European Union (Accessions) Bill

My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford was right to move his amendment, purely for the technical reason that it enables the debate to now proceed. He made it quite clear that it was not intended to challenge the decision to welcome the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. I find it quite extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, should find it so convoluted that he could not understand the simplicity and, dare I say it, the innocence of my noble friend’s proposal. I am glad that it enabled him to raise the question of the acquis. I think that it is a massive imposition; doubtless not quite as horrific as the 90,000-odd pages would suggest, which is none the less a standing invitation for slim-lining. But I do not want to take up that point. I want to take up a point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay: the finances implied in the expansion of the European Union. That would fall well within the terms of reference of the stand part debate. When the House of Lords Select Committee considered the financing of the common agricultural policy, they remarked:"““The majority of our witnesses were clear that the cost of direct payments and other CAP support measures to Romania and Bulgaria is not covered by the Commission’s current budget proposals””." The Government responded to that by saying:"““The Government believes that the Brussels ceilings are sufficient to accommodate the accession of Bulgaria and Romania without the need for further increases””." I am certain that the Government response was given in good faith and I do not challenge it for one moment. However, we are entitled to ask what further consideration has been given to the whole financing of the European Union, and more particularly the common agricultural policy, in light of the events of the past few months. I ask that not in any confrontational sense but with some anxiety over possible ambiguity about what spending is deemed legitimate because it is within the common agricultural provisions, and what spending outside of the common agricultural provisions but none the less on agriculture is also legitimate. Back in June, when we were approaching these matters under the prospective influence that the Britain would have as president of the Community, the Prime Minister said that,"““it is also a fact that no one is saying that countries cannot take a decision to support their farming industry. The question is what should Europe be doing about the amount of money that it puts into the CAP””.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/05; col. 533.]" That is a clear and explicit distinction between what farming expenditure there might be on the CAP and what is outside of the CAP. I find that that comment—which seemed on the whole to be rooted in the realities of the European situation—does not sit too easily with the Minister’s remarks yesterday when, at Question Time, he said:"““Co-financing is one of the options that needs thorough discussion and must be examined as part of the review. If co-financing were to be introduced, it would have to be done in a way that ensured there was no increase in the total public spending in the EU—that is, of the EU plus the national budgets—and any move towards co-financing should also not stand in the way of further reform””.—[Official Report, 9/1/06; cols. 2–3.]" That suggests that, with one voice—the prime ministerial voice—there is a degree of independence for independent financing of agriculture; and that the voice of the Minister yesterday—and I would not dream of trying to set him against the Prime Minister—admits of another interpretation. This is of importance to us not least because of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Romania and Bulgaria are powerful agricultural countries not merely in agricultural output but in the important social significance of agriculture. ““Reform”” is such an easygoing phrase for people secure in government and administration. However, reform often implies very substantial social changes in the rural pattern. These changes might easily be dreamed up in Brussels, but if they have to be carried out by people actually taking responsibility in Bulgaria and Romania, then we may find that we are in for periods of some difficulty and tension. My intervention is only to seek some elaboration from the Minister about the extent to which he sees that there will be reasonable flexibility in trying to bring about changes in agricultural spending within the common agricultural policy and within the spending that is deemed to be within the competence of national governments so that we go through the next few years with as modest a dislocation as may be feasible.