The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Sir
Nicholas
Winterton
†
Blunkett,
Mr. David
(Sheffield, Brightside)
(Lab)
†
Brady,
Mr. Graham
(Altrincham and Sale, West)
(Con)
†
Browne,
Mr. Jeremy
(Taunton)
(LD)
†
Burns,
Mr. Simon
(West Chelmsford)
(Con)
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
†
Hoon,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Minister for
Europe)
Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
†
Kilfoyle,
Mr. Peter
(Liverpool, Walton)
(Lab)
Main,
Anne
(St. Albans)
(Con)
†
Morley,
Mr. Elliot
(Scunthorpe)
(Lab)
†
Seabeck,
Alison
(Plymouth, Devonport)
(Lab)
†
Taylor,
Ms Dari
(Stockton, South)
(Lab)
†
Younger-Ross,
Richard
(Teignbridge)
(LD)
Gosia
McBride, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(5):
Steen,
Mr. Anthony
(Totnes)
(Con)
European
Standing
Committee
Monday 15
January
2007
[Sir
Nicholas Winterton
in the
Chair]
EU Enlargement: Bulgaria and Romania
4.30
pm
The
Chairman: Before I call the Minister, I want particularly to
welcome the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside. I hope that he
enjoys this experience, and if he wishes to participate I shall be even
happier. Can I say to the Minister that statements should be factual,
and that if they take any longer than 10 minutes I shall show my
impatience.
The
Minister for Europe (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon):
After
a warning like that, Sir Nicholas, I am delighted to be able to
introduce this European Standing Committee debate on European Union
enlargement. I am particularly pleased to see my right hon. Friend the
Member for Sheffield, Brightside in his place on the Government
Benches. I invited him to see whether he had a good book to read but,
knowing my right hon. Friend, he could probably write one in the course
of this debate.
I am
grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for providing the
opportunity to discuss this important and high-profile issue. The
Scrutiny Committees have made a series of excellent contributions to
the enlargement debate.
All too often, this debate is
presented as a problemin need of a solution—in the most
extreme case, slamming shut and bolting the doors against all countries
asking to join. Rather, I would argue that the documents before us show
that enlargement is part of the solution to the many challenges that we
face.
The strategic
challenges facing the European Union today are numerous. They range
from the economic tests of increasing global competition from Asia and
the insecurity of our energy supplies to the global political problems
in the middle east and the need to tackle drugs, organised crime and
illegal migration. EU enlargement is one of our most effective
responses to those challenges. It is a reinvigorating force to the
economies of Europe, as shown in the Commission’s strategy
paper. Each joining country provides us with new jobs, new markets and
new opportunities for investment. The enlargements of 2004 and 2007
have added more than 100 million consumers, making the EU the
world’s largest single market, and the economies and workers of
the new members are boosting growth across Europe.
The Commission’s
monitoring reports show that both Romania and Bulgaria have made
dramatic progress since the European Union invited them to join in
1999. They have free media, hold free and fair elections and benefit
from thriving civil societies. Economic growth has recently averaged 5
per cent. a year, unemployment is falling, inflation is low
and
standards of living are dramatically improved. That is good for all of
us: UK exports to Romania have trebled in a decade and our exports to
Bulgaria were up by41 per cent. last year. Better governance
and a stronger judiciary make our investments in both countries less
risky, more transparent and more competitive.
That is not
to suggest that EU enlargement is an easy or automatic process. Romania
and Bulgaria still have some way to go in strengthening the rule of law
and tackling corruption and organised crime. Indeed, enlarging the
European Union to those two countries—and, before them, to the
10 new member states that joined in 2004—has allowed us to
improve the quality of the process of enlargement. The requirements for
joining the EU are more rigorous and more carefully monitored than ever
before—[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. I did not hear that, but I do deprecate mobile
phones that might ring, whoever’s pocket they might ring
in.
Mr.
Hoon:
It was not mine, Sir Nicholas.
Those are also, of course, the
requirements facing Turkey and Croatia. The strategic case for
enlarging to the current candidate countries and for keeping the door
open to other European neighbours remains as powerful as ever. Those
countries will be our neighbours and will play a pivotal role in our
futures whatever decisions Europe makes. Our choice is what that role
will be. It is in all our interests that they become closer, stronger,
richer, more reliable allies. That being the case, it would seem
foolish in the extreme to turn our backs on one of the best and most
proven ways that we have of ensuring that outcome. The prospect of EU
enlargement is probably the most powerful example of so-called
“soft power” available to any country or international
organisation in the world.
Take the Balkans.
They have been, in all too recent history, a crucible of violence and
instability in the heart of Europe. Indeed, there are still significant
EU and NATO forces in the region. We have, therefore, a direct interest
in preventing any re-emergence of Balkan insecurity, and in encouraging
the countries of the region further down the path of political and
economic reform. While there is more for them to do, the
Commission’s monitoring reports for those countries show how the
prospect of EU enlargement has been crucial in encouraging them to make
reforms and to move away from instability.
Croatia is
another significant example: it is making the necessary reforms and has
low inflation, a stable currency and rapid economic growth. It has
bright, hard-working young people and strong scientific credentials and
it is taking on international responsibilities, for example, by sending
peacekeepers to Afghanistan and working with the British police, among
others, to fight drug smuggling and money laundering. If you want to
see how far Croatia has come, Sir Nicholas, it is worth noting that,
although it is little more than a decade since an extremely destructive
war, more than 250,000 British tourists each year choose to go there on
holiday. Of course, Croatia must meet more conditions, particularly on
the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, but it is
on the right path because of the prospect of enlargement.
It is worth
speaking plainly at this point. There are some in Europe who have no
problem with Croatia joining the European Union but have a real problem
with Turkey joining. However, the strategic case for Turkish membership
is at least as compelling as that for any other country, or arguably
more so. Turkey could play an immensely positive role in tackling the
challenges facing the EU. It has a dynamic economy, it is already a
major transit country for oil and gas and it is set to be a crucial
energy corridor into Europe. It has a network of relationships with
countries in the middle east, including Syria and Iran, that no current
EU member state can match. It has a young and increasingly educated
work force and larger armed forces than any other European country, and
it has shown that it can deliver successes by working with us on
tackling terrorism, organised crime, illegal migration and trafficking.
Perhaps most strikingly of all, at a time when some people are peddling
the idea of an inevitable clash of civilisations, it is an immensely
powerful symbol that European values can be Muslim values and vice
versa.
There is an
argument that, since we are already working so well with many of the
countries that want to join the European Union, we do not need to
follow through on our promises of enlargement, or to keep open the
prospect of further enlargement. That is both dangerous and
short-sighted. The foundation of the EU’s extraordinary
“soft power” and the reason why it has transformed the
world around it more than any other international organisation has been
the prospect of full membership. To offer Turkey, Croatia and the
countries of the western Balkans anything else would be to go back on
our word. To encourage other countries down the right road, which is in
their interest and ours, we cannot rule out their getting where they
want to be. I therefore wish briefly to address the European
neighbourhood
policy.
The ENP is a
positive way to promote reform, democracy and prosperity for the
EU’s neighbours, and it is already starting to deliver results.
Ukraine’s ENP action plan, for example, has given it a clear set
of priorities to help it to make progress towards EU integration. It
has helped it to achieve accession to the World Trade Organisation,
free and fair parliamentary elections in 2006, the establishment of a
free media and enhanced co-operation in the common neighbourhood,
including the EU border assistance mission on the border with
Moldova.
Ukraine’s
neighbour Belarus does not yet have an action plan under the ENP
umbrella, but the framework of the ENP has made it much more plausible
for the EU to set out an offer of closer engagement that will be open
to Belarus if it improves its standards of human rights and
democracy.
