House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
Public Bill Committee Debates



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Nigel Evans
Armstrong, Hilary (North-West Durham) (Lab)
Bryant, Chris (Minister for Europe)
Davey, Mr. Edward (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Duddridge, James (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con)
Francois, Mr. Mark (Rayleigh) (Con)
Greenway, Mr. John (Ryedale) (Con)
Hendrick, Mr. Mark (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Heyes, David (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Keen, Alan (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Kennedy, Jane (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Mactaggart, Fiona (Slough) (Lab)
Malins, Mr. Humfrey (Woking) (Con)
Redwood, Mr. John (Wokingham) (Con)
Salter, Martin (Reading, West) (Lab)
Stunell, Andrew (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Eliot Wilson, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Walker, Mr. Charles (Broxbourne) (Con)

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 30 November 2009

[Mr. Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Republic of Montenegro) Order 2009
4.30 pm
The Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Republic of Montenegro) Order 2009.
It is a great delight to sit under your chairmanship, Mr. Evans. I have never done so before, and look forward to doing so again.
The stabilisation and association agreement was signed on 15 October 2007. It is a hefty document, and I see that the hon. Member for Rayleigh’s copy is as well-thumbed as mine. The agreement enters into force when all 27 member states have ratified it, and four member states, including the UK, have not yet done so. The order forms an essential part of our ratification, and the same process will be led in the Lords on Thursday afternoon by the Minister for Africa and the UN, Baroness Kinnock. Although some people have suggested that the process means that Montenegro automatically becomes a candidate for membership of the European Union, that is not the case—it becomes a potential candidate. A long process is laid down in the stabilisation and association agreement that leads towards the day when Montenegro might be able to start the full process of accession to the European Union. We have been strong supporters of Montenegro ever since it managed to achieve independence in 2006, but we are conscious that there needs to be a thorough process before it can accede to the Union. I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support the order.
4.32 pm
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Evans, and I am sure that you will keep us in good order.
The purpose of the order is effectively to give parliamentary approval to an EU stabilisation and association agreement with Montenegro. The SAA is not especially controversial; it is probably safe to say that it is not the most controversial treaty on European matters to come into force this year. Nevertheless, it represents the approval of an agreement to which the UK will be party if the order is passed, and it would therefore not be right to let the order go through without at least a few points being put to the Minister—[Interruption.] Well, I do not think that it would be right. I hope that the Minister is able to address at least the few points that I will raise shortly.
First, by way of background, the SAA that the order ratifies provides for enhanced co-operation between Montenegro and the EU, in line with Montenegro’s status as a potential candidate for EU membership, as the Minister pointed out. The agreement was signed in October 2007, following Montenegrin independence from, effectively, the former Yugoslavia, and it is rather hefty in detail. It covers a range of subjects, including promoting further regional co-operation between Montenegro and its neighbours, Montenegrin accession to the World Trade Organisation, and the provision of help both to enable Montenegro to conform to EU standards and to foster freer trade with the EU and Montenegro’s neighbours, some of which are undertaking similar processes. In addition, there are measures on co-operation and combating terrorism, visas and border control, drugs, people trafficking and money laundering. Montenegro is now recognised by the EU as a potential candidate for the Union, and Montenegro’s declared intention is to join the EU in time.
Let us look briefly, therefore, at what progress has been made. The European Commission’s Montenegro progress report for 2009 provides a large amount of detail, but could be summed up as saying that Montenegro has made progress but there is still a long way to go. Progress has been made in the political sphere, with the March elections generally thought to have met international standards. There is also thought to be some progress in the judicial field and in solving the remaining border disputes, such as the demarcation dispute with Croatia over Prevlaka, which is being addressed by mutually agreed reference to the international court. However, it is clear that there is still much work to do. Montenegro needs to show more progress on subjects such as the fight against people trafficking, organised crime and corruption. It is therefore hoped that the agreement contributes to further progress in those areas.
We should say a word about Montenegro and NATO. Although not covered specifically by the agreement, Montenegro has shown its wish to integrate further into the Euro-Atlantic world through its desire to join NATO. Last Thursday, Montenegro’s Prime Minister met NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen and is reported to have said that he believes that Montenegro may shortly receive a NATO membership action plan. The Montenegrins are also, I believe, training troops to go to Afghanistan—a timely point in view of the statement in the Chamber this afternoon. Any additional help for those countries already committed to the International Security Assistance Force is obviously welcome.
Before I finish, as promised, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions on the instrument and Montenegrin relations with the EU generally. First, the European Scrutiny Committee report of 11 November on the enlargement strategy and its progress states:
“The Commission is preparing Opinions on the application for membership from Montenegro”.
Is the Minister aware of any further developments in that regard and does he believe that Montenegro is likely to become an official candidate of the EU in the near future?
Secondly, the 2009 Commission progress report states that, as of 1 September 2009, 22 EU countries had ratified the SAA. The Minister has updated that figure slightly this afternoon. On a technical point, why has it taken that long to ratify the agreement? Thirdly, the progress report suggests that Montenegrin compliance with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is generally satisfactory. Do the UK Government share that view, or do they have cause to believe that wanted war criminals from the Balkans, and the former Yugoslavia in particular, may be in the country?
Fourthly, as I understand it, EU Interior Ministers have recently announced their intention to relax visa restrictions for those travelling from Montenegro into the EU, providing those people have full biometric passports. Does that apply to the Schengen area only or to the UK as well? We would like clarification.
Lastly, we have debated in Committee the relative merits of insisting on reform prior to EU accession, instead of, as in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, trying to enforce further reform once a state is a member. It is generally thought that compliance with conditions rather than set timetables is the best way to proceed—so-called conditionality. Therefore, as I am not sure that I have heard him discuss the subject specifically before, I invite the Minister to say again that there will be no artificial set timetable for the accession of Montenegro, or for any other candidate or potential candidate state, and that accession will be judged by the progress that states make in reform and in meeting the relevant EU standards, completing negotiating chapters and complying with the Copenhagen criteria.
In summary, the statutory instrument is not controversial in itself and agreement could foster further economic and political progress in Montenegro. Nevertheless, I have put specific questions to the Minister about how the agreement is likely to operate and about visa access to the EU. I would be grateful if he addressed those points before the Committee concludes.
4.39 pm
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans. It is a pleasure to serve under you as a fellow north-west Member. I can certainly make the view that the order is uncontroversial an all-party one. I would go further and say that it is a logical and sensible step for the UK to ratify the treaty and to move the political agenda in Montenegro forward. The hon. Member for Rayleigh alluded to an important point in his final remarks. There are opportunities to use the accession process substantially to improve the democratic, judicial and economic structures in Montenegro. It might be said that the experience of the last wave of accession countries demonstrates the fact that what is not done at the point of accession is much harder to achieve afterwards. Therefore, we would support the process as the next step. What I want to put to the Minister are just some of the steps needed to get Montenegro to the point where an application would be a reasonable and feasible thing to put on the table.
The EU Commission’s 2009 report, as the hon. Member for Rayleigh rightly summarised, concludes that there are some significant areas where progress has been made so far, but clearly some very significant things need to be done—“fixed” is the word we might use—before we could say that Montenegro is ready to join the EU. On the justice, freedom and security agenda, the report says that further sustained efforts are needed. It points out that some of the measures relating to judicial reform, although they have had a good start, are far from finished. Political influence on judicial and prosecutorial decisions is still far above the level that we would regard as acceptable in the EU. There is a fight to be conducted against corruption and organised crime at the highest level. We are talking not about small-scale crime in the inner cities, but about high-level organised crime and corruption.
The report refers to some things where one has a slight sense of dA(c)jA vu. One point states that Parliament’s capacity to scrutinise legislation needs to be enhanced. I suggest, with all respect, that Montenegro is not the only Parliament where that is true. I do not expect the Minister to respond specifically to that, but one sometimes gets the impression from reading these documents that everybody inside the EU is perfect and has institutions that would basically pass in heaven, and that everybody on the outside has institutions that would not. I suggest that that is not the case. I was particularly struck by a comment about the ombudsman in Montenegro. It states that most of the opinions and recommendations issued by the ombudsman’s office have been followed up. I wrote in the margin, “Equitable Life”. We are not always in a position to point to splinters in other people’s eyes on these matters. Nevertheless, and I am sure that the Minister will want to make this point, conditions in respect to justice and law and order are of a completely different scale in Montenegro than in the UK.
Can the Minister set out what steps the UK, in co-operation with EU partners, intends to take to maintain pressure for improvements in Montenegro? Is he in a position to say anything at all about the timetable and the check points? I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Rayleigh. We do not want to have a timetable which overtakes the necessary progress. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out a timetable to achieve the necessary process.
The EU has some relevant and important things to say about improvement to laws relating to torture and ill treatment, improvement to women’s rights, and of course some important points are made about the economy. Until the rule of law is secure, it is difficult for partners outside a country to have the confidence to engage in necessary investment and development. I say to the Minister that we believe that this is the right step to take now, opening the door to constructive dialogue to improve circumstances in Montenegro and ultimately to prepare it for accession to the Union. It would benefit the Committee if the Minister answered the question that the hon. Member for Rayleigh put to him as well as those that I have raised.
4.45 pm
Chris Bryant: I am grateful for the supportive comments of the hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Rayleigh. I noted that the hon. Member for Rayleigh said that this was not the only treaty that would come into force this year. I wonder whether his new cast-iron guarantee means there would have to be a referendum on this, if there were a Conservative Government, or would a meeting such as this be sufficient? I see that he is looking inscrutable.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific points. First, in relation to countries that have not yet ratified, I cannot explain why Belgium, Italy and Greece have not yet done so. I can explain why we have not; it has been merely a matter of finding parliamentary time. Perhaps we should have found time earlier but sometimes it is difficult to get a space in his diary. I am glad that we have been able to achieve that this afternoon.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we have any concerns regarding Montenegro’s compliance with ICTY. Our estimation is that it is fully in compliance. A couple of weeks ago, Serge Brammertz and I talked through the issues, including in relation to Serbia and Croatia. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was intimating that someone from one of the other countries was being sought by the tribunal and might be in Montenegro. We have no indication, intimation or suspicion of that.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the announcement about visas made by the Union applies only to Schengen, or to Schengen and the UK. It applies only to Schengen. We intend to look at the visa situation in relation to Montenegro in 2011 but we will be doing that for ourselves, as we stand outside Schengen.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether, following on from what we have learned from previous accession processes, there would be an artificial timetable set for Montenegrin accession. That rather ran counter to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove’s suggestion that there should be a timetable, or at least an indicative one. We believe that the matter should be driven by compliance with the clear rules set in the process of accession to the Union. We think it is more important to adhere fully to all the chapters. Indeed, we learned of the necessity to add a chapter in relation to the judiciary and fundamental rights, which we have done. I think that protects us against the kind of problems we had with other countries, where after their accession to the European Union we tried to get them to abide by what they should probably have abided by before they were allowed accession.
Andrew Stunell: rose—
Chris Bryant: Oh dear.
Andrew Stunell: I absolutely agree with the Minister that the timetable should not be set in such a way that it prevents the achievement of these goals. I was asking him whether he had a timetable for achieving these goals.
Chris Bryant: No, because if we just set a timetable we are in danger of looking as if we are slamming the door on somebody’s accession at the very last minute because they have not managed to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. We believe it is important to dot the i’s and cross the t’s before we get to the point of saying that accession will happen on such and such a date. That is one of the important things that we have learnt in the past few years.
We are passionate supporters of the enlargement of the Union, but we have to do it on the basis of shared responsibility and with each country genuinely getting to the point of equality in terms of human rights and all the fundamental principles of law that we would all expect in any member of the European Union. The stabilisation and association agreement provides a large number of measures that have to be met before we can start that process. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have a copy. Perhaps he has not had an opportunity to read through every element of it, but a clear process is laid down there.
Mr. Francois: Just to correct one small point, I think the Minister said that there had been some issue with my diary in relation to the ratification of this. I think he was teasing me. I have been doing this job for two and a half years, but I do not remember my office being bombarded with requests for me to be available for this statutory instrument. I put that gently on the record. Also, with regard to Montenegrin accession to NATO, the Minister mentioned the forthcoming NATO ministerial summit. Do the Government support Montenegro joining NATO? If so, which Minister will be sent to that summit to support it?
Chris Bryant: I think that the Foreign Secretary is going to the summit. The timetable and the exact process are yet to be discussed, but we are supportive and have been for some time. I do apologise: I was teasing the hon. Gentleman. I know he always rises to nearly every tease that I throw in his direction. The thing we were trying to get sorted was a time for him and me to have a drink. That was the difficulty with his diary.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove is absolutely right. There need to be further sustained efforts on judicial reform. We believe that the Commission’s report has been accurate. We came to the same evaluation as the report did, but we believe that progress is being made and we, as the UK, are delighted that we are taking a key role in making sure that that judicial reform can move forward. Without further ado, I hope that the Committee will agree to the order.
Question put and agreed to.
4.53 pm
Committee rose.
 
Contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 1 December 2009