---

European Union (Accessions) Bill

As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, properly said, the starting point is the precedent of the entry of the EU 10 in May last year. One should perhaps more properly say the EU eight because, of course, Malta and Cyprus are not relevant in this context. Who can forget the dire predictions made at that time by the press in this country—or, at least, portions of the press, particularly the Daily Mail and others—not only about numbers but about the likely effects on our economy? Although the numbers were not as predicted, the effect has been almost wholly beneficial. Those who have come in—mostly young, thrusting people, gaining positive experience in this country—have gone into areas of shortage such as seasonal employment in agriculture, bus driving and whatever, and there has not been any substantial friction as a result. If noble Lords were to ask their friends what are their views on Polish plumbers, I imagine their response would be, ““Let’s have more of them””. I think there should be a certain amount of contrition on behalf of the Opposition and the Daily Mail and others—although one would not expect it from them—in regard to their anticipation of hordes of Roma coming across and that not being brought into effect. That must be the starting point of any discussion in relation to Romania and Bulgaria. In both of his amendments the noble Lord asks for various reports. In the first amendment he asks for a report from the Government, no later than four months before the date of accession, on their assessment of the effect of free movement of workers from the acceding states. The first point I make on that is that it would be extraordinarily difficult to make any clear assessment because there are so many variables, not least the effect of the policy decisions taken by other countries in this respect. The flow may or may not go in other directions depending on the policies taken by other of our EU partners. I also make the point, in respect of both Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, that this is not an obligation which was put on the Government in respect of the other countries. Poland, of course, is not only a relatively poor country but it has a population virtually twice that of Romania. I accept that there are potential problems in respect of Romania. At Second Reading the question of the 1 million residents of Moldova who have Romanian citizenship was mentioned. Moldova is an extraordinarily poor country and many of its most active citizens seek only to leave, and it may be that that issue should be part of an assessment. But real questions are raised, and even if we do not have regular reports—certainly no such reports were made obligatory in respect of the earlier accession—the questions remain. What form of continuing assessment will be made by the Government? In what way will those assessments be made to Parliament? That was the noble Lord’s very valid point about parliamentary consideration of any assessment. What potential sanctions, changes or modifications do the Government have in mind if any adverse effects which we cannot predict were to occur?