EU Enlargement

HC Deb 04 March 2003 vol 400 cc214-34WH

2 pm

Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly)

Just over a year ago, I was able to initiate a similar debate on European Union enlargement in Westminster Hall. A year later, it is remarkable how much things have changed. Most important is the fact that we had the Copenhagen summit last December. The summit was historic in many ways, not least because it was agreed at the summit that 10 applicant countries should be able to join the European Union in 2004. Those countries—as all hon. Members know—are the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus. The summit also agreed that Romania and Bulgaria should be able to join the EU in 2007; and, significantly, the European hand of friendship was extended to Turkey's possible future membership.

It is amazing how much things have changed in so many of the countries involved in the enlargement process, not only in the past 12 months but in the past decade. If we pause for thought, we will remember that 10 years ago six of those 10 countries did not exist as nation states. Now, they are in the process of transforming their societies and economies, developing new political structures and once again engaging with the international community. The progress in all those states is epitomised by the example of Poland.

In 1989, the situation in Poland was dire in the extreme. Inflation was 600 per cent., consumer goods were virtually non-existent, travel was almost unheard of and the private sector was minuscule. Today, twice as many Poles go to university than went in 1989. Poles travel extensively and, although unemployment is still unacceptably high, 3 million businesses now create new jobs for Polish people every day, and inflation is only 1 per cent. There is an optimism and upbeat character throughout the country that shows how far it has progressed and is likely to progress in future.

The enlargement process is not over simply because we had a successful summit in December. Copenhagen was only the end of the beginning. Referendums have yet to be held in all the accession countries—the first will be in Malta on 8 March and the last in Latvia on 20 September. Those referendums are critical, and the debate in those countries will be intense.

We should also remember that the process of change must continue in the countries of central Europe. Political democracy must be strengthened and reinforced, market economies must progress and administrative capacity must be developed. For example, when the states receive structural funds from the EU, they will have to ensure that those funds are spent in the best possible way and that programmes have been introduced to maximise their value. That task should not be underestimated.

One issue relating to the accession treaty is still outstanding—it must be ratified by the European Parliament and by each of the current member states of the EU. In that respect, I must express my grave concern about the recent comments of President Chirac. He said that the many countries of central Europe that support the position of the United States on Iraq are childish, badly brought up and irresponsible. Such comments are totally unacceptable and absolutely outrageous. France, like every other member state, must ratify the treaty, and it may decide to hold a referendum. To issue veiled threats against the applicant states—the accession countries—is the worst possible way for France to develop a relationship with them. I believe that President Chirac's comments will prove to be counter-productive.

Cyprus was debated at length at Copenhagen. There is no doubt that the Greek-speaking southern part of Cyprus will join the European Union, but I am sure that we all want the whole island to join. I was very pleased to learn in the past few days that a third revised version of the plan for unification is under consideration. Extra time has been given to President Papadopoulos, who is the new President of Cyprus. It is said that he is more opposed to unification of the island than his predecessor, but I did not find that to be the case in my discussions with him when the European Scrutiny Committee was in Cyprus. He might surprise many people by being more in favour of unity than they think.

The new deadline for reaching agreement is 10 March, and a draft agreement is to be put to a referendum on 30 March. I hope that the process will be successful. If it is, we must pay tribute to the British involvement in it, not least that of Sir David Hannay, who has done an excellent job in ensuring that progress has taken place.

It was also agreed at Copenhagen that Romania and Bulgaria should not be forgotten, and 2007 was mentioned as the date for their accession, but I question whether those two countries should automatically be linked together, as the two are very different, as is their progress towards EU membership. For example, as of December, Bulgaria had closed in negotiations 23 of the 30 chapters, but Romania had closed only 13 of 30.

Recently, Commissioner Verheugen was in Romania. He made it absolutely clear that a lot of work had to be done, and done speedily, in that country. He was very blunt, as he often is, in saying that corruption had to be tackled and genuine attempts had to be made to create an independent judiciary. However, there is much work to be done in Bulgaria, too. I was in Bulgaria just a couple of weeks ago, and I heard from business people as well as politicians that there was still a great deal of corruption in the police force and that the judiciary was anything but impartial and independent.

Croatia has recently submitted an application to the EU—there is a debate to be had on that—and I understand that Macedonia has just submitted one as well. Personally, I feel that it would be helpful if the Government of Croatia were more co-operative in relation to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. That would certainly enhance the country's application. I would be interested to know the Minister's position on the enlargement process as far as those countries and other Balkan states are concerned.

Finally, I shall refer to Turkey—I say "finally", but although I refer to it last, it is by no means least. An agreement at Copenhagen was of tremendous importance to Turkey. For the first time in some 40 years of sometimes heated debate, the European Council proposed a potential start date for accession talks in December 2004. That is of enormous significance, but there is a debate about Turkey's membership in principle and whether it should ever be admitted to the European Union.

Turkey is a Muslim country of 70 million people. It is situated predominantly in Asia Minor but it is also in NATO. Some people have said that Turkey should not be admitted to the European Union, most notably Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, although he accepts that progress has been made and that progress is planned for the future. His argument comes down to the fact that, in his view, Turkey is not a European country.

I fundamentally disagree with that point of view. For me Europe is an idea. It is about values, not about dotted lines on maps, religious beliefs, tribal loyalties or ethnic pedigrees. Countries that sign up to core values such as democracy and freedom of speech and of association should be eligible to join the EU whether their populations are Slays or Muslims. That to me is irrelevant.

