On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I may seek your guidance. Question 10 was the only question on the Order Paper concerning the middle east peace process, and not a single Conservative Member was called. What can we do to make sure that more balanced discussions of these questions take place, other than being lucky enough to have a question come up in the first 10 on the Order Paper?

I try to get a balance over all the questions. The hon. Gentleman should look at the broader picture. He will note that his Front-Bench colleague wanted to ask two questions on Question 12, and I was very keen to see that that happened—so keen that I ran over time by three minutes. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the big picture, he will see that the Speaker is always fair.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision regarding the sale of green belt land, and for connected purposes.

A few weeks after being elected to this place, I was invited to visit one of the farms in my constituency. Contrary to perception—representing a Leeds seat—there is a substantial amount of farmland in the middle of my constituency.

During my visit to Wrinkle Wood farm, I learned much of the situation in which farmers find themselves. I was told by the farmer, Mrs. Jennie Clayton, that she had been approached by a company called English Land Partnership, which had bought the plot opposite, at Cookeridge Pastures, and was selling the land on the basis of future development of the site.

I was confused because I was under the impression that the area was designated as protected green belt land. Mrs. Clayton showed me a letter and the video that she had been given. I saw the grand plans for housing that the company had produced. Indeed, it was selling plots in this fictional development. I learned that this was the practice of land banking. I had never heard of it, and when I speak to others their reaction is the same.

According to investor.words.com, land banking is the practice of acquiring land and holding it for future use. In reality, land banking is the practice of purchasing green belt land for a reasonable and often low price, and selling it off in plots for a substantial mark-up to private investors.

Ironically, I am presenting the Bill in the year that the green belt is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It is the 50th anniversary of the first Government circular telling councils to designate areas of green belt land.

Land banking companies generally purchase green belt land for a very reasonable price but are all too reluctant to reveal exactly how much they have paid for it. Research shows that the land, if purchased at the average rate in a particular area, can be sold off for an extraordinary profit margin. Land bankers can often sell land for up to 100 times the price that they paid for it. In my constituency, our research shows that the average selling price for a 2,500 sq ft plot of land in the Yorkshire and Humber area is £115. However, similar sized plots in my constituency are being sold by English Land Partnership for £18,750.

The problem is that investors have virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose with such purchases until the land is given change of use. Then, when they have tens of thousands of pounds tied up, they realise that there are no plans for homes. Their only chance to get their money back is to get permission for development. That can put unacceptable and potentially unethical pressure on local authorities to review green belt areas.

The success of land banking from the companies' point of view is that their development plans may become self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, having made a fortune from their sales, they need to push the process through to its logical conclusion. That becomes a benefit and not a necessity. There is a huge question mark over the character of the so-called land banking companies. All too often it is merely a get-rich scam that is being peddled by fly-by-night companies, set up to carry out the scurrilous process of land banking. There have been instances of companies being investigated for fraud and partners being banned from being directors or managers of companies.

The real concern is the selling practices of land banking companies. There have been cases where investors were told that planning permission would be granted within a year. In other cases, investors were assured that they would see a return on their investments within a year. The companies involved simply say that they are liable only for statements made in writing by one of their directors, thus turning a blind eye to sales people, who are often self-employed and who are making misleading claims about the likelihood of change of use.

There are disgruntled investors not only in this country. The Australian Government are taking action against the land banker, Stephen Cleeve of the European Land Sales Partnership under the Australian Fair Trading Act. The situation in this country, however, is more complex. When approached by a solicitor acting on behalf of disgruntled investors, the Department of Trade and Industry replied that it cannot, or will not, take action against land banking companies because they are partnerships, not companies. The DTI only has the jurisdiction to investigate companies, not partnerships. Officers from the Serious Fraud Office visited farms in my constituency, but the SFO is not interested in investigating such companies, despite the mounting evidence against them.

That is why we must seek to amend the law. The central purpose of my Bill is to protect the green belt, which covers 13 per cent. of England. Wales has only recently introduced its own green belt policy, while Scotland has a broader concept of green belt. The Barker report, which said that 140,000 extra homes needed to be built every year, has given rise to further fears that new development could eat into the green belt. The Bill would strengthen green belt legislation, as it would seek to enshrine green belt status in statute, and it would enable local authorities to designate green belt land with enhanced protected and legal status. It seeks to devolve decision making about green belt status to local authorities, removing the Secretary of State's power to overrule a local decision to refuse planning permission or designation.

The Bill would effectively outlaw the scurrilous practice of land banking, and would require that designated green belt land can be sold and marketed only as protected land, not under the guise of any future development. It has the support of members of all parties and of people from all four corners of the country. I am delighted to have the backing of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, whose head of policy, Henry Oliver, said:

"These companies are playing a reckless, cynical game with one of our most important environmental assets. Unscrupulous sale and sub-division of Green Belt land needs to stop. It's ugly, bad for the landscape and undermines public confidence in our planning system."

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has agreed to be a signatory to the Bill, as his constituency borders my own. The issue was raised last year by the former Labour Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, Brian White, who reported that a company called ELS stood to make £3 million from the sale of plots in Brickhill in his constituency.

When I left Wrinkle Wood farm after learning about the practice of land banking I pledged to do what I could to raise the issue. I am delighted to introduce the Bill, and to draw the attention of the House to a genuine local concern that is also a national problem. I urge the House to grant the Bill a Second Reading, and I hope that as more and more hon. Members on both sides of the House encounter the dangerous and dubious practice of land banking, they will give the Bill their full support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Greg Mulholland, Norman Lamb, Norman Baker, Dr. John Pugh, Andrew Stunell, Dr. Vincent Cable, Lorely Burt, Lembit Öpik, Bob Russell, Tim Farron and Philip Davies.

Sale of Green Belt Land

Greg Mulholland accordingly presented a Bill to make provision regarding the sale of green belt land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 71].

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Enlargement of the European Union is a policy that has made an enormous contribution to stability and prosperity across our continent. I am glad to say that it has always been an issue on which the House has been united. As the noble Lord Hurd of Westwell, a past Conservative Foreign Secretary, stated in 1995,

"Enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity, if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century".

More recently, reflecting the tripartisan support that has developed for enlargement, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is in his place, stated:

"The ability to spread stability, democracy and economic opportunity to a wider region of Europe has been a tremendous thing for the continent".—[Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1273.]

It is in such a spirit of shared resolve that I hope we can debate the Bill today.

The Bill before the House is narrowly drawn. It will do two things. Clause 1 will enable the implementation, under United Kingdom law, of the accession treaty signed in Luxembourg on 25 April, extending the European Union to Bulgaria and Romania. Having concluded negotiations with both countries in December last year, European Union member states agreed that they should join the EU. They are scheduled to do so in January 2007, but if they are "manifestly unprepared for membership", EU member states can decide to delay entry by a year. The Commission is responsible for monitoring both countries' preparations and has just produced thorough reports on them. It will produce further reports in April or May next year. I will say more about this process in due course.

Is the Minister aware that members of the House's European Scrutiny Committee are currently meeting Members of the European Parliament? That happens once or twice a year. The Leader of the House has said that parliamentarians should increasingly work together in this way in future. Why have the Government timetabled today's important business to clash with that meeting? Why is there not better co-ordination between the Whips Office and the important discussions between the European Scrutiny Committee and MEPs?

There was no intention that Members of the House would not be able to scrutinise the Bill to the degree that one would wish. I am aware that important meetings are taking place with parliamentarians from other places, as well as parliamentarians from this place. Indeed, yesterday I had the opportunity to address the chairs of foreign affairs committees from across the EU. I can assure the House that, not least because of the level of consensus on enlargement that the House has enjoyed in the past, it is from the wilder shores of conspiracy to suggest that the tabling was intentional.

rose—

I am keen to make a little progress.

Clause 2 will allow the Government to set the terms on which Bulgarian and Romanian workers will be granted access to the UK labour market after accession, for a maximum seven-year transitional period, before Community rules on the free movement for workers come into force. A decision on the level of access will be taken next year after closer consideration of the state of the labour market, other member states' decisions, and the impact of the last enlargement in 2004. It will be implemented only after parliamentary approval.

As the treaty is being brought in by means of amendment to the European Communities Act 1972, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's view that the EU has power in this country only by virtue of that Act?

Clearly, we are ratifying a treaty consistent with our international obligations. The basis on which we are members of the EU is the decision reached in 1972, which was subsequently ratified in a referendum in 1975. That is common ground between all parties in the House.

Let me begin with clause 1, and the enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement has been a feature of the EU for over 30 years. The first was in 1973, when the accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark took place. Greece, Portugal and Spain joined in the 1980s; Austria, Finland and Sweden in the 1990s.

The 2004 enlargement has, in many ways, been the largest, most complex and most symbolic. The accession of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia set the seal on the cold war division of Europe. It is a real and substantial achievement of the European Union.

Does the Minister, like me, recall that many of us who welcomed these accessions were told that they would be impossible without the acceptance of the European constitution? Yet the European constitution has fallen and these countries are still being allowed to join. Is not that a peculiar situation?

It is not a comfortable matter for me to disagree so absolutely with my hon. Friend, but I think that his recollection of events is somewhat misplaced, in the sense that the possibility of the enlargements of which I spoke has always been clear, not least on the basis of the Nice treaty.

The accession of Bulgaria and Romania will add an additional 30 million consumers to the European Union single market. That creates new opportunities which our companies are already keen to secure. For example, Vodafone has just bought out the largest mobile phone operator in Romania. Bulgaria and Romania have made great strides in recent years. The prospect of EU enlargement is encouraging them to make the political, judicial and economic reforms necessary before becoming full members. Bulgarian growth has consistently been double the EU average over the last five years, and successive Governments have successfully halved unemployment over that period. Romania has brought inflation down from more than 100 per cent. in the late 1990s to around 8 per cent. today, and has successfully attracted more foreign direct investment than any other state in south-east Europe.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission produced detailed and rigorous reports on both countries, which were published last week. In presenting those reports, Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said:

"Bulgaria and Romania have achieved significant progress so far in their preparations for accession. But the jury is still out".

