European Union (Accessions) Bill

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate that Clause 1 stands part. To be candid about it, I think that we have had a Second Reading debate, but, for all that, I would like to try to deal with the substantive issues that have been raised as well as the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which are very specific in relation to this stand part debate. First, I wholly agree with the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Dykes, that the European Union is in a state of flux—I think that was the expression that was used. I am quite certain that that is for two reasons, one internal, and one external. The internal reason is obvious: the European Union has been growing in size and in the number of states involved. Making arrangements to accommodate those states and to take decisions in the larger group of states, which is an objective that we all share, has given rise to some of the flux that we have all been describing in the course of this debate. It is a function of growth. It is true that we have sought that growth, not least because it was better that countries that were formerly in the remit of dictatorships should move into democracy and the free markets that we aspire to see grow. The more growth there is, the more flux there will be, and were there to be other countries coming into the European Union, I suppose we should predict more flux. If that is the cost of growth, then it is helpful. I would submit that the external reason is obvious as well. That is, as World Trade Organisation arrangements have developed and as the negotiation of new trading arrangements around the world have developed, these have put pressures on the way in which the European Union as a group of trading nations operating together has had to reformulate its thinking. So the EU is certainly changing. As it changed, it was not surprising that an attempt was made to make constitutional provisions for the arrangements that were needed internally. We also know what the outcome of the first key decisions on those constitutional arrangements was. The French and the Dutch have rejected those arrangements. There is at the moment no constitutional arrangement being considered as a binding constitutional arrangement anywhere because there is, as it has been put, a period of reflection. I do not anticipate that that position will change very rapidly, nor is it clear to me how it could change very rapidly. It may be that Austria has aspirations as the presidency for a psychological re-launch—it may be looking for something new—but it is extremely hard, in all candour, to see how that could be a realistic prospect over the next period. The constitution would unquestionably not be put in its current form to those who have already rejected it. If it were not put in its current form, I would anticipate that there would be a process with major negotiation before a new form was found, and before that could be put to anybody, including the French and the Dutch, or, because there would be a referendum, to ourselves. The question of whether something less than that—the second option of the noble Lord, Lord Howell; a cherry-picked arrangement—would take place has also arisen in your Lordships’ House when we have discussed the constitutional position. We have argued that there is no merit in simply cherry-picking. There may be one or two practical arrangements like televising and making public debates in Europe. Those are more practical and technical points, but the broader points about picking out large or substantive issues and producing a new document do not seem to me to be feasible. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it would not be feasible by January 2007; but I cannot see it being feasible by January 2008 either. But, whatever the state of discussion, it will remain true that all the countries will still have to go through whatever process they have agreed to go through to agree any new arrangement—either the old constitution, a cherry-picked one or whatever it may be. They would all have to go through that. And Romania and Bulgaria would have to take their decisions as accession countries on precisely the same text and by arrangements which they would have to undertake in order to come to this, even in circumstances where there were a document, which I do not foresee. I cannot see that they would be subject to any other requirement than to go through the process of debate and decision, whether it is by referendum, by decisions of Parliaments or whatever. So, I do not think that the Clause 1 arrangements, so far as the constitution is concerned, really ought to be of such dramatic importance to us. Secondly, I turn to the question of full acceptance or otherwise of the acquis. I understand the argument about the extent of the documentation. I also have seen figures of somewhat short of 100,000 pages, and I also know that there are committees at work to see whether it can be slimmed down. But I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The fact is that whatever the state that has been reached at the time of the accession of these countries will be the acquis which is put to these countries. That will be what it is. If it is the whole lot because no slimming down has been done, then it will be the whole lot. Some may say that that is unfortunate or inefficient, but that is the status of the set of European laws and arrangements which will be put and will be as significant and binding on those countries as they are on the rest of us. On the third point, the question of the Charter of Fundamental Rights raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, it is true that it is not a constitutional requirement. The European Communities Act would be as binding on the two accession countries as on anyone else. I suppose that decisions of the European Court taken on the Charter of Fundamental Rights will also have a bearing. However, there again I make the essential point that the state of play—the legislative framework—to which the accession countries will be invited to accede will be exactly that in place at the time, to which all of the rest of us will also be subject. I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. On the budgetary arrangements, I assert that there is no change to the ceilings on accession. The effect of compression on agricultural spending will continue. The information that was provided on the arrangements for agriculture in the accession negotiations made that clear. The treaty extends the CAP to Bulgaria and Romania on a similar basis to the previous accession. Direct payments will be phased in, starting at 25 per cent of EU 15 levels in 2007 and rising to 100 per cent in 2016, with the option of national top-ups. It is also true to say that when discussions take place that may lead to further reform, as we must all hope that they will, of the common agricultural policy, those discussions and negotiations will also have their bearing. However, I can confirm the precise point that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made. It would be possible to go through all the sets of figures over the years to illustrate the point, but I hope that your Lordships will feel that my assertion is appropriate. Any further discussion of issues such as co-financing in the case of further reform will also apply.