Mr.
Francois: I shall obey your strictures, Mr.
Olner, with regard to further questions, but I may return to the
subject later in my speech, if we agree that that is a fair way to
proceed. Turning
to association agreements, page 18 of the bundle refers
to “existing
Partnership and Cooperation Agreements due to expire in 2008 or
2009.”
It is envisaged that they
will be replaced by new association agreements. The Minister said a
moment ago that part of the eastern partnership approach is to have
specifically tailored arrangements for each of the six states. Will she
summarise where we are in each of the six cases with the renegotiation
of the individual association briefs?
Caroline
Flint: The association agreements can provide a response
to partners’ aspirations for a closer relationship. There is no
fixed formula for their contents. We tend to call them association
agreements, or AAs, when they include deeper commitments to political
and economic reform and integration with the EU. Where we currently
have such agreements, the EU has AAs with central and eastern Europe,
and I think that eastern partners want them, too. The EU has
association agreements with other countries, such as Morocco and Peru.
There are also EU agreements with the western Balkans, which are called
PCAs and which will provide mutual market access. There is a phased
process going on in terms of each individual country. I am happy to see
whether I can provide more information on the status of the six
countries, either today or in writing at a later
date. As
the hon. Gentleman is aware, the agreements provide one of the eight
main proposals for the eastern partnership.
Mr.
Francois: The Minister is exactly right that the
agreements provide one of the main parts of the eastern partnership,
which is why I thought that she would be able at least to summarise
where we are on each of the six now, bearing in mind that those
agreements are integral to the project that we are debating. Perhaps
she will provide the Committee with that information before we close up
this afternoon, because it is integral to the whole process.
On Russia,
page 68 of the bundle states
that “Third
parties (eg Russia and Turkey) could participate in...work
associated with the EaP, if agreed by
consensus.” In
principle, would the UK allow Russia to participate in that joint work
with the EU if Russia were still not fully compliant with the ceasefire
agreement that it signed over Georgia, bearing in mind that Georgia is
one of the six countries mentioned in the eastern partnership
programme?
Caroline
Flint: We believe that there are implications to how
Russia and Turkey—Turkey is another country that the hon.
Gentleman may ask about later—may be part of this. Of course,
they are already part of certain regional boards to deal with certain
issues.
Mr.
Francois: But Turkey has not invaded
Georgia.
Caroline
Flint: I will answer that question, if the hon. Gentleman
allows me 10 seconds. We think that Russia could take part in the
programme. There are obviously some sensitive issues regarding Georgia.
I am pleased to say that the Geneva talks are still ongoing, and it is
a good example of where we, not only as a country ourselves but through
the EU, have different tracks of engagement with Russia, some of which
are in more co-operative and positive spaces, and some of which involve
big differences.
As I understand
it, the decision of the Council to see the involvement of Russia on a
case-by-case basis has not, as far as I understand it, led to
complaints from Georgia. At this moment, and in the future, we will
continue to encourage our Russian colleagues to meet the requirements
set by the Medvedev-Sarkozy proposals last year. I appreciate that it
is work in progress, but we do not want to lose sight of the potential
of working with Russia on the energy
issue.
Mr.
Francois: Will the Minister give her assessment of recent
events in Moldova to the Committee? The recent deterioration in
relations between Moldova and Romania will affect the EU’s
relations with Moldova, bearing in mind that Romania is now an EU
member state. We are all concerned by what has happened in Moldova. How
does she see those events affecting Moldova being part of the eastern
partnership?
Caroline
Flint: After the elections in Moldova, we have had
worrying reports of ill treatment of detainees, lack of access to legal
support and other violations of human rights. It is very important that
human rights monitors get unlimited access to all sensitive detentions.
We believe that the Government of Moldova should set up an independent
inquiry and fully co-operate with the Council of Europe and the
European Parliament
investigations. Last
week, there were visits by the Czech Prime Minister and the High
Representative, and we hope that leaders from all political parties in
Moldova will heed their message to resume dialogue. On that visit,
Mr. Solana was working on six broad areas of agreement with
Moldovan representatives. Negotiations for a new contractual agreement
between the EU and Moldova should proceed with maximum good will.