The reports highlighted a range of areas in which Bulgaria and Romania need to make urgent progress if they want to be ready for accession in 2007. There are some important general issues that both countries need to address. Corruption remains a serious problem in both countries, undermining public and business confidence, and they need to take urgent and vigorous action to tackle it. Part of the problem lies in their justice systems, which need further reform. Bulgaria must also tackle head-on the problem of organised crime. The daylight assassination last week of a high-ranking financier in Sofia demonstrated starkly the scale of the challenge.

In the coming months, the Commission will continue its rigorous monitoring of the progress that both countries are making, targeting in particular the areas of serious concern identified in the reports published last week. It will then produce further reports next April or May.

I hope that the Minister can explain something that I do not understand. In relation to the 10 who recently joined, there was no guarantee of membership almost right up to the very end point, at the 11th hour before accession. Under this procedure—uniquely, it seems, in the history of enlargement—Bulgaria and Romania are guaranteed accession by 2008 under the treaty, so we would be reliant on the infraction procedure to get compliance and enforcement after the event. Why were the ground rules altered for these two as compared with previous accessions?

I disagree with my hon. Friend's characterisation of the relative rigour with which the Union recognised the challenges of the 10 in 2004 and Bulgaria and Romania in the present day. There is the super-safeguard clause in relation to the possibility of deferring membership for Bulgaria, for Romania or for both, as well as several safeguard clauses that I will discuss later.

The Minister mentioned the assassinations in Bulgaria, but went through that point rather quickly although it is very important. There have recently been many press reports that the Bulgarian Government have been using the secret police to wipe out some of their political opponents. It is a very serious issue and I should like the Minister to look into it before allowing Bulgaria to steam ahead with membership.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are procedures whereby the European Commission is able to ensure the rigorous standards that all of us, as members of the Councils of Europe, are able to uphold in terms of potential accession to the European Union. I am not aware of the specific allegation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and if he wants to write to me, I will, of course, consider it, before passing it on to the appropriate authorities. The brevity of my reference to the recent assassination does not mean anything other than that we are dealing with it seriously. I have sought to reflect the due seriousness with which we regard the challenge of organised crime, which, as last week's reports drew out, is a significant issue for Romania and particularly Bulgaria.

On Bulgaria, does the Minister accept that the recently elected coalition Government, led by Sergei Stanishev, have gone a long way to tackling those problems by introducing a new criminal court, which should be very effective?

I am certainly willing to welcome that. A broader question is how to address the practical challenges concerning high-level trials of those who are charged with corruption and legal changes, and I am convinced that the answer is to take forward the rigorous process that the European Commission set out last week in its report.

The Minister knows that the Commission does not have a good record on scrutiny and cannot stop fraud in its own offices. How can it act as a superior to those new members?

The hon. Gentleman has raised the important and historic concerns about fraud in the European Union that have been ventilated in this House on a number of occasions. Commissioner Olli Rehn from Finland, who is responsible for enlargement, certainly holds the respect of those Labour Members who want to see a European Commission that is genuinely rigorous in the pursuit of potential accession countries. If hon. Members were, like me, privy to the discussions on the accession of Turkey to the European Union, they would be in no doubt about the seriousness with which the European Council now regards the objective criteria against which candidate countries are judged.

Given Olli Rehn's personal statements and the terms of last week's European Commission report, it is clear that he personally and the Commission generally take seriously the rigour required by not only the European Council, but the citizens of Europe on countries seeking to join the European Union. In the coming months, the Commission will continue its rigorous monitoring of the progress that both countries are making, targeting the areas of serious concern identified in those reports. If there is still a serious risk that either or both will be manifestly unprepared for membership in January 2007, the Commission can recommend delay by a year. And the Commission can also, if necessary, impose targeted safeguard measures to tackle problems in specific areas. We will need to consider the next Commission reports carefully and, if they recommend delay, decide how best to respond based on a careful assessment of UK interests.

Is the Minister concerned, as I am, about child trafficking over the border into Romania and Bulgaria and then into western Europe? Is he aware that such child trafficking often involves child adoption and that millions of pounds pass through the hands of the gangs involved? The issue is not specifically mentioned in the report, and I wonder whether we should be concerned about it.

We are concerned about both those issues. On child trafficking and people trafficking more generally, it has been suggested that one or both of Romania and Bulgaria are both sources and transit countries for that outrageous and disgusting trade. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is a cause for continuing concern, and I see that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality concurs with that view.

indicated assent.

The matter is best addressed by more effective and deeper co-operation between member states of the European Union. Those of us who share the ambition to stop that outrageous and unjust trade in humans must work together effectively, and the European Union provides an architecture that allows us to give practical expression to that shared commitment.

We are confident that both countries can be ready to join the EU on schedule in January 2007. However, they cannot afford to be complacent, not least in the face of the challenges that have been described. They need to take robust action now to address the concerns that the Commission identified in the reports. Of course, we will continue to provide bilateral and other assistance targeted at the matters that matter most. For example, we already have three advisers working in Romania on tackling corruption. The accession coincides with ongoing discussions on the next financial perspective for the EU from 2007–13—that was discussed in the Chamber only this afternoon—and the cost of the enlargement remains largely a matter for negotiation.

That said, most EU expenditure on Bulgaria and Romania has been provisionally agreed for 2007–10, assuming that accession takes place on 1 January 2007. That will total approximately €15 billion over the next three years. Of that, roughly €5.5 billion will be devoted to agriculture-related spending and approximately €8 billion to structural funds. I stress that those are indicative figures. Of course, that is a significant amount of money by any standard.

However, as hon. Members will know, most of the costs of accession are borne by the new member states and the objective is to ensure that, over time, net recipients start to contribute to the EU budget. Spain and Ireland are good examples of that. Of the newcomers, Slovenia and Cyprus's purchasing power in terms of GDP per capita overtook that of Portugal this year.

Let me consider clause 2. Under the terms of the accession treaty, the UK has the ability to decide the level of access it offers Bulgarian and Romanian workers up to a maximum of seven years after accession. Clause 2 gives the Government wide flexibility in deciding that. With accession more than a year—possibly two years—away, it is simply too early to decide what the level of access should be. We may want to continue the current work permit scheme. Conversely, we may decide to offer more lightly regulated access, along similar lines to that given to workers of the eight central and eastern European countries that joined in the 2004 enlargement.

I urge my right hon. Friend to adopt the same practice as our Government used in the previous enlargement. He will remember the hysteria on the Conservative Benches, with predictions of all these Poles and Lithuanians coming into the country to take our jobs and our women and go on benefits. That never happened. Those people make a huge contribution to our economy. I say to my right hon. Friend, please do not leave it too late—we left it very late last time. Let us take a firm course of action and show the rest of the EU what we mean by leadership.

As my hon. Friend suggests, we showed considerable bravery at the time of the previous accession. I believe that subsequent events have justified that. I listened with interest to my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality when he discussed the matter on the "Today" programme this week. He made it clear that, on the basis of the recent figures that were published in June, the individuals in question have not been a profound burden on the UK welfare state or the taxpayer. Many have made a significant and valuable contribution to the dynamism of the British economy and the strength of the labour market.

The workers who come here are mostly young and do not all work in London—only 20 per cent. are based there—but choose to work throughout the UK. They make a valuable contribution to our economy and our society. They are employed in a broad range of industries from health care to business administration to farming—industries where there would otherwise be serious gaps in our labour market. They contribute to the UK's economic growth and our tax revenues without being a burden on the state. Of course, the position can change. That is why we intend to make a decision on the amount of access we grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers on the basis of the requirements of the labour market closer to the date of accession and after consideration of other member states' decisions. The Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will all be involved in the process.

Does the Minister know that, in the boundaries of Moldova, approximately 1 million Moldovans hold Romanian nationality or are entitled to a Romanian passport? Have those individuals been included in his calculations?

As I was seeking to make clear, we have not made a calculation at this stage. The presumption on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based is therefore fallacious. We want to consider all the relevant factors at the right stage. That is why the prudent approach that we have taken in the Bill—with its enabling clauses that will allow us to reach the right decision on the basis of the information available at the time—is the correct one.

As Members will be aware, enlargement is an ongoing process. Under the UK presidency, the European Union has opened accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. We have also opened negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement—the first major step in the accession process—with Serbia and Montenegro, and hope to do so soon with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Later this month, we will be considering a Commission assessment on whether Macedonia is ready to become a candidate country.

Of course, this process is evolving. Indeed, the option of delaying accession by up to a year is a good example of one such refinement. It was first introduced for Bulgaria and Romania. The European Union must be rigorous in ensuring that all the requirements for European Union membership are met.

As I said at the outset, European Union enlargement has always enjoyed strong cross-party support. The last accession Bill to come before the House received 491 votes in support at this stage, in May 2003. This consensus has enabled the UK to play a leading role, I am proud to say, in driving forward a policy that is fundamentally in our interests, in the interests of our European Union partners and in the interests of the two accession states.

I hope that today we can once again come together and send a clear message in support of Bulgaria and Romania's accession to the European Union. Of course we have to ensure that they are ready for membership, and we will do so. But today I believe that we can be optimistic that two important partners will soon become members of an enlarged, outward-looking Europe seeking to meet the challenges of coming decades. I commend the Bill to the House.

The Minister was good enough to acknowledge not only that the Conservative party was a long-standing supporter of the European Union's enlargement, but that it was among its first supporters. The House will remember Lady Thatcher's famous speech in Bruges in 1988, in which she insisted that the European Community, as it then was, should stand not only for the small Europe of the rich west but for the whole of Europe, including those nations then in chains behind the iron curtain. It is therefore with real pleasure that we receive the Bill, and, when the time is right, we shall look forward to extending a warm welcome to the new accession countries. It should be a source of pride that there has always been cross-party consensus in Britain on the enlargement of the European Union. Some members of the EU have been afraid of a wider Europe and have, from time to time, sought to hinder that objective.

I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he recall that Edward Heath opposed enlargement because he was fearful that his vision of a strong, centralised western Europe would be undermined by eastern Europe?

