Commons Sitting of 17 October 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded it the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. James Cran be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. John Hayes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nick Ainger, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the provision of rural housing in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [4190]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues, including the provision of housing. Rural housing has been and continues to be a high priority for the National Assembly. The Assembly aims to develop thriving rural communities, with everyone in Wales having the opportunity to live in good-quality, affordable housing and being able to choose where they live and to decide whether buying or renting is best for them and their families.
  Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He will know that there is a crisis in rural housing in Wales, and that the crisis has become something of a politicised subject. May I ask him, respectfully, to work with some of his noble Friends, with other Labour party members and with all the political parties in Wales to build a consensus, so that we can produce proper and lasting answers for the people of Wales? If we fail them, we all, as political parties, fail them.
  Mr. Murphy: I have no problem with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Our rural communities in Wales are represented by Plaid Cymru, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party, all of which I think, have in mind the same solutions for rural housing in Wales. The Assembly has also taken very vigorous action on the issue, providing £18 million for social housing in rural Wales. Additionally, Homebuy is a low-cost housing scheme, and local authorities in Wales are identifying affordable sites for local people. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman on the issue.

  NHS Waiting Times
  Mr. David Amess: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on NHS waiting times. [4192]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First Minister to discuss the NHS in Wales. The subject of waiting times is of course often on the agenda.
  Mr. Amess: Now that we are in the fifth year of this appalling Government, is the Minister aware that the number of patients waiting for in-patient or day-case

  1153
  treatment has increased from more than 6,000 to 9,385? It is a staggering increase. Who does the Secretary of State for Wales blame for that disgraceful increase?
  Mr. Touhig: The increase in the number of in-patient and day cases is 779, not the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. Clearly, however, the Government are disappointed by the increase, and that disappointment is shared by my colleague the Assembly Secretary, Jane Hutt. Disappointment, however, is not enough: we must do something about it. The Government are doing something about it. We are putting extra funding into the national health service: £35 million extra this year to ease waiting times and emergency pressures, on top of the £40 million that was put in last year. Additionally, there is a further £3 million to increase bed capacity, and £12 million to help reduce orthopaedic waiting lists. All those public expenditure increases are opposed by Conservative Members.
  Ultimately, resources alone will not be enough; reform of the health service is also necessary. When the Government introduce measures shortly to reform the health service, I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and other Conservative Members will support them.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Now that the Government have given the country the opportunity, with devolution, to embark on different policies—both in the health service and in other services—in different parts of the country, what efforts are the Government and the Assembly making to compare and contrast the efficacy of the various policies on either side of the Severn and on either side of the border between Scotland and England?
  Mr. Touhig: A joint ministerial committee composed of Health Ministers from the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations will meet on Monday. There is a continuous dialogue between the Government and the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have one objective in mind: improving health care and the health service across the United Kingdom. As a result of devolution, there are of course different roads on which we shall travel to achieve that objective. Our objective, however, is the same.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Ulster Unionist Members welcome the concept of reform of the health service. Has the Minister discussed with his colleagues in Wales the possibility of using some of that extra money to purchase provision in Germany and France, where they seem to be able to provide the operations that we cannot?
  Mr. Touhig: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Of course, decisions on patients being treated in other countries in the European Union are initially a matter for clinical referral. They then have to be supported by the health authority that has to provide the funding, and they also require the support of the Department of Health. Discussions are taking place between the Department of Health and the devolved Administration in Wales on that matter.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The Prime Minister told public service workers yesterday that, despite the international situation, he would continue with his reforms
  1154
  to improve public services. We all want to see such an improvement, but let us consider the facts. In 1997, some 101,000 Welsh residents were waiting for a first out-patient appointment, but on 31 August this year 203,000 were waiting. In 1997, some 28,000 people were waiting for more than three months, but on 31 August 135,000 were waiting. All the Minister can say is that he is "disappointed". Those are appalling figures. Will the Minister meet the Secretary of State for Health to discuss what action needs to be taken now to turn around those figures and improve on the 1997 levels?
  Mr. Touhig: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reaching his Front Bench position. A boy from the valleys is on the Front Bench—if it is not the Welsh valleys, at least it is the Ribble Valley. We need to put in resources and to reform the health service. We recognise the difficulties and that we are not achieving the targets that we want to achieve. However, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman's party would support the Government when we introduce measures to increase health spending and reform the health service to achieve the goal that we all share—to improve the national health service in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Before too long, he will have a chance to support from the Front Bench the Government's proposals for a health Bill for Wales. I hope that I can count on his backing.
  Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his initial remarks. The chilling statistics hide the personal pain of those on the waiting lists. Yesterday, we heard the story of an 88-year-old lady, Violet Lee, who was left for more than 30 hours on a Cardiff hospital trolley. The sick pensioner was among a number of patients forced to wait hours for treatment in the emergency unit of the University of Wales hospital. She also had to wait more than 29 hours for a hot meal. One Pontypool GP I spoke to yesterday, Dr. Greg Graham, said that the situation was getting worse and expressed his frustration. It is little wonder that there has been an 11 per cent. increase in complaints by patients in Wales and that a survey of GPs released today showed that one in four wants to quit the profession. An increasing number are also going private for acute care. I ask the Minister again to meet the Secretary of State for Health and report back to the House on what new measures he will take to halt the rot for the sake of patients in Wales.
  Mr. Touhig: I have every sympathy with the lady the hon. Gentleman mentions. No one should have to wait in the circumstances that he describes. However, as I said earlier, it is by putting in resources and reforms that we will make changes. I appreciate the comments from Dr. Greg Graham. I know him well and he is a strong advocate of improving the health service. However, I note also that the overwhelming majority of GPs questioned in the survey the hon. Gentleman mentioned believe that patient care has improved in the past five years. The Government have a good record on which to build and we are improving on that. As I said earlier, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us his support, when he gets the chance, in putting those resources and reforms in place to improve the health service.

  Assembly Funding
  Mr. Win Griffiths: When he last met the First Minister of the National Assembly to discuss the funding of its functions. [4193]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Minister regularly on a range of matters, including funding issues. I also recently met the Assembly's Finance Minister, Edwina Hart. Tomorrow, the Assembly will debate its annual Budget.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend, his Under-Secretary and his staff at the Wales Office for the excellent relationships that have been developed with the Assembly and the way in which the Department acts as a bridge with the Assembly, as exemplified by the flexibility on the Barnett formula that enabled the extra funding for objective 1. Will my right hon. Friend consider more flexibility for other functions of the Assembly, because needs in Wales have been shown to be much higher than those in other parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. On Monday, Edwina Hart, the Welsh Assembly Finance Minister, announced a further £17 million to support Welsh local authorities. Today, the Government are providing about £1.2 million for Wales, which results from extra money from the Department of Health in England. In recent months, extra money for Wales has included up to £2 million for rate relief grant, more than £2.5 million related to foot and mouth disease, and more than £2 million from the invest-to-save budget. We have also offered to clear outstanding housing debt when local authority stock transfers take place. Potentially, that is worth up to £300 million, and is in addition to the extra £100 million given last year for education and health, and for tackling crime, especially drug crime. All that comes on top of the spending review in 2000, and of the comprehensive spending review before that.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Assembly does not need a new building to carry out its functions and that it would be better if the money earmarked for that project went into public services, and especially the health service?
  Is the Secretary of State aware that the Richard Rogers Partnership, the architects of the Assembly building, has issued a statement today, which refutes a statement made by the Finance Minister on 16 January? She said:
  "I am pleased to report that since last June we have made excellent progress. We remain on course to deliver a high quality building, on time and within total budget provision."
  The Richard Rogers Partnership refutes that statement, and accuses the Finance Minister of refusing to meet to discuss the matter. We are talking about a lot of taxpayers' money. Will the Secretary of State therefore offer to meet the First Minister, to sort out the problem?
  Mr. Murphy: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the shadow Cabinet? He knows that this is a matter for the Assembly itself to decide. It is time that all hon. Members understood that
  1156
  devolution is here to stay, and that it is for the Assembly to decide whether to have a home of its own—just as we have our own home in the House of Commons.
  With regard to the Richard Rogers Partnership, I understand that the Finance Minister is to write to all members of the Assembly—including those in the Conservative party. However, the House must bear in mind what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths): extra money—hundreds of millions of pounds of it—has gone to the Assembly for precisely those public services about which the hon. Gentleman spoke earlier.

  Transport
  Mr. Martin Caton: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on transport in Wales. [4194]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss wide-ranging current issues affecting Wales, including transport.
  Transport generally is a matter for the Assembly, although railways, air and ports remain, generally, the responsibility of the UK Government, working closely with the Assembly. I am keen to continue dialogue with the Assembly and Cabinet colleagues in order to determine how best we can meet the transport needs of Wales.
  Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the people and economy of Wales were especially poorly served by Railtrack, until it was taken into administration 10 days ago? Will he undertake to work in partnership with the Assembly to press the new company when it is set up to invest in the rail infrastructure that we so badly need in Wales? In particular, will he emphasise the need to improve the track west of Cardiff, so that in the 21st century our inter-city trains move faster than Stevenson's Rocket on its first test run?
  Mr. Touhig: As a regular user of the rail network, I understand—and share—the frustration passengers have had to put up with over past years. The Government are committed to working in close partnership with the Assembly and other stakeholders to improve the railway system. That is why, to achieve that improvement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has committed £30 billion to the network over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Given the difficulty experienced by Railtrack, will the Minister say what discussions he is having with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the progress on the single rail franchise for Wales, and especially about improvements to the service in rural areas, such as the heart of Wales line that is so important to my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire?
  Mr. Touhig: Our colleagues in the Assembly attach considerable importance to developing the new Wales and borders rail franchise and the opportunities that will be

  1157
  derived from that for improving the whole rail structure and support in Wales. I have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Assembly's Minister for Environment, Sue Essex, to discuss the all-Wales franchise. We have also had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, and discussions are continuing. We hope to make progress.

  Education
  Dr. Hywel Francis: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly on education in Wales. [4195]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend has met the First Minister on a number of occasions recently to discuss education in Wales.
  My right hon. Friend and I have also had meetings and discussions with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales to discuss the forthcoming Education Bill.
  Dr. Francis: I warmly welcome the National Assembly's discussion document, "The Learning Country". Does my hon. Friend agree that the foundations for such a learning country are being achieved by many schools in Wales, particularly Cymer Afan and Sandfields comprehensive schools in my constituency? Does he agree that our learning country will be achieved only if we base it on the principles of equity, lifelong learning and citizenship?
  Mr. Touhig: I congratulate Cymer Afan and Sandfields schools on their achievements. It shows what can be done with resources, commitment and the vision of good teachers. The opportunities for all our citizens afforded by a programme of lifelong learning is obvious to us all, and I believe that the publication of "The Learning Country", to which my hon. Friend referred, as well as that of the White Paper, "Schools Achieving Success" contributes to the continuing debate on improving the standards of education that we all want to see.
  Lembit Öpik: The Rees report on student finance, commissioned by the Welsh Assembly, clearly recommended the abolition of student tuition fees in the interests of widening access to higher education. Would the Minister be willing to promote the abolition of student tuition fees to the Department of Education and Skills in its review of student finance if called upon to do so by the Welsh Assembly?
  Mr. Touhig: Our core objective is to get more people into higher education. The review of student support was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on 4 October. The Government recognise that the fear of debt can act as a barrier to those wanting to go into higher education—that is why we are having a review.
  I am aware of the Rees report, which I think is very constructive. It contains 54 recommendations, which the Assembly is considering. The report does not recommend that students make no contribution to their higher education. However, I believe that that report and the
  1158
  Assembly's response will undoubtedly form part of the consultation announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 October.

  Employment
  Alan Howarth: What his latest assessment is of levels of employment in south-east Wales. [4196]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Employment in south-east Wales increased slightly to 69 per cent. in 2000. Some 3,800 new jobs have been announced in south-east Wales in the past 12 months through developments in retailing, electronics and communications sectors. However, that does not compensate for the heavy loss of jobs in the area due to the Corns closures. The Government are providing support to those affected in the form of a modernised ISERBS package. This is complemented by a range of Government employment initiatives and by the Assembly's training and regeneration packages.
  Alan Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for the energy that he has put into brokering the well co-ordinated response in south-east Wales to the crisis in the steel industry and the job losses following from it. Does he agree that the fortunes of Newport are crucial to the fortunes of south-east Wales and to employment prospects in particular? Will he do what he can to ensure that at the very earliest opportunity an urban regeneration company is established in Newport with broad scope and depth of resources?
  Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. I entirely agree that an urban regeneration company for the Newport and south Gwent area would be an excellent idea. I understand that Newport county borough council is making proposals regarding the urban regeneration company, which the Assembly is considering in detail. I welcome the proposals, which will serve my constituents as well as those of my right hon. Friend.
  Adam Price: Do not the recent 800 job losses announced by United States-owned firms in Wales—Corning on Deeside, GEAES in Nant Garw and Dow Corning in Barry—confirm that the Government's core economic policies are destroying the Welsh manufacturing sector? As Secretary of State, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing? What proposals is he putting to his colleagues in Government to prevent further job losses in the Welsh manufacturing sector?
  Mr. Murphy: As I said in my previous answer and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are deeply concerned about losses in the manufacturing sector in Wales, but I reject the claim that the Government are destroying manufacturing in Wales. He will know that only last week about 250 new jobs for Blaenau Gwent were announced by the First Minister. There have been 350 new jobs at Morrisons in Rogerston, 400 at Oakdale, 188 at SkyTronics in Cardiff and 264 in my constituency. On average, about 300 jobs a month are coming to Wales.

  1159
  Of course, that does not make up for all the jobs that we have lost, but it is not in any way true to say that we are destroying manufacturing in Wales.
  Mr. John Smith: Given the increasing number of jobs in Wales that are dependent on the aviation industry, will my right hon. Friend assure me that when he next meets the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will press on him that any aid package for that industry includes the capacity to protect aviation jobs in Wales, especially in my constituency?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting next to me and listening. At the end of the day, it is the stability and strength of our economy in Wales that will protect our jobs. That will be the best sort of protection in terms of what has happened on the international scene in the past few weeks.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on manufacturing employment in Wales. [4197]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Some 7,500 jobs have been announced in the manufacturing sector in Wales in the past 12 months. That is particularly welcome in the context of severe losses in the steel sector.
  Mr. Brady: I am amazed by the complacency of the Secretary of State's comments. In the past four years throughout the United Kingdom 8 per cent. of the nation's manufacturing jobs have been destroyed by the Government. In Wales, the picture is worse. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this Government's tax and regulatory policies have been one of the main reasons why those jobs have gone? What is he going to do now to lift that burden from business in Wales and start to reverse the decline?
  Mr. Murphy: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the basis that he represents a party that saw the loss of 2 million manufacturing jobs during its period of office. Of course we have lost jobs in steel and elsewhere, but as I said earlier jobs are coming to our economy in Wales. Of course I am not complacent. I live in Wales and I represent a Welsh constituency.
  Chris Ruane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the seven years prior to 1997 under the previous Conservative Government only 100 jobs were created on the St. Asaph business park? In the four years since then, under a Labour Government, 1,100 jobs have been created on that £11.5 million project. Will my right hon. Friend join in congratulating the National Assembly for Wales, Denbighshire county council and the Welsh Development Agency on creating quality jobs in my constituency?
  Mr. Murphy: Not only do I congratulate my colleagues in the National Assembly, the WDA and the local authority, I congratulate my hon. Friend. He played a major role in the St. Asaph business park development.
  1160
  At present, about 520 people are employed there—100 are in inward investment companies. So, that is a great new story for north Wales and for his constituency in particular.

  Health Service
  Julie Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on the health service in Wales. [4198]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the National Assembly First Minister and the Minister for Health and Social Services to discuss the national health service in Wales.
  Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He is aware of the plan to phase out health authorities in Wales by 2003 and to give additional powers to local health groups. Will he assure me that the legislation will be in place by 2003 to enable that to happen, so that the layer of bureaucracy can be removed and there can be a further reduction in the quango state and more money for patient care?
  Mr. Touhig: I know that my hon. Friend is a staunch advocate of the NHS. I can tell her that discussions are on-going about the proposed content of the Welsh health Bill. In addition, discussions are currently taking place between my officials, officials from the Department of Health and the Assembly on time-critical elements that we hope may be included in the NHS reform and decentralisation Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot tell my hon. Friend that the legislation will be on the statute book by the date that she says, because that is a matter for the House to determine when the Government announce their legislative programme, but I can tell her that we are working towards that end.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Q 1. [4220] David Winnick: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 October.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, may I express on behalf of Members on both sides of the House our deep sadness at the death of Jamie Cann? He was a conscientious Member of Parliament who always battled for his constituency, Ipswich. He will be sadly missed, and our thoughts are with his family at this time.
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. Shortly before coming to the House, I spoke to President Bush.
  David Winnick: In recognising that the terror groups who have struck again are fanatically opposed to a

  1161
  settlement in the middle east, should not the United States in particular do more to try to bring about a sovereign Palestinian state in the occupied territories? Would it not also be useful if countries such as our own told the Israelis that although they, like any other state, have a perfectly legitimate right to defend their country, as far as the occupied territories are concerned they cannot win against the Palestinians and, frankly, they do not deserve to win?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the first thing that we should say to Israel is to give our complete condemnation of the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister, to express our outrage at his assassination and to urge the Palestinian National Authority to take all measures necessary to apprehend those who are responsible.
  As for what my hon. Friend says about the peace process, I do actually believe that the United States of America has been making many efforts to establish a durable peace in the middle east, not least the Tenet plan and the Mitchell plan, which were conceived, and whose implementation was attempted, long before 11 September.
  I think that now, however, there is a renewed sense of urgency and a desire to see a durable lasting settlement there, so that Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace. We shall certainly do all that we can to assist that process and move it forward. What we always know about such situations is that unless we do try to put in place a proper process where people negotiate the way forward, the extremists who are opposed to any form of peace settlement move in with their bloodshed, and we need to defeat the extremists and achieve a lasting and durable peace.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I associate myself with the Prime Minister's comments and warm thoughts about Jamie Cann. Those of us on this side of the House who knew him will have memories of a good colleague and friend, and our thoughts also go to his family.
  I also associate myself with the Prime Minister's comments on the brutal assassination today of the Israeli Cabinet Minister. Those who may not even have thought about this should know that, as the Prime Minister pointed out, those responsible are determined to break the peace process and ensure that it cannot go ahead; it is not the other way round. Certainly, we, like him, will be very concerned about the way that others react to them.
  Some argued, over a week ago, when we were talking about the military action, and some appear to be arguing now, a week later, for a pause in the bombing. I fully understand that bin Laden's propaganda, and pictures in the media of bombs going astray will worry some, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that, having started this action, we see it through, and that to stop now would send out a terrible message to bin Laden, the Taliban and any other rogue state bent on terrorism that they will be allowed to get away with atrocities in future because we lack the resolve to deal with them?
  The Prime Minister: I do agree with that. I think it is important that we continue this military action and ensure that it is successful.
  I can tell the House that we have now significantly damaged the Taliban's military capability, including fast jets, transports and helicopters. We have inflicted very
  1162
  severe damage on their command and control facilities, early warning systems, air defence systems, radar and surface-to-air missile sites, and we have also inflicted heavy damage on the terrorist network and terrorist training camps of al-Qaeda.
  We are in the process of establishing an ability to take further military action against both the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda network, and we are giving additional help to the Northern Alliance in its efforts against the Taliban. The Northern Alliance is now taking territory from the Taliban, and is close to Mazar-i-Sharif in the north and to Kabul.
  In any military action there are difficulties—there is no clean or easy way to deal with it—but I think that the House will know that, in the weeks that followed 11 September, we made every effort to give the Taliban regime a chance to be reasonable and to yield up bin Laden and his associates; they refused to do so. We now know quite clearly from the statements made by al-Qaeda and bin Laden since 11 September that, if they are not stopped, they will try to commit further terrorist atrocities. We have no option but to continue this, to bring it to a successful conclusion and to close down that terrorist network once and for all.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Following that point with the Prime Minister, is not it also correct that ending the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is clearly linked to the same military success? The biggest obstacle that we now see to delivering aid is the control of the vast majority of Afghanistan by the Taliban, who are now, I understand, taxing some of the aid that is going in and even sending some of it to market, not letting it go to those who need it. As we know that some of the key passes into Afghanistan will be closed by the new year, time, as the Prime Minister knows, is short. So would not the best way to ensure that vital aid gets through be for the existing Taliban regime to fall and for a new Government to come to power committed to assisting the aid programme?
  The Prime Minister: It may again help if I say a word or two about this, because I understand the concerns of aid agencies and others about humanitarian assistance going through to people inside Afghanistan. Around Afghanistan, on the borders, we have sufficient provision of food, camps and shelter for about 2.5 million people. Some 4 million people are already being helped. Inside Afghanistan is the problem. The World Food Programme believes that it can get in some 12,000 tonnes of food in the coming week, even despite the difficulties, and it has already got in several thousands tonnes of food in the past few days. That is difficult, but it is important for people to realise why it is difficult.
  It is difficult because the Taliban regime are harassing the UN convoys, in intimidating them and, in some cases, taking over their equipment, their communications or the sites where the UN staff are. They are taxing some of the food—so-called taxing—as it comes into Afghanistan, and they are trying to lift other parts of it and use it for their own purposes. If we have their co-operation in the humanitarian help to the Afghan people, we can make sure that that food gets through. It is they who are the obstacle, and we will do everything that we possibly can, despite their obstruction, to get that food through to

  1163
  people. However, it is very important that people realise that it is their obstruction that is stopping the food getting through to the people who need it.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Our aim must be to bring bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice, as the Prime Minister has said from the beginning, but until there is a Government in Afghanistan who are determined to rid themselves of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, that, as he knows, will be immensely difficult to achieve. Will he therefore, take this opportunity to assure the House that such a Government must be broadly based and include not just the mainly Tajik Northern Alliance, but other tribes, such as the Pushtun, Hazaras and others? Will he also confirm, against some reports, that he and the United States are talking widely to all the people who could help to put together such a Government and who may already have plans to do so?
  The Prime Minister: We certainly are talking to all the people who would have to be involved in order to have a broad-based post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan. However, the work that is being carried out is being undertaken principally by Mr. Brahimi, the UN representative, and he is in talks with all the relevant ethnic groupings in Afghanistan. It is extremely important that we have a successor to the Taliban regime that has broad support in the country and that we commit ourselves to assisting that regime in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
  Now, some few weeks after 11 September, I can assure the House that the coalition for action remains strong and that countries are pledging their support—military, as well as logistical support—right around the world. On the humanitarian effort, we are doing everything that we reasonably, humanly can, and will do more. In respect of what happens after the Taliban fall, we are working to make sure that the Afghan people, who are the victims of the Taliban, get the best possible prospect of a decent and stable future.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: The Prime Minister will know of the statement made by the aid agencies this morning that 400,000 people in Afghanistan are surviving on grass and wild vegetation. He will also know that that statement makes it clear that the problems of getting humanitarian relief through are caused by a combination of the tithes imposed by the Taliban, obstructions placed by the Northern Alliance and the bombing that makes drivers reluctant to go into the area. The aid agencies have called for a pause in the bombing to feed those 400,000, and the 2 million who will not have enough food to survive the winter. Will we take any notice of that call?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, we take notice of the concerns that the agencies have raised but I must say to my hon. Friend that the principal problem for the drivers of the UN convoys is the Taliban regime's harassment and intimidation of them. We should remember that anyone who associates with the UN inside the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan is liable, according to the Taliban's own statements, to be prosecuted by them.
  The World Food Programme believes that it can get 12,000 tonnes of food into Afghanistan in the next week. We are doing everything we can to remove the obstacles,
  1164
  but the single most important thing for the Afghan people is to be released from the tyranny of the Taliban regime as swiftly as possible. That is essential, and it is essential for humanitarian reasons, too.
  I also stress to my hon. Friend and to the House that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan pre-dates 11 September by a long way. Literally millions of people were refugees before then and living in conditions of deprivation and, in some cases, starvation. So we will continue to do everything we can. We cannot have the Taliban regime remain in power and able to use this humanitarian crisis as a reason for warding off the action that we take.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I associate Liberal Democrat Members with the proper expressions of condolences about the two individuals that the leader of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister have already offered?
  Given the need for the military action in Afghanistan to be underpinned by the moral authority of the maximum humanitarian effort that is consistent with the military and political objectives that we support, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that anything that can be done to open the passage of roads into Afghanistan will be welcome? Is the international community, for example, considering safe corridors that will perhaps be under longer-term United Nations administration?
  The Prime Minister: We are looking urgently at all the different ways that we can try to secure corridors by which food can get into Afghanistan. Of course, one of the areas in which the military and the humanitarian actions interconnect is that the more territory that is under some sort of control by forces hostile to the Taliban, the more aid we can get into Afghanistan. The actions are linked. We are also working very closely with the United Nations to see what further measures it can take too.
  Mr. Kennedy: UNICEF warns today that up to 100,000 children could die over the next few months because of climatic conditions, dreadful internal conditions and the lack of aid, so will the Prime Minister tell us what steps if any—perhaps through the use of American spy satellites—have been taken to ensure that the aid drops that have already taken place have, in fact, reached the desired destinations?
  The Prime Minister: We believe that most of the aid that is being put into Afghanistan reaches the people whom it is supposed to reach, but we cannot be sure. We are operating in extremely difficult territory in the areas controlled by the Taliban where, as I said, there is a great deal of intimidation and harassment by them. However, in the conversation that I had with President Bush a few moments ago, we both agreed that the humanitarian aspect of this mission is as important as the military. Indeed, the two are linked. It is important that we do everything that we possibly can to remove any obstacles there and to get the aid in. We will consider what further help we can give to the refugees both on the borders of Afghanistan and those on the move inside Afghanistan.
  I simply express to the House the obvious point that it is an extremely difficult situation in which there are very poor communications, poor infrastructure and hordes of

  1165
  soldiers from the Taliban who can literally take over an area very quickly and intimidate the people there, including, of course, the UN staff.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Prime Minister aware that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will, as we understand it, withdraw his Ministers from the partnership Executive in Northern Ireland within the next few days, leading to the collapse of the power-sharing Executive and the unravelling of the devolved institutions? Does he agree that that will create a political vacuum in Northern Ireland that might only be filled by men of violence? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the hard-won peace process, even at this eleventh hour, can be saved, in partnership with the Irish Government, for the people of Ireland, north and south?
  The Prime Minister: I am obviously deeply committed to the peace process moving forward. Of course it is important that we do everything we can to ensure that we have the stability and institutions that we want. However, that requires all those who have supported the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—to do what they are supposed to do under its terms. My hon. Friend knows full well what I am referring to. If all parties are to have the confidence that we are moving forward on an agreed basis—namely, peaceful and democratic means as the only way in which to advance their cause—it is important that everyone implements all the obligations under the agreement, not simply some of them.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Did the Prime Minister see the comments of the Anglican vicar who lost a relative on 11 September? He told the BBC that Jo Moore's infamous e-mail was
  "basically burying bad news … under the bodies of six and a half thousand people.
  Indeed, she did not even include the relatives of those who died in her belated list of apologies. Did anyone in Downing street speak to Jo Moore after her e-mail or seek her resignation at any time?
  The Prime Minister: First, I do not defend in any shape or form what Jo Moore said, which was horrible, wrong and stupid. I do, however, defend the decision that to sack someone and end their career was too heavy a penalty. That was the decision taken. I supported it and regard the matter as closed.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on the reform of local government finance.
  The Prime Minister: We will publish a White Paper on local government. We are also working with local government to review revenue grant distribution to create a fair and transparent system that enables councils to meet the needs of their communities. These changes will be introduced in 2003–04.
  Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I want to ask him about the standard spending assessment for education. Last year, a primary school
  1166
  pupil in my constituency received around £2,300 per annum; a primary school pupil in the city of Westminster received more than £3,300 per annum; and a primary school pupil in the best-funded local authority received £4,300. Does my right hon. Friend think that that is fair? Can the system be justified to my constituents any longer?
  The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of people's concerns that we are reviewing the system, as my hon. Friend knows. However, it is important that such a complex system is reviewed properly and that we get the answers right. He will know that in Bury, as in other parts of the country, there has been a massive increase in the amount of money that goes into the education budgets, irrespective of what system we use. That is one reason why it is so important that we continue to invest in our public services so that education, health and other services get what they need.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Have recent events affected the Government's thinking on the siting of airports, especially those near London—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a closed question. The hon. Lady cannot ask about that.

  Engagements
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that Railtrack's fate sends all private companies involved in the delivery of public services a clear signal that they can no longer expect to be feather-bedded. Can he assure the House that any future developments will be determined by the imperative to give quality and value in services to the public?
  The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It was important, particularly because we were being asked for billions of pounds of extra public subsidy for Railtrack, that we took the action necessary to put the company on a better footing for the future, so that the interests of the travelling public come first. We know what a disaster rail privatisation was; it is our job and our duty to make sure that it we put it right, and we are doing so.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Why does the Prime Minister think that more than a quarter of all family doctors now want to leave the NHS?
  The Prime Minister: There are huge strains on family doctors at the moment because they are going through a period of enormous change. We are moving the whole of primary care to primary care trusts. However, I think that family doctors believe that primary care trusts are the right way forward. They also believe, as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the survey on which he based his question, that the services that they offer to their patients today are greatly improved compared with a few years ago.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: If that is the case, why does the same British Medical Association survey show that nine

  1167
  out of 10 GPs believe that the Prime Minister's reforms are unachievable, and two thirds think that his plans will do nothing to improve care for patients?
  It is not only the doctors. A constituent of mine—[Interruption.] They do not like it. A constituent of mine recently died in hospital after waiting nine hours on a trolley. His family were not aware that he had been admitted or, for a further three days, that he had died. When they came to pay their respects, they found that the body had been lost. Does not the Prime Minister think that all his promises of a better tomorrow will sound hollow to such people?
  The Prime Minister: Of course what happened to the right hon. Gentleman's constituent is unacceptable. There are situations in the national health service today that are unacceptable. People wait too long for operations; we do not have enough doctors, nurses and consultants; we need to renovate many hospital buildings and introduce new technology. All those things require investment and money, and I am afraid that the difference between our two political parties is that we support the additional investment and his party opposes it.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: It is the usual story. The Prime Minister talks about investment and then, as he did the other day, pleads for more time. What is the point when his own Ministers, some of whom are present, belie his words? His Health Secretary goes around telling everybody that the NHS will remain a state monopoly as long as Labour is in power. Labour Members are all nodding because they enjoy that. A senior Cabinet Minister is sent to tell the unions that their working practices will not change, no matter what. Is it not clear that when it comes to pleas for more time, with Labour it will be more wasted time? [Interruption.] They do not like it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: They do not like it, Mr. Speaker. The truth that the Prime Minister has to be aware of is that Labour always puts favours to its friends ahead of fairness to patients.
  The Prime Minister: First, on the trade unions, we want to ensure that when services are contracted out, it is not done on the basis of poorer terms and conditions of employment for the staff. One of the things that we have learned over the past few years, not only under this Government but under the previous Government, is that if the impact of contracting out is simply to undermine the terms and conditions of staff, it will not usually lead to a better service, and having discussions on that basis is perfectly sensible.
  We are employing many thousands more nurses in the health service, and there are more doctors and consultants. The largest hospital-building programme since the war is under way, and GP premises are being renovated. Of course, it takes a very long time to do that, but it can be done only if we put in the necessary investment.
  The position of the Labour party is that it is necessary to put investment into health care, education and other public services before short-term tax cuts. The right hon.
  1168
  Gentleman's position is to stand in the opposite corner. That is why, no matter how much the Conservatives talk about public services, they will never have credibility on that issue.
  Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about the efforts to bring together the various interest groups that might form a post-Taliban Government. My concern is that they are probably all men. Does he agree that there are many courageous and able women in Afghanistan and in exile, and will he carefully examine the models of female participation that paved the way for women's political involvement in the transitions in South Africa and Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: Female participation would certainly be an innovation in Afghanistan after the Taliban regime. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering how to have a post-Taliban Government in Afghanistan that is as broad-based as possible, and how we can help Afghanistan get over some of the extremism that has so disfigured the country. Under the Taliban, not only are women not allowed to occupy any position of power in public life, they were first driven out of Kabul university, and then girls were forbidden to go to school. There are many changes in which female participation would be most welcome.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I remind the Prime Minister of the words of the Foreign Secretary in the House yesterday:
  "There is no problem finding the money to pay for aid to Afghanistan".—[Official Report, 16 October 2001: Vol. 372, c. 1060.]
  The Prime Minister has just told the House that the humanitarian aspect is as important as the military aspect. How does he explain the fact that to date the World Food Programme has received only one third of the money promised to it by the west to feed the starving in Afghanistan? How can we stop the Muslim world feeling that we find it easier to find money for bombs than for bread? Will he now lead a humanitarian coalition, as he has led the military coalition, to squeeze out of the rich west the money to feed 6 million people?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question is predicated on a misunderstanding of the true position: $700 million have been pledged and the World Food Programme needs about $130 million of that immediately. It has got it. When it needs more, it will have more. The issue is not the sum that has been pledged: it has been made absolutely clear that that money will be available. The issue is how we get the food into Afghanistan. On the question of the humanitarian coalition, we are doing everything that we can, but, as I said earlier, we face obstruction by the Taliban regime.
  As for the military action, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that there is no alternative to taking action against those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on 11 September other than to say that we will sit back and let them carry on doing it, which would be interpreted as another sign of weakness. I find it extraordinary that anyone can look at the situation and not realise the absolute necessity of acting and of carrying that action through.

