Orders of the Day — European Union (Accessions) Bill

House of Commons, 24 November 2005.

Clause 1 — Accession Treaty

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

Clause 1 enables us to implement the accession treaty in United Kingdom law, paving the way for United Kingdom ratification of the treaty later in the year and for Bulgaria and Romania to join the European Union. The clause should be recognisable to all who are familiar with past accession Bills.

Subsection 1 specifies the accession treaty for Bulgaria and Romania as one of "the Community Treaties" covered by the European Communities Act 1972. In broad terms, the Act grants automatic effect to directly applicable treaty provisions, and otherwise allows designated Ministers to make regulations amending existing UK legislation to the extent that that may be necessary to implement the treaty.

It is difficult to speak about this part of the Bill without repeating many points that were covered on Second Reading. I shall be brief, not least because there was a welcome cross-party consensus in the House then on the broad principles of accession.

With this enlargement, we are continuing to lay the ghosts of the last century to rest. After the bitter divisions of the two world wars and the cold war we are building a more secure, stable and prosperous Europe, and it is a Europe of which Bulgaria and Romania deserve to be part. Both have made giant strides in their political and economic development. Let us not forget that it was only 15 years ago that Ceausescu was overthrown in Romania and communism collapsed in Bulgaria. Today both states meet the European Union's criteria for membership, which is an enormous achievement. Their transformations are not yet complete, however, and as I stressed on Second Reading, accession in 2007 is not a fait accompli for either country.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister speaks of laying the ghosts of the last century. Does he accept that 1.5 million of the ghosts are those of the people who suffered in the Armenian massacres? Will he take steps in the future to ensure that some agreement is reached on how the massacres took place before we enable more countries to join the European Union?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I did not expect that issue to be raised directly in relation to clause 1. The British Government's position on the Armenian massacres is a matter of record. Obviously we regard them as a terrible tragedy. I understand that the Government have not designated them a genocide because of the lack of categorical evidence relating to their scale and nature, but I shall be more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I know that the matter continues to be of public concern, and that it has been raised in the context of our other discussions on accession, notably Turkey's accession.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister said that Bulgaria and Romania were undergoing a transition. Does he expect the transition to be complete by the time of accession, or will further steps have to be taken after that?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

There are criteria that must be adhered to. We look forward with interest to the Commission's next report, which will be issued in the spring. It will contain the Commission's latest guidance on the progress that has been made. However, recognising the legal requirements—the adoption of the acquis, for example, is necessary for all countries to become full members of the EU—does not diminish the further progress that can be made once countries are members. One needs to consider, for example, the continued economic progress that has been made by the so-called A10 countries joining the EU in 2004. There was no arbitrary stop to the progress that those countries were making towards the European mainstream when accession took place, but we should recognise that there should be rigour and transparency in the process. That is why I applaud the efforts of Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner responsible for enlargement, when he published the last report. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the next report.

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

My right hon. Friend referred to "transformation" in Romania and Bulgaria, but would he accept that, in the case of Bulgaria, the judicial system is one respect in which insufficient transformation has taken place?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

Yes, is the answer to my hon. Friend's question. It is, of course, a matter of profound concern to her and her constituents, in view of the particular consular case about which we have met and in relation to which I offered in an Adjournment debate in the House to have a further meeting with my hon. Friend and her constituent's family. There is scope for further progress in that respect, but I have to tell my hon. Friend candidly that I believe that all who want to see that sort of progress carried forward in Bulgaria should support the country's accession to the European Union. That has already been one of the drivers that has led to some of the progress secured to date. I fully accept, in the light of my hon. Friend's question, that further progress needs to be made. If I recall correctly, that point was reflected in the earlier Commissioner's report to which I referred.

Progress is also required in the matter of corruption. That means tackling head-on the problem of organised crime, and it also means continuing at a greater pace the programme of judicial, agricultural and environmental reform that both Bulgaria and Romania have already embarked on.

Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Minister has, if I may say so, given a series of very elegant answers to penetrating questions, but I would like to ask him a blunt question in the hope that he might provide a blunt answer. If either Romania or Bulgaria fail to meet their obligations in the accession negotiations, does it not remain the case that accession can—and, indeed, should—be refused?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I yield to no one in my admiration of the elegance of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who could certainly teach many of us lessons in elegance, but not in bluntness. The level of rigour being applied to Bulgaria and Romania easily bears comparison with the A10 countries that entered the EU in 2004. That is why there is tighter provision in respect of the transparency of the standards to which they need to adhere and in the transparency of the process itself than was the case in 2004. Provision has been made for a so-called super safeguard clause—sometimes alternatively described as the emergency brake procedure—whereby accession would be delayed by a year from 1 January 2007 until 2008. There are also safeguard clauses in respect of areas in which further progress was identified as necessary in Romania.

We also need to emphasise that powerful safeguard mechanisms are available to the European Commission in respect of any accession country for three years following its entry into the EU. Those measures are not time limited, but there are clear processes whereby steps can be taken if difficulties emerge once a country joins the EU, and serious infraction procedures can be brought, which would have a very direct bearing on the interests of the countries concerned. Thus there are safeguard clauses and super safeguard clauses and it remains the case, as we have repeatedly said, that we stand four square behind the European Commission in having both transparency and rigour in assessing the necessary standards.

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I have already been generous in giving way and I am keen to make a little further progress.

Members on both sides of the House can be assured that we continue to make the point to the Bulgarian and Romanian Governments that more progress is necessary—and, indeed, that both countries need to be aware of the scale of the challenge that they continue to face—but we remain optimistic that they can meet the demanding requirements for membership by next year. The fact that both countries have already demonstrated a capacity to realise impressive change in a relatively short period of time supports that contention.

The successful transformation of both countries from planned to market economies is perhaps the most visible and tangible evidence of progress. Since the start of the process of European integration in 1999, the gross domestic product of both countries has grown by around 25 per cent. Restructuring and the privatisation of inefficient, and in many cases bankrupt, communist state industries has taken place. Their banking industries have also been privatised and the two states have rapidly integrated themselves with western European and world markets. Indeed, the EU has been the accession countries' main trading partner for several years now.

Profound changes in the business environment have also taken place, with the creation of food standards agencies, competition regulators, labour inspectorates and even insurance market supervisors. That will, I believe, help UK firms doing business in and with those two countries.

The prospect of EU membership has given a major impetus to ongoing improvements in both states' environmental policies and their health and safety standards—[Interruption.]

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have heard a statement about how keen these countries are to come into the EU, but is it not rather surprising, after the fiasco of the European constitution, that neither country conducted a referendum on whether their people wanted to join?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

It is not for me to prescribe either to the other 24 members of the EU or to candidate countries the mechanism by which they should seek to enter into their international obligations. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, many hon. Members, would look askance at another country trying to dictate to the UK what constitutional mechanism was appropriate in those circumstances.

Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

The Minister speaks authoritatively about Romania. One of his predecessors, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), admitted in a previous debate that he had spent all of six hours during his ministerial career visiting Bucharest. How often has the Minister visited Romania, and does he intend to visit the country in future so that he can be better prepared to discuss it than his predecessors?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I am happy to answer the question directly and acknowledge that, in view of the burdens of our presidency obligations since my appointment back in May, I have not yet visited Romania. I did take the opportunity early in my ministerial post to meet our British ambassador and discuss with him the progress that continues to be made—I am pleased to say with the assistance of British civil servants as well as a range of other bodies—in Romania. Not least because it is standard procedure when meeting British ambassadors to request a visit to the said country, I gave an undertaking to the British ambassador in Bucharest that I hoped to be able to visit Romania fairly shortly after the end of the British presidency. One can readily imagine, in view of the number of countries within the EU at the moment—and on account of future financing, which I have no intention of discussing this afternoon—that pressures on ministerial time are considerable and that a range of visits already lie ahead for me in the remaining weeks of the British presidency.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Will the Minister give way?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I will give way one final time, but then I want to make further progress.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

My right hon. Friend was talking a few moments ago about privatisation in Romania and Bulgaria. Is privatisation being made a requirement for those countries before they enter the EU or are they just being encouraged to privatise where appropriate? Given that many of the larger industries in western Europe are still under public ownership and do very well in the public sector, are we to press those two countries to privatise beyond what is expected here?

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I sense that, as far as my hon. Friend is concerned, that debate is not restricted to the Romanian or Bulgarian economy. We have had the opportunity and privilege of debating similar matters in respect of the UK, never mind the potential accession countries to the EU in the past. It is a commonsense point that the EU is a union of liberal democracies that operate on the basis of market economies, so I make no apology for the fact that transition was necessary in Romania and Bulgaria from the state-controlled industries of the communist era—under the leadership of Ceausescu and others—to the position today, whereby impressive levels of economic growth have been achieved year on year. In the light of the domestic policies followed by Bulgaria and Romania, it might be challenging for my hon. Friend to examine his own prescription for securing economic growth and compare it with that taken forward by the Governments of those two countries.

Subsection (2) approves for the purposes of section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 the provisions of the accession treaty in so far as they relate to the powers of the European Parliament. It is important to note that the accession treaty does not create new powers for the Parliament; rather, it increases the geographical scope of the existing powers by making provision for the future participation of MEPs from Bulgaria and Romania. It consequently applies those existing powers to nationals of states to whom they could not otherwise have been applied before the treaty's entering into force.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

rose—

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

As with the previous Bill on accession, the inclusion of this provision is therefore a precautionary measure to put beyond doubt Parliament's approval of those parts of the accession treaty concerned with the European Parliament's powers.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am not sure whether the Minister is giving way or has finished. [Interruption.] Given that he has finished, I hope that he will respond in due course to the point that I was about to put to him—I shall raise it later—had he accepted an intervention from me.

The Minister was commendably brief and I shall seek to be likewise. He knows, given the nature of our debate on Second Reading, that there is broad agreement across the House on the desirability of Romanian and Bulgarian accession, and, indeed, a broad welcome for enlargement of the European Union. As has been touched on in some interventions, accession is beneficial to the new member states, and the process itself brings benefits, as we are seeing in Romania and Bulgaria and in other places. It also benefits the EU as a whole, helping to lock in the benefits of democracy and the rule of law, and the importance of tackling corruption, fraud, and organised crime. All such efforts have been redoubled in recent times during the accession process. However, there is still a long way to go, as the Minister accepted.

The Minister spoke throughout his speech about Romania and Bulgaria as though they are proceeding in parallel, with no difference between them. It would help the Committee to know the Government's and the Minister's own assessment of the two countries' separate progress toward accession, and the extent to which each has met the required criteria.