I think that the new Labour dictum is, "Concede and move on." We have learned that.

We have always championed enlargement because we know that the European Union's true destiny is not to be a counterweight to America or to shut out globalisation, but to spread and sustain freedom, democracy and prosperity throughout our continent.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when the Nice treaty was put before the House, the Conservatives insisted on having a referendum on it with a view to voting it down? Do not the Conservatives support enlargement like a rope supports a hanging man?

The hon. Gentleman also knows that the Government claimed that the constitution was necessary for enlargement. We did not believe that, and we have been proved right. We were also right about the Nice treaty.

The European Union has helped to nurture the development of free societies in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and that same process can now benefit Bulgaria and Romania. Romania and Bulgaria have had unhappy histories in the past century. They were fought over by the Nazis and the Soviets and enslaved by communism. It is to those countries' enormous credit that they have come so far so fast since they became free in 1990. They have had to relearn not only democracy and the market economy but the more fundamental principles that underpin a liberal society: the rule of law, tolerance and respect for freedom. It has not always been easy going for them. Nor, as I shall explain later, may they be quite there yet.

The attraction of EU membership has been of huge importance as an incentive to all the former communist countries to choose a liberal future, free from the authoritarianism that has done so much to damage that part of the world. The accession process is not an easy one. Indeed, it is far harder than it should be. Much of the so-called acquis communautaire that these countries have to adopt is totally unnecessary and, indeed, damaging. Nevertheless, it is a tribute to their leaders that the European Union has been able to accept their candidature. I also congratulate my colleague Geoffrey van Orden, the European Parliament rapporteur on Bulgaria's accession.

The Commission communication of 25 October raised a number of serious concerns about Romania and Bulgaria's readiness for the hoped-for accession date of 1 January 2007. The Minister will be aware of Commissioner Olli Rehn's remarks—indeed, he quoted some of them. The Commissioner said that while

"over fifty per cent. of all areas monitored are non-problematic",

the Commission had serious concerns about 10 per cent. of areas. In particular, he said

"The failure to obtain even a single . . . conviction for high-level corruption in recent years . . . is a . . . serious concern in both countries."

Does the Minister envisage any prosecutions taking place before accession can be agreed?

The Commission's report states that immediate action is needed in a range of sectors if Romania and Bulgaria are to be ready for 2007. It gives many sombre specific warnings. The list is a long one:

"urgent and forceful action is needed to demonstrate the ability of Bulgaria and Romania to combat corruption effectively . . . both countries suffer from high levels of piracy and counterfeiting . . . Bulgaria and Romania do not possess sufficient border infrastructure . . . . specific restrictive measures may need to be imposed to prevent the internal security of the EU from being compromised . . . Bulgaria has failed to curb organised crime . . . here too the rule of law must be made to prevail . . . animal disease control is flawed in Bulgaria and Romania as serious diseases appear to be endemic."

That last criticism has particular salience given the current concern about avian flu. The report also doubts that either country yet has the capability to manage the structural funds to which they would be entitled. Given the Commission's long-running inability to audit its own expenditure, that is a real concern.

Let me make the same point that I made earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, in the case of Bulgaria, the new criminal procedures court deals with many of the concerns expressed by the Commission?

It is a very good instance of the progress that has been made, but we need to see it being used, and we need to see evidence that those measures will start to bite in dealing with organised crime and corruption in both countries.

My hon. Friend mentioned border security with Romania and Moldova. That is important, because a part of Moldova called Transnistria, an independent republic—I hope I have pronounced it correctly—is a very dangerous place, run by criminal gangs. I hope that the European Union provides enough funds for the Romanians to protect their border from infiltration from Moldova and Transnistria.

As I am still struggling to learn how to pronounce my hon. Friend's name, I am particularly impressed by his greater ability. He raised an important point, to which I shall return.

Every Member hopes that all the problems identified in the report can be overcome by 2007, but the Government must address the possibility that they will not be. What is the Government's assessment of the likelihood of the criteria being met? If they are not, what course does the Minister recommend? Should accession be delayed until 2008 or should the accession itself go ahead but with certain provisos, such as delayed access to the single market? If the latter, how long might the delays last?

Do the Government endorse the Commission's assessment? What conversations about that has the Minister had with our partners and with the European Commission? Is there a prevailing view among his colleagues? If one country is judged to have met the criteria but the other is not, should both countries' accession be delayed, or would the Government prefer to see their candidatures judged separately? Does the Minister consider it right that the Council could delay Romanian accession with a qualified majority, whereas unanimity would be required to delay Bulgarian accession?

Why is that?

I am asking the Minister to reply to that question.

Whoever decides those questions must look both backwards and forwards. Some might say that, in certain cases, the accession criteria were assessed broadly for the great enlargement last year because the political imperative was, after so long, to make that enlargement happen. But given the immense challenges that lie ahead in respect of an enlargement involving Turkey, Croatia and the rest of the western Balkans, and perhaps Ukraine, we must not give those countries the impression that standards can be fudged. Turkey would be rightly aggrieved if we judged its success in meeting EU standards by a stricter measure than that which we used for other countries. We must make it clear that that will not happen.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend thinks the acquis communautaire too bulky and often unhelpful. Would it not be a good idea if the Government, at the same time as negotiating with the candidate countries, tried to get Commissioner Verheugen to understand the need to cut the acquis communautaire substantially in the interests of competitiveness and prosperity in the EU?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point and that was one of the great missed opportunities of the British presidency. During Foreign Office questions earlier today, the Foreign Secretary referred to several directives that are being withdrawn, but nearly all of them do not apply to this country or are out of date in any case. The importance of identifying a great slew of things that do not need to be done by the EU has been missed, which is a tragedy.

We have looked at the issues that need to be addressed in clause 1, but the Commission's report also has implications for clause 2, which deals with regulations concerning the free movement of workers, with particular regard to the transitional period of up to seven years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many businesses throughout the country depend on the hard work of Poles and other people from the last round of accession countries? Would he care to revisit the Conservatives' position at the time of that accession and say whether he thinks it was right to oppose the opening of the UK market to workers from the 10 accession countries?

I shall deal with that point. One thing that we should learn from the previous expansion is that the Government's figures and predictions were entirely wrong, not least because the UK responded differently from our EU partners. The Government have to consider how to learn from that experience and what its implications are as we approach this latest expansion.

The Home Office's predictions for immigration from the accession 10 were spectacularly wrong. In 2003, it predicted that net immigration from the new member states would be between 5,000 and 13,000 a year to 2010. In fact, in the 14 months alone between 1 May 2004 and 30 June 2005, there were 232,000 applications for the workers registration scheme, of which 220,000 were accepted.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, not at the moment.

Will the Minister—the shadow Minister—give way?

The hon. Gentleman is previous in referring to me as a Minister. I shall give way shortly.

What are the Government's predictions for migration flows from Romania and Bulgaria in the event of expansion going ahead? How have they revised their methods in the light of how wide of the mark the previous predictions were? The accession treaty provides for the suspension of the free movement of workers in whole or in part if member states undergo or foresee serious disturbances of their labour markets. Given what has happened since May 2004, we can anticipate that many Romanian and Bulgarian citizens will want to come to Britain. There are strong economic reasons why many may want to do so. According to the Commission's most recent figures, both Romania and Bulgaria, despite their high rates of growth, still enjoy an average gross domestic product per head of only a little over 30 per cent. of that of the EU 25.

There are other concerns that the Government must take into account. The Commission's report raises the serious problems of organised crime and inadequate border controls. There is also people trafficking, which was also mentioned earlier. As the House knows, that problem is particularly severe in Moldova and Ukraine, both of which share a frontier with Romania. The Government must address that issue very seriously.

I am most grateful to the shadow Minister for Europe for giving way. He has not answered the question put to him by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). We are concerned not about the Government's predictions, but about the hysteria generated by the Opposition at the time of the previous enlargement, which was totally unjustified. The Minister said that the Government will consider the matter nearer the time. What is the Opposition's position?

If anyone is hysterical, it is the former Minister for Europe, and not the shadow Minister for Europe. The Opposition want the Government to give a clear answer as to what their approach will be. The countries involved are quite poor when compared with the rest of the EU 25. There will be considerable pressure and the hon. Gentleman should say whether he believes that there is a limit to the amount of inward migration that the UK can accommodate. The Government do not appear to know the answer to that question.

Will my hon. Friend the shadow Minister give way?

I cannot resist.

I might be able to help my hon. Friend. Is he aware that the average wage for junior public officials in Romania is between 50p and £1 an hour? On average, policemen earn about £1,000 a year and doctors £3,000 or £4,000. Is not that part of the problem that must be addressed if Romania and Bulgaria are to become full members?

I am overwhelmed by my hon. Friend's detailed knowledge of public sector salaries in Romania. It is helpful, but we still do not know whether the Government regard that as a cause for concern. The Minister refused to say earlier. Although the Government misjudged completely the impact of the previous enlargement, he thinks that it is too soon to say what the impact of this one will be.

Given the problems, what restrictions on the free movement of workers from Romania and Bulgaria do the Government propose? The Minister said that it was too soon to decide, but he could have given some indication of the Government's current thinking. He said that a decision would be taken closer to the time, perhaps in a year, but that is not good enough. The Government must have some plans or proposals for how they might react if the accession date of 1 January 2007 is met.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, not at the moment. What arrangements do the Government expect to have in place for the initial national or bilateral two-year period following accession? The date of 1 January 2007 is very near and, if it is to be met, the Government must have some plans and proposals.

Do the Government expect to extend national measures or bilateral arrangements for the rest of the transitional period? How will they monitor the suitability of their arrangements and what opportunities will they give Parliament to scrutinise and assess them? At a time when fears about further enlargement are taking hold in some EU countries, it is important that we make this enlargement a visible success. We need to get it right, and that means proper planning and forward thinking from the Minister and his colleagues.

Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), the Minister will have noticed that the accession treaty allows for the EU constitution to be in force, or not to be in force, or to be abandoned. I know that the treaty was signed before the referendums in France and the Netherlands, but does not the Minister find it extraordinary that there is no acknowledgement that the constitution has been democratically rejected?