To
the south, the implementation of the action plan in Israel has paved
the way for significant development in EU-Israel co-operation on
political dialogue, the promotion of trade and investment, justice and
security, science and technology, including space co-operation, and
higher education. The process of implementing the action plan has
helped better to define the framework of EU-Israel relations and
enabled the deepening and strengthening of co-operation on a wide
spectrum of matters. Those are just a few examples of the ENP already
acting as a driver of change and it can be developed further to provide
stronger reform objectives.
In that light, the European Commission’s proposals to strengthen
it should be welcomed, and we will offer our support for increasing the
incentives for
reform.
I
look forward to answering Members’ questions and hearing their
contributions to the
debate.
The
Chairman:
Before we move to Question
Time, I will mention that I saw some concern and confusion in the eyes
of some Members when the Minister mentioned other countries in his
opening statement. While the monitoring report relates specifically to
Bulgaria and Romania, the issue of accession preparedness concerns
future applicants. A wider debate on future EU enlargement would
therefore be appropriate both during questions and in the debate to
follow.
We now have
until half-past 5 for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that
they should be brief and asked one at a time. There is likely to be
ample opportunity for all Members to ask several questions if that is
their
wish.
Mr.
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): I would like to
say what a pleasure it is to serve under your vigilant eye, Sir
Nicholas, and on this occasion, your vigilant ear: I apologise for the
interruption of the mobile phone. I hope that your sagacity spreads to
my right hon. Friend the Minister when he attempts to answer our
questions.
My
question is rather simple. Four areas of concern have been expressed
with regard to Romania and six of major concern with regard to
Bulgaria. When one looks at the reports on the western Balkan nations,
one will see that the same areas crop up time and again: corruption,
crime, money laundering, people smuggling and so on. The monitoring
report on Bulgaria and Romania mentions that there will be
post-accession mechanisms to ensure that those countries are meeting
their obligations. Will the Minister expand on those mechanisms and how
they will mitigate the damage that could be done? We must bear it in
mind that, if we do not have the mechanisms to examine structural
funds, for example, and to ensure that, in a corrupt environment, they
are properly spent, it is certain that the British taxpayer, among
other European Union taxpayers, will be ripped
off.
Mr.
Hoon:
My hon. Friend is right to raise
such concerns. They have been present throughout the negotiations on
the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. It was judged that progress had
been made, sufficient to allow both countries to join the EU on 1
January this year. That was subject to certain conditions, most notably
relating to justice and some aspects of internal policy, particularly
the policing of corruption. Those conditions will require rigorous
post-accession monitoring to ensure that Bulgaria and Romania continue
to make progress. We have learnt from previous accessions that
countries have made an enormous effort up to the point at which they
have joined the EU, but collapsed in a heap thereafter like a
successful long-distance runner, and failed to continue the process.
The purpose of the rules was to require Romania and Bulgaria to
continue to reform their legal processes once they became full members.
The conditions will allow us to supervise their progress, with the
possibility of financial consequences if the countries do not make the
required improvements and reforms.
Mr.
Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): I welcome
the Minister’s remarks; the subject of enlargement is one of the
few areas in which there is an outbreak of harmony between the
Government and the Opposition in these
exchanges.
Given that
some of the principal concerns about Bulgaria and Romania relate to the
adequacy of their justice, home affairs and policing, what assurance
can the Minister give that adequate measures are in place to ensure
that any criminal records of Bulgarian or Romanian citizens who enter
the UK will be made available to UK authorities? More topically, is he
confident that adequate measures are in place to inform in full the UK
authorities of any criminal offences committed by UK citizens in
Romania or Bulgaria?
Mr.
Hoon:
I am always pleased to discover that there is
agreement between the two Front-Bench teams. I slightly question the
extent to which we agree on enlargement, because unfortunately we are
unsure what is on offer from the Conservatives. When the hon. Gentleman
goes to other countries that are planning to apply to join the EU, I am
not clear what he is offering them, because we have no idea what kind
of—
The
Chairman:
Order. I am not liking the way in which the
Minister is answering. Will he concentrate upon the question, which
relates to the motion?
Mr.
Hoon:
I would like to point out
that,
although the hon. Gentleman supports the idea of enlargement, he does
not make clear what exactly he is offering to a candidate country. It
is not clear what the Conservative party’s policy is on the
shape and direction of the European
Union.
The
Chairman:
Order I am not going to have it from the
Minister. He must not talk about Opposition policy. He must deal with
the question which relates to the motion on which we are questioning
him.
Mr.
Hoon:
I am sorry, Sir Nicholas. No one else is talking
about the Opposition’s policy, so I thought I
might.
The
Chairman:
Not under my
chairmanship.
Mr.
Hoon:
As far as the question of criminal records is
concerned, it is vital that we improve the co-operation between member
states. There must be an exchange of information in both directions,
which I think was the point of the hon. Gentleman’s question, so
that information about the criminal records of UK subjects held in
Bulgaria or Romania is passed to the United Kingdom and vice versa. I
am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the
Home Department will ensure that that is carried
through.
Mr.
Brady:
I am grateful to the Minister for answering the
question in so far as he did. Can he give the Committee an assurance
that these matters were addressed prior to accession on 1
January?
Mr.
Hoon:
All right hon. and hon. Members are aware of the
current issues in the Home Office. I made it clear that the ambition of
the Home Office is obviously to ensure that the information is
collated, recorded and
available.
Richard
Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): I am surprised that the
Minister decided to refer to the Conservative policy on Europe, because
I did not think that they had one to debate.
[
Interruption.
] The European Scrutiny
Committee’s 38th report, Session 2005-06, which is attached at
the front of our papers, lists on pages 18 and 19 a long series of
Government concerns about Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU. Were the
Government in favour of them joining on1 January this year, or
did they support the idea that that enlargement should have been
deferred by a year, as was
possible?
Mr.
Hoon:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware
that it is necessary for all existing member states to support an
application for a candidate country before that country can join.
Clearly, the United Kingdom supported the applications of Romania and
Bulgaria, subject to the kinds of safeguards that I have been setting
out. It is particularly important in the justice and home affairs area
that Romania and Bulgaria should continue to make
progress.
Ms
Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): It is always a
pleasure to serve on a Committee that you are chairing, Sir
Nicholas.
I warmly
welcome my right hon. Friend’s remarks about enlargement. I look
forward very definitely to Britain gaining the benefits from Romania
and Bulgaria having full membership. First, can he confirm that, to
achieve full membership, those two countries must also be members of
NATO? As members of NATO, they have to use up a percentage of their
gross domestic product to develop an armed force. Is that still the
case? Secondly, however we measure it, they are poor countries. Would
it not be more sensible for them to spend their GDP elsewhere, rather
than use it to develop their armed
forces?
Mr.
Hoon:
On the benefits to the UK, it is often assumed in
these debates that existing members of the European Union are somehow
doing a favour to candidate countries by agreeing that they should be
able to join. It is quite interesting to look at trade between newly
joined countries and existing members. Very often the benefit is
entirely for the existing members. Certainly, the UK has benefited
enormously through its exports to the newest member states. There are
real benefits to new member states as well as to existing member states
from enlargement.
Both
Romania and Bulgaria are members of NATO, and they clearly have
obligations under that treaty. I will, I am sure, risk the wrath of the
Chairman if I spend too much time talking about that. However, one
advantage of joining the EU for those two countries is that they will
become part of European security and defence policy. They will have the
opportunity to participate co-operatively in the development of their
armed forces. One of the significant contributions that the EU has made
to the development of military capability in Europe is by emphasising
the necessity for that military contribution to be complementary,
rather
than simply having countries developing their armed forces solely in the
interests of their own national sensitivities. As Romania and Bulgaria
become fully integrated into the process of developing European armed
forces, it may well prove to be the case that they will spend the same
amount on their military—we would hope so—but that they
will do so more effectively, because they will identify shortfalls in
European military capability. We hope that they will fill those
gaps.