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

As the hon. Gentleman is kind enough to allow me to intervene on him, I am happy to confirm that the British Government have no assessment independent of that made recently by the Commission. I think that he is anticipating the question of whether we recognise that each country should be judged on its own merits, rather than being taken together in all circumstances. I am happy to assure him that, notwithstanding the nature of the reports simultaneously produced for Bulgaria and Romania, we absolutely recognise the importance of each country's being judged on its own merits.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister. It is important that each country be judged on its own merits, not least because, as I mentioned on Second Reading, there is the slightly odd arrangement whereby the mechanisms for assessing the two countries are different. We need to bear that point in mind.

Progress is being made in tackling corruption and organised crime, but the importance of doing so cannot be overstated, not least in the context of accession to the EU itself, and of the implications within a single market once these countries have joined EU-funded programmes. We should bear in mind the possibility of very large sums of British—and other EU countries'—taxpayers' money going in to Romania and Bulgaria at a time when they perhaps lack the administrative capacity to manage such sums in an acceptable way.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

Does my hon. Friend share my and the Commission's concern at the fact that not a single successful high-level prosecution for corruption has been made in these accession countries?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The countries in question know that they are being monitored in this regard, and we hear a great deal of talk about their determination to improve. This is an extremely important issue, particularly given the implications for the EU itself and for current member states, should accession take place in the near future.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely positive that the political consensus in both Romania and Bulgaria is that joining the EU is an essentially positive move?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Absolutely, and I might go a little further by pointing to the welcome—if slightly unusual—development whereby consensus on EU matters exists in this House.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

rose—

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I spoke too soon, Sir Michael.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am afraid that my hon. Friend did speak a little too soon. Having listened to representatives from Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, and given events in Hungary concerning the excessive deficit procedure, my feeling is that—notwithstanding those of us who are in favour of enlargement—some people are living in complete cloud cuckoo land on the question of the kind of Europe that we need to develop. I will not go into that issue in detail now as I hope to make a speech on it later, but we need to be very cautious in assuming that, by absorbing the whole of the existing legal framework of the European treaties, we can maintain the consensus that enlargement is a good idea. That is to say nothing of the question of Turkey.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am delighted that there is consensus. Although we welcome the move toward the final objective of accession for Romania and Bulgaria, Members in all parts of the House accept that there are some real difficulties, as my hon. Friend rightly highlights. I shall return in a moment—briefly—to the specific issue that he raised.

The timetable set out for accession is very short indeed. If accession is to take place in January 2007, satisfactory progress must have been made in the next few months—by April 2006, I think. There is strong support in this House for the accession of both countries, but it must take place at the right time and under the right circumstances. It is worth noting the remarks of the Enlargement Commissioner, who said as recently as last week:

"If needed, we won't hesitate to recommend, in spring 2006, to postpone accession by one year".

We must accept that, even in that event, we are looking a very short timetable for what is a significant programme of work and change in the two accession countries.

Anthony Steen (Conservative, Totnes)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for delaying accession—I am wholly in favour of Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU—is the level of people trafficking, particularly child trafficking, in both countries? There is no offence of child trafficking in this country, as I found out by tabling a parliamentary question on this issue. Does he share my desire that this appalling and obscene practice be stamped on as hard as possible, and does he agree that the British Government should do all that they can to ensure that that happens?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point; the whole House will want that issue to be tackled with great vigour.

We should note that we are considering not just the accession treaty but the protocol to it, which has particular implications for the applicant countries. Here, I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made in an intervention. Of course, I cannot go down the route of discussing an amendment that was tabled but not selected, Sir Michael, but I should point out that the protocol provides for the constitution's implementation in both accession countries, should it be in place at the time of accession. I do not want to go into detail on this issue, but it is absolutely clear that we ought to be much more certain about the kind of EU that we are considering bringing new member states into.

The accession process continues: today, we are considering Romania and Bulgaria, and accession talks began recently for Croatia and Turkey. The more countries begin the process, the greater the need for real clarity about the nature of the EU.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Is my hon. Friend aware that on 18 November the German coalition Government—and I believe that Angela Merkel is here today—made a commitment to complete the ratification of the constitutional treaty during the German presidency of the EU in the first half of 2007? I have just been hearing evidence about the charter of fundamental rights, but putting to one side that charter's implementation, there is no doubt that there is an impetus to achieving treaty ratification. Although my hon. Friend is completely right to raise the treaty question, what do we do about it? What sort of Europe do we really want?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I hesitate to stray too far from the subject of this debate, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the German coalition has committed itself to driving the constitution forward. Several other member states remain committed to the project, and one of the unfortunate missed opportunities of the British presidency over the past five months is that the Government have failed to put an end to the constitutional treaty process. However, that must happen if we are to accommodate the more diverse and larger EU that is emerging, and make it easier for countries such as Turkey to join. The EU that will thus develop will have the sort of flexibility that will make our relationship with it easier and more comfortable.

The Opposition strongly support the objective of Romanian and Bulgarian accession to the EU, but it is essential to get it right. We support the Bill, but urge the Minister and his colleagues to give the applicant countries the closest possible scrutiny, as well as the support and assistance that they need as the progress towards accession.

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

The matters being considered under clause 1 are extremely important. Accession to the EU is of great importance to the applicant countries and to the UK. Applicant countries have to be assessed by the European Commission, as must the compatibility of their domestic legal practices with the European convention on human rights. Only then can ratification take place.

I want to register my grave concern that Bulgaria may not be ready for admission to the EU in January 2007. I ask the Government to withhold support for that country's application.

I submitted a written question to my right hon. Friend the Minister about the European Commission's enhanced monitoring report on the state of Bulgaria. In his answer of 21 November, he said that he accepted the Commission's view that Bulgaria should review its pre-trial phase and improve the accountability of its justice system. I am interested in this matter because of the experience of my constituent Michael Shields.

Michael Shields, now aged 19, is serving 15 years in prison in Bulgaria for the attempted murder of Martin Georgiev near the Big Ben fish and chip bar in Varna at around 5.30 am on 30 May. Another man, Graham Sankey, has confessed to the crime, saying that

"an innocent man has received blame for what I did,"

but he has not been questioned about that confession. Michael has always protested his innocence. He says that he was asleep at the time and has produced evidence to substantiate the claim.

I held an Adjournment debate on this subject on 17 November, which can be found in the Official Report for that date, columns 1211–16. I set out the reasons for my concern in detail then, and I repeat my thanks to ministerial colleagues for their help in this matter. In this debate, however, I want to focus on the judicial aspects of Michael Shields's experience, which are relevant to our consideration of the accession treaty. I shall look at the European Commission's expressed concern, and the compatibility of Bulgaria's practices with the ECHR.

My first point has to do with the status of the prosecution in Bulgaria. The defence in the Michael Shields case has stated that the prosecution is part of the judiciary. If that is true, it raises major questions about the principle of equality of arms—that is, the status of the prosecution in relation to the defence. There is a major question about the quality of justice if the defence is put at a disadvantage in court, in breach of article 6 of the ECHR.

Secondly, I draw the House's attention to the detail of the conduct of the trial, and of the pre-trial phase. Stephen Jacobi, the renowned human rights lawyer and director of Fair Trial Abroad, was the international observer at the trial of Michael Shields in Varna. In a written report, he has stated that the way in which identification was authenticated was "quite appalling".

In addition, there appears to have been no protection of the crime scene and no forensics were undertaken to assist identification of witnesses. In court, witnesses resiled from their police statements that they could not remember the face of the assailant. Dock identification was permitted—a practice that Stephen Jacobi says was outlawed 50 years ago in the UK. The prison governor produced a prejudiced statement in court, but it was not questioned by the defence, and there were major queries concerning the identity parade and pre-trial publicity.

Moreover, witness accounts differed. People in the bar said that they had not seen the whole incident, but all of them claimed that a stone had been clutched to the assailant's chest before being dropped on Martin Georgiev. People outside the bar saw more of the incident, and said that the stone had been brought down from above the assailant's head.

Another problem has to do with the new witness, Mr. A. His eye-witness evidence has been notarised and legalised, and he has stated that he is absolutely certain that the perpetrator was not Michael Shields. When he returned to the scene of the crime the following morning, a witness whom he had seen the night before told him that he and at least another 10 people would testify that the perpetrator was

"a fat lad with black hair".

Mr. A. therefore felt assured that there were numerous witnesses, and so did not offer evidence himself. However, those same bar witnesses said in court that the fair-haired Michael Shields was the guilty party. Mr. A. has now come forward and given a legalised and notarised statement, and is willing to testify in Bulgaria.

Anthony Steen (Conservative, Totnes)

It may help the hon. Lady to know that three members of the European Scrutiny Committee are in the Chamber today, and that I am due to visit Bulgaria in about 10 days. If she will furnish me with further information, I should be pleased to take the matter up with the Bulgarian authorities.

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and shall certainly take up his very kind offer.

I am concerned that the ECHR could be infringed by the court's bizarre failure to question Graham Sankey following his confession. The court's rejection of that confession, with no questioning of Mr. Sankey, is inexplicable. It is inconsistent with the actions of the Bulgarian authority in attempting to question Graham Sankey before that confession was made.

I am deeply disturbed by the wrong information that has been recorded in the Bulgarian official record of judicial proceedings. The official statement entitled, "Reason for the Judgement" dated 10 November 2005 states that Graham Sankey

"was not summoned to the court hearing as the English authorities could not find him and serve him with a writ of summons."

The facts are very different. The facts, as authenticated by our Home Office, are that the Bulgarian authorities issued a summons for Graham Sankey incorrectly. The summons arrived at the Home Office on 11 July, giving the United Kingdom central authority nine days rather than the required six weeks to serve it. The UK authority did not attempt to serve the summons, so the Bulgarians tried to speak to Graham Sankey before he made the confession. They handled that wrongly. Their record of what happened is factually incorrect yet, when he made the confession, the Bulgarians did not attempt to question him. As the matter is under Bulgarian jurisdiction, it is entirely a matter for the Bulgarians. They can, of course, ask the United Kingdom police to inquire on their behalf, but they have failed to do so.

I am also extremely concerned to see contradictory information in official reports from Bulgarian judicial authorities in reference to this case. The indictment issued by the Varna prosecutor's office stated:

"At the time of the offence Shields was not under the influence of any psychoactive substances, alcohol or cannabis."