Obviously, the laws of economics mean that no economic association, whether the EU or any other body, can keep on growing without limits, but that limit has not been reached in respect of Turkey. Since 1999, Turkey has responded positively to the challenges that face it. Its Parliament has passed measures to abolish the death penalty. Turkey has extended key rights to the Kurdish people and it has begun to reform its judiciary. Importantly, we have recently seen the election of a new democratic Government who have Islamic beliefs firmly rooted in the Islamic community, but who are also committed to progressive socio-economic reforms.

That is not to say that not much more needs to be done in Turkey—a heck of a lot more needs to be done. The Turkish economy still needs to be liberalised. Dissidents, ethnic minorities and ordinary prisoners need to be treated far better than they are at present. There needs to be genuine freedom of worship and far more rights should be accorded to the Kurdish people. Above all else, let us not forget that the military must have far less influence than it currently exercises in the Turkish state, albeit behind the scenes.

None the less, I stress my belief that things are changing significantly. By giving Turkey a provisional start date for negotiations, the Copenhagen summit has given us an historic chance to bring together two traditions and two civilisations. We should welcome that fact and understand its true implications.

The case for EU enlargement rests on two basic facts. The first is that the best interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole are served well by the process of enlargement. Let us not forget that some 14,000 British firms currently trade with the countries of central and eastern Europe, and their number is increasing all the time. Let us not forget that accession is relatively more important to countries such as Germany, which are much closer to the accession states.

However, let us not minimise the advantages of joining the European Union to those countries that we hope will enter in 2004 and beyond. For them, Europe offers hope, freedom and a chance of real prosperity. It offers them hope because the European Union with its liberal democracies is something to which they aspired for many years during the dark days of the communists. It offers them a real chance of developing a market economy in a socially responsible way. The European Union, alongside NATO, reinforces their prospects of genuine peace and stability well into the future. That is why enlargement is a win-win process that offers benefits to everyone. I hope that the House will achieve real consensus on the importance of enlargement and that there will be cross-party support for the treaty of accession when it comes before Parliament.

My final point is this: it is all very well politicians and Governments talking about the importance of enlargement—the case for it is overwhelming—but the important challenge is to convince the people of Europe that enlargement is critical. The other day, I was reading an article inE!Sharp magazine dated October 2002. It gave a comprehensive analysis of various European barometer polls. It stated the following chilling words: Not only do the vast majority of EU citizens have no idea which countries are candidates to join the Union, but many of them do not even want to know". All of us in the House and beyond who believe in Europe and the values of the European Union and see enlargement as intrinsically worth while have a moral responsibility to take the message out beyond the House and to convince people of the worth of the European enlargement project. I hope that in some small way, at least, this debate will reinforce our determination to make enlargement work. It gives a chance to demonstrate that we must take all the people with us in this great project.

2.17 pm

Keith Vaz ( Leicester, East)

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and congratulate him on obtaining this debate. He says that it has become an annual feature of the House of Commons and I look forward to his applying for a debate next year, when we shall be only a couple of months from the completed enlargement process.

There will be no dissent in the Chamber this afternoon. All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, support enlargement for the reasons made clear by my hon. Friend. There was a time when the Opposition were against enlargement—they wanted a referendum on the Nice treaty and to block the enlargement process.

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has adverted immediately from his statement that we are all in favour of enlargement to the idea that the Conservatives were against it. We have never been against it, but we believed that the way in which Nice was handled ultimately had precious little to do with enlargement. However, Nice has happened, and we want to get on with things as they are.

Keith Vaz

I am delighted by the Conservatives' retrospective change of policy that has been announced in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly can take comfort from that. I am glad that we all now speak with one voice.

It is right that Britain should take pride in its role in the process, particularly because the speeches and initiatives of our Prime Minister during the past few years gave the enlargement process in Europe impetus and enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe should be congratulated. From the moment that he became the Minister for Europe, he made it a feature to visit as many applicant countries as possible to keep those positive links going. He came here today from chairing a major Foreign Office seminar on enlargement.

That is why Britain has a right to be proud of what we have achieved in the enlargement process, and it is why, when we talk about creating a new Europe, we do not mean dividing up the countries between the so-called old Europe and the so-called new Europe. A new Europe will be created when the enlargement process is completed. That new Europe will consist of a group of countries that are determined to achieve the reunification of Europe and to create the largest single market anywhere in the world, covering 500 million people and bringing peace and prosperity to the continent. That process has taken place only because of the enormous amount of work done by so many.

I pay tribute to Gunter Verheugen, the Commissioner on enlargement, who I know has worked extremely hard. It is not easy to go through the acquis communautaire, but we should commend the speed with which the countries and their chief negotiators have tackled the subject. I am glad that only two of the original applicants are not joining in the first wave. I know that there was discussion about how big the wave should be, but the European Council was right to decide that as many countries as possible should join.

I will raise only three or four points in the short time available, because I know that a number of my colleagues want to take part in the debate. I see at least two former members of the European Parliament to whom Westminster has granted asylum. I know that they will want to speak, so I shall be brief.

First, I wish to flag up the issue of reform. Of course we welcome the new countries that are joining the European Union, but it is essential that the reform process that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schroder began with their now famous letter of 25 February 2002 be completed. Once all the new countries are in Europe, unless the way in which the European Council operates is fundamentally reformed, there will be gridlock—the decision-making process will come to a halt. One of the practical suggestions in the practical letter sent by the two leaders to the Prime Minister of Spain was that, for example, the round-table discussions that take place when each country sets out its stated position, and the entire day is taken up in deliberations, must end.

We must ensure that the paperwork does not bury the bright officials from the United Kingdom who speak on our behalf and on behalf of other countries, but is put to one side, so that we can get on with making practical decisions. Therefore, we must look at the reform agenda for the way in which the European Council operates. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how many of the points in the letter of 25 February 2002 can be ticked off. I know that he is as keen as all Members of Parliament to make sure that the reform process is continued.