  1169
  Of course it is difficult. Anyone with any sense of humanity who sees the humanitarian problems and realises the appalling difficulties of any form of military conflict would prefer not to take the action, but what have we learned since 11 September? It is that the Taliban will not yield up the terrorist networks and, what is more, those people will do anything they can to repeat the atrocities that they committed on 11 September. In such circumstances, we have no alternative but to act. Our primary aim should be to make the action effective and to get it done as swiftly as we can.
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Is the Prime Minister aware of the existence of madrasas in Pakistan in which the indoctrination of young people in fundamentalist education takes place, preparing them for future terrorist activities? Is he also aware that there are in Pakistan centres where training in the use of weapons is carried out? Will he take the opportunity to speak to the President of Pakistan and say that those institutions should be closed to ensure that the culture of terrorism is rooted out of society?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is for us to start dictating to countries what they do, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we address the issue. I found, both when I was in Pakistan and out in the Gulf, that there was considerable understanding of the need for the moderate parts of Islam to regain full and proper ownership of their own religious beliefs from the
  1170
  extremists. I hope very much that that is what happens; I know that it is essential for the future stability of the world.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Prime Minister share the opinion expressed by Northern Ireland Assembly Minister Brid Rodgers that only the IRA can save the Belfast agreement? Does he agree that the issue of decommissioning all illegally held weapons and explosives cannot be fudged? All terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, whether so-called loyalists or republicans, must commit exclusively to democratic processes and sever immediately all links with other terrorist groups, such as those based in Turkey, Slovakia, Spain and, indeed, Colombia.
  The Prime Minister: I do agree that it is important for all people to express themselves and indeed to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Of course, that is the very reason why we are insistent that weapons are put beyond use, not merely by republicans, but by loyalists and all those groups who have acted and used terrorism in the past 30 years to do so much damage in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that, if we can get that process under way, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will work with us to make sure that the institutions can be given the stability that they need, derived from people's confidence that exclusively peaceful and democratic means are going to be used.

BILLS PRESENTED

  SEX DISCRIMINATION (ELECTION CANDIDATES)
  Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Secretary Clare Short, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Estelle Morris, Secretary Tessa Jowell, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Dr. Alan Whitehead, presented a Bill to exclude from the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 certain matters relating to the selection of candidates by political parties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 28].
  PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (STLTIC DEVICES)
  Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to allow a property owner to erect static devices with warning signs for the protection of his property; and to indemnify the property owner from prosecution or liability if a person or persons committing a criminal act on his property is injured by a static protection device: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bil 29].
  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
  Mr. David Chaytor, supported by Mr. Harold Best, Mrs. Helen Clark, Mr. Colin Challen, Sue Doughty, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Ian Lucas, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Mr. Simon Thomas, Joan Walley and David Wright, presented a Bill to require the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine and report on the environmental impact of public expenditure, and the environmental performance of government departments and certain other public bodies against targets set by Ministers; to provide for the establishment of an environmental auditor general to carry out such functions and report thereupon to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 30].

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.32 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Foreign Secretary is representing the United Kingdom at a meeting today in Luxembourg of the General Affairs Council, which will discuss the European Union's overall counter-terrorism policy in response to the atrocities on 11 September. In particular, EU Foreign Ministers will review progress on the package of measures called for at the emergency European Council on 21 September. They will also discuss the way forward on Afghanistan and how best to ensure a better future for the country and its people. The Foreign Secretary will then immediately travel to Turkey for further talks. The Turks are an important part of the international coalition against terrorism, and we will continue to work closely with them and all other allies in the coalition to ensure that terrorism does not prevail.
  I recently made my first visit to central Europe as Minister for Europe. In Hungary and the Czech Republic, I saw countries, Governments and people determined to be a part of the EU. I have also met Ministers from Poland, Cyprus, Malta, Estonia and Slovenia; they all look to the EU as their future and they look to Britain as their champion. They want EU membership, and they want it now. They think that the EU has delayed too long. They, and all other candidates like them, want to take their place as full members of the European family, which history has long denied them. They asked me with some bemusement how those in Britain who say that they are in favour of enlargement can at the same time be against the only treaty that will deliver it on time and in good order. I put that same question to the Conservative Opposition today. By voting against the Bill, they are voting against all Britain's friends and allies in eastern, central and southern Europe who are anxiously knocking on the door to enter.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to the Minister. Like him, I have spoken to officials, particularly in Poland and Hungary, about their countries joining the EU. Did they ask him what arrangements the UK Government have tried to put in place to make sure that the common agricultural policy will work effectively? As he knows, agriculture is particularly important to those countries. What did they ask him and what did he reply?
  Peter Hain:Perhaps I have the advantage over the hon. Lady, as I have spoken to Ministers in those countries, not simply officials—[Interruption.] Okay, and officials as well. The answer to her question is simple. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have all completed negotiations on a range of chapters, up to the total of 31, which is their aim for full accession. Agriculture is one of those that still have to be negotiated. There are concerns, in relation to Poland especially, about the

  1173
  reforms that will be necessary in the common agricultural policy. We will tackle that agenda and tackle it with the candidate countries, as we are doing.
  Reform of the common agricultural policy must not be used as an excuse to deny enlargement. A series of vested interests need to be overcome among some of our fellow member states in order to reform the CAP. It is important that we do not allow those vested interests to triumph by blocking enlargement. We want the candidate countries in, and we want to conduct both reforms in parallel.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I endorse the Minister's remarks. Can he confirm that in our efforts to achieve enlargement within the timetable set out, it will be necessary for all the applicant states to meet the full requirements of the acquis, and that there will be no political fudge at the last minute to achieve our political requirements of enlargement of the EU?
  Peter Hain: No. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that cannot be the case under the treaty. Each of the applicants must sign off and agree the 31 chapters involved in the acquis, then they must ratify the treaty through their domestic process. There is no question of fudges. Detailed negotiations are necessary and much progress has been made. The Czech Republic, for example, has signed off 19 chapters. Cyprus is in a similar position. In the next year or so, we must redouble our efforts to make sure that the other candidates can come in, particularly those that are likely to be in the first wave. We are determined to play our part to ensure that enlargement happens on time, from 1 January 2004. Getting the Bill through the House tonight is an important part of that process. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whom I see sitting on the Front Bench instead of complaining from the Back Benches about European policy, says "Nonsense." Enlargement is the only show in town. If hon. Members want enlargement, and if they do not want all our friends in eastern and central Europe to be denied the opportunity of joining the European Union, they should vote for the Bill. If not, they are against those countries and their interests, and they should go out and tell them that that is their position.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) cannot answer for himself, may I suggest an answer on his behalf? The Nice treaty covers many matters other than enlargement, such as the creation of a European military force outside the NATO structure. How can the Minister try to blackmail the House into saying that we must vote for the Bill, because if we vote against it for any reason whatever, we are voting against enlargement? That is, as my hon. Friend rightly said, utter nonsense.
  Peter Hain: Part of my duties is to educate Opposition Members about Europe. That is hard work in several cases, and the hon. Gentleman is an example. I thought that the edict from the new leadership of the Conservative Opposition was for them to take a low profile on European matters. I thought that they had instructions not to say anything about European policies that might deflect
  1174
  attention from the domestic agenda. However, I am not surprised. Their policies are not just unmentionable; they are unspeakable as well. We must make it clear, so that the House and voters understand, that Opposition Members such as the hon. Gentleman and the entire Eurosceptic Conservative Front Bench are not so much anti-Europe as anxious to be out of Europe, as the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) so eloquently said.
  Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is a Conservative Whip? Does his intervention indicate a new dispensation within the Opposition? Apparently, in order to get a job on the Front Bench, Opposition Members must be able to defy their leader about keeping quiet on Europe.
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes the point very well. I look forward to hearing many more interventions being made from the Back Benches by Front Benchers such as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is there at the moment. It is a new novelty in opposition.
  Mr. John Bercow: Novelties are new.
  Peter Hain: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is very quick, and I congratulate him on that.
  Let us be clear that our Government want enlargement just as much as the candidate countries, not only because we have strong ties with each of them and because it is in their interests, but because it is in Britain's interests.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The Minister is right that the practical effect of denying the Bill its Third Reading would be to ensure that Britain could not ratify the Nice treaty. Does he agree that the certain consequence would be the throwing of a major spanner into the enlargement works?
  Peter Hain: I am grateful that sense has prevailed at least somewhere on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. If we do not carry this Bill in the House and the other place, we will be unable to ratify the Nice treaty, which will fall apart. Britain would then be in a dangerous position, as it would be a champion of enlargement that could not introduce its own Bill to ratify the treaty that makes enlargement possible. I am sure that I have his support in saying that there is no alternative. If we want enlargement to occur on time and to ensure the entry on 1 January of the first wave of countries, including many of our friends, such as the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and others, the Bill needs to pass through the House—and quickly.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: My right hon. Friend stressed the importance of the House enacting the Bill so that the treaty can be ratified. Is he aware that Ireland has rejected the proposal on which the Bill is based? Does that mean that all our discussion is immaterial or does not the Irish rejection matter?
  Peter Hain: Neither suggestion is true. Three countries have already ratified the treaty and we intend also to be in the first batch that do so. The more countries that ratify

  1175
  it, the more progress can be made in securing the enlargement that we, at least, want.
  On the Irish decision, my hon. Friend made an important point to which I want to respond fully. Consultations have taken place between the European Union leadership, including Britain, and the Irish Government. They have asked for time to consider their position. [Interruption.] It is interesting to hear scoffing, howls of laughter and cheering at that prospect. However, if ratification is not agreed by any member state, including Britain, enlargement cannot proceed. If enlargement is desirable, as I believe it to be, it must proceed.
  Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is sometimes difficult to understand the exact position of the Opposition, it is clear that they are not against the enlargement of the European Union, but want an enlargement that will weaken or undermine it, instead of consolidating it and reinforcing its capacity to act?
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not think that the Opposition are in favour of proper enlargement. They want to wreck the prospects of the candidate countries, as well as Europe, the Bill and the possibility of getting ratification from Britain. Fortunately, we have a clear majority over the Eurosceptics who sit on the Opposition Benches and it is just possible that the Bill will be introduced without their support.
  Mr. Boris Johnson: Does the Minister really think that the Bill is indispensable for enlargement? From my experience of the Community, it seems to me that it would be perfectly possible to convene an intergovernmental conference tomorrow in Brussels to discuss enlargement issues in the Nice treaty that are completely uncontroversial and without any need to ratify the treaty itself. One could have such a conference tomorrow and get on with enlargement.
  Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a formidable journalist, but if he imagines that he can convene an intergovernmental conference tomorrow and renegotiate enlargement, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Britain increased its voting strength in the Council of Ministers under the Nice treaty. We got a better deal than any of the other larger countries; we increased the share of our vote under qualified majority voting. If we reopened the Nice agenda, does the hon. Gentleman believe that that increase, which is embedded in the treaty, subject to ratification, would be left untouched? Of course it would not. Several parties are not happy that Britain's share of the vote increased.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is a formidable journalist, but I do not believe that The Spectator had correspondents at the Nice summit. He would otherwise know that the decision on the voting weight was exceedingly controversial and that representatives of several member states threatened to walk out. If the treaty falls through, the whole matter might have to be renegotiated with consequent enormous complications.
  Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is right; I shall continue to take his interventions if he wishes to make
  1176
  them. He makes a valid point: several other countries are extremely upset about the deal to which they agreed and they would desperately like to unravel it. The opposition of the hon. Member for Henley and his colleagues to the Bill would promote that outcome.
  Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend said that his mission was to educate the Opposition. He has shown them that their zealous anti-Europeanism would recklessly annoy many of our friends. However, will he also educate them about the changed attitude of the United States Administration to European security and defence policy? It undermines yet another plank of their anti-Europeanism.
  Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend is right. The President of the United States has been steadfast in his support for the European security and defence policy. He speaks for the Administration in Washington, and some of the offstage noises to the contrary should be ignored. As I shall make clear later, if I am allowed to get that far, the events of the past month have increased the importance of a European role in security. The progress has been endorsed.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Peter Hain: I am sorry, but I shall make some progress before taking any more interesting interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
  Enlargement is not a favour that we are doing the candidates. It is a favour we are doing ourselves. Why? It will reunite Europe at long last after the bitter divisions of world war two and the cold war. It will make us safer; war between the EU's members is now unthinkable. By enlarging, the EU will extend stability throughout Europe.
  Enlargement will make us richer. Taking in the central Europeans alone will boost British gross domestic product by £1.75 billion. That is an important prize. It will create more jobs for British workers. Enlargement will create thousands of them throughout the UK. It will mean lower prices and greater choice for UK consumers. They will have access to a wider range of products at more competitive prices as the single market is enlarged to become the largest in the world, with a population of nearly 500 million.
  It will also make Britain cleaner and greener. Common environmental standards applied in all EU member states, new and old, will reduce the cross-border pollution that affects our skies and rivers.
  Enlargement will make our streets safer. Together, the EU member states are tackling cross-border crime, drug smuggling, people trafficking and illegal immigration. If we are to deliver lasting success, we need the candidates inside the EU, working with us on those tasks.
  As I said earlier, enlargement is even more important after 11 September. After the horror of that day, we need enlargement more than ever. If we are to defeat the terrorists, we need the bigger, stronger Europe that enlargement will bring. We need the practical co-operation across the continent that enlargement will allow.
  Let me explain. On 21 September, European Union leaders agreed on an action plan to fight terror across Europe and beyond. That plan is based on much closer co-operation with the United States, and on much closer co-operation among the EU's member states themselves.

  1177
  We agreed on a European arrest warrant. The warrant will be most effective when it applies not just in the present 15 member states but across Europe, in what are now the candidate countries. It will, when they join. There will be nowhere for the terrorists to hide any more. A common definition of terrorism in each nation's laws was also agreed. When it applies across Europe, as it will when the candidates join, the days when terrorists could avoid justice through legal loopholes will be ended.
  We agreed on quicker freezing of assets and evidence, through recognition by each EU member state of others' court orders. When that applies across Europe, as it will when the candidates join, terrorists will no longer be able to hide the funds that pay for their campaigns, or the evidence that will convict them across Europe.
  We agreed on better intelligence-sharing between member states. When the candidates are part of that network, as they will be when they join, all Europe's eyes and ears will help to ensure that we can crack and pre-empt planned terrorist action throughout our continent.
  Those are important prizes, which enlargement will bring.
  Mr. John Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the fight against terrorism, one of the most important aspects of this treaty is the headline military goals? As has been revealed in recent weeks, many of our NATO allies have not the military capability to contribute to NATO. If the goals within the treaty for the European targets are achieved, the capability will exist.
  Peter Hain: I am not sure about that, but I take my hon. Friend's general point.
  A bigger European Union will mean a stronger European defence policy too—which relates to what my hon. Friend just said. It will mean more troops able to handle the peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis-management operations that Europe may need to run in the future. It will mean an EU better able to stop the kind of instability, on its borders or further afield, in which terrorists can hide and thrive.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that the Minister will not be seduced by the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)—with whom I often agree, although I do not on this occasion. It would do nothing for the strength of NATO if it were somehow thought that to achieve the headline goals of the European rapid reaction force was equivalent to achieving the objectives of the defence capabilities initiative, and NATO itself.
  Peter Hain: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. He usually speaks with great authority, conviction and, indeed, persuasiveness about these matters.
  Our biggest weapon of all in the fight against terrorism, however, is not more troops. It is not just better intelligence sharing, and not just enhanced extradition arrangements. It is international solidarity. The member states are showing that: not just Britain but all our European partners gave immediate and unconditional
  1178
  support to the US after 11 September. The European Union is emerging through this crisis as a force to be reckoned with on the global diplomatic stage. It is no longer simply passing resolutions in its Council of Ministers meetings; it has earned a right to be taken seriously in Washington and, indeed, in the rest of the world.
  Let us remember that the candidates too have been steadfast in giving unconditional solidarity. They too have voiced their full support to the US, for the anti-terrorist measures that the EU is establishing, and for the broader fight against fear. All—each one—did that voluntarily and immediately. Without being prompted, they demonstrated that, at a critical time internationally, they were already embryonic members of the European Union. We welcome them and commend them for that. We need their support, for this struggle has no boundaries. We need their solidarity; their accession will consolidate it. We need their co-operation; their accession will strengthen it.
  What kind of Europe will the candidates join? We want them to join our kind of Europe. We want them to join a practical Europe that delivers real things for real people: jobs, prosperity, cleaner air, safer cars, and the right to live, work and study anywhere inside the European Union. We want them to join an accountable Europe, whose agenda is set by the democratically elected leaders of the member states; an open Europe, which consults its citizens and makes decisions with full transparency.
  We want them to join a comprehensible Europe that uses language that people can understand and procedures that they can follow, and a diverse Europe that cherishes the differences between its member states and empowers them all while respecting the national identity of each. We want them to join a Europe that stands in a strong transatlantic alliance with the United States—as it has so steadfastly in the fight against international terrorism, and as it must also do in opening up trade, on conflict prevention, on a new deal for Africa, on humanitarian assistance and in fighting world poverty. That is our kind of Europe. That is the Europe that our Government are building and the Europe that we want the candidates to join.
  Mr. Davidson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, and I very much agree with him on the merits of enlargement. Does he agree with me and Romano Prodi that, as Mr. Prodi said on 21 June 2001, in The Irish Times,
  "legally, ratification of the Nice treaty is not necessary for enlargement"?
  Does the Minister accept that?
  Peter Hain: I noticed renewed interest in the debate among Opposition Members when my hon. Friend mentioned Romano Prodi, who is very popular among Opposition Members. Legally we could have an accession treaty with each member state, one by one, and convene an intergovernmental conference to agree that. However, is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting—I hope that he is not—that that is a sensible way to proceed on enlargement?
  We need a unified position to address issues such as the common agricultural policy—which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised—security, the single market and the various other issues

  1179
  raised in the 31 chapters. A single treaty to which each country joining the European Union has to accede makes far more sense than the alternative and is indeed the only practical way of proceeding. That is the only sensible and practical way of pursuing the matter. Legalistically, one could pursue the extremely unlikely strategy that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) seems to be supporting, but that strategy would never deliver enlargement.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although it would be perfectly possible to fix in each treaty of accession the number of seats that each new member state would have in the Council of Ministers, it is very hard to see how one could embody in each treaty of accession a voting weight for the current 15 member states?
  Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman speaks great common sense on the issue. We are discussing blindingly obvious points. If we want enlargement, Nice is the vehicle by which to achieve it. If we wreck Nice, we will not achieve enlargement.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister comment on the Foreign Secretary's comment on this issue in a previous debate? The Foreign Secretary said that
  "it is not true in a legal and technical sense that the Nice treaty is necessary for enlargement."—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 287.]
  Peter Hain: I am answering the same point. Nice is the only realistic, practical and feasible vehicle to achieve enlargement.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Peter Hain: I shall give way one last time.
  Mr. Davidson: My right hon. Friend is very generous indeed. Romano Prodi and I are of the view that, as I said,
  "legally, ratification of the Nice treaty is not necessary for enlargement."
  We would both go on to say:
  "It's without any problem up to 20 members, and those beyond 20 members have only to put in the accession agreement some notes of change, some clause. But legally it's not necessary."
  As that was in The Irish Times, on 21 June 2001, it must be true.
  Peter Hain: I do not know whether to treat roughly or gently my hon. Friend's remarks, but I shall treat them gently and say that I think that he should study the response made by the Foreign Secretary when he answered that precise point.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does the Minister agree that the mechanism that he is proposing has the advantage of enabling us to underline that Europe is seeking to find a way of working together and a
  1180
  framework within which, by working together, each of us becomes stronger? The alternative does not provide that clear object lesson.
  Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and is speaking sense. The logic that he, like the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), brings to the debate is the only logic that can achieve enlargement. That is the point.
  The majority of Conservative Members want to wreck enlargement. It is impossible to achieve enlargement for the first wave of countries by 1 January 2004 by proceeding on some magical mystery tour of individual treaties to be signed one by one on behalf of the accession states. That is simply not feasible.
  Those Conservative Members should visit Poland, the Czech Republic, Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Slovenia and all the other countries and tell them that they oppose their desire to join the EU on that date. The Conservatives should tell those states that they do not want an enlarged Europe, that they do not want to reunite Europe. Those countries are desperate to join the European family, and the Government are providing them with a vehicle to do so in this Bill.
  I have described the Europe that will be made better for Britain by the Nice treaty. Nice is not the penalty that we have to pay to get to enlargement: it is part of the prize. It is a benefit in its own right for Britain. Why? Because, as we have already explained in the House, Nice will give Britain more power. It will give the UK more votes in the Council relative to the small and medium-sized countries. Nice will extend qualified majority voting where that is in Britain's interests—in the single market or to deliver a more efficient EU. It will preserve unanimity for decision making on key areas of national interest, including tax, social security, defence, the EU's own resources, border controls and treaty change—just like we said we would achieve.
  Nice will reform the European courts to enable them to cut delays in the exercise of justice, which can penalise British interests. Nice will reform the Commission. It will make it smaller: there will be only one Commissioner per member state from 2005, and once the EU reaches 27, fewer than one. Nice will make the Commission more efficient. It will give the Commission President—the great buddy of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok—new powers to organise the Commission and sack individual Commissioners if necessary. Nice will make the EU more flexible. It will make it easier for groups of member states to act together without requiring all to join in, or undercutting the single market.
  So Nice and enlargement are both in our interests. Both are necessary and both are urgent. The task now is to press on with the ratification of Nice.
  David Cairns: On the point about the benefits to Britain, has my right hon. Friend received representations from British business on the desirability of enlargement? What assessment has he made of the benefits to British business and jobs of achieving enlargement as quickly as possible?
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right. We have had discussions with British businesses, many of whom have taken advantage of the period before enlargement to visit

  1181
  those countries to obtain new markets and contracts, and the jobs that those will bring. Thousands of jobs will be created in Britain as a result of enlargement. It is estimated that 300,000 jobs have been created across the European Union member states as they are currently constituted, just by bringing in the first wave of enlargement. Enlargement will bring enormous opportunities for British businesses, jobs and prosperity.
  We must press on with the enlargement negotiations, to conclude on schedule by the end of 2002, so that new members can join by mid-2004 at the latest. We hope that they will be able to join by 1 January if possible, to deliver the Europe we all want. That is a challenging agenda. It can be achieved, but only if all of us, including the UK, the other member states and the candidate countries—it would be nice to include the Opposition, too—make every effort to achieve it. There can be no more obstacles and no more excuses for delay on any side.
  I have explained why we brought the Bill to the House soon after we were returned to office. The Bill is necessary for a treaty that, in turn, is necessary for enlargement on time and in a sensible form. All member states agree that the enlarged EU we want cannot work effectively without the changes that Nice will make to the EU' s institutions and procedures.
  All member states agree that Nice is necessary for enlargement. All member states also agree that Nice is all that is necessary for enlargement and that once Nice is ratified the EU will have completed all the institutional changes necessary for the accession of the new member states. That is the point. Nice will complete all the changes necessary—instead of a shambolic, treaty by treaty approach that would never reach a conclusion—and that is why the other member states support Nice. That is why the candidates support it. That is why the Government support it. That is why we brought the Bill to the House. That is why I urge the House to support the Bill today, and the stronger, safer Europe that it will help to build for Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: It is some years since I faced the Minister at the Dispatch Box, and in those days he was a Minister at the Welsh Office. I am delighted that his breathtaking arrogance has not been altered by his promotion to the Foreign Office.
  I come late to the legislative process on this Bill, which has now reached Third Reading. However, the jockey may have changed but the horse remains the same—although I hope that this slightly heavier jockey will not injure it. Moreover, it is clear that I shall have to learn the niceties of behaviour in the Chamber on this Bill. I was interested to note that, during his speech, the Minister was subject to friendly fire that came symmetrically from both sides of the Chamber.
  The Opposition oppose this Bill, as we have done throughout its passage through the House. I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against it tonight, for two reasons. First, we believe that the treaty agreed at Nice fails to achieve even the aims set out by the Government. Secondly, it fails to advance the vision of a flexible Europe that lies at the heart our policy. We believe that that flexibility is essential to the successful enlargement of the European Union, as we wish to see it.
  1182
  We have always been in favour of enlargement. The Minister related a litany of all the benefits that would accrue from enlargement, which by and large I welcome, as they are broadly the same as those that we have identified. However, they are not what the Nice treaty is about—a subject to which I shall return.
  We have long argued for a more flexible Europe, yet—as has happened again today—the unsubstantiated response that we receive when we do so is that we are flying in the face of achieving greater strength through political integration. Much of the debate on this Bill has centred on those two different basic positions.
  It is worth pausing to consider those differing positions in the light of the current international situation. Europe is an essential part of the coalition that has been put together so painstakingly in the fight against international terrorism. As it happens, the European Union's ability to contribute constructively to the coalition has depended not on further integration but on the flexibility that currently exists in Europe. The Nice treaty, and other initiatives, would reduce that flexibility.
  That flexibility has allowed our partners in the EU to be part of what has effectively been a layered coalition, with different levels of participation and, even, enthusiasm. If the supporters of integration had had their way—if the implied common foreign and defence policies had been established—would it have been possible for the Prime Minister to attach himself so firmly to the American cause? Would he have been able to sign up so readily to the longer-term objectives of the fight against international terrorism, and could he have committed armed forces to the military phase in Afghanistan? I think that the answer to those questions is: almost certainly not.
  Mike Gapes: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the remarks of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi were helpful in building the coalition? Does he think that it would be in the interests of European unity—or of the Conservative party—for his party to continue its discussions with far-right former fascists in Italy?
  Mr. Ancram: I am not certain what those questions have to do with the debate. I am making it clear that the coalition works because all partners are not being asked to give precisely the same response. I am sure that the Minister, if he has met Ministers from around Europe, will be aware of that. That is what flexibility means. The lowest-common-denominator approach that would have been adopted otherwise would almost certainly have restrained the valuable support that the Prime Minister has been able to give the USA. Almost certainly, it would have prevented military engagement by forces from the UK, France or Germany, and it would have militated against the best interests of this country in the fight against international terrorism.
  Mr. John Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for a layered response within Europe—probably the most important one—is the variation in the military capability of NATO allies in Europe and the fact that some could not contribute to the extent that we did? The headline goals in the treaty will help those assets to be developed within NATO as well as within Europe.
  Mr. Ancram: I was with the hon. Gentleman until his last phrase, because that is precisely my argument about

  1183
  flexibility. That is one reason why we believe that a flexible Europe is a stronger Europe, better placed to take on the enlargement that we all seek. The events of the past weeks have underlined the strength of flexibility, which is an asset that should not lightly be thrown away.
  Roger Casale: In the right hon. Gentleman's pursuit of greater flexibility within the European Union, is he limiting himself to opposing the treaty of Nice or would he, if he could, unpick previous treaties such as Amsterdam and Maastricht and even the Single European Act? Where does it stop?
  Mr. Ancram: We are dealing with the Nice treaty. However, we have made it clear throughout the debates on the Bill that we would have liked the Nice negotiations to be used to return certain powers to national Governments. That would be in the interests of a stronger Europe. People feel disconnected from what is happening in Europe, and I believe that that is one way to deal with that. I shall come to that in greater detail shortly.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that when my right hon. Friend does so he will explain why he thinks we should reject the Nice treaty on the basis that it does not provide us with sufficient flexibility, when in fact it makes provision for enhanced co-operation to be extended and developed.
  Mr. Ancram: If this were an à-la-carte Bill, we could pick the bits that we thought were better for Europe and say no to the rest. However, we cannot do that, as the Minister says—we have to take this lock, stock and barrel, and we happen not to like the stock and the barrel. That is why I will be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I would like to make some progress, but will give way later.
  Nice was, in our view, a missed opportunity. It was a chance to create greater flexibility, to give powers back to national Parliaments and to create a closer connection, through those Parliaments, between the institutions of Europe and the people of Europe.
  The debates on the Bill have all been conducted in the shadow of the Irish referendum. That referendum and its result cannot be ignored; it was symptomatic of people's feeling of alienation from Europe, which has been growing ever since the Maastricht treaty was signed. Nice was an opportunity to address that and find a way of reconnecting with people. The Minister said that that was one of his aims, but I do not believe that it has been achieved. It could have been a way of showing the disillusionment felt by so many at what they understandably see to be the immutability of European-made law, but the opportunity was missed.
  The Government went to Nice with no clear view of the Europe they were seeking ultimately to achieve. To put it bluntly, they were ill prepared. They indicated before they went that they would not give way on qualified majority voting and then promptly did so when they got there. Now they do not seem to be able to make up their mind as to whether the areas of QMV that they
  1184
  conceded are unimportant or essential to the future workings of the European Union. They appear to be trying to play this both ways but they cannot do so. The extension of QMV was a further move towards integration.
  The Government declared that they would not undermine NATO through the approval of the rapid reaction force, and then signed up to a report in the annexe to the treaty that clearly does so. They claimed that in approving the inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights as an annexe they would be doing more than agreeing its principles. Now there is every indication that they signed up to something very much more.
  Suffice it to say that, in each case, the Conservative party gave the Government due warning. They chose to ignore those warnings. Tonight we will try once more. The Bill seeks to ratify a treaty that failed to achieve the Government's objectives. It flies in the face of our vision of a flexible Europe, and it is increasingly integrationist.
  The strongest arguments made for Nice, which the Minister made again this afternoon, was that it enabled enlargement of the European Union to take place. Our opposition to it has been inaccurately described as anti-enlargement. I stress that nothing could be further from the truth. We are the long-standing and very committed supporters of enlargement. We were pursuing enlargement in 1990–11 years ago. We have always believed that the European Union should welcome the new democracies that emerged from behind the iron curtain at that time. That would not only bind them into the European family of democracies, but enhance the concept of the flexible Europe of nations of which we are a natural part and which has always been at the heart of our European policy.
  Throughout this process, therefore, we have made it clear that we remain strong supporters of enlargement and that we would accept immediately those aspects of Nice that relate to enlargement, such as Commission size, which has been mentioned, and vote re-weighting. That remains our position, but this legislation does not allow us to do so. It would ratify a treaty that contains much more to do with integration, which carries within it the disincentive to enlargement, and much less that is central to the enlargement that we seek.
  Roger Casale: If the treaty of Nice fell, what is the earliest date at which enlargement of the European Union could take place?
  Mr. Ancram: I will deal with the treaty of Nice, which is an important point in view of the Irish referendum. We have not had an answer from the Minister on that. We have been told again today that the treaty is necessary for enlargement. Until the Irish referendum, that was the firm position of the Government.
  The Labour party election manifesto claimed that
  "it is vital that we ratify the treaty of Nice which is essential to enlargement".
  Those were the two key words—vital and essential. Like so much of that manifesto, we now discover that that is at best a distortion of the truth and that Nice is not necessary for enlargement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) said.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: When I have finished this point.
  Since 7 June, with our general election out of the way and the Irish referendum results staring the Government in the eye, the European Commission has had to admit the truth. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who has now left the Chamber, questioned the Minister and quoted to him what President Romano Prodi told The Irish Times on 21 June:
  "Legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement".
  Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley also pointed out to the Minister that the Foreign Secretary told Parliament on the next day:
  "It is true that a treaty is necessary for enlargement; it is not true in a legal and technical sense that the Nice treaty is necessary for enlargement."
  He then said:
  "We would have to have an alternative treaty."—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 287.]
  He did not tell us at that stage that we would have to have a series of treaties, which the Minister sprang on us today. I suspect that if he checks with his advisers he will find that one treaty would secure the accession and enlargement that is necessary.
  There we have it. Nice is not and never was necessary for enlargement or capable of affecting it on its own.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he believe that the countries that are seeking to join an enlarged European Union will understand those arguments? Does he not see a risk that they might think that British Conservatives are more concerned with the minutiae and with their own interests than with building bridges with other countries in Europe? At this time, is that not a dangerous signal to send to other partners beyond Europe?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will have to speak for his party and its relationships with those countries. We have been in contact with them and they understand our position. In many cases, they understand our concerns, which would affect them if they continued with their applications for accession.
  Dr. Ladyman rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I will give way in a moment. I keep on being asked what will happen about accession if the treaty is not ratified, but what will happen if the Irish continue to vote against ratification? At the time of the referendum, many people thought that that was the end of the treaty. That was not the line being taken by Commissioners in Europe or by the Government earlier. I want to hear a categorical answer from the Minister. If the Irish do not ratify the Nice treaty, is he saying that enlargement will be impossible, or that there are other ways of achieving it?
  Peter Hain: Legally, the treaty has to be ratified by all 15 member states, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows.
  Mr. Ancram: I shall ask the question again. Is the Minister saying that if that treaty is not ratified by the
  1186
  Irish, accession and enlargement cannot take place? That is a very straightforward question; I ask him to give me an answer.
  Peter Hain: I have already answered it. The answer is, in the terms of this treaty, yes. The treaty cannot proceed—enlargemen; cannot proceed—unless all member states endorse it. The right hon. Gentleman wants us to follow the same course: to put another roadblock in the way of enlargement. That is what he wants to do.
  Mr. Ancram: I want to get this clearly on the record, because the Minister is now saying that if the Irish continue to refuse to ratify the treaty of Nice, enlargement is finished. It is not what has been said previously, so it is interesting to hear it being said now. I give the Minister a chance to correct himself if he is wrong, but that is what he has put before the House today: that if the Irish continue to say no, enlargement is ended. Is that right? The Minister does not know.
  Mr. Robert Jackson Mr. Robert Jackson rose—
  Mr. Chris Bryant rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the effect of a negative vote in the House on Third Reading would help or hinder the Irish people in deciding to ratify the Nice treaty and enable enlargement to take place?
  Mr. Ancram: I must say, with great friendliness to my hon. Friend, that I spent some time dealing with the Irish people, in Northern Ireland and in the south, and I learned very early on not to try to tell the Irish people what to do. I doubt whether they would listen, particularly to what is being said in the House. They will continue, as they always do, robustly to make up their own minds.
  Dr. Ladyman rose—
  Mr. Bryant rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I want to make progress; then I will give way.
  We need to take the argument further, because Nice failed to address the single biggest obstacle to enlargement: the unreformed common agricultural policy. The truth is that enlargement cannot succeed with the CAP as it stands, and I believe that the Minister would agree with that—he is nodding.
  Agriculture currently absorbs nearly 50 per cent. of the European budget—the Minister provided my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) with an answer that says that the figure is just under 50 per cent. at the moment—but if Poland acceded, that figure would rise to 85 per cent. Therefore CAP reform must be a necessary precursor to enlargement, yet at Nice it was totally ignored. That treaty—that negotiation—which was to do with enlargement, did not deal with the single most important precursor to enlargement.

