Commons Sitting of 10 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

    QUEEN'S SPEECH
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income)(Taiwan) Order 2002 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 30 October 2002, in the last Session of Parliament.
    I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

    Iraq
    Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. [84320]
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: If he will make a statement on progress made by UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. [84321]
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent discussions he has had with the US Secretary of State about UN weapons inspectors in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [84326]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I apologise for the non-attendance of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, and the spokespersons for the Opposition parties received notice of that.
    138
    Inspection activity in Iraq resumed on 27 November. To date there have been no reports of serious or deliberate obstruction of the inspection teams. The teams have so far principally concentrated their efforts on revisiting sites identified as being of concern under the previous inspection regime, although they have also gained unrestricted access to a presidential site that had previously been denied.
    Under the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, Iraq handed over a declaration running to more than 11,000 pages to the UN in Baghdad on 7 December. It is now being analysed by UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This process will take some time.
    We maintained regular dialogue with the US Secretary of State and with other countries throughout the drafting of resolution 1441, and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Luff: Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements made by the Security Council and with the United States of America for consideration of the 11,807 pages, 352 pages of supplements and 529 megabytes of data are satisfactory and will enable a full and transparent interpretation to be made in good time?
    Mr. O'Brien: Yes, I am satisfied that the process is being handled properly. At the request of the Security Council presidency, the United States is helping with the formidable task of reproducing the documents for the permanent five members, who will then be in a position to assist UNMOVIC and the IAEA in removing material of proliferation concern from the declaration, before it is circulated more widely. There is no question of denying or delaying access. Copies were handed to all the P5 in Washington or New York last night, and I understand that we now have a copy here in London.
    Mrs. Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and hope that the UK will support the inspectors in their work and not denigrate them, as is happening in some quarters in the United States. Will he explore all possible alternatives to war, including using international law to indict Saddam Hussein and his regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide?
    Mr. O'Brien: We certainly do strongly support the inspectors and want their tasks to be carried out to the full: there needs to be a full and proper inspection to ensure that Iraq is dealt with in terms of its development of weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1441 is an opportunity to find a pathway to peace, disarming Saddam Hussein and removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We want him to take that pathway, which we have made open to him, to avoid war and ensure that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is dealt with. In that sense, the ball is in Saddam's court. We need to ensure that we are not threatened, and we hope that the pathway to peace will be taken.
    Mr. Ruffley: Does the Minister truly believe that 17 weapons inspectors constitute an adequate number to do the job, and if he does not, can he tell the House what Her Majesty's Government will do about that?
    Mr. O'Brien: Seventeen weapons inspectors are there, 25 are in transit, and 100 should be there before

    139
    Christmas. If UNMOVIC and IAEA require further inspectors, they will be in a position to request them. Obviously, inspectors need to be properly qualified. They are not that easy to come by, but opportunities do exist to recruit further inspectors, and to request members of the UN to provide qualified people. At this point, we believe that a steady increase in the number of inspectors, allowing for the capacity of equipment and buildings available to them, is the proper way to deal with the situation, and we hope that they will be able to do the job efficiently and effectively.
    David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1995 two sons-in-law of Saddam Hussein defected to Jordan and revealed the extent of the biological weapons programme that previously the regime had strenuously denied having? Why should we believe that this hide and seek game with the inspectors will lead to anything, bearing in mind the amount of time that Saddam Hussein has had to conceal the weapons of mass destruction? This is a murderous and lying regime that cannot be trusted under any circumstances.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is true that defectors revealed the development of weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons, in 1995. This should not be a game of hide and seek. Let us be clear: UN resolution 1441 places the obligation on Saddam Hussein and Iraq to show that they are not developing weapons of mass destruction. The obligation is not on the inspectors; they are there to verify claims made by Saddam Hussein, and we need to ensure that we support the inspectors, and that the threat from Saddam Hussein is dealt with.
    Mr. Michael Moore: The Minister will be aware that resolution 1441 requires the Iraqis to supply an accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of their programme to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Does he agree that American interference in the distribution of the Iraqi submission will undermine the United Nations process, weaken the international consensus against the Iraqi regime and offer Saddam Hussein a completely unnecessary propaganda victory?
    Mr. O'Brien: Frankly, what the hon. Gentleman has just said is complete nonsense. The Americans have not interfered; at the request of the presidency of the Security Council, they have assisted it in distributing the material. As far as we are aware, and according to the evidence available to us, that has been done entirely properly. We have a copy of the documents here in London, and the suggestion that this constitutes American interference that will somehow weaken the coalition is complete and utter nonsense.
    Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Despite my hon. Friend's reply, surely it is US insistence—under the guise of assistance—that has limited access to the Iraqi declaration to the five permanent members of the Security Council. The entire Security Council voted for resolution 1441, and the rest of the world will undoubtedly see this as the exercise of undue influence
    140
    by the US Government, who still seem absolutely determined, regardless of the evidence, to go to war against Iraq.
    Mr. O'Brien: There is concern about proliferation information that may be contained in the declaration: in other words, concern exists that Iraq will be supplying information on the whereabouts of materials, equipment and other issues—dual use or otherwise—that may be of interest to terrorists or to other countries. The view has therefore been taken that the five permanent members—they are nuclear powers—should have a full copy of the declaration. On that basis, distribution is being examined to see whether the material can be passed to members of the Security Council that are not nuclear powers, and to ensure that, if appropriate—this issue has yet to be determined, but the Security Council will look at it—some of the material in the declaration is not widely distributed. The concern is proliferation, not any attempt by the Americans or anyone else—as far as we are aware, there has been no such attempt—to prevent proper application of the terms of resolution 1441, or of the wishes of the UN Security Council.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: If there are discrepancies between Iraq's declaration of last weekend and the Government's dossier of 24 September—in connection, for instance, with the existence of the 20 al-Hussein missiles, the L29 jet trainer or of VX nerve agent, all of which were mentioned in the dossier—is the onus on Iraq to prove that the dossier was wrong, or on the Government to show why their dossier should be believed? Do the Government consider that the assertions in the dossier would be sufficient, under paragraph 4 of resolution 1441, to constitute a material breach, if omitted from the declaration?
    Mr. O'Brien: Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 requires that, for there to be a material breach, the declaration should be false and there should be a failure to cooperate. So far, Iraq has put forward a declaration, which we are examining. That will take some time. It is true that Saddam Hussein has a record of lying, so we should be sceptical about the information that he provides. However, we will examine seriously the documentation that he has provided, and see how it stands up to the information that we have received from various sources. We will then consider how to proceed. Obviously, it is for the inspectors to examine whether Saddam Hussein and Iraq continue to possess weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Ancram: I must press the Minister further. Surely he stands by the dossier that he published on 24 September? He told us that there was evidence that the weapons that I mentioned were in existence. If those weapons are omitted from the declaration made by the Iraqi Government on Saturday, is that a material breach? If the Minister insists that his information is correct, there must therefore be an omission from the declaration and, under paragraph 4, that would constitute a material breach.
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have listened to what I said. Paragraph 4 of

    141
    resolution 1441 contains a requirement that, for there to be a breach, the declaration of information must be false and there must be a failure to co-operate. We shall examine the contents of the declaration seriously. The Government certainly stand by the contents of the dossier, but we also know that there is some recent information that Saddam Hussein has been seeking to hide weapons of mass destruction. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether the fact that the items that he mentioned are not in the precise place specified in the dossier proves that Saddam Hussein does not have them, my response is that we must look at all the evidence. We must consider all the intelligence information and look at the detail of the dossier. That must be done carefully. These are serious matters and they need to be dealt with seriously. This is an attempt to avoid going to war yet achieve the end of ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction. That is an end that we will achieve.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Is there not a danger that our rightly firm resolve to make Saddam blink may leave us unable to recognise our success? If there is no material breach or nothing disclosed, can we remind the US—and, indeed, the Opposition here—that that should be a cause not of disappointment but of rejoicing? Will my hon. Friend the Minister say what is pencilled in the diaries of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to ensure that discussions are held with the US before that country fires off its judgment without consulting its very loyal and patient allies?
    Mr. O'Brien: I assure my hon. Friend that we are in full consultation with the US. We will look at the declaration and consult on the issues that it raises with the US and other permanent members of the Security Council, and indeed with other members of that council. If it were found that the declaration was genuine and full, and that the inspectorate was able to carry out its inspections completely unhindered and for a prolonged period of time, that might represent some evidence that Saddam was prepared to follow the pathway to peace.
    I hope that we can avoid war and that we will find a pathway to peace. I know that the choice rests with Saddam Hussein.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister refers to the pathway to peace, and I am sure that we all agree with that. If there is an alleged breach of resolution 1441, will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government's view that any further action should be a matter for the Security Council, because many in the United States Administration view resolution 1441 as the pathway to war, not to peace?
    Mr. O'Brien: Resolution 1441 does not stipulate that, for example, there needs to be a second resolution to authorise military action. It says that the UN Security Council must be given the opportunity to consider any report or other information. As the Foreign Secretary has said, in the event of a material breach, the Government's preference is for a second resolution. So far the Security Council has, as Kofi Annan said, faced up to its responsibilities, and we believe that it will continue to do so. However, we must reserve our
    142
    position in the event that it does not. Iraq should be in no doubt that the message of resolution 1441 is clear and that any failure to comply will have serious consequences.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of allied countries on extending the mandate of the international security force in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [84322]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): On 27 November, the UN Security Council agreed to extend the ISAF mandate until 20 December next year. The area of operations remains Kabul. We are discussing with other coalition members ways of getting what is called an ISAF effect in areas beyond Kabul.
    Mr. Mullin: What role are the Americans playing? Are they still floating around the country handing out bin bags full of dollars to warlords and shooting up wedding parties, or has it been possible to engage their attention in nation building?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am pleased to report that the Americans are very much engaged in nation building, in that they are putting substantial amounts of aid money into Afghanistan and are looking at ways of improving the security situation. The US has recently proposed having small civil military teams of 40 to 60 strong to work with the Afghan national army regional leaders and non-governmental organisations to help to improve security in areas outside Kabul. Substantial sums are going into Afghanistan from the United States and the US is working with other countries to improve the security situation. It is also working closely with President Hamid Karzai's Government. I visited President Karzai recently and he was very grateful for the help that Britain as well as the United States has provided to Afghanistan.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I, through the Minister, congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on asking one of the great, classic, perennial parliamentary questions? Does the Minister recall that when the viceroy of the day posed the question to the great Lord Salisbury, the Foreign Secretary advised the Viceroy's Council to study Afghanistan on a larger-scale map—a piece of advice that is of general application today?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) welcomes the hon. Gentleman's advice. I, too, will ensure that I study all the maps that I need to study.
    Joan Ruddock: I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of the NGOs and their workers outside Kabul. However, does he know that one of Mercy Corps' veterinary surgeons was shot dead in Kandahar province when he was attending to his duties as a livestock support worker and that three other Afghans working for Mercy Corps have been

    143
    kidnapped? Fortunately, they have now been released, but that has led them to consider whether they can continue their operations. When will a demilitarisation programme begin in Afghanistan?
    Mr. O'Brien: As I have already indicated, the coalition is looking at ways of extending the ISAF effect to improve security in the provinces beyond Kabul. We need to demobilise and disarm the militias, build an accountable Afghan national army, create an effective police force, stamp out the drugs trade and construct a legal system. We are in the process of nation building, and I cannot tell my hon. Friend that we will achieve that overnight. I wish that we could do it more quickly, but these things need to be built brick by brick. It takes time, but doing it properly will lead to more effective and solid results for the long-term future of Afghanistan. Rushing to judgment and being too quick to put in mechanisms that do not work could be detrimental and counter-productive.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: We are not asking the Minister to achieve anything overnight, but we have heard both from him and from his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development that the ISAF remit might extend beyond Kabul. Does he agree that, for every delay, there is an increase in heroin production in Afghanistan, which has a direct impact on the amount of drugs available on the streets of the United Kingdom? The Minister must make the connection between the power of the territorial warlords and the failure to tackle them. When can we expect positive action?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a link with the disorder in Afghanistan—a country ravaged by war for 25 years. We are in the process of re-establishing law and order in parts of Afghanistan around Kabul and in some other regions. That will be done over a period of time. However, it is wrong for a Government to say that, in a massive country such as Afghanistan, we can make changes within a few days or months, or even a year. The programme does not only address issues with regard to poppy production, which means providing alternative lifestyles for people who grow poppies and using a forced eradication programme. We are supporting such policies not only because they are right for Afghanistan but also because, if they are successful, they will prevent people from dying on our streets. However, we cannot promise to do that overnight; it will take time. I suspect that poppy production will rise before it falls, because we need to establish substantial controls and building an Afghan national army requires time, effort, resources and facilities. It cannot be done overnight.

    Terrorism
    Mr. David Chaytor: What links he has identified between Iraq and al-Qaeda. [84323]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been in Iraq. It is not clear what links they have with the Iraqi regime.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with the United States Government that military action against Iraq would be part of the war against terror? If so, does he think that war can provide the solution to terror?
    Mr. O'Brien: The objective of our involvement in Iraq is to ensure that Saddam Hussein is prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction. That is clearly the objective set out in UN resolution 1441. We know that, in the past, Iraq has supported terrorists such as the Abu Nidal group and Mujahedin-e Khalq—the MEK—and that Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine. Saddam Hussein has been involved in terrorism, but whether he is involved with al-Qaeda is another matter.
    We hope that the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq can be achieved by peaceful means. I hope, too, that we can deal with the problems of terrorism worldwide, but I fear that it is possible that our means may not always be peaceful.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister keep in mind when exploring those links the fact that many of us will have great difficulty in finding a proper moral justification for war against Iraq unless we can properly invoke the principles of self-defence, which can be properly invoked only if the threat to ourselves or our allies is both grave and imminent?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is our view that resolution 1441 provides a legal basis for ensuring that the inspectors go into Iraq. We seek to provide a way to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not create the circumstances in which war happens. Our objective is to achieve disarmament. We shall work towards that end.
    Resolution 1441 was good enough for Syria, France, Russia and all the members of the Security Council. I am not sure why it is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I would not have fancied being an al-Qaeda representative in Sunni Iraq. Will the Minister put the names of those operatives, if he has them, in the Library?
    Mr. O'Brien: No.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Is it not clear from all the Minister's answers that there is no link between al-Qaeda and the regime in Iraq and that, whereas there is a perfectly good case to pursue terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, and there is probably an equally good case to pursue the Iraqi regime, to link the two together simply does a great disservice to truth?
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman obviously knows more than those who are a lot better informed than him. It is not clear that there are links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. We are still examining some

    145
    evidence that is available to us. We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been in Iraq, and we also know—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should not shout at the Minister.
    Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    We know that there have been al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. We are not sure what the links are, so it is right to investigate them. The right hon. Gentleman makes an assertion that there are no links, but I could not possibly make that assertion based on the evidence that I have.

    Sudan
    Mr. Harold Best: What help he is offering to further the reconciliation process in Sudan. [84324]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): In 2002, there is a new window of opportunity for peace in Sudan and a new round of peace talks led by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. The United Kingdom has played a major role in the peace effort so far, through its role as international observer at the Machakos talks. This year, we have committed about £10 million to support humanitarian work and the peace process itself.
    Mr. Best: I am very pleased to hear the report from my hon. Friend the Minister, but does he share my concern about the damage that might be done to peace in Sudan if war were to break out in Iraq? That seems not to be the kind of development that most of us who are interested in peace in Sudan would want to see.
    Mr. Rammell: Our aim in Sudan and Iraq is to secure peace and security. In Iraq, we face a threat from weapons of mass destruction. We are trying to resolve that issue peacefully. Saddam has the opportunity to do that by complying with resolution 1441. Although I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, I do not believe that we would sustain human rights in Sudan by failing to stand up and ignoring the very real danger that exists in Iraq.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: May I address the question itself? Although I recognise that the key to resolving the conflict in Sudan lies mainly in achieving an equitable sharing of power and wealth between the north and south, does the Minister agree that the lasting solution must also depend on trust and respect for human rights? Is not one of the grave human rights problems facing the people of Sudan the incidence of slavery? Will he therefore agree that that issue must be addressed during any future negotiations? What are the Government doing to try to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Rammell: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. We have much contact with the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children, which is making significant
    146
    progress. Already, more than 600 abductees have been returned. We are concerned, however, that a market may be created by paying for the return of abductees, but that is a real issue, which must be taken into account in the eventual peace settlement.

    Brazil
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Brazil and the election of President Lula. [84325]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Before I specifically answer the question, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our concern and sadness at the news that 36 people have been killed overnight by a mudslide in Brazil.
    We congratulate President Lula on his convincing victory in Brazil's fully democratic elections, and we look forward to working closely with him and his Administration to deepen further our excellent relations with Brazil.
    Lawrie Quinn: Given the important trading relationship between the United Kingdom and Brazil—I think that we are the eighth largest exporter to Brazil—will the Minister outline to the House what he will do to encourage that relationship, make sure that we increase the trade opportunities for British companies, and assist in the continuing development of Brazil, the fifth largest economy in the world?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his keen interest in our relationship with Brazil. We certainly believe that Brazil is a good place to do business. It is the UK's largest export market in Latin America, and, so far this year, our exports are up by some 16 per cent. Indeed, over the last year, more than 100 British companies have invested in Brazil, indicating strongly that they regard Brazil as a good place to do business. We will continue to support those efforts.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Minister's response, will he confirm that fears that the new President might change the economic pattern of Brazil are unfounded, and that he is continuing to lead his people to a better way of life?
    Mr. Rammell: I certainly feel able to do that. Whatever initial concerns existed, the whole international community is now reacting favourably to the way in which President-elect Lula is forming his Administration. Indeed, the recent International Monetary Fund delegation to Brazil reacted very positively to the developments that are taking place.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Despite the Government's substantial efforts since 1997 to encourage British business to engage more readily with Brazil, it is fair to say that the response has not always been as good as that for which we hoped. Business often cites the complexity of the regulatory regime in Brazil as off-putting. When the Minister has the opportunity to

    147
    discuss these matters, will he make that point to his counterparts, and will he also encourage them not to be tempted down the route of protectionism?
    Mr. Rammell: The point is well made. As I said, the 16 per cent. increase in exports in the last year is very positive. I am visiting Brazil next week, and I will meet representatives of the British business community there. I look forward to discussions within that forum.

    Health Service Workers (Sub-Saharan Africa)
    Dr. Evan Harris: What recent discussions he has had with governments of sub-Saharan African countries about the import of their skilled health service workers into the UK. [84327]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The recruitment of staff for the national health service is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his Department.
    Nevertheless, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in October 2001, the Department of Health published a code of practice for NHS employers who are involved in the international recruitment of health care professionals. The publication provides a detailed explanation of the processes that must be carried out when recruiting from overseas to ensure that those developing countries suffering significant staff shortages of their own are not targeted.
    Dr. Harris: Surely the Minister understands that his Government's view that this is simply a matter for the Department of Health shows that there is an unethical black hole in the middle of their foreign policy. South Africa, which has already requested this country not to recruit its hard-trained nurses and doctors, has seen the number of its staff recruited by this country increase from 393 in 1997 to 2,114. As for Malawi, 43 out of the 235 nurses that it trains per year are now working here. Surely foreign Governments have told him and his colleagues that that is unacceptable. Until the Government keep an exact record of the extent to which we are destroying the capacity of foreign countries' health care systems, and offer to put something back, we will not be behaving ethically in this area.
    Mr. Rammell: With the greatest respect, to describe that as an unethical black hole is exaggeration even by the standards of Lib Dem "Focus" leaflets. We are firmly committed to ensuring the protection of developing countries. That is why we have developed the code of practice, in which we are ahead of the game—no other country throughout the world has done that. On what the hon. Gentleman says about putting something back, through the Department for International Development, we invest £30 million a year, 30 per cent. of which goes into the South African health system.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is, however, possible, as my hon. Friend will accept, to provide proper training and assistance to African nations while not denuding them of desperately needed staff. Real problems exist in southern Africa,
    148
    particularly in relation to those groups affected by AIDS, and it is essential that they are not deprived of their health care professionals.
    Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes an important and serious point. AIDS is the scourge of southern African. Through the Department of Health, we have constructive programmes that we are developing with the South African health department. We will do everything that we can to help. On the specific issue that has already been raised, the code of conduct offers the best protection available for the recruitment of health care professionals from developing countries.
    Tony Baldry: This is truly disingenuous. The national health service does not have to recruit these nurses, because they are recruited by agencies. If the Minister wants to see hell on earth, he should visit the Lilongwe general hospital where practically every nurse who was trained last year was stripped out to come to work for agencies in this country. The Minister's answer was accurate but totally disingenuous.
    Mr. Rammell: Agencies and organisations working with the NHS have to comply with the code of practice that we have established. We take the issue seriously, and we would all want to operate in an ideal world. The fact remains that the code of practice that we have already established is the most advanced in the world. The Government will not apologise for the fact that we are expanding our capacity in terms of the number of nurses in a way that the Conservative party consistently failed to do.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Eric Joyce: If he will make a statement on the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. [84329]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I hope that we will complete enlargement negotiations with 10 candidate countries at the Copenhagen European Council this week. That will allow us to meet the aim, first set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of reuniting Europe in time for the European Parliament elections in 2004.
    Mr. Joyce: My hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous contribution that Turkey has made to the security of Europe over the years. Does he agree that the best way to encourage human rights and the Europeanisation of institutions in Turkey is to give it as soon as possible the beginnings of a move to a start date for negotiations on its entry to the European Union?
    Mr. MacShane: Very much so. Turkey is at the crossroads. It can look west towards Europe to modernise and democratise its institutions and political processes, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have been in the

    149
    van of arguing within Europe that Turkey should be given at Copenhagen later this week a clear and proximate date for the start of entry negotiations.
    Mr. Richard Spring: I am mindful of the concerns of some accession countries about securing support for entry in referendums, but will the Minister tell the House if and what the Government's objections are to the latest Danish financial and common agricultural policy proposals? Does he agree that new flexibility on direct farm payments would be advantageous to the accession states?
    Mr. MacShane: No, because the accession states have negotiated in good faith under what is called the Berlin ceiling, which was the package set. That means that all of them will be better off once they are inside the EU. They have to absorb the money as part of a process of reform and modernisation. That it is precisely why, in the Financial Times today, four Prime Ministers have argued the case for a yes at Copenhagen and for the reuniting of the European family of nations.
    Mr. Wayne David: My hon. Friend referred to the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 and to Turkey. Does he agree that it is also important to consider the enlargement of the EU in 2007 when I hope that Bulgaria and Romania will join?
    Mr. MacShane: Yes, indeed. I am keeping my fingers crossed that, at Copenhagen, we will also confirm 2007 as the target date for Bulgaria and Romania. That is the new Europe of the 21st century, united as a zone of peace, prosperity and democracy.
    Angus Robertson: Does the Minister share the concern of many of my constituents in fishing communities that the Copenhagen summit, which is rightly trying to expedite the enlargement of the EU, does not have the fishing crisis on its agenda? Will he explain to my constituents what efforts the UK Government are making to ensure that fishing is on the agenda at the summit, or do the Government think that the crisis is not important enough for them to press for the issue to be on the agenda in the first place?
    Mr. MacShane: No. No Government have done more to raise the plight of their fishermen than Her Majesty's Government. Of course every one of the 15 EU member states will have pressing problems that it will want to place on the agenda at Copenhagen. What is important is that the Fisheries Council deals with the matter and that the reform of both the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy is maintained. For the first time in 20 years, this Government are doing something about that in a serious, professional and coherent manner.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Dr. Desmond Turner: What assessment he has made of the implications of the policy statements made by the new leader of the Israeli Labour Party for the peace process. [84330]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is for Israeli voters to decide which party's policies are most likely to bring them peace and security. We look to the next Israeli Government, whoever leads it, to engage with the Palestinians and the international community in the implementation of the Quartet road map within the time frame set out by President Bush on 24 June.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the emergence of Mr. Mitzna offers us new hope for restarting the middle east peace process and for withdrawal from illegal settlements on the west bank? Does he also agree that whether Mr. Mitzna becomes Israel's next Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition, this Government should do their utmost to support his efforts towards a peaceful and political settlement in the middle east?
    Mr. O'Brien: We certainly want a peaceful settlement of the middle east conflict. Our policy on settlements is clear. They are illegal under international law and are an obstacle to peace. Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including road building, because it is creating facts on the ground. It breaks up Palestinian territory throughout the west bank and makes the possibility of a negotiated settlement much more difficult to reach. We have consistently called on both parties to refrain from unilateral acts which prejudice the outcome of the permanent status negotiation. Each brick in a settlement is a barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Mr. Mitzna said that if he were Prime Minister, he would immediately begin talks without condition. Whichever candidate wins the forthcoming Israeli elections, does the Minister agree that with attention largely focused on Iraq, the international community, especially the United States, must actively re-engage in pushing for a resumption of the middle east peace process? Does he agree that a continuing stand-off is simply not acceptable and that there is a moral compulsion on all parties to make every effort to engage in dialogue based on a genuine desire to reach an agreement? Who is he in touch with on each side who might actually be prepared to talk to each other?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is the case that we need to resume the talks. The process would be enhanced if the suicide bombings stopped and the Israelis were able to remove their forces from the large areas of the west bank that they occupy, which disrupts activity among Palestinians, so atomising that society. We are in regular contact with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Indeed, this week I met Palestinian representatives and this afternoon I will meet the Israeli ambassador. We are also obviously in contact with representatives of the Quartet who are working hard to create the road map that we hope will be the basis on which a peace process will be constructed. A great deal of discussion is going on and there are many contacts between various Israeli and Palestinian groups. It is important that we

    151
    encourage a process of dialogue because it is only through negotiation and dialogue that we will secure peace.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Have the British Government made representations either to the new leader of the Israeli Labour party or Mr. Sharon on the illegal building of the great Israeli wall? It is illegal from end to end because it is built 6 or 10 km within Palestinian territory, thus confiscating 10 per cent. of the total land.
    Mr. O'Brien: Only a small portion of the wall is built. I have seen photographs of it, but I have not been to see it. The wall is clearly wrong. We have made strong representations to the Israelis that it should not be constructed. Israel has a right to protect itself from terrorist activity, but, frankly, building barriers and walls is not the way to go about creating long-term security for Israel. The Israelis will get long-term security when there is a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and when a middle east peace process brings about a two-state solution—a state for the Palestinians, but also a secure and peaceful state for Israel.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Endorsing what the hon. Gentleman has just said, has the Foreign Secretary told the leaders of both major parties in Israel that the constant flouting of UN Security Council resolutions is not conducive to peace in the middle east?
    Mr. O'Brien: Both parties are well aware of our view that resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 are the basis on which any peace process needs to go forward. We have made it clear that flouting or ignoring those resolutions is not acceptable, but we also know that those resolutions require a peace process. That is why the discussions in the Quartet are important—they will provide the road map to peace. We hope that both parties—Israel and the Palestinians—will work with the international community to ensure that that road does lead to peace.