My second point is that, once the enlargement process is completed, we must not stop doing the good things that we are doing. Let the Minister continue his bilateral visits, and let there be more visits between parliamentarians at Westminster and those in the new European Union countries. The taxpayer pays for us to make three visits to European Union institutions, and that has recently been expanded to include the enlargement countries. Every Member of Parliament should decide to visit one of the member-designate countries to build up the relationship so solidly built at ministerial level by the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary and others.

We must also enhance business opportunities in the eastern European member-designate countries. We have a lot of companies out there. Let it not be only Tesco that has a supermarket in downtown Bratislava. Let us make sure that other British companies go to those countries and, by investing in them, contribute to the development of their economies.

My third point relates to the euro. A number of EU enlargement countries will watch with interest to see what happens by June. Some of those countries might be in a position to join the euro before us. While I do not wish to turn this into a debate on the euro, I hope that the Minister will try to persuade the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to release a timetable so that new members-designate will have an understanding of what we intend to do once the assessments are completed by 7 June. If we are not going to have a referendum, we should know about that, and we should know if we are to have one. I am sure that Warsaw, Riga, Bratislava and Prague are all watching with interest to see what we do. It would be tragic if we were to join the euro after all those countries had joined.

My fourth point relates to a practical move that we could support in order to show that the members-designate are really part of the EU. I propose that we should support the moving of an EU institution or agency headquarters to one of the member-designate states after 1 May. I do not mind which it is, as long as one is moved. I am not suggesting that the European Parliament should move, but something should. We should show practical support for the new member-designate countries to ensure that they feel that they are part of Europe.

After I May, the centre of Europe will not be Brussels. It will probably be Prague, although I will not get out my measuring tape to find out how big the countries are. Perhaps the Minister and the bright young things from the Europe team will tell me if I am wrong. The fact is that the centre of Europe will shift, and if we accept the cogent arguments on Turkey advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, it will move even further away from Brussels. It is important that we consider my proposal, because through it we would be able to demonstrate our support.

My hon. Friend ended with Turkey and I, too, shall end with a brief note on that country. It is right that we continue to give Turkey hope, but we should not raise its expectations to such an extent that we cannot deliver on the promises that we make to it. To be frank, it is not for George Bush to champion Turkey's membership of the EU; it is a matter for our country—we have done it in the past and for other EU countries. We must step up our bilateral links with Turkey to ensure that when we talk genuinely about getting it into the EU, along with Romania and Bulgaria, we can back that up with examples of work that we have done.

The debate is important. I hope that it will become an annual debate. That will provide us with an opportunity next year to be on the doorstep of history preparing for that huge enlargement that will transform Europe for ever.

2.28 pm

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston)

The Copenhagen summit was an historic achievement. Apart from allowing the accession of 10 applicant states into the EU, it put forward an excellent financial package for those countries. Some £25 billion will be given over the period 2004 to 2006 but, while that will help those applicant countries, that sum is only 0.1 per cent. of Europe's GDP. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said earlier, more than a decade ago six of the 10 applicant states did not exist. Since breaking away from communist rule, those countries have integrated themselves into world and European markets, something that many of us could not have imagined 15 years ago when they were still part of the Soviet empire.

The previous century witnessed wars across Europe; not only the two world wars, but 50 years of cold war and conflict over Cyprus. It seems that the prospect of Cyprus entering the European Union has united the country; it is a fantastic opportunity. If we can secure agreement on the Kofi Annan plan before the accession takes place, a united Cyprus will exist within the EU and the path will be clearer for Turkey to join later.

For European countries, the first 50 years of the last century were about survival. Governments had to deal with unemployment, ill health, poor housing and insecurity. The second 50 years, for western Europe at least, were about consumerism, from the sale of music records in the 1950s to the CDs and computers that we enjoy today.

For about 40 of those years, applicant countries experienced direct communist rule from Moscow. The changes in those countries over the past 10 to 15 years have been amazing. NATO will guarantee those countries security and peace for the foreseeable future and the European Union will provide them with economic prosperity and security. Relationships with neighbouring countries that were hostile in the past should now be secure.

Membership of the European Union will bring many advantages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, we are now in a win-win position. The GDP of new members will increase by approximately 19 per cent. in the medium term. As I said earlier, six of the member states did not even exist in the past and none of the countries sharing a border with communist Poland now exists in the same form. The change has been entirely peaceful with no borders affected and no populations expelled in the process.

In the past year, the European Union spent?40 million helping Slovenia to prepare for membership, and?440 million on reconstructing Kosovo. Those figures cannot begin to convey the tragedy of what Mr. Milosevic did to Yugoslavia. If the enlargement of the European Union can prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again, it will be a testament to the European future. Co-operation on trafficking in people and drugs will take place on a scale never before seen, which is welcomed by all member states.

Some people in this country are worried about migration into the UK from these applicant countries, but let us examine the examples of Spain and Portugal. When Spain joined the EU in 1986, 109,000 Spanish workers were based in France. By 1994, the figure had fallen to 35,000. The sort of economic migration that happens through desperation will be inhibited by the development of these applicant countries, which will feel more secure and provide their people with more opportunities.

If we can bring Europe together under the EU, we shall be able to work much more closely with the United States and present a common force for good to the world. We do not want an inward-looking EU of just 25 members, or even an EU that is aligned to the United States of America and just looks after its own economic problems. There are pressing problems in today's world. We need to develop Africa, a continent that is going backwards and has suffered from famine and underdevelopment for hundreds of years. We can begin to deal seriously with the HIV epidemic in southern Africa that will bring death and destruction in many communities. We can begin to look at stabilising the middle east, as the United States and Europe together have the political will and economic might to ensure that that is done in a way that we have never seen before. Most importantly, especially given the problems that we face in Iraq, we can strengthen the United Nations.

