Commons Sitting of 11 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    South Africa (HIV/AIDS)
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: What recent assessment she has made of the impact of HIV/AIDS on the humanitarian situation in South Africa. [84685].
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): HIV/AIDS is having a devastating effect on the crises in southern Africa. Drought has exacerbated the consequence of misgovernment in Zambia and Malawi, and particularly in Zimbabwe. The United Nations appeal is only 50 per cent. funded, logistics are difficult, Zambia is refusing to accept genetically modified maize, and as many as one in three of the population are weakened by HIV/AIDS. I am very fearful that by January, a terrible humanitarian catastrophe will unfold.
    Mr. Hendrick: Like many other Members of this House, I am extremely concerned at the spread of AIDS in Africa and its devastating effect on the population. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in respect of drugs is getting worse? Despite the fact that drugs are being made available much more cheaply, they are finding their way into markets other than those for which they were intended. That said, I thank her for the excellent work that she is doing in this area.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is hope in Africa. The rate of infection among young people in Uganda has dropped massively, and there is some evidence that such drops indicate behaviour change. So there is light at the end of this tunnel, but in the meantime we are in a very difficult situation. Recovery from the drought in southern Africa will be much harder, because the population is weakened by HIV. We are going to see terrible things
    On drugs, there is no cure—only anti-retrovirals that prolong life. Even if drugs were free in most of Africa, they would not reach the people because there are no basic health care systems. In conjunction with the British pharmaceutical industry, we have undertaken a
    238
    big review into access to medicines. What is required is a partnership to build health care systems, as well as to get drugs to people, but prevention remains essential.
    Peter Bottomley: The House will have noted with great concern what the Secretary of State said about the effect of food shortages and drought. On HIV, am I right in thinking that there is a massive overlap between venereal diseases and the spread of HIV among heterosexual populations, and will she encourage the people who discuss these issues to make that point more often, because those diseases can be cured?.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In very poor populations that have no health care systems or access to antibiotics, venereal disease is often endemic, as it was in the UK among many of the young men who fought in the first world war. The likelihood of being infected with HIV and its spreading very rapidly is much greater in populations infected with venereal disease. So treating those diseases can reduce the spread of HIV, and we arc trying to apply that in our programmes.
    Barbara Follett: May I ask my right hon. Friend what discussions she has had recently with the South African Government on the HIV issue, and whether she discerns any change in their attitude towards this epidemic?.
    Clare Short: I have not had any recent discussions with them since my last visit to South Africa, but my officials are in constant touch. There is a change in attitude in South Africa, I am happy to say. There is much more positive engagement by the Government and a willingness to provide drugs, particularly to pregnant women. Drugs are now available more widely, as required by the courts, and there is much more public education. Although it is early days, I have seen figures that show some signs of behaviour change and improvement. Former President Mandela has made an enormous contribution, but the Government are now in a much more positive mode, I am happy to say.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The Secretary of State rightly identified the capacity of health care systems in these countries as the primary way of trying to tackle the first stage of the HIV epidemic. Is she aware that last year, Britain recruited 2,114 nurses from South Africa, compared with the 393 who were recruited from there in 1997? According to the BBC, 38 nurses came here from one Johannesburg hospital alone. Is she not concerned that the Government's code of practice, which in any event is observed by only about a third of the private recruitment agencies used by the NHS, is insufficient? [Interruption] Is she not depressed by the fact that Britain's recruitment strategy is undermining recruitment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for the Secretary of State to answer that question. The hon. Gentleman should be seated when the Speaker stands.