    Colombia
    David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Colombia. [84331]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The new democratically elected Colombian Government face enormous challenges, particularly in their fight against terrorism and the illegal drugs trade, as well as over human rights and Colombia's humanitarian crisis. We support their efforts to tackle all those issues.
    David Taylor: The United States of America has earmarked $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia, of which 80 per cent. is destined for the military and the police and a pathetic 1 per cent. for the peace process. Can the Minister reassure the House that the millions of euros pledged by the EU nations will be used for the search for an economic, political and social solution to the complex difficulties in Colombia, which have worsened
    152
    with the endemic violence in that country and the ambivalent attitude of President Uribe to the trafficking of heroin and cocaine?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in those issues. I should make it clear to him that the British Government and the EU more generally have no involvement in Plan Colombia. The British Government are committed through the EU process to a package of €330 million to support humanitarian development, the peace process and, particularly, projects involving the rule of law and the defence of human rights. I heard what he said about President Uribe and his alleged past associations. However, despite exhaustive investigations, no evidence to support those allegations has been produced. Nevertheless, we constantly urge Uribe to tackle paramilitaries, collusion and impunity, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give the Government of Colombia, who have been democratically elected—there is nothing better than the rule of law throughout the country—the fullest possible support, especially in the war against terrorism? Is he aware that hundreds of distinguished Colombian citizens—bishops, priests, mayors, congressmen, judges, senators and countless others—have been kidnapped or have lost their lives as a consequence of terrorism? Can he therefore assure the House that, on behalf of the Government, he will proscribe FARC and the ELN in both Colombia and the EU? Without the elimination of those organisations, the drugs trade will not be eliminated and peace will not be restored.
    Mr. Rammell: We have already introduced a number of the measures that the hon. Gentleman has called for. I very much share his view that we are dealing with a true humanitarian crisis. The statistics show that 2 million people are displaced, 60 per cent. of whom are under 16. More trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in the rest of the world put together last year. The crisis is appalling, and we must support President Uribe's Government. On the point about democratic legitimacy, we certainly take account of the fact that Uribe got 53 per cent. of the vote and has a 70 per cent. approval rating, so there is clearly support for the measures that he has introduced to tackle the crisis. At the same time, however, he must respond to legitimate concerns, especially from non-governmental organisations engaged in the country.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposal from human rights organisations for an exchange of kidnapped people for political prisoners in Colombia? Would the Government consider and support such a proposal?
    Mr. Rammell: I am not aware of that, but if my hon. Friend speaks or writes to me about it, I would be more than happy to discuss it.

    Al-Qaeda
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What assessment he has made of co-ordinated al-Qaeda activity against British interests abroad. [84332]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We constantly monitor the threat to British interests posed by all terrorist groups worldwide. All the intelligence that we receive is sifted and carefully assessed by the intelligence agencies. All the resulting threat assessments are then passed to policy makers.
    Dr. Lewis: Given that the Australian Government managed, nearly a fortnight before the event, to pass on a specific warning to their holidaymakers about the threat of a terrorist attack in Mombasa, why did the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with access to the same intelligence, fail to pass on a similarly specific warning to our holidaymakers in the area?
    Mr. O'Brien: There was no specific intelligence of an attack being planned in Bali—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mombasa."] I am sorry; Mombasa. As far as we are concerned, there was no specific intelligence. If there had been, we would certainly have made that information available.
    As the Prime Minister recently said, hardly a day goes by without a terrorist warning of some kind. Indeed, each month the security services get between 300 and 400 pieces of information about terrorist activities. Of those 300 to 400 pieces of information, usually none results in a predicted incident. Some of the information is partial, imprecise, unreliable or deliberate disinformation; rarely is it precise. It is a matter for the intelligence services to give professional advice on their assessment of the quality of that information. The intelligence services are not infallible, but they make the best professional judgment that they can. We support the way in which they analyse that information. Other countries may take a different view about the way in which they give warnings and analyse information. We believe that our intelligence services are doing the best that they reasonably can to ensure that they assess the information in a professional way.
    Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend is aware that for many years a large number of British people have been going on holiday to Kenya. He will also know that last week the British embassy there had to be closed on security grounds. Can he reassure constituents who contacted me last week that he will further consider updating the website that gives advice about the situation whenever circumstances change so that people do not have to rely on press reports or radio broadcasts when they are about to go on holiday and, understandably, anxious about whether they should cancel it, even if they are going to a part of the country far from the incident?
    Mr. O'Brien: We amended all our travel advice on 18 October to warn travellers of the increased threat from international terrorism. The fact that that was a global warning should not detract from its relevance. Travel advice is kept under constant review in the light
    154
    of all the information available to us. It was changed on 28 November to reflect the implications of the Mombasa attack and the risk of terrorist groups carrying out further attacks in east Africa.
    We cannot guarantee that anywhere is completely and totally safe. What we do know is that al-Qaeda is a threat and that there are other terrorists at large in the world. There is therefore a need to be vigilant. We try to assess professionally all the information that we get and make a good judgment about it. We are currently reviewing the way in which we make those decisions to ensure that we improve wherever possible the way in which that intelligence information is assessed and to ensure that we provide information of the best possible quality to members of the public when they travel abroad.

    Burma
    Vera Baird: What advice he gives to British companies with joint investments in Burma with the military junta. [84333]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We do not encourage trade or investment with Burma. We do not offer support of any kind for companies to pursue trade or investment with Burma. Companies that seek advice are told of the appalling human rights situation, corruption and dire economic situation that exist there.
    Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be well aware that almost the only British company still in Burma is British American Tobacco, which jointly owns a cigarette factory with the military junta and clearly generates considerable profit and tax revenue thereby. When challenged, the company says that, in effect, corporate responsibility requires it to stay in Burma to sustain employment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question must be very snappy, but that is not a snappy question. Will the Minister try to deal with that point?
    Mr. O'Brien: I have made it very clear that, as far as we are concerned, Burma is not a place where we encourage any companies to invest. At least, I am not aware of BAT being given any encouragement to continue to operate there and I shall certainly ask officials to identify any information of the sort that my hon. and learned Friend suggests has been given to it. The economic situation in Burma is deteriorating and the Government of Burma abuse human rights on a substantial scale. I spoke yesterday to Aung San Suu Kyi about our wish to ensure that the Government of Burma carry out a process of modernisation and democratisation as quickly as possible. Only then will the economic problems of Burma be resolved and will we have a roadway leading to a process whereby Aung San Suu Kyi and those who represent democracy can feel that Burma truly has an opportunity to rebuild itself after the tragedies of recent years.

Transport Investment
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the next steps in implementing our investment strategy to improve Britain's transport infrastructure.
Our roads and railways are facing increased demands. We are one of the largest economies in the world, and in the past five years we have got more than 1.5 million more people into work. People are better off and travel more often. As we meet the challenges that come from economic success, we are at the same time dealing with the problems resulting from decades of under-investment in our transport infrastructure.
If we look at other countries' successes in transport and ask what they have done, we see that the common factor is sustained investment year on year and over decades. Over this decade, more than £180 billion in both public and private money will be spent on transport, and because we have built a strong economy we can sustain that investment even in the face of today's uncertain and difficult times.
In the past few months, I have announced additional spending on our railway infrastructure, as well as measures to tackle congestion on the roads. Thirty-seven major road schemes have been completed in the past five years, and even before today's announcement we expect to complete about 30 new schemes in the next five years. Work includes major construction on the Al and the M25, which will start next year.
Today, I am announcing the next stage of our investment programme—measures costing £5.5 billion, including the local transport plan settlement for 2003–04, together with my decisions in relation to five studies set up to examine pressures on the strategic road network. I announced the transport settlement for London last week. Our objective is to improve Britain's rail and road network as well as to make use of existing infrastructure, in a measured and balanced approach between road and rail and public and private transport. That includes improvements to tackle congestion, improve reliability and make journeys safer, together with measures to improve the environment and quality of life. The majority of journeys are local trips of less than five miles. Our plans allow for sustained expenditure and a doubling in real terms of local spending. That addresses the consequences of decades of under-investment and stop-go funding.
I can today announce the details of the local transport plan settlement for 2003–04. In December 2000, we announced that we would invest £8.4 billion to implement local transport plans over five years. Today's announcement is the third instalment. It builds on the £1.36 billion and £1.58 billion announced in the past two years. In total, the settlement gives local authorities a further £1.6 billion to improve local transport.
First, let us consider light rail schemes. In Greater Manchester, Metrolink has proved safe and reliable. Last year, it carried more than 18 million passengers, many of whom would previously have travelled by car. Its success means that I can confirm today funding approval for three new lines, which should more than double the number of passengers carried. Construction is planned to start next year.
156
Subject to statutory procedures, a major light rail line will be built in Liverpool. Merseytram will create better access to the city from Kirkby, contribute significantly to regenerating Liverpool city centre, and boost jobs. In Nottingham, the first phase of the express transit system is under construction and is due to open next year. I accept the east midlands study's recommendation that plans for a second phase should be developed.
Buses remain central to the local public transport system, with nearly 4 billion passenger journeys a year. The local transport settlement will enable local authorities to make important improvements to the bus infrastructure, including providing new bus stations with better links to railway stations and other facilities as well as improving access for people with disabilities. The settlement will fund bus priority measures, thousands of road safety improvements and another 900 safe routes to schools schemes.
Next let us consider road maintenance. Improving the quality of local roads is vital not only for the three quarters of adults in this country who drive, but because most public transport depends on them. Tackling the investment backlog on local roads is therefore essential. We are making available more than £600 million of capital to add to local authorities' resource spending on road maintenance next year. In total, local authorities will be able to spend £2.6 billion on road maintenance. That is more than at any time in the past decade.
I am also approving 12 major local road schemes. Those improvements to local roads will tackle congestion, improve road safety and provide much needed bypasses to remove traffic from towns and villages.
Details of the local transport plan allocations will be placed in the Library, and details of my decisions on all the schemes, including light rail, will also be made available to hon. Members.
We are committed to investing in our strategic road network and making better use of the existing infrastructure. The strategic road network carries one third of all traffic and two thirds of freight traffic. In recent months, we have considered five strategic routes in the light of recommendations from studies of the M6 corridor from the midlands to the north-west, the M1 corridor in the east midlands, the A453 between Nottingham and the M1, the A1 north of Newcastle, and routes from London to the south-west and south Wales.
Most of those motorways were built 30 or 40 years ago. Since then, traffic on them has increased to levels that were never anticipated. However, the strategic routes, both road and rail, are critical to our economic prosperity. As the economy grows, pressure on the roads continues to grow.
We are currently spending on rail, and more passengers and freight are being carried by rail since 1997—but we must also spend more on improving the strategic road network. It is inevitable that large-scale developments take time to plan, design and deliver. We therefore need to make decisions in principle now.
The M6 is a vital link between the midlands and the north-west. When it was built in the 1960s, approximately 75,000 vehicles a day were anticipated. However, today, some stretches carry as many as 150,000 vehicles a day. We have already announced a

157
major £10 billion upgrade for the west coast main line. That is an essential part of our strategy to relieve congestion on that critical transport corridor, allowing for faster trains and increasing capacity for passengers and freight.
The M6 toll road around Birmingham is already under construction and due to open in 2004. The link north of Carlisle to the M74 is being upgraded. With continued economic growth, and given the route's strategic importance, I have accepted the study's recommendation to widen to four lanes the M6 between Manchester and Birmingham, together with junction improvements and safety measures.
The study also considered replacing the A556 in Cheshire by linking the M6 and M56 with a new dual carriageway. I am worried about the environmental consequences of such a new road, and I have therefore asked the Highways Agency to examine the alternative of widening the existing motorways and improving the junction between them.
The M1 corridor links the south-east with the midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east. The Strategic Rail Authority has already announced improved frequency and faster trains on the Midland Mainline from 2004 as well as other measures to improve rail links. This is a strategic route, and vital to our economy. I have, therefore, decided that the M1 should be widened to four lanes through the east midlands, with climbing lanes for lorries and improvements to junctions. I am asking the Highways Agency to work up proposals for both the M1 and M6, including associated environmental measures, as quickly as possible. We are on course to deliver the objectives for road widening set out in the 10-year plan.
The A453 study looked at problems between Nottingham and the M1. Large-scale widening of this road in suburban areas would have had serious consequences for the local community and environment, so I accept the recommendation to dual from the M1 to Clifton, with a smaller-scale widening through Clifton itself.
The study on the A1 north of Newcastle rejected the case for dualling the A1 to the border, and the Scottish Executive do not intend to dual all the road north of Berwick. The safety record at a number points causes major concern, however, so I am asking the Highways Agency to develop proposals for significant safety improvements. These include completing the widening of the A1 between Morpeth and Alnwick, rather than widening it to Berwick as the north-east regional assembly proposed. Also in Northumberland, the Highways Agency will add to the roads programme the Haydon Bridge bypass on the A69.
I also have to announce decisions on the routes to the south-west and south Wales. First, I have accepted recommendations to add climbing lanes and to improve junctions on the M4 and M5 around Bristol, which will tackle one of the most congested parts of the motorway network. Secondly, much of the A303 is already a dual carriageway, and I am accepting recommendations to dual the remaining single-carriageway sections east of Ilminster. As well as relieving congestion, these improvements will make journeys safer and more reliable.
158
It is essential that proposals to tackle congestion and improve reliability are consistent with our wider environmental obligations. I have had to consider whether I could accept the south-west regional assembly's recommendation to build a dual carriageway on the A303 and A30 through the Blackdown hills, which are designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. I believe that there must be a strong presumption against building new roads in such areas, so I am asking the Highways Agency to consider the feasibility of an alternative proposal to widen the A358 from Ilminster to the M5 at Taunton.
As the House will know, an extremely busy section of the A303 runs through the world heritage site at Stonehenge. The original cheaper cut-and-cover solution had substantial environmental drawbacks, so my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have decided that a 2 km tunnel should be bored beneath the site at an additional cost of £31 million—a sum that I believe is justified by the environmental gain. This will allow major improvements at this world-famous site. We have a clear duty to protect our heritage and environment.
The five studies made a number of other recommendations, and my full response is being placed in the Library. Some recommendations are for local authorities to develop, and my response makes it clear that far more work needs to be done on a number of other proposals, to establish their feasibility and affordability. I also make it clear that not all of them will go ahead. For example, some proposals, such as the one to widen the M6 to five lanes, will not be taken forward. Further studies will look at the following strategic corridors: from London to the south midlands; along the south coast; from London to Ipswich; on the M60 around north-west Manchester; on the M25; through Yorkshire; through the west midlands; around Hull; and on Tyneside. I expect to report on my decisions on these in the spring. I shall also announce further investment in transport infrastructure at other locations during the course of next year.
The Government are spending more on rail and road to tackle congestion, to improve reliability and to make journeys safer. Under this Government, that investment will be sustained year on year, because it is an essential part of building our economic prosperity and improving our quality of life. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in providing an advance copy of his statement. His announcement of the widening of some roads will be widely welcomed. Businesses, motorists and communities in the midlands, the north and the north-west will undoubtedly welcome the widening of the M1 and the M6, and the south-west has desperately needed the full dualling of the A303 for a long time. His words about light rail, buses and trams will also be welcomed by many.
Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that given the warnings last week from the Strategic Rail Authority that the 10-year transport plan is now effectively in tatters, few will believe that such projects are certain to happen? Does he accept that even after this announcement, his Government plan to spend less

159
on roads in each year of the 10-year transport plan than the average level of spending under the last Conservative Government?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his Government have travelled a long way from where they started on the issue? In 1998, his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"Everyone now acknowledges that we cannot build our way out of congestion; the days of predict and provide are over."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 786.]
Does the Secretary of State remember that? Will he admit that today's statement is a U-turn from that position? Does he remember that the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"I will have failed if in five years time there are not…far fewer journeys by car."?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been a failure and that that approach has been scrapped?
Four times on this morning's "Today" programme, the Secretary of State refused to say that reducing traffic is still Government policy, so will he state clearly that Ministers have definitively abandoned that target? Does he also realise that other parts of his statement provoke a strong sense of déjà vu? He boasts of the amount to be spent. In 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House:
"Let no one say that we are not putting our money where our mouth is. We have made a £1.7 billion increase in public investment for transport over the next three years".
All that time and money, but nothing achieved.
The Secretary of State said today that he would work with local government to improve transport. In 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said of local government:
"This major new initiative will be backed by £700 million, which will enable the development of 150 local transport strategies over the next three years."
Does the Secretary of State remember that? All that time and money, but nothing achieved. He rightly noted that business is worried about congestion. In 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would take action and told the House:
"The Confederation of British Industry complains of the £15 billion cost of congestion."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 784–88.]
Does the Secretary of State remember that? I have news for the Government: today, the CBI complains of the £20 billion cost of congestion. All that time and money, but nothing achieved.
Does the Secretary of State accept that we have had five and a half shamefully wasted years in which motorists have been lectured, penalised and massively taxed; the highest fuel duties in the western world have paid for the smallest road building programme since the second world war; and the average motorist has endured a 16 per cent. rise in journey times and a 50 per cent. rise in motorway congestion while Ministers and their chauffeurs sail past in the bus lanes that other people are penalised for using?
Does the Secretary of State really expect motorists to be grateful for his decision to put back in the road programme schemes that Labour should never have
160
axed in the first place, many of which might have been finished by now if the Government had not got it so badly wrong? Last year, they added not a single inch of tarmac to the national road network—a shocking failure. Is he ashamed of that?
Does the Secretary of State expect the public to believe that he will build the roads that he has promised today when last week the Government had to admit that they could not deliver the rail improvements that he promised only a few months ago? Has he not proven today that, with Labour, all we ever get is the promise of jam tomorrow and the reality of jams today?
Mr. Darling: I do feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, one of his biggest problems is that he does not have a transport policy. He said at the Tory party conference that he would announce that policy before the end of the year, but I note that there are only 10 more announcing days till Christmas, so time is running out.
The hon. Gentleman has another problem. The general thrust of his rant is, I think, that we ought to be spending more, yet I note that the leader of the Conservative party—I know that the hon. Gentleman has difficulties with him, or at least did in the past—said as recently as 8 December:
"We've already said we are not matching the Government's spending plans."
So, whatever else the hon. Gentleman says, he cannot get away from the fact that he would not have the money to spend on any such measures, let alone those that I have announced today.
The hon. Gentleman raised two points that are worthy of reply. First, he complained that there were more people travelling around than there were five years ago. In many ways that is a good thing, is it not? There are 1.5 million fewer unemployed people now. People are moving around: they are better off because of the strong economy. Our job must be to ensure that the transport system enables people and goods to move around. Ours must be a measured and balanced approach. That is why we are investing in both road and rail.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Strategic Rail Authority and rail expenditure. Richard Bowker, the SRA's chairman, made the obvious point that the industry needs to get a grip on its projects and costs. It never did that under Railtrack. It did not do it under privatisation, when the whole system virtually fell to pieces. Richard Bowker was absolutely right: we must keep a tight control on expenditure to ensure that money is spent properly.
As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I think that, rather like his policies, they are best forgotten.
Mr. Don Foster: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving notice of his statement. Although it has already been announced, may I begin by welcoming the money provided for local transport plans? My local authority will be delighted.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that local plans often provide the most balanced and measured solutions to the scourge of congestion and pollution on our roads, not least by focusing on improving public transport? If so, why has he not applied the same

161
measured and balanced approach to major national projects? Why, within days of the announcement that many of the major rail improvement projects were to be shelved and that no money was available for the rail items in the multi-modal studies, are the Government returning to the old failed predict-and-provide approach on our roads? Did the multi-modal studies not show that without matched road pricing and equal action to improve public transport, major road building simply generates more traffic, increases congestion and harms business and the economy?
Why, when we are about to hear more news of train delays and cancellations, has the Secretary of State not reconsidered the balance of Government funding between road building and public transport? What exactly did he mean when he said back in June:
"Britain isn't big enough for us to be pouring more and more concrete over its green and pleasant land"?
Has he not simply given up? Surely all we can look forward to now is worsening public transport and longer and wider traffic jams.
Mr. Darling: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for our proposals, but he says that we should be spending more on rail. Indeed, I saw him on television earlier saying exactly the same. Perhaps he should have a word with the Liberal Democrats' finance spokesman, who has given a warning about Liberal Democrat spending plans. He said that his colleagues could no longer assume that spending pledges could be funded unless they satisfied five tests. Where have we heard that before? The tests include the following: the pledges must be value for money, they must be funded within current budgets, they must be a priority for scarce resources, and—wait for it—the Liberal Democrats must decide whether the pledges could not be better delivered by the private sector. My word! I look forward to that being debated at next year's Liberal Democrat conference.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point in saying that investment must be balanced and must be measured. That is why we are spending far more on the railways. As I told the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) a moment ago, Richard Bowker's point last week was not that there was a lack of substantial sums. The point is that we cannot return to the situation that was arising with Railtrack, which simply thought of a number and doubled it, which had no control over its costs and which did not get a grip on its projects. Of course we must ensure that money is spent properly, whether it has come from the private or the public sector; but a substantial amount is being invested. The west coast main line is a case in point.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say, basically, that he was opposed to everything I announced today about road improvements. Is he really saying to his colleagues with constituencies in south-west England that the A303 should not be dualled, or to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that he should not argue for upgrading the A1, as he did at a recent Question Time? Does he not want the M4-M5 around Bristol to be improved? He knows in his heart of hearts that Liberal policy on transport can be a trifle muddled at times.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will be aware that his decision to put
162
a lot of money into light rail will be most warmly welcomed. The decision to improve roads, where bypasses are needed or where safety demands that the quality of a road be upgraded, will also be welcomed. However, he will, I think, accept that we cannot build our way out of congestion and that without some commitment towards inter-urban charging or some suitable change in Government policies, this road building programme will not provide the improvement that we expect. Will he please tackle the fact that, over the next 10 years, public transport will become more expensive and motoring cheaper?
Mr. Darling: I agree that transport policy has to be balanced. We have to invest in sensible road improvements—although nobody is suggesting that we should return to the widespread motorway programmes of the 1960s—but we also need to invest in public transport. I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledged that.
I have said on many occasions since I started doing this job that road pricing needs to be debated—it is a subject that people tend to shy away from. There are two problems. The first is whether it is a feasible proposition, as we are talking about nearly 25 million cars, and nowhere in the world has such a proposition been tackled. The second is whether it would be technically possible. I have enough experience as a Minister with large IT projects to be very wary of people who come along and say, "Don't worry, it'll be all right on the night." It does not quite work that way.
I agree that a transport policy should be measured and balanced, and that is the policy that I have been pursuing over the past six months and that I intend to pursue in future.
Mr. Robert Key: My former pupil, the Secretary of State, has scored good marks on this test. Although I regret that he has not seen fit to build a Salisbury bypass, he has taken the right decision on Stonehenge. The fact that there is to be a deep-bore tunnel will put at rest the minds of many archaeologists, for a start. I hope that we can now speed up the process. Is he confident, however, that the unseemly row between English Heritage and the National Trust over the tunnel can be resolved? I will be happy to oblige if I can help. Can I take it at face value when he says that the A303 east of Ilminster will be dualled—and that that will include bypasses not only for Winterbourne Stoke but for Chicklade?
Mr. Darling: I remember that the hon. Gentleman tried to teach me geography for a short time, but I cannot remember whether Stonehenge was included in the syllabus. I am grateful to him for his welcome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had a meeting with the National Trust this morning and explained that the Government, having discussed the matter with all the interested parties for some time, have come to the concluded view that a 2.1 km bored tunnel is the right way forward. I very much hope that the National Trust, and everybody else involved, can now accept that and get on with it. Any one who has been to Stonehenge will be amazed that, in this day and age, we still have a busy road