The Convention on the Future of Europe will determine the architecture for a Europe of 25. If that Europe can get an architecture of government and method of multinational decision and law making that is far superior to anything that any continent in the world has seen, we can look towards reforming the United Nations. We can work out how it can adopt EU best practice in order to work with organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to create world order that provides stability for places such as Africa and Asia and make the world a much better place.

An EU of 25 will give the United Kingdom far more influence. Many applicant countries are Anglo-centric and look to the UK, and the USA, for support and cooperation; militarily in the past and economically, I believe, in the future. The Franco-German axis will decline, and some of Mr. Chirac's recent comments seem like the scream of a dying baby. There will be new dynamics in the decision-making processes as a result of the change in the composition of the Council of Ministers and in the European Parliament. The family of Europe will be reunited.

We look forward to a Europe of peace, prosperity and influence. I welcome the changes that are taking place.

2.37 pm

Mr. John MacDougall (Central Fife)

I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing the debate. I will not take too much time, but I am grateful to make a contribution to an important debate.

I recognise the importance of the decisions that were taken in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December and the significant challenges, and benefits, that they bring. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly identified each country by name, including Poland, and I want to make some comments on my interests in Poland. They go far beyond the fact that my wife comes from a Polish family or that I heard many stories from my late father-in-law about the challenges that Poland faced over the years and the benefits seen in a much-rejuvenated Poland, which my hon. Friend also noted.

In recent informal discussions with the Polish ambassador Stanislaw Komorowski, who has now become a good friend, he told me that he did not see the process of Poland joining the EU as one in which only Poland and the Polish people received the benefits. He saw it as an opportunity for Poland to give something back to the EU, which is an important message. It made me think about the other countries that will join the EU, which, with their individual styles and opportunities, will make their contributions to a much stronger and more stable Europe.

I can mention one obvious opportunity that will arise from Poland's membership. We are all aware of the fact that Poland has large agricultural potential. The development of that potential would release great benefits to the European Union. Everyone accepts, and has commented at one stage or another, that it is hardly acceptable that just over 50 per cent. of the total European budget is spent inefficiently through the common agricultural policy. With Poland becoming a member of the EU, the contribution of its agricultural capability should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat. That is one example of a benefit of membership.

I should like to refer to stability, which other Members have mentioned, and to history. The European challenge of recent times is vastly different from that posed by the Europe that we knew; everyone recognises that. Not too long ago, the shape of the European Union was entirely different. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly referred to the number of countries that emerged at the end of the cold war. The break up of the USSR and the situation that arose after Germany became a unified country again all presented different challenges and threats to Europe's shape. The 10 countries in the process of accession will give a strong and good message to other countries in Europe.

When East and West Germany were merged, the hopes of the East Germans were raised considerably during the merger, but were difficult to meet. There is a danger that if a merger is not made quickly, aspiration will quickly turn to disillusionment and to the feeling of being unsettled, which can cause further problems to a Europe that is already experiencing instability. The opportunity for stability offered by enlargement should not be understated.

The fact that we have a larger Europe today gives us greater opportunity to see the benefits of working together; rather than the alternative, which is a referral to the power base of military control. I agree that enlargement gives us the opportunity to tackle challenges differently.

I welcome today's discussion. Much has been said, and the problems facing Africa have been referred to. Opportunities will arise from a strong message being sent from the 10 accession countries, including Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus and Turkey, the challenges of which have yet to be addressed. With a good success rate for those 10 countries, other challenges can be taken on board.

A dear friend, Bruce Millan, who was a well-respected Commissioner in Europe, once said to me, "If the only reason that you are in Europe, John, is to put £5 in and take £5 out, you are wasting your time. It is much more sophisticated than that." I hope that we get that message out to the public, and debates such as this one and publicity from them are essential. During a surgery that I held last Friday in my constituency, I met 34 constituents in an hour and a half. Not one of them mentioned Turkey, or the fact that Cyprus and Poland were about to become members of the EU. That is significant. The subject is not high on the public agenda, so we must promote the importance of a stable Europe to each and every one of us; not just in the UK, but throughout the world.

I look forward to the annual event that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has inaugurated in the hope that, next year, the situation will be much more progressive than it is at present and that we can meet many of the challenges that lie ahead. I also look forward very much to my hon. Friend the Minister's response at the end of the debate.

2.45 pm

Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall). He highlighted the fact that the applicant countries see the process as being not simply about taking something from Europe or getting their share of Europe, but about how they can contribute to the process as well. Before I go any further, I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who has made something of a specialty out of EU enlargement. He has raised it in this Chamber before, and I commend him for doing so again, particularly at this important time.

As has been mentioned, the debate follows on from the seminar that the Minister hosted at the Foreign Office this morning. That welcome initiative reinforces his credentials as one who is keen for the enlargement debate not simply to be dealt with by Ministers and officials, but to be engaged in by Parliament and, indeed, the whole country. As the hon. Member for Central Fife remarked, people do not come to surgeries to complain about EU enlargement. I fear that people in this country know very little about it, so we all have a duty to ensure that that is corrected and that people face some of the big changes that will occur as a result of enlargement in just over a year's time.

The Liberal Democrats, like the other parties represented here, have supported enlargement throughout the process. We believe that the principles that have applied to successive enlargements over the past 50 years also apply to this one. In the past, we have debated quite regularly the underpinning that the EU gives to the security of Europe. For those countries that are about to join and which have, like us, clear and long memories of what war in Europe was all about and the dangers associated with the cold war settlement afterwards, this is a huge breakthrough—a major development for them and us. Often, we run the risk of forgetting just how important keeping the peace in Europe is and the role that the EU as a collection of nation states plays in that endeavour.