Moldova is coming to the summit on 7 May, and it wants to participate
in the eastern partnership, but the political dialogue between the
Government and the opposition should be re-established before the new
Parliament sits for the first time on 5 May. There are clearly some
concerns, and we note that while the Overseas Development Agency
recognises that procedures were largely followed on election day, there
were a number of important shortcomings—an inaccurate voter
list, a biased media environment and the use of administrative powers
against opposition parties. We urge the Government to engage with the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in responding to
any
shortcomings. We
need to look at the situation in Romania. The Moldovans have claimed
that the demonstrations were fomented by Romania, but we have seen no
evidence to support that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary
raised the issue of Romanian passports with the Romanian Foreign
Minister last week, emphasising the importance of following European
Union rules. That is all the information that I have, but the situation
is clearly ongoing and there may be further
developments.
Richard
Younger-Ross: The case of Moldova highlights the subject,
which is close to the heart of the hon. Member for Totnes—I am
surprised that he is not here—of human rights and people
trafficking. Will issues such as human rights and people trafficking
rate high up the agenda when we demand participation from such
countries?
Mr.
Francois: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for
Totnes, he was not appointed to the Committee by the Committee of
Selection, so it is unfair to blame him from not being here this
afternoon. Nevertheless, I want to press the Minister about
Moldova.
The
Chairman: Just to correct the record, the hon. Member for
Totnes was appointed to the
Committee.
Mr.
Francois: I apologise. He was indeed—thank you,
Mr. Olner. I love my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes
dearly, but I missed that on the
sheet. May
I press the Minister on Moldova and passports? There are press reports
that the Romanian Government are considering issuing around 1 million
passports and offering Moldovans Romanian citizenship. I make the point
that those are reports and not absolutely confirmed, but the Minister
referred to passports a moment ago. Can she give us a specific update
on that, because it might lead to rising tension between Romania and
Moldova, if it were to go ahead? Is there anything more that she can
say to the Committee on that
point?
Caroline
Flint: Just to expand a little on what I suggested
earlier, Romania has said that it will accelerate its long-standing
policy to grant Romanian citizenship to Moldovans of Romanian heritage,
reflecting the historical shifts of borders in the region. My point in
answer to the previous question was that the Foreign Secretary raised
the issue with the Romanian Foreign Minister last week and emphasised
the importance of following EU rules, within the scope permitted. I am
happy to write with further information, if it is of interest to the
Committee, but that is where we stand at the
moment.
Mr.
Francois: I thank the Minister for that reply. I switch to
the topic of Belarus, which was raised earlier by the hon. Member for
South Ribble. Given some of the issues about Belarus discussed a few
minutes ago, what is the Minister’s assessment of whether
Belarus will be in a position to participate fully in some of the
programmes proposed under the eastern partnership? Clearly, there is a
difficult situation there and, if there is no further progress and
reform, that might hamper its active participation. What is the
Minister’s
assessment?
Caroline
Flint: That remains an unknown quantity. I met politicians
from Belarus early in my job as Minister for Europe; I came away from
those meetings feeling that, yes, it was a country that recognised in
terms of trade and its economy that it wanted a more open and closer
relationship with the European Union. As the hon. Gentleman will be
only too fully aware, for that to happen there are certain standards
that countries outside the EU have to meet, because it is a two-way
street: we want our businesses to be able to realise the opportunities
that might be offered in the markets of Belarus, or anywhere else for
that matter. That is important. We shall fully understand how it might
develop and have a sense of the timetable only when the partnership
forms and we can get into the discussions about association
agreements.
The second main
proposal of the eastern partnership is the comprehensive institution
building programme. That technical term essentially covers whether the
instruments that help to ensure and check that trade is happening
properly are good enough to ensure that the exchange of trade works and
is underpinned by the rule of law, particularly civil law. It is
difficult at this moment to know the full answer to that. We know that
the Belarusians want to join the partnership. The President has been
invited to take part, although I do not yet have an answer on whether
he will come.
Again, again
alongside that are the underpinning values of human rights and
democracy. Let us not forget, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the
Member for South Ribble, that a sanctions policy is still being applied
to Belarus. We have managed to find a good way forward in terms of
still being firm on what more we think the Belarusians need to do, but
it is a work in progress and we will have to see. Although they have
strong relationships with Russia, they are looking to the west and
trade opportunities. Perhaps at the present economic time, they are as
interested as any of us in ensuring that their economy can be
stabilised and looking forward to a better
future.
Richard
Younger-Ross: The Minister suggested earlier that the EU
might look at extending the partnership to Russia. Will she expand on
that? Is the EU pursuing Russia to offer that as an opportunity? Are
the Russians knocking at the EU door, asking for it as an opportunity?
If Belarus, as is indicated, recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
that would make it very difficult for it to participate, and where
would it leave any negotiations with Russia, which actually did the
invading?
Caroline
Flint: First, the eastern partnership is not an
anti-Russia initiative. I think that I reference that in some of my
correspondence with the Committee. We think that it complements
EU-Russia relations in some respects, and allowing Russia to take part
on a case-by-case basis is the right way ahead. The extent of Russian
involvement with the eastern partnership will be defined by how and
where it can add value. As practical projects develop, that will
crystallise the type of engagement that might be possible. However,
that will require agreement by all concerned, which brings me to the
point about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
I believe that
I mentioned in my letter to the Committee, it would be extremely
difficult if Belarus were to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia in
order to be part of the eastern partnership. As I explained, there are
clearly sensitivities relevant to the situation in which we find
ourselves in terms of Russia, Georgia and the areas of concern. That is
why, at the moment, we are not saying no, but proceeding on a
case-by-case basis, and playing into that will be progress in other
areas. Agreement by all concerned is needed to make progress.
Obviously, Georgia has a voice, as do Ukraine and the other members of
the
six.
Mr.
Francois: As the Minister has just mentioned Georgia, may
I ask a question relating specifically to that country? The eastern
partnership envisages, among other things, the negotiation of free
trade agreements. Some discussions have already taken place on some of
these matters in advance of the launch, so may I ask her
what progress has been made in negotiating a free trade agreement with
Georgia? Given the challenges that the Georgians face, it would clearly
be very important for them to be able to do that and to gain greater
reciprocal access to EU markets. Will she update us specifically on how
that discussion has gone with
Georgia?
Caroline
Flint: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that as a result
of the conflict, we provided immediate humanitarian aid, establishing
an international donors conference that committed some €500
million to rebuilding Georgia, including visa facilitation measures
with Georgia and the possible establishment of the full and
comprehensive free trade area that he mentioned. On 1 September, the
European Council decided to consider how to renew efforts relating to
energy security with Georgia; that work is under way. I am happy to
provide the hon. Gentleman with more details of the free trade
agreement.
The
International Monetary Fund, the European Investment Bank and other
forums are involved in different ways—for example, European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development funding has 78 projects in Georgia
totalling £255 million, and in September 2008, £507
million of IMF funding was agreed. The focus is on how we can develop
Georgia. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman on the free trade
agreement, but I hope that he is reassured that there are committed
efforts on a number of different fronts to support the Georgian economy
and help it through the conflict. That calls for future
development.
Richard
Younger-Ross: I have an apology for the hon. Member for
Rayleigh. Earlier, I referred to the hon. Member for Totnes, but I did
not mean any disrespect in saying that he was not here. Indeed, several
hon. Members are not here, and some of those who are probably wish that
they were not. The popular view held by MPs is that they would rather
watch paint dry than come to a European Committee, although you sit
through quite a few of them, Mr. Olner.
In her
introductory comments the Minister apologised for not being able to get
information earlier. That is on page 5 of our documentation, item
1.11: “We
doubted that information seven days before was “in good time
before” the European Council, since it made impossible what was
our clear intention that this proposal be debated before
then.” Hon.
Members might be more willing to come to these Committees if they felt
that it would have some impact and was held in good time. Will the
Minister tell us why the debate could not have taken place earlier?
What assurances can she give the Committee and the House that we can
debate issues in good time, so that we might have some influence on her
views on these matters, before she gets to
Council?
| 