163
running right through a world heritage site. If the hon. Gentleman can encourage people to get on with it, so much the better.
I want to ensure that the rest of the A303 is dualled. We are now asking the Highways Agency to work up proposals. Clearly, plans will need to be developed and planning consents sought, but I want to get on with it as quickly as possible. As the House well knows, because of the fact that there are many people along the route who will want to have their say, getting planning permission can be a complex business.
Dr. Gavin Strang: The whole House should welcome this major public investment in road and rail. I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend made about the strategic road network carrying about two thirds of our freight, but will he reaffirm the Government's commitment to major investment in rail freight? I am sure that he agrees that rail freight should not be seen as the Cinderella of the railway business. Will he confirm that the Government will continue to invest and to take all measures that they can to get freight off the roads and on to the railways?
Mr. Darling: The Government are determined to ensure that more freight is carried on rail—indeed, the amount carried on the railways has gone up by about 28 per cent. in the past five years. I certainly agree with the sentiments that my right hon. Friend expresses on rail freight, not least because of the fact that I am speaking at the Rail Freight Group's Christmas lunch tomorrow.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to expanding capacity on both roads and railways; that is sorely needed and it is a good idea. When looking at the need for capacity between the Thames valley and London, will he consider favourably noise-reducing surfaces and noise barriers along any sections of widened motorway that are close to human habitation? On the railways, will he look at better braking and signalling technologies to enable more trains per hour to run at peaks? We desperately need more peak rail capacity, and there is no room for extra track.
Mr. Darling: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says on improving the quality of road surfaces. As existing roads come up for renewal, different surfaces are being applied to them to reduce noise, and new roads also have surfaces that cause a lot less noise. That makes a dramatic difference for drivers and, importantly, for people living alongside such roads. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, about a month ago the Strategic Rail Authority announced major changes to the franchising system. There will be one franchisee for most principal London stations, which will help to deal with some of the hold-ups that are currently encountered. Also, one objective of the review into railway capacity and making better use of railways is to ensure that we make more sensible use of train timetables. I hope that that, together with the gradual upgrading of signalling, will lead to a system that is far more reliable than the current one.
Mr. Keith Bradley: May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement concerning the metrolink extensions in Manchester? As a result, the light rail system will come to my constituency for the first time, saving thousands of car journeys, particularly to local hospitals and to Manchester airport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these additional routes will lead to other routes such as that through to Stockport via Didsbury being considered much sooner than would otherwise have been the case? Such routes will be welcomed by all the people of south Manchester.
Mr. Darling: The Manchester metro is an excellent example of what can be achieved by investing in public transport and providing a good alternative, so that people leave their cars at home and travel by metro. I am very glad that we were able to reach agreement with the various councils in Greater Manchester on additional funding to ensure that the three new routes are properly served. If the service works well and is delivered efficiently, I hope that we can move on. Where an existing metro is in place and substantial public investment has already been made, it makes sense to develop it further, if and when we can. However, the most important thing is to ensure that the new investment goes in, and that the new system works as effectively as possible.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely the Secretary of State cannot be satisfied that the main strategic road from eastern England to his own city of Edinburgh still has such a long and dangerous stretch of single carriageway. If he rests his case for that on the multi-modal study, why is he so lukewarm about the rail improvements contained in it, and why is Railtrack still blocking the reopening of stations such as Belford, which could take traffic off the road?
Mr. Darling: I am rather surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman on his feet, given the injunction imposed on him by the Liberal Democrats' finance spokesman, who said that they must stick to current budgets. The multi-modal study considered whether the A1 should be dualled to the Scottish border. It came to the view that it should not, but it did agree that a number of improvements were necessary. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my home city of Edinburgh, and one of the things that may have influenced the study is that the Scottish Executive do not intend to dual the A1 north of the border. If we dualled it south of the border, the odd situation would arise of the road reverting to single carriageway the minute the line was crossed.
In fact, for many people living in Scotland's central belt, the principal route to the south is now down the M74 and the M6, rather than down the A1. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in calling for that road to be improved. It will be improved, and the Highways Agency will keep the whole matter under review in years to come, but I do not want to hold out false hopes, because that would not be fair to the right hon. Gentleman or his constituents. However, he should acknowledge that substantial improvements are on the way for the section to which I referred, and for the junctions, which I hope will be made safer.
Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing

165
what I consider to be a balanced set of proposals, and in particular on agreeing to fund the Merseyside tram project, or light rail system, as he called it. The project will link Kirkby in my constituency with Liverpool city centre and, just as importantly, will go through some of the most deprived communities on Merseyside. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Merseytravel on bringing the project to the point where it is now a reality?
Mr. Darling: I agree on my hon. Friend's final point. Merseytravel has put a lot of work and effort into the project, and I am glad that we were able to agree the funding. The key thing is to get the link constructed and operating. I hope that the fact that we are giving the go-ahead for Merseytram will encourage others to invest in the city and secure the improvements that we want, not least by ensuring that more people are in work and helping to increase the city's prosperity.
Mr. George Osborne: The widening of the M6 through my constituency will be received as a mixed blessing, but there will be bitter disappointment that we still do not have a decision on the A556M. When will a decision be made about either improving junction 20 or building the new motorway? Enormous planning blight has been caused in my constituency for the people whom I represent.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has craftily refrained from telling us which side he is on in that great debate. I have made it clear that I am concerned about the environmental impact that building a new road would have—and the road would be a new one, as it would not follow the line of the existing road. As I have said today and on other occasions—indeed, I said it as soon as I took up this job—we must consider long and hard whether new roads can be justified. I want to make a decision as quickly as possible, as I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said about blight. Clearly, the Highways Agency has to look at the feasibility of upgrading junction 20 to see whether there might be an alternative. I have asked the agency to look at the matter objectively and come up with an alternative. I hope that that is what happens.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I welcome the report, although I am a little disappointed that the Blyth and Tyne rail link, which runs through my constituency in south-east Northumberland and into Newcastle, has not been mentioned so far. Will my right hon. Friend keep an eye on that link in the future?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will know that the link is one of the matters covered in the report. As I made clear in my letter of response, the SRA will want to consider the matter, but I do not want to tell my hon. Friend, "Not to worry, that link is just down the road." We must be realistic, and we are spending a lot of money on transport. My hon. Friend will know that the costs of running the railway have gone up dramatically—not least because we now have a far clearer idea of the state of the network. I am afraid that we never had that under Railtrack or even under British Rail, and it has complicated matters.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The section of the A358 between Ilminster and Taunton is a
166
legitimate candidate for dualling, but that should not happen as an alternative to dualling the A303 from Honiton to Ilminster. When the Government came to office, that piece of road had been subject to a full public inquiry. The very important environmental issues had been considered, and the contract was due to go out to tender. The economic arguments for another arterial route in and out of Devon are overwhelming. The CBI and the Devon and Cornwall Business Council support the project but, more importantly, so does every parish council along the route. If the Secretary of State is going to listen to local people, will he listen to parish councils and their elected representatives?
Mr. Darling: I drove along that route recently to see what the position was. As the hon. Lady may know, I spoke to representatives of industry in the south-west, so I know people's feelings on the matter. However, as I said in my statement earlier, the location has been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. Successive Governments have taken a view on the environmental benefits of such designations, and we must think long and hard before agreeing to build a new road through the area. That is why it is right to determine whether the alternative through to Taunton would be better. As I told the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), Governments have a duty to have regard to the environmental consequences of what they do. They must think long and hard before committing to projects that could have an adverse effect on the environment.
Ms Candy Atherton: I warmly welcome the statement, and the news on the A303 will be widely welcomed in the west country. It is an example of the Government delivering for Cornwall. Our periphery means that it is critical that we have first-class road and rail links. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend needs to think long and hard about the Blackdown hills, but can I urge him to think more quickly, because we need an urgent decision?
Mr. Darling: Just a few moments ago I said that my preference as regards the Blackdown hills is to look at an alternative. However, my hon. Friend is right that the Government are doing a lot in Cornwall. A number of bypasses and road improvements are being worked on in Cornwall. It is important to ensure that road and rail links in all parts of the country are brought up to standard, and that those from the south-west to the rest of the country are improved. After all, it is not just a matter of quality of life and convenience—the economic prosperity of the south-west depends on its transport links.
Mr. Simon Thomas: In welcoming the improvements in road links to south Wales, I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that 90 per cent. of journeys in Wales are taken by car in contrast to some 84 per cent. in England, so investment in our rail infrastructure is vital for our economy and our environment. In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to rule out the suggested 10 or even 20 per cent. decrease in funding for the Wales and borders franchise that is being discussed?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome and I am sure that the improvements on the

167
M4 and M5 around Bristol will also help traffic travelling to south Wales—at least, it should do, from my experience. On rail expenditure, as I said earlier, the Government are determined to ensure that we continue to invest in the railways the money that has been allocated. However, some people in the industry—operators as well as contractors—are approaching this as if they can simply ask the Government to write a blank cheque. No responsible Government could agree to that, so although of course we want to make sure that we achieve good quality and better standards than we have at present, we cannot accept a situation in which operators say how much money they want and we hand it over. That is no way to run a railway.
Geraldine Smith: Although my right hon. Friend's statement is most welcome, particularly the improvements to the M6, does he agree that it is important to improve motorway link roads such as the proposed Heysham Port/M6 link road, which will bring massive benefits to my constituency when it is finally completed? Can he give me an assurance that when this scheme is submitted to the Government for funding, he will give it his careful consideration?
Mr. Darling: I always consider schemes, but my hon. Friend knows that I cannot go as far as to say that I will approve them. She is right that although it is of course important to improve our strategic arterial routes, the link roads to various parts of the country are equally important. All proposals will be considered carefully, especially those that ensure the continued economic development of certain areas or that benefit areas that are being opened up for additional development.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the south coast multi-modal study has concluded quite clearly that major improvements are necessary to the A27 between Lewes and Polegate and that they should be a priority? So why is he going to wait until the spring to make a decision?
Mr. Darling: Well, simply because we get these reports from the consultants; they then go to the regional assemblies; and various other people have to have their say before they come to me for consideration. I could have waited and looked at them all together, as some people urged me to do, but I thought it best to deal with them in sensible groups. If I jump the process, I fear that somebody will head off to my learned friends in court—as I found out only too recently—and I do not want to repeat that experience too often.
Mr. George Stevenson: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me a guarded welcome for the M6 proposals? Major projects such as the widening of the M6 have an enormous impact on local sub-regions such as north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share my concern that the multi-modal study did not consider the potential of such rail links as the Crewe-Derby line, which runs through the whole of the north Staffordshire sub-region and into south Cheshire? Will he undertake
168
to review that serious omission so that the potential for passengers and freight on that enormously important sub-regional line can be considered?
Mr. Darling: The SRA will no doubt want to look at a number of rail projects throughout the country. As I pointed out earlier, the cost of running the railways in this country is greater than was anticipated—mainly due to the state of the track, although other factors are also involved.
In relation to the M6, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's "guarded" welcome, but regardless of our ability to get more people to travel by train, that road was built between 30 and 40 years ago, when not too much attention was paid to the environmental consequences, and it is in need of improvement, so the improvements that I announced today would have been necessary in any case.
The SRA will of course look at particular railway lines but I do not want to tell any right hon. or hon. Member that funding is guaranteed. We shall look into such matters, but we have to operate under constraints.
Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the Secretary of State's attempt to change the M6 from a car park—as it sometimes is—into a working road. However, one aspect of that endeavour was missing from the right hon. Gentleman's statement: there was no sense of the time scale. When is work timetabled to begin on the improvements and will it be funded by a public-private partnership? Does the Secretary of State have any thoughts about tolling the road when it is completed? Finally, when he considers links between Lancashire and Yorkshire, will he be studying plans for an extension of the M65 through the Aire valley to open up another trans-Pennine crossing?
Mr. Darling: In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's question on the M65, the answer is not at the moment. However, it might be helpful if I write to him to let him know where we stand on that matter.
The right hon. Gentleman should not assume from anything that I said today that the road will be tolled. That is not one of our proposals. We need to examine whether it should be funded conventionally or through a public finance scheme. It might be helpful for the right hon. Gentleman and the House to know that the Highways Agency will work up specific proposals and we shall then have to seek planning permission as almost all of them will involve additional land take. The length of that process is not entirely in our hands but we can speed it up by ensuring that the design, environmental considerations, engagement of contractors and so on are telescoped. We are starting to do that, so the process will be quicker than might otherwise have been the case.
As I said in my statement, we cannot begin such projects tomorrow morning; it will be several years before the work is started and completed. I want to get on with things as quickly as possible. The M6 needs that additional capacity as soon as possible. However, I have not the slightest doubt that in future many Members sitting in the Chamber today will raise the legitimate concerns of their constituents about the environmental impacts of the road—we have to marry up the two objectives.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Secretary of State is aware, a senior member of his Department,

169
Mr. Leslie Packer, last night attended a formidably well-researched presentation by the Motor Industry Research Association and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd at the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on hydrogen fuel cells and their future use. As the British Government are good at handling situations when only one Department is involved, but perhaps less good when several are involved, such as—in this case—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry, will my right hon. Friend, as the lead Minister, pay some attention to the serious proposals, made by serious people, on the non-fanciful development of hydrogen fuel?
Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group that is considering that work. I strongly believe that the Government should encourage the development of hydrogen fuels, and we shall do everything that we can, either directly or indirectly through the efforts currently being undertaken by the industry. Unfortunately, I suspect that it will take time to develop a proposition that is commercially exploitable, but I am sure that most Members will agree that we should be looking into such alternative forms of propulsion. There are huge environmental gains to come and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has my assurance that we will do everything that we can to expedite that work.
Mr. David Heath: I think I can give a wholehearted welcome to something that the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, but will he confirm whether what he said about the A303 means that the on-line safety improvements on the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch in my constituency will now take place? Those plans have been in place since 1996; they have gone through a public inquiry and have been agreed. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, may I thank him on behalf of all those in the local communities who have been making representations not because they want to increase capacity, but because they want to save lives?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his wholehearted welcome. I think we have now had from the Liberals one maybe, one against and one in favour: that sums up the Liberal party quite nicely.
In relation to the A303, we have considered the recommendations and taken a decision in principle to go ahead with the dualling, so we will now ask the Highways Agency to work up proposals. Discussions will have to take place with various people locally, who will have strong views on precisely what is planned, but I am quite happy to set out the procedure in relation to the hon. Gentleman's specific points if he would like me to do so, as that would probably help him to talk to his constituents about them.
Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for this statement. I welcome news of the £12.7 million investment to build the A43 Corby link road, which will bring great relief to the village of Geddington in my constituency. In view of the volume of traffic, particularly heavy vehicles, and the number of
170
fatalities and serious injuries, will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to expedite that project so that it can begin as quickly as possible?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Yes, the A43 Corby link road has been approved and, yes, I will do everything that I can to bring forward those things as fast as I can. I should just repeat, however, that approving such schemes is the easy stage in some ways; the most difficult thing is to reach agreement on the precise configuration and layout, so I hope that all those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of such things this afternoon will apply their minds to addressing the undoubted difficulties that sometimes arise when people say that they are in favour of a road in principle but do not happen to want it just where we had in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend can help us with that as well.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: When this Government came to office and declared war on the motorist in 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister cancelled a whole series of important road schemes, including the Bisley bypass in my constituency. Now that the present Secretary of State has belatedly seen sense, will he agree that I can bring to see him or one of this ministerial colleagues a delegation of my constituents to raise the issue of the Bisely bypass and a matter that I have raised at two previous meetings with his junior Ministers: the resurfacing and noise barriers that are needed on the M3, which bisects my constituency? At the moment, only one carriageway has been resurfaced. That does not help to reduce the noise pollution from which my constituents suffer, and the Highways Agency tells us that the other carriageway cannot be resurfaced for several years. That is nonsense. Logically, all the work should have been done together.
Mr. Darling: In relation to whether the hon. Gentleman can come to see one of my colleagues, there is never any difficulty with right hon. or hon. Members seeking to see Ministers in my Department. As we are here to represent our constituents, we ought to be able to do that in one-to-one meetings, as that suits most hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware of the representations to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first, rather ungracious, comment, I simply make the point, since he raises the issue, that what we need in this country is Governments who are able and determined to maintain spending year on year, decade on decade. It would be very useful if the hon. Gentleman would back that, although it would put him at odds with the rest of his party.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today, but does he realise that he will create a problem on the M6? I welcome the four-lane motorway up to the south of Manchester, but there will be a gap north of Warrington to the south of Preston, where it will have three lanes and become a bottleneck. There is a short span of four-lane motorway between Preston and Blackpool. I wonder whether my

171
right hon. Friend will consider finding the funds to ensure that we have a four-lane motorway all the way through Lancashire.
Mr. Darling: I have already spent quite a lot of money today, and I will be careful about offering to spend more. I know the stretch of road to which my hon. Friend refers, and the Highways Agency will keep the matter under review.
Mr. John Randall: Do the Government have a policy on reducing road traffic?
Mr. Darling: Let me make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, if the economy continues to grow, and if, therefore, more people have more money and more reasons to travel, and if we get more people into work who must therefore travel to work, it follows, does it not, that people will move around more. Secondly, one of the reasons why more people are moving around today than were doing so 10 years ago is that, 10 years ago, we were in the teeth of a recession. Surely it cannot be any Government's policy to try to lock people up in their own homes. Our priority is not to stop people moving around but to make sure that we tackle congestion, improve the reliability of journeys and improve road safety. That is the Government's policy, and it will continue to be our policy.
Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the price of owning and running a car has gone down in the last year? If we are to tackle congestion on our roads, especially in relation to inter-urban transport, we must address that issue. I accept my right hon. Friend's statement that the introduction of interurban congestion charging is a very difficult task, but we need to find other methods to encourage people to leave their cars at home. When he comes to consider the M25 review, it should not just deal with congestion and road size but with transferring people from their cars to public transport. It must also consider major park-and-ride schemes for the London area.
Mr. Darling: I agree with some of what my hon. Friend said, as where it is possible to get people out of their cars and into public transport, our transport policy ought to back that. That is why we have announced funding today for the metro light-rail schemes. In relation to London, for example, my hon. Friend will know that I am anxious to make sure that there are improvements to the Thameslink, and that a workable, affordable and deliverable Crossrail project is worked up. He will also know about extensions not just to the tube but to the docklands light railway. At the risk of raising a sore point, we have, of course, announced large sums of money going into the London underground. My hon. Friend is right that money must go into public transport because people must be given a sensible alternative. Without that, we do not have a coherent public transport strategy. I agree with that, and I also agree that some of these issues are difficult and take time to see through.
Mr. David Laws: Can the Secretary of State tell us how long it will take to make a judgement about
172
the A358 route from the A303 through to the M5 at Taunton? When does he expect to make a decision on that important issue, on which I think he is heading in the right direction? Can he also say whether he remains committed to dualling the rail line between Exeter and Salisbury?
Mr. Darling: In relation to the link through to Taunton, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise time. What is important is that we look at all the implications before coming forward with a final worked-up proposal. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman by giving him an artificial time plucked out of the air.
The rail improvements are matters for the SRA to consider, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that at the moment. What I can say is that it is particularly important to make sure that the SRA and First Great Western concentrate on achieving a reliable service between the south-west and London.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: While I realise that today's announcement is restricted to England and Wales, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had any advances made to him from the Scottish Executive in relation to similar additional funding being made available for roads north of the border.
Mr. Darling: Well, no, because the Scottish Executive must fund its roads programme from the sum devolved to it. Many hon. Members would be surprised if the national Government offered to hand over more money. Road policy within Scotland is devolved. We do, of course, have a clear interest in working with the Scottish Executive in relation to rail policy and aviation policy, much of which are national responsibilities.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Some years ago, the Government promised to resurface concrete roads. The A50 is one of the concrete roads that deserves and needs to be resurfaced. There has been no mention of that in what the Secretary of State has said today. A promise was made, so when can the people of Doveridge expect the A50 to be resurfaced?
Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked a similar question and I said it was the Government's policy to replace such surfaces. That is part of a rolling programme that will take some years to carry out, because some surfaces are relatively new and the policy is relatively recent. I certainly undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about the stretch of motorway that he mentioned. However, I remind him and all Conservative Members that, if the work is to get done, it will require sustained public spending. It is an awful pity that the Conservative party's policy is not to match us on that spending. If we return to stop-go policies, all the things about which hon. Members have complained today will continue.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliament (Representation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Yvette Cooper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has two clear purposes. The first is to enable us to play our part in supporting the enlargement of the European Union and the participation in European parliamentary democracy by the new accession states. Secondly, it will enfranchise Gibraltar in the European parliamentary elections. Together those purposes will form a major step towards fulfilling UK responsibilities arising from the widening of the European Union democracy to include new member states, and towards ensuring fair representation for those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament.
  I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is here to reply to this debate for the Opposition. We had understood that his colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), might lead on this issue, and I confess that that had surprised me. Given the fascination of the hon. Member for Stone for all things European, I would have been a little startled if anyone had managed to prise him away from a Bill that had Europe in the title. Nevertheless, for all the hon. Gentleman's history on matters European, I hope that this is one Bill on which he and his party can agree, as I believe that its provisions should command all-party support.
  Both main aspects of the Bill are about allowing those who are not currently represented in the European Parliament to vote in European elections and to be represented in the European Parliament. Part 1 establishes a mechanism by which the number of UK Members of the European Parliament can be altered to allow space at the European Parliament for new accession states.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Lord Chancellor's press release of 9 December refers to the notion that Gibraltar should become part of the Welsh region for the purposes of representation in the European Parliament. There is also talk of Wales having four seats instead of five. Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind that?
  Yvette Cooper: We have not specified that Gibraltar should be part of the Welsh region. We have made it clear that the Electoral Commission must come forward with a recommendation as to which region Gibraltar should be part of. That could be one of the English regions or the Welsh region.
  Geraldine Smith: Although it is most welcome that Gibraltar will have representation in Europe, is the time not now right for Gibraltar also to have representation in this Parliament at Westminster? Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
  Yvette Cooper: The position of Gibraltar is complex and has evolved over many years. Very few areas of
  174
  Westminster legislation affect Gibraltar because much of its legislation is made in the Gibraltar Assembly. That process is important and I know that it receives the support of the people in Gibraltar. Therefore, I do not propose a change at this time. However, I shall come to the issues regarding Gibraltar's franchise under the European elections. That issue has also been discussed in the European Court.
  Part 2 sets out a provision to enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in European parliamentary elections and to have their interests directly represented in the European Parliament for the first time. We intend to bring both changes into effect by the time of the 2004 European parliamentary elections. Both parts of the Bill reflect the United Kingdom's international obligations under the treaty of Nice and the European convention on human rights.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister lays great stress on the need to ensure that the electoral system is working as best it can for all citizens. Does she accept that the system that the Government use for the elections—the so-called closed list system—is supported only by the control freakery tendency in the Labour party? Why is she not taking the opportunity offered by the Bill to reconsider the system so that we can have open lists that give each elector a real influence over the outcome of the election?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that Parliament has debated open and closed lists extensively. We have no proposals to change the system. A series of other countries in Europe use the closed list system, which has the advantage of being clear, simple to operate and easy to understand. It also delivers a proportionate result.
  Mr. William Cash: Did the Minister note the suggestion in the European Scrutiny Committee's report in June that it would be better to return to the first-past-the-post system for European elections rather than relying on proportional representation?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of arguing about such things. He knows that the provision for proportional representation is supported across Europe and, as I said, has been extensively debated in the House and the other place. We have no proposals to use the Bill to change the voting system for European elections.
  Part 1 changes the total number of UK MEPs. The House knows that the European Union is preparing for the accession of new member states. The treaty of Nice was signed on 26 February last year by all EU member states and provides for the EU to be enlarged, eventually to include 12 new nations, so bringing the membership to a total of 27. EU enlargement will bring immense benefits in terms of regional stability, economic security, the economy and the environment.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am surprised that the Minister has so far glossed over the allocation of the seats. She must be aware that the number of MEPs allocated provisionally to each country is a matter of controversy and dispute. Not all member states have accepted it. So why, according to the explanatory notes,