Mr.
Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): May I first welcome the
Minister to this Standing Committee? I am a member of the European
Scrutiny Committee and have a particular interest in Romania and
Bulgaria. My experience of the Commission in both Romania and Bulgaria
is that it has been very good, very skilled and extremely professional
in how it has addressed the issue of Romania and Bulgaria coming into
the European Union. I welcome and support that. However, it is clear
that the number of Commission officials in both Bulgaria and Romania
after succession will virtually collapse—there will be virtually
none. Will the Minister make inquiries and satisfy himself that there
is enough Commission presence in both Romania and Bulgaria to ensure
that the issues about which the EU countries were concerned are
addressed? My impression is that nobody is going to
know.
Mr.
Hoon:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not be
the case, but he is right that, inevitably, as countries approach the
point at which they become full members, there is a requirement for
monitoring, advice, assistance and expertise. I am grateful to him for
the positive way in which he has viewed the role of the European
Commission. I do not have figures to hand on how many Commission
officials are likely to be there now, following membership. However,
there will be a continuing role for the Commission to monitor the
progress that countries have made. The United Kingdom will also offer
help and expertise, as will other countries, particularly in the
judicial area. I am shortly going to visit Bulgaria and Romania, and
that is such a good point that I shall certainly raise it with those
countries.
Mr.
Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): When the European Union
expanded from 15 to 25 member states, the Government, infamously,
dramatically under-predicted the number of citizens, particularly
Polish citizens, who would choose to reside here in the United Kingdom.
During his conversations with the Home Office on other, perhaps even
more topical matters, has the Minister satisfied himself that the
Government have made an accurate assessment of the number of Romanian
and Bulgarian citizens who are likely, as of 1 January this year, to
wish to reside in the United Kingdom? Furthermore, is he satisfied that
the restrictions, announced by the Home Office, on the ability of those
people to work in the United Kingdom are likely to deter people from
Romania and Bulgaria—if that is his objective—and to what
extent?
Mr.
Hoon:
I am tempted to quibble slightly with the way in
which the hon. Gentleman made his point. I accept that, on the basis of
advice from a survey conducted independently, the Government did not
accurately forecast the number of people from Poland,
in particular, who would from time to time come to the United Kingdom. I
am quibbling to the extent that it depends on the length of time that
the hon. Gentleman uses to define “residence”. All the
evidence appears to show that a large number of people have come from
Poland and remained here for a period, but very many of them have
returned to Poland. That seems to be a pattern, particularly for
younger Polish people. They come to the UK, perhaps to visit distant
relatives or to work here for a time, and then return. The independent
survey might not have been as far out regarding permanent residence as
some people suggest.
To answer the
hon. Gentleman’s question, the Government have learned their
lesson and we shall not rely to the same extent on those kinds of
independent survey. There is no evidence so far—obviously it is
early days in 2007—that large numbers of people are coming from
Romania or Bulgaria to reside here permanently. To that extent, the
Home Office restrictions have clearly been successful so
far.
Mr.
Kilfoyle:
In response to a question from
my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South, the Minister made much
of the potential for change in the attitude of the armed forces in
Bulgaria and Romania. Does he agree that, if that change were to take
place, those countries should consider peacemaking and peacekeeping,
rather than war-making, as a guiding ethos in their armed forces? Is he
aware of the controversy in Bulgaria over the past couple of years
about British Aerospace’s alleged dealings with a member of the
former Bulgarian royal
family?
Mr.
Hoon:
The reform of the armed forces in Romania and
Bulgaria began long before they joined the EU, because they were
required to reorganise them significantly to meet their
responsibilities as full members of NATO, so there is no doubt that
that process is well under way. I simply highlighted a mechanism
whereby that reform can be tailored in light of the Helsinki headline
goal and the importance of European countries developing complementary
forces to fill the clear gaps in their overall capabilities.
On the BAE Systems allegations,
I am not sure that it would be wise or sensible for me to comment at
this
stage.
Mr.
Brady:
I return to the movement of
people. The Minister gives some assurance that the numbers have not
been great so far, although he admits that it is early days. Will he
give an indication of the numbers arriving and registering to work in
permitted occupations and categories? Given the widespread reports,
which he believes it to be wrong, about restricting the employment
opportunities of Bulgarian and Romanian citizens and given that he was
subsequently reported to have indicated to Members of the European
Parliament, who were observers from the two countries, that the
restrictions might end sooner than was previously understood, will he
shed some light on the likely timetable for the review and lifting of
those restrictions? Does he think that the case for doing so is now
stronger because there has not been a large influx of people seeking
residency
here?
Mr.
Hoon:
On many previous occasions when debating with the
hon. Gentleman, I have noticed that he has an
unconscionable enthusiasm for believing all that he reads in the
newspapers. I suppose that it is rather attractive in the modern world
in which we have all become rather cynical and critical that there is
someone who has such a naive view of what he reads each morning in
certain newspapers and that he is so happy to believe every dot and
comma. I suppose that I should congratulate such innocence. I must tell
him that I said no such thing at the meeting to which he
refers.
The
Government made it clear that we would review the operation of the
schemes after a year—we announced that publicly—and that
we would fix the quota at 19,750 people. If he wants a specific number,
I can tell him that no more than 19,750 people will come from Romania
and Bulgaria to engage in unskilled work. That is the most sensible way
to deal with the issue. The arrangements were fixed in light of
experience from the numbers that come, representations from employers
and our assessment of the employment situation in the UK, and we will
consider them a year
on.
Richard
Younger-Ross:
On immigrant labour, considering the
hypocrisy reported in the papers that even companies that support the
United Kingdom Independence party are happy to employ immigrant labour
from Poland, could the Minister enlighten us on the emigration pattern
from Bulgaria and Romania? Is the Home Office and Foreign and
Commonwealth Office view that there will be more emigration from
Bulgaria and Romania to the UK or to other parts of
Europe?
Mr.
Hoon:
Clearly, the free movement rules will ultimately
allow citizens of all EU member states to move freely. For the reason
to which I alluded earlier, the pattern so far has been that people
from Poland have tended, perhaps disproportionately, to come to the
United Kingdom, rather than to go to other countries. My suspicion is
that that is because there is a substantial Polish population in the
UK, dating from the second world war. Many young people, in particular,
have taken the opportunity to visit distant family and to remain here
for a period to work.
It is possible to look at what
happened before Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU, and the pattern so
far seems to suggest that people from those countries prefer to go to
warmer countries than the United Kingdom. I put that as delicately as I
can in the age of concern about global
warming.
Ms
Taylor:
I listened with interest to my right hon.
Friend’s responses to concerns about the movement of people and
the potential that we might have for placing restrictions. Without
meaning to tease too much, I ask him to accept that Polish builders are
held in very high esteem and are in great demand in the UK today. I
should like to persuade him not to consider restrictions but to look at
opportunities for the countries of Romania and Bulgaria. I hope that he
will take seriously my suggestion that we should supply them with a
list of shortages of skills and professions and persuade those people
that they would be warmly welcomed here. They would most certainly be
warmly welcomed in Stockton.
Mr.
Hoon:
I will take note of my hon. Friend’s point.
Similar representations have been made to me by companies in my
constituency. As I carefully consider these issues and reflect upon the
various arguments that have been made, I will remind myself of my hon.
Friend’s
observations.
Mr.
Brady:
The Minister may even be persuaded in due course.
He was touched by my naïve attachment to the reports carried by
various Romanian news agencies.
Mr.
Hoon:
I was touched by your support for their
translation.
Mr.
