---

European Union (Accessions) Bill

I, too, want to intervene briefly on this subject—not, however, in support of the opposition to the clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The noble Lord has explained—and I am grateful to him—that it is not his object to prevent the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and that is admirable. However, I find it slightly ironic that after several occasions on which the Benches opposite have taunted the Government with having caused a deterioration in Britain’s relations with the countries of eastern and central Europe because of the negotiations over the budget, he should now be opposing a clause, the result of which if carried in this Committee would be to increase the damage to our relations with the central European states exponentially. However, I accept that the noble Lord is not proposing to go to that length. Although it is of course for the Minister to reply, I also say to the noble Lord that I do not see the problem of the acquis communautaire and whatever institutional arrangements may or may not be agreed between now and the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. Surely the situation is as it has always been with countries that join. They have to accept whatever has been decided by the European Union and has entered into force by the day on which they join. The acquis communautaire will have been shrunk by then and I hope very much that some of its more out-of-date parts will have been removed under the proposals that the Commission is now bringing forward. Then they will simply be lopped off the acquis communautaire, which Romania and Bulgaria have to apply on their accession. If, on the other hand—as equally I hope will be the case—something like the directive on services is introduced and made law in the European Union by the time Bulgaria and Romania join, then they will have to accept that. I happen to think that that is a very healthy state of affairs. It is of course what the Bulgarians and Romanians themselves have signed and ratified. So I do not see a problem and I do not think that the institutional arrangements—whether they are called the constitutional treaty or whatever—come in a different category. Those arrangements will either be law by the time they join, in which case the countries have to apply them, or they are not law, in which case they do not. I should like to take advantage of the opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions which arise out of this first clause in the sense that this is the clause that makes Bulgaria and Romania ratified members so far as we are concerned. My first question relates to the budgetary arrangements. I should like him to confirm that there will be no change to the ceilings agreed in Brussels before Christmas for all the categories of expenditure when Bulgaria and Romania join. Can he confirm that the same amount of ceiling will apply to two more countries, two of which—the two we are discussing tonight incidentally—are quite substantial agricultural countries? So basically there will be an effective compression on the sums available for agriculture in the existing 25-member European Union. That point seems to me to be frequently overlooked by those who say that absolutely no constraint is being put on agricultural spending in the existing European Union. But my belief—the Minister may confirm this—is that that is not the case and that there will be an effective compression. Secondly, will the Minister confirm, as I believe is the case, that the substantial sums of money which had been spent by the European Union in Bulgaria and Romania over the past 10 years or so since they threw off their communist dictatorship, are continuing to be spent today, and will continue to be spent up until the day they join, are ones in which Britain pays its full financing share and that they do not come under the abatement? Thanks to arrangements negotiated by the noble Lords and others on the Benches opposite in 1984, because these expenditures are on countries outside the European Union, we pay our full share, we have always done so and will continue to do so. If you understand that point, it casts in a slightly different light the change that the Prime Minster accepted in December—in my view, quite rightly. We had to continue paying our full financing share for structural fund spending in those countries. No genuinely intellectual or moral argument could justify Britain paying a smaller share than other member states for structural fund spending in the new member states, of which Bulgaria and Romania will be two. If the Minister could reply to those two points, I should be very grateful. Meanwhile, I finish by saying that I do not favour the proposed opposition to the clause.