  175
  does clause 4 accept that the European Commission will inform the UK of its representation and that the Lord Chancellor will then act on that information? Indeed, he can anticipate the numbers required. That appears to remove from the House the ability to debate the number of MEPs that we should have. I am aware that we will be invited to agree to an order, but why is the House not given an opportunity to debate and agree the number allocated to the United Kingdom when the procedure starts to roll under the Electoral Commission?
  Yvette Cooper: I have been on my feet for about six minutes, in which time I have taken about four interventions. I intend to deal with the number of seats in just a few paragraphs, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient, and I hope to address his concern then. To suggest that I have glossed over the allocation is a little premature.
  The benefits of enlargement will flow across Europe. We should strongly welcome the gains that that will bring for the accession states, which have worked hard to meet the criteria for joining the EU. Enlargement is in the direct interest of the UK as well. The widening market will bring long-term economic gains for British companies and British investors, and the environmental benefits that will result from accession states tackling pollution will be experienced here too. The benefits of regional stability have direct consequences for UK citizens as well as people across Europe.
  Drawing the accession states into the EU means ensuring that they have proper involvement in European institutions and decision making. In particular, for the purposes of the Bill, it means ensuring that they have fair representation in the European Parliament. During preparations for EU enlargement, it was agreed by the treaty of Nice that an enlarged European Parliament with a maximum 732 MEPs was necessary. Existing member states are obliged to make reductions in the number of MEPs to make space for accession states and ensure that they have fair representation, while keeping the European Parliament at a manageable size.
  The Bill sets up a framework for reducing the number of MEPs representing the UK to a final maximum of 72—a reduction of 15 seats from the current 87. The current number of British MEPs is specified in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which is amended by the Bill. Along with France and Italy, the UK will continue to have the second-largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament.
  Mike Gapes: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the change in the number of MEPs to 732 is a great opportunity for us to move away from Strasbourg once and for all? We could have one location that was not expensive, inefficient and a waste of time and resources.
  Yvette Cooper: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are strong views in other European countries about that. It has been debated extensively across Europe, and I do not anticipate progress on the matter in the near future.
  The number of seats that we have in the European Parliament will not be reduced all at once. It was agreed by the treaty of Nice that the reduction in existing
  176
  member states' representation will take place as new states accede. It is intended to implement some reductions to account for the accession of the first group of accession states—probably 10 of the 12 candidates—in time for the 2004 election. Final decisions about which countries will accede and the number of seats to which each existing member state will be entitled with the first tranche of accessions will be made later this week at the European Council in Copenhagen.
  Mr. John Redwood: I guess the Minister's refusal to answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about our influence over the matter is a reflection of the fact that the Government have no influence. Does she agree with the Portuguese Government that as long as we stay outside the euro, we cannot possibly hope to provide a lead on or influence over such issues?
  Yvette Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman advocating early membership of the euro? That would certainly be a startling change. I sense a shifting position—any minute now, the right hon. Gentleman will be telling us that the five economic tests have been met. As I have explained, the issues are decided by negotiation across Europe. Opposition Members must accept that that is the case—discussion and negotiation are essential. We must ensure that the European Parliament is an effective size and does not grow ever larger with the accession of each new country. It is important that it is of manageable size and that there is fair representation for all members of the European Union. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that our Parliament should be able to pick numbers out of a hat and toss them at the European Parliament and that every other country should do the same. However, it is important that the issues are debated.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Instead of caricaturing our position, I wish that the Minister would answer my question. These matters are occasionally the subject of controversy and dispute, as she knows, under the Nice allocation. Why, therefore, does clause 4, according to explanatory notes, allow the commission to inform the United Kingdom what its allocation will be? Apparently, we have to accept that allocation without a debate or decision in our Parliament. I urge the Minister to amend the clause to give member states additional influence over that important matter of democracy. That is a rather modest request. I hope that she accedes to it in the light of her Government's professed desire to give member states' Parliaments additional authority.
  Yvette Cooper: As I have made clear, the proposal for a reduction to a final maximum of 72 seats was part of the negotiations of the treaty of Nice. There will be further discussions at the Copenhagen European Council later this week to discuss which states will accede to the European Union this week. It is important for us to recognise that the pace of change towards that maximum of 72 seats will be determined by the pace of accession of other countries. That needs to happen and it will depend on the discussions that take place across Europe, not just this week, but in future.
  There is an important issue about how those reductions are to be incorporated into the European parliamentary election system. We believe that the

  177
  fairest way to decide where the reductions should occur is to ask the independent Electoral Commission to examine the issue and make recommendations. The commission will report to the Lord Chancellor the results of its review and present recommendations about the new distribution of MEPs across the UK. Clause 2 establishes a mechanism for such reviews. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to require the Electoral Commission to undertake them within a specified period, and according to the number of MEPs necessary at that time.
  Mr. Robert Syms: There is a great deal in the Bill about the Electoral Commission and Government Ministers, but there is nothing which states that the Electoral Commission must refer the matter to the boundary committee for proper scrutiny and due process. Will that be the case? There may be disputes among regions about the number of seats—on grounds of sparsity, for example. Does the hon. Lady expect a proper process to be undertaken?
  Yvette Cooper: Certainly, we would expect the Electoral Commission to conduct a proper review. We are not proposing to alter the boundaries of the electoral regions to account for the change as part of the process or as part of the Bill. It is right that the independent Electoral Commission should make recommendations on the matter. We have specified factors that the Electoral Commission needs to take into account—for example, in order to ensure proportionality across the 12 electoral regions, we have set out in the Bill the requirement that each electoral region should have a minimum of three seats, irrespective of voter numbers, to provide reasonable scope for proper representation for each region. Clause 2 ensures that while carrying out the review, the commission takes that into account, and that thereafter the proportion of MEPs to electors should be as equal as is practically possible across the regions. Within those parameters, the Electoral Commission can make any recommendations that it considers appropriate.
  Clause 4 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make a draft order to implement, in due course, the reduction in the total number of MEPs and any recommendation made by the Electoral Commission. The Lord Chancellor will not be able to make an order to change the distribution of MEPs other than one that implements the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, or one that has the consent of the Electoral Commission. The draft order will be placed before both Houses of Parliament for endorsement by affirmative resolution before it can be made and come into effect.
  In addition to those specific reviews, which are necessary as a result of the enlargement of the EU, clause 6 and schedule 1 provide for the commission to undertake periodic reviews of the distribution of MEPs.
  Tony Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the process is basically a simple numerical exercise? We used to have 87 seats, along with France and Italy, and the Germans had 87 until East Germany came in. The number of our seats is going
  178
  down to 72, and France and Italy will have 72. The number of MEPs for each region will be determined by the size of the electorate.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The number will be determined also by the recommendation of the independent Electoral Commission, to ensure that the distribution across the country is as fair as possible.
  Mr. Cash: Can the Minister reconcile her statement with the fact that, under the proposals, the percentage of votes that the United Kingdom will have drops from 13.9 per cent. to 10.1 per cent.?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the premise of all the changes is that new countries will be joining the EU. That is the starting point for the Bill. It is important that those countries' voices are heard and that they are represented in the European Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that the Conservative party was passionately in favour of enlargement, but perhaps he should have pointed that out to the hon. Gentleman before this debate.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Yvette Cooper: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more go at this subject.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful. I would be very interested if the Minister could find a single reference in any of my speeches or writings about this subject suggesting that I am not in favour of enlargement. The situation is quite the opposite.
  Yvette Cooper: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of enlargement, but he must also will the means and recognise its consequences. Newly acceding member states will need a voice in the European Parliament.
  Let me turn to the second part of the Bill, which deals with enfranchising Gibraltar for European parliamentary elections by 2004. In 1999, in the judgment on the case of Matthews v. the UK, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the people of Gibraltar should be able to participate in elections to the European Parliament and that the UK should take the necessary steps to put that ruling into effect. The UK accepted the judgment of the Court, and the Bill is the means of fulfilling that obligation.
  The Bill will enable the people of Gibraltar to have their interests directly represented in the European Parliament for the first time. We want to achieve that by including Gibraltar as part of one of the existing electoral regions. Gibraltar's electorate consists of about 20,000 voters, while the average electoral region in the European parliamentary elections has 3.7 million, so it would clearly be disproportionate for Gibraltar to form a region on its own. Clause 8, therefore, provides for Gibraltar to be combined either with one of the nine English electoral regions or with Wales, which forms its own region, in what we would call the combined region. We believe that that provides a wide choice of regions with different defining features.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend's Department take any view about which region would be

  179
  more suitable to join Gibraltar and is it aware whether any other overseas territories have made noises or applications with regard to joining the EU?
  Yvette Cooper: I know that my hon. Friend has expressed interest in that issue for a considerable time. The Lord Chancellor's Department has not taken a view about the region with which Gibraltar would best be combined. Many hon. Members will have their own views, but we believe that it is appropriate for a recommendation to be made by the Electoral Commission to ensure fairness throughout the country. The judgment to which I referred does not apply in the same way to areas such as the Channel Islands, which have a very different relationship with the EU.
  Tony Cunningham: At the moment, the Isle of Man has to accept various EU directives as it is trading in the single market, but it has no EU representation whatever. Would it be possible for the Isle of Man Government to have representation if they so wished?
  Yvette Cooper: If the Isle of Man Government wanted us to discuss that possibility with them, we would certainly be happy to do so.
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I need to make a little progress; I shall give way in a few minutes.
  Clause 9 gives the independent Electoral Commission the task of considering with which region Gibraltar should be combined. The commission will report its conclusions with a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor by 1 September next year, in time to enable everyone to prepare for the elections the following summer. After consulting the Electoral Commission, a draft order establishing the combined region will be laid before both Houses.
  We welcome the fact that the Electoral Commission wants to consult widely before reaching its conclusions in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, although the Bill requires formal consultation with only the Governor and Chief Minister before a recommendation is made.
  Simon Hughes: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I shall as I have not taken an intervention from a Liberal Democrat Member so far.
  Simon Hughes: The Bill provides for consulting the Governor and the Chief Minister. No one can argue with that. Does the Minister's statement about the Electoral Commission's consultations imply that the people of Gibraltar, the political parties and other interest groups will have a chance to express their views? Perfectly proper debates are taking place and, given the small size of the electorate in Gibraltar compared with
  180
  those of the regions, it is surely better to do what the people of Gibraltar would wish as well as what would suit our electoral planning.
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes important points. The Electoral Commission is keen to consult widely and not restrict itself to the Governor and the Chief Minister. I shall ensure that the Electoral Commission is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Rosindell: Everyone will be pleased to hear that proper consultation will take place with the people and the elected Government of Gibraltar. Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, not only of England and Wales? Why, therefore, are only England and Wales being considered?
  Yvette Cooper: That is a good question. Consideration is confined to England and Wales for a purely practical reason. To ensure that the secondary legislation is effected in time, and bearing in mind devolution to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it was simpler to limit consideration to England and Wales. That ensures that everything will be in place by 2004.
  Mr. Rosindell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman is keen to have more detail, I am happy to supply it. Clearly, the matter can be discussed further in Committee. I am also happy to provide more information in summing up, but I must make progress now.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way to an Ulster Unionist this time.
  Northern Ireland has a special relationship with the people of Gibraltar in that many Gibraltarians were evacuated to Northern Ireland during the second world war, and some electors on the Gibraltar electoral role were born in Northern Ireland. Would the Parliamentary Secretary therefore consider amending clauses 8 and 9 to enable the Electoral Commission to include Northern Ireland in the regions with which the Gibraltarian electorate could vote?
  Yvette Cooper: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's points. Nevertheless, there are different legislative arrangements in Northern Ireland and Scotland for elections and judicial matters. They mean that the inclusion of Northern Ireland and Scotland would be considerably more complicated and that it would be difficult to prepare the secondary legislation in time for the 2004 elections. If the outcome of selecting an electoral region could be Scotland or Northern Ireland, it would not be possible to begin preparing the secondary legislation until the decision had been made. That would mean waiting for the Electoral Commission to report, and waiting until next September to begin implementing the necessary secondary legislation for Gibraltar to be covered for the 2004 elections.

  181
  That would make life considerably more difficult for those who organise the election in Gibraltar because a series of practical changes needs to happen.
  The underlying principle for combining Gibraltar with a UK electoral region for European parliamentary elections is that Gibraltar should be treated as if it were as much a part of the region as any other area in it. That means that UK electoral law as it applies to the European Parliament elections must apply as equally as possible throughout the combined region. That is no simple feat because UK electoral law does not currently apply to Gibraltar.
  The Bill therefore makes provision for the application of a number of pieces of legislation—the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002; the Representation of the People Acts; and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—and of many of the statutory instruments made under those Acts, modified as necessary. Modification is necessary to ensure that the law makes practical sense in Gibraltar. Specific circumstances such as location and time difference have to be catered for, and we also need to ensure that there is equality and consistency between the arrangements for conducting European Parliament elections in Gibraltar and in the rest of the combined region. We believe that the most appropriate approach is for this law to be modified for the purposes of Gibraltar by orders and regulations, and the Bill includes enabling powers to provide for that.
  The Bill therefore addresses the key issues in much in the same way as the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 does, leaving the complex detail for regulations. Thus, clause 13 sets out the requirement for Gibraltar to maintain a register of electors for the European Parliament elections, and clauses 14 and 15 cover the franchise and the entitlement to be registered. On the franchise for voters in European parliamentary elections in Gibraltar, we want, as far as possible, to enfranchise those resident in Gibraltar who would be entitled to vote in UK European parliamentary elections if they lived in the UK. Correspondingly, entitlement to be registered on the Gibraltar register is intended to be very similar to that for the UK register, with a slight exception to reflect certain specific conditions, such as the Gibraltar Immigration Control Ordinance.
  This legislation is consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligation, and the changes that the Bill is designed to enact are important. They will allow new member states their voice in the European Parliament, and enable the people of Gibraltar to vote for the first time in a European parliamentary election. We believe that the approach set out in the Bill is both appropriate and sound, and that it will support enfranchisement and greater participation in democratic institutions across Europe. I urge all hon. Members to support it.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. William Cash: Given the intensely controversial nature of the Gibraltar issue, I have to admit to being somewhat disappointed by the way in which the Minister has introduced the Bill, because, in all fairness, she did not really give us an explanation of what lies behind it. For the most part, she gave a mere recital of its provisions, rather than an explanation of the principles that led to its Second Reading today.
  182
  The Bill is like a curate's egg: it is good in parts. However, it must be set against a background of two main issues. The first is the reduction of the number of MEPs for the United Kingdom, the principle and method of which raise some disturbing questions. The second issue is that of Gibraltar. However welcome are the proposals to join Gibraltar with one of our existing electoral regions, they also illustrate the lack of proper consultation—at the level of insult—of the Government and people of Gibraltar.
  On the reduction in the number of MEPs for the United Kingdom, the Minister has not yet mentioned the fact that the Bill does not specifically refer to reductions—I refer hon. Members to its long title, and to the relevant clauses—although this is implicit in the legislation implementing the treaty of Nice. The Bill refers merely to the enabling of alterations to the number of Members of the European Parliament. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:
  "The European Commission"—
  that famously democratic body—
  "will inform the UK what their representation will be (the total number of UK MEPs) for the European Parliamentary elections in 2004, and subsequently."
  Of course, the words "that famously democratic body" are my own. I merely interpolated them to explain the matter as clearly as I could.
  The Conservative party voted against the Nice treaty, and my comments on this Bill are without prejudice to that position. I called for a White Paper during the proceedings on the Bill to implement the Nice treaty, which was supported, on a three-line Whip, by my party. I am glad to say that it was even supported by the Liberal Democrats, on a vote. One of the most alarming features of the Government's position on the Nice treaty—which is now coming to fruition in this Bill—is the wholly mischievous and unwarranted claim, made by a succession of previous Ministers, that, under the treaty, Britain's influence has increased in the European Parliament, not to mention in the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. Redwood: Did my hon. Friend notice that when I asked the Minister a perfectly good question, which she was quite unable to answer, she made an entirely false allegation about me changing my view on a crucial subject, which was not implied by what I said? Clearly, she had no chance whatever of answering the point on the Government's complete lack of influence with their European partners on any of those matters.
  Mr. Cash: I am bound to concur with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, on the realities of influence, one has only to look, for example, at what has been going on in the defence field over the past few days to realise just how little influence the United Kingdom is able to exercise in relation to European matters. That will continue.
  As I pointed out in an intervention, under the Nice treaty, Britain's share of Members of the European Parliament is to crash down from 87 out of 626 from 15 member states, which is equivalent to 13.9 per cent. of the votes, to 74 out of 732. That is a paltry 10.1 per cent., taking into account all the applicants and, barring accidents and democratic decisions if those are made in referendums, the anticipated new total of 27 member states.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman told us that he is in favour of expansion, but is he suggesting that he favours expansion with a bigger and more costly Parliament with more and more Members?
  Mr. Cash: No, I am not. I am saying, very simply, that there is an extremely strong case for maintaining our number of seats and that the European enlargement process, irrespective of whether it takes place, is not a reason in itself for such a reduction. Indeed, as I shall explain, the Government's official position in March 2000 was that there should not be more than 700 Members. They were explicit about that, but, of course, they gave way over an increase to 732.
  There are also, I may say, uncertainties about the extent to which the enlargement will take place. Irrespective of whether one is in favour of it, the reality is that we cannot be certain of how many Members of the new Parliament there could or should be. One has only to read today's newspapers to see, for example, that there are serious political and constitutional difficulties with regard to the Polish position.
  Simon Hughes: I am honestly very confused about the hon. Gentleman's position. If he does not oppose enlargement—he said that he is a supporter of it—there are only two options: either have a bigger European Parliament with more Members, although I have always heard him and his colleagues argue for smaller European institutions rather than bigger ones, or reduce the relative proportion for each existing member state. There is no other way forward. If, for example, Poland does not join, the numbers would not increase by as much and we would not lose as many Members relatively. I need to know which of the two views he supports—a bigger Parliament with the same number of British Members and more Members in total or a smaller Parliament, in which case we would have to take a smaller share.
  Mr. Cash: I am simply making the point, which I shall repeat, that there are grave uncertainties as to how the proposals will operate in practice. Originally, the Government said that they wanted everything to be done in one fell swoop and that they were against the two-stage operation that we now have. I am afraid that I attribute a lot of the difficulties that arise in relation not only to the Bill, but to the whole enlargement process to the fact that the Government have failed to acknowledge the realities of the position and the uncertainties that go with it.
  I shall proceed by repeating another point that I made earlier: the Government said in March 2000 that the ceiling should be 700 MEPs, which they of course failed to insist on. They were also originally opposed to a two-stage transition to a lower limit for the number of MEPs, on which they again failed to deliver, particularly given the new powers of co-decision in the European Parliament and the increasing centre of gravity that is Berlin, which causes a further marginalisation of British influence.
  As I pointed out in the pamphlet that I wrote in July 2001, which even the then Minister for Europe described in flattering terms in a letter to me, that represents a fundamental geopolitical shift in the balance of power
  184
  and the tectonic plates of Europe. The policy of gradual emasculation of British influence and democracy cannot hide the true long-term nature of the new and harsh political landscape that is being engineered.
  The decrease in British influence in the European Parliament is inversely proportional to the increase in the power of that Parliament at the expense of national Parliaments. That is made plain by many of the proposals that are now flooding the convention on Europe.
  In its report this year, the European Scrutiny Committee called for a return to the "first past the post" election system. I mentioned that in an earlier intervention. It reflects concern about the degree of centralised power for the party leaderships in the member states which goes with the rations of party lists, and also the disconnection with constituencies, a tendency to political corruption and a decline in deep-rooted democratic representation.
  Under clauses 2 and 4, the Lord Chancellor effectively becomes king. I would describe clause 4 in particular as "Cardinal Wolsey's revenge", because it goes even further than the Henry VIII clauses to which we have taken exception for many years. It goes beyond giving Ministers power to amend or repeal enactments of primary legislation by order. Although this would be subject to affirmative resolution, in the real world the Lord Chancellor would have a greatly enhanced power to reduce the number of MEPs in conformity with European Community law—as it is expressed in the Bill—not only now but in future. The Bill does not specify what changes would be made, and under what European Community laws they would be made.
  Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of clause 4 and the new powers to be given to the Lord Chancellor that, despite the reassurance that each electoral region will be allocated at least three MEPs, Northern Ireland's allocation could be reduced from three to two, or even one?
  Mr. Cash: That is one of the matters that cause us great concern. Many of the powers are so open-ended, vague and uncertain, and indeed so great, while the means of redress is so little, that it is essential for us to consider them in detail and table amendments in Committee.
  The Bill does not even tell us which Community law would apply. While we must assume for present purposes that this would be done under the Nice treaty, at any rate for the time being, that does not take account of whatever may emerge from the European convention and/or any subsequent intergovernmental conference or treaty. There is a strong case for ensuring that any decisions made by any such bodies are subject to full democratic consent.
  The mere fact that the Lord Chancellor is obliged to consult the Electoral Commission does not provide any satisfactory safeguard. When I communicated with the commission on 5 December, I was told that it had not been involved in advising on the powers for the Lord Chancellor, and that this was an initiative orchestrated by him and his department. I am paraphrasing, but that is what it boiled down to. It seems ironic, to say the least,

  185
  that a decision affecting the influence of the United Kingdom in respect of such an important matter should be made by an unelected Member of the other place.
  Mr. McCabe: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on his answer to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? He said that Northern Ireland's allocation could be reduced to one MEP. Does not the Electoral Commission stipulate that there must be three per region?
  Mr. Cash: It certainly does, but we are dealing with the Bill, and also with the extremely extensive power to be given to the Lord Chancellor by order. In Committee we will be able to consider the extent to which the hon. Gentleman is right. If he would like to be on the Committee, I am sure that his membership would benefit us all.
  It is because the range of powers is so wide that I described clause 4 as Cardinal Wolsey's revenge. I trust that both Houses of Parliament will be sure to exercise their powers under clause 5 with determination and tenacity. Indeed, a Henry VIII clause at least focuses on one Act, whereas these provisions are open sesame for the entire remit of what is commonly regarded as supreme Community law. I trust that the extent and range of the powers will be fully scrutinised in Committee, and thereafter in another place, where there is a Committee that we do not have in this place, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under the capable chairmanship of Lord Dahrendorf.
  The Lord Chancellor will acquire significant power under clause 2 in relation to the distribution of MEPs in the electoral regions, but there is no proper explanation of the boundaries problems that could arise. The total number of MEPs involved is not specified, and we have to rely on the conclusions of the Nice treaty, combined with the outcome of discussions that are to take place on 12 and 13 December at Copenhagen. As the explanatory notes say, the number will be agreed at European level, or as anticipated by the Lord Chancellor.
  Furthermore, it is the Electoral Commission—which is unelected, as is the Lord Chancellor—that will recommend the distribution, following the Lord Chancellor's specification, and the power is exercisable with a view to implementing any specific change or anticipated change under Community law in the total number of MEPs for the United Kingdom. What is unacceptable, among other things, is that there is no requirement for the recommendation by the Electoral Commission to the Lord Chancellor to be debated, once published by the Commission—it need merely be laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor. I will be grateful if the Minister says that, as I hope, these matters will be not merely laid before Parliament but be subject to a substantive debate.
  There is no specific provision under the clause for any such recommendation to be exercisable by the mechanism of a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution. Will the Minister explain the mechanics of the arrangement, including in the context of clause 4?
  We welcome the proposals on Gibraltar, not least because the Government have utterly failed in their relations with the Government and people of Gibraltar,
  186
  whom they have treated with contempt. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in agreeing in principle to shared sovereignty with Spain, were, and probably still are, perfectly prepared to ride roughshod over the democratic will of the people of Gibraltar, irrespective of the 99.8 per cent. vote in the referendum in November.
  I have to say, with regret, that the Liberal Democrats were no less prepared to sell Gibraltar out.
  Simon Hughes: We should not get into the whole debate here, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the motion passed by our party conference with an overwhelming majority. I know that his party, like the Labour party, has not had a debate in which the membership could take part. If he reads the motion, he will see that we support the people of Gibraltar and believe that it is time for the Brussels process talks to be brought to an end.
  Mr. Cash: I would be extremely glad to read anything that the hon. Gentleman would like to give me, but I must say that there seems to have been less than enthusiasm for the idea that Gibraltar should be given the opportunity, under the arrangements that we have proposed, to ensure that the democratic will of its people is properly adhered to. No doubt we will hear from him later on that.
  There has been a total lack of meaningful consultation by the Government, and the introduction of the Bill has provided further proof that they are recklessly negligent when it comes to consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. Conservative Members would be happy for Gibraltar to have representation in the European Parliament—if it will do it any good—but it is clear that the only reason why these provisions are in the Bill is that the Government were driven to include them in order to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on 18 February 1999, by a massive vote of 15 to two, following the declaration of the Commission on Human Rights on 6 April 1996.
  I say all this without prejudice to the unhappy history of the previous Government in relation to the Denise Matthews case, which appears to have been coloured by an over-enthusiasm for accommodating the wishes of Spain on the part of sources that some might identify. I wonder whether the reality of what happened then will emerge in the debate in another place in due course. Notwithstanding that, right has prevailed and the Bill at last gives Gibraltar democratic engagement in the European Parliament.
  I would add one general word of warning, however, in respect of the uncertain and uncharted waters that lie ahead under the proposals for the federalisation through the convention and beyond. I urge all those with an interest in democracy in Europe to be vigilant about any future attempt to unscramble the Bill's provisions by majority vote, and to bear in mind the words of T.S. Eliot in "Murder in the Cathedral":
  "The last temptation is the greatest treason:
  To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
  We cannot yet know to which region the combined engagement will apply, but it is suggested that it could well be the south-west. Given that the Spanish rejected the British request for an amendment to the 1976

