The
Chairman: We have nine minutes left. Four members have
indicated that they wish to speak, and they have two bites each at
questions. We will just about get those questions in, providing that
they are short and that the Minister responds equally
briefly.
Mr.
Francois: May I ask one last question on Bosnia and
Herzegovina? Will the Minister place in the Library a full copy of the
Solana-Rehn joint report to EU Foreign Ministers on the situation
there, which I suspect Mr. Lajcák will almost
certainly have contributed to before he gave up his
position?
Caroline
Flint: I will seek to respond to that before the end of
the sitting. I must check the status of the publication of that
report.
Mr.
Francois: My second point is not so much a question for
the Minister as one for you, Mr. Hancock. As I understand
it, according to the Standing Orders by which the Committee is
governed, you have it within your gift to extend the questions by half
an hour. That then comes out of the time that we have for debate.
Bearing in mind that we are still going strong and there are 11
different countries or areas that we are entitled to ask the Minister
about, and that the European Scrutiny Committee recommended these
papers to be debated,
perhaps it would be to the benefit of the Committee for you to use your
discretion. To put it bluntly, can we have Hancock’s extra half
hour?
The
Chairman: I make the jokes here, Mr. Francois,
but eight out of 10 for effort. Let us see what we are doing at 5.30
pm. If hon. Members are still eager to ask questions, we will proceed a
little longer.
Harry
Cohen: What is the EU special representative’s
attitude to Republika Srpska? Does he have a special attitude and
policy in relation to that, as opposed to the rest of Bosnia and
Herzegovina?
Caroline
Flint: I do not think that there is a particular attitude.
The special representative has been given a mandate that covers EU
policy objectives in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That includes progress and
implementation of the general framework agreement for peace in that
country in accordance with the office of the High Representative for
the mission implementation plan and the stabilisation and association
process to ensure Bosnia and Herzegovina’s journey towards EU
membership. He follows the direction of the EU, which is to work with
all parties towards a peaceful conclusion. I cannot comment if my hon.
Friend is asking about the personal view of the current special
representative, but his role is to work with all parties to broker a
good outcome. We heartily endorse and agree with
that.
Harry
Cohen: In the long term, does the Minister accept that it
is not appropriate to have a separate entity and that there should be
moves towards integration? That will clearly require a lot of talks,
including some with Serbia and perhaps even Russia. Has the EU special
representative worked on any plans for integration in the long
term?
Caroline
Flint: The High Representative is mandated to oversee the
implementation of the Dayton peace agreement, and we should remind
ourselves that the agreement, back in December 1995, ended nearly four
years of war and considerable violence. The EU special
representative’s role ensures a co-ordinated and coherent EU
approach. Part of the complicated task of dealing with a number of
countries in the Balkans is how we acknowledge different ethnic groups
and their concerns and anxieties about how we enable forms of
government that allow devolution while also having overarching
responsibility for some issues on a national basis.
We are
committed—I do not think that this commitment is shared only on
the Labour Benches—to recognising situations that might descend
into an ethnic, nationalist battleground. We could end up going back to
those very dark days of violence and ethnic cleansing, and we are still
dealing with the sensitivities to which they gave rise. Progress has
been made, and we should fight for the bigger vision for people in
those countries—ordinary families who want peace and who want to
be reassured that irrespective of their particular ethnic identity,
they will be treated equally before the law and be protected by it and
its institutions. We endeavour to do that, whether through our own
actions as a sovereign country, or through the EU and its
representatives.
Kelvin
Hopkins: Some time I ago, my right hon. Friend said that
there might be occasions when we would disagree with the special
representative’s view, and in difficult areas, that could be
serious. Britain traditionally has a strong, defined foreign policy,
which I do not always agree with—the Iraq war, for example;
indeed, there was a major division in the EU about that. When such
occasions occur, what precisely happens? Will the special
representative say, “Britain is a semi-detached member of the
EU, so don’t worry too much about its view. This is the
EU’s view”, or will he say, “We have to bear in
mind that there are differences of view, and that Britain, which is a
strong member of the EU, has to be respected in its view in such
difficult matters”? Which is the
approach?