  1187
  That precursor will continue to be ignored. The Minister talks about accession by 2004, but he should read what President Chirac said last week. He said, with an eye to his own domestic political requirements, that as far as he was concerned there would be no reform of the CAP until 2006. I should like to place on the record what he said, because we can speculate in the House, but we know that if there is no reform of the CAP, enlargement is in danger to a far greater degree than anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage has suggested.
  President Chirac said:
  "On this plan, I would like to say first of all that, because it is an important point, and because it is not bad that the world should know the clearly expressed position of the French authorities, we are absolutely opposed, and we will do everything to oppose, a re-opening of the agreement of Berlin, that is to say a redefinition, a reform of the common agricultural policy before 2006."
  Effectively, he is saying—this is another challenge to the Minister—that the precursor to enlargement will not occur because the French will not allow it to happen. What is the Minister's answer then, in terms of enlargement? How does he deal with that?
  Peter Hain: The answer, for the record, is that common agricultural policy reform is not necessary for enlargement. It is not necessary: it is desirable. It is not technically necessary, however. In any case, the treaty does not deal with common agricultural policy reform. [HON. MEMBERS: "Exactly."] Exactly so. That is being proceeded with on a separate road; it has already started, as a result of the British initiative, and will continue. There is, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, an agricultural chapter, which must be negotiated, state by state, in order for the accession of each of those states to be ratified, and that is one of the next sections of the enlargement process down the road.
  Mr. Ancram: Although I am new to this particular legislation, I am again astounded by the Minister's attitude. Is he really suggesting that the common agricultural policy does not matter as far as enlargement is concerned? How will an enlarged Community or Union pay for itself without a reformed common agricultural policy? Is he suggesting—
  Mr. Robert Jackson rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I will allow my hon. Friend to help the Minister in a moment, but I should like to ask the Minister the question first. Is he seriously suggesting that we could have an enlarged Community or Union of the sort that we are talking about without a reform of the common agricultural policy, and believe that it would work?
  Peter Hain: I have given the answer to the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions. The treaty does not include reform of the CAP. Legally under the treaty, agricultural reform is not necessary for those countries to ratify the treaty to enable their accession and, therefore, for enlargement to occur. Has he understood that point?
  Mr. Ancram indicated assent.
  Peter Hain: As I have already said, of course, such reform is desirable. That is why we have already started a process of reform—it began in 1999, and it will
  1188
  continue. In the meantime, 10 of the 12 applicants have already opened the chapter on agriculture, and those negotiations will proceed.
  Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman gives us the answer that reform is not legally necessary, but only about half an hour ago he said that his view of Europe was a practical one. How will an enlarged EU be paid for without reforming the CAP? He should take further advice from his officials on that point because, once again, he is in danger of misleading the House. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage; I promised him that I would.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend is a true friend of enlargement—indeed, I agree with that point of view—but it seems absolutely clear to me, and I hope that this will commend itself on reflection to my right hon. Friend, that to put the agriculture issue on the table before enlargement would effectively prevent enlargement from happening, because to do so would call forth vetoes from all the member states that have a great stake in the existing structure of the CAP. The significance of 2006 is that it is the year in which it has been agreed that negotiations will take place on whether to increase the own-resources ceiling. That is a point at which we could exercise our veto to enable reform of the CAP to take place.
  Mr. Ancram: To return to the racehorse analogy with which I started, at some risk, my hon. Friend may be dealing with carts and horses, rather than with two things that have to run alongside each other. I am asking the Minister an important question: without having done the work on reform of the CAP, how can he know that it will slot in at the time of accession; and can he actually say that the EU will be financed? That is very difficult to answer in the affirmative, and he has not sought to do so.
  Dr. Ladyman: I should like to deal with the other side of the coin. If we were to take the right hon. Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion—throwing out the Nice treaty and achieving enlargement by different means, thereby delaying it until 2006—the cost to British non-agricultural business would be nearly £4 billion, according to the figures that he has accepted as representing the benefit of enlargement. Is he prepared to pay that price?
  Mr. Ancram: I have never said that I want to delay enlargement until 2006. I was saying that one of the great co-operative leaders in the EU—one of the partners—has said that he is not prepared to change the CAP until 2006. So the hon. Gentleman's question is better addressed to him than to us. We have made it clear throughout that it is taking far too long for enlargement to happen. We want it to happen as quickly as possible; we are not the obstructionists. We will not be led down the path to further political integration behind the smokescreen that has been raised about enlargement.
  I am happy to admit that we do not support further political integration. Indeed, we believe that it will only further alienate people from the institutions and processes of the EU. We have long made clear our view that further political integration will create a one-size-fits-all Europe, which would seriously undermine the basis for the

  1189
  sustainable, prosperous and harmonious Europe, in all its diversity, that is our aim. In pursuit of that, we would want some powers to be returned to national Parliaments, where the national interests can be most effectively pursued. That does not mean that we are anti-European, as our opponents like to suggest.
  I had an Italian grandmother; I am by blood a European, but my belief in Europe is one of a Europe of nations, which are happy to be part of Europe so long as we retain our basic national rights of self-determination. The simple fact is that political integration is the enemy of an enduring community of nation states. It cannot be argued that the treaty of Nice was not integrationist. It includes several integrationist measures, including the extension of qualified majority voting, to which I have already referred.
  Mr. Bill Rammell rose—
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall make some progress; I have given way often.
  Extended QMV will make it even more difficult for our Government to block measures that are not in our national interest, and we should never forget that that is what we are all elected by our constituents to the House to serve. We have consistently opposed the extension of QMV for many years. We did so in our 1997 manifesto, and we continue to oppose it now.
  This is part of the salami-slicing tactics by which integration proceeds and national self-determination is diminished. We believe that the salami has been sliced through quite far enough.
  Yet alongside the treaty in the annexe lie two further integrationist initiatives. First, I shall deal with the charter on fundamental rights. The European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitorino, said in Lisbon on 13 May 2000:
  "The Charter will mark a definitive change in the Community which will move it away from the essentially economic raison d'être of its origins to become a full political union."
  That is what the Commissioner believes; we could not have put it better ourselves.
  The Government may seek to belittle the importance of the charter and I am sure that they will insist that they will block its incorporation in 2004. We shall have to wait and see, but the fact that it is integrationist cannot be doubted. In its extradition measures, it would increase the chances of interference in the ability of a democratically accountable British Government and politically accountable Ministers to act against threats. Instead, it would put decisions in the hands of unaccountable European judges. It would operate alongside the European Court of Justice, thus creating two sets of integrationist judges. Even unincorporated, it would undoubtedly affect the judgments of the court, which will seek inspiration from it as it does from other fundamental rights instruments.
  1190
  The Commission's report on the legal nature of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union was published on 18 October 2000. It states:
  "It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of European Law".
  As a Scottish lawyer. I look to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who also shares the distinction of being qualified in the Scottish law. Like me, he will remember the strengthened force of principles in the Scottish law, which, after all, is part of the European tradition. When the report uses the word "principles", I believe that they have special significance.
  Mr. Wayne David: Surely much of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the charter is redundant because, as the Government have made clear and as is clear in the treaty, it is a political declaration.
  Mr. Ancram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has listened to what I and the Commission have said. The courts will take inspiration from the charter in the way that they take inspiration from other fundamental rights instruments. The courts, in their interpretation, will ensure that what is in the charter will, in practice, become law. The charter is integrationist and interventionist.
  The second initiative is the report on European security and defence policy, which discuses how the rapid reaction force will relate to NATO. I will leave the more detailed analysis of that to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, who will wind up for the Opposition. However, although we have long supported the concept of pan-European defence co-operation in pursuit of the Petersberg tasks, we have firmly registered our opposition to the proposed rapid reaction force and we will continue to do so.
  If ever the importance of NATO, and of our relations with the USA within it, has been clearly demonstrated, it is now. We must do nothing that would undermine the value of those relations within NATO. However, the rapid reaction force would endanger those relationships at this time.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I share some of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns, but members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have just returned from a two-day trip to meet representatives of the Belgian presidency, and we talked to members of NATO yesterday. No one there sees any threat at all. Can he substantiate his fears when even NATO does not have them?
  Mr. Ancram: We must consider not just the present but the future of such a proposal. Essentially, what is being proposed are the beginnings of a European army. The proposal already envisages a command, logistics and planning structure independent of NATO and the ability to act without the approval of NATO. That would undermine the relationship that I have mentioned.
  Mr. John Smith rose—
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I shall give way for the last time to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Browning: Is not the real problem the fact that the Prime Minister has persuaded the United States that

  1191
  the proposal is totally benign in terms of NATO's command and control and planning? General Jean-Pierre Kelche, the French chief of staff, has said clearly that the annexe of the presidency report was deliberately worded to rule out any interpretation that would give NATO a decision-making priority. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister has spun the Americans a line that does not reflect what is in the treaty?
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. My point, which is important, is that we have to deal with realities, and the reality is to be found in the document to which she refers. It makes it clear that the dangers of the rapid reaction force undermining relationships within NATO are considerable. We must take that into account.
  Third Reading is not the time to consider at length the future of Europe and the lead-up to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, but the Bill and the Nice treaty prompt certain questions about it. It is our strong belief that the integrationist agenda is the wrong approach for a diverse, enlarged Europe. Indeed, it is precisely that approach that has slowed down enlargement.
  We will issue positive and constrictive proposals for the IGC and reject the old-fashioned bloc mentality within which the Government are fixed. Through the concept of a flexible Europe, we will pursue a Europe of deregulation and decentralisation and seek a Europe that will be best placed to prosper in an increasingly globalised world. We will challenge the Government to produce their own positive vision, to which the Minister referred but on which he did not enlarge. I reiterate the challenge that if the Nice treaty is ratified, a While Paper should be published on its effects.
  In the aftermath of the Irish referendum, we will oppose the Bill. The time has come to stop being driven by officials in Brussels and to start listening to the people of Europe again. They want enlargement; so do we. They want decision making closer to them; so do we. They want a Europe that is relevant to their needs; so do we. What is important is that there is still time to achieve that, which is why I invite the House to join us in voting against Third Reading.
  4.36 pm
  Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend the Minister dealt mainly with enlargement, and I do not criticism him for that. The Bill is, technically, the vehicle by which the provisions of the treaty of Nice will be incorporated into UK domestic law. Like most European treaties that we sometimes debate, the Nice treaty continues and accelerates the process of European integration and the transfer of power from the democracy of the House to the central institutions of the European Union.
  Perhaps the Nice treaty is not as extensive as the treaty of Maastricht or the treaty of Amsterdam, but it continues the process that, over the past 30 years, has gradually denuded the democratic powers of all EU member states. We should not be surprised by that because that is what ever closer union means. The EU's powers are not conjured out of the ether somewhere in the sky; they come from the powers of the democratic member states of that union.
  1192
  If we consider the treaties, as European institutions and their staff sometimes do, the main loser is usually the House. The winner in this case is the European Parliament. The treaty of Nice gives it the power of veto, which adds insult to injury. As I mentioned to the Minister when the Bill was debated in Committee, the European Parliament is to be given the power of veto on some decisions that are made by the Council of Ministers. Although the power is not referred to as a veto—it is not the right type of word—"co-decision" is mentioned. We would be happy to have co-decision-making powers with the Council of Ministers, but the treaty removes those powers from the Government and the House.
  Mr. David: Co-decision-making is not new. There is a modest extension of that power, but it has been in existence for a long time.
  Denzil Davies: I did not say that it had not; I am merely relating my remarks to the treaty. My hon. Friend knows that it grants powers of veto to the European Parliament. It also removes powers of veto from this Parliament and affects the way in which the Government cast their votes in the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament gains powers of veto while this House loses powers of veto. The European Court of Justice does well out of the treaty, as does the Council of Ministers, in its newer form as a collegiate or collective body. Perhaps I can return to that point in a few minutes.
  The national veto will be taken away in about 30 policy areas. As I argued in previous debates, the reason for the veto— or the unanimity rule, to give it another name—in many international and supranational bodies is to protect the democracy of the nation state. It is there to bridge the gap between decisions taken, more and more globally, in not only the European Union but other supranational bodies. However, that gap seems to be getting wider, which is a matter for real concern.
  Mr. Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Denzil Davies: I will finish my argument.
  The veto exists to bridge the gap between decisions taken globally, internationally or supranationally and the needs and requirements of accountability and local and national democracy. That is why most international or supranational institutions require the unanimity rule. In these days, when that gap is getting wider, surely it is a retrograde step to try to do away with the rule of unanimity.
  Mr. Bryant: As far as I understand the matter, my right hon. Friend poses two philosophical opposites that are not in fact opposites at all. He says that the rule of unanimity must be preserved, but that unanimity is anti-democratic because it means that only a few can determine the arrangements for everybody, whereas democracy has always preserved the rights of the majority, pure and simple.
  Denzil Davies: My argument is that when a nation state is represented in a supranational body, the rule of unanimity generally applies. I was merely saying that the reason for that is to keep a link between the democracy of the
  nation state and decisions taken globally that may

  1193
  be in the interests of more than one country. That is why it is preferable that there should be a rule of unanimity in those cases.
  The veto is, frankly, incompatible with the European goal of ever closer union. The veto has to go, because ever closer union can be achieved and advanced ultimately only at the expense of the democracy of the nation state. In the 30 or so policy areas in which the veto will disappear, the British electorate may in future have laws imposed on them that have been passed by the votes of Governments whom they have not elected. The votes of the British Government, whom they have elected, will be overruled by the votes of Governments whom they have not elected and, in some cases, by the votes of Governments whom they would perhaps never elect. I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who made some remarks about Mr. Berlusconi. However, the democratically elected Governments of other countries may one day be able to pass laws for the electorate of Britain who have not elected those Governments.
  I do not know whether any Scottish lawyers are present who could tell us whether that is a novel constitutional principle. I do not remember it being in Dicey's "Law of the Constitution" when I read it many years ago. It may have happened before, but it seems to me to be a change. If we do away with the veto and move towards qualified majority voting, Governments who have not been elected by the British people may pass laws for the British people.
  Mr. Hendrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way when he was about to finish speaking. He made the point that the European Parliament was gaining powers of co-decision or, in his terms, veto, and was making decisions. He says that Governments of other nations are making European laws. Does he accept that the European Parliament is directly elected by the peoples of Europe, and that if they have a part in that decision making it is not purely and simply other Governments who are passing those laws?
  Denzil Davies: Of course the European Parliament sometimes agrees laws for the whole of Europe, but I was referring to the nation state and the democracy of our nation state. If a proposition is made in the Council of Ministers and is carried by the votes of Governments other than the British Government, who vote against the proposition, and a law is made as a result of that vote, that law will be imposed on the British electorate, who will not have elected the people who actually passed that law. I do not know whether that is a novel constitutional principle; perhaps we can return to that issue at another time.
  I do not know where it will lead us, but I consider it ironic that when the veto is abolished, power shifts in a curious way from the nation state to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers was always intended to be the body that represented the democracy of the nation state, but over the past few years it has become a sort of collective or collegiate body. The other institutions of the European Union have criticised the development of the Council of Ministers into a collegiate body with a personality of its own. That has been revealed in the
  1194
  attempts to bypass other institutions in the so-called pillars—the second and third pillars affected by the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties.
  I think that the motives behind that development were good: Ministers and Governments felt that there was a democratic deficit in the EU and they wanted to redress that in some way, by increasing the powers, profile and bureaucracy of the Council of Ministers. However, in doing so they have made it into a collegiate body with a personality of its own.
  Every time the veto is taken away and replaced with qualified majority voting, the Council of Ministers is backed further into the position of being unable to defend the democracy of the member state. Ultimately, even within the Council of Ministers, the veto is not compatible with current developments, because it cannot be allowed in a union in which constant progress has to be made towards an ever closer union.
  We are told that the veto is to go in 30 policy areas. The Government argue that its loss does not matter in some cases because the policy areas involved are trivial, and in other cases it is not in the national interest to keep the veto. I have three points to make about that.
  First, many of the areas so affected are not trivial. We discussed that in the Committee of the whole House, but I shall list some of those areas now. The rules on EU structural funds are not a trivial matter, nor is economic and social cohesion outside the structural funds. Implementation of agreed foreign policy, joint actions and common positions is not a trivial matter, nor is trade in services or intellectual property rights. The issue of who is to negotiate for the Community with, for example, the World Trade Organisation, is not trivial. The appointment of the head of foreign policy—its supremo—is not a trivial matter, nor is external representation of economic and monetary union. The implementation of rules on visas, issues relating to asylum, refugees and illegal immigration, and measures of co-operation in justice and home affairs are not trivial matters.
  Secondly, even if those matters are currently perceived to be trivial, or even if worrying too much about the veto is not currently perceived to be in the national interest, circumstances change. Let me give an example. During debate on the Maastricht treaty, some of us tried to discuss whether it was possible for a member state, once it had subscribed to monetary union and signed up to the single currency, to finance a war. Those who spent a lot of time on the treaty will remember that it prohibits the printing of money, or words to that effect. In future, the situation may change. In the case of the Maastricht treaty, would this country not be able to finance a war if other countries in the monetary union did not wish to participate in it? That is one factor. Circumstances change, and policy areas that the Minister and the Government dismiss as trivial or not in the national interest could change. Once the power of the veto is entrenched in the acquis communautaire, that is the end of the matter; it cannot be retrieved or changed. However, states will come back and ask for more—next time, it will be taxation, social security or defence. The veto is not compatible with ever closer union.
  The veto is also done away with in the proposal for enhanced co-operation. The French have a much better phrase for enhanced co-operation, which they translate as the "avant-garde". It was established by the Amsterdam

  1195
  treaty, which proposed that countries outside the potential inner core should have a veto. However, that did not satisfy France and Germany, which wanted to go ahead and establish the avant-garde, so, after only a few years, the veto on enhanced co-operation has gone and, subject to the conditions of the treaty, several countries can now go ahead.
  The avant-garde policy has been well described by European statesmen. Mr. Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, gave a speech on 12 May 2000 at Humboldt university in Berlin, in which he said:
  "The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European Federation … such a group of States"—
  I assume that Mr. Fischer was referring to the avant-garde—
  "would conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of the constitution of the Federation. On the basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice."
  A month later, Jacques Delors put it much more concisely, as one would expect. On 17 June, he told a French newspaper:
  "We will have to create an avant-garde … We could have a union for the enlarged Europe and a Federation on for the avant-garde."
  That is what will happen; that will be the result of losing the veto even on the establishment of enhanced co-operation.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: With reference to the debate sparked off by Foreign Minister Fischer's remarks, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House about the letter that Mr. Fischer received from the French Foreign Minister explaining precisely why his proposals for a federal Europe were mistaken?
  Denzil Davies: I am not party to Mr. Fischer's correspondence—I was merely quoting from an interesting and open speech. At least he was honest, which is more than can be said, unfortunately, for many British politicians in relation to the EU. Mr. Fischer's interesting views may not have been German Government policy, but, as I tried to show, they were echoed by Jacques Delors, a distinguished President of the Commission and a clear thinker.
  The pressure is now on. The veto has gone. The pressure will be, in Jacques Delors's words, to create a federation of the avant-garde. Given the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for such matters, Britain will have to be part of that, will it not?
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be in there with the Foreign Office, punching our weight, or punching above our weight—I am not sure; I stand to be corrected. Punching above our weight all the time must get a little tiring. We will certainly be in there, punching our weight as part of the federation of the avant-garde. That will mean more integration still.
  The train rolls on, discarding national vetoes and national democracies as it goes along. The next pressure will come from joining the inner core. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government will easily win the vote this evening, but before the ink is dry on the Royal Assent, work will begin—it probably has begun—on the next treaty. Happily or unhappily, before 2004 we will be debating the next legislation incorporating the
  1196
  treaty of 2004 into the law of the United Kingdom. That will be an integrationist treaty, like the present treaty and most past treaties.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Denzil Davies: No, I am coming to an end.
  Perhaps before long the member states of Europe will call a halt to the process, but they had better do it soon. If not, there will not be much left to halt.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not propose to delay the House over-long, as I confess that I do not have anything very new to say about the Bill. As some of the contributions so far have suggested, albeit that they were couched in elegant and even intellectual language, there is not much more to be said by many others, either. The speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary echoed some of the elegant contributions made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) during the various stages of the Bill's progress.
  As we know, we are having the Third Reading today, after the summer recess, although it could quite easily have been held before the summer recess. However, an internal decision had to be taken in the Conservative party, and there were those who thought that the nature of that decision might determine their attitude this evening. That, as we now know, is not the case.
  So far in the debate, we have traversed some pretty old ground. We heard from the shadow Foreign Secretary—who is no longer in his place, but who explained to me that he had another pressing engagement—that he had an Italian grandmother, which made him European. Well, I have a Glaswegian grandmother, which still makes me European. We should recognise that our Europeanism is determined not by the exotic nature of our relations, but rather by the fact that we are firmly embedded in the European tradition. In particular, the Scots law to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is, of course, a European legal system based on Roman Dutch law. Large parts of our life are firmly embedded in Europe, and the sooner we recognise that, the better.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary was at pains to suggest that President Bush, whose perspicacity, maturity and sound common sense have been generally commended in the House in recent debates, had somehow been the subject of an exercise in duplicity by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: President George W. Bush cannot be a great leader and at the same time a dupe of the British Prime Minister. The two are wholly incompatible. As was pointed out in an intervention, at NATO, where one might think that there would be real anxiety about anything that might undermine its effectiveness, there is no such apprehension as has now and previously been expressed from the Conservative Benches.
  I should like to make one point about the rapid reaction force, returning to comments that I addressed to the Minister following an intervention by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). If we have a poor rapid reaction force, and the headline goals are not achieved and capability does not become an important part of what is done, we will damage NATO. A successful rapid reaction force will most certainly strengthen NATO.

  1197
  I suspect that many hon. Members share my anxiety that there does not seem yet to be sufficient commitment to providing financial support to ensure the military capability that will be necessary if we are to achieve either the levels required by the headline goals of the rapid reaction force, or those that are likely to be imposed on us—some might say that this point is more persuasive—by the defence capabilities initiative of NATO, which are higher than those of the rapid reaction force. That is why I was at some pains to suggest to the Minister that he should not be seduced by the intervention of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan.
  Mr. Richard Spring: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier point, may I briefly defend my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in his absence? He pointed out reports that President Bush had said that Mr. Blair had assured him that the European defence effort
  "would in no way undermine NATO … that there would be joint command"
  and
  "that the planning would take place within NATO".
  The fact is, however, that the report that is attached to the Nice treaty says exactly the opposite.
  Mr. Campbell: We know that things have moved on since then. As I understand it, there is now general acceptance that operational and strategic planning responsibilities must remain within NATO. It would make no sense to duplicate them. I have frequently referred in the House to NATO's right of first refusal, which is, as I understand matters, generally accepted. It is important to reflect in our discussion the fact that debate outside has moved on.
  Mr. Chidgey: I should like to reinforce the points that my right hon. and learned Friend makes. The messages are coming loud, clear and strong from Brussels and the people who make these decisions that NATO will have first refusal and that planning, strategic and contingency elements will remain with it. That is the situation and it is agreed. Does he agree that the issue that must be addressed is the shortfall in capability in respect of NATO and the rapid reaction force, which is clear in the light of current circumstances?
  Mr. Campbell: I do not think that anyone doubts the validity of my hon. Friend's second point. His first point—I think that he has recently returned from Brussels—corroborates my own.
  Mr. John Smith: I entirely agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I did not intend to seduce my right hon. Friend the Minister at all—far from it. I agree that the bottom line in this debate is military capability. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, following the events of 11 September, the likelihood of generating the political will among our NATO allies in Europe to develop such capability could be much greater?
  Mr. Campbell: I certainly hope so. I make no bones about the fact that I lost the argument in my party to
  1198
  propose in the shadow Budget that the Liberal Democrats produced for the last election a real-terms increase in defence expenditure. However, the current Secretary of State for Defence lost the same argument. Indeed, so did the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. All three of us lost the argument, but the events of 11 September should now persuade others that it must be taken up. If we are serious about some of the intentions that the Prime Minister outlined in the far-ranging speech that he made at his party conference, we must be aware that they cannot be achieved with existing resources.
  We are considering a framework treaty—an expression used by the Minister Throughout the Bill's passage, we have consistently argued that the legislation should be enacted and the treaty ratified as soon as possible. Without the reforms that the treaty sets out in relation to the size and shape of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers and modest extensions of qualified majority voting, it is difficult to envisage a European Union, perhaps comprising as many as 28 states, that could efficiently and effectively come to agreement.
  Although it is technically true that the European Union could be enlarged without the treaty, it is difficult to envisage the timetable for that enlargement. I should not like to be the British Minister who went to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and said, "By the way, we're not going to ratify the Nice treaty. We've got an alternative set of arrangements, including an instant IGC, which we may be able to conjure up", like a magician at a children's Christmas party. I should not like to try to answer the subsequent question: "When do you think we might gain admission? What is your target date in these new circumstances?"
  We already have a target date, and I hope that we meet it. Such dates sometimes slip, but the advantage of a target is that it gives people something at which to aim. The notion that we could find an alternative way of dealing with the alterations that are fundamental to enlargement does not stand up to scrutiny. If we enlarge the European Union under current circumstances, every country would have two Commissioners, and a minority of the population could overrule the majority. Decision making would become sclerotic, and it would not be long before the EU became unmanageable.
  There is an interesting philosophical underpinning to the debate. I am sorry that the new shadow Attorney-General is not present because he is always an adornment to such discussions. He produced a pamphlet earlier this year. It was not set—although it may have been typeset—in stone. He argued—I thought rather persuasively—that although he supported a Community, he opposed a European Union. That fault line runs through the Conservative and Unionist party. Some distinguished Conservative Members—for example, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—favour a Union. However, the mood in the Conservative party has moved back towards a Community.
  It is difficult to envisage the current Conservative party supporting the Single European Act and consenting to its being driven through the House of Commons on a three-line Whip. It is difficult to envisage it supporting the Maastricht Bill; indeed, the current Conservative leader was diametrically opposed to it. The fault line shows a change of view. I believe that Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion." A change

  1199
  of opinion has undoubtedly occurred in the Conservative party. Its members no longer accept the notion of a Union and many would be content with that of a Community. Some of us perceive that as rather contradictory when compared with positions that they held only a few years ago.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) did not mention holding a referendum on the treaty, although that appeared to be Conservative party policy for a long time. A referendum should never be used simply as an act of party politics; it should be held when a genuine constitutional issue is at stake. Such issues are not at stake in the Bill. It would be different if we sought to join the single European currency. In that case economic, political and constitutional issues remain to be determined. We should not therefore join the single currency without the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have a view about when the country should be allowed to decide whether we want to join an integrated, federal Europe? He appears to say that the treaties of Amsterdam, Maastricht and Nice do not require a referendum. Does he agree that the combination of the three treaties would constitute a good ground for a referendum? There is currently a drip, drip, drip or ratchet syndrome that will ultimately deprive people of choice.
  Mr. Campbell: That is an apocalyptic view. It assumes that these developments are always against our interests and always will be.
  Mr. Winterton: They are.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman may think that, but the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom are not similarly minded.
  Mr. Winterton: They have not had a chance to be.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is making sedentary remarks. If he wants to intervene again, I will certainly allow him to do so.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he tell me, and the House, when the people have had a real chance to talk about the federal Europe into which we are steadily marching, day by day? The only issue on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says we should have a referendum is the single currency. Is there not more to a federal Europe than a single currency?
  Mr. Campbell: There is more to a federal Europe, as the hon. Gentleman defines it, than a single currency. If, for example, it was proposed that the decision to deploy British forces should be made in Brussels rather than here in the Chamber, that would certainly be an issue of fundamental constitutional importance that should be put to the British people.
  When we had our debates about chinks of light, blank cheques and all the rest of it, I was at some pains to point out that the decision about the deployment of British troops should rest here, because it was our responsibility
  1200
  to answer to our constituents if we wanted to send their sons and daughters into situations in which they might lose their lives. I do not support that; but that is the kind of issue that I would regard as being of sufficiently fundamental constitutional importance to require a referendum.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that the case he put was argued extensively during the last general election, with not particularly desirable effects from the point of view of our party.
  Mr. Campbell: I hesitate to suggest that the hon. Gentleman might find it easier to put that point directly to his hon. Friend.
  I do not believe that this is a fundamental constitutional change. The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to the, I think, 30 or 31 treaty articles. Four relate to areas in which the United Kingdom has opted out; 17 refer to portions of treaties dealing with appointments to, rules of procedure of and the human resources management of the European Parliament, its Committees and its Courts; and the other 10 extensions of qualified majority voting relate to such matters as anti-discrimination practice, priorities for structural funds and environmental measures. I do not consider those matters to be of fundamental constitutional importance.
  There are occasions when qualified majority voting is actually in our interests. There are areas in which we should seek to extend it, not least the liberalisation of transport throughout the European Union. That would be entirely in our interests. We should approach each proposal on its merits, asking how it best serves our national interests. We should not approach them assuming that any extension of any kind is to be resisted because it is part of some drip, drip, drip or ratcheting up of the process.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary suggested that there would be some inhibition on military action if there were a more fully formed common foreign and security policy. I have some difficulty grasping that point. I see nothing in any of the arrangements, actual or prospective, that would prevent the United Kingdom from saying, in particular circumstances, "We choose, because it is in our own interests, to ally ourselves with the United States"—or, if a more historical parallel is desired, "We choose, because it is in our own interests, to expel the Argentinians from the Falklands."
  There is no inhibition in the idea of a more integrated foreign and security policy. One might argue, indeed, that if any such inhibition exists it is to be found in the NATO treaty, which, in article 5, creates an obligation to go to the assistance of any other country that is attacked on the basis that an attack on one is conceived of as an attack on another. That is a giving up—a pooling, if you like—of sovereignty. It has never affected us, and indeed there are those—in virtually all parts of the House, I believe—who would argue that it has been entirely to our advantage, not least given that the article 5 decision made just a few weeks ago by NATO demonstrated the strength of the alliance.

  1201
  It is also interesting that the queue for NATO membership, particularly by those countries that were formerly Warsaw pact members, is as long as, if not longer than, the queue of countries wanting to join the European Union.
  Ms Stuart: Let us extend the right hon. and learned Gentleman's analogy of the NATO commitment. Although it is clear how to invoke article 5, it is not clear how long that article will remain open. The potential member states that are queueing up in much larger numbers to join NATO rather than the EU will become part of that existing obligation. As far as we can see, however, that obligation has been no deterrent.
  Mr. Campbell: I accept that. The use of the word "deterrent", which the hon. Lady has introduced to the debate, points to the fact that NATO is an alliance that is based on nuclear weapons. New members are therefore signing up not only to an article 5 obligation but to an alliance that still as a fundamental part of its policy and doctrine has a reliance on nuclear weapons. If there were anxieties, one would expect them to be produced not only in relation to the responsibility to go to the aid of all other members, but in relation to the issue of the nuclear deterrent.
  I think that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) said words to the effect that this treaty is not the end. I hope that we shall shortly have from the Government a White Paper setting out their views on precisely what will happen and what position they will take at the 2004 intergovernmental conference. A White Paper on the future of Europe has been over-long delayed, and I think that we are entitled to expect the Government to produce a coherent vision for that.
  Other Liberal Democrat Members and I believe that it is right to argue for a proper constitutional basis for the European Union, to establish clearly and unequivocally the nature of the powers and responsibilities of the European Union itself and of constituent Governments, and to establish the rights of individual citizens. I believe that setting out those points in the proper constitutional framework would go a very long way towards making the people of Europe understand more clearly the nature of the European Union.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the desirable features, as a Government objective, of such a White Paper and eventually also of such a treaty would be to drop the phrase "ever closer union", which is in the preface to the Rome treaty and certainly produces damaging reactions of the type expressed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I had hoped that I was an hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Campbell: I think that one or both hon. Gentlemen are about to invoke an article 5 declaration.
  Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend may not have noticed that I was trying to hold out to him an olive branch.
  Mr. Winterton: It was very well hidden.
  Mr. Campbell: I have not often felt superfluous in the Chamber, but I am at risk of feeling so on this occasion. Perhaps it is time that Conservative Members established a working party on the future of Europe.
  As the hon. Member for Wantage said, the disadvantage of the phrase "ever closer union" is its ambiguity. It means what anyone wants it to mean. That is why it is all the more necessary to have a constitutional framework for the European Union. If one wants, for example, to find where particular provisions lie, one has to consult a whole series of treaties. Measures may have been altered in some way, but that is never clear immediately on first reading. Some type of codification, as well as a careful delineation of the rights and responsibilities of the various levels of the European Union itself and of the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and delineation of the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens, would seem to offer a way forward out or the anxiety, which I do not believe is well founded, that we are engaged in a process of ratcheting up or of drip, drip, drip.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Chidgey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No. I should like, if I may, to make some progress.
  The Government have been defective in one respect—the European single currency. I have no doubt that if that argument is to be won—it is in Britain's interests to be part of that currency, subject to the economic conditions at the time of joining being propitious—it cannot be left until the point at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer produces his tablets of stone and makes a statement to the effect that the five economic conditions, which are essentially political in character, have been met. The wind blows in various directions. For example, the Minister emerges as an apparent enthusiast for the single currency, but then someone in a different Department draws back. The country is entitled to look to the Government for a coherent and consistent view on the single currency, and if the Government wish their view to triumph they must accept that the argument must be made now.
  Mr. Spring: The right hon. and learned Gentleman called—correctly, in my view—for a White Paper leading up to the intergovernmental conference. In view of the extraordinary movement in statements from the Government on the single currency, does he agree that it would be appropriate to have a White Paper that set out all the considerations—economic, political and constitutional—on the single currency? I hope that he would support that.
  Mr. Campbell: I certainly would support that proposal. One can hardly argue, as I have, that this is a matter of economic, political and constitutional importance without accepting the need for a proper statement of the Government's position, and the best way to enshrine that is in the form of a White Paper. The debate on the single currency should start, and as soon as possible.
  I said that I thought there had been a change of mood in the Conservative party, for the reasons I mentioned and which I will not repeat. However, those of us who are

  1203
  advocates and supporters of Europe should be much more active in putting our case. Far too much of what the public learn of Europe is contained in curious stories in tabloid newspapers, most of which are founded on myth, not fact or reality.
  I have no doubt that the United Kingdom has benefited considerably from our membership of the European Union and that our future best lies in a close relationship with it. That is why the Bill should have a swift passage through the House and the treaty should receive swift ratification. We should not exclude those who for such a long time lived under the shadow of communism from the benefits and advantages that we have enjoyed so long ourselves.
  5.22 pm
  Joyce Quin: I do not wish to pre-empt the result of the vote tonight, but I welcome the fact that we are likely to conclude our part in the ratification of the Nice treaty today. I have listened to the debates on Second Reading and in Committee and they have been much enriched by the contributions of several new hon. Members, who have brought much to our debates from their experiences of various organisations and previous employment. They have made some very constructive comments.
  Many pertinent questions have been put in the course of our deliberations. While I am light years away from the official Opposition's European policy, it is none the less right to pose hard questions from all points of view about how we best engage our population with the European issues that we have discussed. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is right to say that there was no excited tide of anti-Europeanism that was somehow vindicated in the recent general election result. However, there was an alarming passivity and lack of engagement with the issues, and I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that it is important for the Government—and all of us in our constituencies—to address the issues and air them widely.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that many hon. Members, on both sides of the argument, are committed in principle either to more or less union, whereas men and women on the street are more interested in what the European Union is going to do? They are less interested in the more arcane constitutional arguments on which we spend so much time.
  Joyce Quin: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People respond more warmly to the European Union when they think that it is dealing with issues that are important. We all remember the sea change in the attitude to the European Union that took place among many trade unionists. That happened not because they suddenly got excited about enhanced co-operation or treaty provisions, but because they felt that the EU was talking about employment rights and conditions—matters very dear to their hearts. Similarly, when the EU was associated with a campaign to clean up beaches, many coastal communities took a great deal of interest. It is therefore important for the EU—and the House—to deal with the sort of practical tasks that co-operation among EU countries can address.
  1204
  In many ways, it is ironic that European co-operation at the present time seems more important than ever. We need to use some of the existing European structures effectively. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister speak of the co-operation that is taking place to combat terrorism. Information is being shared between intelligence agencies, and practical ways to combat terrorism are being studied. For example, action is being taken to strengthen aviation security, and work is being done at a European level to deal with funds and bank accounts that might be used to help terrorists.
  Those are extremely important matters, but addressing them is made easier by the fact that appropriate structures already exist in the EU that we can tap into. We do not have to take time to create many new structures before we can react to what happened on 11 September. We are therefore able to use structures such as Europol or the justice and home affairs provisions, and we have already done so. It helps a great deal that justice and home affairs Ministers are so used to holding regular meetings. They are able to contact each other quickly to work out how to move forward. The existence of the EU is therefore of great benefit in that regard.
  The official Opposition's approach is to renegotiate or dismantle the EU. I am worried about that, as it will harm co-operation in many vital areas. When I was a Home Office Minister, I visited the British arm of Europol and was impressed by the way in which exchange of information had already led to the arrests of some serious transnational criminals. Such work is not often advertised, as to do so would alert the criminals to what is being done, but it is none the less important. I therefore hope that we can build on the efforts being made in that regard, rather than dismantle them.
  I listened to the new shadow Foreign Secretary, and found his arguments extremely unconvincing. It is very hard to say that one is firmly in favour of enlargement, and then vote against measures designed precisely to facilitate enlargement. It is important to remember what happened in the Irish referendum and to look at ways of dealing with the issues that arose from it, but that does not mean that the whole process should be stopped as a result. As the hon. Member for Wantage pointed out so effectively, that is an absurd line to take.
  I noted that, in a radio interview yesterday, the shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), was trying to convince us that the European issue had been settled among members of the official Opposition, even though Lord Skidelsky had announced that he was leaving the Conservative party largely because of the European issue. Had the shadow Health Secretary been here for today's debate, he would have seen the wildly different reactions that the European issue has caused on his own Benches.
  On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary advised the Opposition to learn from Labour's experience during the long years of opposition, but there are some differences. Our own slough of despond in the early 1980s was caused by an internal problem. What is causing such dissension in the Opposition's ranks is an external factor—the European Union—and its evolving nature. Unless the Conservative party can tackle the issue sensibly, it is in for a traumatic experience for a long time to come.
  Denzil Davies: I do not know when my right hon. Friend came to this House, but she will remember—or,

  1205
  if not, she will be able to read about it in Hansard—that the Single European Act was constantly opposed by the then Opposition from both the Front and Back Benches.
  Joyce Quin: I know the history of this issue very well. No one can deny that there have been considerable changes in my party's attitude towards Europe during that time. None the less, over a period of many years, the European issue has been decided in our party with large majorities. Most party members whom I come across are very comfortable with the Government's approach to the issue.
  On Second Reading, I urged the Government to go out into the country and sell enlargement to the various regions and communities. I still believe that that is extremely important, once our deliberations on the Bill have been concluded.
  We can give the population of our country many positive reasons for enlargement. Obviously, we favour it because it completes the historic task of reconciliation after the end of the cold war. We also need to point out that enlargement has already promoted positive change in the applicant countries. It has helped to improve the treatment of minorities in those countries, resolve some border and nationality disputes and, very importantly, to underpin democracy. That is a huge advantage, and we should not undersell it.
  Mr. Spring: I agreed with the right hon. Lady when she said on Second Reading that the Government should sell enlargement. I wonder whether she believes that that has happened. It is certainly not clear to me. Can she say why, increasingly, right across the European Union, not only in the United Kingdom, there is, regrettably, more opposition to the European Union and to enlargement, even in the accession states?
  Joyce Quin: I do not see the problem in the same terms as the hon. Gentleman. I see a problem, which I mentioned earlier, of a lack of engagement in the issue and a somewhat passive approach. However, my postbag is not full of letters opposing European Union enlargement. When I have held meetings on the subject in my area, people's attitudes have, on the whole, been positive.
  The economic advantages of enlargement, which benefit the existing members of the European Union as much as the applicant countries, should weigh effectively with many of our constituents. They are concerned not so much about the theories of European integration as about the likely prospects for jobs, employment, the environment and other practical issues.
  There is no doubt that increased investment has already taken place in the applicant countries because of the prospect of enlargement. Investors know that those countries will be part of the European market in the future. The increased volumes of trade between us and the applicant countries is a welcome phenomenon. Those trade bonds have benefited us easily as much as they have benefited the new countries. Many industries in our towns, cities and constituencies are already benefiting from trade with the new countries. Those are all important points to make.
  1206
  Indeed, on Second Reading, if I remember rightly, the Minister pointed out some of the expected gains in terms of growth in gross domestic product in both existing European Union member countries and the new countries as a result of this process.
  I am also glad that considerable regional and structural support is already being given to the new countries—again, on the basis that enlargement is going to take place. I urge that that expenditure be speeded up in some areas. It is particularly important for rural development. The so-called SAPARD—special accession programme for agriculture and rural development—schemes have been slow to get off the pound in applicant countries, but could make a real difference and help to progress rural development in those countries.
  The schemes could also help the cause of common agricultural policy reform. As many hon. Members have pointed out, that reform is of prime importance. I certainly do not want CAP issues to scupper enlargement, but the imperative for reform is very real and necessary. I want this country to lead in the negotiations for reform, as I believe we are doing, and to lead by example by using existing funds to the maximum extent for rural development rather than the traditional price and product support mechanisms, which have caused the CAP to overshoot its budgets, created so many difficulties and distorted agriculture in EU countries for a good many years.
  There are positive messages that we can convey as a result of the ratification of the treaty of Nice and its coming into force. The Government achieved a very good deal for Britain during the Nice negotiations and I congratulate them on the way in which they have defended and promoted our interests. What was achieved will help to secure successful enlargement of the EU as a whole.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I come new to this legislation, but not new to the subject. In the years when I was involved with European matters, and lately when I have been not so involved, I have noticed the persistent habit of Governments of justifying controversial measures by an appeal to relatively uncontroversial overall aims. Just as the single market and the pursuit of free trade have been used to justify all sorts of harmonising and regulatory measures, so enlargement, which all right-thinking people are supposed to favour, is now being used to justify all sorts of disagreeable measures, including a good many in the treaty and the Bill.
  When the Minister was pressed on that matter he asserted that the Bill was necessary for enlargement. He then retreated somewhat and said that it was simply necessary for ratification. I am not sure that that is technically correct. Ratification of treaties is a Crown prerogative and I think that it is technically true that the Government could proceed with ratification in the absence of legislation. In practical terms, however, it is obviously necessary for them to get the Bill through the House if they are to ratify.
  Whether the treaty is required for enlargement is nevertheless a different question. Before the end of this debate we need a certain and clear answer to that question from the Minister. I believe that what is being suggested

  1207
  is highly misleading and untrue. It is certainly the case that the Nice treaty contains some institutional changes that are required for eventual enlargement of the EU, but those are written in protocols and could easily be removed from present legislation and eventually incorporated in the necessary accession treaties. I have some acquaintance with that subject because I was the junior Minister who negotiated the last round of enlargement, when Finland, Norway, Sweden and Austria were negotiating to join the European Union, and at that time the institutional changes—the majority voting, the weighting of votes in the Council and the number of seats in the European Parliament—appeared not in a treaty such as has come out of Nice, but in the accession treaty. However, if it was desirable, in advance of the detailed negotiations, for the European Union to declare exactly how many votes were to be distributed in the succession of enlargement waves, that could be done by a political declaration at this stage.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between this enlargement and that enlargement? In this enlargement, there will have to be a reallocation of seats among the existing member states. In that enlargement, there was not.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, but I do not believe that that alters the point I am making. It is simply not necessary, legally or politically, for those changes to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament at this stage. It could quite easily be done at the accession treaty stage, as was done before. However, if my hon. Friend wishes it all to be set out now in a document and agreed, that could be done by political agreement. The European Union is very good at finding ways to express itself politically to give certainty to future negotiations.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On this difficult and important issue, will my right hon. Friend look to the good advice of a Mr. Prodi, who used to say, until quite recently, that the treaty was vital for the extension of the European Union, but after the Irish referendum said that the extension of Europe did not require the treaty of Nice at all?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; Mr. Prodi made a series of mistakes. He started by trying to ignore the rejection of Nice by the Irish—a breathtaking degree of arrogance on the part of a European institution—but he then retreated somewhat and conceded, under pressure, that the Nice treaty was not required or necessary for enlargement. That is the case that I am now making.
  Mr. Bryant: As far as I understand the argument about Ireland's already having decided on behalf of the whole of Europe, perhaps those who argue that case would do better to advocate the idea that each time there is a treaty to be ratified, one country—to be chosen by rotation—should decide on behalf of the whole of Europe whether it should be ratified, because that is exactly the position that the official Opposition are now advocating.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have given way to some pretty silly interventions in my time in the House, but that one takes the record. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he does not believe in the unanimity rule for treaty
  1208
  changes? Even the most enthusiastic pro-European, on the Treasury Bench or any other, could not seriously advance the proposition that we could simply ignore the treaty of Rome as amended, and ignore what the Irish have decided, not for the whole of Europe but for themselves. Under the present law it is a requirement that treaty changes be agreed by all member states. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find a way around that, I suggest that he take it up with the Irish and use his supposed persuasive powers to get them to change their minds in due course; but that certainly will not be done by bullying the Irish or threatening to ignore their decision or the underlying treaty requirement.
  I have now reached my main argument. If the European Union were seriously preparing itself for enlargement—if it really was interested in making Europe fit to take on up to 12 new member states—why has CAP reform not taken place? It is simply irresponsible to proceed with enlargement when everyone knows that, under the present CAP, Poland's entry to the EU alone will bankrupt the budget. So it is one of this country's duties to ask these difficult questions in advance. To negotiate all sorts of wonderful institutional changes that involve weighted votes without dealing with the underlying problems of the CAP and the budget is to put things the wrong way around—and I shall say a word or two about the budget.
  Mr. David: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a significant financial reform of the CAP took place in 1999? According to the agreed rota, there will be a further fundamental discussion of the CAP's future in which its new financial perspective will be discussed.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, the earlier reforms may have gone some way to meeting the problem for existing member states, but they do not begin to measure up to the challenge of enlargement. The French have now made it perfectly clear that they have no interest in reopening the reform package before 2006. So Europe is simply not ready for enlargement in the crucial issues of agriculture and the budget.
  We shall debate such matters at greater length tomorrow, but it is important to refer to the budget now, because everyone will concede that the present arrangements for contributions to and receipts from the EU budget are hopelessly arbitrary, unsatisfactory and unfair. The payment side of the budget is riddled with errors, misappropriation and fraud.
  There is something almost comic in the fact that Europe lectures the candidate states that seek entry about budgetary discipline and that they will be required to put their own finances in order, given that the EU budget is riddled with fraud. That is not just my opinion; the European Court of Auditors has refused to verify the accounts as legal or regular for the sixth year running.
  I am a chartered account, and if I had encountered such problems six years in a row in my professional life, I certainly would not invest in the company involved, and its directors would all face prosecution. The problems are like those faced by Railtrack, but they are worse because they happen every year, and the Government do nothing about them. We in the House can do nothing about them because large sums are sent to Europe, and some of them are returned, without any parliamentary authority from year to year.

  1209
  I remind the House that, on average during the past six years, this country's gross contributions have been nearly £20 million every day. Enlargement will add to that problem, because we will bring into the EU states with even weaker administrative and financial systems. If we were serious about preparing Europe for enlargement, and doing so responsibly, such issues should have been discussed and agreed at Nice, rather than simply tinkering with the voting weights for each prospective member state.
  The fact is that the Bill is not primarily about enlargement; it is actually another milestone on the way to a more integrated EU. European integration is not proceeding as quickly as some people would wish. Indeed, many people in the Commission and elsewhere are disappointed at the speed of progress. However, on qualified majority voting, we are still going down that road quite quickly. The Bill contains new proposals for QMV in 31 new articles, some of which are very important.
  Industrial policy has not been described so far in the debate. It worries me, however, that we are signing up to a majority voting system for an industrial policy that will reinforce all the failings of the European Union economic model. It will do that by giving other member states opportunities for interference and meddling on a industrial scale by using the EU budget.
  The Prime Minister goes to the United States on many occasions, and in less troubled times he would go there to learn. He has described to the House how he believes that the European model has much to learn from the United States about job creation, innovation, enterprise and economic growth. He has tried to sell such ideas to his European Union colleagues in the Council of Ministers. Therefore, after the Lisbon summit, he said that he had seen
  "a sea change in European economic thinking"—[Official Report, 27 March 2000: Vol. 347, c. 21.].
  It was nothing of the sort; that summit was an exercise in self-delusion.
  The European Union persists in using qualified majority voting as a way of forcing through damaging and unnecessary measures against the interests of this country. I am not making a partisan point, so let me give an example of where this Government opposed such a measure. The information and consultation directive will impose on member states national works councils. It will have nothing to do with multinational companies or companies that trade and operate in more than one member state; it will cover companies that are based, trade and operate entirely in this country.
  The Government rightly said that the proposal was a breach of the subsidiarity principle and argued as such, but they lost the argument. More importantly, they lost the vote. They therefore had to make the best of a bad job. An unnecessary, expensive, interfering and meddling European measure will be imposed on this country against the wishes of all parties, this House, the other place and the British Government.
  I cite another example, and it is one that I feel particularly strongly about. The art levy directive has been debated in the past, but the House may not know that the
  1210
  directive has now been passed against the vote of the British Government. It will impose a levy on the resale of all works of art by living artists or by artists who have been dead for less than 70 years. The practical effect of that will simply be that any valuable work of art will no longer be sold in the European Union. Sales will take place in New York, Japan or any art centre outside the EU.
  The directive will therefore destroy the London art market, which is the largest in the world and by far the largest in the EU. The Government understood that and, to be fair to them, they argued the case well and persistently, but they were finally outvoted. Art dealers in the United States cannot believe what has happened. A European directive will enrich not the London, United Kingdom and EU art markets but one on the other side of the Atlantic. They cannot believe how that can happen. I have no way of describing the matter to them other than in the terms that I just have.
  The directive was passed under existing qualified majority voting, but the Bill will extend such voting into new areas. What I have described will happen in areas that we have not yet thought of. That is not just bad for the economy. This country will catch the EU disease of over-regulation and over-government; more seriously, such a proposal is bad for democracy.
  Angus Robertson: How does the right hon. Gentleman square that argument with the view of politicians on the continent who are much in favour of a federal Europe? In their reaction to that part of the Nice agreement that deals with the qualified majority threshold and the number of votes for a blocking minority, they viewed the treaty as one of the greatest brakes on a federal Europe. In fact, we are in a confederal Europe.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I said earlier, some people would like to go further and faster. The hon. Gentleman did not dispute the example that I gave, and it is inescapably the case that qualified majority voting—which has done ackowledged damage to the House and to the country in the way that I have described—will be extended into new areas. That is my point.
  Such an approach is bad for democracy and the public have sensed that. The point has already been made that they do not worry all the time about the minutiae of EU decision making. They do not understand it for a start, but they perceive that something is wrong. It is striking that, when the electors in any member state are allowed near a decision about a specific European matter, they come up with unpredictable results.
  A year ago, the Danes surprised everyone by voting against the proposal that they should join the euro. They did that by overcoming the Danish establishment—almost all the political parties, the trade unions, employer organisations and most of the press—and all their European neighbours. The people smelled a rat and voted no. In March this year, the Swiss—not a member state, but a highly democratic country—voted no to the proposition that their politicians should apply for membership of the EU, and in June, the Irish unexpectedly voted no to the treaty of Nice.
  There are other manifestations of that malaise. One is the shamefully low turnout in elections to the European Parliament. That problem will not be solved by giving the

  1211
  EU more powers. People will not rush out and vote in European elections because of a great advance in co-decision making. Nor will it help that, under the Bill and the Nice treaty, the EU will be given powers to regulate and fund political parties on a pan-European basis. It will simply increase public cynicism about the whole enterprise when politicians dole out money to other politicians and their own political parties. That is also combined with the strong suspicion that political parties that do not sign up to, or endorse, the aims of the EU will not receive the money. There is a deep-seated malaise that the treaty does not begin to address.
  The distribution of power within the United Kingdom also needs addressing. We need to find ways of shifting power downwards; I would like to revive local authorities and, in this Parliament, I hope to persuade my colleagues to re-examine the issue of local government finance. I know that other Members share that aim. However, if one has that aspiration, it is crazy to start to transfer more powers upwards to the most remote Government in the world—the EU. That will happen under the treaty by the extension of the competence and power of the EU, reinforced by the extension of qualified majority voting into new areas. That represents a transfer of decision making from people who have been voted for and can be removed—Members of the House, for example—to people who are unelected and cannot be removed. The process is irreversible and irrevocable.
  It is sometimes claimed that all the little glitches and problems and things that we do not like are worth while because we gain so much influence. Why is it necessary to try to achieve some small influence over decisions in other countries by giving up all influence over decisions in our country? Is that not the negation of democracy and of the reasons why we have been sent here? In the current international crisis, can people seriously argue that our influence in the world or on the United States or middle east is diminished in any way by our opposition to some aspects of European integration, of that it would be extended if we signed up to a further ratchet of European integration?
  I believe that the reverse is true. The seeds of the destruction of our influence are in the Nice treaty. The proposals for a separate European Union military structure outside NATO, which is what we are signing up to, will undermine what influence we have in the wider world.
  Mr. John Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the decision taken at last year's 46th plenary session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin? It voted unanimously to support the creation of a European rapid reaction force and a European security and defence policy precisely because it would enhance NATO capability.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I disagree. The Bill will not add one soldier or one pound coin to the European Union's defence budgets or capability. There are profound misgivings about what is happening, which I share, throughout the American Administration.
  We must consider the intentions and motivations behind the changes in the treaty. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman balance his rather rosy view of what he hopes will happen with what the French Government have in mind for the powers and structural changes that will occur after the Nice treaty is implemented.
  1212
  I am convinced that the European Union is equipping itself with the attributes and powers of a state. That is the essence of the treaty changes. However, most people whom we represent do not want that. If we continue down that path, it will lead at best to apathy and disillusionment, which we are already witnessing, and at worst to alienation, resentment and perhaps an eventual reassertion of self-government in unpredictable circumstances. The House would therefore be doing its democratic duty if it rejected the Bill.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Listening to the debate, it seems that some hon. Members are developing a mentality of "Stop the world—I want to get off." They do not recognise that the world has changed. I make no bones about the fact that in the early 1970s I took part in the campaign to keep Britain out of the European Common Market, as it was at the time. I also make no bones about my position on our defence policy before the rapid changes of the 1980s. The world has changed, and serious political parties also need to change and recognise what is happening.
  I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I agreed with everything that he said, except for one thing—he did not recognise that there has recently been a discernible change among the tabloid newspapers. Although it is not my usual bedtime reading, I commend to hon. Members the News of the World of 14 October this year, which ran an article about the euro under the headline, "It's easy money". It did not go the whole hog and say that the euro is a good thing—far from it. In the context of British holidaymakers going to European destinations, it said:
  "The had news is, you're going to have to get used to the euro no matter what happens in Britain."
  However, it went on to set out six good reasons why there are benefits if Europe uses the euro—so even tabloid newspapers recognise that the world is changing.
  We learned a little this evening about the parentage of the grandmother of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and discovered that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife also has a European grandmother. Although one was from Italy and one from Glasgow, they are nevertheless Europeans. Indeed, they might soon find out that they are related.
  The debate is wide ranging and hon. Members have given interesting perspectives on the realities of European affairs. However, on a more serious note, one or two hon. Members referred to events on 11 September. I want to illustrate why the EU should consider the Nice treaty in the light of some benefits that could accrue from actions that have been taken by our European partners with other allies.
  We have opened the door to enlargement and a bigger single market. That will bring Britain huge benefits, including greater security, more prosperity and more jobs. There are important lessons to learn from terrorist attacks. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the special European Council meeting on 21 September, at which European leaders agreed new measures, including many UK ideas aimed at combating terrorism. However, he did not mention changes to increase aviation security within Europe. If we consider what happened on 11 September and the distances that some of the planes travelled, it is

  1213
  clear that there needs to be a common policy, plan and rapid reaction to respond to such an incident if it again occurs in European airspace.
  I know that that is a difficult idea to contemplate, but I put it to hon. Members in all seriousness. There has been lengthy speculation about what leaders of free nations would have to do if they faced such an attack. European countries are so small that the distances travelled in north America are the equivalent of crossing the airspace of several European nations. If that does not justify increased defence co-operation, I do not know what does.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is making a typically fair-minded and thoughtful speech. However, in the event of a terrible decision having to be taken to shoot down an airliner, which I think is what he is getting at, surely that could be taken only through the medium of NATO. Such a decision would be taken at that level if it is not taken unilaterally. I cannot envisage a European military capability making a difference in the way that he suggests.
  Mr. Miller: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and if such an awful event did occur, I would expect the decision to act to be taken at the highest level in this country and in the country where the airspace was crossed. However, we are talking about seconds and minutes of travelling time between countries. It takes just a few minutes to travel across Luxembourg, Belgium and a bit of France to get here. There are clear benefits in having close co-operation on such matters.
  European Transport Ministers have made progress on some aviation issues, including classification of weapons, training of crew, checking and monitoring of hold luggage and protection of cockpit access. Those are important matters that demonstrate the need for a common approach to European aviation security, which hon. Members will recognise if, like me, they frequently hop from Heathrow to Brussels en route to another European destination.
  Angus Robertson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by giving a clear example of NATO's inability to fulfil the role that he suggests. Several days ago, Austria's air force was scrambled because a Turkish plane, which could not verify its course, was flying in Austrian airspace, and it was not clear whether it would continue to Germany or Italy. As the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is aware, Austria is not a member of NATO, so the co-operation that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is proposing could happen only in a European context, and not in a NATO one.
  Mr. Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The issue needs a great deal of thought.
  Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about future European security and military response. However, I must point out that the Nice treaty makes no provision for that because a terrorist attack
  1214
  would not be classed as a Petersberg mission. In fact, there is no such facility in the NATO strategic concept, and that issue will need to be addressed.
  Mr. Miller: I accept my hon. Friend's point and bow to his greater knowledge of NATO. I was merely speculating about the need for closer co-operation between European defence forces because of the events of 11 September.
  I come now to issues in the treaty that seem to cause extraordinary objections, such as qualified majority voting. I bow to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory) and his expertise in the art market. I have never found myself to be a significant player in the market, but I know what I like, as they say. I am not certain when this country signed up to the QMV to which he referred I suspect that it was during a period of Conservative government. On the changes to QMV to which he referred, I have yet to hear an argument from any Member of this House, in any of our debates, about anything except headlines. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) listed the changes to QMV, but at no point has anyone put forward a sustainable argument to show how the changes could be damaging in a particular treaty example. Such hollow opposition from Conservative Members weakens the logic of their case.
  Mr. Spring: We object to the extension of QMV on principle, but I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. Article 100 deals with measures in the event of severe difficulties in the supply of certain products as well as community financial assistance to member states in severe difficulties. The hon. Gentleman may know that there is something called North sea oil. We do not know, because we do not have an interpretation of the Bill, what would happen if there were difficulties in supplying energy. Could the European Union have access to North sea oil on the basis of QMV? What has happened with fisheries should clearly demonstrate the need for nations to protect their assets, and that is simply one of many examples from the Nice treaty that are not ultimately in our national interest.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is simply taking article 100 and speculating on "what happens if', with no solid evidence that what he says is the case. I have heard no sustainable argument linking the issues of long-term energy policy to article 100. I understand the hon. Gentleman's fear, which may be worth exploring, but it is not being explored in a rational way in this debate.
  If the hon. Gentleman expects the British public to swing towards his side of the argument, I suggest that he consider article 137(1)(k), for example, which might be included in the list of principal objections. I understand that there might be an ideological difference between our two parties about modernisation of social protection systems, provisions relating to health and safety at work, and so on. Some of the more esoteric examples that are being given, however, do not wash with me and certainly do not wash with the British public, as we discovered in the recent general election.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the example that I gave him, in which the information and consultation directive, which was opposed by the Government—presumably with the hon.

  1215
  Gentleman's support—went through by qualified majority voting as agreed at Amsterdam? That is a clear example of the Government giving way on majority voting. A measure came before the House, the Government opposed it—presumably with the support of the hon. Gentleman—but the measure was enacted over their heads. Is that not a clear example of the democratic wish of the House being overridden by a directive?
  Mr. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get me into deep trouble. As some of my hon. Friends may know, I encouraged the Government to go a little further on the issue to which he refers. I will not be drawn too far on that, as I might find myself in hot water.
  The Tory objection to the rapid reaction force does not fit with reality, either. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) eloquently said, since flesh was put on the bones of the project, opinion in NATO and other serious military circles has been in favour.
  As for the common agricultural policy, everyone recognises the case for massive change. However, the logic of the argument on the CAP must have been just as correct when the previous Conservative Government signed the Maastricht treaty. Opposition Members seem to be crying wolf by introducing the issue at this point.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Lady was around at the time—just—so I will give way.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman may have been in the Chamber when the Minister for Europe, in an intervention, suggested that the Government had discussed with Ministers the preparation for changes to the CAP and expanding the Community, whereas the previous Conservative Government had not. I assure him that in 1995–96, as an Agriculture Minister, I discussed reform of the CAP in both Hungary and Poland, for example. The Conservative Government created a working party that produced a document for reform of the CAP.
  What on earth have the hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues been doing for the past five years? They fudged the situation because it was difficult. They kicked it into the long grass, which is why we are in this mess.
  Mr. Miller: I accept that it is a difficult issue, but I do not accept that it has been fudged. From the discussions that I have had recently with colleagues from other countries, and from what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said at the start of the debate, I believe that significant progress is being made. However, I do not understand why this one treaty is suddenly supposed to be bound up inextricably with reforms to the CAP. Those reforms have been necessary for a long time, and I accept the hon. Lady's point that progress is needed.
  The treaty was subject to a great deal of discussion on the fringes of a conference that I was privileged to attend in September. I was in the Estonian Parliament, with colleagues who included the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), when the terrible events of 11 September unfolded. During the proceedings on the
  1216
  fringe, I discussed those issues with a wide range of colleagues, including, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your opposite number in the Hungarian Parliament and others from Parliaments in existing and prospective EU member states.
  It became clear to me that existing member nations and applicant countries want to make progress and that they feel a degree of frustration with the conduct of the British Conservative party and the handful of others who adopt a negative approach to the process of enlargement. They all say that they want enlargement, but they do not offer a practical alternative approach, only the piecemeal, one-after-the-other process that would take for ever and would be an impossible way in which to increase EU membership to 27 or 28 nations.
  It is right that Britain should commit itself to the treaty of Nice. In the coming years, we should work closely with our European partners and prospective partners to develop the interests of both our nation and our neighbours and to enhance the role of Europe, thereby enhancing Britain's position in the world.
  6.21 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Third Reading debate as I was otherwise occupied during the Bill's previous stages and so unable to participate. I hope to put on record my concerns, which are shared by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have already spoken.
  During the opening speech on Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary prayed in aid the same argument that we heard expressed tonight by the Minister for Europe: that the Bill is purely about enlargement. That is not so. Enlargement is an important aspect of the Bill, but it constitutes only 5 per cent. of that which appears on the face of the Bill. If we as the House of Commons are to do justice to any Bill laid before us, it is important that we analyse it, scrutinise it and consider the consequences of all of it, so we must examine that other 95 per cent. of the Bill. It is simply not acceptable for the Government to create a smokescreen by telling people that the Conservative party opposes enlargement of the European Union and that any criticism we might make of the Bill reveals that we are anti-enlargement. That is a travesty of the truth, given the small portion of the Bill that deals with enlargement.
  On Second Reading on 4 July, the Foreign Secretary said that he wanted to put the Bill in the proper historical context, but he rested his argument solely on the enlargement aspects of the Bill. Since then, we have witnessed the dramatic outcome of the referendum in the Republic of Ireland. It has been implied during today's debate, especially by the Minister for Europe, that if the House does not approve the Bill tonight, of all the member countries of the European Union ours will be the one that is pilloried for failing to do its duty.
  Let us look at the progress achieved by other countries in ratification of the Nice treaty. Belgium, which one might imagine would be enthusiastic, has not yet initiated a discussion; Germany has had only a First Reading; and the Greek Parliament has not yet initiated any debate on ratification. The list goes on: Italy has not yet ratified; the position in Ireland is now a matter of record; Austria has had only a First Reading; other countries including

  1217
  Portugal and Finland have presented a Bill, but only in draft form; and Sweden has not yet initiated the debate. Yet here, the Minister for Europe—desperately hiding under the cloak of EU expansion—tells us that we have not got time to talk about 95 per cent. of the Bill, but if we simply sign up we will have done our duty. I do not accept that argument.
  Let us consider why the Irish rejected the proposal. One of the reasons, although by no means the only one, was their concern about the EU's inability to address the vexed issue of reform of the common agricultural policy—a matter that has been mentioned tonight. Progress on CAP reform has to have been made before all the new countries enter the EU. People have argued that other countries have entered in the past, and that is true, but I recall that Spain and Portugal did not have an especially easy passage: there were problems, especially in the fisheries and agriculture sector. The economies of many of the countries that are lined up waiting to join the EU are highly dependent on agriculture and horticulture.
  We should take a look at the Irish experience. Mr. John O' Dowd, who was deeply involved as a member of the committee of the National Platform for Ireland, writes:
  "Right at the beginning of the Irish campaign our first important step was to get hold of a reliable English language text of the Treaty. As everyone knows, Nice was conceived in darkness and confusion, so it was hardly surprising that a reliable text was difficult to find. However, once we got that the long and slow process of working out what Nice did began. As with every other EU treaty, Nice was a mixed bag. It was important to understand what the issues were, how they were prioritised in the treaty, and what was at the heart of Nice. This was a long haul, but for us it was vital to be able to get a grip on what we were dealing with.
  Once that was done (virtually a month of solid work) we could then proceed to organise the information we had."
  I shall come shortly to those parts of the treaty that cause me concern, but the other 95 per cent. deserves proper scrutiny.
  It is a matter of great regret that during the Committee stage, despite some excellent and constructive contributions by Conservative Members and the tabling of amendments and new clauses, the Government failed to consider properly or agree to a single proposal advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The theme struck by the Foreign Secretary at the start of the debate on the Nice treaty was carried through, and we see it being finalised tonight. We are being told, "Either agree with the Bill, or you are against expansion of the European Union—and please don't bother us with the other 95 per cent." That is no way to treat either the House or a Bill of such importance.
  As we have heard, every step of a treaty Bill causes a constitutional change. Individually, they may not be great changes, but their effect is incremental: they add up to a handing over of the powers and rights of the people who are represented by Members of Parliament to unelected people who sit in Brussels.
  Mr. Bryant: Does the hon. Lady not accept that that is the whole point—that to a treaty the response is either yes or no? We are not here to rewrite the treaty in any way.
  Mrs. Browning: In that case, why debate it? Why not just have a statement from a Minister to which we can all
  1218
  nod our heads like little donkeys and say, "Okay, you go ahead"? That does not reflect my understanding of parliamentary democracy. If things threaten to get that bad—judging by the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, he might well encourage his colleagues to make things that bad—I will oppose it tooth and nail, as will my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Spring: I invite my hon. Friend to say precisely what parliamentary democracy is all about and to emphasise that the extent of the alienation and disconnection of the peoples of Europe from the institutions of the European Union is caused precisely by the attitude articulated by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant).
  Mrs. Browning: I agree. A distinguishing feature of the treaty is the big question mark resulting from the result of the Irish referendum. This evening, Members have said that treaties have been passed, even under a Conservative Government; I accept that. However, as we saw when other EU members took the single currency on board, what is distinctive is the fact that a referendum of the people by the people gave a result different from that expected by the Government.
  Dr. Ladyman rose—
  Mrs. Browning: May I finish this point before giving way?
  I went to Copenhagen early in the Danish referendum campaign and shared a platform with various people from different countries, all of whom had been invited to speak by the Danes. I shared a platform with a Swedish trade unionist; I think that it was the first time in his life that he had shared a platform with a centre-right politician, and he looked a bit disconcerted. However—and this applies to every country in the EU—he said that the single currency was on the politicians' agenda and was not what the people wanted; unless the people had a voice of their own, and if they could not trust politicians to speak for them, we faced a dangerous future. I told him, "I agree with you comrade." He nearly fell off the platform.
  If we, as representatives of the people, do not represent the views of the people and if, on important matters, they do not even have a referendum, then, not just in this country but throughout the European Union, we are heading for a situation that has already been remarked on by other Members tonight. Ultimately, the people will rebel and the consequences of that should not be underestimated. In democracies, people should be able to speak out. If they do not have an outlet through the people democratically elected to represent them, there is a big problem.
  Several Government Members said that the recent general election gave a clear indication of what the British people think about Europe. I do not agree because a general election is not about a single issue, but about a whole range of issues. We know from every opinion poll that the British people—and it is the British people in whom I am interested—are concerned about giving up their national currency and the drip, drip effect of taking the nation further into an integrated union in which we are no longer an independent nation state. The Nice treaty

  1219
  is yet another step along that route. I now give way to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has been very patient.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Lady helped to lead the Conservative team that fought the last election, telling the people that it was their last chance to have their say on Europe. She was a member of that team; was she fibbing? If she is now saying that amendments to treaties passed in the House should be allowed, will she tell us how many amendments the previous Government allowed to the Maastricht treaty?
  Mrs. Browning: At the election, the Conservative party had a clear policy, especially on the currency.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: And on Nice.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful for that reminder. We are honouring that pledge, unlike Government Members who must wonder when they are ever going to honour anything that they promised in an election. As an MP, European issues were not the only area on which I campaigned in my Devon constituency. I held more than 40 public meetings, and we discussed the euro, European matters generally and other things. My majority trebled; in fact it more than trebled. Now that I have found out how to treble my majority, I shall do the same next time.
  The treaty, of course, includes other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) mentioned one that is of great concern. We are all conscious of the tragic events of 11 September, but I urge Members to read the debate on the Bill in July in Hansard and look at the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who spelled out clearly the problems in those parts of the treaty that revise articles 1, 17 and 25 of the treaty on European Union. My hon. Friend also examined the consequences of those revisions for our defence and security policy. He mentioned terrorism, unaware of how telling his words would become. I urge Members to read his speech because we need to be sure of the terms of this country's co-operation.
  I am all in favour of co-operation, but the treaty is not about flexibility and co-operation; it is about entrenching in statute things that bind us rather than give us the flexibility that we often need. In fact, flexibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said in his opening remarks, is seen to be important in our defence commitment in Europe.
  Mr. John Smith: Has the hon. Lady read article 17, which states that it shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of member states?
  Mrs. Browning: Indeed. As has been said, we know that the Nice treaty proposes that we take the first steps to introduce what has euphemistically been called a European army and certainly a European defence and security policy. I am in favour of EU countries playing their part and contributing their fair share. I am not being malicious but making a statement of fact when I say that many members of NATO have for many years—in fact since NATO was first formed—a record of not contributing from their defence budgets is the amount that
  1220
  they would be expected to pay. Over the years, the Americans have said quite rightly that Europe should pull its weight on defence. I do not have a problem with that general premise, but we are concerned that the treaty is proposing a break in our alignment with NATO and the Western European Union.
  I listened to the Labour Members who have contributed tonight. Never mind what is in the treaty; it is part of that 95 per cent. that they do not want to talk about. The Prime Minister gave his word; things are not quite how they look in the document, and there will still be command and control liaison through NATO. In fact, that is not the interpretation of other EU states, particularly France, as I have said.
  Mr. Spring: May I add to the point that my hon. Friend is making? It is worth considering the remarks of the Finnish commander-designate of the rapid reaction force, who said that it
  "will not bow to NATO".
  General Gustav Hagglund described the planned 60,000-strong force as an important symbol of EU identity, similar to the euro and the flag. He said:
  "We are not talking about a subsidiary of NATO. This is an independent body."
  That point is well made.
  Mrs. Browning: It is compatible with the words of the French chief of staff whom I have quoted on the same subject. We have legitimate concerns about that aspect of the treaty and its interpretation by other EU member states, especially at this time when we all realise the significance not just of co-operation and flexibility but, as in previous times of trouble, clear structures. Ambiguity is the last thing that we want in defence and security. We do not want different nation states making different interpretations because we may discover that only when it is too late.
  The other issue about which I, like my colleagues, am concerned is the extension of qualified majority voting. As a former Minister, I have been asked for examples of what it will mean. Basically, as a nation state, we will again give up some of our rights to veto matters that are in the British interest. I am particularly concerned that the so-called emergency brake, which the Government paraded after their negotiation of the Amsterdam treaty, is to be subject to qualified majority voting.
  I shall briefly share with the House my experience as an Agriculture Minister. Having spent three years at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have no doubt that, with regard to food production, there are those in the European Union who use qualified majority voting not to expand the single market and competition, but the reverse. They identify food sectors where they see British products that are causing problems to their own domestic markets, they form a cabal of like-minded countries, and they raise objections. They use their block voting power under QMV to see off a competitive sector from another country. My experience as a MAFF Minister showed that clearly.
  Anyone who has ever taken an interest in the fight that we had to put up just to maintain British milk chocolate over four or five years will know that the issue is not harmonisation but the raw competition of the marketplace, where QMV is used by pressure groups and companies in

  1221
  other countries to see off the competition from the UK. We saw the same in respect of mineral waters and soya milk. We had to ban in this country the name "soya milk" on a product that was sold only in this country as soya milk, because others did not want that competition. They wanted greater input into our market, and when they could not achieve that on fair competitive terms, they did it by using QMV, forming a cabal and seeing off the competition.
  No one should think that QMV enhances the single market or open competition in the EU. It is used for horse trading, and horse trading is how the whole system works.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Lady accept that on 42 occasions her Government gave up the veto and adopted QMV on the Single European Act and on the Maastricht treaty?
  Mrs. Browning: I was not a Member of Parliament at the time of the Single European Act, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that I was in Parliament for the Maastricht treaty. I will say to the House not for the first time and probably not for the last time—I have certainly said it to my constituents—that I very much regret my support for the Maastricht treaty.
  Mr. David: The implications of the hon. Lady's remarks are profound. Everyone recognises that the great achievement of the European Union is the single market, which is virtually complete. I thought that the Opposition supported the single market. Everyone also recognises that the single market would not have come about without qualified majority voting. The hon. Lady must surely accept that simple fact.
  Mrs. Browning: It depends what we imagined the single market would achieve, back in those early days when we first joined the common market. I voted in the 1970s that we should remain in the common market because I believe in free trade, and I could fully understand why colleagues in the party at the time of the Single European Act saw that we would bring about more free trade and remove both tariff and non-tariff barriers. I was all in favour of the principle, but in practice it did not work out that way.
  For example, I had always expected that with the single market, if the Germans could make a better-quality toaster at a more competitive price than a British company, they would take our market share of toasters in the UK, and we would have to produce a better toaster. That is my rather basic understanding of the free market, but that was not the route taken by the European Community. It took the route of harmonisation in every blessed product and service, and now it is trying to integrate harmonisation into everything else that we do.
  I had every hope of the single market and free trade—[interruption.]I ask hon. Members not to shout from a sedentary position; I will give way.
  My point is borne out by the statistics. In 1992, when the single market was created, the rate of growth in trade between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union was the same as that between the United States and the European Union during the same period. In other
  1222
  words, the US increased its trade with the EU at the same rate as we did, but the US was not subject to being a net contributor to the EU.
  The 1998 figures, which are the latest that I have, show that the average of the tariffs that the EU placed on imported industrial goods was 3.6 per cent. Leaving aside any possible retaliatory measures, an average tariff of 3.6 per cent. would have yielded £3.441 billion had it been levied on the UK. In other words, if we had traded with the EU at the same rate as do the US and many other countries around the world, we would have spent £1.748 billion less of UK taxpayers' money in our contribution to the European budget.
  Yes, I am a great advocate of free trade, but I am not in favour of something that parades itself as free trade or a single market, when cabals work to see off the competition and take advantage of qualified majority voting to see off sectors that are perceived as competition. I am not in favour of the United Kingdom having to give up its fishing stocks and much else in order to be net contributors to the HU, if that is not fair and does not take into account the proper rules of free trade, which is what we signed up for in the first place.
  Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She argues that the United States has benefited more from the European Union than have EU members, and she contrasts the position of the United States and the United Kingdom. Is she not aware that the fact that we share sovereignty and contribute to a common pool of funds means that we can benefit in many other ways, unlike the United States? It is not a simple trade equation. It involves programmes and projects that spread throughout the regions in the EU and benefit many regions as net gainers, such as my region in the north-west.
  Mrs. Browning: But as a net contributor, the UK is paying for every EU -financed project that the Government agree to become involved in, as the balance sheet shows at the end of the financial year. There is no great pool of money that the EU in its largesse dollops out to regions of the UK. I know that the image of the blue flag with the circle of yellow stars is used to show that a project is EU-funded, but the hon. Gentleman must know that much of that funding is conditional upon match funding, and that the balance sheet shows that as long as we remain net contributors to the EU, we will be financing such projects ourselves.
  Mr. Hendrick: The hon. Lady missed my point. Per capita income and per taxpayer, the north-west is a net gainer, even though as a nation we are net contributors. The hon. Lady may not agree with that method of redistribution, but the majority of hon. Members do.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear me say that as it is our money anyway, I would trust his Government to decide how those funds should be distributed to the north-west, the south-west or any other region of the United Kingdom, and to be answerable to the House for their decision. I would rather they used our money for our priorities so that they would be

  1223
  answerable, through Members of Parliament. We would not be the losers for it, as the money would still be spent—
  Mr. Hendrick rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I must move on. The hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree. The money is ours. The question is who decides what it is to be spent on—people in Brussels or the United Kingdom Parliament, accountable to the people through hon. Members. I believe that accountability should mainly be here.
  Mr. David rose—
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I have taken a considerable amount of time and, much as I am enjoying the debate, I ought to summarise my other concerns about the treaty.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) spelled out his concerns about industrial policy, which I share. Every time the Government establish a deregulation taskforce, we know that it will not succeed. Once one signs up to the social chapter—lots more is going to come into it—one automatically puts a brake on Britain's competitive edge. There is no way out of that scenario and no exit strategy in respect of the social chapter now that the Government have signed up to it. Like my right hon. Friend, I am concerned about more integration in that hidden 95 per cent. of the treaty that affects our competitiveness through industrial policy.
  I am also concerned about control of EU political parties, but I shall not speak in detail about it.
  Mr. Miller: May I intervene before the hon. Lady continues?
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has a very winning way, so I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Miller: I thank the hon. Lady. Can I use the engine in her car as an example? We have spoken about it before, as it was made in my constituency.
  Mrs. Browning: I have changed my car.
  Mr. Miller: I hope that the engine is still made in my constituency.
  Mrs. Browning: It is not.
  Mr. Miller: That is terrible, but, none the less, the hon. Lady's last engine, which ran for 150,000 miles, was exported from the UK during all the troubled times that she has mentioned. It went not only to mainland Europe but to Scandinavia and the United States. We have plenty of examples of good manufacturing successes that have occurred during the period in which she is saying our competitiveness was disappearing. When we have had the products, put in the work and acted in partnership with European counterparts, we have had genuine successes.
  Mrs. Browning: In future, whenever a Labour Member who represents a constituency in the north-east or
  1224
  north-west stands up to complain that he or she has just lost another 2,000 manufacturing jobs, I will be sure to repeat the hon. Gentleman's view to whichever Minister is at the Dispatch Box. That view is not usually expressed when such complaints are made.
  I am concerned about the treaty proposals that will lead in future to the question of a constitution for Europe. I have heard arguments from below the Gangway about such a constitution. It seems to me that if there is a European army, constitution and single currency, as well as harmonisation in all the other spheres that have been mentioned, we will have a country called Europe. I want to see Europe as a combination of nation states that work together and co-operate. There is a great deal of advantage in co-operation. I do not want anybody to think that I do not recognise that fact or that I do not value co-operation. Once we have a country called Europe—we are going that way and are now very close to such an outcome—there will no longer be a country that one would recognise as the United Kingdom or as a democracy that is answerable to the people through this House. That is what I object to.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The average length of Back-Bench speeches is now more than 20 minutes. On that basis, many of the hon. Members who are present will be disappointed. I appeal to hon. Members to give some thought to their colleagues who want to speak in the debate.
  6.53 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I hope to return us to the subject of the treaty of Nice, rather than to speak about our fears of possibilities that I shall not even try to find the words to describe. If we are honest, we will all probably agree that the treaty is not a perfect vehicle. It has its failings, but in negotiations where 15 member states sit around the table it is necessary to agree with some conclusions that the majority believe to be right in order to make progress. Similarly, rightly or wrongly, the treaty of Nice is the vehicle that has been chosen to take enlargement forward. That is the world as it is.
  Let us consider enlargement. I gained the impression from previous speakers that half the House of Commons is in the Baltics, Poland and other accession states. From personal experience, I know that various delegations run into each other in Vilnius. Such meetings mean that many of us can speak with first-hand experience. We probably all share similar experience, which suggests that enlargement is extremely important for accession states. They see not only EU membership but NATO membership as a vehicle for advancement. Many countries envisage that NATO membership will provide military security and that EU membership will provide economic stability and security. They wish to be part of those two frameworks.
  The processes for securing NATO and EU membership are very different. In respect of NATO, an invitation is issued and the approach is, in many ways, much more positive. The EU process is a bit like an Ofsted report; it has many chapters and a country will not be let in unless it can tick all the boxes. It is very sobering. In the past few years, it has helped many countries to develop a structure that reflects the way in which they wish to shape themselves.

  1225
  Most of the accession states—certainly those that hope to be in the first wave—have made it clear that they will hold a referendum even though they have no constitutional need to do so. They want not only to be democratic but to be seen as such. One of the reasons why it would be absolutely disastrous to delay the enlargement process unduly is the fact that opinion polls show that public support is dropping in some of those states.
  We must deal with the reason for that and say something about the Irish referendum. I do not want to second-guess why the Irish people voted as they did or to tell them how they should have voted, but I suspect that some of them were saying, "Curses on all your houses." I suspect that the decision, rather than being a vote against EU enlargement or qualified majority voting, was directed against everything other than what is in the treaty of Nice.
  In the long term, we must consider that disengagement by the electorate. I am not so arrogant as to say that they do not understand what is involved; they may understand only too well but still not like it. If so, we must accept it, but it would be wise for us to separate disillusionment from the very narrow aims of the treaty. I think that it is fairly unambitious and could have been much more ambitious. I agree with Members who said that it did not contain enough meat to make it an appropriate subject for a constitutional referendum in this country. It is the vehicle for enlargement. I agree with it and I believe that it should be taken forward.
  One element of the treaty caused me some anxiety: the common foreign and security policy. I was concerned about the relationship between the EU and NATO. Interestingly, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs makes the following statement in its fifth report:
  "It remains to be seen just how soon differing interpretations of the report's conclusions can be reconciled, and what the statement that EU-led military operations will take place only 'where NATO as a whole is not engaged' will mean in practice."
  That caused me some concern. Members of the Committee have just returned from two days in Brussels, where we met the Belgian membership. We also met Hageland representatives and NATO members. It is clear that the EU and NATO recognise that the latter will have first refusal. That is made explicit in the statement to which I have referred, but it has been made more explicit during the past few weeks.
  The circumstances in which NATO would choose not to become involved and we would depend on the EU instead are extremely limited. They will be exactly those in which America will not have an interest and the EU will wish to take the first step. The two structures are parallel. While I know that the treaty does not add one extra soldier anywhere, I hope that it allows us to use NATO and EU capabilities far more effectively. Surely parallel and comparable structures are the way forward.
  I hope that we will all learn the lesson from the fact that successive Governments throughout Europe—I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on this point—have shamefully underspent on defence. I suspect that when the shortfalls are considered, we will find that those in the EU and NATO are broadly the same. I hope that that will result in increased spending. Again, however, that is not part of the treaty itself.
  1226
  Let us consider what we are deciding tonight: the vehicle for enlargement, on which it would be absolutely disastrous to stall at this stage. I believe that one of the main reasons for central Europe's democratic development is the prospect of membership, which has provided a framework for that to happen.
  Perhaps today affords an opportunity for us to restate a United Kingdom interpretation of two matters. The nature of treaties means that there are slight differences of interpretation. First, the United Kingdom subscribes to NATO and the transatlantic model. I accept that a French school of thought suggests that building an alternative power bloc to the United States should drive the European Union. I do not subscribe to that model, and I should be surprised if many hon. Members did. Perhaps now is the time to restate that clearly. Secondly, our model of co-operation is intergovernmental. Important decisions should be taken at ministerial level by elected representatives of member states.
  Those views are not incompatible with the treaty of Nice. As I said earlier, although the treaty is not perfect, it is vital. No one, apart from those of the most extreme little Englander mentality who want to reconsider all the treaties and to return to the time before we started negotiations for accession and rerun the 1975 referendum, should be unable to support the Bill tonight.
  7 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) from the Government Back Benches against the Bill means that there will be a pleasing symmetry, because I shall speak from the Opposition Back Benches for the measure. That reflects the reality of the European debate in this country: the division on Europe cuts across parties—there are different views in all parties.
  I shall be brief, as you enjoined us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to explain why I intend to vote with the Government tonight to ratify the Nice treaty. The Government and the Opposition are applying three-line Whips; there is therefore no doubt that the Bill will be carried. That was the consequence of the last general election. The easiest course for me would be to follow the Opposition Whip and vote against the Bill in the certain knowledge that that would make no difference. I could also continue to abstain, as I did until now, including on Second Reading.
  I have decided to vote for the measure because I believe that the treaty of Nice and, therefore, the Bill is essential for the enlargement of the European Union. Nothing has been said in the debate to shake that belief. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I believe that it is our duty and in our interest to act to secure the early enlargement of the Union.
  The Nice treaty contains an essential prerequisite for enlargement: the reallocation of voting weights in the Council of Ministers between current and prospective member states. The battle over the reallocation of votes at the Nice conference was hard fought and acrimonious. Many member states would like the matter to be reopened. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, countries such as Belgium were losers in the reallocation, and that is one of the reasons for the failure of the ratification procedure to progress as fast as we would like. It is in Britain's interest not to

  1227
  reopen the matter, not least because the new allocation substantially increases our weight in the Council of Ministers.
  In the light of the off-the-cuff remarks of the President of the Commission in the summer after the failure of the Irish referendum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has argued that it the Nice treaty is not necessary for enlargement and that the necessary adaptations of European Union institutions can be accomplished through treaties of accession with the new member states. Let the experts and the non-experts in European law argue about that. I simply share the view of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I observe that Mr. Prodi has not repeated his words.
  I appreciate that the votes of prospective member states can be fixed in their treaties of accession, which could state that Poland would have a specific number of votes, Hungary would have a specific number and so on. However, the difference between what we are considering and the position that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) described in respect of the previous enlargement is that separate treaties between the European Union and Poland and between the EU and Hungary cannot reallocate voting weights between the existing member states. Any attempt to proceed in that way would run the risk of the many discontented member states trying to reopen the question. That would delay enlargement and disadvantage Britain.
  Conservative Members, supported by the right hon. Member for Llanelli, have argued that although the agreement on votes at Nice is positive from the British point of view, it is outweighed by in negative features such as the extension of majority voting, the promulgation of the European Union charter of fundamental rights—not, of course, as a justiciable instrument—and the further development of the common foreign and security policy. I am not persuaded that all those developments are necessarily so negative from a British point of view; I am sure that their significance is far outweighed by the agreement on the new voting structure in the Council of Ministers.
  The new leadership of my party appears, at last, to have grasped that the rhetoric of the past four years about the threat of a European superstate was at least overheated. That is the new leadership line, but the debate shows that it has not trickled down to all Back Benchers.
  In the recent Conservative party leadership election, I undertook the task of answering letters from Conservatives and others about Europe to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was one of the candidates. Hon. Members will appreciate that that was not always an agreeable task. Many good people—and some who are perhaps not so good—have been persuaded that nothing less than a desperate battle for national survival is under way. A sort of 1940 complex—Britain against a united and hostile European mainland—has been generated.
  The new leadership line is, thank goodness, that Europe is not such a big issue after all and that there is no need for the Tory home guard to fight on the beaches and elsewhere. That is a welcome and clear admission that the threat of a European superstate has been overstated. If the threat were real, Conservatives and all hon. Members would want to oppose it vigorously.
  1228
  If the threat of the European superstate is being discounted and we are to put the 1940 complex behind us, why should not Conservatives examine the Nice treaty realistically? I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that, like its predecessors at Amsterdam and Maastricht, the Nice treaty constitutes a signal reverse for federalist ambitions. If the treaty is not to be regarded primarily as another milestone on the road to Britain's incorporation in a federal superstate, why are we voting against it? If it is to be so regarded, why are we putting Europe on the back burner? The Conservative party's opposition to the Nice treaty tonight and some of the rhetoric that we have heard in the debate is best understood as a hangover from the party's previous, discredited European policy.
  I shall conclude by speaking briefly about why I support the early enlargement of the European Union. I do not support it simply because it will stabilise the politics and security of central and eastern Europe and secure the development of important and growing new markets for British goods and services. I do not support it simply because it will necessitate reforms of European policies such as the common agricultural policy and the budget policy, which should produce welcome improvements from the British point of view. By the way, that will happen only after enlargement, because if we try to achieve it beforehand it will simply block enlargement.
  I support enlargement for different reasons. We in Britain have historic obligations in central and eastern Europe, and great states such as ours have a long memory for such matters. I spoke about the 1940 complex in the Conservative party. I want to consider the obligations that arise from another fatal year—1939.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred to his European ancestry. I hope that my words will hold some appeal for him because his distinguished forebear—I believe it was his great uncle—the Marquess of Lothian played an important part in those events, although he was more a man of 1938 than 1939. In March 1939, the British Government responded to the occupation of Czechoslovakia by the Germans in breach of the Munich agreement by extending guarantees to Poland. In September 1939, Britain went to war to uphold those guarantees.
  The British policy of 1939 was not just an admission that Neville Chamberlain was shamefully wrong to speak of the central and eastern European lands as "faraway countries of which we know nothing". Fundamentally, the British policy of 1939 was a commitment by this country to enable the states and peoples of central and eastern Europe to play their full part in a Europe organised on the basis of equality and co-operation.
  For reasons with which we are all familiar, it was impossible for this country to deliver on those commitments—in 1939, at Yalta and Potsdam in 1944 and 1945, or throughout the period until 1989. But today, after half a century, in the context of the enlargement of the European Union—an association of free and equal co-operating member states—the time has at last come for us in this House and in this country to do what we promised to do all those years ago. My vote tonight for the ratification of the Nice treaty by the House is my personal contribution to the fulfilment of that historic British obligation.
  7.11 pm
  Roger Casale: We began considering the Bill in July, well before the terrible events of 11 September in America. I do not say that we must ratify the treaty of Nice because of the international crisis, but I do say that the European Union, which had already reached a critical juncture in its development—like all international institutions—faces a critical challenge to its ability to make decisions, and its capacity to act in the world as we find it today.
  Now as, perhaps, at no previous time in its history is the time for the EU to demonstrate to the people of Europe that the nations of Europe are made much stronger by being able to act together through the European Union than they are by acting alone. Indeed, what better mechanism could there be at this time to strengthen Europe's contribution to the international response to terrorism? What better mechanism could there be at this time to expand the European effort in the fight against terrorism than an intensification of European co-operation, and an enlargement of the EU as envisaged by the Nice treaty?
  Some Opposition Members have given the impression today that it is business as usual in the European debate. Let me tell them that, in terms of where we pick up the debate about the Nice treaty this evening, we are in a different world from the world we were in when we left that debate before the summer break. Others may believe that consideration of the issues in the treaty should perhaps be postponed until after the immediate international crisis has passed. I believe we should treat the international crisis as a spur, or a wake-up call, to intensify efforts to produce important measures such as those in the Nice treaty, which will accelerate European reform.
  We urgently need the introduction, at European level, of measures to counter international terrorism, to strengthen judicial and police co-operation, to tackle money laundering and to operate in many similar fields to strengthen the security of the people of Europe. We need those measures to be agreed quickly, and implemented across as wide a range of European countries as possible. For that reason too, it is important to ratify the treaty of Nice. We are now talking not just about the advantages of expanding the common market and the benefits of trade, but about the advantages that will flow from an enhancement of the ability of EU states to deliver perhaps one of the most fundamental public goods of all: the security of our citizens.
  Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Prime Minister would have enjoyed the freedom to perform the admirable role that he is performing on the world stage in helping the United States to tackle the crisis we all face by offering the military support that this country is offering if this country had subscribed wholeheartedly to a common foreign and defence policy that required us to make decisions on a European rather than a national basis?
  Roger Casale: I am coming to that, but I think part of the reason the Prime Minister has been able to play the role he has played is the desire that the United States has felt to act, together rather than alone in the world. It is for precisely that reason that I think we should exercise leadership within the European context as well, and strengthen our leadership role in Europe too.
  1230
  The treaty of Nice will enhance the EU's capacity to act in the world. I think we all see and support, and we are debating, the leading role that Britain is playing through the present crisis, but, as I have said, we are able to punch above our weight in the world precisely because America is engaged. It is crucial that we also seek to play a leading role in Europe, and ensure that Europe too punches above and not under its weight during the current international crisis.
  I am certainly not one who claims that the European Union is perfect. Indeed, through my work with colleagues in the European Scrutiny Committee I discover more and more of its imperfections every week. Nor do I claim that the EU would be made perfect by the implementation of the Nice treaty. I do, however, see the treaty as part of an historical process—a small new step following on from all the other treaties that made the European Union what it is today, starting with the treaty of Rome in 1958 and proceeding with the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty and the Amsterdam treaty.
  I believe that, in opposing the treaty of Nice, the Opposition seek to turn their backs on Europe at a time when Europe's citizens look to the European Union to deliver greater security, greater international leadership and greater stability as a foundation for peace. The people of Europe must and, I believe, will see that the EU is more than just a common market—that it must renew its historical mission of 50 years ago to strengthen international resolve in consolidating peace. The EU itself, however, is much in need of reform.
  I was visited this evening by a constituent who had put in a green card, wanting to talk to me about the Nice treaty before this evening's vote. He came to lobby me—to ask me to vote against the treaty. When I asked my constituent, a Mr. Anderson of Graham road, Wimbledon, why he did not want me to vote with the Government for ratification, he told me a story about a European regulation concerning recycling of elements of his refrigerator, which would be more difficult as a result.
  I said "Yes, we must look very critically at regulations presented at European level. Not all of them are doing the good that was intended. But are you aware of the work of the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons? The Committee is there to look at individual regulations, and to weigh the costs and benefits of particular regulations as they relate to the United Kingdom." My constituent said that he was not aware of that.
  I think there is a myth that there is no scrutiny of, and no accountability for, what happens and is proposed in Europe at the level of national Parliaments. A great deal that is done in the European Union is imperfect, and may indeed need to be improved—I am reminded of the suggestion that the EU should do less, but better—but the mechanisms for improvement are in place through, for example, the work of the European Scrutiny Committee. Moreover, as I reminded my constituent, decisions in Brussels are not made by bureaucrats. Regulations may be drafted by civil servants, but they are decided by Ministers of State, who have an important democratic legitimacy as a result.
  It is important to strengthen the democratic accountability of the EU, and I should like that to be done through a continuation of the upgrading of the European

  1231
  Scrutiny Committee's work that took place during the last Parliament. It would be wrong to allow the Opposition to build an argument based on the idea, which is certainly not widely held among Labour Members or anywhere else, that people are claiming that the European Union is perfect. We need the type of reform envisaged in the treaty of Nice precisely because of the imperfection and precisely because we need to improve the capacity to make decisions and the quality of decision making at the European level.
  Very many great challenges still lie ahead. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to overcome the disconnection between the citizens of Europe and the institutions of Europe, as is still being demonstrated in low turnout at European elections. Another challenge—which will not be resolved by the treaty of Nice—is to increase the transparency and democratic accountability of European institutions. Another important challenge, as I said, is to strengthen further the input and role of national Parliaments in the European Union decision-making process.
  I hope that the Select Committee on European Scrutiny will continue to play the role of trying to improve the governance of Europe—a role that we played throughout the intergovernmental conference that led to the treaty of Nice. In future, I hope that not only our Select Committee but national Parliaments more generally will perform that type of role. I also hope that the role of COSACC—Conference of European Affairs Committees—which is the scrutiny committee that brings together representatives from national scrutiny committees, will be enhanced.
  I am sure that, both in the House and across Europe, we shall have many interesting discussions as we prepare and look towards the 2004 intergovernmental conference, which will reshape the future of Europe. However, one thing is certain. Today, by Parliament's ratifying the treaty of Nice, Europe will take one more step towards that future. I believe that our ratification of the treaty will make it a better future.
  To allow Conservative Members to prevent our ratification of the treaty of Nice, as they are seeking to do, would have the effect of diminishing Britain's role in the world and turning the clock back for the European Union by perhaps 50 years, to a time even before the treaty of Rome was signed. It would postpone, perhaps indefinitely, enlargement of the European Union. It would also, in the post-11 September world, compromise the European Union's ability to take collective action to combat terrorism.
  I urge all hon. Members to join Labour Members in the Lobby to ratify the treaty of Nice. Our citizens want, need and deserve the security, prosperity and leadership that the European Union is being challenged—perhaps more so than ever before—to offer. I believe that the European Union now faces its greatest test: to show that it can deliver for the citizens of Europe. Let us ratify the treaty of Nice and enlarge the European Union, and let that test begin.
  7.23 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am one of the diminishing number of hon. Members who voted in this place on the original legislation to take our United Kingdom into the Common Market. As is well known in the House, I voted against that legislation and am still
  1232
  opposed to it. We had a very warm and hot debate on that occasion, which ended with one of the Labour Whips using his Hansard report to batter the head of the then Liberal leader. There were other very warm scenes in that debate.
  I believe that the sovereign states of Europe should co-operate fully together when they willingly want to co-operate together, in the spheres in which they want to practise that co-operation. I do not believe in the incorporation of sovereign states in a super-European state. Today, we have heard talk in the House about federalism, but we are not talking about that. Federalism is a policy by which so many people with so much power decide voluntarily to surrender part of that power and establish a federal system. That is not the system in Europe.
  Mr. Prodi thinks that he has all the power. He does not ask us whether we would like to give up some power, but tells us, "We have this power, and we give you some say in how that power is used." The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) referred to the many European directives. To deal with those directives, however, the House is offered only a scrutiny Committee. Even if that Committee said to Europe that it did not like a directive and voted unanimously against it, and even if the House endorsed that view, that would make no difference; the European law would stand.
  In the earlier debates to which I referred one of the main arguments used to sell Europe to the House was that none of our sovereignty would be diminished. I do not think that, today, anyone looking back on our history would say that that is true; there has been a diminution in the sovereignty of the House. We know that because many cases of European law have made it clear that the House can only take note of decisions made in Europe. We do not have the power to change those decisions.
  We were also told that we would have a power of veto, so that if the United Kingdom did not like what was being done in Europe, it could stop it. As we all know, however, there has been a great change in the voting system in Europe and we do not have a power of veto. In fact, much of the power of the majority is being diminished.
  When we went into Europe, we had a master-card in one of our industries—the fishing industry. Britain had control of the largest part of the seas of the common market. What has happened? Now, we have to go with a begging bowl to Europe even to have the right to fish our own seas. I remind the House that we got into that serious situation because of the enlargement of Europe. Spain was one of the countries that entered the European Union, and it drove its ships right through the barriers that had been erected.
  Some hon. Members know the sad story of our fleets. The Northern Ireland fleet has been cut in half, and now another third of it will be sacrificed. Around the shores of the United Kingdom mainland there is a dearth in the fishing industry. When we entered the common market we had full control and full authority in our own hands. Where did that control and authority go?
  The new European Commission President, President Prodi, has taken to issuing statements on what will happen in Europe. The French Prime Minister, too, has issued his theory of what will happen in Europe. However, what is really happening in Europe is that the power of national

  1233
  Parliaments is being slowly diminished and debased, so that those Parliaments do not have the power to stop events in Europe.
  Some have said that we have done well out of Europe, but Northern Ireland has not done well. Per head of population, Northern Ireland has not received back from Europe the money that it has paid in as a member of the United Kingdom. One would have thought that, by this time, we would have had that much. Until recently, the south of Ireland was receiving £5 million per day from the common market. That money has stopped now and, as we know, the Celtic tiger of its economy is going down the drain—we hear announcements daily on its vast economic drift. We have to face up to those issues.
  Will our economy advance if we bring in other states? This country's farming economy will certainly not advance when we bring in the other countries of Europe. There will be produce on the market with which our farmers cannot contend. Our farmers have to meet the standards that we demand in our food production and ensure that those standards are upheld, whereas some of the countries that will be brought in adhere to very low standards indeed. Those of us who know something about the workings of the European Parliament know that when Greece joined with its low standards of agriculture, subsidies to the rest were withdrawn and an attempt was made to raise Greek agriculture to a decent standard. If that happens with all the countries that wish to join at present, I do not know what will happen to agriculture. More and more people are coming to realise that the common agricultural policy is not good for farmers or for the housewife, and the House should carefully consider that issue. I will, of course, vote against the treaty tonight.
  7.31 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: In my parliamentary career, I have usually been called at about ten minutes to 9, by which time the Whips are telling me to keep my contribution down to five minutes, so I am grateful to catch your eye so early, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I shall bear in mind your admonition and be as brief as possible so that others can make their contributions to the debate.
  It is an honour to take part in a debate that has included a contribution from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is unfortunately not in his place at the moment. He has the honour—if I may call it that—of being the only hon. Member who has beaten me in an election. I stood against him in 1987, but despite that he was the first Member to greet me when I arrived here in 1997 and to give me a kindly welcome to the House. It is a pleasure for me to be on the same side of the argument with him tonight.
  It was also a pleasure to follow the passionate and eloquent remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). He mentioned the pooling—or the loss, as he would put it—of sovereignty that this country has experienced as a result of joining the European Union, but we chose to do so voluntarily. We made a democratic decision to put our sovereignty into the pool because we perceived that we would get democratic benefits from doing so. If those benefits have not materialised, we have serious work to do to obtain them. The fact remains that
  1234
  we took the decision to give up some of our freedom because we felt that that would increase our influence and effectiveness.
  As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I was reminded of my experience in the past few years of coaching a boys' football team in my constituency. I started coaching them when they were nine, and finished last year when they were 16. When they were nine, they were tiny little boys who each felt that they had complete freedom to run anywhere they liked on the pitch. We more or less convinced the goalkeeper that he had to stay towards the back, but the rest felt that they could do whatever they liked. When one got the ball, it was head down and straight for the goal, with not a thought of passing it or involving any other member of the team. Over the years of coaching that football team, we convinced them that they would be more effective if, instead of playing as 11 individuals, they were a team of 11 players. They had more impact for their effort if they limited their personal freedom and one stayed on the left wing, one stayed on the right wing, one of them went up front, some of them stayed in the middle and some stayed at the back. They limited their freedom, but they became more effective and won more matches. They got more bang for their buck. In other words they pooled their personal sovereignty, but they got something back for it, just as we did as a nation when we joined NATO.
  Earlier, we discussed article 5, which is a far greater pooling of sovereignty than anything in the treaty of Nice. It requires us, almost with no ability to modify our undertaking, to go to the aid of any nation in NATO that is under attack. We have no choice in the matter because we have agreed that if one of our NATO colleagues is attacked we will go to war to defend it. We gave up our freedom of action because it made us safer and gave us the power of those other countries at our back to protect us in our turn.
  If the events of 11 September have done anything, they have made hon. Members of all parties rethink our views and positions in politics, and our country's position. We have seen how the freedom that we have as an individual nation has allowed us to act flexibly and forcefully. We have seen my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take a position of influence on the world stage because we have acted effectively as an individual country. It may therefore have crossed some people's minds that we should be a power by ourselves again, forming ad hoc alliances and coalitions as necessary. However, the message that I get from the events of 11 September is that it is only by working together, pooling power, working with other people and forming coalitions that we will achieve anything.
  The vision that I have continued to develop since the terrible events of 11 September is of a European Union that could find ways to make decisions more quickly and act on them more effectively. We have all seen how decisions in the United Nations can come down to the lowest common acceptable denominator. The European Union should not make decisions in that way, as has been part of the problem over the years, because we need a European Union that works collectively to look after its member states' interests. We should know that the interests of the Spanish, the Italians, the French and the Germans are our interests. We should do what is in their interests, knowing that they will do what is in our

  1235
  interests. Then we could make decisions together properly and effectively. The treaty of Nice is about starting that process.
  The treaty is about extending qualified majority voting so that we can make decisions in that way. The only criticism that I have of the treaty in the light of what happened on 11 September is that the issues to which QMV will be extended seem puny and paltry. We should perhaps consider extending them to broader areas to improve our effectiveness. I therefore welcome the decision by the Swedish presidency to open up the debate on the democratisation of Europe and bringing power back to the people. I hope that we ratify the treaty of Nice tonight and move on to the next treaty, which should consider second chambers and the representation of national Parliaments in Europe. We should start the process of integration and of aiming to work together more effectively.
  Sometimes our constituents do not recognise the arcane discussions that we have about sovereignty, the treaty and various articles. They look to what the EU can do for them, and I have no problem with that. My constituency of South Thanet is in east Kent, and we probably get more benefits from Europe than anywhere else. Enlargement will mean a large share for us of that annual £1.76 billion of extra business. It will mean more exports from east Kent businesses and more jobs in east Kent in transport, manufacturing and services.
  I can already show my constituents what we have done with objective 2 money in Thanet, which still has one of the highest unemployment rates in the UK. It was the EU that came to our aid with money when the then British Government would not. I can show my constituents what Europe has built for us. I can show them estates where adolescents—they are just kids, really—are already alcoholics on bootlegged booze. The only way to deal with that problem is to address the movement of alcohol and bootlegging across Europe. I can show them drug addicts and tell them about what the EU is doing to crack down on the movement of drugs. I can tell them about our current security concerns regarding the channel tunnel, Manston airport or the ports at Dover and Ramsgate. We can deal with those security problems only as part of the European Union.
  Big words like constitutional issues and democratisation are very important to us in the House when we talk about the future of Europe, but other things matter more in the street. We must always keep in mind the vision that the EU means that our country will be stronger and more prosperous.
  Finally, it has been said that the EU has brought an end to war in Europe. We remember the horrors of the second world war, but the war in Europe has is been going on for 3,000 years. Those who doubt that should come to my constituency. I can show them Richborough castle, which was built by Julius Caesar, or the beaches where the Vikings landed. I can show them where Hengist and Horsa arrived from Saxony, and decided to stay and build the English nation. I can show them Ramsgate, built to fight Napoleon, or the business park—now occupied by Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company—that was built as part of the fighting effort in the first world war. I can take them to Manston airport, one of the bases involved in the battle of Britain.
  1236
  We have been fighting the Europeans for thousands of years, but the existence of the European Union means that that battle is at an end. It means that we are bringing security to Europe, as well as prosperity. The treaty of Nice aids that process, and the House should ratify it tonight.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), and the football analogy that he made. However, a football match lasts only for an afternoon, whereas when currencies, freedoms and vetoes are given up, they are given up for ever. That is an important distinction.
  I certainly want a forward-looking Europe, but the Bill could lead to a regressive Europe. We want Europe to seek to expand its borders and to enhance its citizens' security, but the Bill will act to compound the introspective, exclusive, rich-member-club mentality that currently pervades many of Europe's institutions.
  To my mind, the Europe of the future should place our destiny in the context of the world economy. The new reality is one of reduced tariffs, and there is a move towards ending protectionism. I fear, however, that this Bill will serve to hide Europe under a stone, and that it will defer the inevitable impact of world competition, improved technology and communications, and the massive strides achieved over recent years by the lightly regulated developing nations.
  The weakening in the treaty of the position of the individual member state is clear. It is evident in article 4 of protocol A, which relates to the size of the European Commission. It reduces the number of Commissioners for Britain, France, Germany and Italy and will reduce the number again when the EU expands to 27 members.
  That weakening is also evident in article 214.2, which provides that the Commission President would be nominated by member states acting by qualified majority voting rather than by unanimity. It is also evident in the re-weighting of member states' votes. That re-weighting means that, in a union of 27 states, the United Kingdom's votes will fall from 12.2 per cent. of the total to 8.4 per cent. That point has not been made yet this evening.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK's position will in fact be greatly enhanced? We have the same number of weighted votes—29—as Germany, even though that country has a population of 82 million, which is 25 million more than our 57 million?
  Mr. Djanogly: That point has been made several times in this debate. The distribution of weighted votes changes as the number of member states rises. After enlargement, the UK's position is likely to deteriorate.
  Of the existing 70 treaty articles requiring unanimity, some 29 are moved to qualified majority voting, and it is important that people fully realise how we will be undermining our current veto powers in many key areas. The point was made very clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). Those areas include external border checks, conditions for freedom of movement for third-country nationals, asylum laws, financial assistance to aid member states in financial difficulties, the introduction of the euro, trade policy,

  1237
  social provisions concerning working conditions and social exclusion, support for industry, economic co-operation with third countries, procedures and rules for the Court of Auditors and procedures for allowing other states to join. To my mind, there is therefore no doubt that the effect of the treaty will be to reduce our veto powers and thereby our power within the EU.
  The treaty goes much further, however. The Bill assumes that by weakening the powers of individual nation states, European institutions will somehow become more adaptable to an enlarged union. To my mind, that is an exercise in papering over the cracks. The problems of the European Union will not be solved by tinkering with the voting systems of its institutions, as the problems do not mainly lie with how votes are cast but with the institutions themselves.
  The European Union seems to find it very easy to blame its difficulties on what it sees as its current unwieldy voting systems. It frequently blames the slowness of the enlargement process on the candidate member states' economies, yet it remains reluctant to look into its own structural problems. We need to realise that countries in the east of Europe frequently operate their economies more efficiently than we operate ours. It is all too easy to assume that those countries are backward and ought to comply with our own—sometimes outdated—institutions and regulations.
  The Nice treaty almost totally ignores that reality. It looks at ways of bolstering the inadequate institutions of the EU. For instance, its effect will not in any way amend the provisions of the common agricultural policy. Many hon. Members have mentioned the CAP in the debate, but the treaty will provide additional mechanisms to keep new member states out of the CAP.
  It is true that there are more farmers in Poland than in the rest of Europe added together, and that the cost of the CAP would mean that it probably would not last a week there, if it were adopted. However, the position of agriculture will not be improved by banning Poland's access to the CAP and by effectively introducing double trading conditions for agricultural products from the east. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how the European institutions are likely to be strengthened by the treaty, or how the basic community concept of free movement of goods and services will be enhanced.
  Article 137 of the treaty will subject to qualified majority voting social provisions concerning health and safety at work, working conditions, information and consultation of workers, social exclusion and modernisation of social protection systems. Again, it is quite clear what the aim is. The provisions will be used as a method of curtailing the competitive advantage of eastern states that have lower labour and production costs than we do. I predict that it will also be used to force the UK to adopt more and more European employment regulations, each of which will continue to chip away at our own country's relatively free economy—or what is left of it after this Government's adoption of the social chapter and the raft of new regulations introduced over recent years. Further proposed regulations—such as paternity rights, and statutory rights for paid leave for adoptive parents—will also have an effect. Article 137 will certainly not aid European enlargement in any way.
  1238
  In the same way, article 157, which it requires the EU to ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of its industry exist, could well become a licence to intervene in the businesses of nation states, thus reducing their efficiency, disrupting market forces and creating yet more uneven and politically motivated playing fields. Furthermore, it would be interesting to know whether the Government have considered the costs involved in supporting outdated industries in the context of the Bill, as this policy could be extremely costly.
  The days when the Government and the European Union said that they did not want a two-speed Europe are long gone. Now it is quite the reverse. The treaty of Nice is clearly aimed at enabling a multi-class Europe in which certain members can be made second-class citizens to shore up the outdated institutions that were formed on the premise of a single-speed Europe.
  In theory, the new voting proposals adopting the concept of a multi-speed Europe could have been drafted so as to provide a flexibility that would have enabled member states to opt out of further integration proposals to which they may have objected, but the abolition of vetoes makes that unlikely. In practice, I fear that we will see the levelling down of members' competitive advantages, the banning of goods from new eastern European members, and the restriction of their people's freedom to work in the west. Unfortunately, rather than aiding enlargement, the treaty of Nice could be used as a baton to reinforce a sophisticated anti-dumping strategy against new eastern European members in particular.
  So far I have expressed my concerns about the further loss of our national competitive trade advantages and about how the treaty could effectively be used to hinder rather than aid enlargement. However, I believe that we need to put the treaty of Nice into the global context. Here, too, I have concerns.
  One of the effects of the Nice treaty will be to provide the mechanics to support the collection of values, many of them alien to the traditions of this country, that have been built up in western European countries over the past few decades. I refer to the cults of bureaucracy, politically motivated redistribution and inefficient welfare systems. Many eastern European countries are prepared to pay a very high cost for entry to the European Union, so they may well agree to bear the pain of entry—to lose their competitive advantages, to accept being regarded as second-class European citizens and to turn a blind eye to the excesses of "welfarism" to which they will have to subject their young economies. We can, at the same time, be fairly sure that the countries of the far east and the developing countries of the Indian subcontinent, Africa and south America are unlikely to follow the same route.
  We live in a global economy—a massive trading area where competition is fierce, the World Trade Organisation is breaking down tariffs and protectionism against developing countries, and wage and production costs are already lower. That is the direction in which we are heading.
  The dissolution of the old eastern bloc has made international relations more, not less, complicated. Our recent requests for developing countries' help in maintaining the so-called new world order might not come cheap. Is there any truth in the report that Pakistan is to have a number of the tariffs on its products cut or

  1239
  abolished as part of the arrangements for our war on terrorism? In any event, my point is that the world is moving towards free trade and low production costs, while the Nice treaty will be used for the opposite effect.
  I recently spoke to the owner of some call centres in the United Kingdom. The company has recently set up a call centre in India, employing graduates who speak perfect English and cost one fifth of UK equivalent employees. Modern communications mean that calls made to India cost the same as those to a call centre in Glasgow. Thousands of what would have been British jobs are to be lost and we do not seem to appreciate that globalisation is no longer a future threat but a present reality. Indeed, the European Union as a whole does not seem to appreciate that.
  The question arises as to whether the forces of federalism in Europe actually want enlargement of the Union. If new member states join before federalism is achieved, it is unlikely that the cause of federalism will be advanced by any of the new members. Could this be part of the reason why a treaty that was meant to be instituted for the purposes of encouraging enlargement could be used for the opposite effect? Could member states that support federalism be holding back on allowing enlargement until such time as plans for federalism are in place, effectively using enlargement as a bargaining chip for their own ends?
  The issue will become clearer as we head for the constitutional conference planned by the European Union for 2004. However, I suggest that the countries of eastern Europe are worth more than bargaining chips, and that we ignore the urgent need to widen the Union and enhance European security at our peril.
  Europe is at an important crossroads. We can accept the inevitability of the global economy and use the opportunity of enlargement to restructure our European institutions, embrace the new economy and sustain our long-term viability. Alternatively, we can stifle what enterprise and competitive advantages still remain on our continent.
  To my mind, the treaty of Nice will be used to facilitate the latter option. That will, I am sure, be to the detriment of British business and employment prospects. That is why I continue to oppose the Bill.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I had intended to start my speech by saying that the single word "Europe" seems to inspire extraordinary feats of imaginative power, but I had not reckoned on the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). It seemed to beat even the imaginative powers of Nicholas Ridley, who said years ago of the European Union:
  "This is all a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe."
  Myths and misunderstandings may not matter in many areas of life. I say that as someone who, as a child, believed for many years not only in Santa Claus but that the Lord's prayer went, "Our Father, a chart in heaven, Harold be thy name." Why Harold should have been His name, I have no idea. I was also confused in the collects by the author of peace and the lover of concord, which at least had some European context.
  It is very important that we do not have myths and misunderstandings about this issue. When I go round my constituency in the Rhondda, it is very rare for anybody
  1240
  to mention the European Union to me. However, a few people do and one of the most common things said is, "I voted for a common market, not the European Union." We have heard that sentiment several times today from Conservative Members.
  To say that there is a difference between a common market and the European Union is a false dichotomy. The free movement of goods when it comes to buying cars at EU prices in this country should, of course, be easier. However, without addressing issues of state aid and unfair competition from article 87, which was article 92 in the treaty, it will be impossible to bring about a common market.
  The United Kingdom is the only country in the world, apart from the United States of America, that has a positive balance of trade in audio-visual services. If we are to achieve further gains in selling our television programmes, films and CDs in France, Germany and Italy, we will have to change copyright law and ensure further harmonisation across the EU.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman has been here for hardly any of the debate, so I do not think that I will give way.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Bryant: No, I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman has not been here for long and some of us have suffered extremely lengthy speeches from his colleagues.
  Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. As he is not certain about the difference between the common market and the European Union, may I ask him to comment on a specific example? I have friends in the police force who were forced to change their shift pattern as a result of a European directive. They did not want to, but had to change to a pattern that made them more tired and meant that they enjoyed the job less and did it less effectively. Why is it necessary for decisions about the shift patterns of our police forces to be dictated at a supranational level?
  Mr. Bryant: I do not know the instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but on the broader issue of how we achieve a common market, we have to stray into areas that might otherwise be considered to have nothing to do with trade. As I said, copyright could be considered to be an area that is primarily of cultural significance and, therefore, the prerogative solely of member states, but if we are to achieve a common market in audio-visual services, we have to consider copyright.
  Dr. Ladyman: The same directive to which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referred provided tens of thousands of people with holidays for the first time.
  Mr. Bryant: Indeed.
  There is now a common European market in drugs. That is an established fact and, therefore, we have to have a common law enforcement policy. It need not cover

  1241
  every detail, but we need enhanced co-operation between the police and other organisations throughout Europe if we are to deal with a problem that affects us in this country.
  One can produce countless examples to show that trying merely to produce a common market for which people originally voted requires us now to stray into areas that might otherwise be considered as creating a union. What people voted for many years ago is also no longer relevant because the world has changed. When I was born, people did not travel as much as they do now. The health service in other countries now matters just as much to my constituents as the health service in this country, not least because a quarter of them travel to Spain every year. Whether they receive support from the health service in Spain, and the quality of that service, are what matters to them. It also matters to them whether the aeroplane in which they are travelling has met certain safety standards and whether health and safety regulations are incorporated in the laws of Spain, France, Italy, Germany and all the other countries they visit. Consumer protection is an essential part of the changed world, which we must now incorporate to meet the original objectives of the union.
  Another misunderstanding that has been perpetrated by Conservative Members is that it is an issue of either the United States or the European Union—we have to be with one or the other. That view is particularly prevalent on the Tory Benches and may, indeed, be shared by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I gather that one of his prominent supporters in the Chingford Conservative party told him immediately after he announced that he was standing for the leadership that he would rather be in the 53rd state of America than join Europe, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman agreed. We will ignore the figures, which are obviously a mistake—but Conservatives are not very good on facts. It is patently untrue that Britain has to make a single choice between the United States of America and the European Union.
  My rather more obscure difficulty with some of the views expressed today—another myth—stems from further back, to 1848, when Palmerston said:
  "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
  Those words are often repeated. It is profoundly wrong that we should now try to maintain that view as the foundation stone of our diplomatic efforts. As we must know by now, allies for a day are not allies that are worth having any longer. True patriotic diplomacy builds long-term, not just short-term, alliances. Our interests change from year to year.
  On the treaty, we need to ask only three questions. The first is whether further reform is desirable and/or necessary. We have already heard the Conservative answer. We heard it in May 1992 when, in his maiden speech, the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "If now is not the time to put the line in the sand and say, 'Thus far and no further', when are we to say that?"—[Official Report, 20 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 357.]
  He was referring to the Maastricht treaty—and Conservative Members clearly agree with that view now, judging from what they have said today.
  1242
  At that time, however, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to oppose any change. Even if that treaty had been changed, as the shadow Foreign Secretary suggested we might change this treaty in some a-la-carte way to make it acceptable, it would not have been improved in his view—this is obscure, I fear. He also said that a bite from a Rottweiller hurts just as much as a bite from a Pekinese. [Interruption.] That was the view of the Leader of the Opposition, who was wrong then and is wrong now.
  Enlargement is vital. Whatever some hon. Members have said, it is at the heart of the issue under debate. Improved trade for United Kingdom businesses will undoubtedly follow from enlargement. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the problems when Spain acceded to the EU, but British trade with Spain increased by 40 per cent. in the two years following its accession. We can expect similar benefits for British industry with the accession of the other 12 applicant members.
  United Kingdom industy needs to compete on a level playing field with that of Poland and the other countries that will be coming into the EU. That will not happen unless we advance enlargement at some speed. Furthermore, we need the applicant countries to adopt the principles that we have to adopt on state aid. Improved travel safety throughout the 12 applicant countries would also be good. Hon. Members have also said that politics in eastern Europe will be stabilised, which would be an essential result of enlargement. I submit to Conservative Members that that cannot happen unless the decision-making processes of the EU—in the Council, the Commission and the Parliament—change. There are too many Commissioners. There should be fewer if the Commission is to do its business effectively and expeditiously. It is unimaginable for 27 countries to produce 35 Commissioners. The process of appointing the President of the Commission is unsustainable now, and would be even more so. If we do not make the changes required by the treaty of Nice, it will lead to poor decisions. The common commercial policy of article 214 is a significant advance, as is the improved article 31, which will make a significant difference for this country.
  We need to improve the effectiveness of the EU in international negotiations. The French determination to ensure that cultural and intellectual property issues are always treated under unanimity may in the long term prove to be a mistake for this country. Of course, we need the speeding up of the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice, which will be expedited by the treaty.
  Therefore, the first question we must ask is whether reform is desirable and/or necessary, but the next question is whether it is a good deal for the UK. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said in his inaccurate portrayal of re-weighting in the Council and the reassignation of votes, Britain will get a better deal. Furthermore, our ability to block proposals that will not be in our interests will be improved. Unanimity on tax, social security, defence, budget, border controls and treaty change will be preserved, which is essential—it is what we went into this process hoping to achieve.
  Finally, we must ask ourselves whether this is the right time for us to ratify the treaty. Contrary to what several Conservative Members said, if we vote against ratification this evening we will undoubtedly delay enlargement. One hon. Member suggested that it would be possible to call

  1243
  an intergovernmental conference tomorrow if we really wanted to. Clearly, that is living in cloud cuckoo land. The processes of unpicking the treaty and reconstituting another would take a considerable number of months. Furthermore, if this country were to say that we did not want to go forward with ratification. I would doubt that we would see enlargement in the next 10 years, let alone the next 10 months.
  On the Irish referendum, I recognise that the unanimity principle should, and always will, apply to treaty change, but that does not mean that because one small country has voted, every other country must adopt exactly the same position as that first country. It is a profoundly undemocratic process to say, "They have decided, so we cannot even take a decision for ourselves."
  Mr. Hendrick: What was my hon. Friend's view on the slogan that was used by the eventual victors in the referendum in Ireland:
  "If you don't know, vote No"?
  Was it a victory for ignorance or for common sense?
  Mr. Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend. I started my comments this evening by saying that the great myth-making machine that has spread itself throughout the European Union, largely assisted by members of the Conservative party as they wander around Europe, has been profoundly unhelpful to the debate and has made it far more difficult for Britain to get advantages for our country.
  I agree in the end with the words of de Gaulle in 1959: "Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, the whole of Europe that will decide the fate of the world."
  It is a unique moment in the post-war history of the world for Europe to act as the world champion for democracy, for internationalism, for justice and, indeed, for peace. We can take that forward only if we ratify the treaty.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: We have gone over quite a lot of old ground this afternoon, leading me to misquote the late great F.E. Smith—leaving me perhaps none the wiser, but certainly better informed. I shall try not to cover that old ground, but instead concentrate on the matter before us tonight.
  The treaty of Nice, we were told, is vital to the enlargement process. Indeed, the Government's election manifesto claimed:
  "It is vital we ratify the Treaty of Nice which is essential to enlargement"—
  so it must be true. But as we heard this afternoon, on 7 June this year the Irish—a small nation, I grant you—voted against the Nice treaty, and those 54 per cent. of Irish citizens who ticked the "No" box on their ballot papers effectively threw a spanner in the works of the European Union machine, so much so that we were told that the "No" vote was
  "a slap in the face of the applicant countries".
  The Germans "regretted the Irish decision". The Slovaks were "disappointed by the vote". Those sentiments were understandable. After all, was not the treaty about enlargement? The treaty was dead, or at least on hold, so it stands that enlargement, too, must be in the same
  1244
  predicament. As if to confirm that view, Romano Prodi hot-footed it over to Ireland to reassure the Irish that they had misunderstood the treaty and that all would be well.
  However, enlargement was not totally dead. In an interview with The Irish Times—these are not off-the-cuff remarks, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—Mr. Prodi explained that "thankfully", the treaty of Amsterdam allowed for enlargement of up to a total of 20 countries. He continued:
  "It's without any problem up to 20 members, and those beyond 20 members have only to put in the accession agreement some notes of change, some clause. But legally, it's not necessary. This does not mean the Irish referendum is not important. But from this specific point of view, enlargement is possible without Nice".
  Enlargement will go ahead, irrespective. Even on the day of the referendum, the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Mr. Günter Verheugen, said that a "No" vote in Ireland's referendum
  "would not affect the enlargement process. We would continue with the same speed and the same quality."
  Could enlargement be possible without Nice? It must be so, despite mixed signals from the Foreign Secretary, who said in the Chamber:
  "It is true that a treaty is necessary for enlargement; it is not true in a legal and technical sense that the Nice treaty is necessary for enlargement. We would have to have an alternative treaty. Nice is what is available at the moment."—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 287.]
  Those sentiments were reiterated this afternoon, and are reiterated now and again, by the Minister for Europe.
  Was Nice about enlargement? After all that hype and hot air, was it really relevant to enlargement? Closer examination of the documents that emanated from Nice reveal a different story. The truth is that the bulk of the business at Nice had nothing to do with enlargement. Members may have been surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that the annexes detailing the process for enlargement account for only about 5 per cent. of the contents of the treaty and the presidency conclusions. So much for Nice being all about enlargement. The amendments proposed by the Nice treaty are not yet in force, nor will they be until at least the end of 2002. It is reported that a second Irish referendum will not take place until after the Irish general election, which must be held by June 2002, and no doubt pressure will be brought to bear on the recalcitrant Irish between now and then.
  As I have said, we are assured that enlargement will go ahead irrespective, so I ask again, what was Nice really about? Opposition Members have been strong supporters of the enlargement process. We said—and speaker after speaker has said it again this afternoon—that we would ratify tomorrow a treaty that was genuinely about enlargement. Therefore, we are right to oppose the Bill. It has virtually nothing to do with enlargement, and anyway, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, we may like the lock, but we do not like the stock and the barrels.
  I add one remark before I finish. Our Belgian friends hold the presidency of the European Union. To put them out of their misery, will someone please tell them the truth

  1245
  behind the Nice treaty? They, too, are labouring under a misapprehension. The Belgian presidency makes much of future enlargement:
  "With the new Treaty of Nice, the door has been opened once and for all for the biggest enlargement operation in the history of the European Union"—
  not, as we have heard this afternoon, that the Belgian Government have done much to ratify the treaty.
  Only one thing will genuinely pave the way for successful enlargement, and it is not the Nice treaty. I say that as one who passionately believes in enlargement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has an Italian grandmother. We heard that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) had a Glaswegian grandmother. Well, I have a Slovenian mother-in-law, desperate to be enlarged—or rather, desperate for the land of her birth to be admitted into the family of Europe—and I suspect that she is influenced by her upbringing in a communist environment, an experience that she no doubt shares with the late grandmother of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  It is my belief that the only thing that can pave the way for a successful enlargement is reform of the common agricultural policy—a subject that, I note, is treated, whenever mentioned, like the plague. The last attempt, as we all know, at limited reform of the common agricultural policy was made by the German presidency in 1999. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who argued that it is time for the issue to be addressed once and for all. That is certainly what the people to whom I speak in Devon and the west country generally are saying. Without the immediate reform of the CAP, they view all the other arguments and discussions as irrelevant. There is no doubt that people have been left feeling alienated, disconnected and, frankly, bewildered by our discussions on the extension of qualified majority voting and other matters that seem to them to be far removed from their everyday lives.
  In conclusion, the Nice treaty represents a missed opportunity. The Conservative party envisages a modern, forward-looking and flexible Europe, which also addresses the inherent problems that have been discussed in this debate. We will continue to work to that end, but we do not recognise any of that in the Nice treaty, and that is why we shall oppose its ratification.
  8.20 pm
  Jon Trickett: I do not agree with the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who seems to approach the EU with almost theological principles—as, I am afraid, do some of my hon. Friends, but from another point of view. I approach the EU from the point of view of a pragmatist, and most people in Europe share that view. Many of my hon. Friends who have pressed the case to accelerate integration and the deepening of the EU should be very careful about their desire to press forward.
  The people of Europe have generally indicated that they are somewhat disconnected from the political process, especially in relation to the EU. We would be ill advised to disregard the increasing scepticism that the people of Europe feel towards the political class and the European project. To its credit, the EU recognised that problem in a discussion document that was issued during the summer.
  1246
  It is an amazing document; it says, "Look at us—aren't we unpopular?" Some 87 per cent. of the people sampled by the EU for the document said that they had no connection at all to the debate about the Nice treaty—it had no relevance to them. That view occasioned breast beating in the Commission and by the presidency. To try to improve things, they proposed to wipe away 80,000 pages of treaty text and documentation and to simplify the vocabulary that they use in an attempt to increase transparency and accountability.
  If we were to apply the Hemsworth test, or that of any of our constituencies to the EU, we would find that the problem was not so much one of the various treaties, which we may or may not have signed, containing superfluous pages, but whether our constituents and the people of Europe felt that they had access to prosperity. That is the test that we should use to judge the processes of enlargement and integration.
  It is undoubtedly the case that prosperity probably will be enhanced by the EU's enlargement. The Minister referred to a £4 billion increase in gross domestic product. That figure may or may not be accurate, but I have no doubt that an enlarged market would generate increased wealth over time. We know that market economies do not operate in ways that guarantee the equality of access to that prosperity for all the people in that market. The EU's founding fathers and mothers well understood the processes of social exclusion and social division that can work alongside the enhancement of wealth and prosperity. That is why they devised several mechanisms to attempt to safeguard the communities that would suffer from exclusion because of the enlargement and strengthening of the European market.
  I accept that the British economy will benefit from the increased prosperity generated by the EU's enlargement, but it would be preposterous to argue that that will have a completely even effect across all the communities that we represent. It is clear it that further restructuring will take place in the British economy as a result of enlargement. If labour costs in the east are compared with those in the United Kingdom, it is apparent to everyone that British companies may well seek to take advantage of the larger market, but not necessarily by using British labour. In fact, British jobs may be displaced by labour in the east. To take a long-term, historical view, that may not be a bad thing, but we will be failing in our duty if we do not acknowledge that that will be an inevitable consequence of enlargement. The treaty of Nice and the Bill should be used to enhance some of the powers contained in the instruments that the EU devised. I am afraid that, by that test, the treaty of Nice fails.
  I shall briefly refer to three of the available mechanisms, the first of which is the ability of a national Government to use their tax and spending powers to help to control economic activity within their national boundaries. That will certainly be circumscribed if we are to enter into the later stages of monetary union. Most hon. Members will know about the growth and stability pact, which has already led the EU and the Chancellor to cross swords over his spending plans. Given the possibility that the economy will go through a rough period, the growth and stability pact may well impact on the British Government's public expenditure and tax plans. That is worrying and may lead to the circumscribing of the

  1247
  national Government's powers to protect those communities that could be affected by enlargement and the world downturn.
  My second point is that the structural funds were devised in the knowledge that the European market would have a differential impact on different communities—for example, some would suffer from exclusion. That will be the case in the future. Women, migrant groups and those in peripheral areas or areas of traditional industry have all suffered from the restructuring promoted by the EU. All of them were recipients—perhaps insufficiently in some respects—of structural funding, but enlargement of the community to the east poses big questions as to whether structural funds will be adequate to protect communities such as the one that I represent.
  The third mechanism is contentious, but it is an important tool in the armoury of anyone wishing to resist the processes of fragmentation and social exclusion. Article 137, the so-called social chapter, is barely moved forward by this Bill. Given Mr. Deputy Speaker's strictures, I will not go into that matter, but I have studied in detail the social chapter and the documents on it produced by the Library. I believe shat it is possible to argue that article 137 has been weakened. It certainly has not been strengthened and we need such instruments to protect us and to ensure that the prosperity that Ministers and those leading the British nation's negotiations have promised is to be shared by all our communities.
  I utter a word of caution. If we find that enlargement produces further social division and exclusion as the result of the aggregation of wealth elsewhere, we will pay. We have already received a clear warning in the European elections, in various referendums and in the general election that people are becoming disaffected. If they believe that powers are escaping from the nation state and they do not regard the EU as an ally, I fear for the future. With that warning, I look forward with interest to the rest of the debate.
  8.30 pm
  Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, having spoken on earlier stages of the Bill.
  I speak on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. Our position on EU matters is well established. We are in favour of full national status for Scotland and Wales, with their having equality of status with other member states. We seek a seat at the top table and do not wish to hang on the coat tails of Westminster Ministers. We do not believe that Scotland and Wales are too poor, too stupid or too peripheral to have a direct say at the top table in Europe.
  Mr. kin Luke: The Scottish National party's policy has been one of independence in Europe and has been roundly rejected by the Scottish electorate on numerous occasions. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is worth while to continue to push that policy?
  Angus Robertson: As a democrat, I am always in favour of pushing democratic policies. That is the future for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, from a Scottish and Welsh perspective, there is a certain irony in the fact that our nations are
  1248
  about to be overtaken by accession nations that were formerly members of the Warsaw pact. Quite rightly, they will take their seat at the top table before us.
  I wish to discuss the specifics of the Bill and the two guiding principles of the SNP's and Plaid Cymru's attitude towards it. Many Members have spoken about enlargement and the wish to end the artificial division of our continent—the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) put that case most eloquently. To achieve that end, we will, in a bipartisan spirit, join the non-Eurosceptic parties in the House and vote for the Bill. That is our first guiding principle.
  The second relates to the fact that the Bill will not hinder the progress of Scotland and Wales towards the normality of full national status, should the people of Scotland and Wales desire that. Contrary to the view expressed by some Conservative Members, the Nice treaty entrenches the rights of nation states. Through qualified minority thresholds and provisions for minorities, the EU is a confederal and not a federal Europe. We welcome that.
  In the past, some people hoped for a strong Europe of the regions, and that model has been outlined by my Plaid Cymru colleague, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Everyone acknowledges that that is no longer a prospect and that the only show in town is full national member status.
  On the re-weighting of Council voting, it is interesting that the Nice treaty makes it explicitly clear for the first time that direct representation by the nations of these islands would secure more votes than Britain is currently entitled to under the treaty. According to the re-weighting and the predication on a population basis incorporated in table 2 of the declaration on the enlargement of the European Union, Scotland would have seven votes, which is seven more than at present; Wales would have four votes, four more than at present; and England could have no fewer than 27 votes. That would give a grand total of 38 votes as opposed to the planned 29. If, as unionists on both sides of the House argue, we always share the same interest, surely it makes sense to increase our voting strength by 40 per cent.
  There are some unresolved issues. During the Committee stage, I asked the Minister to clarify
  "how many MEPs Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have after the ratification of the Nice treaty"
  and enlargement. He replied:
  "That matter has still to be addressed. I am being absolutely frank with the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that the reduction from, I think, 87 to 72 MEPs is a long way into the future."—[Official Report, 18 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 380.]
  That may be the case, but three months have elapsed since then and it appears that the matter has still not been addressed. That is not good enough. If the reduction is universally applied, Scotland will have the same number of MEPs or fewer than Luxembourg, which has a population similar in size to that of Edinburgh. Scotland has a six-party parliamentary system, so democratic balance will not be served. Wales will have fewer MEPs than Malta, which has a population about the same size as that of Cardiff. Wales has a four-party system and, again, democratic balance will not be served. I was not present when the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke, but I know that all parties in

  1249
  Northern Ireland are extremely alarmed at the prospect for cross-community representation should their numbers be reduced.
  We were disappointed that Conservative Back Benchers and Government and Tory whips made no effort to allow time for our amendment to deal with that anomaly to be debated or voted on in Committee. If we face a reduction in Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MEPs, the point will have been made with great clarity that once again the big UK parties acted against the interests of our countries.
  I want the Minister to address that concern and would welcome an intervention by Labour MPs who represent Scottish or Welsh constituencies. I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) has just left the Chamber. I think that he hopes to speak and I will welcome his contribution. Unfortunately, the sole Conservative Member who represents a Scottish constituency has not attended the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he has."] If he returns to the Chamber perhaps he will say whether the Conservatives agree that Scotland and Wales deserve to have their levels of representation in the European Parliament reduced. Should Scotland and Wales be directly represented, that difficulty would be academic because our representation would increase to 13 and seven respectively.
  The Nice treaty gives rise to other problematic issues if viewed from a Scottish and Welsh perspective. They were presented during the negotiations in Nice and vetoed by the UK Government, so they are not part of the treaty. That has created an ironic situation. The Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive in the Scottish Parliament have endorsed the policy that there should be direct Scottish representation in the European Court of Justice, but the British Government vetoed that. Again, I should like to know whether our Welsh and especially our Scottish colleagues support the UK Government's policy, which does not favour increasing Scottish direct representation, or whether they support our colleagues in Edinburgh who do.
  It is useful to raise the problematic issues that arose when the Nice treaty was negotiated because it allows hon. Members from outside Scotland and Wales to be aware of the difficulty that we face because of the lack of representation in the UK. When the treaty was negotiated, Scottish Executive Ministers had attended only 9 per cent. of the meetings held by the Council of Ministers. [Interruption.] I hear a Labour Member say, "Shame." I agree entirely. It is disgraceful that they do not take seriously their important role of representing our interests in Europe, although some hon. Members might rightly say that representation at the Council of Ministers is not the most important consideration because many decisions are made beforehand in working groups at an EU level.
  Interestingly, Scottish Executive civil servants attended only 75 of about 4,500 working group meetings—an attendance record of a paltry 1.6 per cent. When the Nice treaty was negotiated, Scotland's Europe Minister, Jack McConnell, had never attended a Council meeting. The Scottish Justice Minister, the Liberal Democrat Jim Wallace, had attended only one and had missed the previous seven. There is absolutely no excuse for that.
  1250
  The difficulties in the negotiations and the unsatisfactory results in many cases show that the current intergovernmental method of treaty reform cannot tackle the challenges that the EU faces. The European Council was well aware of the shortcomings of its decisions and decided therefore to annex to the treaty a declaration describing the steps for the next reform of the EU. The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, as part of the Green-European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, believe that the declaration is ambiguous and postpones for many years—at least until 2004—the deadline for a decision on which direction the EU should take. Furthermore, member states' Governments intend to decide about the next reform of the EU with the usual inefficient and undemocratic method that failed at Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice—namely, an intergovernmental conference, which would happen in 2004.
  In the declaration there are also aspects that can prepare the way for a decisive change of direction for European integration, away from a mere diplomatic negotiation towards a process open to the participation of member state and sub-state Parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission and civil society. Building on an inclusive bottom-up democratic process from now to 2004 could also offer a vital opportunity to define new priorities facing the EU.
  Having listed many shortcomings, I return to the key principles with which I started. Is it right that this Bill should be passed to allow enlargement to go forward? The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru clearly believe that that should he the case; that is why we will be voting with the Government. The second and equally important reason for our support for the Bill is that it does not preclude Scotland and Wales from moving to the normal status of being independent member states of the European Union.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I welcome the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, in this important debate. I speak in support of the treaty and of endorsing it as quickly as we can.
  I found today's debate entertaining, especially the speeches made by Opposition Members. If today is an example of the way in which Conservative Members have put the European issue behind them since the election, well, it is great stuff, and all power to their elbow. Keep it up lads and lasses, because we absolutely love it.
  Some of the Opposition's arguments have been bizarre. I want to focus on just one of them—the ludicrous propositions they have made on defence. The idea that the Nice treaty will somehow undermine NATO and be the basis for the creation of a European standing army is absolute bunkum, and anyone with a scintilla of intelligence should realise that.
  As a member of the North Atlantic Assembly for the past four and a half years, I have not heard a single voice among parliamentarians who represent the political spectrum from right to left within Europe, the United States and Canada against the development of a foreign and security policy in Europe as set out in the treaty or the related development of a European security and defence policy.
  The only people who have opposed those ideas are Conservative Members and a few of their cronies—their more oddball cronies—in the United States Congress.

  1251
  I have met a couple of those cronies, and part of their problem is that they have been briefed by one or two of the oddballs among Conservative Members, one of whom now stands as the Leader of the Opposition. He addressed the United States Congress-Senate defence committee on two occasions and presented his view of future European defence policy. We nearly fell off our chairs when Senator Gordon Smith told us in a briefing that the proposed European security and defence policy, combined with the European single currency, is a plot to create a socialist federation of Europe. Some of us thought, "If only." Such is the standard of debate that we have heard.
  The Nice treaty could—I am not saying that it certainly will—help us to meet the real throat to NATO, which is declining capability within NATO member states. Only three of four of the NATO allies in Europe have a NATO capability. Let us be clear about what that means. During Kosovo, despite a standing army throughout the European nations totalling 2 million, it was not possible to muster 30,000 troops to intervene in Kosovo. We had to call on our American allies, who were somewhat reluctant to respond—and with good reason: what reason did they have to deliver for us? That, more than anything else, undermines the future of NATO.
  Through the treaty and the related policy of developing a rapid reaction force for Petersberg missions, which range from humanitarian aid to peacekeeping, we could achieve an intensive military capability with a core strength of 60,000 troops—which entails readiness of up to 200,000 troops throughout Europe—who could be used at any time for NATO operations and as NATO assets. If we can achieve that, I will welcome it, because it may—I repeat, I am not saying that it definitely will—address the worrying lack of capability within NATO.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman studies defence issues closely. Is not one of the reasons why the United States supports the creation of the European rapid reaction corps the fact that it perceives that it has been pulled in from time to time to sort out Europe's problems? If we had had a force that could have dealt with Kosovo unaided, there would have been no urgent need for America to become involved. Is that not the real reason why the Americans support the development so much, and why the Conservative party objects to it so strongly?
  Mr. Smith: It is certainly one of the reasons. Not a single voice within the United States Administration has raised a serious objection to the proposal. They see the potential benefits.
  A cursory glance at defence expenditure in European allied countries reveals real-terms cuts of 50 per cent. and more since the end of the cold war, but the true position is worse than that. It is not only the cuts that we inherited four years ago from the Conservative Government that took away our NATO commitment capability, but the fact that money is spent badly. It is not used for a rapid reaction force, heavy-lift capability, or second-line logistics that keep a force in the field for a long time at distance; instead, money continues to be spent on old cold war defence strategies within Europe—to meet the threat of a Soviet or Russian invasion from the east, which is a nonsense.
  The forces behind such spending persist in some countries. It is imperative that we find ways and means to change the political will in those countries so that they
  1252
  increase defence expenditure, enabling them to make a NATO commitment, or—at the very least—so that they improve the way in which they spend their defence resources. That is the bottom line—that is what has to be achieved if NATO is to continue to be the best military alliance in human history.
  I remain deeply concerned after the horrendous events of 11 September. About 6,000 people died, but we must bear it in mind that more than 50,000 people were targeted and that had it not been for the bravery of a few and some luck, the devastation would have been far greater. The day after, or perhaps the day after that, Lord Robertson was prepared to invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty, and the Americans took up the offer. However, NATO's military contribution is just six airborne warning and control system aircraft that will fly to the United States to protect its territory while it releases forces to go into Afghanistan. That is worrying. The truth is that NATO could not have responded to the attack on America had it taken place on allied soil; it could not have delivered. It was only because of American capability and the leadership of our Prime Minister that we have been able to put together an effective coalition.
  Had a similar attack, or perhaps a biological attack targeting 100,000 people, been made in Madrid, Rome or Berlin, I am worried that NATO would not have been able to invoke article 5. Even if it did, I do not think that it could deliver the military punch to back it up, which is why we should support the Bill.
  8.51 pm
  Chris Grayling: I apologise to the House for missing the first part of the debate; I was attending a Select Committee meeting.
  As I have listened to tonight's contributions, I have been mindful of a conversation that I had perhaps 10 years ago in a restaurant in Dresden in eastern Germany with a group of German politicians about the future direction of the European Union. When I questioned the pace of change in the EU, they reacted by saying, "It's going to happen anyway. You've got to be part of it; just get behind us." That process of taking just another step on the road is perhaps the most worrying aspect of the trend towards European integration. I am looking in vain for a clear end point, and I urge the Minister to address the question from this country's perspective. What are we working towards? With what are we integrating? Like colleagues from my previous employment who know senior figures in the European Commission well, I believe that the Commission itself recognises that there is no clearly defined end point to the process of integration that we are going through.
  The treaty represents just another step on the way to that ill-defined end point. What are we creating? Is it a common market, an economic union, a political union or the united states of Europe? One gets different perspectives from different countries and different politicians. This country does not have a clear sense of where it is going in western Europe; it is profoundly worrying that we are apparently walking blindly, taking another step towards integration and the unification of Europe without quite knowing where the end point will be.

  1253
  I am also concerned about democratic accountability and the treaty. It clearly sets out a framework in which, it says, the political parties of western Europe should operate. It states:
  "It is proposed that political parties which do not respect democratic principles and fundamental rights may be the subject of suspension proceedings".
  Against that background, how do we take the views expressed about the vote in Ireland? Is that vote a veto? Does the fact that one part of the EU has democratically said "no" mean that the treaty cannot go ahead? It clearly should. However, it appears that the attitude of the rest of Europe is, "Well, it's a small country; it doesn't matter. Everyone else will ratify the treaty, so we can go ahead anyway."
  I ask Members to look into the future, when another treaty is under consideration. Instead of Ireland being the small country that does not want the treaty, suppose that it is the United Kingdom. Will we have the right to step aside from a treaty in future, or will we be told, "You are just one country among many and you have to accept it"? If it is the latter, I fear for the future of our nation.
  We must also consider the financial support in the treaty for political groupings in Europe. The financial structures that require that financial support should be given only to organisations that have a grouping across five member nations immediately discriminate financially against national politics, as opposed to pan-European politics. Can that be right? Does that not represent a further unnecessary erosion of national sovereignty?
  The treaty represents a further extension of qualified majority voting, under which, for example, European legislation on worker consultation can be forced through against the wishes of the British Government, businesses and community. It will affect companies with only 20 employees, which is nonsense. Yet again, under QMV we have no choice. Why is it necessary for decisions to be taken in Brussels about whether a small business in the UK should consult all its workers? I made a similar point in my intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). Why should such decisions be supranational? Why cannot they be taken in the United Kingdom?
  Finally, there is the military dimension. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) argued strongly that that is an irrelevance. I do not agree. It would be foolhardy in the extreme for this country to subsume its foreign policy and its defence policy into a common European framework.
  Mr. John Smith: I must come back on that. Far from arguing that the defence issue was an irrelevance, I was arguing that it was vital.
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman's point was that the Opposition were wrong in their view that it is essential to preserve Britain's national sovereignty in defence and foreign policy. He suggested that we should not see the formation of a European defence force as undermining NATO and undermining our ability to function in the international community as we have done for 50 years.
  At this moment of all times, we have the clearest possible demonstration of why it is fundamental that Britain remains a sovereign nation, as we deploy our
  1254
  defences and take foreign policy decisions. We could not offer to the United States the level of unqualified diplomatic and military support that we have done in recent weeks if we had to take decisions about our foreign policy and our defence by committee across Europe.
  I have always counted myself a firm pro-European, but in the past 10 or 15 years Europe has moved on, rather than I. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite."] I am still pro-European, but I am not in favour of the creation of a European megalith. Step by step, as we move from treaty to treaty, the process of integration develops, we hand over more sovereignty to an international pool, and decisions that should be taken in this country are taken at European level.
  The pooling of European sovereignty belies the fact that if recent history teaches us one lesson, it is that nationalism in Europe is not dead and that the spirit of sovereign nations is not dead. If we subsume ourselves into a European superstate and continue to yield sovereignty in treaty after treaty, we will live to regret it. The Bill represents a treaty too far and should be opposed by the House.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. David Miliband: Many speakers have promised to be brief and have then spoken for 25 minutes, so I promise not to be brief.
  The perspective that I want to introduce to the debate is that of a convinced but frustrated pro-European—a European who believes that daily the case for Europe grows stronger, but also a European who believes that we have much work to do to bridge the gap between the potential of the European Union and its current performance. I do not believe that the EU is broken down—a view shared by both maximalists and sceptics. The EU is a child of post-war reconstruction adapting to the modern world. It is a dynamic process, not a static one. My case is not that the Bill somehow ends all my frustrations with the EU or solves all its problems, but that it sorts out some thorny questions that could block progress on the big issues if they are not dealt with.
  I have considered carefully the arguments advanced by the Opposition on Second Reading and have listened to the debate today. I want to go through some of the arguments that they have put forward.
  Mr. Keetch: The Conservatives.
  Mr. Miliband: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I wish to speak about the arguments advanced by the Conservatives today.
  First, the Conservatives have argued that the extension of qualified majority voting is somehow contrary to the national interest. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said that he was against the extension of QMV in principle. But the best argument put forward by the Conservatives is that we have been outvoted on the issue of droit de suite. What are the facts about QMV, however? According to the figures that I have, in respect of the hundreds of decisions taken under QMV in 1998, we were outvoted only twice—on fewer occasions than France, Italy and Germany. In 1999, we were not outvoted at all.
  Thanks to QMV, we have been able to secure the e-commerce directive and to liberalise some agricultural trade. We have even been able to override the proposal to

  1255
  label British chocolate as vegelate. So, QMV has its uses. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk that we should be against it in principle. Outside areas that are central to national sovereignty—tax, defence and so on—QMV not only makes sense, but can operate in British interests. After all, that is why the Government extended it in the 1980s. We will not win all the arguments, but enough of them to make it worth while.
  Secondly, the Conservatives have argued that integration would put off east European applicant states, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that view. Those states will be much mote reluctant to join a sclerotic EU that cannot work than me that can function efficiently. Thirdly, we have seen a lot of crocodile tears today about the common agricultural policy, but surely this is the greatest Aunt Sally of them all. Treaty reform is not needed to amend the CAP. As was argued earlier, the 1999 financial perspective started the process, and it will be continued. The truth of the argument about the CAP is that enlargement will force the pace of CAP reform, rather than such reform paving the way to enlargement.
  I shall not speak in detail about the fourth complaint that has been made about the Bill. It was made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), about whose views I shall speak again later. He claimed that the Bill was a German plot. I do not think that that argument can be taken seriously, especially when one considers the facts. At the Nice summit, Chancellor Schrüder put aside the opportunity to argue for greater voting weight for his country than for France in the Council of Ministers. He put aside his national interest in favour of the European one. That is the sort of grown-up politics of which we need to see more, because I think that the UK has something distinctive to offer to the development of the EU.
  During the past three months, I have been participating in a group chaired by the Belgian Prime Minister. I shall continue to do so until December. The group is considering the debate on the future of Europe and how it should be structured in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference of 2004. I am delighted to say that Prime Minister Verhofstad is coming to South Shields next week to test the waters on European issues and find out about local public opinion on some of the matters that we are discussing.
  In the run-up to 2004, my belief is that the debate about institutions has to start with one about substance and policy. The task for the European Council is to start a process that tackles the delivery deficit as much as the democratic one. What sort of institutional reforms would achieve that aim? Now is not the time for blueprints, but I want to put down a few markers.
  First, the IGC has been called partly to give meaning to subsidiarity. Our Prime Minister has proposed a political declaration policed by a second Chamber. Prime Minister Jospin has suggested a standing committee of national parliamentarians, and others have suggested clearer treaty language and sunset clauses in legislation. All those ideas are worthy of discussion. Secondly, the European Council also needs reform. The organisation of the presidency and the establishment of a political guiding hand from each country—a co-ordination council that meets regularly in Brussels—would also add to institutional effectiveness. Thirdly, we need to find a way of propelling forward the open co-ordination method that was developed at Lisbon.
  1256
  I see a key role for the European Commission in that respect. Finally, I think that there is a strong case for expressing clearly the aims, objectives and practices of the European Union in a single treaty. That European constitution could be the clear benchmark for judging the EU's actions. Since there are three years before the IGC, let us also debate whether European citizens and the connection between them and the EU's work might best be served by holding the legislative sessions of the European Council in public so that people can hear the arguments.
  As a new hon. Member, I believed that the Conservative leadership election might lead to Front-Bench Members updating their thinking after Second Reading and developing a more pragmatic approach. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stone is not present. On Second Reading, he was a humble Back Bencher who attacked his party for failing to offer an immediate referendum not on the Nice treaty but on "the whole European issue".
  Pulling out of Europe is a long-standing passion of the hon. Member for Stone. In 1996, he introduced a Bill that provided for a referendum on withdrawal from the EU. A man should not be judged by his friends, but hon. Members will want to know that co-sponsors included Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. John Townend and, intriguingly, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).
  Little did I realise when I listened on Second Reading to the plea for a referendum on withdrawal from the EU that the hon. Member for Stone was auditioning for the Conservative Front Bench. He has achieved his aim. The leader of the Conservative party has said that the party should no longer be "monomaniac" about Europe. Yet he has promoted to the position of shadow AttorneyGeneral—a post that includes a special remit to examine European policy—a man of whom the former Prime Minister, John Major, said:
  "Bill Cash is … obsessive, driven, and, on Europe, frankly a bore. Discussing Europe with Bill is like spending an afternoon with the Ancient Mariner."

  The Conservative party may claim that its dogmatic days are behind it, but there is no clearer sign of its extremism than the fact that the keeper of the anti-European faith is now the keeper of its European policy.
  I do not believe that the Bill is great or historic, but it is necessary. A united Europe, not only in the negative sense of living peacefully together, but positively, as a force for good in our own countries and in the wider world, is more necessary than ever. The Bill helps to make that possible, and I support it on that basis.
  9.7 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I hope the fact that my paternal grandmother was Welsh would satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), if he were here, of my European credentials.
  The Nice treaty is a crucial step in the development of our relationship with Europe. Although enlargement is only a small element of the Bill, it is welcome. Most applicant countries have large tracts of agricultural land; for example, Poland, which has been mentioned several times this evening. The common agricultural policy

  1257
  cannot possibly be sustained as it currently operates. That reform should have been tackled first to enable enlargement to progress readily.
  It is unfortunate that the treaty is a package deal, which includes the European rapid reaction force. Despite assurances, I continue to have reservations that NATO would be weakened by it. It also covers qualified majority voting, which I shall consider later.
  Europe is our nearest neighbour, and we should be on the best possible terms. There are countless ways in which we can co-operate—environmental issues, trade, tourism and international crime are obvious topics on which to do that. The current crisis of international terrorism is an opportunity for Europe to demonstrate whether it can act and speak as a single entity with support from all its members. However, we must respect the differences of member countries, which have widely varied economies, cultures and needs.
  The differences will be even wider if the treaty is ratified this evening. It will lock them together by increased qualified voting into policies of one size fits all. They may benefit some countries, have a neutral effect on some and disadvantage others. In that way, the loss of control over our own domestic decisions—in which I include how much we spend on our public services, and on local government finance—could lead to policies agreed on the basis of qualified majority voting being imposed on this country when we had voted against them. That would constitute a fundamental erosion of democracy.
  The electorate have the right to expect that representatives for whom they have voted in an election, and could subsequently vote out of office if not satisfied, will formulate the policies that govern their lives. Nice is a further step towards a inward-looking, protectionist, over-regulated, centralised Europe—that politically bound federal European state that is the openly acknowledged aim of France, Germany, Italy and other members.
  Nice would take us in the wrong direction. The future of Europe should be what Charles de Gaulle described as a "Europe des patries"—a flexible group of co-operating but independent self-governing nations. It should focus on clear, overriding issues that transcend national boundaries, with which national Parliaments cannot or do not wish to deal effectively. If the nation state is not able to regulate an area completely or exclusively, electorates will have nothing to lose and everything to gain from international co-operation.
  The question before us tonight, however, is "Who governs Britain?" Europe is our friend, neighbour and trading partner, but we do not need to give up the independence of our Government to prove it—and that would be the effect of our ratifying the Nice treaty tonight. It is a step too far, and I shall vote against it.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Iain Luke: I am glad to be able to make this late contribution to the debate.
  I hope very much that all of us who believe that Britain's future lies within the European Union will be willing to put the case for continuing constructive participation in the shaping of our joint European future, and for the enlargement of the European Union. We also
  1258
  need to expose the paucity of credible arguments advanced by the Conservative party in opposition to the Government's case.
  As one who grew to maturity as a close observer of the positive and peaceful development of the European Union, first visiting Spain and Portugal when they were in the firm grip of ageing fascist military dictators, I believe that the case for Europe and what it has achieved in the last 50 years must be constantly reiterated.
  No democracy or other organisation can be described as perfect. Indeed, the House of Commons may be a case in point. One of the major recurring themes of civil society has been the efforts of citizens to ensure that the political constitutions by which their lives are directed, regulated and controlled are structured to allow balance, redress and a share of responsibilities between rulers and ruled. In the context of the European dimension, the path to this treaty cannot he seen as a pursuit of political perfection; it must be seen as meeting the need to accommodate the national interests and aspirations of the member states of the European Union. The treaty is just another step on that road.
  The Conservative party's opposition to this parliamentary process of ratification is a spectacle both ironic and distressing. It is ironic in that all the major steps along the road so far have been initiated by the major Opposition party, as a party in government. The accession treaty represented the high point of Edward Heath's premiership, indeed of his whole political career. Mrs. Thatcher willingly agreed to the Single European Act, although it is rumoured that she later had regrets. The Maastricht and Amtsterdam treaties were bravely and successfully piloted by John Major, in the face of the rebellious opposition of a then new Member—now the new leader of the Conservative party.
  As I have said, what we have heard from the major Opposition party tonight—as in earlier debates—is both ironic and depressing. We see the remains of a once great party, now in the process of rejecting the European ideal so eloquently proposed by Winston Churchill in the aftermath of the second world war when he argued for a united states of Europe. Now, in contrast, for the first time we have a Conservative leader and a Conservative party not just rejecting the European ideal, but actively and seriously believing that we should remove ourselves from the mainstream of European decision making and political life.
  Conservative Members have trumpeted in this debate that the treaty of Nice represents a further significant loss of British sovereignty and is a serious attack on what they regard as the British way of life. What rubbish. I do not subscribe to the view that the closer we come to our fellow EU members and the closer we work with them, the less British we become. Indeed, in response to some of the comments made earlier, I ask a question from a specifically Scottish perspective. Has 300 years of membership of the United Kingdom made the Scots less Scottish? The answer is no. I believe that as a nation we Scots have played, and continue to play, a full and active part, in the Union while keeping a distinctive cultural context.
  Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luke: I have to press on, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Angus Robertson: Go on.
  Mr. Luke: Other hon. Members wish to speak and I hope to get through my speech as quickly as possible. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the chance to raise the issue with me outside the Chamber.
  Both the Government and the Opposition Front-Bench membership contain a fair smattering of Scots making their mark. Some of them come from an elevated position, whereas others come from a less-elevated one.
  Will this treaty or the euro have any effect on the essential nature of the English or indeed of the United Kingdom dimension? Does EU membership make the Germans less German or the French less French? Does membership make them less likely to promote their national prosperity and jobs? The answer is no. Individual citizens are more concerned about jobs, prosperity and well-being. Ultimately, qualified majority voting has had little impact on those people's daily lives and consciousness.
  Therefore, putting all the humbug to one side, one should view the Bill's proposals as they really are. The proposals are very positive, modest and useful improvements to the way in which the European Union operates, paving the way to enlargement. An enlarged European Union will in turn provide a larger market for British goods and bring greater prosperity to new and current member states and to our constituents.
  Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luke: I really have to press on so that other hon. Members can speak.
  The arguments in support of the United Kingdom's continued active involvement in the affairs of the European Union also are true of Scotland's continued membership of the United Kingdom. The case for an independent Scotland in Europe made by the Scottish National party has been rejected several times. That case, just like the one made today by Conservative Members, runs contrary to the economic, political, social and cultural realities that we face as a country and as parliamentarians. It is a recipe for job losses, unfulfilled potential and an introverted obsession with the past and its redundant jingoism.
  I firmly believe that the best possible deal for Britain will be achieved by staying on the inside track rather than by crashing along the hard shoulder with an eye on a possible early exit from the European Union.
  Last year, in his final speech o the Labour party conference, just before his sad death, Donald Dewar made the point that he was proud of being a Scot, a Briton and a European. For me, those sentiments set the framework in which I shall serve as a Member of Parliament, to achieve the best possible deal for my country and my constituents.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. John Baron: There can be little doubt that this treaty is mainly about political and economic integration and not about enlargement. If hon. Members need proof of that, they have only to look at the circumstances surrounding the Irish referendum. As we all know, before that referendum, it was widely claimed by Commissioners, Members of the European Parliament and European Union members themselves that ratification
  1260
  of the treaty was an essential precondition for enlargement of the European Union. However, when the Irish voted no, the EU itself changed its tune. Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, told the Irish Times:
  "legally it is not necessary … enlargement is possible without Nice".
  Had the European Union been genuinely preparing itself for enlargement, it would have put the common agricultural policy—is the biggest obstacle to enlargement—on the agenda at Nice, but it was not on the agenda. It is therefore clear that the treaty is not about enlargement, but about further creating a framework to achieve full political and economic union.
  By way of illustration, I bring to the attention of the House article 157 of the treaty, which deals with industrial policy, a matter that the treaty commits to co-determination and which was previously subject to a national veto. Article 157 says that the Community and the member states shall ensure that their actions shall be aimed at
  "speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes … encouraging an environment favourable to initiative and to the development of undertakings throughout the Community … encouraging an environment favourable to co-operation between undertakings."
  Essentially, that article is a charter for industrial meddlers that will cost us dear. Such vague words will provide limitless scope for Governments and the EU to intervene in industry. Now that article 157 is subject to co-determination, that potential will be more easily realised.
  The Prime Minister of France, Lionel Jospin, for example, has already called for a "Community industrial policy", and it seems likely that he and the others who advocate such intervention will stand a better chance of achieving their goal, courtesy of article 157. Removing the national veto in that area is likely to be expensive in terms of reduced industrial efficiency and the increased red tape and taxes required to implement any EU economic restructuring that the article will now permit.
  History has shown time and again the dynamic relationship between low taxes and prosperity. Governments stand a far better chance of creating wealth for the benefit of all their citizens if they stand back and allow businesses to breathe and thrive, not smother them with bureaucracy, red tape and taxes. However, article 157 will open the door and encourage those who argue that we should have a Community industrial policy. Such an approach can only stifle enterprise and prosperity in the long term.
  Despite the Prime Minister's claims to the contrary, the treaty will take Europe closer to political and economic integration, as illustrated by article 157. It is interesting to note that other EU leaders have at least been honest enough to acknowledge that fact. Indeed, Joschka Fischer, Germany's Foreign Minister, has said that Nice
  "paves the way"
  for
  "the deepening of the Union",
  and
  "goes well beyond the treaty of Amsterdam".
  The Conservatives' approach to the EU is one of friendly co-operation, not centralisation. The treaty is about not enlargement but further integration. For that reason, I oppose its ratification.
  9.22 pm
  Ms Meg Munn: I support the Bill because of the benefits that my constituents have had from the European Union and the further benefits that they will gain from an enlarged Union. My area of Sheffield in south Yorkshire currently receives objective 1 help of some £711 million to help it recover from some of the devastation caused in the 18 years of Conservative government.
  The area also benefits from the jobs that arise from exports to the EU. Some 315,000 jobs are thought to depend on our ability to export to the EU, and some 63 per cent. of goods exported from Yorkshire and Humberside go to the EU. What other benefits might there be for areas such as ours? My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) described the problems caused by the differing benefits that accrue to areas in Britain through membership of the EU.
  Membership of an enlarged EU is important not only for large companies but for small and medium-sized enterprises. Some 30 per cent. of Yorkshire and Humberside SMEs have trading links with other EU states and that would continue and expand with an enlarged EU. Inward investment is also important; over the past 10 years it has brought some £11 billion to the region.
  We have also heard people talk disparagingly about EU social legislation. That surprises me, because health and safety at work are extremely important. In my brief time as an MP, two casework issues have arisen in which we have looked to the European regulations. One concerns asbestos and a constituent of mine who unfortunately died from related diseases. With his widow, I have been looking at how European regulations might be of benefit.
  The second matter is the issue of the working time directive, which some Opposition Members have so disparaged this afternoon. On Monday, some bus drivers from my constituency came to lobby me. They believe that the fact that they are not subject to the working time directive means that they drive for more hours than they should. They think that that is dangerous, and that passengers are put at risk. They sorely need to be covered by the directive.
  I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who said that things have not changed since the Conservative party elected its new leader. I detected a puzzling change emerging in this debate, in that the shadow Foreign Secretary at the start of the debate raised issues that were different from those raised at earlier stages of the Bill's progress through the House. What was that about? Do the Opposition want enlargement, but not in the way set out in the treaty? Do they want a positive vision of Europe? I wondered whether the Opposition were developing a new slogan—"In Europe, but not of Europe"—and I am considerably puzzled.
  Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Munn: No, I am very short of time.
  Michael Fabricant: Oh, come on.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Lady has indicated that she is not taking an intervention.
  Ms Munn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  1262
  I researched the Conservative position, and discovered that Iain Duncan Smith—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am still relatively new to the job and meant to say "the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green"—told a magazine called Fast Forward that
  "Britain should promote a wider, more flexible European Union."
  We have heard that argument today, but I am puzzled because the Conservative position on Europe would more appropriately be called "rewind". Certainly, that is the button on the video machine that I would press if I were looking at Europe from the Conservative viewpoint.
  We have also heard that the treaty is not about enlargement. As a new Member, I am still finding my way around. I have been told that the House of Commons Library is first rate, and that it is the place to find out about anything. I picked up a document there entitled "The Treaty of Nice and the Future of Europe Debate", which I was sure would be useful. It states:
  "Formulas were agreed for the main institutional issues outstanding from the last IGC in 1996–97 that gave rise to the Treaty of Amsterdam (size of the Commission, weighting of votes in the Council and extension Qualified Majority Voting), and amendments to a range of other Treaty Articles were also decided. The new Treaty aims to prepare the Union to expand to 27 members."
  I am therefore left in a dilemma: do I believe the House of Commons Library, or Conservative Members?
  There may be problems with enlargement, and some hon. Members have identified them, but I believe that its effect will be positive overall. It will give Britain, as a leading country in the EU, a stronger role in the world. We have heard in the debate already how we have benefited from that status in connection with the terrorism that the world is having to face at present.
  Successful enlargement will create new opportunities for Britain. I am convinced that it will benefit my constituents, and the people of Britain as a whole.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate. We have had a lively but good humoured debate, with a range of opinions expressed.
  Only last month the Minister for Europe made a speech in Strasbourg, much of which I entirely agreed with. Speech making twice in a day is clearly becoming the right hon. Gentleman's forte. He said how much he welcomed the need
  "to explain clearly and simply the issues we face in today's EU, without resort to Eurobabble. We need to reconnect Europe with its citizens, particularly the citizens of the future, both here and abroad."
  The same point was made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Yet the Government, by signing up to Nice, are doing precisely the reverse. Far from reconnecting Europe's citizens with EU institutions, the treaty has provoked yet more disappointment, disillusion and disconnection with the European Union, and not only in Ireland—a point made so tellingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
  In the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, and in a major speech by the Foreign Secretary on 27 July, constant reference was made to the fact that the EU exists for its

