House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Edward O'Hara
Bryant, Chris (Minister for Europe)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire (Crosby) (Lab)
Davey, Mr. Edward (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Francois, Mr. Mark (Rayleigh) (Con)
Howell, John (Henley) (Con)
McGovern, Mr. Jim (Dundee, West) (Lab)
Newmark, Mr. Brooks (Braintree) (Con)
Ottaway, Richard (Croydon, South) (Con)
Prosser, Gwyn (Dover) (Lab)
Scott, Mr. Lee (Ilford, North) (Con)
Soulsby, Sir Peter (Leicester, South) (Lab)
Spellar, Mr. John (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household)
Stringer, Graham (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab)
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Swinson, Jo (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Truswell, Mr. Paul (Pudsey) (Lab)
Sarah Davies, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 2 March 2010

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Order 2010
10.30 am
The Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Order 2010.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara, which I seem to be doing fairly regularly at the moment. As I am sure all hon. Members know, the United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of enlargement of the European Union. Part of the process of that enlargement is that countries that might become candidate countries, but which need substantial reform to enable them to comply with the acquis communautaire, often enter first into a stabilisation and association agreement. It is a form of first step towards potentially becoming a candidate country for membership of the European Union and then eventually going through all the different chapters and joining the Union.
Members of the Committee will also know that the UK has been keen to see stabilisation across the whole of the Balkans—in particular, the western Balkans—for a series of reasons that matter to our security, not least the fact that all too often the western Balkans has been a source of people trafficking, drugs trafficking and international criminality that has affected the whole of the European Union, and has affected the UK directly. We have also been keen to see the domino effect of greater enhanced governance throughout the Balkans as different countries in the Balkans have sought European Union membership, and stabilisation and association agreements. We want to enhance that process so that we can see greater peace throughout the region.
Specific issues need to be addressed in each of the countries, but the order is an important next step to ensure peace, stability and economic prosperity in the region. We have many worries about the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Last year, remarkably little political progress was made, which is why it is necessary to maintain the Office of the High Representative and not to undermine the role because the use of the Bonn powers is still important. We note that there will be elections later this year, and I have deep anxiety that there might be much greater nationalistic noise in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I call on all political leaders in Bosnia to make sure that, in understandably defending the political position of their ethnic grouping, they do not undermine the real progress that needs to be made in Bosnia and Herzegovina if it is genuinely to aspire to EU membership.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): In the light of what my hon. Friend said—I accept that such things happened before he became Minister for Europe—does he regret that the Foreign Office withdrew funding from the British Association for Eastern and Central Europe? It is exactly that sort of work in the Balkans that would have helped those countries to stabilise.
Chris Bryant: When there are limited resources, it is always a difficult call how best to deploy them. We were right to decide that British troops should no longer be in Bosnia, but at the same time I have been arguing with my EU colleagues—so far, successfully—that we need to maintain the present level of force, at least through to the end of this year. There is a real danger that, against the background of the elections and with more fiercely nationalistic noises being made, we would return to a less stable Bosnia. I worry about the referendum that has been called in Republika Srpska and the thinking behind it, as it is not likely to lead to greater peace, stability and security either in the area or the region. I hope very much that neighbouring countries will also play a role, particularly Serbia with its own aspirations for EU membership, in making sure that Bosnia and Herzegovina takes forward the necessary reforms to ensure that corruption is dealt with, that the federal Government are not undermined and that everything does not return to nationalistic or, indeed, ethnic nationalistic tendencies.
The principal effect of the draft order is to ensure that the powers under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 would be available to give effect to provisions in the agreement and to permit any expenditure arising from the stabilisation and association agreement to be from the Consolidated Fund. As I am sure members of the Committee will know, the agreement was signed in 2008. What is now needed is for all the member countries of the European Union to ratify, and that is effectively the process that we are going through today. I hope that all members of the Committee will support the order.
10.35 am
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara. I am sure you will keep us in order as we discuss the EU stabilisation and association agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina.
As the Minister indicated, the purpose of the order is to give parliamentary approval to an EU agreement—signed in Luxembourg on 16 June 2008—that will provide for closer co-operation between Bosnia and Herzegovina and with the European Union. As the explanatory notes state in paragraph 4 under “Legislative Context”,
“The Agreement is concluded by the European Communities and all its Member States, and must be ratified by each of those States as well as by the European Union”.
The agreement in itself is not especially controversial. Nevertheless, it represents the approval of what is technically a treaty to which the UK will be party if the order is passed this morning. I would therefore like to make some general observations on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as put a number of questions to the Minister on the proposed operation of the agreement.
By way of background, it is now some 15 years since the Dayton peace agreement. Despite the expenditure of a lot of money and words, Bosnia and Herzegovina is again in a precarious state. That assessment is shared by Mr. Dennis C. Blair, the director of US national intelligence. In his annual threat assessment on 2 February, he said:
“Events in the Balkans will again pose the principal challenges to stability in Europe in 2010.”
In those circumstances, the stabilisation and association agreement between the EU and Bosnia and Herzegovina could provide a further means to help bring progress, build up central state institutions and help achieve a lasting political settlement.
The agreement sets out a general framework under which the EU can work with Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also sets out a number of general aims and specific measures concerning trade and economic co-operation. This builds on an interim agreement, also of June 2008, which is already in force. The agreement aims to help Bosnia and Herzegovina develop both its institutions and its economy and to help the country integrate into the wider Euro-Atlantic world. To this end there are a number of sensible proposals and aims contained in it. These include the need to support democratic institutions, continued co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, moves towards greater freedom of the movement of goods and integration into the World Trade Organisation. Those aims will be pushed forward by the Stabilisation and Association Council, which is given its legal form by article 115.
Let me discuss a few of the measures in turn. The agreement seeks to encourage free trade between the EU and Bosnia and between Bosnia and its neighbours. To that end, it seeks to move towards a free trade area within five years. That is a positive proposal and one on which Bosnia deserves the support of the international community in order to raise its standards of WTO and EU norms.
Another positive aspect of the agreement is article 14 and the commitment to neighbourly relations and regional co-operation. There have been positive efforts by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government to settle bilateral disputes, but multi-party co-operation has proved more difficult to foster. Article 80 is intended to strengthen co-operation on border controls and article 81 contains measures designed to foster co-operation on tackling illegal immigration. Those are also welcome.
All these measures are positive and could help Bosnia move forward. However, the problem—as always in Bosnia—is political. Bosnia remains deeply divided on sectarian lines, with politicians using sectarian language to galvanise support, something to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. Last month, we saw Republika Srpska pass legislation to enable it to hold a referendum on secession. It has also attacked the work of the impartial international judges and prosecutors in Bosnia. Given the political background, the positive measures contained in the agreement will unfortunately be in danger of being held hostage in a fragile political environment. The difficulties could also increase in the run-up to the elections, which are due this October. To prevent the progress from unravelling, Bosnian politicians must begin to co-operate on constitutional reform and governance. The international community can help, but ultimately it is for the politicians to put the interests of their communities first and negotiate a lasting solution.
A factor that will undoubtedly help the political stabilisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the full co-operation of Serbia and Croatia. There are encouraging signs that politicians in Belgrade and Zagreb see that it is in their own interests to foster stability in Bosnia. They should be encouraged to continue their support for the central Bosnian institutions, although there is now a legal case that threatens that, to which I will return briefly at the end.
There are also encouraging signs that the United States continues to take a keen interest in Bosnia and understands the dangers that a failed Bosnia could pose to the rest of Europe. On 24 February, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave evidence to a US foreign affairs committee about Bosnia and Herzegovina. She said:
“We don’t want to see any moves to break up Bosnia, and we worry about that a lot. So there is a long list of concerns. But the NATO piece of it, I’m watching very closely because I share your concerns that we want Bosnia-Herzegovina to feel like they’re welcome. And they may not be there yet. But with a little more effort, they could be”.
She also made the point that she was encouraging EU members to work with Bosnia on NATO membership conditions. US engagement of such a kind is welcome—indeed crucial—if the international community is to use its influence in a co-ordinated fashion to maintain stability in the troubled region.
Last December, Montenegro received a membership action plan to join NATO. At the same meeting, Bosnia was put on hold. Bosnia will undoubtedly need much help before it is ready to embark on a MAP to join NATO. However, with US support, there could be a new positive influence to bear out in Bosnia. For instance, a MAP would help reform and build up the central Bosnian army.
I have put the agreement in context. I now want to come to some of the points about the agreement itself. I have a number of questions to put to the Minister about how it will operate. First, given that the agreement was signed nearly two years ago, which other countries have not yet ratified it? Why are we discussing it today, two years on? Secondly, given that the agreement aimed to conclude a free trade area within five years, what progress has been made since the agreement was signed? Thirdly, will the Minister assure us that he will not support any attempt to split the EU special representative from the Office of the High Representative? I think he intimated that in his opening remarks. However, he knows that Conservative Members regard that as important, because it could weaken the two offices and allow those who do not wish to see strong international engagement to seek to divide the United States and the EU, which we believe would be dangerous.
Fourthly, chapter 1 of the agreement, which starts on page 28, is concerned with the movement of workers. Will the Minister explain what practical changes in the movement of workers between Bosnia and the EU—and the UK in particular—are likely to result from the agreement’s coming into operation? Fifthly, it was reported that last month seven organisations, including the Bosnian branches of Transparency International and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, told a meeting in Sarajevo that in their opinion, visa liberalisation before the election would be a mistake, as it could benefit nationalist politicians. Does the Minister agree with that sentiment? Does the UK have any proposals for visa liberalisation resulting from the agreement?
Sixthly, will the Minister assure us that there are no plans to remove EUFOR—certainly not before the next Bosnian elections in October? Lastly, as I intimated earlier, is there anything that the Minister can say about the arrest of Mr. Ejup Ganic, an ex-President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at Heathrow airport yesterday? He is now in custody, awaiting determination of an extradition request by Serbia. What is the Foreign Office position on that request?
To conclude, the EU is a large contributor of aid to Bosnia and has, in EUFOR, a military force. On top of that, the United States is strongly committed to the viability of Bosnia and, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonstrated in a Senate hearing, is willing to give political backing to efforts to ensure stability. EU member states should continue to support the integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as doing so is in our interests as well as its own interests.
On that basis, we do not plan to oppose the order, but I shall listen with interest to the Minister’s answers to my specific points.
 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 3 March 2010