Yet the official statement entitled, "Reasons for the Judgement Returned" relating to Michael Shields's failed appeal issued on 10 November 2005 said:

"At the time of the offence the defendant was influenced by alcohol."

Those are two contradictory statements made by official judicial bodies in Bulgaria referring to this case. I find that of added concern.

The details that I have given are examples of a large number of concerns about Michael Shields' situation. I have given them because I believe that they underline the European Commission's concerns about the readiness or otherwise of the Bulgarians to become members of the EU. I am extremely concerned about my constituent Michael Shields. His family are devastated. They are campaigning strongly for justice and I will continue to stand with them until we receive it.

I have referred to this matter in this Committee because it is relevant to Bulgaria's joining the EU. The EU monitoring has drawn attention to the deficiencies in the Bulgarian judicial system, including accountability, openness and the pre-trial phase. The illustrations from Michael Shields's case demonstrate that principle in a clear way, and I am extremely concerned. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reject Bulgaria's accession pending further investigation of this unacceptable situation and to enable consideration to take place of whether it is indicative of the wider concerns expressed by the Commission on Bulgaria's judicial processes. This is a matter of justice for Michael Shields, but it is also about the suitability and readiness of Bulgaria to become a member of the EU in January 2007.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

As a newcomer to this Committee and a pro-European one at that, I can be lulled into a great sense of comfort that there is such a great deal of cross-party consensus about the Bill and clause 1, notwithstanding the eloquent evidence that we have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) about the plight of Michael Shields and the clear failings in the Bulgarian judicial system, and notwithstanding the slightly more—how can I phrase it?—ideological objections to the whole process of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

No, practical.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Practical concerns. Therein lies a great and, I fear, adjacent debate that will no doubt arise at another time.

Notwithstanding that cross-party consensus, some tension and legitimate concern arises from clause 1 and the terms on which Bulgaria and Romania are joining the EU. The treaty of accession provides a short-term safeguard clause that could jeopardise the final entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU, but only for 12 months. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised that issue on Second Reading. It is a legitimate one, and it has been echoed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

What happens if Romania and Bulgaria are proved to have failed in their final preparations to become members of the EU? I fear that we are caught in a cleft stick. The accession treaty commits us to accepting Romania and Bulgaria into the EU almost come hell or high water. While there is a safeguard clause, it only defers but does not permanently postpone or put off accession. At a political level, once they have joined, the ability of the EU authorities to exercise any leverage over the domestic reform process is significantly weakened.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, the manner in which the final stages of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria are handled would set an important precedent for much more controversial accessions, notably that of Turkey, if the negotiations with Turkey are ever concluded. The EU needs somehow, within fairly narrow parameters, to exercise influence over Romania and Bulgaria in the remaining stages of the accession process in as rigorous a manner as possible.

I draw the attention of the Minister to the annexes, with which he will no doubt be familiar, to the accession treaty, which spell out in considerable detail what Romania and Bulgaria are expected to do to get over the final hurdle of their accession. I cite annexe IX, headed, "Specific commitments undertaken, and requirements accepted, by Romania at the conclusion of the accession negotiations on 14 December 2004". It says that Romania—the same applies to Bulgaria in a separate annexe—undertakes

"To . . . implement an . . . Action Plan and Strategy for the Reform Of The Judiciary",

to enact anti-corruption legislation, and ensure

"the effective independence of the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutors' Office . . . To conduct an independent audit of the . . . current National Anti-Corruption Strategy",

to introduce

"a clear legal framework for . . . co-operation between, gendarmerie and the police"

and so on.

In a separate annexe, there are similarly detailed requirements for Romania to respect the Schengen action plan and ensure a high level of control and surveillance at Romania's external borders, which will of course act as the external borders of the EU. Those are substantive commitments set out in some detail.I have no doubt that the Commission will return to an examination of those commitments when it draws up its own monitoring surveillance report—I forget the formal title—in spring next year.

I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that, if the Commission recommends a further 12-month delay because of any failure to implement those annexes, which I think are a legally binding part of the accession treaty alluded to in clause 1, the Government will accept that as necessary. In common with previous speakers in the Committee, I ask what will happen if, after that 12-month period, Bulgaria and Romania have failed to implement the requirements to tackle corruption, ensure a secure external EU border, reform the judiciary and implement the necessary legislation to root out malpractice in the criminal justice system? What could we possibly do? The Minister referred to a period of three years during which the EU would be able to take some exceptional safeguard measures, but I should be grateful for any further detail he can provide about how they would operate during that crucial period, after which, I take it, there would be almost no meaningful leverage over the domestic reform process.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe referred to privatisation and his opposite number on the Conservative Front Bench, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) talked about corruption. I want to bring the two subjects together.

In other accessions to the European Union, we have seen rushed privatisation and a degree of corruption. In Hungary, for example, the leader of the alleged Socialist party made a personal fortune from privatisation. His party is now so keen on privatisation, so right-wing and so free market, it is no longer a socialist party in any sense. Indeed, the New Statesman cast a slur on the character of Baroness Thatcher by suggesting that, if she were Hungarian, she would vote for the Socialist party. That is unfair, because it is not at all a nice party. It is significant, however, that the Hungarian opposition party, which is Catholic-based, conservative and anti-communist, resists the privatisation of public services, and has become the party of the left.

The Catholic collectivism that was typical of Christian Democrats in Europe is being broken down by a rush to neo-liberalism and the free market. That is where the real division is occurring, significantly in Germany where Angela Merkel is trying to move away from Catholic collectivism and towards the market. That causes tension in Germany, even in her party.

I look forward to Bulgaria and Romania becoming members of the EU. Neo-liberalism and the free market should not be conditions of their membership. One reason I am so keen on enlargement is that it would inevitably mean a much looser association of member states, where each country could determine its own economic policy according to its democratic choices. That is the Europe I want and I think one or two Opposition Members want that, too. They may choose to take a much more conservative approach to running economies. I might choose a more social democratic or democratic socialist approach, but we would have that democratic choice; it would not be determined by the EU.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have attempted to put those arguments on a number of occasions. Does he agree that it would be better to try to reform the system before it implodes with possibly extremely dangerous consequences for democracy throughout Europe? We can draw on the example of what happened in France recently, which some of us predicted, as an indication of the creation of a compression chamber that simply does not work.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. In Hungary, the economy is doing well in some senses, but poverty—certainly relative poverty—has increased. It is said that some people were better off under communism. If the market leads to poverty and to a serious division between rich and poor in those countries, people will say such things.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the idea of a market economy is fundamental to the whole concept of the European Union?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

We have lived in a market economy since the second world war, but the extent of the state's role in the economy and the degree of public or private ownership is for each country to choose. Since the second world war, we have had a mixed economy, which worked extremely well in the first three decades. I advocate that approach to running our economy even now. It certainly worked better than what has happened since. In many areas of Europe, public utilities and services are still run in a traditional, social democratic, post-war way and they work extremely well. I would argue that case for the UK as well as for Europe.

In Russia, after the collapse of communism, there was a rush to privatisation and at the same time the adoption of a hard rouble policy, which caused economic chaos. There was a serious reduction of output and living standards fell. Only when the rouble was floated and the process slowed down did the Russian economy begin to recover.

Each country should be able to choose the exchange rate appropriate to its economic needs. One reason why I support the Chancellor so strongly in keeping us out of the euro is that we can choose the exchange rate suited to our needs. Exchange rates are essential springs and buffers between economies. They are necessary; they can be stable, there can be a pegged system, but they should be changeable. That is how we should operate with the new member states. They should not be encouraged to join the euro. While they are weaker, they should be able to decide what is best for their economies—choosing their own exchange rates, interest rates and fiscal balance between tax and spend.

Bulgaria and Romania should be allowed to decide what is best for their economies and not be told how to run them from outside by the EU. That may lead to problems and voices may call for a return to the old authoritarian system, although that would not be the wish of the democrats in the EU. The EU should not press strongly that those economies operate in a particular way; it should allow them to operate as is best in each case. We should open our markets to some of their goods and allow them to depreciate their currency if that would make them more competitive. We should urge them to adopt proper rules for their workers, such as good trade union standards and employment rights, so that workers have a proper share of the benefits of their developing economies, but we should not insist that they privatise their economies.

Recently, I visited Austria and Hungary with the Rail Freight Group to look at rail freight facilities. In Hungary, we spoke to senior figures in the Government and the railway industry about rail freight. The bulk of the rail freight system is still publicly owned and it is doing well. It makes a profit and provides the Government with funds that help the Hungarian people. There is a small private sector that is losing money but there is still pressure to privatise. If the Hungarian rail freight system was privatised and bought up, perhaps by a Russian oligarch with plenty of spare cash, the profits would not go to the Hungarian people. It could go towards buying expensive football clubs in Britain—who knows? At present, the benefits of that publicly owned freight system go to the Hungarian people. That is what we should allow those countries to do, not force them to privatise.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman makes an articulate case for his allegation that the terms of accession impose a neo-liberal economic philosophy on countries that join. He will be aware that, for other critics of the EU, many of whom can be found on the Conservative Benches, there is not enough imposition of neo-liberal economics. For them, the EU is a hotbed of over-regulated, social democratic, wishy-washy economic mismanagement. Does he accept that both allegations cannot be right and that it is conceivable that both are equally wrong?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There is a serious debate both in the EU as a whole and in its member states. I hope that I am participating in that debate and making a strong point for the social democratic systems that worked so well after the second world war, which are being systematically dismantled. That is a great mistake. Opposition Members may choose a neo-liberal approach. We might choose a social democratic approach, but we should be able to choose democratically in our own countries. We should not be told, or even advised, by the bureaucracy of the EU to operate in a particular way.

I finish by referring to corruption, which seems to be almost endemic in the EU. The European Court of Auditors has failed to approve the EU's accounts for 10 or 11 years running. The European aid system is inefficient and corrupt and the aid does not go to the right places. The Department for International Development does a much better job, and we have made that point many times as well. The EU must look hard to itself if we want to stop corruption developing or even getting worse in countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, which are much weaker.

It is significant that corruption in the poorer world is almost endemic. It is only when countries become relatively egalitarian and rich that corruption can be addressed seriously. However, we have those things in western European countries, and we still have corruption, so there is a problem. The best way to avoid corruption is when countries have to look after their own economies. If they are spending someone else's money, they will be much more casual about how they spend it and what they do with it.