  187
  legislation on direct elections, the Government were driven to take unilateral action in order to comply with their own commitment to the European convention on human rights. This Bill is the result. How uncomfortable it must have been for the Prime Minister to have to choose between Spain and his commitment to the European ideal.
  There are further criticisms—I shall make them now—of the United Kingdom's position in respect of this Bill, which sits uneasily between the Rock and a hard place. Why has the United Kingdom failed properly to consult with the elected authorities on the Rock? Gibraltar's self-government is devolved to a considerable extent. Where does the Minister draw the line between the governmental roles of the United Kingdom and of Gibraltar itself—particularly in respect of electoral and constitutional law—in so far as Gibraltar's own circumstances could justifiably be accommodated without infringing fundamental principles of electoral law? After all, there will be a need for legislation in Gibraltar to authorise the requirements of the Bill. Given that the United Kingdom Government were prepared to come to terms with having to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, surely they could also have accepted that some of the Bill's provisions could be legislated in Gibraltar itself.
  In particular, too much emphasis is placed on the view of the Governor of Gibraltar, and not enough on those of the elected Government of Gibraltar and their Ministers, notably the Chief Minister. Furthermore, it is the Electoral Commission that will be given the power to recommend which electoral region of the UK will combine with Gibraltar. Will the Minister be good enough to tell us today how the consultation process will involve all the interested parties in Gibraltar, and particularly its elected authorities? I heard what she said in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), but it is not just the Electoral Commission that should be engaged in proper consultation across the board; so should the United Kingdom Government and their Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor.
  I censured the Government about the mechanics of part 1 of the Bill, which gives greatly increased powers to the unelected Lord Chancellor and to the unelected Electoral Commission. Similarly, the unelected Governor of Gibraltar—and, rightly, the elected Chief Minister—will be consulted. Why should there not be wider and more substantial consultation in Gibraltar, particularly in the light of clauses 11 and 12? They include, subject to affirmative resolution, an alteration in the law of Gibraltar by the United Kingdom Parliament that could be regarded as sensitive, contentious or even oppressive.
  During my research into the draft proposals for a new constitution for Europe, I discovered a provision that, if adopted, would inhibit the tax regimes of Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and which would bring any such territories, within the overarching ambitions of the new European superstate, and within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I trust that the Minister will assure the House today that the Government have no intention of adopting any such
  188
  proposals. I say that because, although we can understand the reason behind the provisions in the Bill relating to Gibraltar and to certain other arrangements, the overarching question remains of the extent to which the whole matter will be wrapped up in the convention, with potential changes that could unscramble the arrangements now going through. Because of the intense controversy that attends the question of Gibraltar, there is no reason to suppose that those powers would not be manipulated in future, with a view to unscrambling the arrangements. We need to be extremely vigilant on that issue.
  I understand that the Chief Minister is to meet representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department on 17 December, along with the new Minister for Europe. Why was no meeting held between the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Minister before the Bill was introduced? I am not aware that there was a meeting with any other Minister. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary herself has had a meeting with the Chief Minister, but I have not heard anything about it.
  The in-depth consultation that should have taken place already—it may yet happen—must include not only the combined region but the application of electoral law to Gibraltar under clauses 12 to 21. We intend to examine those clauses closely in Committee, and to seek to amend them, as with so many other provisions in the Bill.
  Only the other day, the Foreign Secretary spoke disparagingly of the UK's colonial legacy. He, the members of his Department and now the Lord Chancellor are making a pretty good fist of acting like imperial panjandrums in relation to the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar. If that is an example of the Government's post-colonial, ethical foreign policy—especially following the referendum on the Rock—they stand charged with behaving like the very people from our imperial past whom they have excoriated. If that is new Labour's imperial face, God help the member states of an enlarged Europe under a new Labour president.
  The Parliamentary Secretary will have understood from my speech that we intend to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly in Committee. I should welcome her response to the points that I have raised and the questions that I have asked before the end of proceedings today.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: My brief contribution to the debate concerns the overarching question of expansion. We have talked about that often enough, and there is a simple choice to be made. People can believe that expansion will be good for the EU overall, in that it will boost gross domestic product in a number of countries, not least out own. It will also be good in that it will create more jobs right across Europe, and that is something that we all want just now. Expansion will certainly strengthen our capacity to fight international crime and terrorism, and I think that most hon. Members would agree with that. Despite what has been said about Poland, expansion offers the chance of securing peace and stability across Europe. In all those respects, the argument for expansion should be supported by a great many of us.

  189
  It is self-evident that, after expansion has taken place, some changes or movement will have to be made to accommodate the other countries. I have no problem if that means a reduction in the number of parliamentary seats. That process seems relatively straightforward. If Britain were ultimately to lose 15 or 16 seats, we would still have the second largest number of seats in the European Parliament, alongside France and Italy. That would not cause me to lie awake at night sweating about percentages. Instead, I would say that Britain would be part of a rather large voting block, especially when we combined with some of the other countries.
  Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I am sorry that I am able to ask this question not of an elected Scottish Labour party MP, but of an exile Scot. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the Bill's likely effect in respect of representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? He may be aware that Scotland, with a population of 5 million, has only half the representation of Denmark, whose population is the same size. The proposals mean that that disparity will get worse, to the extent that there may be no proportionality between the various parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McCabe: My answer may explain why I am an exile: from my point of view, in terms of Europe, Scotland is not a separate country. I think of it as part of the United Kingdom and I expect that that is why it has its given number of seats.
  I think that we should be prepared to accept some reduction in representation. I will admit to some parochial interest, and I do not think that I am alone in this. It is conceivable that the number of seats for the west midlands could go down to six. Given that the population is about 5 million and, as the Minister said, the average size for a region is a population 3.4 million, I would be a bit worried if our seats were reduced to reflect the latter figure. However, that is a matter for the Electoral Commission. When we established it, some of us, if not all, recognised that we would have to address that issue in the future.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was slightly disparaging about the Electoral Commission, and he told us that it is not even an elected body. He is absolutely right, and I am delighted about that. The object was to create an impartial body, independent of Government and political parties, to supervise the administration of elections. The hon. Gentleman may recall that its establishment was recommended by the Hansard Society, the Jenkins commission and the Neill Committee. In fact, we voted for it in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The hon. Gentleman's Government, or, rather his party—that was a Freudian slip, as a Tory Government will be a long time coming—
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCabe: Yes.
  Mr. Cash: My points about the Electoral Commission were not meant to deny that it has an important function to perform. However, in the context of these arrangements, as we are dealing with orders in
  190
  Parliament and the constitutional process, they would much better be dealt with by a proper democratic process through Parliament.
  Mr. McCabe: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I simply repeat that his criticism is that the Electoral Commission is not an elected body, while my point is that that is because we said that we needed an impartial body to deal with such issues. There is a choice, but voting for something and then rejecting it the first time that it is put to the test says something about our commitment.
  I am also struck by the hon. Gentleman's position. He told us that he had never written or spoken against expansion, and I am happy to accept that. However, I cannot understand why he cannot tell us whether he wants a bigger and more expensive Parliament or he wants to scupper expansion through preventing a parliamentary readjustment across Europe. Or does he believe that everybody but Britain should play their part, while we should not bother? That is central to his argument at the outset. If he does not know what he wants or why he wants it, why is he telling us what he wants in the first place?
  On clause 2, I think that there was a fundamental error in the hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It is clear that the Electoral Commission must make sure that there are at least three MEPs per region. On that basis, Northern Ireland would not lose any of its MEPs under the Bill. We could discuss this in Committee, and I am sure that amendments will be put down to that effect, but it will be time wasted, because we know what the position is before we start. I am tempted to say that if we are not against expansion—if we have never written or spoken against it—why do we want to waste time on matters that we know are unnecessary?
  As for Gibraltar, strangely enough, I have a slightly different recollection, because it seems that the Bill is trying to deal with the consequences of the European Court of Human Rights ruling. Hon. Members will recall that under that ruling the then Tory Government found that they were in breach of their obligations under the treaty, but failed to do anything about it. Strangely enough, the Bill tries to address that problem.
  Opposition Members may tell us that they are not happy about the Labour Government's approach but they had the option to do something when they were in government and chose not to. They chose instead to put themselves in breach of the treaty and when that was pointed out to them they chose not to remedy it, so we were left to deal with the matter and are doing so in a relatively simple, straightforward and pragmatic way.
  Between 17,000 and 20,000 people in Gibraltar have the right to vote in European elections and we have to find a way of making that possible. Because that number is too small to form a constituency on its own, the Government's proposal is that we should pair Gibraltar with another region in order to enfranchise its people. I can see no problem with that—except that, unlike other hon. Members, I am not absolutely in love with Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians, so I am willing to be up front about the fact that I do not desperately want them to he paired with the west midlands.

  191
  We should reflect on what the Electorol Commission said.
  Mr. Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House and to the people of Gibraltar his comments about not being in love with them? They are British people. Does he not agree that they should be treated fairly, decently and in a democratic way—as he would expect for his constituents? Will he also explain to the House why the Government are so enthusiastic about allowing the applicant countries of eastern Europe to join the EU and have representation—as is right—but do not display the same enthusiasm for the British people of Gibraltar, who have been members of the European Union for 31 years?
  Mr. McCabe: I shall deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question in due course. On the second part, I repeat that the Labour Government have not denied the people of Gibraltar the opportunity to participate in elections. It was the previous Tory Government who were in breach of their agreements under the convention. They failed to find a remedy and that is why we are holding this debate. I hope that point is clear to the hon. Gentleman.
  There are questions about how the Electoral Commission will address the problem. One of the commission's stated aims is that, as well as trying to find electoral equality, it should reflect community identity and interests when determining regions. I am not quite clear as to the connection between Gibraltar and the west midlands although I am aware that the Conservative MEP, Philip Bradbourn, is very keen on it. However, that may be partly down to a simple electoral calculation. I hope that I am wrong but I suspect that if we were to examine the current situation in the west midlands, Mr. Bradbourn might have a pressing reason for wanting Gibraltar paired with the region.
  In reality, it is difficult to imagine how the Electoral Commission will deal with the problem. However, we have some guidance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he thought that the south-west region had the most in common with Gibraltar and might be the most obvious choice. Interestingly, the Gibraltarians who gave evidence to that Committee made the same point. They made it clear that their preference was to join up with the south-west region, so the solution may be simple.
  If for any reason that proposal falls through, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind, when the Lord Chancellor finally reflects on the matter, the clarity with which the hon. Member for North Down demonstrated her desire that Gibraltar should be paired with Northern Ireland.
  Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman may have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee that considers the Bill, so may I help him with some additional information? The tallest building in Gibraltar is known as Ballymena house—not Paisley house or Trimble house—which, as the hon. Gentleman
  192
  Will know, is a well known town in Country Antrim. The Gibraltar Government's principal representative in the United Kingdom is a gentleman who was born during the war and was evacuated to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McCabe: With every seductive statement, I am more and more persuaded by the hon. Lady's case, and I totally agree that we should treat it seriously.
  I said earlier that I was not in love with the Gibraltarians, which obviously caused some distress to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). Let me flesh out what I am saying. If the Gibraltarians want to sign up to the European Parliament and be represented in it, should they not agree to sign up in total? Why should they be exempted from the Community customs area or the common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting statement, but I am sure that he will recognise that countries such as Spain, Holland and France also have overseas territories with completely different fiscal regimes from that in the EU, so we will not be creating something new, but copying a right that already exists in the EU.
  Mr. McCabe: That is absolutely right. I was brought up in a regime that said, "No taxation without representation." I would equally turn that on its head and say, "If you want representation, you should be prepared to co-operate with the tax regimes that other people are subject to." I take a rather different view from that of the hon. Member for Stone, who referred to inhibiting Gibraltar's tax regime. I do not know why Gibraltarians should be exempted from the Community customs area, the CAP or the VAT regime. They are less than enthusiastic about signing up to the EU tax code of conduct or the OECD's harmful tax competition code, which, I presume, the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
  In fact, the Gibraltar Government said that they will not implement or comply with any voluntary code. I am sure that most hon. Members know that the OECD code, which is voluntary, deals with harmful competition. What is the point of being part of the EU and asking to be represented in it if people do not intend to co-operate with its main tenets, one of which involves avoiding harmful, unfair or unreasonable competition?
  In addition, one of the things that I do not love about Gibraltarians is that they continue to enjoy mortgage interest tax relief when no taxpayer in this country is given that benefit. Of course they pay no capital gains tax. In fact, it is the perfect place to go when people want to stash away lots of money. I want to mention another thing that I do not like. I believe that representation should engender fairness and equality. I am happy—
  Simon Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away and becomes too happy, may I ask him whether he remembers how much the United Kingdom Government subsidise Gibraltar? The answer is nothing. If he believes in devolution in the United Kingdom, as I hope he does, surely he also accepts that Gibraltar's domestic policies, including those on tax, should be determined by the Government of Gibraltar, not by the Government of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. McCabe: I was happy until I took that intervention. I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to

  193
  direct subsidy. I accept what he says about that, but it could be argued that Britain contributes to Gibraltar's economy in a number of ways. I certainly accept that the Gibraltarians are entitled to set their own tax rates, but if people sign up to and demand representation in a club, it is reasonable to expect them to abide by the same rules as the other members of that club. Hitherto, the people of Gibraltar have shown enthusiasm only for the benefits that they will derive, but none of the costs that they might be obliged to pay.
  Simon Hughes: I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman from the main thrust of his argument, but some taxes have EU-wide implications, such as VAT, the money collected from which goes into the EU-wide kitty. I understand that there is a case for everybody who has representation paying into that kitty. Capital gains tax, however, has no EU-wide obligation. It is entirely a domestic matter. I assume that he, like us, believes that such issues should continue to be left to domestic Governments to determine and should not be imposed by the EU.
  Mr. McCabe: If I did not make it clear earlier, let me make it clear now: I was making a specific point about European tax obligations. In passing, I referred to the differences between the experiences of taxpayers here and taxpayers in Gibraltar. I hope that that is sufficiently clear.
  We should all be in favour of EU expansion. If there is a cost in terms of a reduction in our overall number of seats to accommodate our new partners, every sane person should recognise that that is the only way forward. As we are under an obligation to admit Gibraltar, I am happy to go along with that and to leave it to the good judgment of the Electoral Commission, which I hope will have heard the comments of the hon. Member for North Down. I am happy to leave it to the commission to make the decision.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I share the pleasure of the Parliamentary Secretary at seeing the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) leading for the Conservatives. There was a real worry that the hon. Gentleman had somehow been parked in a siding for this Bill, and I am glad that that was not the case.
  As has been explained, the Bill is in two distinct parts, both of which the Liberal Democrats welcome in broad terms: in the case of Gibraltar, because the measures are long overdue; in the case of the European Parliament, because the proposals move towards the necessary adjustments to allow for enlargement, although we would argue that other adjustments need to be made, and that the Bill does not go far enough in that respect. I have a slight quibble with the architecture of the Bill, as the two parts are the wrong way round. Part 2, which deals with Gibraltar, contains consequent amendments that have implications for part 1, although only in marginal terms. Given that one part is contingent on the other, I would have drafted the Bill the opposite way round. I shall follow my own logic by dealing with Gibraltar first.
  The people of Gibraltar have been disfranchised in terms of the European election. As Gibraltar constitutes part of the territory of the European Union, and is
  194
  subject to at least part of the acquis communautaire, it is disgraceful that it has been disfranchised for so long. That it was necessary for an individual citizen of Gibraltar, Mrs. Denise Matthews—whom I warmly commend—to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights to secure any Government interest in the matter, either from this Government or their predecessor, is deplorable. That it is has taken this Government nearly four years, since 18 February 1999, to legislate, all the while protesting the legal impossibilities of enfranchising the people of Gibraltar, is regrettable. Having said that, we now have a Bill that will do the job as far as the people of Gibraltar are concerned. That is to be welcomed, and I believe that it will be warmly welcomed in Gibraltar.
  We have covered this territory many times before in debates. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is unfortunately not present tonight, led the charge with his private Member's Bill back in 1997. In 1999, the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I was then a member, produced a report that was very stringent in its proposals, and made it clear that it felt that the Government were letting the people of Gibraltar down.
  We also had a debate in 1998 in which I led for the Liberal Democrats. An amendment was tabled that would effectively have brought about the change in status of the franchise of the people of Gibraltar that we are debating now. Unfortunately the Government rejected it, but not before cogent arguments had been advanced on both sides. I remember arguing that the people of Gibraltar should form part of what was then the Devon and Cornwall European constituency—it has now been absorbed in the south-west region—on the ground that Gibraltar logically formed part of the western approaches. I do not take a dogmatic view of that. In the west country, we have experience of dealing with islands—for example, the Isles of Scilly—promontories and peninsulas, so there may be logic to my proposal. However, that is properly a matter for the Electoral Commission to determine.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the issue has something to do with the difficulties between Sir Francis Drake and the Spanish?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman may have a point. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to argue that the problems of Gibraltar go back to the treaty of Utrecht. The draftsmen's lack of foresight in working out future relationships in Europe and the possibility of Gibraltar being returned to the Spanish crown have dogged us ever since.
  Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend makes the perfectly valid point that the Liberal Democrats do not have a view about the region or part of the United Kingdom to which Gibraltar should be linked. We believe that the Electoral Commission should come up with a recommendation. Bids have been made from those representing the capital city and there is logic to them. However, I am also sympathetic to the view that Northern Ireland and Scotland should be included as options. The reasons for not including them do not

  195
  outweigh the fact that the Electoral Commission should have an entirely open choice. We can then all do our own bidding and lobby the commission.
  Mr. Heath: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no logical reason why the commission should not consider any of the regions of the United Kingdom.
  Simon Hughes: Or the countries.
  Mr. Heath: Indeed, or the countries. On the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the specific concerns of the political parties in Northern Ireland may put members of the electorate in Gibraltar in a difficult position, but there is no reason why the political parties in Northern Ireland should not take on a Gibraltarian dimension to their policies. Furthermore, there is an added advantage in that Northern Ireland has a superior electoral process for the election of Members of the European Parliament. That process is exclusive to that region and is unfortunately not available in the rest of the country. I shall return to that point.
  The position of Gibraltar has been dogged with ambiguities because of successive Governments' lack of interest in securing a proper status for Gibraltar in accession treaties or in subsequent European treaties to which we have been party. That is entirely regrettable.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Stone about the lack of consultation with the representatives of Gibraltar. That is not unusual in the British Government's relationship with the Government of Gibraltar. It has been a characteristic of recent years. The relevant parts of the Bill should make explicit the need to consult the House of Assembly in Gibraltar and the wider community there about the Bill's consequences. Specifically, when the Electoral Commission draws up the rules for registration and the electoral process, it must consult the political parties that are currently constituted in Gibraltar in exactly the same way that it would routinely consult the political parties in the United Kingdom. The fact that that point is not made explicit in the Bill is regrettable, but it may be dealt with in Committee.
  The representation of Gibraltar in this House was raised earlier. What we decide has a great effect in Gibraltar, but it has no access even to the Bar of the House and there is no representation for the people of Gibraltar here. The House and the Government need to address that point. We must also consider the future status of Gibraltar in the European Union. If we consider the position of the French Territoires et Départements d'Outre-Mer, the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, the Dutch external territories and the Faroes, we find that Gibraltar is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.
  I want to deal with the extraordinary comments of the hon. Member for Stone about the Liberal Democrats. I do not think that there is any room for ambiguity in
  196
  the many words that my hon. Friends and I have uttered on the subject. We have argued that the people of Gibraltar should determine their future status.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. If he does, I shall describe to him the Liberal Democrats' position as decided in the assembly that determines our policy.
  Mr. Cash: I shall be happy to learn the official position, but I have a couple of quotations from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman. When referring to a referendum, he said:
  "It's plain daft to have a referendum on proposals which have not yet been finalised. Mr. Caruana would have served the interests of the people of Gibraltar much better if he had participated in the talks over its future, rather than carping from the sidelines."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman described concerns over Anglo-Spanish talks as "hysteria". That is what I had in mind. Having said that, I think the hon. Gentleman's remarks today make an awful lot of sense.
  Mr. Heath: Because the hon. Gentleman has couched his remarks in those terms, I find it hard to maintain a grudge against him. It is entirely possible to reconcile my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks with what I have said. Although there may have been good political reasons, it did not make sense to hold a referendum on proposals that had not yet been formulated. However, it makes absolute sense to hold a referendum that is binding on all parties once proposals are on the table. Our policy makes that clear. We are determined that, in accordance with liberal and democratic principles, the status of Gibraltar will be determined by the people of Gibraltar. We shall always put their interests first. That is explicit in our policy, and I think the hon. Gentleman now accepts that.
  Lady Hermon: I wish to pick up on a point that the hon. Gentleman made about the candidates for whom the electors in Gibraltar could vote if they were aligned with Northern Ireland as a region. I assure him that the Liberal Democrats' sister party, the Alliance party, fields candidates in the European elections along with the traditional parties, such as the Ulster Unionist party and the other Unionist parties. The Conservative party might just manage to save its deposit if it too fielded a candidate in the European elections in the region. There is a broad sweep of political parties in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Lady is seriously suggesting that saving a Conservative party deposit is an argument in favour of the proposal, I must say that it is a difficult concept for us to swallow. None the less, I accept her point.
  Let me deal with the reduction in the number of MEPs. There is an orthodoxy that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome enlargement. However, that breaks down when it comes to putting in the necessary preparatory work to allow enlargement to take place. Concerns about that have been explored and

  197
  I do not need to repeat the arguments. There is a long-standing commitment to reduce or cap the overall size of the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Stone referred to the figure of 700, which he claimed was produced by the British Government. Knowing his scholarly love of the subject, I am surprised that he did not recognise that the figure was spelt out in article 189 of the treaty of Amsterdam, about which we seem to have forgotten. The consensus was that that should be the approximate figure for the European Parliament within the enlarged Community. Every current member state must contribute to the reduction to reach that target.
  The EU has not reached the figure of 700. It has listened to the pleadings of the small countries, which believe that there is an irredeemable minimum number of representatives that they should have so that they are properly represented. That touches on what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said when he compared Scotland with other small nations that are member states. We need to recognise the imbalance.
  Angus Robertson: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that neither the Bill nor the Electoral Commission will deal with the problem? Slovakia, which is likely to be a new member, has the same population as Scotland, but it will have 13 seats, whereas Scotland will probably have only five. Lithuania, which has broadly the same population as Wales, will have 12, whereas Wales may only have four. Northern Ireland, which can be compared in population terms with Estonia, may go from three to two seats, whereas Estonia will have six. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only answer to the problem is for all three nations to have the status of normal member states of the EU if they so wish?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. It is self-evident that what he describes is true, but the only remedy—no doubt one that he would advocate—is to split the United Kingdom up so that it is no longer a nation and a member state. It is clear that no one else in the EU will accept the proposition that we count ourselves as four small countries rather than one large one and can therefore have a larger number of representatives. If I thought that the number of MEPs was critical to this country's representation, I would be more exercised by the proposal than I am. I happen to believe that the quality of representation is not entirely proportional to the numbers who are sent to Brussels and Strasbourg. I accept that there is an anomaly, however, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point it out.
  My difficulty is that the Government have not addressed the remaining obstacles to enlargement. I would not expect the Bill or the Minister to deal with those, but until the common agricultural policy is right and we sort out some of the institutional changes, there are obstacles to enlargement and the effective working of the EU after enlargement. Subsidiarity, which we have discussed so often, is more a myth than reality. It is time that we proposed, on behalf of the British people, an effective solution to some of those problems.
  The reform of the European Parliament itself is also an issue. Many hon. Members will be saddened and not a little distressed by the rejection yet again of the reform of the expenses and pay arrangements in the European
  198
  Parliament. That was rejected by an unholy alliance of Christian Democrats and Socialists. Although the British Conservatives did not join them this time, no doubt they still have sympathies with that cause. Until reform is in place, the criticism that MEPs are on a gravy train will persist. It is time that we put that house in order.
  However, it is right that overall representation is reduced if we are to avoid an unwieldy and over-large institution. It is right that the Bill presents the Electoral Commission with that responsibility, and I have two substantive issues to raise on the way in which the commission carries out its work. The first concerns the minimum number of three Members for each region. The figure of three works well in Northern Ireland because of its electoral system, which is not available to the rest of the country. In the case of a party list system, however, the smaller the number of Members on the list, the less proportional it becomes. This is not a selfish argument because on current voting intentions, it would make little difference to us in the regions as they are constituted.
  The north-east runs the risk of reducing from four to three Members. That would markedly reduce the proportionality of the result in that area. While we have the party list system in the regions of England, Wales and Scotland, the Electoral Commission must have regard to the outcome of that system in terms of the minimum number. To provide for a region in which only three Members are elected will produce a perverse outcome.
  Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Electoral Commission should take into account the fact that two parts of the United Kingdom have a four-party rather than a three-party system? Before the argument is put that that is special pleading for the Scottish National party, let me make it clear that if the number is reduced in Scotland, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour will lose MEPs, not us.
  Mr. Heath: The Electoral Commission should take that into account. We could discuss how the figures might work out in a future election, but that is immaterial. What matters is the principle of having a proportional system.
  My second concern relates to the system of election. Although the Minister pre-empted my comments by rejecting that as part of the Bill, I still intend to explore it further. It is time to instruct the Electoral Commission to review the operation of the list system. We argued strongly, with others, that a closed list system was not the right way to introduce proportional representation to this country. We thought an open list preferable and the single transferable vote better still.
  Back in November 1997, we had a great deal of fun discussing the different electoral systems of d'Hondt, Sainte-Lague, Hagenbach-Bischoff and Hare-Niemayer which the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, was keen to discuss. At the end of the day, however, he closed his mind and the result was a closed list, which goes against proper accountability. My colleague Nick Clegg is testimony to that. He is an MEP for the East Midlands and has declared his intention to seek election to this House because the system of closed