For many of the countries about to join the EU, the importance of joining is what it says about the state of their democracy and the opportunity that they have further to enhance their democracies and to instil the values that go with it in the modern form of their countries. Perhaps the most often cited and important aspect of enlargement in most people's eyes, however, is the economic benefits that will flow from it. There are many different estimates of the impact that enlargement will have, but recent ones raise the possibility of 300,000 additional jobs throughout the EU and a substantial boost of some £2 billion to overall GDP. At the seminar that the Minister hosted this morning, the director-general of the CBI, Digby Jones, talked about the enlargement giving Europe more clout. That is always welcome in the world, particularly in the era of the WTO and developments in trade that are so important to all our communities.

Since we had a chance to debate this topic here last year, much has changed. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly pointed out, huge progress was made at the Copenhagen summit just before the end of the year. The European Parliament will soon consider the accession treaties, which each member state will then consider. Referendums in each of the applicant countries are due to be held by September. There was considerable concern about what had to be achieved when we debated the issue 12 months ago, and we must not underestimate what has been covered since then. However, it would be equally remiss of us to ignore some of the key issues that remain to be resolved in the next year or so.

Internally, enlargement presents a great challenge to existing member states. Some 10 days ago, I was in Brussels holding discussions with various officials and Commission departments and directorates. It is clear that the issue is focusing minds like nothing else. There are huge issues to be resolved in key areas such as the CAP and regional policy before 2004—the 10 new states should come on board in May, the European Parliament elections are due in June, and the new Commission will be announced later that year.

The officials whom I met in Brussels talked a very confident game about sorting out the details of the reform of the CAP in time for the June Agriculture Council. I would be interested to know the Minister's opinion, because if those details are sorted out, we will have to make substantial progress in a very short space of time on key issues such as decoupling, modulation and degressivity, all of which remain unresolved issues of concern in the United Kingdom.

The same is true of regional policy. The third cohesion report is due later in the year, as are the recommendations on the development of the policy. I understand that recommendations and contributions to that process are due by the summer break, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in other Departments will ensure that they and each interested body throughout the UK participate fully in that debate. The emphasis will shift with enlargement in a year's time, but it is clear that regional policy has an important relevance to this country, especially to peripheral areas. Will the Minister state the Government's policy stance as the negotiations head towards their conclusion?

The focus may be inward for existing members, but there is plenty for the applicant countries to be getting on with. Commissioner Verheugen recently pointed out that there is still a great deal of work to be done to build administrative capacity and to ensure that all the key parts of the Government machinery are in place to deal with issues such as corruption and the integration of minorities in some applicant countries. Much progress has been made on those issues in the course of the enlargement process. All that work must now come together.

Several contributors to today's debate highlighted issues relating to particular applicant countries. It is right that we spend time considering Cyprus, where affairs are very delicately balanced. We should pay tribute to the work of Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has invested a considerable amount of his own time and prestige to the creation and development of the proposals currently before the two communities in Cyprus. His initiative is important and we now await the response from the two parts of the island. As has been mentioned, 10 March is an important new deadline for those developments. We must hope that the prize of enlargement is strong enough, and is on sufficiently good terms, to resolve many difficulties that beset that beautiful place.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that there are issues in countries other than Cyprus that, although less fraught, could also cause problems. The Minister has a great fondness for Poland, which I know is shared by many in the Chamber. We cannot ignore the difficulties facing the Polish Government with the departure of the Polish Peasant party from government. Poland's Prime Minister remains confident that that will not cause any problems for the accession process. I hope that he is right. We wish that country every success.

In other key players, such as the Czech Republic and, in particular, Hungary, there is some nervousness and evidence in opinion polls that support for enlargement is not quite what it once was. I do not believe that the outcome in those countries is seriously in doubt but we, as well as their Governments, must send strong signals from outside to say that we look forward to welcoming them into a larger family of nations in Europe and that we hope that that can be achieved on time.

My final point on individual countries has already been mentioned this afternoon. It is not on applicant countries, but on France. This is not a debate on Iraq, but just as I would deplore efforts by the United States to twist arms and bully people into supporting a particular line, I find it reprehensible that France should attempt to skew the debate and blackmail particular countries on their prospects of joining the EU on account of their position on developments in Iraq. Each of those countries has earned its position in Europe: each has met the tests and criteria and is making strenuous efforts to come to terms with the new Europe of which they will he part. Bullying by one of the oldest members is surely inappropriate, and we must resist attempts to do that.

The enlargement process has often travelled a bumpy road, but we should reflect on the fact that in the past few years—and the past 12 months in particular—the European Union has made fantastic process. We still need to get our own house in order and we must support the applicants. Then, together, we can look forward to seeing a revolutionised European Union in just over a year's time.

2.58 pm

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)

I, too, warmly congratulate the lion. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing and introducing this debate. He is a passionate advocate of enlargement and enjoys the respect of all hon. Members for that commitment and for his profound knowledge of the subject. Of course, his concerns are shared not only by the House but by the 70 million citizens of the accession countries.

We have had a good debate and I congratulate the hon. Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), on their thoughtful contributions. It was a particular joy to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I remember seeing him selling the attractions of the EU by travelling the country in a bus, which greatly added to the country's political scene, even though, if I remember correctly, his attempts to sell the euro to the British people during that campaign resulted in the greatest quantum leap in lack of support for the euro among the British people seen in the past five years. Nevertheless, it is always a great pleasure to hear from him.

Enlargement is of huge importance, as everyone has said. We hope that it will extend stability and prosperity to many millions of our fellow Europeans. We welcome the outcome at Copenhagen and congratulate the Danish presidency on orchestrating that summit. The process of enlargement has been too long and complicated, and Turkey's membership, which we support, has not been universally encouraged, but Copenhagen was an historic achievement. We hope that next year we shall see the division of Europe that has lasted since Yalta healed. Speaking personally, I believe not only that that is politically and economically desirable, but that it is a moral imperative.

The accession countries have made great strides on their own since the fall of the Berlin wall, but enlargement opens further prospects. Participation will offer the countries full access to a single market and structural funds. Although I am not always an admirer of regional funding from the EU, my discussions with many eastern European politicians, civil servants and business men leave me in no doubt that structural funding offers hope for progress in developing eastern Europe's infrastructure, which needs to be updated in some respects. For example, the hon. Member for Caerphilly will know that Poland's roads are notoriously poor. How much more productive and efficient would Poland's economy be if businesses had access to improved roads?

Enlargement does not only hold out the promise of great economic prosperity for the accession countries: it must be admitted that one of the EU's great successes has been its ability to stabilise young democracies and root them in the ways of a free society. We only need consider the way in which, over time, Greece, Spain and Portugal have succeeded in that respect, and I hope that that will happen for the accession countries as well. Success after enlargement is not assured. All European countries must be in a position to generate wealth, and that will not happen while the EU remains a zone strangled with mounting red tape, afraid of the economic flexibility that creates jobs.

The atypical workers directive is typical of the sort of EU legislation that can only hurt employment creation in the long-term. The EU's high-cost employment practices are the last thing that prospective EU members need. Those countries need to use their currently lower-cost labour forces to build prosperity, and we must let them do so. Regrettably, it is universally recognised throughout the EU that the process that the Prime Minister set in train in Lisbon is stuttering. We must ensure that the EU is fit to meet the challenges posed by enlargement. Otherwise, the accession countries may find that EU membership is more of an economic prison than a liberating market, and heaven forbid that they should ever think that.

The CAP must be fundamentally reformed—something that the Government have lamentably been unable to drive forward. Nothing has made the negotiations on enlargement more bitter than the need to shoehorn the accession states into the failing CAP. Likewise, it has been said to me abroad that the former communist countries do not want to see control from Moscow replaced by control from Brussels. Countries that have only recently regained their independence do not want to use it to enter some sort of supranational state. However, as we saw in the draft constitution, the supranational structures that are being prepared in the Convention on the Future of Europe clearly point to that. I am aware that the final version might look rather different at the intergovernmental conference, but the overall tendency is fundamentally integrationist. That is not the sort of EU in which the new states will feel comfortable.

Indeed, one may question the wisdom of transforming the EU just as the new states arrive. No one should question the need for fundamental reform in the EU—that is widely recognised—but the new states should be full participants in the process. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. I, too, found France's bullying, implied threats that it might veto the accession countries' EU membership unless they toed the French line absolutely disgraceful. Does the Minister agree with Chris Patten that the EU is not the Warsaw pact. It is a club for equals and everyone has to be listened to"? President Chirac's remarks make it harder for the accession states to participate in the debate on Europe's future as equals. That is an important point.

The president of the Convention on the Future of Europe has said that he wants the Convention treaty to provide the EU's framework for the next 50 years. If the new countries are to live in the house that Giscard and the Convention have built, they have as much right to determine its design as anyone else. For that reason, it is urgent that the IGC agrees that the new treaty should not be decided on until accession countries are full members of the EU. It would certainly be totally unacceptable if the IGC were to take place this December, when full accession was still some months off; that would be inequitable. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point and respond to it in his winding-up speech.

We have extraordinarily close links with Cyprus. I salute President Clerides and his efforts over many years, and I welcome Tassos Papadopoulos's presidency. I have had the pleasure of meeting him and discussing the reunification of the island with him. That much hoped-for reunification is in danger, even though one of the great hopes of accession was that it would prove a vehicle and stimulus for the island's reunification. We all want the united island to enter the EU.

I hope that the Minister will tell us more about what the Government are doing to assist reunification, particularly at this crucial time. At the very least, the Government have not kept Parliament properly informed about their offer to hand over almost half of the sovereign base areas' territory to a reunited Cyprus. Whatever the Government's motives, the handover of British sovereign territory is serious, and the Government have failed to tell the House all that they should.

Why did the announcement of the offer of British territory come through the UN, when it could have been made in Parliament the next day? Why, in the written answer that the Minister gave me on 27 January, was no hint given that the offer might be made. even though the open nature of the question gave ample opportunity to do so? Was the offer under consideration when the answer was given? Why, when my noble Friend Lord Howell asked on 14 January whether the UN peace plan would affect arrangements for the bases, did the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, deny that it would? Was she aware of the offer, and if not, how much time was given to considering the offer before it was made?

What assessment has been made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence of the effect that the offer will have on their operational capability, particularly at this crucial time, knowing the strategic importance of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean? It was apparent that there was inadequate consultation between the two Departments about Gibraltar, and the Minister for Europe must tell us what consultation the Foreign Office has had with the Ministry of Defence on this matter. Parliament deserves answers, and I hope that the Minister can provide some enlightenment.

My party wants enlargement to succeed. We want an EU that is fit for enlargement and the challenges of the 21st century. It must be flexible enough to accommodate its diversities and must be a union for its peoples, and not its leaders. People must feel a sense of ownership of the EU and its institutions and architecture. The Convention was meant to bring the EU closer to its peoples, but it seems to be doing the contrary, and the Government now seem to be taken aback about their position. All countries should have a referendum on the constitution, and that includes the accession states. That would help to ensure that those states can participate in the debate as equals.