The Opposition's position on the constitution is very clear. It is dead, and it would be utterly wrong to try to resurrect it. Will the Minister enlighten the House about the Government's view? Which of the three possibilities that I outlined does he expect to apply in 2007? He could be bolder: which of those possibilities would be the Government's preference? Perhaps he will not be that bold.

The Minister will recall that one of the arguments deployed on the constitution's behalf by the Government was that an enlarged EU would collapse in chaos without it. He may remember that the Prime Minister went so far as to say that the constitution was necessary to make accessions work. We said at the time that that was rubbish. We have been proved right since and the Bill makes the point again. The EU has many problems, but its current structures are coping perfectly well with an EU of 25 members and no one thinks that the accession of two more members will make matters worse.

The constitution was not about making an enlarged Europe work—it was about another agenda entirely. Will the Minister be gracious enough to admit that that particular line of spin has been shown to be plain wrong and that the Prime Minister's words were nonsense?

Does the shadow Minister accept that he is being a trifle ungracious in attacking the Minister for Europe on the collapse of the constitution since, as we all know, the Minister bears a heavy share of the credit?

The hon. Gentleman is always more gracious in his criticism of his Ministers than I am, and that was no exception.

The constitution is unnecessary, but other aspects of the EU should change. Its current policies, especially the common agricultural policy and the budget, are unsustainable for an enlarged Europe. Romania and Bulgaria have large agricultural sectors and the 10 new members are not yet being paid the full agricultural subsidy that they will be due—and that is not to mention the profoundly destructive effects of the CAP on the developing world and world trade.

This latest enlargement is just one more reason for further reform of the CAP and the EU budget. The Government have been exceptionally well placed to do something about that, because we currently hold the EU presidency. Yet, whether through incompetence or timidity, or both, they are doing very little. Neither the budget nor CAP reform was on the agenda for last week's curtailed summit. Worse, we were astonished to discover from written answers to me last week that the Government have failed to make any detailed proposals on CAP reform or any proposal whatever on the budget. The Government are receiving a wealth of criticism from all quarters for their handling of the presidency and it is wholly justified. There are two months of the presidency yet to run. The Government need to get their act together fast.

The EU is already creaking. It does too much and much of what it does, it does badly. It is unresponsive to what the peoples of Europe actually want. As the Information Society and Media Commissioner recently admitted, for too long it has been a project for a small political elite. We want the EU to be a success in the 21st century for an enlarged Europe. For that to happen, it must change. It must become more accountable. It must recognise that the federalist agenda of ever closer union is the fast lane to a dead end. It should return powers to the member states, where the states are better suited to wielding them. It must become a real force for open markets.

My hon. Friend may not have noticed that there has been some chuntering during his comments that remarks about reform of the European Union have nothing to do with Bulgaria's and Romania's accession. May I put it to him that they have everything to do with it, because we are talking about what the European Union is going to look like in the next few years? In a week in which it looks as if the Doha talks may collapse because of France's intransigence over the CAP, reform of the CAP has everything to do with the future of Europe and with Romanian and Bulgarian accession.

Order. That intervention is very helpful in giving me an opportunity to say that the Bill is quite narrow and about the two countries to which it refers. We are not having a general debate about Europe.

As ever, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance, but it is crucial that we should bear in mind the shape and structure that will apply to the two new countries—

Order. The point I am making is that it is all right to refer to that in passing, but devoting your time to the generalities of Europe is not what I am looking for.

I am passing, Mr. Speaker, and approaching my conclusion.

The EU, with enlargement, must become a real force for open markets, free trade and a freer, safer world. The EU can become a liberating force for good in the world, or it can become an economic and political backwater. The constitution's fall has left the EU in flux. Leadership with clear vision and the skill to turn that vision into reality could set a new direction for Europe.

The accession of Romania and Bulgaria is an important part of our vision for a wider, more flexible EU. If those countries can meet the criteria for membership, it will be a triumph for them and a cause for celebration, but very real concerns remain about the readiness of the candidate countries and the Government's approach. We shall continue to monitor progress and to press the Government to ensure that both countries fully meet all criteria before accession takes place. We look forward to welcoming Romania and Bulgaria as members of the EU, and that is why I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill this evening.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, because I am moving to the conclusion of my remarks, but it is always a shame not to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

It is important to recognise that much hard work remains to be done to demonstrate that those countries are finally ready for membership. Their progress to date gives grounds for optimism. I hope that the support of this House will give them further encouragement.

I strongly support the Bill, because I strongly support the principle—and, I hope, the practice—that Romania and Bulgaria should be given the opportunity to join the European Union. It will not be an automatic process, as earlier exchanges between the occupants of the Front Benches showed.

It is not easy to meet the acquis, and it will be difficult for Romania and Bulgaria, just as it was for the other countries of eastern Europe. It is not only the politicians and the bureaucrats of the countries, but the people who need to be inspired to meet the acquis. The challenge now is even more difficult than it was five, six or seven years ago, because at that time it was conclusive that joining the EU was the right thing to do. In 1995, 1996 and 1997, the EU was a forward-looking organisation that played an important role in the world, with strong economies—especially in Britain after 1997—and a sense of social responsibility and common purpose. So it was easier to inspire the people of the countries seeking to accede to the European Union with the conviction that it was the right thing to do.

In today's climate, the people of Romania and Bulgaria will ask the same questions, and will have to weigh up whether the gains will be greater than the doubts. I have no doubt that the gains will outweigh the doubts, but before the people of those countries reach that conclusion they will ask several questions about accession and the EU. Those questions will be similar to those that are being asked in Britain and the other member states.

I recall visiting Bucharest in 1997 and talking to people on the streets. They were very conscious of their country's history over the past 40 years. They supposedly lived under communism, although I think that they lived in a state that was nearer fascism—it is a matter of political definition. They had no freedoms, there was little collective social responsibility and the state was isolated. That was not just political theory; it felt very real when walking the streets of Bucharest. I was there on a wet November day—it bore some resemblance to parts of Newcastle or Glasgow on a bad day—and noticed all the Soviet-style buildings that had been imposed on Romania, which is Francophile, if anything. Public services were poor and there were many beggars and other obvious signs of poverty on the streets. There was also a clear sense of corruption and a fear of being caught out, because if that happened, those exercising the corruption could impose their will on the individual concerned. I remain convinced that the people of Romania—I suspect that the same is true of the people of Bulgaria—wanted to put that behind them and look forward to a better way.

That was what people were looking for then, but judging the specifics today—this is my main point—is not so straightforward. Things have improved in Romania and Bulgaria as they move towards the acquis and become more involved with the rest of Europe and the world, but there are, of course, still gaps that must be filled in meeting the acquis.

My hon. Friend describes today's EU as something quite different from the EU of 1997, when he was Europe Minister. I certainly agree with him, but is not the difference that whereas the EU, with the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland, was then a rich man's club, since the last accession in May last year people are looking at the EU as something other than a rich man's club and are beginning to wonder whether they want to pay the bills?

My hon. Friend's observation is right. I would make the further observation that, although he and I think that extending the rich man's club is desirable, there are arguments among the rich men about how much they should pay and what they should get. That is one of the things that people are looking at in Romania, and I hope to say more about that, although I do not want to abuse the time available.

The people whom I met in 1997 were told that the EU was about common purpose, being positive and so on. Today, they will be assessing that against how they see what is happening in the EU from the south-east of Europe. They will be looking at issues such as the constitution. For me, the constitution was about managing the EU better. That view is not held by all hon. Members. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the constitution was about the EU's powers and the relative powers of the different EU institutions. We have the luxury, in a civilised and relatively prosperous place, to look at the EU like that, as part of a genuine political debate, but it is not a matter of life and death; nor is it about the future of our society.

For people in Bulgaria and Romania, this is a matter of the future of their society, and we have already heard about the economic power of those countries and their GDP per capita. They are asking what accession will mean. I do not know whether they saying that the powers will change, or whether they are looking for a better management structure, but that question will be asked keenly, especially when the various technicians in those countries consider how to meet the acquis. They will also consider the budget. They will say, "We are relatively poor people. What will being in the EU be like for us? Do we know the budget's overall size?"

We probably do know the budget's size—we have debated the 1 per cent. figure in the House before—and people in Romania and Bulgaria in south-east Europe will look at the EU and say, "We know the budget's overall size." Pleasingly, they will be able to see that virtually everyone in the EU is committed to moving the funding away from western Europe and towards the eastern European side of the EU. However, they cannot yet work out what will happen between 2007 and 2013—to which reference was made during Question Time—so although they will know that they will not be major contributors, they will not know how much they will receive to develop their economies and their society. That is an important issue in Romania and Bulgaria, when we are trying to persuade people that the EU is a good thing and that there is a need to work hard to meet the acquis.

People in Bulgaria and Romania will also ask about the implications of other questions. If they join the EU, how will they relate to their neighbours? Will Croatia or Turkey become part of the EU in the future? What policy implications will that have for Bulgaria and Romania? Those questions are not yet answered, but looking from south-east Europe, both the Bulgarians and the Romanians can say that there is a relatively enlightened view about those matters. There is a willingness to extend the EU into areas such as Croatia and Turkey, but what the conditions will be and which acquis they must meet are unknown. However, that will generally be a positive thing when people in Romania and Bulgaria consider how they might achieve the acquis.

The most important thing for the people of Romania and Bulgaria will be the fact that joining the European Union will lead to an irreversible shift in the political situation in which those countries and peoples find themselves. If they join the European Union, they will know that there will be no return to the communism or neo-fascism that led to all the horrors that they had to face for 30 to 40 years. The people of Romania and Bulgaria will know that joining the European Union will mean one zone, one political culture, one democracy and one set of human rights, and that will convince them of the necessary way forward.

The hon. Gentleman is giving the House the benefit of an extremely thoughtful analysis. In preparing himself for giving that analysis, did he consider the alternative for those countries? If they did not become members of the European Union, it would be difficult to envisage how they would break out of the cycle of corruption and inadequate economic development.