Caroline
Flint: As I said, the mandate of the special
representatives has to be decided by all members of the EU. That is why
it is important that the mandates are adhered to, because they
represent the collective expression of something that all 27 member
states can agree on, while there might be differences of opinion
regarding other areas of the foreign policy towards those countries.
That is important because it allows the representative to work with
different partners in a collegiate and positive way, and it also helps
the representative not to be distracted from those areas on which he
should focus. All I can say is, in the past four months or so since I
have been in my job, I have not had an occasion so far—touch
wood—where the actions of a representative, particularly in the
areas that I cover in Europe, has caused me undue concern. Supporting
the representative has sometimes concerned me, and that is one of the
reasons why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wanted to raise
the profile of the situation in respect of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
The
Chairman: The allotted time for questions is almost
over, but several hon. Members who still want to ask questions. It is
my decision to extend that time for another 15 minutes to enable those
questions to be asked. I am sorry for interrupting the Minister. She
may conclude her answer now, and we will satisfy Standing Order No.
119(9).
Caroline
Flint: I hope that I have answered the question to the
satisfaction of my hon.
Friend.
Mr.
Cash: The Minister may remember or may have been told of
my considerable opposition to the Maastricht treaty. She may know that,
under the provisions of that treaty, joint action plans operate by
majority, which was one of my concerns. In the light of what the hon.
Member for Luton, North said, it would no longer remain a matter for
the United Kingdom explicitly to do or say anything, if a joint action
plan led to majority voting arrangements that might decide against what
the United Kingdom wanted to happen. I do not know if the Minister will
agree, but it is a matter of concern to me that that should still be
the
case. Would
the Minister be kind enough to let me know what fundamental rights are
being referred to on page 12 of the papers that we are
considering? Item 28
states: “Fundamental
rights analysis: No fundamental rights issues
apply.” Which
fundamental rights are being referred to? What is the basis for them in
law?
Caroline
Flint: I shall come back to the second part of the
question, on fundamental rights, after seeking more guidance during the
debate. It
has been suggested—the hon. Gentleman is probably among those
who suggested it—that the work we do in the European Union wipes
away the autonomy of the nation states of Europe and must limit what
the UK can do unilaterally. I do not believe that to be true. We have
had a CFSP since 1992—Maastricht—and, as we talked about
earlier, the special representatives since 1997, which have not limited
our independence. It is in our interests to work with EU partners and
institutions to strengthen that. Mr. Solana and his
representatives do not have a free hand, they are mandated by the
Council through a joint action plan to carry out responsibilities that
we want them to do in support of the CFSP. In those joint actions, we
have not had a problem with the mandates being counter to the interests
of the UK, but have been given an additional presence on the ground,
helpful to our unilateral actions that we want to take as a sovereign
country.
Mr.
Cash: The Minister’s answer was rather like
ectoplasm. She managed to avoid the question of whether we would be
bound by the majority vote that took place under the joint action plan.
I ask again, how would we be able to insist on our own opinion, if we
had one in any such matters, where we were legally obliged to comply
with a majority vote in the Council of Ministers, if it was taken under
the
plan?
Caroline
Flint: I shall attempt to answer more fully later in the
debate, but I can answer a point the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, on
referendums in Macedonia, Bosnia and Kosovo. As far as we are aware,
there have been no proposals for referendums on EU membership in any of
the three countries, but I shall check whether that understanding is
correct and confirm that in writing to the
Committee.
Mr.
Francois: I hope that the Minister enjoys the ectoplasm
that she has apparently just
experienced. It
has been reported in the Pristina daily, Koha Ditore, on 27
February that the European Union Rule of Law
Mission—EULEX—spokesman, Christophe Lamfalussy, stated
that Britain plans to reduce the number of its committed personnel due
to the financial crisis. As that is an important issue in Kosovo, I
wonder if the Minister is in a position to deny that
report?
Caroline
Flint: We remain fully committed to the civilian European
security and defence policy missions as a key tool for managing
international crises. However, the increased costs of international
peacekeeping mean that we need to prioritise carefully the money that
we spend on all UK programmes, including secondments to EU policing
missions. We shall look at how we focus on that and, in due course,
will make any necessary announcements and report to the
House.
Mr.
Francois: I am slightly concerned by the Minister’s
reply. All I was waiting for her to say was, “No, it’s
not true,” but instead I got a classic civil service answer.
Although we all have to live within our means, Ministers
should look carefully at and reconsider a winding down of our commitment
in the area. Can she give me any comfort on that
point?
Caroline
Flint: Of course, we think that the situation in Kosovo is
important, which is why we were at the forefront of the work to enable
an environment in which the EULEX deployment could take place. I think
that that will be rolled out before the end of the month. We remain
strongly committed to the pursuit of that in Kosovo, and, as the hon.
Gentleman will know, we already contribute seconded personnel to EULEX
in key roles. When I am in a position to do so, I shall report further
on those issues, which we consider to be an important part of our
contribution. I hope that he agrees that, in terms of our personnel,
strategic and other inputs, the UK contributes enormously to the
success of operations in many different situations around the
world—whether in civilian or military
matters.
Harry
Cohen: What have been the recommendations of the EU
special representative, especially the most recent ones, to ensure the
safety of the people of
Darfur?
Caroline
Flint: May I return to that point shortly? I want to take
another
question.
Mr.
Cash: Is the reference to fundamental rights a reference
to the charter of fundamental rights, which we discussed in our debates
on the Lisbon
treaty?
The
Chairman: We will have to be careful, because the Minister
is coming back to so many questions that she will run out of
time.
Caroline
Flint: As I said earlier, I shall refer to the fundamental
rights later. I am not sure that it does refer to the charter of
fundamental rights, but I shall check on that in response to the
earlier
question. My
hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead raised a point about
refugees from Rwanda. We are looking for ways to step up our efforts to
help Rwandan refugees return, especially demobilised members of the
Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda—FDLR—and we are
looking to Mr. van de Geer to support us in that activity.
In answer to the question on majority voting raised by the hon. Member
for Stone, we are always confident of being in a majority in such a
situation, but I understand that, in practice, common foreign and
security policy is generally decided by unanimity. I am not aware of
any EU special representative joint action being decided by qualified
majority voting, but I might be wrong, so I shall check it out. I think
that the desire is for considered support through
unanimity.
Mr.
Cash: The Minister will appreciate that anybody can cobble
together an agreement without a vote; in fact, that happens in the EU
the whole time. I dare say that she will understand my commenting on
the fact that that is one of the reasons it gets into such a
mess.
Caroline
Flint: I disagree that it is in such a mess. Efforts made
have proved the worth of such engagement and its contribution to what
individual Governments perhaps cannot do.
Mr.
Francois: I turn to the great lakes and Congo. How closely
does the UN special representative work with the UN special envoy
Obasanjo? Are there any conflicts between EU and UN policy or activity
on this very important
region?
Caroline
Flint: I am not aware of any conflicts, and as far as I am
aware, Mr. van de Geer works with all representatives to the
best of his
ability.
Mr.
Francois: When, in the past 12 months, has the EU special
representative been requested to help in the negotiation and
implementation of peace and ceasefire agreements? Specifically, what
role did the EUSR play in the latest round of talks in Nairobi
regarding the situation in
Kivu?
Caroline
Flint: As I said earlier, the EU was one of the sponsors
of the conference on peace and security in the Kivu region in eastern
DRC in January 2008. The special representative sought to ensure the
continued participation of the National Congress for People’s
Defence—CNDP—in the peace process that followed the
conference. As far as I understand, he has played, and continues to
play, a full role in the international effort to resolve the conflict.
On the question about meetings, I shall endeavour to provide that
information later, either during the debate or in a
letter.
| 