Brady:
Translation would be very welcome. The Minister
will be aware of concerns that the border between Moldova and Romania
could be porous and that a large number of Moldovan citizens might have
a right to a Romanian passport. That is one of the concerns that was
raised in the context of possible onward travel to other countries in
the European Union. Can the Minister update the Committee on whether
there is any evidence of such applications being made by Moldovan
citizens?
Mr.
Hoon:
I am not aware of any evidence. The consequence of
enlargement in a general sense is that the external frontier of the
European Union is extended. Obviously, that includes the frontier
between Romania and Moldova, which is an important EU frontier, and the
issue was raised with Romania to ensure the security of what has now
become the EU’s external
frontier.
Several
hon. Members
rose—
The
Chairman:
Richard Younger-Ross caught my eye
first.
Richard
Younger-Ross:
At present, rightly, there are import
restrictions on pig and cattle produce from the two countries we are
talking about because of the presence of swine fever and transmittable
spongiforms and encephalopathies. Has the Minister been advised how
long those restrictions are likely to remain in place, and how long it
is going to take Bulgaria and Romania to get rid of those two diseases?
What will the UK do to ensure that the Commission takes the right
decision on whether to allow exports of those products from Bulgaria
and
Romania?
Mr.
Hoon:
The Commission has proposed measures to safeguard
the internal market in certain areas related to food safety. The short
answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question is, “As
long as it takes.” The UK will support any measure designed to
protect the internal market, and particularly consumers in the UK.
Mr.
Steen:
I might be able to help the
Minister with the question he was asked on Moldova. There are 70,000
Moldovans who are entitled to come into Romania and into the EU because
they have a parent who is Romanian. The other figure—the scare
figure—is 700,000, but I gather that 70,000 passports have been
granted that will give joint rights, so there is potential for 70,000
Moldovans to enter
Romania.
The second
issue on which I should like to help the Minister is the Poles. Without
Polish dentists, the teeth of most people in my constituency would be
falling out. We can only find Polish dentists to fill the
places.
The
Chairman:
Order. Is that a
question?
Mr.
Steen:
No, but I am coming on to
that.
The
Chairman:
I have to say to Committee members that this
particular period of the debate is for questions. I shall take it that
it was a question.
Mr.
Steen:
No, it was
not.
The
Chairman:
I shall take it that you were asking the
Minister to confirm the statement that you were
making.
Mr.
Hoon:
I am always grateful for information. Of course, it
is not for me to comment on the processes whereby other countries
determine entitlement to nationality. Clearly, however, in the case of
a child born in the UK of a relationship between, say, someone in
France and someone in the UK, there would have to be a process for
determining both their nationality and their entitlement to a passport
from different member states. In practice, the situation in Romania is
probably not much different from that in other parts of the EU. I shall
resist the temptation to talk about gaps in our dental
service.
Mr.
Browne:
There are now 27 EU members—more than
double the number when the UK joined. In his opening remarks, the
Minister mentioned other potential members including Croatia and
Turkey. Will he give a value for the number of member states
thathe envisages for the future and will he say what
implications that figure will have for the administrative and
organisation mechanisms of the EU? Will it require the proposed
constitution to be returned in the near future in amended
form?
Mr.
Hoon:
I do not think that it is sensible to talk about a
specific target or numbers. It is clear Government policy, and it is
important, that we leave the door open. It is vital for the western
Balkans and for Turkey that there is the prospect of them joining the
EU—it drives change in those countries and it is in EU
interests, for the strategic reasons that I have set out. I do not wish
to state a number for future members, not least because that might
indicate a sense in which the door is
closing.
It has
followed from all previous enlargements that in order to ensure that
the EU, as it grows, can take efficient decisions, it must necessarily
reform its decision-making processes. That was anticipated in the most
recent enlargements and it would be anticipated if we assume that
Croatia joined the EU in due course. It has been a constant process,
but that says nothing about the constitutional treaty, because we must
find a way forward on the elements of the treaty that may be brought
into force. That can be done only by agreement between all member
states. We must emphasise the need for effective decision making in the
European Union as it grows. That has always been an issue to consider,
which will not change as a result of the most recent
enlargement.
Richard
Younger-Ross:
Further to that point, many countries that
wish to join have supporters within the EU. It strikes me that we will
be at a point of potential enlargement for ever and a day because there
will always be some other place that has someone in the EU wishing to
support its membership and uses that as a bargaining position. For
instance a country might say, “We will support Turkey joining
the EU if you support us.” That would be the worst of all worlds
in how the EU is formed. Would it not be better for the EU to determine
what its boundaries ought to be in a set period of time so that we have
some idea of its future shape and
form?
Mr.
Hoon:
We do have an idea of that, because we call it the
European Union. We have a sense of what Europe is and its limits. We do
not need to go further than that at this stage, for the reasons that I
have set out. If we were to place an artificial limit on the size and
shape of the EU, what message would that send to the countries of the
western Balkans, for example? I do not suggest for a moment that all
those countries are ready to join, but the prospect of becoming full
members one day is driving change. They are clearly part of Europe and
we have deployed our troops in recent years to preserve human rights
there. Many European troops are still there, including British troops.
It would be foolish artificially to prevent those countries from
continuing the process of reform and change or from one day joining the
European
Union.
Richard
Younger-Ross:
The Balkan states are clearly within Europe,
but some people would argue that should Ukraine and Belarus comply,
they also ought to be in the EU. Is the Minister saying that Ukraine
and Belarus could one day become part of the
EU?
Mr.
Hoon:
I am not ruling it out, but it is clearly not going
to happen any time soon. It is not on the horizon at the moment, and
both those countries need to engage in the type of reforms and changes
that we have seen in other former members of the Soviet Union or the
Warsaw pact. Such changes have had an enormous impact on the rule of
law, human rights, democracy and the creation of market economies. The
European Union has not been given sufficient credit for the fact that
the prospect of membership has driven change in the countries involved,
and I do not believe that we should take that prospect away from
countries engaged in the difficult process of reforming their
constitutional
arrangements.
Mr.
Kilfoyle:
In answer to a question asked a moment ago my
right hon. Friend the Minister gave me the impression that he does not
believe that we should attempt to pre-determine the boundaries or shape
of Europe, which is sensible, but also that we have a consistent
approach towards enlargement. I suggest that that is not the case, and
I return to my original question about the post-accession arrangements
mentioned in the reports. Are not those new mechanisms intended to deal
with the specific circumstances in Bulgaria and Romania, and is there
not a danger that Europe will give the impression of making it up as it
goes along?
Mr.
Hoon:
I said in my opening statement that the enlargement
process is more rigorous than ever, partly in response to the criticism
that the EU has been enlarged at an unseemly and unreasonable rate. The
approach taken by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers
was to ensure not only that Romania and Bulgaria continued the reform
process up to the point of joining but that it should continue
thereafter on matters on which we continue to have concerns. That is a
sensible reflection of experience and a way forward for Romania,
Bulgaria and perhaps other countries that will join in the
future.
Mr.
Steen:
The question that I was going to ask a while ago
was of a serious nature. There is a great deal of concern across the
country about not just the number of people who might come in but
police corruption, the trafficking of human beings and the sheer scale
of the problem. I have had the good fortune of spending a little time
in Bulgaria and Romania. There is no doubt that there are large
organised gangs of corrupt and evil people who are trafficking
people—
The
Chairman:
Will this be a question or would it perhaps be
better incorporated into the debate which will take place
shortly?
Mr.
Steen:
No, it is a question, Sir Nicholas. I can assure
you that that was a preamble and the question follows closely behind.
