Bill
Rammell: We are not directly involved. I am aware of the
establishment and development of that database, which is one mechanism
that the European Commission will want to consider in terms of further
progress. There are other issues in Bulgaria, and one of the most
challenging is that, of the 495,000 cases that went through the courts,
72 per cent. were terminated. That is a challenge, and the Bulgarian
authorities recognise that more needs to be done.
On tackling
crime generally in the European Union, we seek to build on the
recommendations in Sir Ian Magee’s review of criminality
inclination, and we are working to improve and expand data exchange
throughout Europe, and to pilot new approaches with police forces at
local level. That will help us to use the European Union effectively to
tackle
crime.
Mr.
Francois: Page 72 in the European Commission’s
so-called supporting documents, states that around
—100 million may have been spent on buying votes in
the last Bulgarian local elections. Bulgaria will have national
elections next year, so what assurance can the Minister give to the
Committee this afternoon that efforts are under way in Bulgaria to try
to ensure that there is no potential for people to buy votes one way or
another?
Mr.
Blunt: That is why Labour is in
power.
Bill
Rammell: I have to say that I take extraordinary
exception—
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Reigate is an
experienced Member of Parliament, and he is entitled to make his points
in the normal way through questions, but sedentary chuntering is, as he
knows, not in order, and we have had our fill of
it.
Bill
Rammell: Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I cannot recall
what the question
was.
Mr.
Francois: Very quickly, the Commission asserts that
—100 million was used to buy votes during the Bulgarian local
elections. What procedures are in place to ensure that nothing like
that will happen during the general election next
year?
Bill
Rammell: That is a real focus of attention and concern,
and why, for example, the Commission suspended its funds. That is what
it will consider, and we and other partners will be working with the
Bulgarian authorities to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to
ensure that funds are not abused in that
way.
Mr.
Cash: To put it on the record, I should like to ask the
Minister a simple question about his enthusiasm for Bulgaria’s
support to the United Kingdom for Kosovo’s independence. He may
know that at least two members of the Opposition—myself and the
hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)—expressed
grave concern back in February about Kosovo’s independence. I do
not think that that is a reason for supporting lenient treatment of
Bulgaria.
The
Chairman: We are going very wide of the subject. I know
that it is part of the hon. Gentleman’s custom and practice to
test the boundaries, and I do not cavil at his doing so, but we must
have some order and limit. I am sure that the Minister will observe
that in his
response.
Bill
Rammell: I shall be very brief. I have genuine respect for
the hon. Gentleman, but I do not share the idea that he and the hon.
Member for Uxbridge are representative of views throughout the House of
Commons.
Mr.
Francois: Page 78 of the Government’s memorandum in
the bundle states that the total amount of Bulgarian funds suspended is
—500 million. Will the Minister explain what proportion of those
funds are temporarily frozen, as opposed to lost, and, if there is a
time limit, how long they may remain frozen before they are permanently
lost to Bulgaria? In other words, how much of the —500 million
could the Bulgarians receive if they undertook the necessary
reform?
Bill
Rammell: I believe that there is a further year during
which those funds are available. As I stated earlier, —240
million has been lost, because the funds were not taken up by the due
date in November. A further —340 million is frozen at present
and will remain frozen until such time as the Commission is convinced
that appropriate actions have been taken to ensure that they will be
disbursed appropriately and
properly.
Mr.
Francois: A quick question: by my simple maths, the
Minister’s figures of —240 million and —340
million would come to —580 million, whereas the document refers
to —500 million. Does he have more up-to-date information that
the amount is actually —580
million?
Bill
Rammell: I was quoting the figures from memory, and I
apologise; —220 million of funding has been definitively lost,
and —340 million remains frozen—a total of —560
million.
Mr.
Cash: Does the Minister have any estimates in respect of
organised crime? To what extent do the problems that he has identified
relate to human trafficking, and does he have any idea as to how much
that might have been involved in terms of financial
flows?
Bill
Rammell: In direct response to the hon. Gentleman’s
question, no, I do not have such estimates, but I said that I would
follow up with a letter to the hon. Member for Reigate, and I will
ensure that the hon. Member for Stone is
copied.
Mr.