I agree with many matters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises—I find myself in that camp again today. There is no democratic alternative for those countries in the medium and long term. If accession negotiations failed with Romania, Bulgaria and the other countries to which we have referred, they would have nowhere else to go, unless an undemocratic totalitarian tendency emerged in south-east Europe.

People will look at the strengths of the European Union. The strong fight against terrorism and unity against terrorism are strong aspects of the Union. Given the Union's unity when helping the rest of the world to come on board economically through various forms of assistance and aid, countries such as Bulgaria and Romania could explain to their people that they would be joining a worthwhile organisation.

I have no doubt that when the people of those two countries consider the issues—assuming that they meet the acquis—they will think that turning north-westwards will mean that they can end their isolation and bring themselves into a democratic world. They will have a guarantee that the EU will insist on human rights being maintained in their countries, if they cannot do that themselves. They will have a better opportunity for economic prosperity than they would have otherwise. I thus hope that the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.

The Bill underlines an intriguing paradox. It is the latest step in a remarkable process of enlargement that the European Union has successfully prosecuted almost in spite of itself. Economic gloom has been prevalent in the European Union and there have been disagreements about foreign policy issues, such as Iraq. The ill-fated constitution has collapsed and there is malaise among EU institutions. Despite that, the European Union has somehow remarkably managed to expand in a few short years from roughly 350 million citizens to about 475 million citizens, and with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria the figure will soon be just over 500 million. By anyone's reckoning, that is an extraordinary triumph of hope over pessimism.

Enlargement has always been driven by the geostrategic good sense of consolidating liberal democracy throughout Europe—I say that in a non-partisan, if somewhat wistful, fashion—and the moral duty to reunite a divided continent. It is thus ironic that such good sense and moral purpose seem to have prevailed at exactly the time when the European Union has been fractious and introverted, as has certainly been the case in recent years. While getting Bulgaria and Romania up to the starting line and launching the process of enlargement has been a remarkably positive process, one big question looms: how do we make enlargement and an enlarged European Union socially, politically and economically sustainable? Many difficult questions are therefore posed of existing members of the European Union, as well as the new applicants and members.

I have two general observations and one specific observation. First, enlargement and an enlarged European Union, as some hon. Members suggested, will not be possible unless the public and political case is made to electorates throughout the EU in more forceful terms than has been the case hitherto. We have seen the profound sense of unease and anxiety among electorates in other parts of the EU when voting on the European constitution, in which unrelated and, in my view, unfounded fears and anxieties about the process of enlargement were brought to bear on the debate.

We like to think that public opinion in this country is solid and uniformly enlightened. However, as the prospect of, for instance, Turkish membership hoves into ever closer horizons, I suspect that public opinion will equally prove to be more volatile than has been the case until now. Advocates of a more diverse and wider EU have a great incentive to unite to make the case not only for Romania and Bulgaria's accession, but for potential members elsewhere, lest we allow fear and anxiety to overshadow the benefits of enlargement more generally.

My second observation is that Romania, Bulgaria, the 10 countries that joined in May 2004, Turkey, if it were to join, and any other potential applicant will not find that the EU provides the benefits for which they hoped if there is not a greater consensus about what the EU should and should not do. It is unrealistic to imagine that a highly integrated political and economic club of such a size and diversity as the EU—now 25 members, soon to be 27, and no doubt more after that—can act effectively if it is afflicted by constant internal political bickering. That will take time to overcome.

The EU is in a moment of transition from one form of integration to another. No one on any side of the debate quite knows what that pattern of integration will be in years to come. We may require a new generation of political leaders. Change has already occurred, if in somewhat half-hearted fashion, in Germany. It is likely to take place in Italy, France and this country, too. Whoever is in charge in the future needs to re-create a consensus that has been lost. Without that consensus about the fundamental purpose of the EU, the glue that is necessary for such a diverse club to hang together will disappear. The risk of long-term disunity—I suggest mischievously that that might be why some advocates of enlargement have always been so supportive of it—in an organisation with such a large membership is real and needs to be addressed.

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Is not the serious division at the heart of Europe about economics, as the elite try to thrust on it a neo-liberal version of the economy that people do not want? If we could agree on a more relaxed social democratic approach, it would be much more popular with everyone.

I do not recognise that characterisation of the debates, which undoubtedly exist, about economic policy. If one compares any of the EU social and economic models with what exists in north America, one would have to agree that there is a degree of unity in the mix of economic and social policies that is, perhaps, a little more progressive than the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic analysis suggests.

The process of accession must be rigorous, credible and thorough. That is why I applaud the rigour and detail of the European Commission's report on Bulgaria and Romania. It is not fashionable to praise the Commission, but anyone who reads its report will be impressed by the detail and independence with which officials assessed the validity of the claim from Romania and Bulgaria to join.

It would be a disservice to Romania and Bulgaria, let alone the rest of the European Union, to let them in unprepared. There is always some risk when allowing new member states into the EU because they make promises today which will not be fulfilled tomorrow, next year or for a number of years. One is necessarily making a bet, but the trick is to minimise that risk. That is why I urge the Minister to take very seriously the warnings and the potential use of safeguard measures set out in the Commission's report.

I urge the Minister also to address himself to the crucial question raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). There is an unusual safeguard mechanism that would allow the Council of Ministers, on the back of a report from the European Commission in, I think, spring next year, to defer final accession for another year, but that is not much of a threat if it is merely a deferral by 12 months of a process that will then conclude on 1 January 2008. I am a passionate supporter of Romanian and Bulgarian accession, but I believe that this is when we have the greatest leverage over political developments in those countries and, as the Commission's report has highlighted in sometimes chilling detail, there is a great deal to be done.

I urge hon. Members to look at page 7 of the report, which covers everything from the total lack of enforcement of animal welfare rules and the absence of the administrative capacity necessary to absorb EU structural and agricultural funds to the lack of the rule of law in dealing with corruption. It says of the latter:

"The unambiguous enforcement of the rule of law is a precondition for any country aspiring to EU membership",

yet the analysis clearly shows that such enforcement is absent. Concern is also expressed about the lack of border infrastructure. The report says:

"Specific restrictive measures may need to be imposed to prevent the internal security of the EU from being compromised."

Enormous change will need to happen in Romania and Bulgaria for those things to be remedied.

Has the hon. Gentleman happened on the parts in both reports that highlight the challenges both countries face on the treatment of minorities, not least the Roma population? Does he hope, as I believe he does, that those countries will do everything in their power to solve a deep-seated, if not centuries-long, problem? Not much time is left to change quite a lot in both countries.

Indeed. That is merely one on a long list of outstanding issues that need to be dealt with in Romania and Bulgaria. It reinforces the point that if one wants to encourage those countries to make those political reforms, and to apply pressure, one needs to exercise leverage at the best time, which is now. The effect of that leverage will be blunted if accession is guaranteed—it may be a guarantee that is deferred by 12 months, but it is a guarantee nevertheless.

The hon. Gentleman is making some good points, but does he accept that there is a slight danger of being too strict—stricter on this occasion than we were during the last accession process? I am thinking particularly of how Slovakia was dealt with. Is there not a danger of unequal treatment?

I imagine that it would be difficult to apply a perfect measure of consistency. In the last process, 10 countries were allowed to accede in one bloc, and there is inevitably greater scrutiny when only two countries are under the microscope. That in no way diminishes the objective importance of dealing with all the administrative, social, legal and ethnic issues in the way laid out so clearly by the Commission.

In the next few years—it may be later rather than sooner—the House may find itself debating Turkey's membership of the European Union. That will be an altogether more complicated and controversial exercise than this debate. It will not be possible to have a rational political debate about such a controversial step as accepting Turkey into the EU if the rigour and credibility of the enlargement process has not already been proven. The manner in which we examine Bulgaria and Romania's case and decide over the next few months whether those countries should join and on what terms sets an important precedent for the debate that we shall no doubt have in some years to come on Turkey.

With those caveats in mind, I conclude by saying that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I strongly support the Bill's Second Reading. We hope that the rest of the House will join us in doing so.

I am pleased to take part in the debate. I have had a long-standing interest in Bulgaria and its people over many years. I first travelled to the country in 1985 as a member of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. It was the first democratic centralist country that I had visited. I was not enamoured of its politics, but I was enamoured of its people—that was my experience and that of my colleagues—and I have kept in close contact with Bulgaria ever since. On my return I was asked to be an officer of the all-party Bulgaria group. I accepted that invitation and for the past decade I have been the chairman of the group.

I hope that the House will forgive me for talking about Bulgaria in terms of my views on what has happened there. I have visited Romania, but I have more knowledge of Bulgaria. While the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is in his place, I should say that I had not intended mentioning workers from those countries coming to the UK. The hon. Gentleman will remember, however, that last year there was a big row about work permits being issued to people from Romania and Bulgaria. I remember that the Opposition sailed the Sheffield whistleblower into a television studio to say how awful the system was. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench then initiated an investigation into the issuing of work permits to people from Romania and Bulgaria. As a result, a hold was put on applications.

Within about two weeks of that decision being taken I received a phone call from an agency—I suppose that that person would be called a gangmaster—in Essex. I also received a call from Sofia. I convened a meeting because there was a crisis in Essex at the time. The gangmaster from Essex attended the meeting, as did a gangmaster who had flown over from Bulgaria. There were three Conservative Members present, who had come along because of the mess in Essex agriculture. It was fruit picking time and all the permits under the temporary agricultural workers scheme had been stopped.

There had long been links with Sofia university, and for many years, under different Governments, students studying English at that university came to Essex to work as fruit pickers. They would earn some money and learn English in, as it were, the mother country. There were terrible problems at the time. I brokered a deal that involved the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who is now a Minister. I phoned them to explain that if we relaxed the stop on the temporary agricultural workers scheme so that the students could come to this country and the fruit could be picked, everything would be all right—and it would also ensure that there would not be another row in a television studio. As far as I am aware, the solution worked very well.

There are strong links between Romania and Bulgaria and the United Kingdom. There is no great threat from people from either country coming to work in the UK. Many people from those countries do so now, and many have done so for decades.