Is the Minister aware of the scale of the criminal activities, which is
far worse in Bulgaria than in Romania? Is he also aware that no
prosecutions of any criminals concerned with corruption at the highest
level have taken place in either country? Will he raise the continued
concern of the British public about the trafficking of
peopleand the corruption of the politicians and the police
force?
Mr.
Hoon:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman
has read some of the Commission’s documents in preparation for
these countries joining the EU. Those were among the issues set out as
areas of concern. The whole point of post-membership monitoring was to
ensure that the progress that Romania and Bulgaria had made was
continued and there was no setback in their efforts.
There have been some
improvements in Bulgaria. It is no longer strictly true to say that
there have been no prosecutions. I would accept it if the hon.
Gentleman had said that there have not been enough prosecutions. We
want to see the progress continuing, particularly the reform of
Bulgaria’s justice system. We want to see more prosecutions for
high-level organised criminal gangs, people trafficking, drugs
smuggling, money laundering, counterfeiting documents and the range of
issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Similarly there are efforts
that we should like to see Romania make to strengthen its justice
system further. Indeed, we have offered some assistance in that
respect. These are issues that have been closely followed and tracked
by the European Commission. I want to emphasise that Romania and
Bulgaria have made significant progress in all of these areas. We
simply want to see that progress continuing and made more
effective.
Mr.
Brady:
The Minister was clear that he would like to see
further institutional change prior to future accessions to the European
Union. Will he be equally clear in stating the Government’s
view—I hope that it is their view, because we would share
it—that further enlargement could take place without new
institutional arrangements being put in
place?
Mr.
Hoon:
The hon. Gentleman tends to
mislead the Committee about what I said. I did not say that it was
necessary that there should be institutional change prior to further
accession. I indicated that the experience of the EU over a long
period, as it has enlarged and expanded, has been that institutional
change has been necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I agree,
as he is such an enthusiast for the Government’s policy on
enlargement, that institutional change is necessary to ensure that the
EU can continue to be effective, can take the right decisions and can
safeguard the interests of its citizens. I know that in the course of
the debate that will follow, Sir Nicholas, you will encourage the
Opposition spokesman to enlarge upon the Opposition’s
policies.
The
Chairman:
I like to be hands on, but I do not have
the authority to encourage any spokesman, either for the Government or
the Opposition.
Mr.
Brady:
If I may pursue that point a little further, I
think the Minister was approaching the critical point, but stalled
somewhere along the way. I was hoping that he would say that further
enlargement can take place without further institutional
reform.
Mr.
Hoon:
It goes without saying that enlargement could take
place without further institutional reform. The question that the
European Union will have to face up to, as would any serious political
party wishing to engage in this debate, is whether and to what extent
the European Union could be effective in taking decisions if it had not
taken the necessary institutional measures to safeguard the efficiency
of its decision-making processes.
Mr.
Browne:
Will the number of United Kingdom MEPs reduce as a
result of Bulgarian and Romanian accession and, if so, by how
many?
Mr.
Hoon:
Those decisions were taken in anticipation of
Romania and Bulgaria joining.
Mr.
Steen:
May I suggest that, if the Minister goes to
Bulgaria, he visit the chief prosecutor and discuss with him how
effective he has been able to be; and if he has time when he goes to
Romania, that he ask to see a Romany village or town, because the 2.8
million Romanies in Romania and the 1.8 million in Bulgaria are among
the poorest people in Europe. He ought to get a feeling of the problems
that they suffer.
Mr.
Hoon:
I shall ask my diary secretary to contact the hon.
Gentleman for details.
Richard
Younger-Ross:
Could the Minister expand on what
institutional change the Government would support with regard to
expansion? For instance, will they support the passerelle on reform of
the judicial
system?
Mr.
Hoon:
The Government are considering a range of measures.
It is important that we keep under review the EU decision-making
process. Our view is not fixed because, clearly, it is important that
it should evolve in light of European Union enlargement. Changes are
necessary—the hon. Member for Taunton indicated one
area—if the size of the European Parliament is not to become
completely unmanageable. Over the years, member states have reduced
their number of MEPs to allow for representation from new member
states. Similar issues are being debated with regard to the size of the
European Commission and, because of pre-existing rules, the issue might
have to be considered further. The process of qualified majority voting
has caused UK Governments considerable difficulty in the past as they
have struggled to reconcile their views—I should not say
prejudices—with reality. All those are issues that inevitably
flow from the enlargement of the European
Union.
Mr.
Steen:
I would like to ask the Minister
about a matter that I want to get clear in my mind. I know
that—through the Serious Organised Crime Agency and other
organisations—there are good working relationships between the
British Government and the Romanians with regard to information on
trafficking and the sharing of information on other criminal matters,
and that we have sent people from the Home Office and the police over
to Romania. What I am not clear about is whether, when an EU citizen
comes into Britain through passport control, the immigration officer
has any information about his criminal convictions and past if he is
from one of the 26 European countries other than Romania. If somebody
has a criminal conviction in Belgium or Italy, will the immigration
officer know, because of the communication between Britain and Italy,
or is it only Romania that has such DNA, photo identity and fingerprint
profiles?
Mr.
Hoon:
Clearly, the process is developing. The more
information that is exchanged between member states about those engaged
in serious criminal activity, the better. As I indicated earlier, the
position of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is that we should
go on developing the ability to exchange up-to-date and accurate
information. The answer would depend on the level of criminality of the
individual concerned. The particular criminal in question, whatever
member state he or she comes from, might have a substantial file that
will be passed around depending on the nature of the information and
the activities in which that person is engaged. Obviously, it is the
ambition of European countries to improve that exchange of information
and to do so as quickly as
possible.
Mr.
Brady:
Looking at the future enlargements that we hope
will take place, does the Minister believe that a precedent has been
set by the establishment of the post-accession monitoring regime? Will
it be something that any future accession country will have go through,
or will it be specific to certain countries, depending on their level of
achievement and performance by the date of
accession?
Mr.
Hoon:
I do not want to suggest that the policy has
necessarily set a precedent, but I hope that my remarks have shown that
it is a valuable means for ensuring that the process of reform
continues through the precise date of accession and into the early
period of a country’s membership of the European Union. I do not
want to anticipate the next country to join the European Union; it may
negotiate such a spectacular process and achieve all the reforms that
are required of it well before the date, so that such safeguards are
unnecessary. However, as I have emphasised more than once, the process
today is more rigorous that it has ever been. An example of that rigour
is post-accession monitoring. That valuable tool can be used in the
future to ensure that the process of reform and change
continues.
Mr.
Browne:
On a different subject, both Romania and Bulgaria
are regarded as having less progressive views towards people with
mental health problems and disabilities than is the case elsewhere in
the European Union. Will the Minister use his office and our embassies
in both countries to put pressure on the Governments in both states to
improve the conditions for people who suffer in that
way?
Mr.
Hoon:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman
that pressure is necessary. One of the consequences of the accession
negotiations was to highlight the problems to which he has alluded and
to make them an issue in places such as the United Kingdom, so efforts
have been made in both countries to improve matters. Obviously, that
process must continue. I cite membership of the European Union as being
part of the benefits that flow because it ensures that the media and
the public in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the EU are
informed about what is taking place in a way that might not have
happened if those countries had not chosen to apply to join the
EU.
Ms
Taylor:
Will my right hon. Friend
outline the way—if there is a positive way—in which the
Government or the Commission are supporting Ukraine’s
involvement in higher education and training, especially with regard to
how the United Kingdom could respond to the
requirements?
Mr.
Hoon:
I apologise to my hon. Friend. I
do not feel absolutely confident to say that that is part of the
neighbourhood policy in respect of Ukraine. Clearly, as I said, we want
the European neighbourhood policy to expand and develop. We believe
that real progress has been made for Ukraine, but obviously more work
needs to be done—and the piece of paper that I have just
received does not tell me the answer to her
question.