  199
  lists within a regional context makes it difficult for him to establish the close relationship with his electorate that ensures proper accountability and democracy.
  It is an opportune time to review the situation, especially as I think that the previous Home Secretary intended to provide such a proliferation of different systems at different levels and in different areas because he wanted to bring the whole electoral system into disrepute. That is the only reason I can find to explain why he introduced different systems for the devolved Governments, for local government and for different parts of the UK. I hope that we will shortly discuss arrangements for the upper House. I shall argue strongly that if we have an elected upper House, its Members should be elected by single transferable vote or, alternatively, an open list system. A closed list is not a good method of selection. I hope that we can put that to the Electoral Commission so that it can make recommendations to the House.
  Finally, like the hon. Member for Stone, I am unhappy about the Lord Chancellor, an unelected Minister in another place who holds a position in the justiciary, having responsibility for those matters. I would be perfectly happy for a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department—the Minister herself or her fellow Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—to make those decisions, but I have strong misgivings about the matter being left to the Lord Chancellor, who holds a Government position about which I have grave doubts anyway. Clause 23 makes the powers exercised by the Lord Chancellor concurrent with those of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's Department is not specified—perhaps the Minister can help to identify which Secretary of State would have powers and in what circumstances. These matters are of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, impinge on the democratic process, and are properly the responsibility of Ministers who are accountable to the House. I hope that we will examine them during consideration of the Bill, which I broadly welcome. However, there are details at which we must look very closely indeed.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: First, I am sure that the House is well aware of my interest in Gibraltar. I was a member of the delegation that observed the referendum there.
  Geraldine Smith: May I take the opportunity to add that I, too, was an observer in Gibraltar? I should have made that interest clear when I intervened on the Minister.
  It is strange that we can go anywhere in Europe up to three times a year without making a declaration, but cannot visit Gibraltar, where British people live, undeclared. It will be interesting to see if that changes now that Gibraltar has European representation.
  Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is right—it is rather absurd that people from EU member states have the right to visit other EU countries three times a year without making a declaration. It is therefore rather
  200
  obscene that one cannot visit Gibraltar even once without making a declaration. That fact needs to be taken on board in the future.
  I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, which will guarantee a basic human right to Gibraltarians that has been denied them for decades. I am pleased that the case of Matthews v. UK, which went to the European Court of Human Rights, ensured that that right was included in the Bill. The Government promised in 1999 that a Bill would be introduced to allow the people of Gibraltar the right to exercise their democratic vote in European elections in time for the 2004 elections. We all believe in democracy, and we have an opportunity to demonstrate that in the Bill.
  The Bill raises some interesting questions about the logistics of a referendum and Gibraltar's future, particularly the issue of the region to which Gibraltar should be aligned. Many people have expressed their views, including the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and members of the Scottish National party. I would like to point out that the north-west would benefit from the voters of Gibraltar voting with it, but that is for the Electoral Commission to decide. I hope that it will take on board Members' views before making a decision.
  The Foreign Secretary has said that the south-west is the most obvious candidate. I agree that it has the strongest case of any of the contenders. I accept that Northern Ireland has historical links with Gibraltar, but Navy ships travel between the Plymouth dockyards and Gibraltar, so the south-west option makes sense. Sir Francis Drake's connection with Spain has been mentioned. I am not sure that that is the best reason for alignment—[Laughter.] I thought that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would not be able to resist that little kick at Spain. The Golden Hind Society held a referendum in Plymouth, which showed that the people there believed that the people of Gibraltar should have the right to self-determination, and that they did not believe in joint sovereignty either. My heart tells me to go for the north-west, but I know that the south-west is the obvious choice. Hopefully, the Electoral Commission will allow us to express our preferences, but I am sure that it will make the right decision and listen to all the views expressed in the House.
  Political parties must also consider how the proposals will affect their regional list system. That has already been mentioned, and I trust that the Minister will deal with it later. We should be aware of the change and what enfranchising the people of Gibraltar might mean. Earlier, I raised with the Minister the question of other overseas territories. Who knows, the Falklands or other overseas territories may come forward, although I accept that they have no wish to do so at the moment. France, Holland and Spain, as has been said, have enfranchised the residents of their overseas territories. Will the Minister tell us whether the Bill would allow us to consider such an application from one of our overseas territories or, if not, how we would deal with it.
  As I said, I went out to Gibraltar to observe the referendum on 7 November. The clear result was that its people have no wish for joint sovereignty, so the question is: what next for Gibraltar? We were told by the Foreign Secretary that the status quo is not an option, so we must look for something else. As joint sovereignty was rightly rejected, we must look at alternatives such

  201
  as integration with the United Kingdom and representation of Gibraltar in the House. It has been said that Gibraltar has no elected Member in Parliament, but perhaps we should consider that in future. Independence may be an option or, alternatively, we could consider maintaining the status quo, if that is what the people of Gibraltar wish. Reducing the Governor's powers in Gibraltar and ensuring that there are more powers for its Government may be another way forward. However, we have made a start in looking at issues that need to be considered more carefully in discussions about the future of Gibraltar.
  Whatever we may think, this is a matter for the people of Gibraltar. We need to hold a debate with them on which options should be considered by the House. Eventually, they should be able to vote on them in a referendum. However, it is up to the Gibraltarian Government to make a decision about what they wish to do next—I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will ensure that their Government are aware of what they think. In the Bill, we are recognising the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar and enfranchising them. We believe in human rights and the right to self-determination. The Bill allows Gibraltarians to have a say in Europe, and moves Gibraltar a step closer to the UK. I hope that it acts as a catalyst for discussions about the future status of Gibraltar. We should ensure that its people have the right to vote in European elections and are aligned with a suitable region. I am sure that we can build closer links with Gibraltar, because our Government have failed it in the past. We have been at loggerheads with the people of Gibraltar, but the time has come to reflect calmly on what happened in the past. We in the House must move forward with the best interests of Gibraltar at heart. Successive Governments have kicked Gibraltar around, instead of respecting what it has done for the United Kingdom.
  I cannot think of any other territory that put itself at risk during the second world war, the Falklands war and the Gulf war, and will do so again, whatever happens next in respect of Iraq. Gibraltar has always supported the United Kingdom. Whenever they have been called upon in times of trouble, the people of Gibraltar have always volunteered first. It is important that they now get the recognition that they deserve. We have the opportunity to show our full support. Instead of putting them at loggerheads again with a British Government, let us move forward in unity.
  David Taylor: I apologise for missing the earlier part of my hon. Friend's contribution. What would he say to my constituent, a Gibraltarian who has moved permanently to live in the United Kingdom, Mr. Olivares of St. Denys crescent, Ibstock, who has the qualities that my hon. Friend just described? He demonstrates the utmost loyalty to this country and is deeply disappointed by some of the events that have taken place in recent months. Should he be more encouraged by what my hon. Friend perceives will happen over the months to come?
  Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that intervention because my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to his constituent. It is important that we build close links with the people of Gibraltar for their benefit, not to appease the Spanish
  202
  Government. It was too easy to sell out the people of Gibraltar for new access within the EU, using Italy and Spain. I believe that we will never treat people in that way again, and I hope that we will recognise our previous mistakes and look after those loyal people of Gibraltar, who are part of the United Kingdom. We are therefore their representatives in the House, and I hope that from now on we can ensure that we work for the benefit of the people of Gibraltar and safeguard their interests.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: I welcome the Bill because of the enfranchisement of Gibraltarians for the purposes of European parliamentary elections. It is long overdue and has been rejected by Ministers in the House several times before.
  The Bill is significant for two reasons. First, for all of us who believe in the effective parliamentary supremacy of this place, the very existence of the Bill as it relates to Gibraltar demonstrates what a Government can achieve if they decide to go down the route of unilateral action in the EU arena. Ministers have effectively threatened to take unilateral action to ensure that Spain does not block the enfranchisement of Gibraltarian citizens for European parliamentary elections. Ministers should mark well the precedent that they have set.
  Secondly, the Bill is significant because of the strong message that it sends to the Spanish Government. The passage of the Bill in this place makes it clear that the House sees a more important role for Gibraltar in the life of this country. It certainly represents a move towards closer integration. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is a doughty campaigner and articulate prosecutor of the cause of Gibraltarian democracy. I hope that Spanish representatives listening to the debate and looking at the Bill's provisions will understand the message that is being sent to them in respect of any future negotiations that they may have with Her Majesty's Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  I mention the importance of the threat of unilateral action to allow the Bill to go ahead. History shows some spinelessness on the part of Ministers in previous Governments, as well as the present Government. At the commencement of direct voting for the European Parliament in the 1970s, the Gibraltarians were excluded from any possibility of direct voting. A rather strange distinction was drawn between Gibraltar and the overseas territories of France and Spain, which were seen to be closely integrated with those countries. As citizens of those territories can vote in national elections, there was no problem including them in European parliamentary elections. Even though the people of Gibraltar have strong historical links with this country and are a part of Europe geographically, they were excluded.
  With the increasing importance of co-decision making under the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, it is little wonder that Ministers in Gibraltar want European parliamentary representation. Remedies for the wrongs done to the people of Gibraltar have been attempted before, as we have heard. The first bold attempt was made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in his private Member's Bill in 1997. At that time, the

  203
  Labour Government argued that the enfranchisement of Gibraltarians by the means of adding Gibraltar to a UK constituency was not possible because it would involve amending Annex II of the EC Act on Direct Elections 1976. That would have had to be ratified by all member states, and Ministers at the time did not believe that the Spanish would allow it. That is essentially why that Bill fell.
  The second attempt was made during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill in 1997 and 1998. On Second Reading in another place, the Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, raised legal objections to legislating unilaterally to amend the EC Act. He said:
  "If we tried to amend it, it would not be within our domestic competence and it would be open to change at the European Court."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 April 1998; Vol. 588, c. 900.]
  That was an extraordinary example of spinelessness, no doubt not just at the behest of legal advisers, but at the behest of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thus, the second recent attempt came to naught.
  It is ironic that we needed a claim under the human rights legislation to break the impasse—the obstacle of European Union law, as perceived by Ministers. The human rights claim made in the Matthews case in 1996 came to grief in the first instance, when it was before the Council of Europe's European Commission of Human Rights. On the first attempt, Her Majesty's Ministers countered that the 1976 Act fell within the European Community legal order and was therefore not an Act for which the UK could be held responsible under the Council of Europe convention. Even at that stage, Ministers were not interested in the human rights claim, but happily in February 1999, when proceedings commenced in the European Court of Human Rights, the Court found in favour of Matthews, stating that the British Government were in violation of the ECHR and that they had not made proper arrangements to enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in elections to the European Parliament. At that stage, rather late in the day, Her Majesty's Government acted on the basis of a human rights claim rather than on any robust position on EU law and committed themselves to taking action. It was only at that stage that they showed the moral gumption that I wish they would show in EU negotiations more generally.
  The first sign of any determination to say that we were not going to allow Spain to veto parliamentary will and the desire to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar came when the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers put it to the UK that it had two ways of ensuring conformity with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee suggested that the UK could give effect to the Matthews judgment either by amending the 1976 Act to require the unanimity of EU states—a proposal that was never going to be much of a runner, given the previous attitude shown by Her Majesty's Ministers in not even attempting to take such a route in EU negotiations—or by taking national action. That would involve independent national action—I like the sound of that—using domestic legislation without prior amendment to the 1976 Act.
  204
  There would also be no requirement to ask Spain whether it would consent—something that we all know was never going to happen.
  When the Foreign Office sees such things happening, it can either take a sensible course of action or make life difficult for itself. On this occasion, it appeared to advise the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), now Secretary of State for Wales and the relevant Foreign Office Minister at that time, to take the route of unilateral action. My point is that all that happened late in the day, but none the less, much to my incredulity, in Hansard on 10 December 2001, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The content of this legislation is a matter for the UK alone".
  Amen to that. He went on to say:
  "it does not require the approval of other member states. There will be no additional EU legislation. Consultations are already underway between the Government and the Government of Gibraltar on the practical arrangements."—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 632W.]
  Those arrangements have issued forth substantially in the Bill, which illustrates a very important point: it is significant because it shows the importance of unilateral action.
  I should like the Minister to deal with a puzzle that arises from the provisions on Gibraltar. The point was well made by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which, like me, applauded the use of unilateral domestic legislation instead of any faffing around in fruitless negotiations to try to ensure unanimity among various EU partners. The Select Committee said in its report of July 2002:
  "By acting unilaterally, the British Government will enable Gibraltar citizens to vote in elections without prior amendment of the 1976 EC Act".
  However, the Committee was puzzled by a statement made to it previously by the now Secretary of State for Wales:
  "Spain has dropped its opposition to our insistence on giving the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in the European elections. That is why we have been able to proceed."
  I share the Committee's puzzlement and I would be grateful for elucidation from the Minister on how Spain ever had a veto if we could take such unilateral domestic action anyway, without its consent or that of any other EU member?
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: I am most happy to give way to my distinguished hon. Friend.
  Mr. Cash: A thought occurred to me as I was making my speech and also just now as my hon. Friend advanced his lucid arguments. To some extent, were not both the United Kingdom Government and the Spanish Government more impressed by the necessity of complying with the Court's ruling and the feeling that it would be invidious, difficult and embarrassing for them not to do so than by the wholly understandable and justifiable position of unilateral action?
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. My assessment is that if Her Majesty's Government had shown at an earlier stage a desire to take unilateral

  205
  action—I am sure that he will agree that they had an opportunity to do so in 1997—the matter could have been resolved more rapidly. As he suggested, the single cause may not have been the Government's threat of unilateral action, but reticence on the part of other countries about being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. I prefer the interpretation suggesting that an independent member state was acting in its interests on the basis of the threat of unilateral action. I am sure that that approach should have been taken earlier, but it sent out an unmistakeable sign, albeit late in the day, to show that if this Parliament and the UK Government dig in, are lucid and clear and draw a line in the sand, they can often get more out of negotiations than by acting in a supine way and relying on the feeding of lines by various pin-stripe-suited types in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The significance of the Bill is the effect that it will have on Spain. I join the hon. Member for Chorley and other speakers in drawing attention to the referendum result. I hope that the Foreign Office will consider that result and the way in which the people of Gibraltar will embrace their voting rights in 18 months' time and put a stop to any sell-out or mealy-mouthed negotiations that are consistent with neither the British national interest nor that of the overseas territory of Gibraltar.
  The Bill contains an important lesson. Not only in this aspect of European policy, but in others, if Ministers want to do something that might upset some other EU partners, they should do it, because it is remarkable what they can achieve when they keep the British national interest in mind when negotiating in the EU arena.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should consider pursuing our interests by returning to a system of first-past-the-post elections to the European Parliament, rather than by having it decided for us that we should have some crazy system of proportional representation?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The Bill is about representation, rather than methods of election.
  Mr. Ruffley: Hon. Members may not have noticed that I was about to finish my peroration, but I shall briefly be tempted down the path laid out by the hon. Gentleman. Widespread concern has been expressed in all parts of the House throughout the debate about the nature of the closed list system. I know that the Liberal Democrat spokesman has flagged up to the Minister the suggestion that there may be some mechanism to raise that matter in Committee, although when I look at the title of the Bill, it seems to me that that may be rather difficult. Surely, it must be a matter for the House to debate in the near future. In my view, it is inimical to democracy to have a closed list system ruled by party claques, apparatchiks and control freaks, and I am glad that he and other colleagues in all parts of the House steadfastly set their faces against such an approach. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that point.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: Several hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), mentioned our debates on the European
  206
  Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. The Foreign Secretary, in typical fashion, presented his best case for the change in the electoral system, which the Bill seeks to effect. One of his central arguments was that a list system would increase turnout. The House of Commons briefing shows that Great Britain managed a turnout of 23.1 per cent. We should at least mention the total and abject failure of that central objective—engaging the British people—of changing the system. Like many Members, I believe that it would be better if we returned to first principles and considered reintroducing first past the post.
  Earlier, I mentioned the process for reducing representation throughout the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. It is important to consider that. Under current arrangements for the House, the Electoral Commission's boundary committee goes through a special process. First, it sets a quota for England; secondly, it sets quotas for unitary authorities or counties and then it draws up boundaries for seats. Individuals can write in and object. If 100 individuals in a local authority or major political party write in, an inquiry is held.
  Although the process takes time, there is an input from many organisations into the precise boundary and representation for each area. That tradition has existed since 1945, and it has also applied in local government, which had boundary commissions. Local government undergoes a similar process when change occurs.
  In recent years, the Government have tended not to refer electoral matters, especially those that involve proportional representation, to the proper scrutiny of a boundary commission. Instead, they have simply consulted the Electoral Commission. I am worried about that because I am not sure whether proper representations can be made in such circumstances.
  For example, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provided for twinning boroughs and the list system. It was debated in Committee, but it did not undergo the same scrutiny in the country or through an inquiry. The Regional Assemblies Bill involves a similar process. The Government will simply consult the Electoral Commission, but the Bill contains no proper procedure for dealing with the size and precise nature of the electoral boundaries.
  The Bill covers what may prove to be party-political, contentious issues. It was claimed earlier that we were simply considering arithmetic and therefore an uncontentious matter, but that is incorrect. The size of a region and the electoral quota required to win a seat can determine representation between the parties. Although southern Ireland has the single transferable vote system, which the Liberal Democrats dearly love, the size of the multi-Member constituencies and whether they are odd or even numbered determine which parties take specific seats. In the Irish system, increasing or reducing the boundaries and seats can determine political representation.
  It is clear that if one subtracts, for example, nine seats from a specific region, that can have an impact on political representation. It may have a disproportionate impact on one political party. The Bill clearly states that the exercise is numerical. I welcome that principle. If one tries to apportion seats, it is probably best to do that on a numerical basis. However, what happens when two

  207
  regions make an equal claim, or in the case of quotas that are extremely close? How does one determine in a tie-breaker who will get and who will lose the extra seat? That will cause some debate in a system under which the number of constituencies is fixed.
  The Bill does not provide for sparsity. If two regions have an equal claim, sparsity might be a factor. Our first past the post system takes account of it. One presumes that there will be a single enumeration date for the regional electorates. However, some regions are growing rapidly and others are losing population. Will that be a factor in the decision between specific regions? Will Gibraltar be the tie-breaker? That is unclear.
  Assigning Gibraltar to a region could determine whether the region gets an extra seat and another loses a seat. There is a political calculation in that, for example, if the south-west had seven rather than six seats, it would be contentious. The Bill does not provide for an inquiry or some means for political parties, local authorities or people in the regions to make representations. Reference is made only to the Lord Chancellor and the Electoral Commission.
  The Electoral Commission has a general remit to consult, but the Bill does not specify what sort of consultation. I hope that even if that does not appear in the Bill, the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary's reply or in Committee, will set out the process. Even if there is no controversy in the first round of reducing seats, perhaps it will arise next time. The process will continue as Europe is enlarged. The ground rules need to be clearly set out so that members of all parties know how to respond to a redistribution of seats. I am uneasy about matters being conducted purely between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Electoral Commission. We are considering matters that are more political than numerical. If that is acknowledged, we can get through the process more easily.
  I welcome the fact that the Gibraltarians will be able to vote. Many hon. Members have spoken about that, and I shall not say much more. As a member for the south-west, which, as I have often argued, is not an especially natural region, I suspect that it would be the most logical region to combine with Gibraltar, given the links between them. The Cornish tend to perceive themselves as somewhat different, and the south-west could probably absorb the Gibraltarians easily as we would also have the Cornish. That is my bid for the Gibraltarians to be combined with the south-west.
  I have anxieties about the Bill. It is a small, technical measure, but that does not mean that it does not raise political questions and arguments.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have an opportunity of speaking in the debate. I want to raise three specific issues. The first is about human rights, especially in relation to other overseas territories. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is not in his place, raised that point. Secondly, I want to consider the Electoral Commission and the role of the Lord Chancellor. My third point is about the operation of the combined region and proportional representation.
  208
  We are discussing the matter today because of the European Court of Human Rights and its judgment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Matthews judgment did not apply to the Channel Islands. However, the Bill and the other documentation suggests that the point about the Matthews case is nothing to do with the wishes of the Gibraltarian Government or those of any other Government of a British overseas territory. Two questions are relevant. Had the British permanent representative to the Council of Europe, who makes a declaration about the European convention on human rights, declared specific territories to be within the ambit of convention? Did any of those territories have the right of individual petition before the European Court? So long as both of those conditions are satisfied, and despite the stance, whatever it might be, of the Government of the Channel Islands—the Bailiwicks of Guernsey or Jersey, for example—it might be open to a citizen to petition the European Court, just as it was open to Denise Matthews to do so. Presumably, in the same circumstances, if the convention were applicable and there were a right of individual petition before the European Court, the Court would reach the same decision again. I would be grateful if the Minister would expand on that, because she did not go into the matter in detail earlier.
  My next point relates to the Electoral Commission and the powers of the Lord Chancellor. Many hon. Members have commented that the Bill gives too many powers to the Lord Chancellor. My view is that any man who compares himself with Cardinal Wolsey probably deserves fewer rather than more powers, and that the House should not consider passing any Act of Parliament that might enhance his powers in any way. The Bill says, however, that the Electoral Commission has to consider which of the existing electoral regions in England and Wales should be combined with Gibraltar and, before determining what recommendation to make to the Lord Chancellor, consult with the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. Under the Bill, the Lord Chancellor also has an obligation to consult the Electoral Commission.
  That raises a number of questions, which I would be grateful if the Minister could answer. First, what weight will the Government give to the opinion of the Gibraltar Government—by which I mean the Chief Minister and the Government, in particular, and not simply the Governor? The reason that I ask the question in that form is that a press release of 22 November—the day on which the Bill was published—from the Gibraltar Government makes it plain that the United Kingdom Government gave no weight to the opinions of the Government of Gibraltar when they presented the Bill to the House of Commons. The press release states:
  "The Government"—
  that is, the Government of Gibraltar—
  "has examined the European Parliament (Representation) Bill published today by the British Government, upon the text of which the Gibraltar Government has not been consulted."
  There are two reasons why that is strange. The first is that the British Government have made a commitment to more pre-legislative scrutiny—that is, more pre-consideration of Bills, so that they will be in better shape when they come before the House.
  Secondly, given the thorough Horlicks that the British Government have made of their relations with the Government of Gibraltar, one might have thought