On the broader point of making Europe more and more competitive, particularly in relation to the United States, labour mobility should be encouraged and supported. Our concern should be driven mainly on levelling up trade and professional qualifications, rather than trying to debar skilled, talented and enthusiastic workers from not only the UK but the rest of Europe, not least to fill the skill gaps that many countries have.

That is quite true. Unfortunately, we do not hear such debates on EU legislation.

As I said, my connections with Bulgaria go back 20 years, as I first visited the country in May 1985. My second visit was in 1990 as an elections observer, and that was followed by another two visits with the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the 1990s, when we saw genuine changes in the nature of politics and political parties. The Union of Democratic Forces came on to the scene in the early 1990s. The only part of its ideology that I could grasp was the fact that it was anti-communist—I did not know where it stood either economically or on anything else. However, it was testing the changes that were taking place. In 1985, Tzum, the big supermarket in Sofia, had plenty of things on its shelves, but in the 1990s there were only broken biscuits. Because of the country's closeness to Russia, its economy was shattered by the changes in eastern Europe and it took a long time for it to recover.

There have been many changes of Government in Bulgaria, all of them affected by changes in an economy which, with the exception of the past five years, was in a negative condition. Elections were held in June this year, when there was a fightback by the Bulgarian Socialist party—the new name for the Communist party. In 2000, I was invited by General Secretary Sergei Stanishev, who has since been appointed Prime Minister, to his party's congress. I went to Bulgaria on a family holiday and stopped at Sofia for the 45th congress of the BSP—quite an achievement, because the party had existed for only eight years. International observers, however, witnessed genuine debate in the BSP among old communists and new members such as Sergei, about the need to change both their ideology and their view of the outside world.

There have been changes both in Bulgarian political parties and in the nature of the country's Parliament. After my visit in early June 2002 to the BSP congress, I was invited to visit the country as a guest of the British embassy and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On 1 July, I made a speech on ethical standards in public life and the experience of the British Parliament. I arrived early, however, to participate in a weekend seminar with Bulgarian Members of Parliament on standards and privileges. The day before I was due to give my speech at the embassy, I was asked to give an interview to a daily newspaper in Sofia. I was asked about standards in public life, but suddenly the reporter asked what I would do if traffic police impounded my car. A Bulgarian MP had had a falling-out with the traffic police after his car was impounded. He went to the pound and demanded its return, banging his fist on the counter. He was caught on CCTV, and was hounded by the media about the incident. I told the reporter that such behaviour would not be allowed in Britain, as Members of Parliament could not get away with using their influence in such a way. Two days later, a motion was passed in the Bulgarian Parliament to introduce a standards and privileges committee based on the British model. That Parliament has therefore learned a great deal from us over the years.

We thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us a guided tour of Bulgaria, which we find fascinating, but may I bring him back to the subject of the debate? I have never been to Bulgaria, although, having heard what he says, perhaps I will go. Is he not concerned about the Commission's report that organised crime in Bulgaria is increasing? My hon. Friends and I are worried about what will happen when Bulgaria enters the EU, unless certain Chinese walls are put up by the Commission to prevent organised criminals moving west.

I know I have gone on a bit, but I will come to that topic before I sit down.

The UK is the third largest investor in Bulgaria. Some of our major firms are there. Through the all-party group, I have contact with British businesses based there and I have been there to talk to British business men in years gone by. Last year 259,000 British tourists visited Bulgaria, not just to ski or for the sun—many are buying property in Bulgaria. Many of our constituents now have property there.

No one would deny that Bulgaria has problems, particularly organised crime, which is dominated by several large criminal groups whose activities are accompanied by turf wars and inter-gang violence. Just last week there was a shooting incident in Sofia. Other speakers have mentioned the problems of Bulgaria's borders. There is no doubt that the country is a transit area for the smuggling of people and drugs from Afghanistan into Europe.

Hon. Members should not think that no effort has been made to stop drug trafficking from Afghanistan through Bulgaria. I have spoken to our agencies, which have worked with the Bulgarian authorities for years to put a stop to that. There are problems with the movement of drugs in this country as well, which we find difficult to control. It is said that only 5 per cent. of what comes into the UK is caught, but no one knows whether that is the true figure.

Several hon. Members mentioned organised crime and the steps that Bulgaria is taking to tackle it. The Commission's report earlier this year considered the problems in some detail. The Bulgarians do not deny that problems exist—far from it. In The Economist this week there are comments from the Prime Minister about the situation there. Bulgaria had elections in June, but it was not until September that a Government were formed from a coalition of three parties. Consequently, legislation that would go to the heart of the Commission's report has been delayed.

The new criminal procedure code that was mentioned was adopted by the national Parliament on 14 October. The code avoids any overlaps and ensures that the pre-trial system is efficient and transparent. Nobody denies that there are problems with the judicial system—there certainly are. In addition to the criminal procedure code, which is expected to be introduced in six months, another positive development has been the reform of the pre-trial phase and the decision of the constitutional court, which was taken on 1 September this year. There is also a new draft law on the Ministry of the Interior, which was adopted on its first reading by the national Assembly on 6 October 2005.

Bulgaria's efforts to sort out its problems should not be dismissed. It is working to do so with the help of the Commission, the UK Government and some of their agencies, and other EU Governments and their agencies. There is a determination to overcome their problems. No one should doubt that Bulgaria and Romania will join the EU. We have accepted that. The debate now is about whether it will be in 2007 or a year later. There are many problems, one of which involves the Roma people in Romania, which I have seen at first hand on more than one occasion. We deal with similar problems on a smaller scale in some of our communities every day of the week.

The biggest event in my political life was not entering the House, but the fall of the Berlin wall, getting rid of ideology in Europe, and the change in our lives. I welcome the further step of Bulgaria and Romania's accession, which will be a change for ever.

I shall not deal with Bulgaria, but I shall deal with Romania, with which I have had personal contacts for a very long time. I give a broad welcome to the fact that both countries are applying for membership of the European Union. I strongly believe in the widening of Europe, but I am not so sure about the deepening of Europe. However, that is a debate for another day. No wonder the Minister for Europe smiles when I say that.

If one country in the whole of Europe needs our help, it is Romania. It has endured a very difficult period. I am afraid that the whole story will never be written of the sadness, sorrow and persecution—especially religious persecution—that its people suffered. There is a strong Baptist denomination in Romania, and the Baptists were at the receiving end of much persecution. One of the leaders of the Baptist union showed me a calendar on which the birth of Christ had been removed and in its place put the birth of the dictator who ruled the country. If they had not agreed to that, no calendar would have been allowed to be printed.

A friend of mine is very fluent in the English tongue and he was offered a good position as an interpreter. He refused, because he was handed a script that differed from what the person said. It was written by the dictator and put into the mouths of officials and consuls from other countries, and he had to read it. His punishment was that his wife, a doctor who worked in a hospital some five miles from the capital city, was ordered to walk to and from her work every day. She had to rise early every morning and walk five miles, and then walk five miles back every night after a gruelling time. One of the main Baptist churches that enlarged its premises was refused the right to have any toilet accommodation.

Those were the persecution tactics of a regime that, thank God, is no longer there. But some of its fellow travellers are still there and they are not keen on seeing democracy and freedom in their fullness. I welcome the fact that Romania is going to make its way towards alleviating long years of sadness, sorrow and bitterness. I should like that to be encouraged, but it must be encouraged along the right road. The facts show that there are great difficulties in Romania. It is estimated that the country lost $2.5 billion over a few years due to the levels of corruption. From January to October 2002, more than $1.5 billion was illegally transferred abroad. Crime is at a high rate, with masterminds of evil behind it. Romania needs all the help that it can get.

I am not enamoured with the Commission. I sat for 25 years in the European Parliament, and the Commission could have done a lot more to deal with fraud in its own offices, but it refused to act. A former leader of the Labour party was put in charge of tackling fraud, but he was unable to settle the matter, so the fraud went on—if he could not settle it, it must be dug down into the ditches and well covered over. This House must say to the Commission that if the Commission is going to inspect others, it should inspect itself and put its own house in order, which would give us more confidence.

No hon. Member, and especially not those of us who want the EU to be broadened, wants to keep those two countries out of the European Union. By broadening the EU, we will have far more freedom than by deepening it and by tying it into our constitution, which would form a straitjacket. That is a debate for another day and I fear the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who may even whisper to the Clerk—once the Clerk and Mr. Deputy Speaker get together, it is goodbye— [Laughter.] I have heard that laughter for many long years.

In conclusion, we wish those two countries well. They are taking steps that will be opposed even in their own circle, but they are taking them because they see a better way ahead. We also wish the Minister well. He has been honest at the Dispatch Box and has faced up to the issues. I hope that I am still in this House to welcome those two countries into a Europe that is really free.

I am certain that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) will be in the House when Romania and Bulgaria join the EU, because, as far as we know, there will be no general election until 2010. I congratulate him on his forthcoming elevation to the Privy Council.

It must be a special Bill to unite the Ulster Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish nationalists, the Welsh nationalists and everybody else. I have a feeling that there will not be a vote tonight and that the Bill will proceed with all parties consenting to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, but things might happen between now and the end of the debate, so we must wait and see. When previous accession Bills were presented to the House, they were passed with substantial majorities and no one opposed them.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has left the Chamber, but earlier he said that the Conservative party has always supported enlargement. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) reminded him that the present chairman of the Conservative party—for the time being—was shadow Minister for Europe at the time of the Nice negotiations and was very much in favour of a referendum on the Nice treaty, which would have blocked the countries that joined so successfully on 1 May 2004. I know that memories are short, but it is worth remembering that fact.

This Government have always championed enlargement. Since the Prime Minister took office in 1997, he has mentioned EU enlargement in every speech that he has made in continental Europe. In particular, he set out what type of Europe he wanted to see develop in his speech in Warsaw in 2000, when he made it clear that it would be a prime achievement for this Government if Poland and the other countries then applying were allowed to join, which they did in 2004.