I urge the House to support the entry of Bulgaria and Romanian into the EU, but we should allow them to develop their economies as they see fit—subject, of course, to proper human rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said, and employment rights, environmental conditions and all those other things that are beneficial to the whole world. However, we should allow them to run their own economies, not force them into a particular mould.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), partly because we have tracked each other's thoughts on these subjects for the best part of 10 years or so, but also because this is a critical time at which to consider the accession of new countries. I have repeatedly stated that I am in favour of enlargement, but I have asked as a rider to that argument what kind of Europe we want and what kind of Europe we should have. The problem is exacerbated or illustrated by, for example, what has been going on in France and the Netherlands. The rejection of the referendums in those two countries illustrates the political divorce that has emerged between the people and the elites, whether in individual countries or the EU as a whole.

I told my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that I thought an element of cloud cuckoo land was apparent. I was referring not specifically to what he was saying, but to the inability of Opposition or Government Front-Benchers to grapple with the vacuum that has emerged between the realities of what is going on in Europe and the aspirations that, for example, are contained in the European constitution. We are still waiting for the Government to announce what they will do having secured the Second Reading of the European Union Bill, which dealt with the constitution. [Interruption.] I do not know what the Minister is chuntering about—perhaps he would like to intervene.

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I was just observing to my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), that the words "Bulgaria" and "Romania" had not yet been uttered by the hon. Gentleman and was pointing out the fact that we have debated the Bill on Second Reading, when hon. Members had the opportunity to range widely in their remarks.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I regard that as a pretty irrelevant comment. The nature and form of the EU will be affected by these accession arrangements. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that the current gross domestic product per capita of the 25 member states is $21,800. That figure happens to be half that of Norway and Switzerland, and it will inevitably decrease when Bulgaria and Romania join. The important point is that we have a regressive, declining EU economy, which will be made worse by bringing in countries that will inevitably drag that figure further down. We could avoid a lot of those difficulties if we were to have a different kind of Europe.

The kind of Europe that I should like would be based on associate status, along the lines of the European Free Trade Association. Some adjustment may be needed, but that is basically the direction in which we should be going. Indeed, a recent ICM poll showed that, when the people of this country were asked what kind of EU they wanted—whether they wanted one as it stands now, or one with associate status along EFTA lines—60 per cent. of all those asked and 68 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds said that they wanted the latter. So there is a political problem for the Government.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I understand that the Prime Minister stated that enlargement could not take place without a European constitution, so I wonder whether he is beginning to agree with my hon. Friend that we must consider a different form of Europe?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Indeed. The Prime Minister's speech to the European Parliament and his and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches on the reform of the EU—all of which will have an impact on Bulgaria and Romania, let alone the other countries in eastern and central Europe and elsewhere—combine to illustrate the fact that, struggling against the elite of Europe, there are apparently glimmerings of Euroscepticism in the future Prime Minister, by which I mean, in immediate terms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone knows that that change will happen in the next 18 months, and anyone who has read the books of people such as Robert Peston and others who provide well sourced, intelligent analyses of what is going on know what elements are involved.

I refer, for example, to the Treasury pamphlet that the Chancellor of Exchequer produced the other day in which he clearly repudiated even the social model for Europe. I should be interested to know whether or not the Minister was party to that pamphlet, which amounted to a repudiation of the existing European economic model. The Chancellor called for more global markets and more competitiveness. He illustrated his concern that the Lisbon agenda was not functioning properly.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a man whom I doubt is close in his affections—Jacques Delors, the former President of the European Commission—has also stated on record on a number of occasions his own doubts about the pursuit of an over-integrated EU social model in terms with which the hon. Gentleman would agree? Does he not agree that his stereotype of what it is to be sceptical or pro-European is wildly out of date, when fervent pro-Europeans such as Jacques Delors agree with him, at least in part, on something as crucial as social policy?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am extremely glad that that is taking place. It certainly was not when I met Mr. Delors in the 1980s, since when things have changed significantly and, I am glad to say, in the right direction. Indeed, my point about the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister shows that the glimmerings of realism are coming into the picture. The hon. Gentleman may not know that I was brought up in Hallam. I spent my early childhood there. My parents still live there.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Do they vote Liberal Democrat?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

They certainly do not vote Liberal Democrat.

The Prime Minister himself said in February 2000 that Britain could, of course, survive outside the EU and that we could probably access the single market as Norway and Switzerland do, but think of the changes that have taken place since then. I have strongly urged my party to be realistic about getting reforms under way—whether that is while we are in opposition or, hopefully, when we are in government—before the compression chamber that is being created implodes.

The application of the Maastricht surveillance criteria is about as deadly, boring and tedious a subject as one can possibly imagine, but I was glancing at a book in the Library last night about the impact of EUROSTAT case law. I suspect that no one has the faintest idea that such a book is there to be read, even if they had the time or inclination to do so. However, the application has an extremely serious impact on the way in which the criteria for each member states are collated by the European Union through EUROSTAT. That is the basis on which economic forecasting is made and economic criteria are judged for member states, including—under the Bill—accession states such as Bulgaria and Romania.

It might surprise some hon. Members that Hungary, which has been brought into the loop of member states only recently, is being pursued under the terms of the avowedly failed stability and growth pact. I opposed the pact vigorously when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Chancellor of the Exchequer and exchanged strong correspondence with him about it. He wrote to all Members of Parliament to say what a wonderful deal it was, and I wrote to all Conservative Members to tell them not to vote for it because it was going to be a disaster. It was an accident waiting to happen—sure enough, it did.

Due to the failed stability and growth pact, it is suggested that action by Hungary under the excessive deficit procedure is inadequate. The country is being told that it is simply not complying with the rules. The Commission states that in September 2005, the Hungarian authorities submitted a revised excessive deficit procedure notification to announce that it had a 2005 deficit of 6.1 per cent. of GDP instead of the targeted 3.6 per cent.—that is double.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that forcing countries with high unemployment to tighten fiscal policy and deflate their economies further is indeed stupid, as Signor Prodi has said?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I would go further—I cite the idea that such countries should be fined, although countries that are not members of the eurozone do not suffer a fine. Look at the situation regarding Italy, for example. The stability and growth pact is such an enormous failure because it is simply unrealistic. It does not work, and the remedies that are applied to ensure that there can somehow be compliance with the rules impose further penalties on countries, which makes it even less likely that they can achieve their objectives.

I differ from the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the importance of human rights legislation. Just before I came into the Chamber, I was taking evidence from a distinguished European lawyer about the charter of fundamental rights. It might be news to several hon. Members in the Chamber that the charter is alive and kicking. It did not go down with the constitution—I can say that unequivocally. Although it appeared to have done so, it did not in practice. The European Court of Justice itself is applying the criteria of the charter, so that will be of direct relevance to countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, especially given the problems to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) referred in her important remarks. For example, there is the problem of the Roma.

The promotion of employment law, the right to work and a raft of social measures are part of the charter of fundamental rights. A communication from the European Commission has announced that all legislation initiated by the Commission—in other words all European legislation initiated—must henceforth be compliant with the charter of fundamental rights. As the Commission is able to do that due to its right of initiation under the existing treaties, nothing can stop the charter from being brought in piecemeal through every piece of legislation that is initiated.

The communication will be debated in a European Standing Committee in January—thanks to myself and one or two other members of the European Scrutiny Committee—and much good may it do us. However, as the Minister knows only too well, there is no mechanism for ensuring that a vote in such Committees is effective against further orders passed by the House.

The economies of Europe are failing within the framework of the European Union because of the mistakes that were made over the Maastricht criteria, the mistakes that were made with the working time directive and the mistakes that were made in a whole raft of social legislation. However, we find that the charter of fundamental rights will itself be brought into our legislation through section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. It will be enforced by our courts and by the European Court of Justice. The Bulgarians and the Romanians will find that the problems with their economies, which have already been explained by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, will be exacerbated because measures such as the charter of fundamental rights will have an adverse impact on the way in which they are run. It is a Catch-22 situation.

The problem is that the economies of Europe, whether that is the economy of Europe as a whole, or the economies of individual member states—and of Bulgaria and Romania in particular—are all in disarray, which is creating low growth and high unemployment. That was the root cause of the reason why the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution. People said, "Oh, that was because the French didn't like Chirac," but they did not like Chirac because the economy was not working, and the economy was not working because of these crazy rules, all of which are based on an ideology that does not work—it does not work for the developing world, either.

Members of the European Scrutiny Committee had the pleasure of meeting a delegation of Members of Parliament from the Czech Republic the other day. By the way, they were not, with one exception, from the right of that country's political spectrum. They were social democrats. I shall not mention their names because that would be unreasonable. They said that they had been enthusiastic about entry to the EU, probably, one must say, because they knew that they would get a lot of money out of it, as well as stability and improved relationships with other countries to address the vacuum in central and eastern Europe on matters of defence and foreign policy. However, they said that their enthusiasm was becoming significantly reduced. What they had anticipated is not what is happening. They criticised the regulation and interference of European legislation and said that before joining the EU, the Czech Republic had been self-sufficient in agricultural products, but owing to European regulations, it is now a net importer. The sugar beet market had been badly hit by the imposition of EU regulations, and unemployment is coming out of that. That is all because of crazy European rules, which are doing devastating damage to countries that have just come into the EU.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Does not the hon. Gentleman make the case for each country to determine its own agricultural policy rather than being forced to accept a policy that applies across the EU?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Absolutely, and I should not have to stand here making an obvious case. I would love the Minister to explain to us what on earth the Foreign Secretary and, more particularly, the Prime Minister think they are doing by creating all the ingredients for the collapse and implosion of the EU.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I thought that might produce an enthusiastic response from Labour Members.

The reality is that the Czechs are suffering. The same can be said of other member states that are affected by the way in which the EU has been going.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Is my hon. Friend aware that in a survey commissioned by the delegation of the European Commission in Romania, 56 per cent. of Romanians believed that accession would bring more drawbacks than advantages in the short term?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am glad that my hon. Friend has done that research. Again, that is the realistic position. The debate is clearly about Bulgaria and Romania in particular, but when talking about the EU, we cannot dissociate the problems of individual member states from the impact it has on the whole. If they have to come in on terms that simply will not work for them, the case for reform is crystal clear. As I said, the Czechs have discovered serious drawbacks to the system. The same goes, therefore, for the prospects of those from Bulgaria and Romania.

We also discussed corruption in the judicial process and so on, and there are serious and critical problems at every point on the compass. In a report in The Times today, we even find, from an announcement by the Commission yesterday, which has not yet come before the European Scrutiny Committee, that nine areas of criminal law are to be brought into line to co-ordinate criminal law throughout Europe. Again, that is all part of the accession process. Are accession countries aware of what they are letting themselves in for?