Francois: My final question to the Minister is about the
Commission’s report on progress in Romania, which
concluded: “Romania
has started to move in the right
direction.” Unlike
Bulgaria, there were no proposals to suspend funds. Nevertheless, the
Commission sets out several areas where, in its view, progress remains
poor, one of which is the fight against high-level corruption. There
are more details on that on page 28 of the bundle. Given that, can the
Minister say what further steps are being taken to tackle that problem
in Romania? I understand
why the vast bulk of the questions this afternoon have been about
Bulgaria, but I do not think that we should let the Romanians miss out
completely. Perhaps he could tell us what work is under way to combat
some of the problems in Romania as
well. Bill
Rammell: It is a work in progress in Romania. The
Government and I welcomed the Romanian Government’s approval of
the new draft criminal code and draft civil code, the moves to improve
staffing levels in the courts, the National Integrity Agency that the
hon. Gentleman referred to and the fact that there are now cases of
former Members of Parliament being referred to the courts. It is still
early days, but there has been some
progress. The
national anti-corruption directorate has a mainly positive track record
in starting the process of tackling high-level corruption, but there is
still a failure sometimes to follow through on initial pre-trial
progress. The Commission is looking at that issue, and it is one that
we will work on in our discussions with the new Romanian Government
when it is
formed. The
Chairman: If no more Members wish to ask questions, we
will proceed to the debate on the
motion. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 12244/08,
Commission Report: Management of EU funds in Bulgaria, and supports the
Commission's decision to suspend funding while action is taken by
Bulgaria to ensure sound financial management; further notes
European Union Documents Nos. 12177/08 and Addendum 1, and
12182/08 and Addendum 1, Commission Reports on progress in Romania and
Bulgaria under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism; and
welcomes this ongoing post-accession process to support essential
reforms in both countries to meet their EU membership
commitments.—(Bill
Rammell.) 5.28
pm
Mr.
Francois: Having already welcomed you to the Chair,
Mr. Bercow, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome
the Minister to his place, not least because he is a fellow Essex
Member of Parliament. I understand that he is standing in for the
Minister for Europe, who is travelling in
Turkey. I
would like to thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West for
introducing the documents to the Committee and for explaining their
significance and also why the European Scrutiny Committee referred them
to us. As we heard, the documents relate to the management of EU funds
in Bulgaria and Romania prior to and subsequent to their accession to
the EU on 1 January
2007. The
accession of states from the former Soviet bloc to the EU was one of
the most significant events of the past 10 years and helped bring about
the end of one of the worst chapters of European history. As our former
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said 20 years ago in a famous speech
in Bruges,
“We
must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, people who once
enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have
been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague
and Budapest as great European cities.”
Sofia and Bucharest,
too, are important European cities. Thanks to the fact that the west
stood firm and won the cold war, they are now free, and we should
welcome them.
Last week, I
was fortunate enough to visit Bulgaria, and I saw for myself the
progress that has been made since the collapse of communism. Sofia is
now a vibrant, outward-looking city, fully engaged in the business of
the modern world. On that visit, I was accompanied by Geoffrey Van
Orden MEP, who served as the European Parliament’s rapporteur on
Bulgaria during the accession process. As a result, he knows the
country well. Mr. Van Orden is something of a media star in
Bulgaria, given his role in helping to bring the country into the EU.
You may smile, Mr. Bercow, but I am not kidding; he really
is a star.
During our
time in Sofia, we met politicians from across the political spectrum,
including the Interior Minister, Mr. Mikov, and several
members of the Bulgarian Opposition parties. The experience that I
gained in Sofia is partly reflected in what I have to say
today.
The first
document that we are discussing today relates to the management of EU
funds in Bulgaria. Bulgaria has been allocated funds from a number of
EU sources over the last few years. First, that was the case prior to
its EU membership, to allow it to undergo the necessary institutional
and other reforms. Secondly, since accession it has had continued
access to cohesion funding and a number of specific programmes that I
shall deal with in a moment.
However, the
European Commission’s report of July 2008 detailed a number of
problems with the way in which Bulgaria has been spending its funds. It
concluded: “Administrative
capacity is weak. Beyond that, there have been serious allegations of
irregularities as well as suspicions of fraud and conflicts of interest
in the awards of contracts.”
As a result of that
report, the EU decided to suspend payment from its PHARE fund for
institutional reform and its SAPARD fund for agriculture.