We are welcoming Romania and Bulgaria a little late because they started their negotiations at exactly the same time as other countries that have subsequently joined. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) was right to remind us that the process is difficult and laborious. He was also right to commend those countries for going through the acquis communautaire to such an extent. Of course, all 35 chapters have to be agreed to and fulfilled; the acquis must be completed in full.

Congratulations are due to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. We are in the middle of our presidency, which some have described as low key, but I believe that it has been extraordinarily successful. We are not only presenting the accession Bill on Bulgaria and Romania to Parliament earlier than many of our partners—only three other countries, together with the European Parliament and Romania and Bulgaria, have ratified—but the Government decided on 3 October to switch on the green light for beginning accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. To paraphrase the hon. Member for North Antrim, I hope that I am in the House—I know that the Minister will be because he is much younger than me—when the accession Bills for Turkey and Croatia are presented to Parliament.

All the arguments have been eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), the Minister, the shadow Minister for Europe and others about the importance of Bulgaria and Romania joining a united Europe, which provides a huge trading area. Those countries have been our partners for many years. I do not know as much about Bulgaria as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who had to leave the Chamber to chair the Yorkshire group. He spoke with great knowledge of Bulgaria. When I was Minister for Europe, I visited it for only eight hours. Similarly, I visited Romania for only seven hours. When one is a Minister in those circumstances, one never quite gets a feel for the country. However, as those countries approach their accession, I imagine that there is a great deal of hope about their entry into the EU.

The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North what the alternative was. It is, of course, staying out, which means being isolated. When so many people are prepared to criticise the EU, why is there a queue of countries waiting to join? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam reminded us that we are always debating a crisis—the European constitution, which the French rejected, problems in European policy, no agreement on the budget and so on. Everyone tries to exploit the problems in the EU but today we are discussing a genuine good news story, which will greatly benefit the people of Europe and ensure that, at last, we can share our experience throughout the continent. As we all know, Romania and Bulgaria will not be the last countries that want to join the EU.

Clause 2 deals with the worker registration scheme. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality is present because he replied to a parliamentary question from me on 11 July, saying that he did not believe it was appropriate at this stage to review the scheme, although a review was promised for two years afters its introduction on 1 May 2004. My hon. Friend offered me some good news: there is no backlog in dealing with the scheme—most of the applications are processed in a few days and 90 per cent. are processed in four weeks. That is a great credit to the Home Office, with which I and others hon. Members, including the Minister, who have heavy immigration case loads, often find cause for concern. The scheme works quickly and that means that decisions are given quickly.

I was very much against the scheme when the Government introduced it. I felt that there was no need for a registration scheme if we were sending out a message to new member countries that they were equal partners with the United Kingdom and that their citizens should have the same access to our country as ours have to theirs. At the time, there was hysteria from the Conservatives—

No!

The hon. Gentleman says no, but there was hysteria. The Conservatives said that all these people would come over from the 10 countries and steal our jobs and those of our families and children, and that they would cause havoc in our inner cities and all go on benefit. It was going to be a disaster. Oh, it was going to be dreadful! The Leader of the Opposition was even proposing to go to Luton airport to make a list of all the people arriving from Warsaw or Krakow.

In fact, none of that ever happened. We had a highly successful enlargement, involving 232,000 people coming here. Of those, 1,700 applied for income support or similar benefits, but only 800 were granted those benefits. The others were refused. So, according to the figures that I have received—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if they are wrong—only a handful of those 232,000 people have gone on benefits. What are the rest doing? I have heard that they are doing great things in Essex, and I know from what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has said that they are doing great things in Scotland. I also know that they are doing great things in my city. They are European citizens who are contributing to the economy of our country and thereby making our country stronger.

German and French Ministers must be kicking themselves that they did not show the foresight and leadership that was demonstrated by our Ministers in making this decision. If we believe in a Europe that treats all its countries as equals, we must also treat the citizens of those countries as equals, and that is what the United Kingdom has done. That is why there is so much good will when our Prime Minister goes to the Council of Ministers—as he did at Hampton Court recently—and why the new members of the European Union treat our country with such respect. They know that we have shown leadership on this issue.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives made a real fuss about all these Poles coming over. I speak as someone of Polish background, and I know that the total freedom for Poles and people of other nationalities to come over is causing a great many problems for services in their own countries. There is now a severe shortage of dentists and nurses in Poland because they are all coming over to the United Kingdom—

Order. It would be helpful if we tried to look forward rather than back. The scope of this debate is very narrow, and I do not think that we should dilate too far beyond its boundaries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was definitely not going to dilate on this point. However, I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman. He has a huge role to play in his party because of his background. First, he needs to tell to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West how to pronounce his name, because the hon. Gentleman said that he did not know how to do so. Secondly, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and all other hon. Members have a role to play in ensuring that our constituents understand the benefits of the enlargement outlined in the Bill. This is not just about passing a Bill in the House. It is also about campaigning on the issue of enlargement, and we need to ensure that that happens. The hon. Gentleman has a role to play in ensuring that it happens in his party.

On clause 2, I know that the Minister needs to consult the Home Office, and that the Home Office will have to consult the Department for Work and Pensions, but I believe that we need to be much clearer on the issue. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot make a decision on it today, or give us an answer on it when he winds up the debate. This involves a long process, but it is important that we have clarity on the matter. He says that we must wait until nearer the time of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria for a decision to be made, and I understand why he does so. All that I ask is that we do not wait until a few weeks before accession, by which time the Opposition will have built up the kind of hysteria that we have just heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. He spoke of the relatively low wages of policemen, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) reminded us of the low wages of other people.

That will build up over the next two years. We must lance the boil at an early stage. I know that we cannot have a decision now, but it is in the interests of Romania and Bulgaria, in the interests of our entry clearance operation and in the interests of the Home Office, which still has to deal with the cases of people from Romania and Bulgaria—principally the Roma who are already in this country and seeking asylum—for the matter to be clarified to some extent. Let us not leave it until everyone becomes hysterical again; let us have a decision as near as possible to the final decision. Otherwise we shall be left where we were on 1 May 2004, rushing legislation through the House and causing upsets among our European partners just before they come into the European Union. Clarity would be very helpful.

My final point is the one made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. We must engage with the British people on the European issue. I know that the Minister has travelled a great deal over the last six months, and he performs his job superbly as the champion of enlargement. I raised this point in passing with the Foreign Secretary during Question Time today. It is all very well going to Alabama and bonding with Condoleezza Rice, but we have the presidency at least for the next eight weeks. We are pushing forward legislation before most of our EU partners. Let us engage with the British people. I know that it will be difficult to do it before the end of the year, but let us go out and campaign on Europe. Let us be proud of being good Europeans, and let us continue to show the leadership that we have shown over the past eight years in Europe so that we can fashion the future according to our vision of what we want to happen.

Until he started dilating, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made rather a good speech.

I think that we should see enlargement as a significant success not just for the European Union, but for United Kingdom foreign policy over a number of years. When Britain, under Harold Macmillan, first applied to join the then common market, Charles de Gaulle—who vetoed our application way back in 1963—explained that British accession would mean

"another common market . . . one that would be taken to 11 and then 13 and then perhaps 18 . . . It is not at all what France is doing or wants to do."

One of his Ministers, Jean-Marcel Jeanneney, added that if the grouping expanded beyond its original six members it would become a more free market, closer to the United States and increasingly Anglophone. In all those respects, he has been proved right. The European Union has spent much of the past 20 years liberalising markets and admitting countries—Nordic or eastern European—where English is established as the second language. I think we should see enlargement not only as something inherently democratic that has widened the European Union, but as something that has benefited the United Kingdom as a whole and enhanced our collective vision of Europe.

We should also recognise, however, that enlargement of itself is not enough. I have been in the House long enough to see a number of accession Bills, including the one that enabled Spain and Portugal to enter the European Union. There is a danger that we shall leave the debate having accepted this Bill's Second Reading without a vote, feeling a warm glow about the forthcoming entry of yet another two countries to the European Union. We must recognise that a phenomenal amount of work has to be done within the EU, and with that in mind I shall make two brief points, the first of which concerns competitiveness.

There is no point in bringing countries such as Bulgaria and Romania into the EU if we are to fall behind other parts of the world. It is very good that the Prime Minister and other Heads of Government paid attention to this issue last week at Hampton Court. However, we have to look to markets such as China, and to recognise that certain EU labour markets are in severe danger of becoming sclerotic. We must recognise that no one in the world owes Europe a living; we have to compete with the rest of the world.

Secondly, unless we can learn how to reform the EU, we will never make any progress. Perhaps the most important thing that will happen between now and the Christmas break is the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Hong Kong. Last week, the French finance Minister—not the French agriculture Minister—made it clear that the common agricultural policy as it stands is a foundation stone of Europe that cannot be changed in any way. He used dramatic language, saying that if the CAP were reformed in any way, we would have future pandemics. I recommend that Members read the report of his comments in the Financial Times of 27 October.

We are not seeing any significant movement from the EU on the WTO negotiations on the CAP. It would be a real tragedy if the Doha development round collapsed because Europe was incapable of recognising that it can no longer sustain the CAP in its current form—that it is no longer right in a world in which so many face starvation. Enlargement is of course extremely good news. For those of us who grew up in the shadow of the cold war and who were teenagers in the late 60s, when we experienced the frustration of the tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia, the later falling of the Berlin wall was probably one of the most fantastic days of our life. So it is wonderful that these countries are joining the EU, but let us not equate that alone with progress.

An enormous amount of work has to be done in the EU to make it remain competitive, and to reform basic institutions such as the CAP. Every single cow in the EU today attracts a subsidy of $2, yet many millions of people throughout the world are still scratching a living, and living on less than a dollar a day. So the livestock that one sees in a field on going down a country lane each receive twice as much in subsidy from the EU than many people in the world are living on, which is obscene. The House, the country and the Community must address these issues. If the French effectively stymie Peter Mandelson's efforts to achieve a successful WTO Doha development round, that will be a disgrace.

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) will not take it in bad part if I choose this moment to remind the House of Mr. Speaker's earlier ruling concerning the narrow confines of this Bill. I must advise hon. Members that I shall be getting a little stricter on the content of their speeches if it is not directly related to the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about, and to express my happiness at supporting, a Bill that paves the way for the future EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania.