It is not negative and anti-European to be pro-democratic. The problem is that there is a complete and total refusal by the Government, the Minister and the Prime Minister to be realistic about what is going on. The simplest answer would be to have a thorough examination of existing treaties, as conducted by the European reform forum. Today we had evidence from Liberty and Justice. We have heard from Lord David Owen, and Lord Dahrendorf will also give evidence.

The forum is examining existing treaties with a view to highlighting the problems in which Bulgaria and Romania will find themselves. I make no apology for using this opportunity to get across to the House, through Hansard, the importance of having effective and serious reform. Otherwise, there will be withdrawal from the EU sooner or later. If we continue to pursue such policies, an implosion is on its way. The Prime Minister knows that because of the failure of the Lisbon agenda, his presidency and the French and Dutch referendums. Those failures are indicative of what is to come, and the warnings have been given. It is up to those in government to listen. If they do not, when Europe dissolves into greater difficulties, and perhaps even chaos, with movements to the far right on the back of instability and racial tension, the responsibility will lie with the Government, their Ministers and the European Union.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

This has developed into an interesting and broad debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I try to bring things back to Bill and the clause in particular. I shall also keep my comments brief.

I have visited Bulgaria regularly for a number of years and have seen at first hand the remarkable progress there. There is genuine political consensus and, I believe, a feeling throughout the country that joining the EU is essentially desirable because it will enhance the economy and reinforce Bulgaria's democratic development.

Successful negotiations have led to the treaty that we are considering. The European Commission has conducted various reports. Recently, however, it concluded that there are serious shortcomings in Bulgaria and that problems need to be addressed rapidly and firmly before it is adjudged ready to join the EU. The comprehensive monitoring report set out clearly and starkly both what progress has been made and what needs to be done. We are waiting for the final recommendation of the European Commission to the Council in April or May next year.

Among the concerns expressed by the European Commission about Bulgaria are the large number of uninsured vehicles, shortcomings in the veterinary sector, and the need to reinforce the administrative structures, in particular with a view to administering European agricultural and structural funds effectively. Concerns have been expressed about the criminal justice system and, as has been mentioned, how the Roma minority are treated.

Some of those issues were discussed yesterday in the European Scrutiny Committee. The Bulgarian ambassador took part in that discussion. He went to great lengths to reassure us that the concerns were being taken seriously and were being addressed effectively. It is worth reinforcing that great strides have been made in Bulgaria. The country is now a true democracy. Democratic reforms are firm and, in my view, irrevocable. Most of the European acquis communautaire has been implemented in Bulgarian law. Economic growth is consistent. In 2004, for example, the rate was 5.6 per cent. It undoubtedly has a functioning market economy, as the European Commission concluded.

In fairness, however, it is true to say that over the past few years there was a decline in the momentum towards reform, but since the election of a new Government in June this year, the reform process has gained momentum. A new penal code has been introduced, and there cannot be any doubt that there is a strong political commitment to ensure that the remaining reforms are implemented effectively and speedily.

The European Commission should give an objective analysis of what is happening in Bulgaria. It is important, both for the interests of both Bulgaria and the EU, that the Commission make a firm assessment. However, there is danger of being too insistent that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed so that things are meticulously in place before Bulgaria can join the EU. In the last wave of accession, a number of countries expressed concern about Slovakia's preparedness to join the EU, given that other accession states had made advances. Nevertheless, the benefit of the doubt was given to Slovakia, and since it joined the EU, it has made remarkable progress. Arguably, it has done so quicker than any other country that joined at the time.

We should look fairly and objectively at what is happening in Bulgaria, but we must also look at the way in which things are changing before we determine whether a one-year delay would be detrimental to progress in that country or would enhance it. We should be firm but fair. As well as looking at what is happening in Bulgaria and Romania, we must always keep at the back of our mind the centrality of the process of enlargement to Europe's development. A vision of the EU is developing not as a union of elitist or exclusive nation states but as an expanding union always seeking to embrace more countries. That is a positive process.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is move away from elitism, but does he not accept that the problem will not be resolved without radical reform of the system? However, when reforms are proposed, particularly on the acquis communautaire, nothing happens.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

It is important to acknowledge that reforms are under way in the EU. Reforms introduced by the Government both before and during their presidency have struck a chord with many EU states, particularly central European countries that have recently joined. There is an increasing acceptance that what we want is not a highly integrated centralised state but a loose association of sovereign countries that pool their interests from time to time.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not agree that the EU and states party to the North American Free Trade Agreement should join together to create a transatlantic free trade area?

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

I said at the outset that this is an extremely broad debate, but extending it to north America takes it a little too far, so I shall resist the temptation to comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

To return to the central point that I was making in response to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), it is important that we recognise that enlargement is a positive process that reinforces the well-established trend of the EU continuing to develop as a loose association of sovereign countries that decide to pool their sovereignty from time to time in their mutual interest. That is the best definition that I can give off the top of my head of what the EU is developing into, and I believe that enlargement will reinforce that development.

In conclusion, having visited Bulgaria on many occasions over a number of years, it is my impression that most Bulgarian people take that view. They do not want a giant, centralised European Union that will rob them of their national identity, but they do want to be part of a progressive, forward-looking EU that gives them security both politically and in broader defence issues. That is extremely positive, and it is why I trust that in the near future—hopefully, in January 2007—both Romania and Bulgaria will meet the terms of entry and become full members of the European Union.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I, too, intend to be brief. In general, I welcome the enlargement of the European Union, because it will help it to become the loose association to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) referred, and diminish the centralised, unified approach that has characterised it thus far. The Bill is therefore welcome.

It is important to remember how far countries in the former Soviet sphere of influence have come. Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and parts of the former Soviet Union are now members of the EU, and are party to discussions about the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. That demonstrates how far they have come in recent years, as the Minister said. We welcome that progress, but we accept that there is still much more work to be done in those countries. Leverage can be exerted to reinforce human rights, tackle corruption and improve the judicial process, particularly in Bulgaria and Romania, both in the coming period and for a short time following accession. After that, however, the pressure that can be brought to bear will dissipate rapidly, so a signal should be sent to Romania and Bulgaria that accession is not an automatic process. Genuine progress must be made in a number of areas.

I should like to focus on human rights, the judicial process and the rule of law in Romania. I sympathise greatly with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who spoke forcefully about her constituent's family. I trust that everything will be done to assist her in her efforts to achieve justice. A church in my constituency that helped to run an orphanage in Romania approached me because it was concerned about child trafficking—an issue raised earlier in our short debate—and the way in which the Romanian authorities can interfere arbitrarily in children's welfare. Laws on adoption, for instance, are loosely applied. The church has expressed genuine concern about children's welfare and the attitude of the Romanian state towards the subject. In the coming period when, as I said, leverage can be applied, I urge the Minister and the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that such matters are progressed, particularly in relation to human rights and the rule of law. It should not be a question of turning a blind eye to some of these issues for the greater good. We should make Romania and Bulgaria, particularly the Romanian authorities, live up to their responsibilities as part of a wider Europe.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who are unsure that the best way of catching the eye of the Chairman is to rise promptly in one's place?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be—

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

Thank you, Sir Alan, for correcting me and helping me.

I shall be brief, as I spoke at some length on Second Reading. We should not underestimate the importance of the accession treaty. Although we are dealing with only two countries this year, whereas last year we were dealing with the accession of 10 nations to the EU, there are some important strategic objectives and changes that need to be borne in mind.For the first time, the EU will reach to the Black sea, and Greece will be connected to the rest of the EU. Romania will have the seventh largest population in the EU, after Spain, Poland and the big four. This is a significant enlargement, not just a tidying-up exercise.

I agree with other speakers about the changes that have taken place in Bulgaria and Romania over the past 20 years. I first travelled to those countries in the late 1980s as a student. The changes since then, in the space of one generation, are incredibly dramatic and could serve as a model for many other countries seeking to introduce free market economies, democratic systems and so on. It was the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher who first outlined in the Chamber the possible accession of these two countries. The first mention of the possibility of Bulgarian and Romanian accession to the European Union came on 31 January 1990 in a speech made by the then hon. Member for Warwickshire, North, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who said that he was looking forward to seeing various countries join the EU, including Bulgaria and Romania. Accession and enlargement have long been on the Conservative agenda.

I shall outline some of the problems that we need to bear in mind with the accession. Bulgaria and Romania are not necessarily perfect candidates, but I am not sure that three or four years back, Poland and others were perfect candidates. The first problem is corruption, about which other hon. Members have spoken. It is a problem in Bulgaria more than in Romania. The second is organised crime, mafia-style crime problems and assassinations. Only about four weeks ago in Bulgaria, one of the country's most senior bankers was assassinated. Significant improvements still need to be made on environmental matters in towns such as Ruse and in areas of Transylvania.

There are problems in relation to minorities—the Hungarian community and the Vlach community in Romania, and the Turkish community and Roma community in both countries. Finally, drug and people trafficking will probably always be a problem in those countries, partly due to their geography, as they are situated at the entry point to Europe. Practically every new trafficking problem has come through the Bosphorus and up into Europe over the past century.

I broadly welcome the Bill. It is important to view it as significant in its own right, not just as a tidying-up exercise. We should congratulate Romania and Bulgaria on their accession. We need to keep an eye on the problems that I and others identified on Second Reading and in Committee, but we should warmly welcome the Bill nevertheless.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 — Freedom of Movement for Workers

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—

'(1A) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report no later than four months before the date of accession on the Government's assessment of the effect the free movement of workers from the acceding States will have.

(1B) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report every six months on the effect of any regulations made on the free movement of workers under this section until the end of the seven year transitional period.'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

As we come to consider the part of the Bill dealing with the free movement of workers, one of the unintended aspects of free movement of workers applies to the Conservative Benches: my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who was to have dealt with the amendment, has to be in another Committee shortly, so I am moving into her shoes—an unwise thought, perhaps.

Clause 2 and the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, No. 9, relate to an important aspect of the Bill and some of the implications of membership. It is particularly important because of the recent history of the accession of new member states to the EU. Clause 2 represents a welcome acceptance by the Government that their projections of the consequences of the free movement of workers from the accession countries last year were wrong by a significant factor. Whereas they suggested that only a few thousand workers would come to the UK following accession, some 277,000 workers have come under the registration scheme. I accept that that process has gone smoothly and there have been no particular difficulties.