That was a
prudent act, and we are happy to support it for two good reasons.
First, UK taxpayers make a large net contribution to EU funds, which
now amount to more than £3 billion a year, and they therefore
have a right to expect their money to be properly administered. That is
particularly so today, given that taxpayers in Britain are under
considerable pressure. Secondly, the pressure for higher standards in
Bulgaria that we hope will be brought about by the suspension of funds,
should ultimately benefit the Bulgarian people.
The chairman
of the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria,
Mr. Ivo Prokopiev, noted in an article in EU
Business on 30 November 2008:
“Paradoxically,
the sanctions from Brussels will be in the interests of Business and of
Bulgarians: if efficient institutions aren’t put in place,
Bulgaria cannot prosper.”
Those sentiments were
largely shared by those Bulgarian Opposition politicians that I met in
Sofia. They see the EU’s pressure as a welcome way to help
Bulgaria create a more transparent and competent system of
government.
With the
Bulgarian general election due in the summer of 2009, it is to be hoped
that the EU’s action will concentrate the minds of politicians
and the electorate on the need to promote reform and to combat
corruption. That approach is shared also by the EU Parliament’s
former rapporteur, Mr. Van Orden, who sent me an e-mail prior
to today’s debate in which he argues the
following: “It
is absolutely right that strong measures are taken properly to control
structural and cohesion funding from the EU to Bulgaria—much of
it is British taxpayers’ money after all—and to insist
that effective action, delivering sustained and concrete results, is
taken to combat organised crime and systemic corruption. It is the most
enormous disappointment to those of us that have the interests of the
Bulgarian people at heart, that there has been such a lack of political
commitment and courage to drive through the necessary reforms these
last few
years.” He
concluded by
saying: “I
note with concern that similar problems are already evident in the case
of Croatia and we must be confident that these are fully rectified
prior to that country’s
accession.” The
question arises as to when the EU should resume the payment of funds.
Having insisted on reforms, it is important that real progress is
undertaken in the areas identified in the Commission’s report,
such as building up the Bulgarian judicial process and the
country’s policing structures before funding is resumed. Initial
signs show that there has been an acknowledgment in Bulgaria of the
work that needs to be done, in particular the appointment of a
vice-Prime Minister with responsibility for European funds and the
anti-fraud service. When I met the Interior Minister, Mr Mikov, last
Thursday, he was keen to stress that the Government were seeking to
bring about reform in the area of justice and home affairs, such as
with the appointment of an independent inspectorate for the
judiciary. However,
given past history, it seems wise to maintain the suspension of funding
until concrete progress has been made and has been confirmed by
independent assessment. Given the Bulgarian Government’s
somewhat mixed track record in this area we cannot simply take their
word for it. That said, it is to be hoped that real reform may
eventually be achieved in Bulgaria in a way that will allow funding to
resume.
That brings
me to the common observation that the EU is often better at influencing
reform before accession than afterwards. In an article published this
April entitled “Europe’s Marxist dilemma: it is easier to
influence a country before than after it joins the club,” The
Economist argued that one of the EU’s weaknesses is that
there are few effective sanctions against a state already inside the
club. It is to be hoped that in future, EU accession will be granted to
countries that have carried out necessary reforms before admission
rather than to those that must catch up afterwards.
The
Commission’s document on Romania spells out many of the same
problems that affect Bulgaria, including high-level corruption and the
slow pace of judicial reform. However, the Commission concludes on
page 31 of our
bundle: “Romania
has started to move in the right direction. The new institutions and
processes need time to prove their effectiveness and should be allowed
to continue on a steady
course.” As
a result, the Commission decided to recommend against the suspension of
EU funding. It is hoped that the lesson will not be lost on Bulgaria
next
door. The
European Commission reports detail the mixed progress of Bulgaria and
Romania on a number of issues as well as setting out a new approach to
countries that fail to live up to their responsibilities. It is to be
hoped that the suspension of funds in Bulgaria will help
concentrate the minds of Bulgarian politicians on the need to reform and
will thus benefit the Bulgarian people. For that reason, we welcome the
report as an important and necessary step in increasing accountability
for EU funds, promoting administrative reform and fighting corruption.
We therefore support the motion and the decision to suspend funding to
Bulgaria until true reform has been
undertaken. 5.37
pm
| 