  209
  that, on a Bill of this importance to Gibraltar, it might have been sensible to show the Gibraltar Government the finished text of the draft Bill before presenting it to the House, and to say, "Here is our draft text; what do you think of it?" According to the Government of Gibraltar, however, that was not done. An explanation from the Minister for that would also be helpful.
  A further question that I would like to raise is on the nature of the combined region and how it will work in practice. With respect to what you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker—of course, I respect your ruling. The way in which the combined region that will include Gibraltar is to operate will involve the existing electoral system, and this will highlight the operation of that system more starkly than ever before. In my own electoral region for the European Parliament—the eastern region—there are eight MEPs. In the south-west—part of which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms)—I think that there are seven, and in Northern Ireland, three. I was particularly attracted to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon); she made a very appealing case.
  So far as I understand the Bill, the system will operate in exactly the same way in the combined region, once Gibraltar has been incorporated into it, as it does now in, shall we say, my own eastern region. Each of the eight MEPs for that region, technically, is an MEP for the whole region. Similarly, the seven MEPs for the south-west are all MEPs for all the south-west. Thus, whichever combined region incorporates Gibraltar, all its MEPs will represent Gibraltar. We already understand the difficulties that this causes in practice. In my own area, the MEPs have informally cut up the region territorially, just so that they can begin to get a grasp of the job. I would be grateful if the Minister could address this issue, specifically in relation to Gibraltar. How will this work? If all the MEPs from a region represent Gibraltar, will they all fly off there regularly? Alternatively, will they simply have to cut up their region and decide informally that only one of them should take responsibility for the territory? If so, which one, and from which party? This raises real concerns in relation to the operation of the combined region.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in his place and participating in this debate as a true Eurosceptic. I gather that, at a tea party in his constituency a few months ago, he said that he had always been against the single European currency. It is a great pleasure to participate in a debate on the Floor of the House with him, when he takes such an important position on such an important question. With respect to his position on proportional representation, however, I suggest that the question of how the combined region would operate throws into stark relief the catastrophe that is proportional representation.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Most hon. Members will be aware of my views on Gibraltar, and on how the British people of that territory should be represented at every level of government. It is a pity that they should have to begin by being represented in the European Parliament. I would much prefer the Minister to come to the House to state that she will also give the
  210
  people of Gibraltar the right to make their own decisions on who will speak for them in this House as well. They are British citizens, and they should be treated equally and properly, as we would expect our own constituents to be treated.
  I welcome this initiative, although it is sad that it has taken 31 years for the British people of Gibraltar to be given the right to vote in European elections. They joined the Common Market at the same time as the United Kingdom did, yet they were deliberately excluded from being able to vote in European elections from 1979 onwards. That was shameful, and created a democratic deficit that no party in government has addressed over a long period of time. I sincerely hope that the present Government will address the democratic deficit in relation to this place, and that my own party will consider this a future policy for the next Conservative Government.
  I welcome the Bill, principally because it takes the first step in a long overdue move towards the integration of the British overseas territory of Gibraltar within the United Kingdom. I hope, however, that the concept of giving the people of our overseas territories the right to vote in elections will not end with this Bill. I want to correct one or two hon. Members who have spoken on the subject earlier. Gibraltar is a member of the European Union, via the United Kingdom, but that does not apply to the other British overseas territories or the Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; they are not part of the European Union. Lucky them! While Gibraltar remains part of the European Union, however, it should be given the right to vote and to choose its own elected representatives, and I am glad that there is consensus on that in the House.
  The people of Gibraltar have been treated shabbily. It is regrettable that it has taken an action in the European Court of Human Rights to bring the matter to a head. It is a pity that Labour Members—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is just returning to the Chamber—are not enthusiastic about the Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said that he did not particularly like Gibraltarians, and had no time for them. He seemed reluctant to give them the vote in European elections. I wish that there were more enthusiasm. I cannot understand any British Member of Parliament being unenthusiastic about giving all British people the right to vote in all British elections. I find it appalling that there is a lack of such enthusiasm among those on the Government Benches. Indeed, the Government have been forced to bring the Bill to the House. They have not done so willingly, as one might have expected from a British Government in relation to their own people.
  The explanatory notes make it clear that the integration of Gibraltar in a British region for representation in the European Parliament has come about through the case of Matthews v. the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights. The referendum held on the Rock only last month—we all know the result, as 99 per cent. of people in Gibraltar

  211
  decided that they want to stay British—clearly showed that the British people of Gibraltar want representation in the European Parliament and here.
  Tony Cunningham: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Why did the House not pass legislation between 1979 and 1997 to give the people of Gibraltar the opportunity to vote in European Parliament elections?
  Mr. Rosindell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was not a Member of the House in that period and I cannot speak for a previous Conservative Government. All I can say is that, as a Member of the House today and one who will be a Member when the next Conservative Government are elected, I strongly believe that it is my party's duty to ensure that that wrong is corrected when we are back in power. The Bill will give the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in European elections, but they must also have the right to vote Members to this House. I look forward to that day.
  Mr. Hoyle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as disappointed as I am that the franchise was not given to the people of Gibraltar between 1979 and 1997, and that he wants to express that disappointment.
  Mr. Rosindell: I am disappointed that British subjects, whoever they are and wherever they may live, have not been given the right to vote in British elections. The previous Conservative Government could have given them that right. Obviously, other matters were on the agenda, but I have no doubt that a future Conservative Government will consider the issue and, as the hon. Gentleman knows more than most on the Government Benches, I am arguing strongly for that in my party. Our Government's attitude to the people of Gibraltar should involve not listening and walking away, but substance and meaning. They are British, as are all subjects in the British overseas territories, and they should be given the rights that are expected in our constituencies.
  I urge the Government to send the people of Gibraltar the right signals. It is important that those in Gibraltar who are watching the debate today do not see a Government who are reluctant to introduce the Bill. I honestly believe that the attitude that they have displayed to the people of Gibraltar has done enormous harm, so this is an opportunity for them to make their peace with the people of the Rock, respect them and embrace their wishes. It would make such a difference if the people of Gibraltar were made to feel that they are wanted by the Government and wanted by the Members of this place.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend not think that, perversely and in some respects, that attitude may have done a lot of good? It has drawn the attention of the people of this country to how shabbily the people of Gibraltar have been treated. The British people have every reason to be concerned about how they are likely to be treated, for example when they are not given a referendum on the Government's proposal for a European constitution.
  Mr. Rosindell: My hon. Friend is correct again. The Government have treated the people of Gibraltar
  212
  shabbily, but that has highlighted the democratic deficit and the importance of giving the vote to the British people in our few remaining overseas territories.
  After an Adjournment debate last week, the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Europe said to me, "If you give Gibraltar the right to vote in elections, they will all want it." It is as if we have millions of colonies that are all waiting to send MPs to the House. Of course, that is simply not the case. We have a small number of overseas territories—about 12 or 13—with small populations and none has asked for or seems to want independence. They all want to stay under the Crown and they wish to remain British.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the other aspect that distinguishes those territories is that they are not relevant to the Bill.
  Mr. Rosindell: Thank you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was responding to points made by other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to referendums on European issues and I endorse everything he said.
  The region in which Gibraltar should be included is a matter for the people of Gibraltar and the Electoral Commission. It should be an independent decision. There are strong arguments for the south-west region and arguments for Northern Ireland. I regret the fact that only England and Wales are to be considered, as I believe that Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore, I cannot understand how, in principle, it is right to exclude any part of the UK from consideration as to the region in which Gibraltar should be included.
  Mr. Bacon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason given by the Minister for why that cannot be done—namely, that it is rather too complicated—is inadequate in view of the importance of his remarks about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the fact that we managed to get a man to the moon in 1969?
  Mr. Rosindell: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. That argument cannot be sustained and it is simply wrong on principle. If a British overseas territory is to be given the vote in British elections and if the Electoral Commission is to decide the region or constituency in which that territory is to be included, we must start from the basis that it can be included in any part of the UK. I cannot understand how it can possibly be argued that Scotland and Northern Ireland should be excluded from consideration.
  I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says and ask the Minister to reconsider. I am not arguing for Gibraltar to be included in Northern Ireland or in Scotland; I want the people of Gibraltar to make that decision with the Electoral Commission. The whole UK should be treated the same way in this respect.
  Once again, it is shabby that the Government have failed to consult the Government of Gibraltar, Gibraltar's Chief Minister and the Gibraltarian people on the Bill. The Minister should understand how profound the matter is to the people of Gibraltar.

  213
  The Bill is not of minor consequence to them; it is of major significance to their lives. The European Union may not be particularly significant, but the fact that the people of Gibraltar are getting a vote in a British election for the first time makes the Bill incredibly important to every person on the Rock.
  Members will be able to imagine the circumstances if a part of the mainland UK that had been excluded from voting in elections were suddenly able to vote. People would be very keen to ensure that they were properly consulted. That did not happen with Gibraltar, although it should have. I hope that the Minister takes note of the comments not just from me, but from many Members who made that point this afternoon. The Government should go to the people and the elected Government of Gibraltar and give them the right to be consulted on this very important issue, which affects their future.
  It is a matter of principle, at least in my view, that all British people—whoever they are, and in whichever part of the world they may live—should be treated equally. This is, I trust, the first rather than the last step along the road to that end.
  Let me remind the Minister that the people of Gibraltar are not just part of the European Union. In many senses, they are governed by the United Kingdom Administration. Tony Blair—sorry, the Prime Minister—may be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom rather than Gibraltar, but he makes many decisions about what happens there, as do the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. Similarly, in respect of higher education, health and many other matters, Gibraltar depends on our elected Government for decisions. That should be taken into account in this and future legislation if we are to deal with the democratic deficit that many of us have mentioned today.
  I welcome the Bill, but I am sorry it has taken a court judgment to force the Government to act. I hope that the necessary measures will be taken speedily, and that the people of Gibraltar will be consulted fully. I look forward to the day when those people elect their own MEP, and indeed their own Member of Parliament.
  7.11 pm
  Adam Price: I apologise to both Front Benches, and indeed to all Members, for my absence during most of the debate. I was at the annual children's reception at 10 Downing street, following what will probably prove to be my only invitation to No 10 during the current Parliament.
  In this vital debate, we have focused on the representation of small polities or territorial communities—principally Gibraltar, although I am glad that the Cornish were given a mention earlier. They would certainly say that the move to a list system has had a negative impact on their voice in Europe. I intend to concentrate on the representation of what might be called the natural regions of the United Kingdom. Wales and Scotland currently have 13 MEPs between them, but the number is to fall to 10. We are, in fact, to experience 20 per cent. of the cut in UK representation, although our population is only 15 per cent. of the whole. That is disproportionate.
  I do not want to adopt a sectarian approach. Although we obviously have a nationalist perspective, Unionists should also be concerned. In a multinational
  214
  state such as the UK, those who uphold the constitutional integrity of the Union should pay particular attention to the representation of smaller nations such as Northern Ireland at all levels, including the European Parliament. To an extent that is reflected in the fact that the devolved Assemblies, very rarely, are given observer status at the Council of Ministers, although they have no voting rights.
  However, it is precisely because Wales, as a small nation, has no automatic right to sit in the Council of Ministers—and no representation in COREPER, the Committee of Permanent Representatives—that the voice of MEPs is so important to us. European Union policies have historically been very important to us in Wales, and indeed to those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The current discussions of fisheries policies interest us greatly; agriculture is disproportionately important to both Wales and Scotland, along with coal and steel. The same could really be said of regional policy in general. That is why we need to maintain the current level of representation for those three parts of the United Kingdom.
  The American political scientist A.O. Hirschmann spoke of the strategies that minority groups could employ in a political system. There were, he said, two strategies, "voice" and "exit". Either the system accommodated minority groups, allowed them to express their distinctiveness and listened to them, or the "exit" door was available. Some of us may wish to approach that door, but I think it is in all our interests, whatever our perspective, to ensure that minority nations in the UK, including Northern Ireland, are given adequate representation. We see that principle in federal systems throughout the world. Members will correct me if my geography is wrong, but I believe that Wyoming, whose population is about half a million, has the same representation in the Senate as California, whose population is some 20 million—or perhaps 40 million; I am not sure. This is not special pleading. I am talking about how we are to ensure political cohesion in a multinational state.
  In the European Union there is, in fact, over-representation of small and medium-sized nations. It is called—this is another wonderful example of Eurospeak, or Eurobabble, depending on one's political leanings—the principle of degressive proportionality. It means the over-representation of smaller nations in per capita terms, in relation to both the weighting of votes—that will apply even under the new proposals, post-accession, in the Council of Ministers—and representation as such. It is important because the proportion of small and medium-sized members of the EU is increasing post-accession. The average population of the current member state is about 24.5 million, whereas after further accessions it will be 8.8 million. The question of how best to represent smaller nations is at the forefront of the enlargement debate.
  Clearly, a rigid numerical per capita rule is not the answer. A more qualitative approach is needed to the representation of political and cultural diversity in the EU. Luxembourg, whose population is about the same as Cardiff's, will have six seats, while Ireland, with the same population as Wales, will have 12—three times as many as Wales. Denmark, with the same population as Scotland, will have 13, more than double Scotland's six.

  215
  According to the Bill a Welshman is worth a third of an Irishman, and a Scot is worth half a Dane. That strikes me as rather bizarre.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is right. We are making an excellent case for full self-government—for Wales and Scotland to be members of the European Union in their own right, and to have the full panoply of advantages in terms of representation. We look forward to seeing the Liberal Democrats join us in supporting that principle at the next election.
  Mr. Heath: That would be an excellent argument if the only question to be considered was the number of MEPs. I suspect that there may be other considerations.
  Adam Price: Matters for another day, perhaps.
  It is reasonable to discuss how the UK seats are to be allocated. The UK is, after all, a multinational state or polity. The EU gives due regard to how minority nations and provinces are given adequate representation; we need to enshrine the same principle in the Bill. Unfortunately, clause 2(4)(b) requires the Electoral Commission to ensure that
  "the ratio of electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same in each electoral region".
  That cannot be right. If we are creating separate regions for the nations and the Province, surely we need a different level of representation. I am a great supporter of English regionalism, but our history of political and cultural difference requires commensurate representation.
  Tony Cunningham: Where exactly is the hon. Gentleman drawing the line? He talks about provinces. Would he give the Catalans, the Basques and the Bavarians greater representation, or is he talking only about nation states?
  Adam Price: I am a great believer in self-determination, but I will not preach to the Spanish on how they should arrange their internal affairs. There is a discussion going on about whether, alongside the process of external enlargement, bringing in the nations of eastern Europe, we should have a process of internal enlargement, giving greater representation to the stateless or submerged nations of western Europe. We would advocate that, but I was making a slightly different point.
  Clearly, if Wales was a member of the European Union in its own right, we would automatically have a right to greater representation. My point is about being sensitive to the political and cultural diversity of these islands when we allocate seats within the United Kingdom.
  Tony Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that we take seats away from other parts of the United Kingdom or Spain, for example? How many MEPs would there be under the system that he favours?
  Adam Price: My position is absolutely clear. I accept that, with enlargement, we have to reduce the number of
  216
  seats for the United Kingdom, but I do not understand why Wales and Scotland should be disproportionately affected. Depending on one's reading of the Bill, it seems that Northern Ireland is protected and cannot go below the floor of three seats, and we would want the same to apply to us, although we accept that there must be some reduction.
  If we are serious about maintaining the political integrity of this multinational state, there must be a certain amount of over-representation for the small nations, as otherwise they will feel dwarfed, whether in the European Union or the UK context.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made the point that we have a more diverse party system in the smaller nations of the UK. In Wales, we have a fully fledged four-party system; in Scotland, we have a six-party system; and if my memory serves me correctly, there are 12 parties represented in Northern Ireland.
  Lady Hermon: At least.
  Adam Price: At least 12, and possibly growing by the day.
  In that situation, we need to retain the existing level of representation.
  Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the individual nations of the United Kingdom are not in themselves homogeneous? In Scotland, there are substantial regional differences that are in danger of being submerged by its being a single political unit. Is not that an argument for breaking up Scotland into a smaller number of first-past-the-post constituencies for elections to the European Parliament?
  Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that the Bill does not cover the method of election.
  Adam Price: It is bizarre that Gibraltar may be included in Wales but not in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The only reason that I can come up with is that Wales has a secondary legislative form of devolution. It seems that Gibraltar could be imposed on Wales but not on the other two parts of the UK. In fact, there will be plenty of difficulty imposing a settlement on the Gibraltarians, let alone imposing the Gibraltarians and the settlement on the people of Wales, even with the well-honed diplomatic skills of the former Minister for Europe, now Welsh Secretary.
  We want to achieve representation for all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will certainly oppose any proposal that would result in less of a voice for what are already under-represented, stateless nations. We need a voice in the European institutions, and that is why we are against the Government's proposals.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Cash: We have had an interesting, wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a thoughtful contribution, and we look forward to the amendments that will be tabled in Committee. We shall have to see to what extent we can

  217
  find common ground with the Liberal Democrats, as there are some difficulties between us in relation to their overall position on Gibraltar. On other matters, however, and especially in relation to the overarching powers to be given to the Lord Chancellor and the Electoral Commission, we may well reach an understanding,
  The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) made an extremely sensible speech. He is a member of Labour's sensible tendency. He was right to say that a logical extension of the right to European Parliamentary representation is that there should be representation for the people of Gibraltar in this House—not a point on which there is any settled policy, but one that holds great attractions in principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) powerfully endorsed that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) gave us an extremely helpful history of the progress of the Bill with respect to Gibraltar, of which only those of us who had read the excellent Library research material would have been aware. He also emphasised the question of justifiable unilateral action—an issue to which we will no doubt return, not least when we debate human rights. Such points will arise when we discuss subsequent enactments, the European constitution and other matters, as we proceed towards further and deeper European integration, and resistance to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) dealt adroitly with the question of boundary procedures. I was greatly taken with his emphasis on the political consequences for electoral law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) talked about proportional representation. He was right to raise his concerns about the powers of the Lord Chancellor and the Electoral Commission and the implications for human rights.
  The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made some interesting points about the case for the so-called stateless nations. I am not sure how we might define that in any amendments that may be tabled in Committee, but we shall wait with interest to see whether those issues are pursued at that point.
  I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply to the points that were made. Very important questions arise, and so far, she has given us no more than a sketch of the Bill's content as set out in the explanatory notes. Perhaps she will now explain what really lies behind the increased and rather engrossed powers granted to the Lord Chancellor, which, as she will have gathered, the House is extremely uneasy about. There is also unease about the question of Gibraltar and the lack of consultation with its Government. I look forward to hearing that much more detailed consultation will take place not only with the Chief Minister, but with the wider population.
  7.30 pm
  Yvette Cooper: We have had a very good debate on both aspects of the Bill: the reduction in the number of MEPs to accommodate EU enlargement, and the enfranchisement of Gibraltar. Most Members seemed broadly to support the basic principles behind the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall
  218
  Green (Mr. McCabe) set out clearly the case for reducing the number of MEPs as part of the expansion. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised specific points relating to closed lists—I responded to them at the beginning of the debate—and set out his party's support for the principles behind the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) gave his strong support for the people of Gibraltar. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) have visited Gibraltar, and that they have been very active in supporting its people.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) talked in detail about issues relating to unilateral action. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about consulting the Electoral Commission, and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) asked about consultation of Gibraltar, and about the Matthews judgment, about which I shall say more in a moment. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale called for representation for Gibraltar in this House, and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) discussed representation in the European Parliament of Wales in particular.
  I shall try to respond as briefly as I can to the various questions raised by hon. Members. Concerns were expressed about the number of powers in secondary legislation, but I should make it clear that they are very constrained. We are talking about two kinds of powers. Those relating to the reduction of the number of MEPs, which are included in first part of the Bill, are clearly constrained by the treaty of Nice. Reference is made to the reduction in numbers according to the treaty, and to the implementation of the Electoral Commission's recommendations on the allocation of MEPs across the country. It is right that we provide for the Electoral Commission's ability to make recommendations in that way; that is the fairest way to achieve proper distribution of MEPs across the country.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions and he has had various opportunities to make points; however, I shall give way one more time.
  Mr. Cash: I have indeed had such opportunities, but so far I have had no reply to my question about the extension of the Lord Chancellor's powers in respect of the whole remit of European Community law. In particular, the question not just of the reduction in numbers under the treaty of Nice, but of future changes, has not been dealt with.
  Yvette Cooper: I am coming to the number of seats, and to the suggestions that were incorrectly made by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members.
  The second issue relating to secondary powers concerns Gibraltar's enfranchisement and the need to address the many aspects of UK electoral law—the way in which election agents' expenses are paid, and other such details—that must be applied to Gibraltar. It is appropriate that such matters be dealt with through secondary legislation, but it is clear that there will be considerable debate about this issue in Committee.

  219
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked whether the Lord Chancellor will be able to reduce the number of MEPs in Northern Ireland to less than three, and the answer is no. Clause 2(4)(b) and paragraph 1(2) to schedule 1A establish that each electoral region must be allocated at least three MEPs. Opposition Members also suggested that the House was getting no say in the reduction in the number of MEPs, but that is not true. The treaty of Nice sets the final number of MEPs for the UK at 72, and this House debated and ratified both the treaty and that figure. How we get from here to there will depend on the agreement of the European Council this week on how many new states get in, and on what the timetable for the reduction should be. However, all EU members will need to sign up to that interim position.
  Hon. Members also raised the question of consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. Officials have been in contact with the Government of Gibraltar through correspondence, and in direct discussion in meetings. As hon. Members suggested, further meetings will take place before Christmas, including with a Foreign Office Minister. The detail of the Bill will be discussed, as will the way in which enabling provisions can best be applied to Gibraltar, how far such changes can be made by Westminster Parliament, and the extent to which the Government of Gibraltar can legislate. We expect some of these changes to take place through Gibraltar's own legislation, but not everything can be dealt with in that way. For Gibraltar to be treated fairly as part of a UK region, UK electoral law—which is decided by this House—needs to cover Gibraltar as well. We are talking about detailed issues—I have already mentioned expenses and election agents—including sending election addresses through the post, whether schools and rooms can he used for parliamentary elections, and so on. We need to ensure that a whole series of detailed issues concerning the conduct of elections are applied fairly to Gibraltar, so that it is treated consistently as part of a UK region.
  Certain Members wanted to discuss the future status of Gibraltar, but that does not form part of the Bill's scope. I welcome the points that were raised, but I should make it clear that the Government have always said that any proposed change in the status of Gibraltar would be a matter for the people of Gibraltar to decide in a referendum. That has always been the case, and it continues to be so. The constitutional settlement for Gibraltar, which was set out in 1969, is complex, and changing that status does not form part of the scope of this Bill.
  The hon. Member for South Norfolk raised an important question about the European Court judgment. He suggested that the issue is whether the people of Gibraltar have the right to petition the European Court, or whether they are covered by the European convention. My understanding of the judgment differs slightly, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail about this complex issue. As I see it, the judgment concerned whether or not the European Parliament formed part of Gibraltar's legislature, and whether the article and protocol on free and fair elections to the legislature therefore apply. The European Court ruled that they do, but the legal
  220
  arguments do not apply in the same way to the Channel Islands as they do to Gibraltar. As I said, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on this point, because these are complex legal arguments.
  On the points raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, it would of course be preferable to amend the 1976 legislation, but we were unable to secure the unanimous agreement of the Council. That is why we have taken such action through the Bill, and we support the enfranchisement of Gibraltar in this way.
  The hon. Member for Poole asked about the way in which the Electoral Commission should make its decisions and the matters that it should take into account. It does of course need to consult widely, and I am sure that political parties will make their views known as part of that consultation. In raising issues that might be important at the margins, the hon. Gentleman has in some ways shown exactly why it is so important that the Electoral Commission should conduct this consultation. Many marginal issues concerning Gibraltar, or concerning relations between individual regions, could have political consequences. It is therefore right that the Electoral Commission, which is independent and was set up for exactly such purposes, should be the body that makes the recommendation to us.
  Mr. Bacon: Can the Minister confirm whether the decisions and actions of the Electoral Commission are open to judicial review?
  Yvette Cooper: The Electoral Commission is responsible to the Speaker's Conference in this Parliament. I shall have to take advice on that point and write to the hon. Gentleman. It is important that the independent electoral commission should he the body to make the recommendations. I understand that it is subject to judicial review.
  Many points of detail were raised that we can discuss in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Hoyle: One quick point: would the Bill allow another overseas territory to challenge for enfranchisement to the EU?
  Yvette Cooper: The Bill does not cover any other overseas territory. Clearly, if one wanted to have discussions with us, we would agree to that, and many such issues will also be matters for the Foreign Office.
  Many matters of detail and drafting have been raised, and I hope that we can discuss them further in Standing Committee. I hope that we will gain the support of as many hon. Members as possible for the detailed provisions.
  One substantive difference became apparent when the hon. Member for Stone seemed to object to the reduction in the number of UK MEPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green set the position out clearly. He said that supporters of EU enlargement can adopt one of only two positions: either they want the European Parliament to get ever bigger, or they believe that the UK and other countries need to reduce the number of their seats so that the new accession states can have representation.
  In fact, there is a third option—that the new accession states should simply not get representation in the European Parliament. I assume that that is not the

  221
  Opposition stance. It is right that we should give the new accession states fair representation, and that, therefore, means recognising the consequences—as negotiated across Europe—for UK representation.
  The hon. Member for Stone set out his objections to any reduction in the number of UK MEPs, and that seemed to me to be the wrong approach. In the past, he has said that he supported enlargement but not if that meant crushing out the democratic spirit. It is hardly in the democratic spirit to resist all reduction in UK representation, with the knock-on impact that that would have for fair representation for the new states that we should be welcoming to the EU.
  The hon. Member for Stone also referred to his pamphlet on the Nice treaty. That is indeed a weighty tome—50 pages of criticism, to be precise. When I saw it, I thought that the hon. Gentleman must be prolific, and I assumed that he had written equally weighty tomes on other issues of interest to him in his role shadowing the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I confess that I struggled to find any statements at all on those matters, let alone one that ran to 50 pages. In fact, I struggled to find much in the way of letters or parliamentary questions. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's interests lie elsewhere.
  Mr. Cash: I assure the Minister that the shadow Cabinet has ample paper on all subjects.
  Yvette Cooper: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman has been drowning his fellow members of the shadow Cabinet in. I suspect that the answer will not be matters to do with the Attorney-General, but matters to do with Europe. When the hon. Gentleman was appointed to the Opposition Front Bench, a Tory spokesman said that he was instructed by the Tory leader that he would not be discussing European issues or pronouncing on matters European. The hon. Gentleman has in fact been quite restrained in this debate, and I accept that he has said before today that he supports enlargement. However, the logic of his argument is that, although we should welcome other eastern European and accession states into the EU, we should pull the UK out of it. He wants the renegotiation of the treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht, and in fact he believes that we should have a referendum on the entire EU treaty itself.
  A much wider difference has become evident: the hon. Member for Stone and his party want to be outside the EU and shouting from a distance while European states and the new accession states decide matters affecting our future. The Government believe that we should be in Europe, arguing our case, influencing the debate and making a real difference to the issues that affect people's lives.
  That includes supporting the European Parliament, and supporting a voice in the European Parliament for people from the accession states. It also means enfranchising Gibraltar and giving its people a voice in the European Parliament.
  The Bill is important. It will extend democracy and ensure a better and wider EU. I hope that all hon. Members will support that, and that they will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(REPRESENTATION) BILL [PROGRAMME]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
  That the following provisions shall apply to the European Parliament (Representation) Bill:

  Committal
  (1)The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Standing Committee
  (2)Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16th January 2003.
  (3)The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  (4)Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  (5)Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
  (6)Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Other proceedings
  (7)Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(REPRESENTATION) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills).
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliament (Representation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a)any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act; or

  (b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act;

  (2)any provision made under the Act requiring sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund;

  (3)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund under any other Act;

  (4)the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Joan Ryan.]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I propose to put together the Questions on the two social security motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Tax Credits (Appeals)(No. 2) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Tax Credits Appeals) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT Ordered,
  Ordered,
  That Mr Neil Gerrard be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr David Chaytor be added to the Committee.—[Joan Ryan]

PETITIONS

  Euthanasia
  7.47 pm
  Jim Dobbin: I wish to present a petition, signed by people across the United Kingdom, against euthanasia and assisted suicide.
  More than 93,000 people have signed this petition, almost twice the number who signed the pro-euthanasia petition calling for assisted suicide. It reflects the concern of members of the public at the activities of
  224
  the pro-euthanasia lobby and the legislation that is imminent from the Lord Chancellor's office and the Department of Health.
  The petition states:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Government to introduce without delay proposals for legislation which outlaw the withdrawal of food and fluid (however delivered) with the purpose or intention of causing death by omission.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hospices
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: This petition was gathered by Mr. and Mrs. Gregory of 10, Bolton road, Chorley, and by Mr. Carl Crook, also of Chorley, with the help and support of their friends. It is thanks to their dedication that I am raising this very important question of funding for hospices.
  The petition of the residents of the Chorley area declares:
  That the St. Catherine's and Derian House hospices carry out important and valuable work in the Chorley area; that they do not receive adequate recognition or funding.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons recognise the importance and the value of the work done by the hospice movement and bring forward legislative proposals to ensure realistic and ongoing funding for institutions such as Derian House and St. Catherine's hospice.
  To lie upon the Table.

