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
Rayleighs 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 caseit
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
Montenegros 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
Montenegros 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 Montenegros
declared intention is to join the EU in
time.
Let
us look briefly, therefore, at what progress has been made. The
European Commissions 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, Montenegros 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
Afghanistana 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 proceedso-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
Commissions 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 donefixed is the word we
might usebefore 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 Parliaments
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 ombudsmans 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 peoples 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 womens
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 referred to several important matters that must be addressed
in relation to Montenegro. Montenegros development in recent
years has been
encouraging for other countries in the region, where we have been
looking for greater security and a greater capacity for people to live
in liberty. He mentioned people trafficking and organised crime, which
need to be dealt with on a regional basis. It will be much easier to do
that when Balkan states are eventually able to accede to the European
Union. He also referred to Montenegros application on 4
November to join NATO, which will be discussed at the ministerial
meeting later this week. We are strong supporters of
Montenegros eventual membership of NATO and we pay tribute to
its recently announced intention to provide additional forces to
Afghanistanthe international sharing of the burden is an
important part of what we aspire to.
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
Montenegros 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 Groves 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: 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 somebodys
accession at the very last minute because they have not managed to dot
all the is and cross all the ts. We believe it is
important to dot the is and cross the ts 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
Commissions 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.