If we can successfully reform Europe's economies, transform the common agricultural policy into something enduring, and—this is crucial—build Europe from the bottom up, not the top down, enlargement will do great things for our continent. I want an enlarged European Union to be a success. To achieve that, we must deal with the problems of today, not the challenges of yesterday.

3.9 pm

The Minister for Europe(Mr. Denis MacShane)

This has been a very good debate. It is appropriate that it follows an excellent seminar and conference on enlargement at the Foreign Office this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing the debate and hon. Members on the quality of their speeches.

I shall start with the last speech, by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who I believe was in favour of enlargement but did not seem to be terribly much in favour of the European Union. Therein lies the eternal contradiction in Conservative thinking on this great issue.

The remark of President Chirac, whose position is held by many in France, including some of his Ministers, that has most upset people in east Europe is that there should be a referendum on the next stage of European construction. Countries in east Europe are rightly concerned that if the existing nations of the European Union were to hold referendums on the matter—referendums which are not called for under their constitutions—all the anti-Europeans could combine to produce a no vote and enlargement would not take place. I merely caution the hon. Gentleman before he starts running with the referendum line that is put forward by people in this country who are not normally associated with a pro-European position, that he might do a serious disservice to the process of enlargement and the successful working of an enlarged European Union, which are the tasks of the Convention and the intergovernmental conference.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that a commitment was given at the Copenhagen Council that the incoming member states will be full participants in the intergovernmental conference. They are not voting members of the Convention, but they have observer status there and we look forward to working with them as voting members in the intergovernmental conference.

To return to the main subject of the debate, we had a very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, who made the case for enlargement and stressed that it is a win-win process. We really must break free of the mentality that it is in some way a zero sum game, in which Britain and other member countries will lose.

That point was also very powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), who, like me, has a Polish family connection. It has been remarkable to see the Polish community in Great Britain turn with enthusiasm to the leadership offered by the Prime Minister. They realise that the enlargement of the European Union for which he has fought so valiantly is good for their native country. Last Friday, the Polish ambassador, who is one of the most dynamic and effective ambassadors in London, and I had the pleasure of opening Sheffield's Europe week at the Dom Kombatanta ex-servicemen's club for Polish veterans. It was a very lively and positive occasion.

We had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), whom I had the honour to serve as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in two of the more interesting, ebullient and, at times, turbulent years in the office of the Minister for Europe during this or any previous Administration. Yes, he boldly went into the countryside with buses, certificates, flare and fun and challenged the British people to think seriously about Europe. With his inside knowledge, he was able to describe the immense complexities of day-to-day business. I long for the time when speeches are not read out by rote and when our very bright officials who work for the Foreign Office and, though British nationals, as European civil servants for the European Commission and Council are not buried under paper.

Keith Vaz

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) mentioned the campaign bus. Of course, the bus went to Rotherham. Was he upset that it did not go to Bury St. Edmunds?

Mr. Spring

That is not in my constituency.

Mr. MacShane

The first roadshow took place in my constituency, Rotherham, and I think that I can safely say that it was downhill all the way after that.

Some important points were made about the need for parliamentarians to build networks and links. I have been holding talks with the British Council and have asked about arranging seminars that involve parliamentarians of all parties—this is not a party-political issue building links with their opposite numbers in the incoming countries. It was also suggested that an EU agency or institution might be moved to east Europe or one of the incoming member states. I am sure that they will be the first in the queue when the new agencies are allocated. If, as we hope, Malta and Cyprus come into the EU after their referendums—and how much we long for a united Cyprus to do that—two Commonwealth countries will be added to the membership. Their accession will re-orient some of the focus of the EU towards the Mediterranean. In recent years, there has—rightly—been an obsession with east and central Europe, but the EU also has a great role to play in the Mediterranean.

As I have plenty of time in which to speak, I would like to commend a book that I have just received called "Orient Express", Published by Oxford Brookes university. It was edited by Fiona Sampson, who writes: as Europe shifts on her axis again, the critical mass of the E.U. Enlargement Countries is what engenders this shift. And resists the forces of globalisation by its insistence on the particular, on the coloured-in detail of what is characteristic. The book is a collection of novels, short stories, poems and essays and shows the immense cultural contribution that will be made by the enlargement countries and to which we can look forward. The advantage for us is that, on the whole, if people from those countries have a second language, it is likely to be English, which will provide a further set of bridges between our great European country and the new, but at the same time very old, European countries and cultures that are about to join us.

As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) made a very positive speech. I hope that the Foreign Office will shortly announce further work to promote the value of enlargement and the need for Britain not only to be the champion of enlargement, but to build enduring economic and political links—we are also talking about local government—with the incoming countries. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will want to play a part in that policy.

The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) had some rather harsh words to say about the President of the French Republic. I invite him to come to the annual general meeting of the Franco-British Council, which will take place in two hours at the Foreign Office. Some four or five months ago, I accepted an invitation to give the keynote speech under the heading "France and Britain: towards a new era of co-operation in international and foreign policy", which just goes to show that my speech this afternoon is merely a curtain-raiser to what is, in some ways, a more interesting challenge lying ahead.

Judging from the position adopted by the Liberal Democrats and certainly their leader, I rather thought that the hon. Gentleman was lining up with President Chirac in not supporting the view of Her Majesty's Government that firm action must be taken against the dictator, terrorist and tyrant of Baghdad.

Mr. Spring

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moore

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacShane

I will take the intervention from the representative of the biggest Opposition party.

Mr. Spring

I want to take up a point that I thought was legitimately made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who talked about moving some of the European Union's institutions to a base further from its western side. Could the Minister suggest to our French partners this afternoon that European taxpayers could save themselves a vast amount of money by closing down Strasbourg and moving it further east?