Wakefield Prison
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
7.50 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns about proposals by the Angel Group to use the former prison officers' college building at Wakefield prison for the accommodation of asylum seekers. It is a matter of regret that I have been forced to bring the issue to the Floor of the House, but for almost two years I have been unable to get straight answers to straight questions and, frankly, I have had enough.
This saga began in February 2001 when I received a telephone call from someone at a senior level in the Prison Service. He told me that I ought to be aware that the former prison officers' college building at Wakefield prison was to be used for the accommodation of asylum seekers. It was apparent from his remarks that he was deeply concerned from a security point of view about what was being proposed.
I know that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) has been to Wakefield prison, so she will know that the building is located in Love lane, Wakefield, between the prison wall and the main Leeds-London railway line. It is next to the prison officers' club and the only vehicular approach was, until very recently, blocked by a manned traffic barrier. The building has throughout its history been part of the prison establishment and is viewed by local people as an integral part of the prison. I should also add that it is only a few hundred yards from Westgate, the popular pubbing and clubbing area of what has historically been known as the "Merrie City". Generations of young locals have traditionally undertaken the Westgate run, which entails having one drink in each of the numerous licensed establishments from the bottom of Westgate up to the city centre. The prison buildings are passed by revellers towards the conclusion of the Westgate run.
Following the telephone call, I had contact with the local authority, which advised me that a telephone call had been received some weeks before from the Angel Group, making tentative inquiries about the use of the building for asylum seekers. On 12 March 2001, I wrote to the then Home Secretary stating that in view of the sensitivities of the proposal, I would have expected, as the local Member of Parliament, to have been consulted at the very least. I set out my own serious worries about what I believed to be an inappropriate location for the proposed use. By this time, I had been made aware of the local authority housing and social care department's strong opposition to a proposal that it believed would completely undermine a successful local strategy for assisting asylum seekers.
I draw the Minister's attention to the letter of 23 March 2001 sent by Councillor Peter Loosemore, the Wakefield metropolitan district council cabinet member responsible for housing and social care, to Mr. Bob Eagle, the director of the National Asylum Support Service. The letter reiterated concerns that I had raised with the Home Secretary. Specifically, it referred to the inappropriateness of the physical location, saying:
"The proximity to the prison gives an inappropriate message to asylum seekers and to the local community".
226
It said that the local authority had worries that a 200-bed accommodation unit would be excessive in size, with Angel's proposals for an average 21-day stay meaning an annual throughput of at least 3,400 asylum seekers. Councillor Loosemore reinforced my worries about the impact on community safety, as the location would make it easy for asylum seekers to be targeted. He outlined fears about the impact on education and social care services and other agencies.
Two days earlier, following contact with the private office of the then Minister of State at the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), I had spoken directly to NASS. Mr. John Hinchliffe, the NASS head of accommodation, confirmed his comments to me in a letter dated 26 March 2001. It said:
"Angel Properties have reached their contractual limit for dispersal accommodation and on this basis the scheme is unlikely to be approved unless there are particular representations to the contrary from the Local Authority."
The local authority was, by that stage, outlining its outright opposition in direct dialogue with the Angel Group as well as in correspondence to the Home Secretary and NASS. Mr. Hinchliffe concluded his letter by saying:
"I will ensure that a copy of your letter goes to my colleague, Les Hart, who is involved in the local consultation process and either he or I will advise you of the final outcome."
Nearly two years later, I am still waiting.
During the following month, I forwarded to Mr. Hinchliffe correspondence that I had received from Councillor Loosemore and local constituents, evidencing renovation work being undertaken by Angel Group at the building and local recruitment of staff. By May 2001, the Angel Group had asked the local authority whether its proposed use of the building for asylum seekers was covered by existing planning permission. When it was established that it was not, the group subsequently made a formal application to which I and many others, including the local ward councillors who were active on the matter and the housing and social care department, objected.
I received a further letter from Councillor Loosemore dated 14 May 2001, in which he expressed serious concern that, despite two separate letters from the local authority to the Home Office, there had been no response or any formal consultation about the Angel Group's proposal. He said:
"The Council has also held initial discussions with a range of other key local and regional agencies who would be affected by the proposals. Many of the Council's concerns are shared by representatives of those agencies."
I received a letter dated 15 June 2001 from the then Minister for Asylum and Immigration, Lord Rooker, again stating that the Angel Group did not have approval from NASS to use the property as emergency accommodation. He assured me that there was
"a full consultation process in place between NASS and the local authority-led regional consortia."
On 1 August 2001, Councillor Loosemore wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an attempt to clarify NASS's position. He quoted the comments

227
made in letters to me by Mr. Hinchliffe and by Lord Rooker. He also quoted from a letter to himself dated 9 August 2001 from Judith Simpson, head of support at NASS, in which she said:
"NASS is not therefore in any negotiations for this property."
Councillor Loosemore then asked four very relevant questions which, as I understand it, remain largely unanswered. First, is NASS negotiating with Angel Group about the proposed provision at the college site? Secondly, why will NASS not consider the offer of local authority-provided emergency accommodation from the regional consortium instead of seeking it from private providers? Thirdly, if NASS is considering Angel's proposed use of the building, when will the formal consultation take place with the consortium and with Wakefield council? Fourthly, what weight will NASS give to the views of Wakefield council and the consortium during any consultation?
Over the summer period last year, I had personal correspondence with the Angel Group's managing director, Julia Davey. I stated that I believed that her company had been highly irresponsible in ignoring perfectly reasonable local concern. I stand by my view that the company is exploiting a difficult situation in a grossly irresponsible way, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who is in his place, has similar views from his experiences with that company.
In a letter to me of 8 October 2001, Lord Rooker stated:
"I can confirm that NASS is not negotiating with the Angel Group about the acquisition of Wakefield College for use as emergency accommodation for asylum seekers."
On 18 October 2001, I met my noble Friend at the Home Office where he stated categorically that the Home Office had not asked the Angel Group to convert the building. An official from NASS had visited the building at the request of Angel and had told the company that the building was not required. If the Home Office were to consider its use in future, it would be done only with the support of the local authority.
On 2 November 2001, planning permission was refused and the Angel Group indicated its intention to appeal. On 30 January 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and I met Lord Rooker at the Home Office. He stated that the Home Office had no intention of using the building for asylum seekers. He advised us that the Government would shortly announce the location of a series of new reception centres for asylum seekers. The Wakefield building was not appropriate for that use, being too small for the functions envisaged and sited in an urban area. Interestingly, when the NASS representative at that meeting was asked about the actions of the Angel Group he suggested that it had "an inside track" in NASS and gained information to its commercial advantage.
A further letter from Lord Rooker, of 7 May, informed me:
"Companies frequently buy properties speculatively and, although the possibility of the college being used to house asylum seekers in the future cannot be dismissed, NASS currently has no plans to do so".
That letter suggested to me that there had been a slight change of position, and by then I was beginning to believe that the Angel Group's acquisition was more
228
than mere speculation. It was also apparent from the Minister's reply that perfectly reasonable opposition from a local authority and others did not count for much.
In early June, I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Robert Austin. I pay tribute to Mr. Austin and to another constituent, Mr. Roy Eyre, for their work on the issue. They are motivated by personal concerns as former prison officers. I also pay special tribute to Mr. Austin. The issue is sensitive and, at one time, the British National party in our area attempted to exploit it. There is no racial motivation in my concerns or those of my constituents. I much appreciate the fact that Mr. Austin gave very short shrift to BNP members who wrote to the local paper expressing their support for what he had done.
As former prison officers, Mr. Austin and Mr. Eyre have particular concerns about the security aspects of Angel's proposal. Mr. Austin provided me with the Land Registry entries relating to the sale of the building by the Home Office to the Angel Group for £1,161,000 on 6 July 2001. Part 4 of the restrictions in the charges register, agreed between vendor and purchaser, outlaws the use of the property for a range of purposes, including accommodating remand prisoners, ex-offenders and those in receipt of psychiatric treatment. However, there was an interesting exemption: paragraph 1.4 states:
"The use of the property for providing temporary residential accommodation solely for persons seeking political asylum or the right to reside (whether permanent or temporary) in the United Kingdom shall not be deemed to be a breach"—
of the preceding restrictive paragraphs.
My hon. Friend the Minister will probably be aware that, due to my concern as to its contents, I passed the documentation to the Home Secretary when I met him on 12 June. In passing, may I say that I hope that my right hon. Friend is making a good recovery from his recent operation?
On 18 September, Sue Goring of the NASS secretariat wrote to Mr. Austin, assuring him that the college building would not be used as a hostel for asylum seekers. She went on to say:
"The site was visited by a representative from NASS and was deemed to be unsuitable for dispersal accommodation. Furthermore, the site is not under consideration for use as an Accommodation Centre."
Interestingly, my constituent, Mr. Eyre, received a letter dated 8 November from the very same Ms Goring. It stated:
"I can only reiterate what I stated in my previous correspondence and add that Angel Group purchased the site without any prior arrangement with the Home Office. However, I must add that it may well be the case that NASS will want to use this site in the future."
The Minister will be aware that a planning appeal was held on 8 October. I was present, along with representatives from the local authority and several local residents, including the two gentlemen whom I mentioned. Among the references provided in support of the Angel Group was one dated 4 October from Paul Winterbottom, the deputy director of NASS, which stated:
"The Group are committed to working in partnership with a broad range of organisations."
That has not been our experience in Wakefield but, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the appeal was upheld at the end of October.

229
I am happy to provide for the Minister copies of the correspondence to which I have referred, as it is worth comparing the initial reply that I received from NASS with subsequent letters. I have come to certain conclusions from this long drawn-out saga. First, despite protestations to the contrary, it seems clear that certain parties in the Home Office were directly involved in the disposal of the building for the accommodation of asylum seekers.
Secondly, it is also apparent that the Home Office went ahead with the sale of the property for that known purpose despite being well aware of the fact that the strongest possible objections to the proposed use had been made by the local authority, the local MP and many other people.
Wakefield already has a hostel for asylum seekers in the city and wants to play its part in addressing the current crisis. However, to have top-security prisoners communicating from their cells to asylum seekers on the other side of the wall does not make sense.
I realise that my hon. Friend's Department has faced unprecedented problems in regard to asylum seekers and that has created great strains. However, that does not excuse the fact that certain officials in her Department have been somewhat disingenuous in their handling of this affair. I hope that, at the very least, my hon. Friend will investigate the actions of those involved and find out why I and others have been given misleading, inconsistent and sometimes incorrect answers to our inquiries. I hope, too, that she will realise that using the building for asylum seekers would be wholly inappropriate.
8.7 pm
Peter Bradley: I did not anticipate that I would have the opportunity to make a speech in the debate. I assure those Members still in the Chamber that I shall not carry on until 10 o'clock. My comments will be brief.
My experience with the Angel Group is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). The company followed a similar course of action when it acquired the Centrex site in High Ercall in my constituency—not on an option but outright, for a payment, which I understand amounted to £2.5 million. That is a considerable amount to speculate on the possibility of winning a contract with the Home Office.
That fact caused great concern in the small rural community of High Ercall. People thought that if Angel was as confident of having its way as it appeared to be something must be about to happen and that a contract between Angel and the Home Office must have been drawn up. It was extremely difficult for me and for others to try to convince the local community that there was a due process through which decisions would ultimately be made and that no decision had yet been taken.
As their Member of Parliament I endured—like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield—a lengthy period, between October 2001 and July 2002, of rumour, scaremongering and speculation as to the future of the site and the consequences for my community. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the opportunity to
230
clarify the situation in July. However, that has not been the end of the story and, again, there is an uncanny parallel with my hon. Friend's experience.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is anxious to add to the remarks already made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), but we are bound by the fact that the debate relates to Wakefield prison. The debate is not about the company or the procedures, but about Wakefield prison's suitability for the purpose identified by the hon. Member for Wakefield. So the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) must have a care. I know that he is going to make his remarks brief, but they must be about Wakefield prison.
Peter Bradley: I will try to be even more ingenious than I have been in seeking constantly to refer to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. I will keep my comments brief and try to relate them to the experience at Wakefield prison.
I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the apparent relationship between the Angel Group and the Home Office in relation to Wakefield prison. I attended the meeting to which he refers and well recall the comment of a Home Office official when he raised his own concerns about that relationship. The official said that the Angel Group seemed to have an inside track—that was the expression he used—and seemed to be able to anticipate the decisions that were being made at official and policy level by the Home Office before anyone else seemed to know about them. That is a very serious allegation coming from any source, but it is yet more serious coming from a civil servant. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm in her reply that, if investigations have not yet taken place, they will be conducted now as a matter of urgency.
The issues that my hon. Friend has raised are extremely serious whether they affect Wakefield, my constituency or, indeed, anywhere else. As we already know, plans to accommodate and deal with asylum seekers are extremely sensitive and highly controversial, and it is extremely difficulty to cope with local people's concerns and expectations.
I had a similar experience to that of my hon. Friend, as the BNP turned up in my constituency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's constituents and, indeed, my own for the fact that, when they recognised who those people were and what their agenda was, they gave them short shrift.
I should like to conclude with the plea that I made to the Minister's predecessor, Lord Rooker, at the meeting to which my hon. Friend referred. My plea is simply that the Home Office should not tolerate lower standards of community relations from the private sector than those that it would adopt itself in dealing with such sensitive issues. As I have constantly said, my experience echoes almost to a fault that of my hon. Friend. It is not enough for a public body, much less the Government, to say that little can be done to influence the conduct of a private sector organisation.
I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to make it clear that the Home Office will inform the Angel Group and any other private sector organisation that wants to be involved in such highly sensitive public

231
issues that, if it has even the expectation of entering into contracts with the Government, it must conform not to the lowest, but to the very highest standards of local community relations.
My experience at High Ercall in The Wrekin is that the Angel Group has treated the local community and its representatives—the parish council, the unitary authority and the Member of Parliament—with utter contempt, and my hon. Friend's experience is very similar in Wakefield. Frankly, that is not the way in which we should pursue such policies, with or without the private sector.
The Angel Group does have form; it does have a record and if the Minister was not aware of that fact before, she will be now. I very much hope that a strong message will go out—not from hon. Members such as my hon. Friend and myself, but from the Minister—to the Angel Group, telling it that the way in which it has conducted itself in the past will no longer be tolerated in the future. Unless it can get its act together and show good faith—frankly, few of us who have had direct experience of the company would accept that at face value—it should be blacklisted and the Home Office should no longer be prepared to deal with it.
8.14 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on gaining the opportunity to debate this important issue this evening. I hope that I can reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I absolutely understand his concerns. Indeed, on 29 October 2001, my right hon. Friend made it clear, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), that a provider would be very ill-advised to buy any property speculatively with a view to offering it to the Home Office for use as accommodation for asylum seekers.
My hon. Friends will understand that we cannot prevent providers buying such property; nor can we prevent them from applying for, or obtaining, planning permission to use a property for that purpose. We are not, however, obliged to accept such properties and, in light of the unequivocal statement made by my right hon. Friend, he and I would certainly be prepared to do so only after very careful consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is primarily interested in the former Prison Service college in Wakefield, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin is equally concerned about a site in his constituency, but I heard your advice on that issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Angel Group was in the process of purchasing the Wakefield site and others, it made it clear that it was doing so with the intention of offering them to the Home Office for use as accommodation for asylum seekers. That is absolutely true, as I understand it. As I have already said, however, we are under no obligation to accept those properties for that or any other purpose.
Let me make it clear that the decision on where asylum seekers are housed does not lie with accommodation providers. That decision is one for the
232
Home Office and ultimately Ministers, and I emphasise that the company did not buy the property at the request of the immigration and nationality directorate. Following the Angel Group's purchase of the former Prison Service college, it sought planning permission to use the property as hostel accommodation for asylum seekers. A member of the procurement section in NASS made an informal visit to the site at that time, but, following that visit, the company was told that NASS did not wish to use the building as dispersal accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has said that he met my predecessor, Lord Rooker, in October last year to discuss the Angel Group's proposal. At that meeting, Lord Rooker confirmed that NASS had declined the offer made by the Angel Group and said that, if the situation were to change, there would be full consultation before the property was accepted if we considered doing so.
My hon. Friend met Lord Rooker again on 30 January this year, when Lord Rooker made it clear that the property was unsuitable for use as dispersal accommodation and that it was not being considered as one of the sites for the trial of accommodation centres, but he said that, although no plans for the site were being considered, it was not possible to rule out its use in some way in the future.
As has been said, the Angel Group's original application for planning permission was refused, but then allowed on appeal. That is a matter for the local authority, as my hon. Friends will know, and I cannot comment on that application. However, the Angel Group has now formally offered the accommodation to NASS. I am happy to assure to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield—I wish to make this absolutely clear—that we shall not use the property as dispersal accommodation or in the trial of accommodation centres.
There is, however, a current need for some additional emergency accommodation, and NASS has been considering whether the sites at Wakefield and High Ercall would be suitable. I have decided that that would not be appropriate in the circumstances because there are significant problems with both those locations, so neither site will be used for our immediate or foreseeable needs. Although I cannot foresee a time when the problems involving both sites will be such that I would agree to use them, I cannot give my hon. Friends a categorical, absolute and indefinite assurance that they will never be used because I cannot predict how the situation that I am trying to manage with officials may change.
I am very grateful that my hon. Friend recognises the inherent difficulty that we face in managing what is and must be seen as a national issue, with some shared ownership, with which many areas will have to help us to deal. As he has acknowledged, Wakefield is already doing so. In the unlikely event that I consider it necessary to use either property, should they remain available, I reaffirm the commitment to consult thoroughly with them and the local parties with as much notice as possible.
My hon. Friend raised a couple of specific issues on which I want to touch. In relation to the contents of the Land Registry record, and the inclusion of an

233
acceptance that use of this site for asylum seekers would be appropriate, as he knows, the college at Love lane was declared surplus during the summer of 2000 and scheduled for closure later that year. Subsequently, it was given over to the Prison Service estates section for disposal. I know that my hon. Friend will argue—in a sense, he is right—that that is part of the Home Office, and therein lies some of the difficulty in deciding whether it is a case of the Home Office trying to sell to the Home Office. The Prison Service estates section, however, is a separate section, and it was dealing with that disposal. Given the college's size and layout, and the pressures that IND was under at the time to provide emergency accommodation, the site was offered to IND, but it decided that it could not make use of Love lane. It was therefore placed with agents to sell on the open market. As he now knows, unconditional offers were received, and it was sold to Angel Group, whose offer was the highest.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's helpful and thoughtful response. Accepting that different tribes operate within the Home Office, may I assume that, if, at some unforeseeable point in the future, a need is perceived to use this particular building, the NASS tribe might consult the prison tribe on the security implications of asylum seekers being accommodated directly opposite the wings of Wakefield prison.
Beverley Hughes: As I said, given the issues raised by my hon. Friend, I think that it is highly unlikely that we would think that that was an appropriate location. I can say with absolute assurance, however, that should such a need arise, however unlikely at this point of time, I will insist on a full appraisal of all of the issues in relation to location, and particularly the security issues, as he raises a valid point in that respect. Arguably, given the concerns expressed to him by people working in the Prison Service, that point should have come to the fore in an appropriate way.
I want to explain the reference to housing asylum seekers as being a possible appropriate use for the site in the Land Registry record. When the Prison Service sells any site, it must ensure that any future use will not compromise the security of the prison, and Wakefield is a high-security prison. That is why several uses have been excluded. For absolute clarity, however, the Prison Service was saying at the time that, of all of the uses that the Home Office might consider, it did not regard housing asylum seekers as a security risk. That does not compromise what I just said about us considering the matter again, but that is the technical reason why that issue was made absolutely clear at the time of the disposal. As a matter of routine, the Prison Service would have to make clear what uses it thought were suitable or not suitable.
In relation to the apparently contradictory information and apparently contradictory statements of intentions by IND officials in various letters over a period of time, I agree that, at the very least, the letters to which my hon. Friend referred were confusing. On the face of it, they are not necessarily evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead. It may be more the case that officials use language very specifically—to them, hostel accommodation means dispersal. Understandably,
234
however, he and residents read that language very generally, so that it may mean accommodation for any purposes. I understand that that is not good practice in terms of communication. As I want to explore the issue, I would be very grateful if he would provide me with all of those documents, some of which—but not all—he was kind enough to fax me this afternoon. I will write to him comprehensively about the issues that he has raised in that regard.
On the question whether there is any kind of inside track for this or any other company, I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. The Home Secretary instigated an investigation into that possibility some time ago, after his previous expression of those concerns to my predecessor as Minister, and no evidence of any relationship or untoward dealings was uncovered. I feel, however, that we need to look closely at the routine procedures that are used in our contracting relationships. NASS is in a difficult situation in the sense that, over the past year, we have needed more accommodation than has been readily available. It is understandable, in a way, if the first port of call to look for additional accommodation is with those who already provide it. I have already made it clear to officials, however, that not only must we be completely above board in those relationships but absolutely transparently seen to be above board. I will therefore ask for an examination of all the procedures that we follow to make sure that they are properly documented and that we can account properly for decisions that are made, notwithstanding the sometimes difficult and fluid situation with which officials must deal when trying to house people who turn up in the country at sometimes very short notice.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the assurances from me, and, through me, from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: first, in relation to the likely future for the building as regards any IND use, which, as I have made clear, is unlikely, although I cannot absolutely rule it out; and more generally, in relation to the efforts that I will make to answer his specific questions about communication levels, and to look at our procedures in detail to make sure that we are seen to be behaving in a proper way and that we can account for our decision making fully and openly.
Peter Bradley: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I had finished, but I will give way with pleasure.
Peter Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad to hear those assurances, and I pay tribute to the even-handed way in which she has addressed these difficult issues since she has been in office. Can she confirm that the investigation that she mentioned will seek to improve communications between the various tribes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) described them, in the Home Office so that they speak with one voice, and that it will also seek to improve communications with prospective private-sector providers to ensure that, as I have argued, they provide a maximum rather than a minimum amount of information to people who have a right to know?
Beverley Hughes: Yes, I can. I want to provide the assurance not only in respect of private providers, but of NASS and IND more generally. My hon. Friends will be generous enough to accept that this is an inherently difficult issue. Whatever people's genuine feelings about the need to respond to the issue constructively, most people reject the prospect of accommodation of any kind being provided for asylum seekers in their area. They do not want to hear such a message. I hold the strong belief—I may prove to be wrong—that one cannot deal with that difficulty by battening down the
236
hatches and saying as little as possible. We have to face it squarely, provide people with information and argue the case even though people might not want to hear it. IND and the people with whom we work, including the private sector, have more to do to generate the culture of meeting the difficulties squarely and of providing full information. People will still not like the message, but they will not then be able to complain that we have not treated them as adults and given them full and open information.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock.