Official Report 471KB pdf
Item 2 is our first evidence session, which is on the Netherlands presidency of the European Union. What an exciting time this is to be in the presidency, sir.
You can say that again.
I welcome both our witnesses: Simon J H Smits, the ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Court of St James—that is very formal—and Ceta Noland, counsellor for EU and economic affairs at the embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Good morning and welcome to our committee. We have many questions for you. Ambassador, would you like to make a brief opening statement about your priorities?
Wonderful—thank you for having me. I will set out some of our principles and ideas for the coming months, and I will be most happy to take your questions.
As you said, convener, we live in interesting times. With everything that is coming to Europe and the challenges that we face, I think that you will agree that the presidency is hardly an easy task, but it is one that we are and will be executing with all the energy and input that we can muster.
On the one hand, we see that there is a lot of scepticism about Europe and about its ability to make decisions efficiently; on the other hand, we see that solutions and answers are requested from Europe. On the one hand, people feel that Europe is beyond their control and that Brussels is a kind of alien entity—although we are all part of Brussels; on the other hand, with the refugee crisis, terrorism and so on, there is a general question about what the EU can and should do.
I will say a few words on what kind of presidency we are running. First, on our role, we want to be a reliable and efficient mediator—an honest broker—in the Council of 28 member states, with the European Commission and with the Parliament. As that honest broker, we will try to move forward the strategic priorities that have been agreed in the Council and which have found their way into the European Commission’s work programme.
We have three guiding principles. The first is focus, which means that the EU should focus on the things that have the most added value—in other words, as the Commission’s President Juncker has stated, it should be
“Big on the big things, but small on the small things.”
It is no use for the EU to prescribe the length of windowpane washers’ ladders; it should leave that to the local authorities. That is exactly what my former boss, First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, is busy with—better regulation.
That brings me to the second principle, which is connecting with citizens. The keywords here are transparency and visibility. Such connecting could be done, and we think that it should be done, by addressing the questions of the man in the street and of businesses—specifically, small businesses. To give one concrete example, if we reduce the burden of reporting for agriculture and fisheries businesses, that will reduce the workload and costs and will make a difference.
The third principle—not surprisingly—is about growth and jobs, and innovation is key to that. We should remain competitive and be more competitive as the European Union. We have succeeded in staying ahead of the competition, but it is extremely important not to be complacent about that.
One of the key issues is the internal market. The Netherlands is a trading nation and we attach great value to further extending and perfecting the internal market, which means extending it into the digital age. We also think that there is a lot of untapped potential with the internal market of services.
Those are the guiding principles. Our priorities are obviously to do with the events that have more or less overtaken us in the past year. I am thinking of security, the refugee crisis and getting agreements in place with countries such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon that are bearing the brunt of the influx but have also received substantial help in tackling the problems. That is the first priority; other than that, we will concentrate on the issues that I have mentioned.
Convener, the interesting times that you mentioned for the United Kingdom come when some member states are reconsidering their relationship with the EU. We will at least try to facilitate an informed debate, as that is key to the whole issue.
Thank you. We will go to questions.
Good morning, Ambassador Smits. Your presentation described one of your key priorities as connecting and reconnecting with ordinary people in the European Union. One of the criticisms of the Union is that it does not connect particularly well with the ordinary man in the street, as you described it.
You are halfway through your presidency. Could you tell us how you have tried to re-establish the connection more strongly with ordinary people throughout the European Union?
I will be glad to. By the way, we are only one third of the way through the presidency, not halfway—I wish that we were halfway.
To be serious, this is also a key point for my Government. People talk all the time about Europe’s democratic deficit, but we should not forget that we have a directly elected European Parliament with parliamentarians from all the member states who sit in Brussels. As a result of the agreement that Prime Minister Cameron reached, we will also have a mechanism that enables national Parliaments to draw a red card if they do not want legislation to go through. Those points are important.
It is important to note that connecting with the man in the street is not an issue that only the European Union faces. In many member states, there is—and has been for a long time—a disconnect, not just between the man in the street and Europe, but between the man in the street and politics in general; it is not unique to the EU. I am not saying that it is a good thing—on the contrary—but we should realise that that disconnect affects all politicians, whether they are stationed in Brussels or in any of the member states.
You mentioned the new digital age that we are in. Social media can play a big part in reaching out to and communicating with ordinary people throughout the Union. Do you think that, through the social media that it uses—such as the media that the European Parliament uses or the Council of the European Union website, which I am looking at now—the European Union does a particularly good job of telling ordinary people about the benefits and advantages of the European Union?
Social media play a critical role in getting information across and creating a dialogue, although I am not saying that the spread is always 100 per cent. There are various channels—Facebook, Twitter and lots of other media. I would be the last person to say that we are doing a good job, but we are trying hard, through Twitter and other media, to say what we are on about and what our priorities are.
On your first remark about the digital age, it is extremely important to show some of the successes that the European Union has achieved. There has been great success with roaming costs in the EU. The measures that have been taken on that will directly benefit the finances of each and every citizen who possesses a phone.
As for what we want to do to extend the digital internal market, we might mention getting rid of obstacles to e-commerce and dealing with copyright and all the various laws that are still in place and which make it hard for people in the Netherlands to order something from Amazon in the UK, for instance—they are almost limited to Amazon Netherlands. Tackling that would be to the great benefit of consumers and industry.
I ask everyone who comes to our committee these kinds of questions. At the end of your presidency, what can we expect to see that will be different and will have been improved by the agenda of connecting with ordinary people that you have as a priority? What can we expect to see that has not been done so far?
It is difficult to predict anything, but I can tell you what my hopes are and what my Government’s input is. We will see better regulation. That means that, in some places, we will see less regulation. That is not only about tackling the existing body of regulations; it is also about reducing the number of new proposals. I ask you not to pin me down to an exact figure, but we can compare 2014 with last year. In 2014 more than 100 legislative proposals came from the European Commission—I think that there were 120 or 130. That number has dropped by about 80 per cent, to between 30 and 40. That is already a good sign in itself. The Commission’s First Vice-President Timmermans has been playing, and will continue to play, an important role.
Another important step is to consider the existing body of regulations. I gave the committee a random example about ladders. It is important to distinguish between what is really European legislation and what is national gold plating. We see national gold plating all over Europe and all over the EU membership. National politics should concern itself with that.
It is easy to throw everything into the European or Brussels container and to talk about the ridiculous thing about the size of bananas, for instance. That is nothing to do with Europe, but everybody thinks that the shape of bananas is being prescribed by Brussels. It is important to have an informed debate on such issues.
Your excellency, how did the Netherlands presidency contribute to the agreement of the reform package that has been negotiated ahead of the UK referendum? May we also have your personal view on the package?
09:30
You may have my personal view, but I think that it is more important to have my Government’s view, because I am only the messenger.
The negotiations on the package were conducted not by our Prime Minister but by Donald Tusk, who is the president of the European Council. The Government of the Netherlands played a constructive role in the negotiations, because we think that it is extremely important for the UK to remain a member of the EU. My Government and my Prime Minister have been pretty clear that it is in the strategic interest—as well as the political and economic interest—of the UK to remain.
On the package, the opinion of the Government as well as the public in the Netherlands is positive. It makes important changes. For instance, important deals have been made for the red-card system on competitiveness. I would be very careful about criticising the package as being not enough, not really meaningful and so forth. If we look at the negotiating time and trouble that all the EU membership went to in order to constitute the package, I think, honestly speaking, that the critics will be shown to be wrong.
Will the changes for competitiveness help the small to medium-sized enterprises that you spoke of?
Yes. I gave the example of there being fewer reporting requirements. To go back to what I said about issues that relate to better regulation, there is a lot of concern, specifically on the part of SMEs, about the burden of red tape. It is important to see first what that burden is. There is a great variety of businesses, and some may be hurt or hampered more than others. It is important to have a good understanding of exactly what the problems and the obstacles to doing business are, and then to alleviate those problems and take away those barriers.
To be frank, it is also important to make a distinction between what is nationally possible and what is prescribed by Brussels. As you know, there is a difference between regulations and directives. There is also a difference when a policy is transposed into national law—national Governments have the freedom to make changes. It is important that national Governments look at how they can alleviate the administrative burden.
That is very true. Convener, do I have time for another question?
Yes.
One of the presidency’s key priorities is to promote sustainable growth, innovation and jobs, which goes back to elements of the Europe 2020 strategy. How is the Netherlands Government using the presidency role to get the European Union economy back on the right track?
We recently organised a competitiveness council meeting under the leadership of the Netherlands minister for economic affairs. Growth, jobs, the digital age and connecting businesses were at the forefront of that. In the Netherlands, we have come up with fiscal stimuli for innovation, so research and development costs are largely deductible, or people can even get subsidies for them. Of course, that involves a national competence, but we hope that showing such examples will encourage other member states to follow.
It goes without saying that, in Europe, there is open innovation, which involves sharing discoveries and letting businesses, universities and the Government work together. We call that the golden triangle of co-operation, although in some parts of the world it might be better referred to as a triple helix or something else. The idea is to get co-operation going between research institutes at universities, the Government and the private sector in order to produce innovation.
Good morning, panel.
Your excellency, I will take you back to the refugee crisis, which you mentioned in your opening statement. The competence for addressing the issue rests largely with the member state Governments, and you referred to countries that are bearing the brunt. How is the Netherlands presidency seeking to develop a unified EU response to the crisis?
As I said, that is the subject that is closest to the hearts and minds of the Dutch Government at present, as we see what is happening at the borders.
A number of things need to be done. We cannot look at the refugee problem in isolation. A wide spectrum of actions need to be taken, starting with tackling the root causes. First and foremost, we must get a political solution to the crisis in Syria. Secondly, if we look at the refugee crisis, we need to take a number of actions relating to border controls and better-functioning hotspots for registration to enable us to distinguish between the real refugees, who flee death and destruction, and economic migrants, who—however understandable their decision—will not be granted refugee status.
It is also extremely important not only to get in place but to execute and implement agreements with Turkey and the surrounding countries. You will probably know that €3 billion has already been paid to the countries in the region, and Turkey in particular, to make it possible to provide accommodation and first shelter for the refugees.
All that will be done with a view to stemming the flow of refugees and, as far as possible, giving them shelter in the region so that, if and when the situation goes back to normal, we can stop the brain drain of people who are now leaving their countries and they can return to help rebuild those countries when the time is right.
Just to home in on your point about tackling the root causes, what kind of work has been done so far? What work is projected to come your way to make the situation better and tackle those root causes?
It is very difficult from my perspective to say exactly what has been done. I know that my Government—the foreign minister and the Prime Minister—are extremely active in the various councils such as the Gymnich foreign affairs council and the European Council to alert colleagues in Brussels to the fact that the problem needs to be addressed by tackling the root causes.
Obviously, there is a whole spectrum of players involved in what is happening in Syria. To come back to what I said at the beginning, we will be constructive and we will act—and are acting—as an honest and efficient broker to whoever needs that service.
I want to follow up on the refugee crisis. You are obviously trying to act to ensure a unified response to the crisis from European member states, but we see on our television screens that barbed-wire fences are going up between countries, and there seems to be a fragmentation in individual states’ responses to the crisis. The whole EU ethos is under challenge: the notion of co-operation is breaking down, and countries are expressing their national self-interest more and more. Do you see dangers in that for the whole EU project? How are you combating that?
Your question relates exactly to the point that I made earlier. The only way to tackle the crisis is by working together. As our Prime Minister said the day before yesterday or thereabouts, that means that we must have in place an agreement for sharing the burden equally. It might also mean that refugees do not get a choice in where they will be relocated. Obviously, if everyone says, “Sorry—I only want to go to Germany” or “It’s Sweden for me”, or the next person wants to go to Holland, that is not conducive to an equal distribution of numbers. That needs to be tackled.
I would not go so far as—and it would be speculating too much—to say that this is the end of the European project and of European co-operation. We have had some pretty challenging times as Europe and as the European Union, and somehow or other we have so far been able to find solutions and to come up with a joint approach. I am an optimist by nature, and I would like to remain that way. I hope sincerely that in this instance, too, we will find a common solution that is equitable and that involves equal sharing of the burden.
Have you made any progress in trying to broker an agreement between those countries that are particularly affected by the migrant crisis? People are travelling through particular countries and then being blocked at borders.
I will give you a concrete example. Next week, we will hold a special European Council meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Davutoglu, which was previously postponed because of the terrorist attacks in Turkey. We will talk about those exact issues and look at not only how we can best stem the flow of migrants but how we can get the hotspots working and how we can provide first shelter in the region followed by equal distribution of the refugees among European member states.
It is clear that there are different approaches in different countries. For example, the UK does not wish to take any of the influx of people who have come into Europe. It would rather focus on the refugee camps surrounding Syria and take people directly from there.
Is there scope for something other than a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem, such as looking at what each country can contribute and then negotiating with them? Is that the way to go rather than trying to get a one-size-fits-all approach?
All solutions are possible, but let us not forget that there are already agreements in place—including with Turkey and the surrounding countries—that need to be implemented and perfected. The first step, which is at least part of the solution, is to take a holistic view of the root causes. We need to look at the distribution of refugees, and at integrating them into society as quickly as possible and giving them something worth while to do to keep up their skills so that, if and when the time comes, they can go back. It is very hard to speculate on any further steps, but that is what we are doing.
09:45
Your excellency, you mentioned next week’s special European Council meeting with Turkey, which is very welcome. I know that Turkey has a dual role. It has a helpful role to play in hosting and, in some instances, supporting refugee camps. Its other role relates to how it treats the people of the Kurdistan area in northern Turkey and into Syria. Turkey provides support, but it is also an aggressor. Will the special Council meeting address the challenges in that area? The human rights element of how Turkey has behaved over the years is part of the impediment to its accession.
The honest answer is that I do not know. The accession procedure for Turkey involves various chapters and, as is the case in any other accession procedure, human rights and the rule of law and so on are an important element of that. However, I am afraid that I just cannot answer your specific question.
Good morning, Mr Smits. I will focus on an issue that is mentioned on the Netherlands EU presidency website and which is associated with migration, but which appears to be an independent matter, too. The website says:
“More focus is needed on the comprehensive approach to migration and international security.”
A theme that I have picked up from the United Kingdom Government’s campaign to remain in the EU is that the EU offers greater security. What is the Netherlands presidency doing on security? To what extent does that fit with the European Union’s present priorities?
It is unfortunate that migration, the refugee crisis and terrorism are all being put into the same basket, although we have seen in the past that there are links.
On your point about security, I come back to my central point that it is vital for us to work together and to exchange information on terrorist cells, extremism and people who go astray and do not feel part of society or do not even feel a responsibility to contribute to society. That is extremely important in order to counter terrorism.
My personal conviction, if you like, is that it is paramount that we keep working together on the issue, because the pulling up of any drawbridge will not solve any problem. You had terrorist attacks 10 years ago in London and we have seen recent tragedies in Paris. Therefore, it is most important that we keep track of what is happening, that we exchange information and that we work together on combating extremism across Europe.
That is a laudable aim, but has anything tangible been added into the equation to enhance security under the presidency to date or are there plans in the remaining part of the presidency to tweak any aspect of that co-operation on security matters?
If you look at the justice and home affairs council agendas, you will find that they are dominated—I think that that is the best word to use—by exactly those issues. It is very hard for me from my position to distinguish between what agreements are being concluded and the precise ideas behind them. I also understand that some of that would be better kept if not secret then at least confidential, because we would not want to open our cards to the world on that aspect.
Fine. I will move on to a different matter: the question of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations and what the presidency is doing on its stated ambition to conclude the negotiations.
An issue that seems to have come on to the agenda more rapidly is the question of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—with Canada. Could you outline what the Netherlands presidency is doing in that respect?
Yes. It is probably no coincidence that my next-door neighbour is called Ceta.
To start with Canada, CETA was more or less signed, sealed and delivered when the TTIP negotiations opened. As I understand it, because of the concerns that were voiced particularly on the issue of dispute settlement, there has been a tweaking or revision—or, if you like, a rehash—of those paragraphs. The agreement is regarded by my Government as favourable for both the EU and Canada.
There are similar concerns about a range of issues in TTIP. I was personally involved in discussions with the Commission in my previous job. As you know, it is not the presidency or individual member states that are negotiating on TTIP but the Commission, which is negotiating on behalf of the member states. At the outset, concerns were raised about a range of issues, from chlorinated chicken to hormone beef, genetically modified organisms and dispute settlement. It has been made clear by the Commission and the Government that we will not allow chlorinated chicken in our markets, and the same goes for the other products that I mentioned. We are in favour of a broad and ambitious agreement. If we start carving out all kinds of things, our American colleagues will obviously do the same and we might end up with a flimsy agreement on reducing some tariffs, which would be a missed opportunity.
A lot of progress is being made, including on dispute settlement. I will give you two concrete examples. First, on tariffs, many people say that the transatlantic tariff is not really an issue and that, anyway, it is only 3 per cent. That might be true, but the fragmentation of production chains all over the world means that basic goods or semi-fabricated goods cross the Atlantic maybe two or three times, which is two or three times 3 or 4 per cent, which makes a difference.
Secondly, the car industry faces enormous costs in both Europe and America to fulfil the requirements for safety tests and collision tests. The issue has to do with the composition of crash test dummies, whether they are strapped and whether they collide with another car, a brick wall or whatever. No Government wants its pedestrians or drivers to be hurt more than those in any other country. To harmonise safety standards might be a bridge too far, but why not at least get mutual recognition of safety standards? That would save enormous costs for the car industry and hence for consumers and workers in the industry.
In relation to the investor dispute settlement provisions, those that were agreed with the Canadian Government for the Canadian agreement are different from the Commission’s current proposals for TTIP. Are discussions going on in relation to the investor dispute settlement provisions in particular? Will we proceed with the lesser protections—to say the least—under the Canadian agreement? What is happening with the investor dispute settlement issues?
The negotiating round is going on as we speak, so I cannot give you the details of that. As you will know, one of the criticisms of the negotiating procedure is that it is not transparent and is taking place behind closed doors. However, there is now a reading-room mechanism so that, at least on a confidential basis, it is possible to go through the papers, although they do not provide very inspiring reading, because there are a lot of tables, statistics and what have you.
In any negotiation, it is not very wise to show your hand. If I was playing poker with you, I would not show you my hand. With CETA, the Commission’s brief was leaked and published in a newspaper. That is not helpful for any negotiation. The Commission and the membership are doing what they can to be as open as possible.
I do not think that it is wise to pre-empt the outcome because we do not yet have a negotiating text on TTIP. However, there have been some important improvements to take account of the concerns that have been voiced about dispute settlement under CETA. That is an important step and is probably a building block for whatever comes out of TTIP, which I am not able to predict at this time.
I appreciate that the TTIP negotiations are continuing. I was more concerned with the position in relation to CETA and what the timetable actually is for progress. Are you able to help with that?
I am not—sorry. I cannot answer the question. I do not know the exact timetable for CETA. I just know that the dispute settlement paragraphs have been modified so as to take into account the concerns that were voiced, particularly by the European side.
Okay. I will leave it there.
Good morning and welcome to sunny Scotland. You have been candid about TTIP—how it is progressing, what we can and cannot say and what we can and cannot do.
In Scotland in particular, the biggest concern is our national health service. We are very protective of it and we want to guard it. The health service staff and the general public are looking for greater assurances that the NHS will not be at risk.
A number of people have given evidence that suggests that the NHS is not at risk, but no one has given a categorical assurance that it is not at risk. Are you in a position to give us that assurance?
I suspect that he is not, Hanzala. It is a very political question.
Not really.
Thank you for the question. All I can say is that the concerns about the NHS are very well known. They have been made abundantly clear—pretty vocally—to the negotiators. I will leave it at that. I do not want to speculate on any TTIP outcome.
I feel reassured. Thank you so much for that.
Is any work being done to try to help with the market difficulties around dairy farming, particularly on milk production? As you probably know, many farmers across Europe and particularly in Scotland are facing extreme difficulties because of the very low price that they receive for their milk. I know that the issue has been raised with the presidency by members of the European Parliament, but can you tell us if anything is being done? Perhaps this is an occasion where some regulation might be advantageous in the UK, where—as I understand it—there is none in that particular sector. Is anything being done to address the situation and help farmers across Europe?
I would very much like to answer but I cannot. To my knowledge, the quotas that we had up until recently—I think up until last year or so—have been abolished. Of course, that sometimes has an effect on the market, with farmers investing to produce more. We know about market mechanisms—if the supply and demand sides are imbalanced, that has an effect on the price.
At this time, I am not at liberty to tell you what, if anything, is being thought up in relation to regulation or addressing the problem. I know that milk prices have been volatile over the years. They were very high at one point; now they are low. That is also not unique. Around three years ago, we saw very low milk prices even when the quotas were in place. I cannot tell you whether any regulation or anything else is in sight.
10:00
Could you say what the position is in the Netherlands? Do some farmers receive a high price for milk and others a low one? That is what is happening in Scotland, and there is no way that we can think of to balance the two.
I cannot honestly tell you. You have probably heard of FrieslandCampina, which is the biggest dairy farming co-operative in Europe, I think, with 20,000 farmers who are co-owners. They get the price that is paid. I cannot think of any big differences between what various farmers are paid for a litre of milk.
On your wish to bring the European Union closer to the man in the street, I believe that the man in the street is horrified by the inability of the European Union to bring some form of concerted approach to dealing with the problem of the refugee crisis.
The mass migration that took place to the United States in the early 20th century was managed through a centre called Ellis Island and, although people did not necessarily go to the city or state that they wanted to go to, at least their movement was managed in an organised way. At the moment, the burden seems to fall on countries such as Greece and, to some extent, Italy, which are probably less able to cope with it than some of the more prosperous nations are. Is there a possibility of establishing a centre on the basis of something such as Ellis Island, which did the job all those years ago? That might give some confidence to the man in the street that this institution, which he voted for—or did not vote for—is doing something to alleviate the crisis and is not just saying, “It is not our fault; it is their fault.” I know that that is not a very good question, but it concerns something that I think is seen as a big failure.
Your question refers directly to the hotspot issue. That is one of the priorities of not only my Government but the Commission. We have not only to get border controls functioning but to get the hotspots working, because that is where the intake and the registration will take place. In order to do that, it is a question not just of money but of delivering qualified personnel and ensuring that border control—I think that you call it the border force in the UK—and others can assist the Greek and Italian authorities and so on. That is being done. Hopefully, that will restore the confidence of the man in the street with regard to how the problem is tackled.
I am sure that you will agree that it is disappointing to see people being tear gassed at borders in Europe. That should horrify us all.
I have a final, quick question for you. It concerns a subject that you will be surprised you have not already been asked about. On 23 June, the UK goes to the polls to decide whether we will be in or out of Europe, so Brexit is on the horizon. That is the last week of your presidency.
Yes—I postponed my leave.
Are preparations under way? Scotland seems to have quite a Europhile view, which is something that has become much more evident in the past few weeks and which I am sure will grow. The Scottish Parliament has an election in a few weeks’ time, and we hope to get our election out of the way before we focus on what is happening with regard to Europe. Obviously, however, the two things will be combined.
Today, BMW wrote to all its employees in the UK to say that a vote to leave would be a bad thing and that they must not vote to leave, because of the effect that it would have. We had some experience of that approach being used during the Scottish independence referendum. The approach of my party and, I suspect, other parties in this Parliament will be much more about the social union and the things that Europe gives us, such as the working time directive. I come from a trade union background, so all those things are important to me, along with workers’ rights, people’s rights and so on.
Is it the presidency’s position that a very positive point of view should be taken on the good things about Europe? We do not think that the European Union is a perfect organisation—there is bureaucracy and there are things that we could maybe be better at—but letters should not be sent to people that say that their jobs can be on the line if they do not vote a certain way. The argument should be much more about the fact that there is a working time directive and that BMW staff can move from the UK to Germany to work and go back and forth. There should be a positive campaign. You may have only a week to respond to a possible Brexit, so what preparations are you making for that?
You have already answered your own question to a large extent. Far be it from the Dutch Government, or the Dutch presidency, for that matter, to lobby or interfere in the national democratic process that is the referendum. However, we will try to get the facts right, and I agree that scaring people does not help. People should make up their own minds on the basis of the information that they get. Getting the information and facts is crucial. People can make their own decision on that basis.
The issue with referenda has also been addressed in the Netherlands. Eleven years ago, we had a referendum on the EU constitution. The Dutch people voted no, as did the French. There was some scaremongering, but it was only partly about the EU constitution; it was about a lot of other things. It is important to focus on the real issue.
On 6 April, we will have an advisory referendum in the Netherlands on the association agreement—that is, the trade agreement—with Ukraine. The Government is in favour of that, so it will put forward the arguments on how that could be of benefit. Obviously, there are people who are lobbying against it, which is their right. We will see what happens on 6 April.
I hope that our European friends will be constructive friends and critical friends when the need arises.
I thank you very much for your evidence. We have exhausted our questions. It is likely that you will be the last ambassador to give evidence to the committee this session. We thank you very much and wish you and your presidency the best in a very interesting time.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow a changeover of witnesses and a short comfort break.
10:07 Meeting suspended.Next
Human Rights