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.
European Union (Accessions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Clegg
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 24 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on European Union (Accessions) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c1691-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:39:17 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279737
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279737
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279737