It is interesting that the Government none the less saw the importance of putting the measures in place in clause 2. As was alluded to by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and Opposition Members, the two accession countries that we are considering today are quite different from many of those that came into the EU last year. The difference in economic strength is much more profound. The provisions that the Government are putting in place and the powers they are seeking to take to control the free movement of workers in that context are wise. It is inevitably possible that, given the marked difference in income between Romania and Bulgaria and the existing member states, especially some of the wealthier member states such as the United Kingdom, there could be significant pressure of migration. It is sensible that the Government should take a precautionary approach regarding the free movement of workers.

That is particularly important in view of the geographical perspective provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), relating to the routes into Europe that the new accession countries constitute both for people trafficking and for the drugs trade. Bulgaria is known to be a major transit country for illegal drugs, as well as a producer country. It is important and appropriate that the measures should be taken.

The Government have, however, not yet enlightened the Committee about the outcome of their assessment or analysis, whether they anticipate using the powers in clause 2, and whether they envisage instituting any major control for a transitional period, making use of the available derogations to prevent significant unforeseen movement of people into the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment No. 9, which seeks to introduce some transparency to the process. It would require the Government to lay before Parliament no later than four months before the date of accession a report on the Government's assessment of the effect of the free movement of workers from the acceding states, and it would also require subsequent reports on the actual effect of such movements of workers.

As I have said, given the marked difference between the predictions about the previous 10 accession countries and the actual number of migrants who have come to the United Kingdom, it seems important and appropriate that the Government should publish a frank and detailed assessment of what they anticipate will happen and provide this House with regular, detailed updates as the accessions move forwards.

Doug Henderson (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has rightly described clause 2 as the provision that will regulate the migration of workers from Romania and Bulgaria to the United Kingdom.

Many negative things have been said about migration. One does not need to look very far in the tabloid newspapers to see migrants being made the butt of nationalism, jingoism and, from time to time, racism. That is not peculiar to the United Kingdom, although our tabloids might be a little bit more energetic than others in generating public heat on the issue. From time to time, political parties are tempted to crawl down that path. We saw that at the recent general election, when more than one political party referred to immigration—they probably regret having done so.

When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe interprets clause 2, he should consider "provision" in a positive context. The tabloids, to which I have already referred, say that immigration sometimes has to happen and that it is generally negative because we do not want to change our way of life. I do not know what our way of life is in the United Kingdom, and I do not exactly know what our way of life is in Europe. Our way of life is internationalised and we operate in a global world. The movement of people is one of the key features of a global economy and an internationalised society, which is not something new—if one reads biblical history, there were lots of movements of people in the period before Christ. If one considers the history of the United States and Canada in the 19th century in particular, there were massive movements of people. From time to time, people have moved into EU countries. In the 1960s, Turkish immigrants into Germany specifically serviced the up-and-coming light engineering industries. In this country, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, we experienced waves of immigration from the Caribbean and elsewhere, again to meet our particular labour needs.

We live in a different world in which the migration of people is not an exception—it is the norm—and people will continue to move more and more. In this country, highly skilled people who are looking for a better opportunity might go to work elsewhere in the EU or the United States. Why should we be different from people from developing countries or people from countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union and that have acceded or will accede to the EU?

I suspect that we will see ever-increasing migration. It used to be said that the catering industry in London was full of people from all around the world, and particularly from some of the eastern European countries, but that is now true throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. In Scotland and the north-east of England, where I travel fairly regularly, many eastern European people are working in the catering industry.

In what I call the direct works industry—house maintenance and, to some extent, house building—there is an ever-increasing need to use skilled labour from eastern European countries. An arm's length management organisation runs council housing in Newcastle, and a programme has been agreed between the local authority, which sadly we do not control any more, and central Government.

Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Why is that?

Doug Henderson (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

My right hon. and learned Friend and I agree on many things, but not on that.

The ALMO cannot meet the targets laid down by central Government because of a shortage of labour. We still have some unemployment on Tyneside, although it is less than half what it was in 1997, but we do not have an adequate supply of skilled labour or people who are prepared to train to take up those skills. In the case of the ALMO in Newcastle, we need to train local people as best we can, but we should not be embarrassed if we fail to train sufficient numbers and must look elsewhere to find skilled labour. We can all provide examples from our constituencies of that pattern, which arises across Europe. Germany is now a honey pot for immigrants from a much wider area than Turkey, and the Scandinavian countries and Ireland now contain a large proportion of immigrants, who are meeting vital labour shortages.

When I ask the Government to be positive in their interpretation of clause 2, my central point is that migration has changed the nature of our economy in the same way as Mexican migrants have changed the American economy. When I studied economics a very long time ago, we referred to overheating in the south and the lack of heat in the north—the main reason why we had to adopt deflationary policies was that the south overheated when the necessary labour was not available. Labour demand shot up wage rates, which had a detrimental effect on the whole economy.

Migration has enabled a number of countries, including our own, Scandinavian countries and Ireland, to maintain a high level of aggregate demand and to continue to have growth without having wage inflation. Jobs have been filled by people from other parts of Europe, particularly. That is the same pattern throughout the developed world. In that context, migration has been a positive factor in the UK economy. It has not been a negative factor for those who have been left, for instance, in Moldova, Romania or Bulgaria. People working here have been remitting funds to their own countries. That has helped to raise living standards in those countries. Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of Moldova's GNP is the result of remittances from countries in the EU. That is positive for everyone.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

The hon. Gentleman advances a good argument. Does he agree that some of the most skilled people who have been leaving Romania and Bulgaria and coming to this country have done so to the detriment of those economies? That slightly concerns me.

Doug Henderson (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I would not deny that in the short term. However, there is the relationship between Ireland and the United States. It could be said that 15 or 20 years ago the immigration of skilled technicians in the IT industry and in other industries to the United States denuded the Irish economy of key workers. Once those people have enjoyed some life in the United States and perhaps picked up other skills, many of their skills have returned to Ireland. For example, some of my wife's family have returned from making their money, so to speak, in the United States. They have come back to Ireland, where they continue to run businesses and so on. The same has happened to some extent already in Poland. Some people have returned to Poland who perhaps have been within the EU for some while. An optimistic prospect is that the same will happen in Romania and Bulgaria.

I do not want to pretend that it is all easy—all sun and light. It is not. Problems arise from international migration. The main benefit is the countering of wage inflation in the developed world. In our case, we should spend more resources on raising the levels of education of those immigrants who come to our nation. They do not all have the skilled to which I have been referring. Some lack skills, and they need to be skilled by us. They need to learn more about our way of life.

It is impossible ever to prevent people who move from one part of the world to another from staying in close proximity to the people and the culture that they know, and to the friends that they have. People will do that. The Scots, the Geordies and the Irish do that wherever they go in the world, and so will people from Romania, Bulgaria and elsewhere. However, it is vital that they begin to understand the way of life in this country. That is not the way of life that might have been stereotyped in the 1950s. There is a different way of life in Britain in the first decade of the 21st century. People who come to our country have to learn that way of life and help to contribute to change that way of life by the next decade.

I strongly support the Bill. I anticipate that the Government will be able to accommodate the general points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. We all want to know what is happening and we all need a statistical basis. Please let us interpret clause 2 in a generous and enlightened way. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that he intends to do so when he replies.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that all Members will be concerned about one part of the free movement of labour, and that is the dreadful problem of human trafficking, particularly of young women for the sex trade. I am concerned that there is nothing in the Bill that deals with that issue. I am worried that free movement will make it easier for the degenerates who bring young women into this country for the sex trade.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

The Bill sets out the necessary legislation for the freedom of movement of workers from Romania and Bulgaria. Hand in hand with the Bill, we need to examine carefully what happens when migrant workers come to this country from new EU member states. Many of these workers are enticed here by promises of terms and conditions that sound better in theory than they do in reality. We need particularly to tighten up on the use of zero-hours contracts by agencies, which mean that workers who come here to take up full-time posts can find that sometimes they have so few hours of work in a week that they do not earn enough in that week to pay their rent. We need to improve agency regulation to eliminate sharp practices and ensure a level playing field between agencies that abide by the rules and those who ruthlessly exploit workers. We need to ensure that the increasing use of migrant labour does not undercut our workers and depress wage levels.

We also need a better transfer of information between all EU member states about dangerous offenders to avoid a repeat of a dreadful incident in which a nasty sexual attack was carried out by a man who had come from eastern Europe to work in my locality. Only afterwards did it became clear that he was a known offender with a previous conviction for rape in his own country. I was horrified to discover from the local chief inspector of police that there is no transfer of information about sex offenders from original or from new EU countries. We must develop a proper unified system of notification of such offenders across the whole of the EU to reassure and protect local people.

I welcome these new opportunities for migrant workers from Bulgaria and Romania, but we must ensure that we can be proud, not ashamed, of their working conditions.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

I want to speak in favour of the amendment.

I am in favour of migration in general. My constituency might have more migrants from the 10 countries that acceded last year than any other. We have a vibrant Polish community and we are home to the excellent Polish cultural centre.

Both parts of the amendment are extremely sensible. The first part would ensure that an assessment takes place no later than four months before the accession. That is not fundamentally different from what happened last year, when the Home Office announced the worker registration scheme on 23 February 2004, in advance of accession. In other words, an assessment was, rightly, made at that time, and the rules were changed slightly. It would be sensible to make an assessment four months in advance to judge what the effects are likely to be based on how the previous accession has gone, and so on.

The second part of the amendment would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the system. That does not mean that we should review the two countries' membership of the European Union but that we should review worker registration from those two countries over a period of seven years. That is an eminently sensible provision. If we are to have the worker registration scheme, it is sensible to use the data that arise from it to see whether it is working properly. Last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), said:

"The purpose of the scheme is to allow us to track properly our commitment. It will give good information to the authorities and the Home Office about how, in practice, the right to work of people from accession countries is operating."

She went on:

"We have a good pattern of what is happening, and if, against all expectations, there were adverse impacts on our labour markets—let me reiterate that we do not expect that—we could act immediately to re-impose restrictions.—[Official Report, 2 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 876.]

The basis of the worker registration scheme was sensible, and we should use the data from it to monitor whether it is working in practice.