  1263
  citizens and not for the political elite. The trouble is that it is like a doctor diagnosing the problems of a patient and then declining to prescribe the medicine that would cure the problem.
  Europe is at a crossroads. The necessary and wholly desirable enlargement of the Union provides an extraordinary opportunity to build a modern, outward-looking and flexible Europe that will endure and be acceptable to its citizens. That point was made very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson).
  Much of what the Government agreed at Nice, despite all the rhetoric, achieved exactly the reverse. An opportunity was clearly and tragically missed. It was a catalogue of bad preparation, backtracking and incompetence on a grand scale which sped on the process of political integration and further alienated people from the Union.
  Let us examine some of the misjudgments and mistakes that the Government made at Nice. Before Nice, the former—and late lamented—Foreign Secretary talked to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the 50 items on the French presidency's list of potential extensions to qualified majority voting. He substantially ruled them out. So what happened in practice? Our Government accepted the majority of the items on that list in one form or another, wholly or in part. This is the same Foreign Secretary who told us that the so-called Amsterdam treaty leftovers probably did not require a new formal treaty to pave the way for enlargement. Indeed, a simpler treaty of accession arrangement would have sufficed.
  On QMV, however, the Government cannot have it both ways. They say that these items are unimportant or technical and ask what the fuss is about. In the next breath, they say that those items are vital for the functioning of the Union. They cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) was right to say that the importance of a number of the issues dealing with QMV cannot be overlooked.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was quite right about the devastating effect of the levy on the resale of works of art. I agree entirely with him about the devastating effect that it will have on the London art market. I also agree that the Prime Minister's speech at Lisbon about economic reform has rapidly run into the sands.
  The reason the Government postured—as they did in advance on QMV and then gave in—is because they have no view and no vision of what an enlarged European Union should look like. A lively and legitimate debate is taking place across Europe about what the architecture of the EU should be. Only our Government have thus far declined to participate in any meaningful way. Their only specific recommendation to bridge the democratic-deficit divide was the Prime Minister's ill conceived call for a second Chamber of the European Parliament—inspired, no doubt, by his brilliant reforms of the House of Lords.
  Ms Stuart: On divisions about QMV, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is on the Front
  1264
  Bench. He, of all people, called for an extension of QMV on matters of family law. Can the hon. Member for West Suffolk explain that?
  Mr. Spring: No such vote was called for by my hon. Friend at the Committee stage, as I think hon. Members will agree—[Interruption.] No, it was not voted on.
  Before Nice, Ministers repeatedly listed areas where they would refuse to extend QMV: treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and EU own resources. However, Labour's election manifesto mentioned only two items to be retained for the veto—namely, tax and border controls. So are we going to see the continuation of the salami-slicing away of Britain's veto?
  As we have heard, the irony of ironies of the whole process is that even the Commission President regards Nice as unessential for incorporating new members. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) reminded us of the remarks of the President of the Commission in June. It is worth listening to them again. He said:
  "Legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement. It's without any problem up to 20 members, and those beyond 20 members have only to put in the accession agreement some notes of change, some clause. But legally, it's not necessary. This doesn't mean the Irish referendum is not important. But from this specific point of view, enlargement is possible without Nice."
  There we have it from the President.
  In more than four years of government, what powers have this Government retrieved for our national Parliament where, at the very least, the law can be changed? The Minister for Europe complained in his Strasbourg speech about the "disconnect" from national Parliaments. We need to involve our national legislatures more closely in shaping and monitoring EU decisions, so why did we not embark on that process at Nice by drawing a line, as we would have done on QMV, and saying, "Let us return powers to national Parliaments"? It was not even mentioned.
  The Minister should stop making speeches about "Eurobabble" and the need for plain speaking and should do something about it before the decline in confidence in the European Union's institutions among the peoples of both the member and accession states gets any worse.
  We hear about so-called constructive engagement—I must repeat this point—but in four and a half years it has not yielded one power back to our national Parliament. Of course, we are happy to accept the technical changes made in the Council of Ministers and the composition of the European Commission as being necessary for enlargement. We have made that plain all the way through.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made clear, however, nothing has proved more clearly the need for a continuing American involvement in Europe than the terrible events of 11 September. Ultimately, our American allies will want more defence burden sharing. As one surveys the declining defence expenditure in Europe, one sees that that is going to be something of a challenging aspiration.
  One thing that comes through loud and clear, however, is the fact that we in Europe need our American friends to stay committed to our defence and security. We have always been committed as a party to enhanced

  1265
  pan-European defence co-operation, but under the umbrella of NATO. At Nice, report annexe 1, page 8, stated:
  "It remains essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the European security and defence policy that the Union's military capabilities for crisis management be reinforced so that the Union is in a position to intervene with or without recourse to Nato assets."
  Speaking of the rapid reaction force, it went on to say:
  "the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation … the operation commander will report on the conduct of the operation to EU bodies only".
  Thank goodness. At least NATO does not operate on the basis of QMV.
  The last thing we need now is to go ahead and create a European rapid reaction force that is disconnected from NATO. I hope that the lessons of the past few weeks have made that proposition crystal clear.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said that the process had moved on as a result of the tragic events of 11 September, and that the importance and centrality of NATO had been increasingly recognised. I very much hope that that is the case, but we have yet to see any concrete proof, or any written document to that effect, and I remind hon. Members that we are dealing with what is in front of us—the Nice treaty—not speculation as to what may have developed after that point, however welcome it may be.
  Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes warned of the implications of yet more judge-led law in this country, arising from the charter of fundamental rights. By contrast with the previous Minister for Europe, who likened its importance to The Beano magazine, no lawyer disregards the importance of the charter. Repeatedly, various politicians in Europe demand that it should be a basis for a written constitution.
  What has been said in this regard?
  "The Charter will mark a definitive change in the Community which will move it away from the essentially economic raison d'être of its origins to become a full political union"—
  thus Commissioner Vitorino. Furthermore, if one wanted proof positive of the force of the charter, the Commission itself observed:
  "It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law".
  Its impact on our country, with its history of common law and practice, and the division between the judiciary and the legislature, would be to transform the centuries-old systems that serve us so well.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that originally the European rapid reaction force was flatly rejected by the Prime Minister, and then suddenly his mind was changed. Therefore, when he says that he will not accept a European written constitution, we all know that on the question of European defence he has flip-flopped for reasons of political expediency, and he may well do so again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) said, and I fully agree, that it is an historic obligation on our part to increase the European Union by way of enlargement. Of course we are passionately committed to
  1266
  enlargement. When the Berlin wall came down, it was truly a momentous event. Yet every hon. Member knows that unless we get budgetary reform, enlargement simply cannot happen; and in the Foreign Secretary's speech on 27 July at Chatham house he said:
  "We want reform of the Common Agricultural Policy."
  Yes indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) observed, that is crucial for Poland. So what are the Government actually doing about it? We know President Chirac's views—no reform until 2006. How is enlargement to be funded? How will the agricultural chapters of the accession states be closed successfully? We need some leadership from the Government; otherwise enlargement will be imperilled.
  When the Foreign Secretary spoke at Chatham house, he spoke of the need once again to connect with Europe's citizens. He said that Europe should focus more on outcomes and less on process, that the European Union was built on the foundation of its nation states, and that we should be ready to engage in a serious debate about Europe; I agreed with every single word. Yet the Government, by their actions, did precisely the opposite at Nice, unnecessarily giving up our veto, failing to bring back any powers to Westminster and failing to tackle Europe's post-enlargement financing.
  The Government talk boldly but have absolutely no clear idea of what a sustainable European institutional architecture should look like. Nice was not, in practice, about enlargement. As we have seen, it may actually slow down and damage enlargement. From the viewpoint of the United Kingdom. it was about our Government who failed to stand up for our national interests and failed to argue for an enduring, flexible, open and democratic European Union, valued and supported by its citizens.
  We have three years before the intergovernmental conference, which will examine the competences of the EU and its members. It is a hugely important opportunity to fashion a sustainable European Union. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we are anxious to have a White Paper on the subject, as we examine all these considerations. The Conservatives will want, as a party, to contribute positively to the process, and I hope that the Government will do the same. At Nice, they signed up to a treaty that had precious little to do with enlargement, and I truly hope that the Government will move away from simply talking towards constructive action and Firm, clear proposals. Sadly, the Government's failure at Nice gives us precious little hope that that will be the case.
  9.44 pm
  Peter Hain: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the debate and support the Third Reading of the Bill.
  I applaud the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for reading all my speeches, but it does not seem to have done him much good. I confess that I have had withdrawal symptoms in this debate because of the absence from the Back Benches of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I miss seeing him there. I miss his 235 amendments and his championing of qualified majority voting on family law. I also miss the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), with his convoluted semantics. What has happened to them? They have been sentenced to silence by duty on the Front

  1267
  Bench. Indeed, we read in the papers that the hon. Member for Stone—a good friend of mine, whom I enormously admire—was told on his appointment to say nothing about Europe, which must be very hard for him.
  There is another absent figure—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Where is he? What would he have said? In announcing his candidacy for the Conservative party leadership in June, he said:
  "Our official policy at the general election was that Conservatives favoured enlarging the Union but opposed the Treaty of Nice which paves the way for enlargement. We opposed the extension of QMV to any new subject, however trivial. We were hostile to the European rapid reaction force. We demanded that Parliament should be able to overturn judgements of the European Court whenever we disagreed with the Court's rulings on our treaty obligations. These policies are difficult to reconcile with Britain's continued membership of the European Union."
  Exactly, and I am a little puzzled about the Conservative party's new stance since its change in leadership.
  Where are all the pound signs that Conservative Members used to wear proudly in their lapels when in the Chamber? Has somebody stolen them? Perhaps they have lost them, and the slogan of the new Conservative party leadership is, "We've lost the pound." Perhaps they have given them away, and their new slogan is, "We've given away the pound." Perhaps they have melted them down to form new ones, or perhaps they have scrapped the pound already. We should be told what they have done with their pound signs.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Peter Hain: I gave way to many Opposition Members in my opening speech, much to my regret, and I am pressed for time.
  Michael Fabricant: The Minister has 12 minutes in which to finish his speech.
  Peter Hain: Yes, but in 12 minutes I have to reply to a long debate.
  We know what the modern Conservative party really thinks about Europe. Lord Skidelsky, who has just quit the Conservative party, said:
  "The party I joined was Eurosceptic. It has become Europhobic. And with Europhobia has surfaced a streak of xenophobia."
  That is the new Conservative party.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was absolutely apoplectic at the end of her speech when she said that there will be no such thing as a United Kingdom any more—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) said, does she really think that the French are less French by being in the EU, or that the Germans are less German or the Spanish less Spanish? Does she really think that they have less pride, less national identity or less patriotism than we do in Britain? Of course they do not.
  The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) asked a rhetorical question in the context of European issues: who governs Britain? Well, the answer is that Labour governs Britain.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spent much time talking about the Irish referendum. It is worth recalling that when the Conservatives were in office and
  1268
  he was a Minister and the Danes voted against the Maastricht treaty that the Conservatives introduced to the House, the Tories did not tear up the treaty or withdraw the Bill. On the contrary, the Conservative Government worked assiduously to produce assurances for the Danes that allowed for a second positive referendum in Denmark and for the Maastricht treaty to be ratified unamended. That is what happened under a Conservative Government.
  I invite the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches to cut the cant about their position on enlargement. By their vote against the Bill, they are seeking to sabotage enlargement of the EU. The way in which they glory in the result of the Irish referendum is rather distasteful. It is as though they want everyone to vote against the Bill on the Nice treaty and to wreck enlargement as a result.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made valid points about disengagement and disconnection in the modern EU. To his credit, the hon. Member for West Suffolk made those points as well. The Government and the whole House—pro-Europeans especially—need to pay heed to the result of the Irish referendum and, particularly, to the central slogan of the "No" campaign, which was, "If you don't know, vote no." That imposes a special obligation on the EU's leadership to come up with reforms and new ways of working to close the gap between the leaders and the led, which is far too wide at present.
  I commend the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on the elegance, eloquence and logic of his case in support of the Bill and enlargement of the EU. In joining us in the Aye Lobby, he will put the reunification of Europe above his party obligations. I commend him on that.
  I welcome the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) in his excellent speech. He pointed out that, in becoming involved in the EU, we are not giving up our sovereignty, but pooling it to make us stronger in the way that we do as members of NATO, the Security Council of the United Nations and other international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund.
  In another excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) made it absolutely clear that the issue is not the US versus Europe. Indeed, the transatlantic alliance between the US and Britain has been especially important over the past month. It needs to strengthen.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) made an important point about the battle against terrorism that has followed the awful events of 11 September. She pointed out that, if we did not have in place EU structures such as the Justice and Home Affairs Council and the EU's other mechanisms to take on the threat of terrorism, we would find it much more difficult to confront and beat that threat.
  In an excellent tour de force, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) described as absolutely ludicrous Conservative arguments on European security and defence policy. He tore them apart.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) made an important argument about the common agricultural policy, which answered the point

  1269
  raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. He said that enlargement will force reform of the CAP, because the current policy—which desperately needs reform in any case—will not be sustainable after enlargement. However, we must not block enlargement by seeking to make CAP reform a condition of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) explained how important enlargement will be for businesses, especially small businesses, in her constituency. That is an important case for it.
  Enlargement represents an historic opportunity to end the cold war division of Europe and reunite our continent. A bigger EU will be stronger and safer. Today we can only fight terrorism, crime, drugs and pollution through joint action across the continent. The Nice treaty is essential to open the door to enlargement, the goal of successive British Governments. It removes all remaining institutional obstacles.
  The Nice treaty has met its primary objective, but it has also advanced other key British interests. Our first priority was to get more voting strength for the UK, and we got it. The treaty increases the relative weight of Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers for the first time. Who could disagree with that? Perhaps only a party that does not care about our weight inside the EU because most of its members want to be outside it.
  I am pleased that the leader of the Conservative party has joined us. Perhaps he can explain how he put his name to a 1996 Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Stone, which called for withdrawal from the EU. Why does he not explain his position? I see that the pound signs have suddenly reappeared, but the real agenda under his leadership is withdrawal from the EU.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) raised a series of questions about qualified majority voting. In the treaty negotiations we retained unanimity where it was necessary and extended QMV when it was in Britain's interests. The Opposition should have no difficulty with that. They agreed to move from unanimity to QMV and gave away the veto, as they now call it, in the Single European Act under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher and in the Maastricht treaty under John Major. They did that on some fundamental articles, including the general single market legislation and on almost all environment provisions.
  As the Opposition are not against QMV in principle, why do they oppose it in the Nice treaty on such measures as the appointment of EU special representatives on foreign policy? Unanimity could clearly hold up important work that those envoys do or allow one member state to hold out against the best candidate for the job. Why do they hold out against QMV for the salary and pension of the Registrar of the Court of First Instance? Where is the earth-shattering national importance—the threat to our sovereignty—of the British veto on that issue? Would the Opposition really have the British people trooping off to the polls for a referendum on that vital constitutional issue, but not for the euro?
  QMV will make it easier to introduce changes to the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice to improve efficiency so that justice will no longer be delayed or denied to British companies seeking redress. The Opposition used to be the party of business—but no
  1270
  longer apparently. They opposed QMV on financial regulations on probity, which will be introduced by the treaty. It will now be easier to carry out reforms to tighten up financial management, which I thought concerned the Conservatives.
  Once again, I welcome the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) to the Front Bench. People constantly say to me that we should give him time and more credit for his appointment as leader of his party. I am a generous man, but how can we give him credit when he has given us Cash? The answer is because he is leading an anti-European crusade with a Front Bench—there they are, grinning away—full of anti-Europeans and Eurosceptics who want to take us out of Europe.
  The Opposition do not want European enlargement or the advantages of having peace, prosperity, stability and jobs. They do not want to benefit from protection of the environment, food safety measures or streets that are made safer from the danger of drugs. They do not want protection from the threat of terrorism, which will be repelled much more effectively by an enlarged EU that brings in all the candidate states to join us in our fight against terrorism. The Opposition argue against that—
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided Ayes 392, Noes 158.

  Division No. 38]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brooke, Annette

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Allan, Richard

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bryant, Chris

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burgon, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burnham, Andy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Austin, John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Bailey, Adrian

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Cairns, David

  Banks, Tony

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barrett, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Beard, Nigel

  Casale, Roger

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Caton, Martin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Challen, Colin

  Benn, Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Chaytor, David

  Benton, Joe

  Chidgey, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Brake, Tom

  Coaker, Vernon

  Breed, Colin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  1271

  Colman, Tony

  Heath, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corston, Jean

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cotter, Brian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Heppell, John

  Crausby, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cruddas, Jon

  Heyes, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hill, Keith

  Cummings, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hope, Phil

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howarth George (Knowsley N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  David, Wayne

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jackson Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jamieson, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dowd, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Joyce, Eric

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Keetch, Paul

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Khabra, Piara S

  Flint, Caroline

  Kidney, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foulkes, George

  Lamb, Norman

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lammy, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Laws, David

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Laxton, Bob

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lepper, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gilroy, Linda

  Levitt, Tom

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lucas, Ian

  Grogan, John

  Luke, Iain

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Lyons, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McCabe Stephen

  Hancock, Mike

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hanson, David

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Havard, Dai

  MacDougall, John

  Healey, John

  McFall, John

  1272

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McKechin, Ann

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McNulty, Tony

  Ross, Ernie

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ruane, Chris

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salmond, Alex

  Mallaber, Judy

  Salter, Martin

  Mann, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marris, Rob

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sawford, Phil

  Martlew, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meale, Alan

  Sheridan, Jim

  Merron, Gillian

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Simon, Siôn

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Morgan, Julie

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Southworth, Helen

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Norris, Dan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Oaten, Mark

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Olner, Bill

  Tami, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Organ, Diana

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Picking, Anne

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Todd, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Price, Adam

  Tynan, Bill

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Tom

  Purnell, James

  Watts, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Webb, Steve

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Weir, Michael

  Rammell, Bill

  White, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  1273

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Wray, James

  Willis, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wishart, Pete

  Younger—Ross, Richard

  Wood, Mike

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woolas, Phil

  Angela Smith and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Ivor Caplin.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Amess, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bacon, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Baldry, Tony

  Hoban, Mark

  Barker, Gregory

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Baron, John

  Horam, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bercow, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burns, Simon

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burnside, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Leigh, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cameron, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Liddell—Grainger, Ian

  Cash, William

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter

  Clappison, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Maples, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mates, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dodds, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Prisk, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Goodman, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Greenway, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  1274

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Ruffley, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tredinnick, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Viggers, Peter

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Walter, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Bob

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swire, Hugo

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mr. Charles Hendry.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  FOOTBALL (DISORDER) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Dan Norris.]

PETITION

  Canvey Island (Southern Bypass)
  10.18 pm
  Bob Spink: The petition, signed by about 700 of my constituents, including Mr. Mark Dennis, who organised the petition and lives in Western esplanade, and by many illustrious fighters for the environment of Canvey Island, including Mrs. Eileen Gough and Edna Bowden, calls for the dropping of a proposal to build the Canvey Island southern bypass road. Many of the petitioners would agree that the resources that the road would require would be better applied to provide a third access road for Canvey Island.
  In presenting the petition, it is my duty to inform the House that opinion on the matter on Canvey Island is mixed. The petition states:
  The Humble Petition of the concerned residents and visitors of Canvey Island sheweth
  That the proposed building of a southern bypass road on Canvey Island, Essex, connecting Roscommon Way to Western Esplanade should be abolished.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Transport Minister to abolish plans for a southern bypass road on Canvey Island. Essex, connecting Roscommon Way to Western Esplanade, and not to increase traffic flow on roads connected to this proposed bypass road.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  NHS Dentistry (South Somerset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  10.19 pm
  Mr. David Laws: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to raise an issue of great importance in my constituency. It is one of the issues that has featured most in my postbag since the general election. Indeed, concerns about access to NHS dentistry in south Somerset were also raised consistently with my predecessor, Lord Ashdown.
  Yeovil has a particular problem with access to NHS dentistry. At present, no dentists in the area are taking new adult NHS patients. That has been a problem not only in recent weeks and months, but since at least two years before the general election. It is shared by many other areas in the region and in the other part of south Somerset represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
  The issue can be encapsulated not only by the fact that no dentists in Yeovil are taking new adult NHS patients, but by the realisation that registrations of dental patients in Somerset have declined from about 69 per cent. of the adult population in 1993 to a low of just under 50 per cent. The level is now hovering around 50 per cent., which shows the great difficulty that many people in south Somerset are having in trying to get access to NHS dentistry.
  That difficulty leads to a number of problems. First, the NHS dentists who are nearest to many of the towns in my constituency, such as Yeovil, Chard, Ilminster and Crewkerne, are based as much as 15 or 20 miles away. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), will agree that that is a great distance to go to benefit from a basic health service such as dentistry. In a rural area, transport is a difficulty for many people, which creates greater pressures.
  The second problem that is caused by the lack of access to NHS dentistry is that many people are forced to opt for private provision, which is obviously more expensive and is very difficult for many people in the area to afford. Some people have found that their NHS dentists have converted to private practice and insisted that any NHS patients who want to stay with them should go private, at great additional expense.
  Thirdly, there are many people who fall out of access to dentistry altogether and therefore cannot get the attention and especially the preventive care that they would expect. Progress on that problem has been slow in the constituency, which is a matter of concern for me and my hon. Friends in the surrounding area. A couple of years ago, the Prime Minister made a welcome pledge to increase access to NHS dentistry so that everybody had it. However, the Government seem to have modified that pledge over the past couple of years, so that people have access to a telephone number and operator for information, but not a dentist in their area.
  I think that people in the main towns of my constituency—Yeovil, Chard, Crewkerne and Ilminster—would have expected the Government's commitment to mean that they would be able to get access to an NHS dentist in their area. I raise that issue with the desire not
  1276

  to make a political point, but to emphasise to the Under-Secretary how great the problem is and to see whether we can find a way forward.
  I have recently had the pleasure of formally opening the new NHS dental access centre in my constituency. Others have been opened in Chard and—I believe—in Taunton. That has to be a welcome development. It means that people who need emergency treatment can obtain it, which is obviously helpful for those particular individuals. The Under-Secretary will appreciate, however, that that does nothing to provide the on-going dental treatment that most people would want. I am sure that the Government wish to encourage such treatment, given their emphasis on preventive treatment not only in NHS dentistry but in all aspects of health care.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that such treatment cannot be provided unless people see dentists regularly. Although I welcome the money that has been invested, it will not deal with the dental access problems in the constituency and the Government should not be encouraging it as the only solution. In some senses, it is a solution that treats failure but not the dental and other health problems that a proper system of NHS dentistry should tackle.
  We appreciate that the problems are not new and that they go back to the reduction in fees for NHS dental treatment under a Conservative Administration. Access problems have therefore been prevalent for some time.
  Anxiety also exists about the lack of trained dentists. More dentists going through our medical schools would help to tackle the shortage throughout the country. Local dentists and other health experts believe that the Government should deal with those two major problems if we are to make progress not only in south Somerset but throughout the country. We need more dentists and a revision of the fee structures that govern NHS treatments.
  Much modernisation is required. Most dentists who have gone private in the past few years are resistant to transferring back to a national health service system in which their fees and ability to treat patients to a high level are significantly curtailed. It will be difficult to get many of them back into the NHS. We must therefore try to ensure that new dentists remain in it.
  Such changes will take many years to effect, and people in Yeovil do not want to wait that long for action. They are not encouraged by the mere provision of access centres or Somerset health authority's commitment to stabilise registrations at the current level rather than increasing the proportion of people who are registered. I should like the same solutions that were applied in other parts of the country, such as north Devon, to be tried in Yeovil.
  In north Devon, the health authority, the Government and private partners have worked together to attract dentists to the area and even used professional dentistry publications to draw attention to the gaps. However, we also need action to help dentists who want to establish practices in black hole areas where there is currently no provision.
  There are major problems in identifying those areas and help for new dentists. Local newspapers such as the Yeovil Express and the Western Gazette have highlighted those issues, and many of those who recently wanted to set up practices in the area have been alerted to the problem only through that means. Dental practitioners whom my

  1277
  predecessor, Lord Ashdown, and I have tried to encourage to come to those areas in the past couple of years have looked to funding from Government schemes such as investing in dentistry and its successors to tackle the problems. The Minister knows how expensive it can be to set up a new practice. One has to secure appropriate property and much equipment as well as staff.
  Information and financial support have been lacking. Perhaps the Minister recalls that, a couple of years ago, one of the investing in dentistry schemes had bids of approximately £1 million in the Somerset health authority area, but only around £80,000 was granted. There is a definite shortfall in assistance with the start-up costs.
  I would not support endless subsidies on top of the ordinary payments that are made to NHS dentists, but it is important to give additional financial incentives to dentists who are moving to the black hole areas that we are considering. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government propose to continue such schemes as investing in dentistry so that we can assist dentists to move to such areas.
  My final point is not political. I accept that the Government are trying to tackle lack of access and to renew NHS dentistry after a period in which it has suffered. However, I am worried that the Government's ambitions, which the Prime Minister expressed, are not matched by the policy achievements and that some Government solutions, such as dental access centres, seem to provide only emergency and safety net treatment, which is better than nothing but not good enough for many of our constituents.
  10.29 pm
  Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) for describing the situation so clearly. I am sure that many of us experience the same difficulties in our areas, and I want to make some general points that I think will support his case.
  A recent survey by the magazine Health Which? suggested that two in five dental surgeries now accepted only private patients. We might well assume that there had been a mass exodus from NHS dentistry over the past 10 or 11 years. I believe that 1990 was a critical year: I am told that at that time the then Government were taking £15,000 from each NHS dentist. Although that was waived eventually, dentists obviously found that they could earn a better income without being in the NHS. As with all these things, once someone discovers something it sets the ball rolling in a direction that is difficult to change.
  My hon. Friend mentioned a number of Government initiatives. Different initiatives are being operated by different local authorities in different areas. Has the Minister any evidence to indicate which are the most effective? Obviously local conditions should be taken into account, but the information would be interesting, given the range of measures that are being tried.
  I am concerned because I feel that although a programme exists, the situation seems basically to be getting worse. I feel that we are treating the symptoms rather than the disease. We should be concerned not just about the shift, over time, of existing dentists to the
  1278
  private sector, but about the emergence of corporate bodies in dentistry. How much, for example—I have no idea of the answer—does a dentist employed by Boots receive for a check-up, compared with what the NHS would pay? That is cause for concern, because it could lead to further erosion. As my hon. Friend said, fee scales need to be addressed.
  A recent survey of vocational trainee dentists showed that 75 per cent. were not prepared to commit themselves to the NHS. I understand that they felt there was no incentive, and also no real sense of the ethos of working in the public sector. This, I feel, is where the Government have a role to play in demonstrating that the NHS has a future, and in making the necessary investment.
  Like people in south Somerset, my constituents often refer to the lack of NHS dentists. The problem arises when people moving into the area cannot register. They become quite distraught, and it is difficult just to pick up emergency treatment. I am also concerned—this probably applies to south Somerset as well—about people with special needs such as a lack of mobility and who therefore need home visits. I am told that home visits are not a very attractive option for private dentists. We must therefore rely on the NHS, and there are long waiting lists.
  Let me illustrate the seriousness of the situation with the example of a ward in my constituency, Canford Heath, which contains 6,000 new properties full of families with young children. There are currently no NHS dentists. Single mums in particular have no incentive to take their children to the dentist. We are storing up so many problems for the future by failing to provide preventive care at that early stage. I ask the Minister to assure us that a much larger programme of investment in NHS dentistry is planned.
  10.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing this important debate on NHS dentistry, particularly as it affects his constituents. I know about his written question in June. He is already building up quite a record of pursuing these matters on behalf of his constituents, and I am aware that his predecessor had several meetings about the issue.
  This is an excellent opportunity for me to tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) some of the good news that we do have, while recognising that we still have a long way to go in providing full coverage for access to NHS dentistry across the country, as well as in south Somerset.
  It is true that Somerset has suffered from long-standing problems. As both hon. Members said, the 1990s witnessed a nationwide decline in patient registration with NHS dentists, with a corresponding increase in access problems for the public. Additionally, in September 1996, the then Government cut the maximum time allowed between visits for a patient to remain registered with an NHS dentist from 24 months to 15 months. That caused many patients' registration to lapse without their even knowing it. In total, the number of adults registered plummeted from a 1993 high of about 21 million adults to just over 16 million adults by 1999. That is the scale of the problem, and I would not seek to minimise it.

  1279
  About 45 per cent. of adults and 68 per cent. of children in Somerset are registered with an NHS dentist. Although that is not a wonderful figure, it is slightly higher than the national average. However, a worryingly small number of practices in the area have been willing to take on new NHS patients. There has also been a scarcity of urgent and emergency dental care across the county.
  We recognised the access problems when, in September 2000, we published "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan". The plan committed the Government to ensuring that everyone can access an NHS dentist if and when they need to do so; to trying to improve the quality of service offered by NHS dentists; to raising the level of oral health, particularly in children—a preventive care issue that both hon. Members have raised today; and to trying to tackle the inequalities that exist across communities.
  Alongside the Government's review of dentistry, in September 1999 the Prime Minister pledged that by the end of September 2001 everyone would be able to find an NHS dentist simply by telephoning NHS Direct. People do not simply receive a telephone number, they receive information on how to gain access to an NHS dentist. I acknowledge that that service is not about on-going registration; it is about providing access to care, not only for urgent and emergency cases but for routine cases.
  In the past 18 months the Government have spent £100 million in trying to implement that dental strategy. That is not a small sum, and it shows the importance that we attach to trying to get NHS dentistry back into the mainstream of the service. We have spent £7 million from the dental care development fund to try to improve existing NHS practices, and £35 million from modernisation fund moneys to try to encourage dentists who are committed to the NHS to improve their practices. We have also asked every health authority to produce a dentistry action plan to set out the practical action that has to be taken to ensure that dentistry is available in communities.
  Given the long-standing problems in Somerset, we were particularly keen to ensure that the area should receive the benefit of the whole range of the Government's current schemes. The Somerset dentistry action plan adopted a set of standards for the maximum time that patients should have to wait and the maximum distance that they would have to travel to gain access to NHS dentists. The standards are that they should have to travel a maximum of 10 miles for routine care—not 20 miles, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, although 10 miles is still a fair distance to have to travel—and a maximum of 15 miles for urgent care and emergency care. Those standards are on a par with those set for rural areas by other health authorities in England.
  The action plan identified several areas of risk that were likely to fail those standards and noted several very vulnerable areas, such as Wincanton and Chard. It also recognised that, across the county, patients who did not have an on-going registration found it very difficult to access urgent and emergency care.
  The action plan therefore tried to identify practical action that we could take to address those issues, and the local health authority bid for considerable funds to try to put in place facilities. In 2000–01, the Government invested £71,000, and, in 2001–02, that figure has doubled
  1280
  to £144,000. That investment should allow registration for an extra 2,500 patients in Yeovil, 3,500 in Langport and 2.500 in Castle Cary. That should help to ease the pressure.
  As well as encouraging those initiatives, we have tried to channel funds into Taunton, to ease pressure on dentists in the south Somerset region. South Somerset also received almost £59,000 of modernisation fund moneys for distribution to existing practices.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I have an interest in this subject, albeit not in the particular area. The hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) touched on one of the core problems—the fee structure. The Government have to decide whether they are providing a basic service or a full service. In doing so, they must recognise the escalating costs—running costs and capital costs—and the increasing complexity of dentistry today. The service that the Minister is speaking of is mis-targeted, and dentists will move into the private sector. She must also recognise that in providing a service through the private sector, dentists are supplementing the NHS, and that frequently, especially for children, the cost to the patient is low or—as in my case—zero.
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Government's aim is to try to rebuild NHS dentistry after the devastating effects of the early 1990s. From my discussions with the profession, it is obvious that many dentists welcome change. They want to change the way they work and to try to move from payments for items of service into more preventive work in oral health and in tackling inequalities. Many excellent young dentists are coming through the system who are keen to explore new ways of working. That needs to be reflected in the fee system. My dealings with the profession have shown a real willingness to engage in new ways of working to try to ensure that NHS dentistry begins to recover from the tremendous onslaught of the early 1990s.
  We have tried to put considerable money into Somerset. We have allowed £20,000 for spot contracting, to try to purchase additional sessions from existing dentists. That has been fairly successful and has resulted in 100 extra appointments a week in the area. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned dental access centres, and I am delighted that he had the opportunity to open one. 1 am sure that it was an enjoyable occasion. The first DAC was opened in Yeovil and the second in Taunton. The first site involved £500,000 of capital investment and costs £855,000 a year in revenue expenditure. That is a considerable service. There are plans to extend the DACs to cover the entire county, and an additional £1.5 million will be provided to do so.
  Once all the sites have been opened, the DACs will employ eight practitioners and will look to provide more than 15,000 courses of treatment a year. They will also be able to deal with 8,000 emergency cases a year. It is a new form of provision, especially for the routine care that people need. We are trying to rebuild the NHS dentistry service and of course we want existing dentists to come into the system and increase the proportion of their NHS practice. In places where that is not happening, however, the DACs are providing a much-needed service to local people.

  1281
  We are also trying to ensure that we work closely with health authorities and primary care groups to try to recruit new dentists to the basic service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is not easy, and he mentioned the need to make information available about the location of areas of unmet need and to provide support.
  Mr. Laws: I welcome the dental access centres, but my great concern is that they are not a replacement for the on-going dental care that people need. Does the Minister accept that it is unsatisfactory that my constituency has no dentist who will take new adult NHS patients? Would it be satisfactory if that were still the situation in a year's time?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government have little power to compel dentists to take part in NHS activities. This is a market. Dentists decide for themselves whether they want to be in the NHS or to undertake extensive private practice. The Government are trying to put in place incentives so that existing NHS dentists increase the proportion of their practice that is in the NHS. Other incentives are aimed at getting dentists to improve their premises and equipment, so that they stay in the NHS.
  The Government are also undertaking longer-term work to do with fee structures and new ways of working. In that way, we hope to encourage some exciting and innovative new dentists to work in the NHS. We are working with health authorities and primary care groups to support the recruitment of dentists for mainstream services. We are helping with advertising costs, which are crucial in recruitment. We are also providing relocation expenses to dentists willing to move to new areas.
  1282
  Most importantly, we are offering assistance with short-term accommodation. Taking on new premises is a very big step, so the Government are helping dentists to move on a short-term basis initially, with accommodation provided to which they do not have to commit in the long term. In that way, we hope that dentists will be enticed back into the NHS, and that they will want to remain because they enjoy the work. We are therefore trying to be as imaginative as possible in providing incentives to draw people back into the service.
  The Government have asked dentists locally for recommendations about what else they would like us to do. We want to help, and we have asked dentists for their ideas about how we can draw them back into the NHS. The dental access centre in Yeovil has been able to recruit dentists: the fact hat there are eight whole-time equivalent dentists in that centre shows that the task is not impossible. I hope that the same persistence will pay off elsewhere, and that the support mechanisms on offer to existing practices will help them to augment the work that they do.
  We must accept that being a general dental practitioner became distinctly unattractive in the 1990s. The Government are now working nationally with the profession to change that and to make dentistry an integral element of NHS care. People's teeth and oral health are as important as any other aspect of health care. Drawing dentists back into the centre of the NHS is a top priority for the Government, and I would welcome ideas and suggestions—from the profession and elsewhere—about how we can create a vibrant NHS service. Such a service is needed by people in Somerset and in Yeovil, as it is by people right across the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.