justice system and conciliation processes, and it was open to
representatives from across the Balkans. Perhaps that is another way to
stimulate reform and communicate its importance for the people of those
countries, especially Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
Mr.
Francois: As the Minister will know, several months ago
the international community debated whether to continue with the Office
of the High Representative and decided that it should. The Opposition
certainly endorse that decision. Since then, however, as the Minister
rightly pointed out, Mr. Lajcak has resigned to take up the
post of Slovak Foreign Minister, so does she have any information on
who is likely to replace him? Whoever that person is, will she
guarantee that the Office of the High Representative will continue to
have the British Government’s support and that it will continue
to be combined with that of the EU representative, as she pointed out
it currently is a few minutes ago
?
Caroline
Flint: The Government continue to support the Office of
the High Representative in those efforts. High representatives have
particular powers, which are extremely important. We remain committed
to the eventual closure of the Office of the High Representative, but
that depends on the achievement of the five conditions and two
objectives set by the Peace Implementation Council. Given the current
political instability that has already been mentioned, we believe that
the decision of the November Peace Implementation Council to maintain
the decision was correct. With the resignation, there is
an opportunity to provide a new impetus to work in this area. I hope the
situation will be resolved quickly, and I am sure that discussions are
ongoing about suitable replacements.
Mr.
Francois: I thank the Minister for that reassurance on the
five objectives and the two conditions. Can she say whether there is
any practical possibility of a UK candidate being put forward for that
office? There are one or two people who have done similar work in
the past.
Caroline
Flint: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point
that we have had individuals who have made a very good contribution. In
the UK we are able to provide people who have the experience and
ability to be extremely positive in very difficult situations, and I am
sure that there are many people in the UK who have such experience and
ability. These issues are under discussion, and if someone from the UK
could play a positive role, and that was agreed, we would welcome
it.
Mr.
Davey: Is the Minister, along with her EU colleagues,
considering the impact of the economic downturn across the world and
its impact on the whole enlargement process? Clearly, it can create
tensions in existing EU member countries—I think the Minister
touched on this with her remarks on the labour market—and also
potential candidate countries. It is important that the EU and the
Commissioner for Enlargement get a grip on this as soon as possible. I
am sure that she will agree that we need to continue the process, but
it might be more difficult to sell it to both EU populations and to
those of the candidate countries. Will she speculate on
that?
Caroline
Flint: The No. 1 issue for the EU in 2009 is the added
value that it can offer in the worldwide financial crisis. In my
journeys to EU member states, and to countries that are not yet member
states but are interested, the financial crisis has been part of our
discussions, and it is interesting to get a sense of the differences
between how countries’ economies are affected, although they are
certainly all affected in one way or another. The countries that are
looking to join us in the future will be very interested in the
position that the EU takes in relation to the G20 summit in London, at
which the Czech President will represent the
EU. There
is a view that while there are differences between existing member
states, there is generally agreement on the measures that need to be
taken, first to stimulate economies—it is hard to find a country
in the EU that has not looked at that. Secondly, agreement is needed on
what sort of transparency is necessary in the future to ensure that
people are informed about debt and the way in which risky debts infect
the banking systems, so that that does not happen in the future.
Thirdly, worldwide reform will be needed, and that will certainly be
the subject of discussions at the
G20. My
fourth point relates particularly to enlargement and countries seeking
to join the EU family. The EU has recognised that during this very
difficult time, we also have to look forward to the jobs and
opportunities programmes—again, the EU can add value—and
identify the gaps in skills and training. If we are moving—we
have been given a clearer steer on this than ever before—towards
an economy that is greener, what sort of jobs and skills will be needed
in the future? There are questions as to how the economies of the
countries that are seeking to join the European Union will adjust. In
my discussions of what the EU is doing about the financial crisis, the
countries to which I have spoken have been somewhat reassured by the
fact that the EU has been able to come together and deal with something
in real time rather than, as has been the case in the past, dealing
with matters that are not topical or pertinent to its
citizens. Mr.
Davey: I thank the Minister for her reply and agree that
some of the benefits of the EU trying to tackle this contagion in the
world system are evident. It is important that the EU addresses the
skills agenda, whether in relation to the environment—the
“green” jobs that are so critical for the
future—or in other areas. I hope that she, with her European
Union colleagues, will do a little more to produce research, statistics
and evidence to show that the economics of enlargement are positive and
that the process is something from which everyone will gain. There is
evidence, for example, that the Polish pound is worth £4 billion
a year to the British economy. There is evidence that many British
companies believe that enlargement has been beneficial to their
success. Given recent debates on migrant labour winning contracts that
British workers wished to take part in, it is vital that we get the
economic facts to show that, overall, there are big gains for Britain
and the rest of the European Union through
enlargement.
Caroline
Flint: I agree. We should always strive to do better to
communicate
that.
Mr.
Francois: I have one last question for the Minister on
Bosnia. On page 44 of our bundle, the Commission observes that foreign
direct investment into the Republic Srpska—the entity within
Bosnia and Herzegovina—“surged” in 2007. Can the
Minister explain why that was, and do the Government have any estimate
of what proportion of that surge in investment came from Russia? If she
cannot answer that question immediately, perhaps she can seek the
information before we end our
proceedings.
Caroline
Flint: I will endeavour to do the
latter.
Mr.
Cash: I have one last question that arises from what the
hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said and refers back to some of
my previous points. Can the Minister really justify an enlargement
process that is made up of so many weak links? Many of us have doubts
about the European Union in relation to unemployment, the Lisbon agenda
and stability and growth pact levels of unemployment. Even on her own
terms, does she not think that the inclusion of these states, with all
the problems that we will no doubt talk about later in the sitting,
makes it impossible for the enlargement process to be improved? The
problems are inherently difficult, however much one may wish the
process
well. Caroline
Flint: The hon. Gentleman should also ask what will happen
if we do not engage. As he rightly says, a number of those countries,
because of their location, have stability issues. What would be the
outcome
if we did not engage with them? The European Union has learned from
previous rounds of enlargement, and that is why it has created a system
that looks much more clearly at the benchmarks on how to open and close
chapters. We should not be confined to a target date as the holy grail
in order to make a decision about entry to the European Union. Of
course it is difficult, but many countries that have joined the
European Union have been a success. It is not so long ago that the
democratic and judicial systems in those countries were not necessarily
compatible with those of other EU countries. However, they have made
changes and they are now vibrant communities. While I would never take
away from the hon. Gentleman, or from any other Member of this House,
the right to express their opinions on whether those countries have
moved forward, I challenge the idea of standing by and not engaging
them in looking towards Europe. A huge amount can be
achieved—that is absolutely the case—but there is not a
one-size-fits-all approach, and no one blueprint covers all those
countries.
| 
