---

European Union (Accessions) Bill

Although we would be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for posing legitimate questions—given that in his Second Reading speech before Christmas he said that the development of the community was in flux, that there may be a ““moving platform””, and that there was an ever-changing scene with a large number of new members making a bigger entity that is much more complex than it was before—these Benches would not support his objection to the clause standing part of the Bill, although he was not talking literally and was explaining his position and asking questions. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions and to other points that may arise. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his Second Reading speech, was regarded by a number of noble Lords as being rather pessimistic and curmudgeonly about the development of the Union, as opposed to the more enthusiastic tenor of other speeches. We on these Benches reiterate our view that the Union is developing. New member states are applying all the time, so that must be the proof of the pudding that the EU is developing in an interesting and attractive way. It has been gratifying to see that the focus in the growth from the original six, nine, 12 and then 15 has been, with the exception of Malta and Cyprus, on helping those countries from behind the original Iron Curtain, from 1989–90 onwards, to enter the comity of western democratic nations. It has been a most remarkable development for which enormous tribute must be paid to the Commission, the Council of Ministers and to the representatives of those countries who have negotiated their way in on a complex matter, with very long procedures and some daunting targets to accept. The same will apply to Bulgaria and Romania. Some people may infer that that should be the limit on enlargement of the Union. However, because, according to the original treaties, the Union is obliged to respond to any approaches by any other country that wishes to join, we do not know what the end of that process will be. But this Committee stage is dealing only with Bulgaria and Romania. Therefore, one need not repeat too many points and make a Second Reading-type speech, and I shall certainly refrain from doing that. We also want to thank the Government and the Ministers responsible for the way in which they have handled this matter. In particular, it was inspiring to see the way in which the more difficult negotiations for Bulgaria and Romania were conducted both by the Council of Ministers as a whole and by Her Majesty’s Government representing this part of the Council of Ministers. There are observers who have seen events much more closely, and quite a few books have been written about the development of the East European countries as they have come out of the totalitarian nexus and have dealt with more conventional western and democratic needs. That has been a very complicated process for them and, with the different histories that attach to each individual country, it has been both a remarkable and, in many ways, a unique experience for them. That was mentioned in the closing Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. I refer to countries that have suffered the horrors of the Second World War, fascism and communism—totalitarian systems—and have then come out of that. When the pent-up energies of those countries are released by new democratic initiatives, the next stage is often corruption and the abuse of power by the entities which may take over in the initial elections, and then gradually the system settles down. That is inevitable and we should not be too critical of it, but we should be vigilant of how that corruption and the disutility of the emerging system are rooted out by the applicant member countries themselves. In that spirit, I look forward to the Minister’s reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I also re-emphasise that we on these Benches are enthusiastic supporters of the Bill and of this Committee stage.