I do not say that because I believe that a flood of people will come in from Bulgaria and Romania. I think that a healthy number of people will come to this country bringing very useful skills. However, it would set a good precedent to do this now for the purposes of future EU accession. If, say, Turkey or Russia become EU accession countries, there may be genuine concerns about a very large number of people coming into this country and distorting our labour market. It would be useful to have a precedent in place to ensure that Parliament assesses the likely impact of the accession four months beforehand and then monitors the actual impact every six months for seven years. It is better to set that in stone in 2005 rather than some point in the future when large countries may join the EU.

The amendment is sensible and I hope that the Government will support it. It ensures extra parliamentary scrutiny, which is always a good thing.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I thank colleagues from all parties who have made helpful and welcome comments about clause 2. It is encouraging that there is such broadly-based support for the measures that we want to introduce. I shall deal with the detail of the amendment and make some general points about the clause.

Let me briefly comment on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on clause 1. She made a powerful speech, the force of which will carry further than the House and especially to anyone who is watching our proceedings. As a dedicated Everton supporter, I emphasise that rivalries are put aside in such cases. She knows that the solidarity between football supporters in our city runs deep and our thoughts are with her. She will have the solidarity of football supporters everywhere and I wish her well in her campaign. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary leads on such matters. Through me, he would like to reiterate the offer of a further meeting with her and the family to ascertain whether we can make some progress.

Clause 2 is consistent with the Government's managed migration agenda, which makes decisions on the UK's labour market dependent on the number and type of gaps that exist. The clause provides enabling powers, which will allow the Government to set the terms on which any access will be granted to Bulgarian and Romanian workers after accession during a transition period. That can range from maintaining a form of the current work permit arrangements to full, free access to the market, including a version of the worker registration scheme that is in place for nationals of the eight accession countries. A decision will be made closer to the accession date. I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) but I hope that he understands that it is right to make the decision when we know more about the date of accession for the two countries.

We would also like to take other considerations into account, such as the state of the domestic labour market and other member states' decisions about access to their labour markets. Of course, all member states have to go through the same process as us. We will also take account of further analysis of our experience with the first round of accessions.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Why do we have to wait to find out what our European Union partners do before we make our decision?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

We do not. The decision is in our hands, but it is sensible to ascertain what other countries are planning to do before taking a unilateral decision. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that, with Sweden and the Republic of Ireland, we made a different decision from that of our partners about the eight accession countries. Nevertheless, the views of our partners have a bearing on the overall decision and they are a factor that we need to take into account.

The strength of the clause, which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) acknowledged—I thank him for that—is that it enables us to keep our options open and make a decision that balances all the factors that I outlined. We believe that that is the right response, because it affords the Government the flexibility that we need with the approval of Parliament.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Under-Secretary help us about numbers? What is the estimated number of workers from Bulgaria and Romania who are likely to want to come to the United Kingdom to work?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

That is precisely one of the factors that we would seek to ascertain in the run-up to accession, which is why it is premature to make any firm commitments about the situation. When we know that there is a firm date of accession, we must take a view, considering the effect on the UK labour market in particular. Obviously, that is a predominant concern in making any decision. I will deal with this in more detail when I speak about the amendment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will seek to back up any decision with strong research on precisely that question.

Reference has been made to previous underestimates. I should say that the figures before the previous accession related to people seeking permanent settlement, and not necessarily to people who had joined the worker registration scheme. The comparison might not therefore be completely accurate. Nevertheless, 293,000 people have come in to date. We believe that that has only added to the UK labour market.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

It is my understanding that the existing worker registration scheme does not include the self-employed. Would he consider introducing such a provision, either for existing new member states or the two new accession countries? Do the Government have any estimate of how many self-employed workers there are in addition to the 293,000 who have registered to date?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

There are such figures. I do not have them immediately to hand, but I can certainly make them available to the hon. Gentleman. Nationals of Romania and Bulgaria are, of course, also registered to work here legally as self-employed persons running their own businesses.

We believe that it is the right approach, with the approval of Parliament, to judge the decision in response to circumstances at the time of accession, whether that be 1 January 2007 or 2008. Furthermore, we believe that a decision now on what level of access to grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers on accession would clearly be premature and not take into account the relevant factors that I mentioned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made a helpful contribution, in which he urged me and other Home Office Ministers to consider the positive side of migration, and to take a positive view of the measures before the House. He is right to put it in that way, as we should conduct this debate positively. If some of the newspaper headlines at the time were to be believed, the world was going to end the day after the last round of enlargement. Of course, that did not happen. As he rightly pointed out, a story is run in parts of the media that migration is wholly bad, or is to be tolerated at the edges for bringing a marginal benefit. He is right to take those arguments head-on, and the Government should do so. As he said, the experience of opening our labour markets and allowing greater access than do some other European countries has been good for the UK economy, and for the regional economies of this country.

I would wager a lot of money that those 293,000 people have put far more into this country than they have taken out. As the figures show, there has been very little recourse to in-work benefits and other social security support. Their contribution is therefore huge. They are filling gaps in our labour market and performing a vital role. I accept my hon. Friend's basic point that our precise decision must be guided at the time by relevant factors such as those that I have laid out. I agree, however, that our earlier decision has been good for business and the regional economies of this country, and for our standing in the European Union, particularly among the 10 member states that we are talking about today.

I want to run through some of the structure of the clause before turning to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. Subsections (1) and (2) allow regulations to be made that will grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers the rights of European economic area nationals to enter and work in the UK. Subsections (3) and (4) provide for the implementation of a possible compulsory registration scheme. Subsection (5) provides for supplementary or transitional measures which may be required, for example, to move Bulgarian and Romanian nationals currently in the UK under a work permit scheme to a future registration scheme. It also allows for the regulations to make different provision for different cases. They could, for instance, distinguish between Bulgarian and Romanian workers, or indeed between plumbers and doctors. That relates to some of the information sought by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West a moment ago, which I shall try to provide for him.

Subsection (5) relates to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I am relieved that he is not here to speak to it, as it was entirely pointless, and the Committee will not now be delayed by unnecessary debate on it.

Let me correct a popular misconception about the free movement of persons within the EU. That right exists outside clause 2, and it is important for that to be made clear. Free movement is a fundamental principle of the European Union. Under the accession treaty, nationals of Bulgaria and Romania will have the right to enter and reside in all the existing member states for a wide variety of purposes, including holidays, study, retirement and indeed business activity. That was agreed unanimously by the 25 current member states.

The transitional measures allowed by the treaty relate solely to the free movement of workers. Nationals of Bulgaria and Romania affected by the measures will not automatically be allowed to enter and reside in the 25 EU member countries for the purpose of employment, but they will be able to do so for the other purposes to which I referred.

For those reasons, the transitional periods are limited in scope. They are also limited in time. All the measures for which clause 2 provides will be relevant for a maximum of seven years after accession. Free movement for workers across the Union remains the medium-term objective, and it is essential for the efficient functioning of the single market. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made that point.

That is why the accession treaty requires the Council to conduct a review of restrictions on access to workers about two years after accession. Indeed, we are close to the date for the review of restrictions imposed on new member states in May 2004. The Government will communicate their decision on any further arrangements in spring next year. It is likely that, following the review, several more of the 15 EU member states will join the UK, Sweden and Ireland in allowing full access to their labour markets. That will be a positive development for them.

As I have said, our experience of enlargement has been extremely positive. Most of the workers who have travelled to the UK since May 2004 are young and have taken jobs throughout the country that have been left vacant. They have been employed in a broad range of industries, from health care to business administration to farming—industries in which there are serious gaps. They are contributing to our economic growth and to our tax revenues. It seems that many young people are coming for short periods to find out what living in this country is like, and then going back. That can only be a positive development, and I believe that it will benefit both countries in the long term.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Does the Minister share the view expressed—I think—by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) that one effect of the arrival of a large number of young migrant workers has been the depression of UK wage rates?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

All those working under the worker registration scheme have full employment protection and full access to the national minimum wage. There is no difference between a British worker and another EU national in that respect. As these workers are filling gaps in the labour market, I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He probably speaks to the CBI often, and I expect he is aware that it strongly supports these measures. I suspect that it will continue to do so.

I believe that amendment No. 9 is premature. It asks us to include a requirement for a report on the effect of the free movement of workers from the acceding states. Actually, it assumes that we have taken the decision to allow that. However, as I have explained, that decision has not yet been taken, so building such a commitment into the Bill is premature.

I hope to offer the hon. Gentleman some assurances that we can meet the effect of the amendment, so that it will not be necessary for him to press it. For example, as I have already mentioned, we undertake to carry out research into the potential effects of opening access to the UK labour market before a decision is taken to do so, and we would of course share that information with the House. We will continue to monitor the position and, should the decision be taken to open access to our labour markets, he will know that regulations would create the basis for any transitional arrangements. He will also know that those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would be an opportunity to give them full parliamentary scrutiny. That also meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham: parliamentary scrutiny is guaranteed under clause 2. I can also give a commitment to laying as much research as possible before the House in order to have a fully informed debate on the effect of the regulations. The amendment, which would place a rigid requirement directly in the Bill, is therefore unnecessary.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister is being very helpful and I am grateful. Can he be just a little more helpful by undertaking to publish regular analyses to update the position following accession?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I certainly will. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since we set up the worker registration scheme, the Home Office, together with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments, is monitoring the effect on the labour market by analysing the figures relating to that scheme. In respect of A8 nationals, the statistics are published on a quarterly basis via the accession monitoring report and the latest figures were issued this week. I hope that I have persuaded him that his amendment is unnecessary as we fully intend to continue the arrangements whereby regular quarterly reports are made available. The whole point of the scheme is to enable us to track and monitor the effect on the labour market and on the take-up of social security benefits. As I say, we will want to share such information with the House as much as possible.

I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made an important point about human trafficking. The Home Office wholly concurs in emphasising the importance of making progress in that respect. As part of our presidency of the EU, we have given considerable priority to that matter and we have sought to make concrete progress in that regard. Work is being carried out by Europol and others, particularly with respect to Romania. We most certainly are focused on dealing with that matter, though the Bill does not include direct provisions relating to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) raised an important point about the potentially criminal behaviour of people in the worker registration scheme. She mentioned a case from her constituency and I assure her that such people, if they were imprudent enough to commit offences during their stay here, would be subject to the full force of the UK criminal justice system. Powers remain at the disposal of the Home Office to deal with European nationals in respect of removal where criminal behaviour is involved. The main point is that the full force of British law will apply. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

We have had a good and encouraging debate. It is pleasing to see the Conservative party coming round to acknowledging the benefits of managed and legal migration to this country. I hope that that will continue to be the position held by Conservative Members in the months ahead. I urge the House to reject amendment No. 9 and to approve clause 2.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Douglas Alexander (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a good afternoon's debate, with stimulating and thoughtful contributions from all parts of the House. Let me begin, as I did on Second Reading, by paying heartfelt and genuine tribute to the all-party nature of the consensus in this debate at every stage of the Bill's passage. I welcome the strong and powerful arguments that we have heard in support of enlargement, and in particular of Romania's and Bulgaria's accession. It is clear that all Members recognise the important role that enlargement has already played in developing the prosperous and stable Europe in which we live today. Romania's and Bulgaria's accession will further contribute to political stability and security in our neighbourhood, and create new economic opportunities for British citizens and companies.

As we have discussed, it is clear that there are a number of areas in which more work is needed if Romania and Bulgaria are to be ready for European Union membership in 2007. The Commission's comprehensive monitoring report, which was published in October—it has been the subject of debate already this afternoon—set out a range of issues in the fields of justice and home affairs, agriculture, environment and administrative capacity that require urgent attention. I know that this was a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), and I can assure him and the House that we are working closely with both Governments to help them to implement these outstanding commitments. In recent meetings with both countries' Europe Ministers, I underlined the importance of tackling the remaining problems. I am pleased to say that both expressed a real commitment to implementing the necessary reforms, and they set out a number of areas where progress is already being made.

This Third Reading is an important and historic moment. The Bill may be small, but its impact will be substantial. For 30 million people, European Union accession represents a new dawn and the final step in a difficult journey from dictatorship to democracy. The impact of accession will not, of course, be limited to Romania and Bulgaria; their accession will bring benefits to all of Europe. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that the United Kingdom looks forward to welcoming Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am pleased to follow the Minister in what has been, as he said, a helpful and constructive series of debates on the Bill. There is broad cross-party agreement on the objective of bringing Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union, without for a moment belittling the great difficulties that remain and that need to be overcome. The Minister acknowledges that there is a serious programme of work to be undertaken in the coming months to get those countries to the point where they may be ready for accession.

We have had some very useful contributions to this debate, including a helpful one from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). He gave us some assistance, thereby enabling us to withdraw our amendment on the free movement of workers. My hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) rightly raised some very important points about people trafficking and the scandal of such abuse.

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has returned to his place. He was quite right to raise some of the more profound issues to do with the future shape and direction of the EU as a whole and the type of EU that Romania and Bulgaria might join. In not too many years' time, other countries such as Turkey and Croatia will become members, and even Russia may do so one day, although that may take a little longer.

The Opposition are pleased to welcome the progress being made on enlargement, both with this Bill and with the beginning of the accession talks for Turkey and Croatia. Our proceedings have been very consensual so far, so I cannot resist saying that it looks increasingly as though the steps to enlargement may be the only achievements of the UK's EU presidency. This week, Foreign Ministers from various member states have commented on the discussions about the future EU budget. For example, the Finnish Foreign Minister said:

"As there is nothing new to discuss, I have got nothing new to say",

while the Belgian Foreign Minister said:

"We are sitting here wasting our time",

and the Portuguese Foreign Minister said:

"They have done nothing about the financial prospects . . . We are not going to get any numbers today, just words."

I am pleased to restore a little contention and rancour to our debate, as we do not like to have too much uninterrupted consensus in our proceedings. However, it is fortunate that we have something to show for the UK presidency, especially in respect of the more difficult talks about Turkey, and I have given the Minister and his colleagues credit for that before. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania should bring both countries great benefits, as it will ultimately to all member states.

Enlargement is hugely important, both for the progress that it brings in the candidate countries and for what it does to aid the development of a more diverse and flexible EU. Recent discussions about the future EU budget have sometimes given the unfortunate impression that the whole point of membership for some of the newer members and applicant countries is to obtain grants and cash transfers from the EU or the wealthier members. That is entirely wrong, as it leads to the absurd proposition that has been raised this week—that the new members are paying for the UK rebate. Given that the UK is a major net contributor to the UK, that is clearly nonsense.

Yet we must stress that the real value of EU membership for Bulgaria, Romania and the others that have joined recently is that it will reinforce their freedom, democracy, security and rule of law. It will also ensure their access to a single market, and we hope that that can be achieved in a way that is not overly bureaucratic or regulated.

The Conservative party has always been an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement, whether that has involved the 10 states that joined last year, or Bulgaria and Romania, or Turkey and Croatia. We very much support the proposed accession that we have debated this afternoon, but the Minister knows well that the path to membership for Romania and Bulgaria will not be easy. The enthusiasm for the objective behind the Bill is shared by all parties, but that should not lead the Government or the EU to proceed uncritically in their assessments of the readiness of the two applicant countries for entry in 2007 or 2008.

I believe that the Minister accepts the importance of bringing Romania and Bulgaria into the EU, but I hope that he is also aware that it is vital that we get it right.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I should also like to join in this festival of cross-party consensus, which I trust will be a rare, if valuable occasion. It underlines the importance of this positive step not only for Romania and Bulgaria but for the European Union as a whole. I join others in reminding the House that the vision of an ever-wider and more diverse EU has for a long time been a particularly British vision of the European Union and before it the European Community, which has united political opinion across parties for a long time. It is good to see that that fundamental view has held true here today. It is not a view that is shared in other parts of the EU. I doubt that in Paris one would find quite the same amount of cross-party consensus on this latest step in the journey of EU enlargement. It remains an expression of great strategic vision on the part of Britain as a whole that we have prosecuted this process as successfully as we have.

Some important points have been made during the consideration of the Bill about the final steps of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU and the absolute need for real rigour in ensuring that the outstanding measures that need to be taken in those two countries are taken and that the safeguard measures are used in all seriousness and not merely as a fig leaf for enlargement and accession at all costs. That concern about the final stages of accession should not be viewed as some last-minute series of obstacles to their rightful claim to join the EU. It is born of a serious belief that if further enlargements are to occur in a politically, economically and socially sustainable way in the decades ahead, we must set the right precedent today.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I was disappointed that the Bill was not amended in Committee, but I was grateful for the comments made by both Ministers. I broadly welcome the Bill. Enlargement of the European Union is good for everyone. The larger the single market, the more prosperous its peoples become. Clearly, the addition of 30 million consumers from Bulgaria and Romania is to be welcomed. It is an added bonus that we are bringing in people who have been freed from the tyranny of communism. I would go on to argue for the enlargement of the EU to such an extent that it joins with the North American Free Trade Agreement to create a transatlantic free trade area, which would create a huge market and be of enormous benefit to its peoples. In this regard, we should welcome and encourage Romania and Bulgaria into the EU.

I have concerns on two fronts. One is the process of Bulgaria and Romania's accession. The other is the effects on the UK of these countries joining the European Union. Bulgaria and Romania are two countries that are only now emerging from the throes of Soviet domination. The defeat of communism in those countries and the creation of freedom and democracy were of course championed by Baroness Thatcher and her Conservative Governments. The two countries are now entering into the most fundamental change since the fall of communism. However, one of the great freedoms that the people of Bulgaria and Romania have gained from the fall of communism is the right to determine their own affairs and to vote on issues that affect their lives. Yet the Bulgarian and Romanian people have not been given the chance to vote on this fundamental change. That shows the ultimate failing of the system and highlights how undemocratic the process of EU accession is.

The EU can demand all sorts of regulations and laws and practices, but the one thing that it does not demand is that the people of the countries acceding to it have a choice in whether they want to be part of the EU. Is that because the EU fears the verdict of the people? Has it not learned from the fiasco of the European constitution? Should it not be a condition that every country that wants to join the EU should hold a referendum?

As the citizens of those two countries have not been given the chance to vote on whether they want to be part of the EU we have only the views expressed in opinion polls to show the strength of opposition to accession. Every second person surveyed in Bulgaria was concerned that their country would have to contribute more than it would receive from the EU budget. More than half of those surveyed in Bulgaria feared that accession would create difficulties for the country's farmers. In a survey commissioned by the delegation of the European Commission in Romania, 56 per cent. of Romanians believed that accession would bring more drawbacks than advantages in the short term.

The Minister may rightly point out that no such referendum was held in the United Kingdom. One sunny morning, I woke up and the people of the United Kingdom found that they were no longer in the European Community but in the European Union. The people of Britain were never given the chance to say whether they wanted to be in the EU. They were never asked whether they wanted to be in a European superstate, with its own Parliament, its own President, its own flag and its own Court, all of which is costing billions of pounds a year and represents a significant loss of British sovereignty. However, that strengthens the argument that Bulgarians and Romanians should have the right to a referendum. The citizens of those accession countries are denied a fundamental democratic choice.

My second concern is that the Government have not made clear what restrictions, if any, will be imposed on the accession countries with regard to free movement to the UK, notwithstanding the Minister's earlier comments. The Government's prediction of immigration from the 10 accession countries fell severely short of the actual figure. Surely, they need to outline the restrictions they will impose on the two accession countries before it is too late, because it could be little more than a year before Romania and Bulgaria are admitted to the EU and I do not see why we should have to wait to hear what our partners say about the issue before we make our decision.

It is not unreasonable to ask for details about the restrictions that will be imposed on the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania. There are no details in the Bill about whether people coming to the UK from Bulgaria and Romania will automatically be entitled to benefit. Will they be entitled to housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance or incapacity benefit and if so, when? The Bill does not answer those questions.

Many of my constituents are concerned that migrants from eastern Europe are automatically entitled to benefits. I am not making that point to produce headlines; in fact, it is the reverse. It can be argued that migration has not significantly increased the number of people on benefit, but because it is not clear in the Bill what the restrictions might be, we may attract headlines when Bulgaria and Romania accede.

My greatest concern about free movement, which is shared by all Members, is that human trafficking will be made easier under the Bill. I am particularly concerned about the hideous trafficking of young women in the sex trade. Young women from eastern Europe are promised a new life with legitimate employment and opportunities in the UK, but they finish up as sex slaves sold from one degenerate to another. They are subject to the most appalling violence and intimidation, which goes as far as telling them that back home, perhaps in Bulgaria or Romania, their child will be killed if they do not continue to serve as sex slaves. That is worse than the intimidation and violence suffered by slaves in the 19th century. Will the Government bear that outrageous and disgraceful trafficking in mind when drawing up regulations for work permits?

Before Romania and Bulgaria become part of the EU, they should toughen up regimes in their countries to stop human trafficking. That should be a crucial condition of their accession.

I hope that the Government will take those points on board, and that my speech has been constructive and not party political.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.