I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), although I hope that that does not worry him too much. By coincidence, I too was in Bulgaria in 1985. I did not know my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) then, but it is possible that we both went shopping in Sofia at the same time. Like him, I found the Bulgarians very charming, and the visit was a wonderful experience. However, I should say that I was merely enjoying a skiing holiday, not doing anything useful.

I want to talk about clause 2, which deals with workers' freedom of movement, and the regulation of workers from abroad. It is essential that all workers, foreign or otherwise, are regulated in their employment, and that they have the proper documentation and pay tax and national insurance. Foreign workers should be paid properly, at a rate comparable with domestic workers. They should not be used as a cheap labour force to undermine the wages and living standards of workers in the home country.

It is fine to use foreign workers to fill skills gaps and to make up employment levels when there is a shortage of labour. That happened here after the war, when a lot of people arrived to do the jobs for which we could not find workers. Many of the people who stayed here live in my constituency, and I believe that the experience has been a happy and valuable one for both us and them. Their presence has made ours a more diverse society, which is a good thing.

We should encourage foreign workers to join trade unions, and ensure that their conditions, protections and standards are the same as those enjoyed by their counterparts from this country. They must not be exploited, or used as a weapon to undermine wages in Britain.

Labour flexibility is not acceptable if it becomes merely a way to drive down wages. That could lead to difficulties in the EU. I have told the House before about my holiday in Portugal a few years ago, when I saw a building site with a sign in Portuguese that said "No Flexible Labour". If flexibility were to pose a threat to workers, it could lead to political changes that would go against the trend of the EU at the moment. Regulation must be used and properly enforced, for the protection of foreign workers and of our employment standards.

I welcome the prospect of EU membership for Bulgaria and Romania. It will benefit those countries, and the EU as a whole. I strongly favour enlargement, as I think that it will change the nature of the EU, making it a much looser arrangement of democratic states. Indeed, that has happened already.

That is my vision for the future of Europe. I do not want the EU to become a superstate, or an organisation driven by the Commission or the European Central Bank. I want there to be mutual co-operation across Europe between democratically elected Governments and their peoples.

I think that we can all accept that vision, as it allows a variety of approaches to economic management. Each European nation should be free to choose its approach democratically, not have it imposed from outside.

I hope that the process of enlargement will continue. There is no doubt that Bulgaria and Romania are European countries. Their culture is European, and they have made great contributions to European history and art. Before the second world war, Bucharest was regarded as the Paris of the east. Romania's language is derived from Latin, and its culture and tastes are like those of other European countries. Indeed, my favourite pianist is the Romanian Dinu Lipatti, and I own many CDs of his wonderful playing. Bulgarian music is equally marvellous: we have many links and associations with Bulgaria and Romania, and we will feel very at home with them in the EU.

As I have said many times in this Chamber, Europe's problems have to do with economics, and primarily with agriculture. The economies of both Bulgaria and Romania depend heavily on agriculture. They are big producers of agricultural products, and it is possible that they stand to benefit from the CAP. Of course, it is not being extended to them immediately, or even to countries that are already in the EU. There is a serious problem with the CAP, which causes distortions in fiscal transfers across the EU. It is coming to the end of its life. It has to be challenged, because it continues to make rich countries net recipients of budget funds and poorer countries net contributors. That process could get worse unless we abolish it.

There is much talk of reform, and we have had many reforms of the CAP, but it has not essentially changed and still has a distorting effect. It is unfair to have a CAP benefiting rich western European nations and not being extended generously to poorer eastern European nations with large agricultural sectors. I look forward to a world in which there is no CAP and in which we have our own domestic agriculture policies and are free to buy relatively cheap food from Romania and Bulgaria, among others. That would be a sensible way forward after the CAP has gone.

The future of the budget must be based on equity. If it is equitable for every member of the EU, we will all support it. At the moment, it is not. The only way to make it equitable is for receipts and contributions to the budget to be proportionate to our relative prosperity, so that rich nations are considerably greater net contributors and poorer nations perhaps net recipients, although it may just be that all of us make contributions but richer countries pay proportionately more. If the budget is related to our prosperity, everyone will think it fair and it will be objectively equitable. The CAP makes that impossible, and it should go.

I would also argue strongly that nations—Bulgaria and Romania, in particular—should be able to choose their own macroeconomic policies. They should be able to choose how to run their economies to make sure that they grow. They should not have imposed on them from outside a particular model of economic management that might be to their disadvantage, and which, I think, would be. If they could retain their own currencies for the foreseeable future, they could choose an appropriate parity, which would be to their advantage. If they could choose their own interest rates to suit their domestic economies, that, too, would be sensible. If they could choose their own fiscal policies—levels of taxation and public spending—that would be a good way forward. If they were not told that they could not use state aid to develop their industries, that would be a good thing. If the EU says that they cannot use state aid, that might cause them not to grow and could damage their economies, making it more difficult for them to attain the kind of living standards we take for granted in western Europe. The European Union should butt out for the time being on those matters for those states, and for some existing member states.

The Bulgarian lev is, apparently, pegged to the euro at the moment. I suggest that pegging is fine, but becoming a single currency, which gives no possibility of flexing the value of one's currency, would be a terrible mistake for Bulgaria and Romania, especially in their present relatively weak economic situations. A pegged currency is very different from a single currency. The peg can change from time to time, and we in Britain ought to retain that position, too.

Some new member states have had unhappy economic experiences, which are causing political difficulties for them. The same could be seen in Bulgaria and Romania if we are not careful. I look at Hungary, which has undoubtedly prospered in the sense that living standards have risen overall, but in which there has been a great division of rich and poor with 40 per cent. of the Hungarian people now living in relative poverty in spite of its having done relatively well. What one sees in some countries is apparently socialist Governments who have been driven to take the neo-liberal approach of privatising and liberalising their economies, resulting in great and growing disparities of income and wealth.

Meanwhile, conservative Opposition parties have said that they do not want more privatisation or liberalisation but want to protect their welfare states. That is what is happening in Hungary. The astonishing thing there is that a conservative Opposition are being supported by a Marxist workers' party against the nominal socialist party in Government. The New Statesman last week speculated that if Mrs. Thatcher was in Hungary, she would vote for the socialist party, never mind its name, because it is pursuing extreme neo-liberal economics. The leader of the socialist party has made considerable sums of money out of privatisation. In any case, those are not the sort of policies that should be imposed on Bulgaria and Romania. They should be allowed to manage their own economies to maximise economic growth so that they may attain living standards similar to ours.

If we impose economic policies on those countries and their economies are damaged, with greater disparities between people's incomes, it could breed disillusion that would not be healthy for the future of the European Union. If we want to be happy together, we must ensure that living standards rise in those countries, that we converge further, and that the poor are not left out.

I first wish to make it plain that I support the Second Reading of the Bill and enlargement of the European Union. However, I wish to make several observations. Romania and Bulgaria will join the EU automatically in 2008, but Romania is hell bent on enrolling a year early and it has moved heaven and earth already to get itself into a better position to meet the acquis—all 29 chapters of it. Although it has been free of communism for only 16 years, its transformation from a highly bureaucratic, centrally controlled country to a liberated free market democratic state is truly remarkable.

The Romanians have pinned all their hopes on a 2007 admission to the EU. They believe it to be important for their psyche, their whole approach to life and their people, but as last week's comprehensive monitoring report by the European Commission makes clear there is still some way to go before they comply with all the necessary standards. Whenever Romania does join, it will be one of the poorest countries in the EU, with state monopolies still controlling vast areas of activity, and a poor quality of life evident outside Bucharest, which serves as a reminder of the legacy of communism.

There is a further reason why accession in 2007 is desirable, and that is because if Romania is deemed not ready then, there is a real danger that it might feel that the west and the EU had shunned it. The country could then sink into instability caused by unchecked corruption and the growth of widespread criminal activity. The present Administration has marketed the EU as the saviour to Romania's problems. There is a danger that some may feel let down when the Elysian fields do not materialise. But Romania has rejected the east and elected to look west. We must not disappoint it.I visited Romania both as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and more recently as a member of the all-party European Union enlargement group, which enabled us to meet not just the Prime Minister, but also the Leader of the Opposition and many cabinet ministers. I subsequently spent five days as a tourist, visiting historic cities and exploring lesser known agricultural areas.

The Romanians believe that the EU Commission may be giving them tougher obstacles to overcome than it gave the 10 countries that joined the EU in May 2004. They argue that all eastern European countries share similar problems and that a more intense spotlight is now being focused on Romania and Bulgaria because they are just two new entrants rather than 10. The need to comply with the 29 acquis chapters before accession has provided the necessary impetus and vital motivation to embark upon an enormous programme of change. The Commission's concern and ours should be that once Romania and Bulgaria have been admitted into the EU, there is precious little that can be done to force the pace so that the reforming zeal is maintained. The House tends to forget that there are only 5,000 more officials in the European Commission in Brussels than employees, full and part time, in Devon county council. There is, therefore, a limited number of EU officials to enforce the requirements once Romania and Bulgaria become full members.

Chapter 24 deals with co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs. Schengen and the EU external borders are highlighted as an area of serious concern, as is the fight against fraud and corruption, which is well known and well documented. There are signs that the situation is improving quite dramatically, but no high level official or Government Minister has yet been prosecuted and, as the monitoring report highlights, increased efforts are needed to ensure compliance in the areas of money laundering, judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters, the fight against drugs, police co-operation and the fight against organised crime.

Corruption is not perhaps surprising when many public officials earn less than £1 an hour, and it is not unknown for some to earn only 50p an hour. Bribes are very tempting, whether to people in the local police force or in local councils who control local permissions of one sort or another. We were told that a few years ago a bribe test of the police resulted in 70 per cent. failing. That has now fallen to some 40 per cent. However, some argue that until Romania joins the EU and starts to prosper materially, corruption will continue, including in the police and other forces.

The US Department of State's report on the trafficking in persons, released in June this year, said:

"Corruption among law enforcement authorities remained a serious problem".