Mr. MacShane

The notion that I have the power to close down any city is flattering but, alas, it is beyond my capability to do so. The plain answer is no. Strasbourg is the seat of European reconciliation. It was agreed in the treaty signed by the hon. Gentleman's former boss, the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, when he was Prime Minister that 12 plenary sessions would take place in Strasbourg. Therefore, once again, the Government are stuck with treaties signed by the Conservative party in a fit of pro-Strasbourg passion.

The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is right: both centres need to be reformed, and both will be under huge pressure to reform. I warn him only that it cannot be assumed that all the incoming members will automatically be on the side of reform, especially of the CAP. When the cheques arrive from Brussels, that immediately becomes a seductive inducement to favour the CAP. That is why I have always said that it is no use this country and this House endlessly condemning the CAP—we are all in agreement on that. Instead, we must find ways of building alliances with our sister parties, our national farmers' unions must find ways of discussing the matter with other countries' farmers' organisations, and the Churches, Oxfam and other non-governmental organisations must find ways of talking in French and Spanish with their opposite numbers to build a coalition for effective reform.

The same is true of regional funds. Clearly, the incoming members will reduce average GDP per capita of the EU as a whole. Many of the regions of the UK that have become eligible for forms of regional funds will lose that eligibility. We must now have a serious discussion about funding and support for the regional development that we as a country want, and how we factor those ideas into the wider European question.

We should welcome enlargement. I was impressed by the speech of Digby Jones, the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, at this morning's seminar when he talked movingly about his visit to east and central Europe. He said that, although those with whom he spoke were pro-trade and pro-business, they also saw the European Union in terms of peace and democracy. We should not lose sight of that idealism and those values. The EU is founded on the principle of establishing peace in our continent. At a time when there is much talk of war, it is no bad thing to remind ourselves of the dictatorship and terror that Europe has seen in our lifetime, and the wars that it saw in our parents' lifetime.

Mr. Hendrick

Was my hon. Friend, like me, impressed by what Digby Jones said about the harmonisation of technical standards and regulations across Europe and the way in which that, together with the work that has gone on at the European institutions, had made the European single market successful?

Mr. MacShane

Indeed, and reference was made this morning to an article in, I think, today'sFinancial Times by two American Republican spokespersons, who said that the argument is not for or against regulation the primitive caricature that we heard in one closing speech today—but about the type of regulation that is introduced. There are times when regulation is necessary. For example, to guarantee safety in aviation is the only way to liberalise air markets.

We do not want to go back to each country in Europe erecting its own norms and standards and refusing to admit commerce and trade in goods, services and economic exchange unless they correspond to purely nationally defined norms. It costs Europe far less financially, politically and socially to support its neighbours' transitions to stable democracies and open economies than to rebuild them after conflict. Compare how much money we had to spend after the Milosevic savagery in the former Yugoslavia with the relatively painless and much less costly entry of Slovenia into the European Union.

I was asked about Croatia. Both Croatia and Macedonia have recently made applications to be considered as applicant countries. They will be treated in the same way as other applicant countries, but I believe that in the case of Croatia, the road to Europe lies through The Hague. In my judgment, strong compliance with the demand that those in Croatia who are alleged to have committed war crimes be sent to The Hague would undoubtedly speed up Croatia's being taken seriously as an applicant for formal EU accession.

Membership of' the EU will bring immediate economic benefits to the new member states. It will create a single market of 450 million people and there will be new markets for UK business. UK exports to central Europe increased by 19 per cent. between 1999 and 2000, and by 25 per cent. with the Czech Republic and Hungary in the same period. There are 15,000 British companies exporting to or investing in the region.

However, the preparations for enlargement are already obliging all those in the existing and the incoming member states to raise our standards so that we can tackle jointly the problems that cross borders, including pollution, drug smuggling and people trafficking. Candidates are making major improvements to air and water quality to meet EU standards. Beaches around Cyprus, where nearly 1.5 million UK tourists go each year, are being brought up to EU standards. Thanks to co-operation between UK and Czech officials, a major drugs-related money-laundering operation was closed down a couple of years ago. We need to keep working to maintain those levels of cooperation.

I conclude by turning to the important matter of Cyprus. I will seek to address the points raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk. who sneaked the issue of sovereign base areas into the debate. I am happy to write to him in detail. I would have been happy to make a statement in the House had I been asked to. I am content that the decisions taken late in the day when I replied to the question to which he referred, I knew nothing of the proposal were made in good faith to show British willingness to contribute to arriving at an agreement that will be supported by both the Turkish and the Greek-Cypriot communities on the island.

Our policy is that we want a united Cyprus to join the European Union. We think that the Annan proposals, for which the jargon term is "Annan 3", deserve support. We hope that Mr. Denktash and President Papadopoulos will support them and that their colleagues and friends in Athens and Ankara will also make it clear that Cyprus is going to enter the European Union under any conditions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. O'Hara)

Order. I was thinking that the reference made by the Minister to British policy towards Cyprus is only relevant to the debate in that it contributes to a solution to the Cyprus problem, which means that a united Cyprus can enter the enlarged Europe. Will the Minister bear that in mind?

Mr. MacShane

You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one has greater knowledge of the Hellenic aspects of the Cypriot question than you. It is important to stress—as Commissioner Verheugen did this morning—that we want a united Cyprus to enter the European Union, but if for any reason Mr. Denktash or others fail to agree to the Annan proposals, Cyprus will still enter the European Union. That is an important point that is worth putting clearly on the record. It is one aspect of European Union enlargement that I hope is contributing to a more secure east Mediterranean.

The Government will work to support enlargement. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on securing this important debate.