Mr.
Brady:
A number of concerns were expressed in the reports
that we are discussing about the inability to ensure at present the
proper functioning of agencies that are responsible for disbursing
funds, particularly agricultural funds. A post-accession deadline has
been
fixed for the end of March for steps to be taken if the integrated
administration and control scheme system is not functioning properly in
either country. There is also reference to the possible restriction of
Bulgaria’s access to the internal market in aviation if proper
measures are not taken. Can the Minister shed any light on those two
matters?
Mr.
Hoon:
The first example is a clear illustration of how
post-accession monitoring has teeth. It will mean that, if countries do
not satisfy the rules of the European Union, they will suffer
financially. That seems a sensible way to ensure that the goals of
monitoring can be achieved. There has been some criticism that what is
happening is simply a paper exercise, but the European Commission has
devised the rules in such a way as to ensure that the two countries
will face not only necessary political criticism but, potentially,
financial consequences if they fail to achieve the required
standards.
Several
hon. Members
rose—
The
Chairman:
Order. The hour allotted for Question Time is
over, but there appear to be hon. Members who still have questions to
put to the Minister, and under Standing Order No. 119(7) I am extending
Question Time to allow the remaining questions to be asked. However, we
shall move on to the debate as soon as all the questions have been
asked, and, of course, Question Time will take time from the time
allocated for debate. We shall still finish, if we go that long, no
later than 7 o’clock.
Mr.
Kilfoyle:
I do not want to labour the
point about Bulgaria and Romania and the post-accession measures, but
can my right hon. Friend tell me whether any countries about to accede
to the European Union were placed in the same position as Romania and
Bulgaria, which will face new measures if they have not met the
specified requirements by the last day of December 2007? Does not the
report state that the Commission will come up with new-fangled
mechanisms? Is it not the case that no one has a clue yet what they
will be? In that sense, are we not buying a pig in a poke with the
accession of those two
countries?
Mr.
Hoon:
My hon. Friend raises the same
point that he raised earlier, in a different way. I shall try to answer
it in a different way. He is right to the extent that the mechanisms
that have been used on this occasion are new and different. It is fair
to say that there was some legal debate in the European Commission
about the extent to which it was possible to adopt such arrangements
under European law. The assumption was that once a country had been
granted full membership of the European Union it was difficult to treat
it any differently from existing member states. On the other hand, I
hope that my hon. Friend will accept that all new member states,
including the United Kingdom, when we joined, and all countries that
have joined subsequently, have undergone transitional processes.
Countries have been exempted from the full rigour of European law in
different areas, to facilitate their membership. In a sense, therefore,
the
arrangements are comparable to those transitional measures. They allow a
country to join but to commit itself to continuing the process of
reform in the areas in question. That seems to me a wholly sensible and
beneficial process for existing member
states.
Mr.
Brady:
The Minister was obviously right in trying to
ensure that he completed his last answer to me within the allotted
time. That was before your very enlightened ruling from the Chair, Sir
Nicholas. Perhaps I may take advantage of the additional time to press
the Minister a little further about the agencies responsible for
disbursing agricultural subsidies. There was a deadline of the end of
March. I was hoping to hear from him whether there is further evidence
of progress since the last assessment was undertaken. In addition to
the period between that time and accession, there has been another week
or
so.
Mr.
Hoon:
I am not entirely sure whether this is extra time or
injury time, but I shall proceed on the basis that there has been a
score draw so far. What is important about the issue, which the hon.
Gentleman touched on, is the inevitable time lag between the
publication of the report and the events that it covers. The truth is
that, although many countries before Romania and Bulgaria relied on the
reports published by the Commission, they often dealt with events as
much as 12 months earlier. In the meantime, the Commission was
confident that Romania and Bulgaria had made progress in the specific
areas. It is important to recognise that it takes time to produce the
evaluations and for reports to be published, debated and discussed.
Mr.
Brady:
I have a further question on a matter that I
touched on previously. I know the Minister would not wish to miss the
opportunity to deal with Bulgarian access to the internal market in
aviation. Is the assessment to date that that will be possible, or will
it be precluded or
deferred?
Mr.
Hoon:
There has been progress; we simply want to see
more.
The
Chairman:
If no more hon. Members wish to put questions,
we will now proceed to the debate on the motion.
Motion made, and Question
proposed,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 13347/06,
Commission Communication: Monitoring report on the state of
preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania; and endorses
the Government’s support for EU
enlargement.—[Mr.
Hoon.]
5.36
pm
Mr.
Brady:
I shall be brief because we have had a good,
informative question session, which was enjoyable and welcome, although
it was slightly more informative than the Minister
intended.
Mr.
Brady:
The Minister says that it was longer than he had
hoped. Time flies by so quickly when we are enjoying
ourselves.
I shall say a few words in
conclusion on behalf of the Opposition, mostly on the wider issue of
enlargement. The Minister teased me and suggested that he was glad that
we had undergone a conversion and joined the Government in supporting
the process of enlargement. As he well knows, it is the other way
round—that policy was always pressed with vigour by Conservative
Governments—and we are delighted that the Minister has joined us
in supporting the process of EU enlargement, which is entirely
welcome.
We think, as
does the right hon.
Gentleman—
Richard
Younger-Ross:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Brady:
No. The hon. Gentleman wants to carry on until 7
o’clock.
Richard
Younger-Ross
rose—
The
Chairman:
Order. The Opposition spokesman is not giving
way. The hon. Gentleman will be able to catch my eye if he wishes to
make a
contribution.
Mr.
Brady:
The comments and the items reviewed in the reports
that relate to the future programme of enlargement give grounds for
encouragement. There is a considerable programme of further
enlargement, which we would welcome. As I said earlier to the Minister
in an intervention, I hope that the increasing rigour of the process
for accession, which may be right and proper, is not abused to put
unnecessary obstacles in the way of countries that we would wish to
welcome and that are making
progress.
I entirely
agree with the Minister’s remarks about the importance of the
accession process in encouragingthe beneficial reforms in
Bulgaria and Romania to continue. As he knows, we welcome their
accession; considerable further progress needs to be made and the
ongoing monitoring procedure is sensible in trying to ensure that it
goes forward.
We are
delighted to be serving on the Committee, following the accession of
Bulgaria and Romania, which is a positive and welcome step. We want the
Commission and the British Government to work with the Governments of
Bulgaria and Romania to ensure that they get it right and move as
quickly as possible through the remaining elements of their accession
and, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, in a way that will
ultimately benefit all of us and not cause unnecessary
difficulties.
5.40
pm
Richard
Younger-Ross:
I tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman,
who is the Conservative spokesman, to ask him to confirm his
party’s view on the expansion of Europe and whether it is still
a European party. He went on to answer that question by saying that his
party is in favour of EU expansion. My description in my constituency
of the Conservatives as a pro-European party is therefore accurate, and
I am pleased to hear it.
When talking
about enlargement, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton was clear on
the problems that have affected the process by which Bulgaria and
Romania have been allowed to join the EU. The process is rather
haphazard, which will create problems with other countries that seek
membership, particularly Croatia and Turkey, which may find that the
criteria have suddenly changed
again.
Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Will the hon.
Gentleman give
way?
Richard
Younger-Ross:
I will not give way, because Members on the
other Benches were not inclined to do so.
Richard
Younger-Ross:
Go on then. I am a generous
soul.
Mr.
Burns:
I am not convinced that I can thank the hon.
Gentleman for his generosity. Given the question that he wished to ask
my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, will he tell
the Committee whether his is a pro-European
party?
The
Chairman:
Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I should like
to say that the debate is not about the policy of the Conservative and
Unionist party or the Liberal Democrats; it is about the report and the
observations and statement that the Minister has
made.
Richard
Younger-Ross:
In which case, I will answer the hon.
Gentleman by saying that we are in favour of much that is in the
report. We take a lot of heart from the possible further
expansion—
[
Interruption.
] The answer is
yes.
The serious point
is that there are concerns. There will be problems with accession,
particularly that of Turkey. Last year, I went with the European
Scrutiny Committee on a successful trip to Austria, Bulgaria and
Turkey. We managed to lose the hon. Member for Totnes in the airport in
Istanbul for about an hour, so it was a good trip all round. A lot of
what we saw in Bulgaria was wanting. We were surprised that the country
was allowed to become part of the EU—there was no way of
stopping it at that point—without many of the problems being
resolved. Those issues may now rumble on longer, because the incentive
for Bulgaria and Romania to change has been reduced. The Commission has
certain powers to deal with problems such as swine fever, but they are
limited.
Some
problems of previous enlargement have been created by this Government.
They very generously said that there was free flow when Poland was
allowed to join, which was a correct decision that we supported, but no
accurate figures were given on how many Poles would come into the
country. The Government were then slow to give assistance to local
authorities, which suddenly found that they had to cope with a large
number of extra schoolchildren, housing issues and other resultant
problems. The Minister will know that there are a lot of Poles in my
constituency. In his former incarnation as Defence Secretary, he
visited Ilford Park Polish home, where he planted a
tree.
Mr.
Browne:
Is it still alive?
Richard
Younger-Ross:
It is still alive. The home is the last
Polish home to remain from the second world war. There is a long link
between us and
Poland.
Other
countries have joined and the EU has created some of the problems. For
instance, Cyprus was allowed to join at a point that was perhaps
earlier than should have been accepted. The problem now is that Cyprus
is acting as a block to the later accession of Turkey. If there were
not the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your
back” attitude towards letting in this or that country, we could
have been nearer to resolving the issue of the occupied territories in
northern Cyprus than we would have been by allowing Cyprus in earlier.
We would have found it easier as a process to deal with potential
Turkish accession.
The nub of the matter is that
we need not necessarily to set the boundaries of Europe as a fixed
line, but to have a clear set of criteria about how countries can join
and what the rules should be for countries to come into the EU. That
should not be done on the basis of countries being supported by this or
that country as a favour to someone else. It should be done on a clear,
fair and just
basis.
The
Chairman:
I now call the right hon. Member for Sheffield,
Brightside. I apologise for not calling him earlier. He was very quiet
during questions, and I did not anticipate that he would wish to
contribute to this important debate.
5.46
pm
Mr.
David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) (Lab): I rise to
congratulate the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member
for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) on the work that he has done and is
doing on enlargement, and that he will do on his visit to Romania and
Bulgaria.
I want
briefly to address two or three points that he raised both in his
opening address and in answering questions. First, there is the issue
of the encouragement—in this case to Romania and Bulgaria, but
also to those seeking accession to the European Union in years to come.
There is a changing climate, culture and willingness of politicians of
all persuasions in those countries to take the necessary steps to
change what is taking place on the organised crime front and drug
trafficking. Those matters affect us, whether or not they are in the
EU, but if they are, such matters are less likely to be
neglected.
Those
countries will certainly receive much more supportive action and
investment from EU funds if they enter it. I agree with comments that
there has been a great deal of progress; my hon. Friend the Member for
Liverpool, Walton, in particular, made that point. There is a great
deal more progress to be made on organised crime, not just in the 12
months ahead but in years to come. Judging from my time in the Home
Office, there is no question but that the prospect of accession made it
possible for countries to accept help that they would otherwise have
been reluctant to accept. On matters such as border control, there was
clearly a real possibility of giving assistance. There is no doubt
whatever that not being part of that process does not stop organised
gangs being here in the United Kingdom. Albania is worth considering in
that regard.
Secondly, on my right
hon. Friend’s visit to Bulgaria and Romania, it might be
interesting to see whether they have plans of their own that go further
than the action plan that they had to set in place as part of their
accession. For instance, investing in Bulgaria’s marine
possibilities would be of economic advantage, but that has not
necessarily been near the top of that country’s agenda because
of the imperative of investing in the issues that we have discussed
this afternoon. Economic prosperity brings automatic drivers for
improvement in areas that people are concerned about. Organised crime
is obviously one of those areas, but there is also the matter, which
was raised this afternoon, of the neglected minorities, such as the
Romany population. Dealing with such issues would be a great step
forward.
My right hon.
Friend also touched on the anticipated future impact. I believe that it
would be good thing if, in a year’s time, the United Kingdom
Government allowed people to come here and work legally and not have to
enter the black economy. There is no question that 19,750 is an
adequate figure given the population of Romania and Bulgaria, but we
can anticipate how many people will declare themselves as already
having been here. One reason why the Government and I, when Home
Secretary, got the numbers game wrong was that we did not anticipate
the large number of people who were already here illegally and
working.
The figures
were nowhere near as silly as those pronounced by some statisticians.
We never believed, and no Minister ever mentioned, the figures that the
statisticians came up with—thank God, for the credibility of the
Ministers concerned. We thought that around 100,000 a year would come
and clearly we were out on that, particularly in respect of Poland. We
could have done more to support the large Polish population during the
diaspora, to which my right hon. Friend referred, when people came to
meet family and friends, to work and then to return. Sending
remittances back home helps to increase prosperity there, which leads
to fewer people coming in future.
An important issue is how best
to plan for the EU’s future in a more orderly, understood and
transparent way, and to consider what that means for countries such as
Croatia and particularly Turkey. The issue of Cyprus is dwarfed by the
internal politics of France, as we shall see vividly during the next
three or four months. Tragically, I think it will be a deeply offensive
debate. Reaching out to Turkey, with all the changes that will need to
be reinforced in place, is a positive move not just in extending and
enlarging Europe, but in embracing different cultures and enabling
those who are in favour of change in Turkey to have their views
reinforced and their next general election fought on an entirely
different
basis.
5.52
pm
Mr.
Browne:
I will not detain the Committee longer than
necessary, but I want to say a few words towards the end of this useful
sitting, partly because the European Union’s enlargement is of
international strategic importance to the United Kingdom and partly
because, in a different way, it has a direct bearing on the day-to-day
lives of many of my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon.
Members.
I shall start with the larger
picture. There have probably been two major landmark events from a
British or western perspective in my adult life. The second took place
on 11 September 2001 in the United States, and the ramifications
continue and will do so for a long time. The first, which occurred
early in my adult life, was the fall of the Berlin wall and the
crumbling of the Soviet bloc. The facts of life of British foreign
policy as we had known them until then were turned on their head, not
quite overnight, but in a short period and with a small number of
people killed and uprooted in the process. A remarkable series of
revolutions took place at the end of the 1980s.
Countries
that were seen as being part of the enemy and under the sphere of
influence of the Soviet Union when I was growing up have come into the
European Union and, to a reasonable extent, have embraced free markets,
democracy and freedom of speech. I say that because, too often, we take
it for granted, but a huge change took place and that was a triumph for
diplomacy. This Government and previous Governments deserve some
credit, and western Europe as a whole played the changing face of our
continent with considerable skill. As a result, we are more prosperous
and more secure in 2007 than we would otherwise have
been.
It is notable
that all those countries are lining up to join the EU and that no
countries are looking to leave it. It is relevant to the debate to note
that a sizeable group within the principal Opposition party wants us to
leave the EU and that the Conservative leader is having difficulty in
keeping a lid on that internal debate. I shall not venture further down
that path for risk of incurring your wrath, Sir Nicholas.
I move to the practical
experiences of my constituents and others. A large number of people
from Poland, in particular, have come to Taunton to work, and there
have been some difficulties around the country with the large influx of
citizens from the 10 new accession member states. There may be further
difficulties as a result of Bulgaria and Romania joining, particularly
with pressures on local services. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Teignbridge pointed out, if large numbers of Polish people come to an
area and some of them have children, that puts pressure on local
schools, particularly if the children speak no English, and one would
not expect them to speak English as a first language. However, most of
the people who have come from eastern Europe to work in the EU have
been young and without dependants, so the pressures on health and
education services have been less per head of population than they are
for the population that was already in the
UK.
We
run the risk, in our political debates in the House and in local
newspapers around the country, of being too negative about the process.
I have been struck by how positive a large number of people have been
about the contribution that Polish people make to the UK. I recently
spent a day working on a farm in Somerset—or at least observing
other people working on a farm; I was contributing to an
extent—and I was struck by how extremely positive the farmer was
about the contribution of Polish labourers to his enterprise. He said
that he would have difficulty in keeping his dairy farm going if he
were to rely solely on domestic labour. There are plenty of other
people doing jobs in Somerset and elsewhere that many British people
would not want to
do—in slaughterhouses, for example. As the hon. Member for Totnes
pointed out, many skilled workers are also coming to the UK and making
a contribution.
I
caution hon. Members who talk about Polish people coming here as though
it is principally something to be regretted. If we were to pull that
large number of labourers out in one go, which would not be legal or
practical, there would be significant labour shortages, increased
prices, pressure on inflation and falling economic growth. It is
therefore significantly to our benefit that those people continue to
contribute to our domestic economy. Of course, it is also to our
benefit that British people are able to reside in countries such as
Spain, as they increasingly choose to do, and that young people can
have a gap year or work experience in Paris. It is not a one-way
street. Many British people enjoy working elsewhere in the
EU.
Bulgaria and
Romania have a way to go to reach levels of entrenched liberal
democracy and economic prosperity, but we are right to encourage them
down that path. We need to work on corruption and human trafficking in
those countries and on the treatment there of disabled people and those
with mental health problems. In that regard, the success in countries
such as Spain and Greece since they became EU members clearly shows
that accession is an effective way for many countries to lock
themselves into the liberal, democratic western world. That is much to
our benefit and increases the well-being and prosperity of their
citizens. We should see that as an enormously positive contribution to
the development of Britain and Europe as a
whole.
6
pm
Mr.
Kilfoyle:
As a supporter of both the widening and
deepening of the EU for a very long time, I believe that those
processes ought to be undertaken in a considered and cautious manner.
That is my concern with the issues before us. In the report, which is
not mine, the monitors say that there are four areas of serious concern
regarding Romania, and six regarding Bulgaria. I wonder what that will
mean further down the line. There is a degree of ad hocery. It may work
out well: we may see marvellous outcomes for the process brought about
by membership. However, it is equally possible that the outcomes will
not be those that we desire.
We can all wax lyrical, as some
hon. Members have, about the Polish workers who have come to this
country in recent times. I understand that building companies that were
short of skilled employees have been pleased by the influx of Polish
workers with high skills and relatively few demands. There is, however,
always a price to pay. That price has been paid in constituencies such
as mine. Building workers in such places—rightly or
wrongly—blame the influx of Polish workers for their inability
to get a job, and for the competition that they face in getting the
cheap accommodation and housing that characterise a constituency such
as mine. It ill behoves us not to take that kind of effect into
account.
As and when
we deal with Turkey’s entry to the EU, we will see that it is of
a completely different order to the entry of any country we have
debated today. The original six countries were light years apart from
Turkey. On the Anatolian highlands, some people culturally and socially
belong in the middle ages, not the 21st century. Whether that will have
an immediate impact on the nature of the EU, it will nevertheless be a
consideration.
It is
unfair to point the finger at those of our EU partners that have
concerns about the effect that Turkey will have, in terms of both
politics and the practical economic realities of the EU. That is
something we have to consider without falling into the trap of
considering ourselves to be letting the side down by looking at the
effects that expansion will have on the people of this country, never
mind our European partners. A great deal of rank hypocrisy is spoken
about those matters. The sooner we have an open and honest debate, the
better it will be.
We
will also be far better off if we have a set of criteria which, while
liable to adaptation and change to meet the specific demands of each
applicant country, are consistent, and which do not give the impression
that the European Commission and the Union are making things up as they
go along.
6.4
pm
Mr.
Hoon:
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their
contributions to the debate. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the
Member for Sheffield, Brightside has had to leave, but I am
particularly grateful to him for having sat through most of the debate
and for his contribution.
During the
speech by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, it struck me
that I had discovered the reason why he was so enthusiastic about EU
enlargement. I believe that he has begun to realise that, to carry
through the policy imposed upon him by his leader, it will be necessary
for him to find another party with which to form a political group in
2009. The reason why he is so keen on enlargement and shares my
reluctance to define the limits of Europe is probably that he assumes
that there is a political party somewhere, in a country not yet
identified, that has the same policy on Europe as the Conservative
party. He probably believes that if only that country were allowed to
join the European Union, even if it were a remote outpost in the
Pacific far beyond the confines of Europe, he would be able to deliver
his leader’s policy of leaving the European People’s
party and finding another party to
join.
The
Chairman:
Order. I really must ask the Minister to desist.
The debate on the motion has nothing to do with the European
People’s party or, for that matter, the policy of the
Conservative and Unionist party. It is on the report and what I
consider to be the Minister’s factual explanation at the
beginning of the
debate.
Mr.
Hoon:
I am sorry if I have tested your patience again, Sir
Nicholas. I was of course talking about enlargement and the reason why
the Conservative party
is so enthusiastic about it, but perhaps I have made my point. I shall
move on to the contributions made by other hon.
Members.
A number of
hon. Members emphasised the benefits of enlargement, not least in the
context of the changes that we have all witnessed in our lifetimes as a
result of the fall of the Berlin wall. The hon. Member for Taunton, in
particular, mentioned that. I have never claimed that the European
Union was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union but, as I
said earlier, it has not been given sufficient credit for providing a
focus and direction for former Soviet countries. They have changed out
of all recognition since November 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, and
they have done so at a pace and in a direction that would not have been
possible had they not been aspiring members of the EU. That is the
answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool,
Walton about the outcomes being unknown, uncertain and perhaps not what
we desire. It is important to preserve the goal of membership, not
least for countries in the western Balkans, but also for others close
to the European neighbourhood. It is right for us to celebrate
the50th anniversary of the signing of the treaty of Rome in
Berlin, because that was the scene of the momentous events in November
1989 that brought about a dramatic change in Europe.
I say to my
hon. Friend that there is necessarily a degree of ad hocery about the
way in which expansion is taken forward, because it depends on
countries being ready and in a position to accept the standards of
membership of the European Union. Different countries have proceeded at
different rates, even those that are otherwise very similar. That was
one of the reasons why the accession of Romania and Bulgaria was
slightly delayed and why some countries of the western Balkans are
moving more quickly than others, but they share the same
target.
My
hon. Friend thinks profoundly about such issues, but the benefit beyond
the present membership of the EU of a strategically significant country
such as Turkey joining will be the opening up of the Black sea area,
historically part of Europe, where there is tension, uncertainty and
concern about future stability. The economic prosperity that the EU can
bring might well be a way in which some of those risks and
uncertainties can be
avoided.
I thank you,
Sir Nicholas, and all members of the Committee for providing such a
stimulating and interesting
debate.
The
Chairman:
I congratulate members of the Committee on an
informed, good-natured and constructive
debate.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 13347/06,
Commission Communication: Monitoring report on the state of
preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania; and endorses
the Government's support for EU
enlargement.
Committee
rose at nine minutes past Six
o’clock.