    Africa (Human Rights)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If she will make a statement on the participation of her Department in reconstruction and reconciliation efforts in those parts of Africa affected by conflict and human rights abuses. [84686]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Twenty countries and 25 per cent. of the population of sub-Saharan Africa are affected by violent conflict. This is causing great suffering and holding back development across the continent.
    Through the Africa Conflict Pool, my Department, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are working together to resolve conflict in Africa, and there has been progress. Sierra Leone and Angola are now at peace, and Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have ceasefires, but a new civil war has erupted in the Ivory Coast. Conflict resolution and development are inextricably linked.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and for the magnificent work done by her Department and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in helping to resolve some of the serious conflict issues in Africa. However, will she consider whether the United Nations needs to use chapter VII of its charter to restore peace in Burundi? Will she ensure that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees does not have its budget for Burundi and Tanzania cut, as it is providing help for people in a truly desperate situation?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation in Burundi could lead to another genocide in Africa if we do not handle it well. Our generation failed Rwanda, and it is our duty to make sure that Burundi does not suffer the same experience. President Mandela brokered a peace deal in Arusha, but some of the forces fighting there have not recognised it. There has recently been a breakthrough, with the FDD recognising the deal. It was envisaged that, if other forces abided by the peace deal, an African peacekeeping force would be established, under a UN mandate and with UN funding. Discussions about that possibility are imminent, and I hope that they materialise.
    Tony Baldry: Uganda is our largest recipient of bilateral aid in Africa. Will the Secretary of State explain gently to President Museveni that slashing the country's health and education budgets will not help defeat the Lords Resistance Army?
    Clare Short: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in communication with President Museveni about these matters. There is no doubt that the Lords Resistance Army is one of those vile rebel groups that abduct young girls and make young men kill members of their own family. It is an especially brutal and nasty organisation. It is right that Uganda should do all in its power to bring the rebellion to an end. However, large demands for new military supplies are not what is needed to bring about that end. We must protect Uganda's progress in
    240
    reducing poverty, which is considerable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do everything in my power to achieve that.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one effect of internal conflict in African countries is widespread displacement and insecurity? What help is her Department giving, and what work is it doing with the UN development organisations, to build firm local government and administration structures to give people back their security?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Africa has more refugees and displaced people than any other continent. Some of the poorest countries in the world are hosting large numbers of refugees—way beyond the sort of numbers that Europe is contemplating. There is no real answer to the problem apart from resolving the conflict, helping people to return to their countries and lands and enabling them to resettle. That is why we are putting such an enormous effort into trying to resolve conflicts in Africa. In the meantime, we are trying to improve help for displaced people so that they are not reliant on handouts. We want them to be able to get their children to school and do something for themselves, so that displacement does not lead to disempowerment and the destruction of the lives of future generations.
    Mr. Robert Key: In Ethiopia, reconstruction after years of conflict is still a great struggle. Of course, we acknowledge the crisis response to the lack of food in Ethiopia at the moment, but will the Secretary of State say why the international community has failed to deal with the problem of water resource management in the country? After all, that is the key to all the food supply problems. Why is only 5 per cent. of irrigable land irrigated, when the Blue Nile flows across the plateau?
    Clare Short: Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a gross domestic product of only $100 a head. It has been through political crises, civil war and misgovernment, and has not had the economic reform that it needs. Year after year, Ethiopia depends on food aid, but food aid that is badly supplied undermines agriculture by undercutting local prices, ensuring that there is no local production. That has been going on for a long time. We are engaged in helping the Ethiopian Government put in place long-term strategies for getting agriculture and irrigation going again. It will take time, while we handle the current crisis. There is movement forward: it is terribly delayed by the war with Eritrea, of course, but we are beginning to get attention paid to the long-term problems.

    Israel/Palestine (Poverty)
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What recent assessment she has made of how many people are living in poverty in the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. [84687]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The deteriorating humanitarian situation affecting the Palestinian people is leading to a rapid growth of poverty, and the situation is getting worse day

    241
    by day. Some 22.5 per cent. of Palestinian children in the west bank and Gaza are suffering from malnutrition. We and the European Commission have increased humanitarian aid, but the cause of the crisis is political and requires a political solution.
    Dr. Starkey: I agree with the Secretary of State that ultimately the solution has to be political, but in the meantime ordinary people are suffering and, as she has outlined, they are suffering greatly. I have been told by World Vision, a charity whose projects in the west bank I have visited in the past, that it believes that the major need of the Palestinian people is work and income generation, not food aid. What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to create jobs in the occupied territories, given the continuing Israeli policies of closures, curfews and roadblocks?
    Clare Short: My Department is probably the best development organisation in the world, but we cannot work miracles. The closures mean that people cannot get to work; it is impossible for people to work when they cannot physically move about. Some 1.8 million people are dependent on food aid—food aid is not a good thing, but it is better than starvation. The levels of hunger in Gaza are as bad as those in Congo and Zimbabwe. We are engaged and are doing everything in our power, but without some political easing that allows the Palestinian people to move about and get back to work, I am afraid that it will continue to get worse.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The situation is dire, as the Secretary of State says. However, does she not think it extraordinary that Prime Minister Sharon should ask the United Nations to address the humanitarian crisis in the west bank and Gaza? I have with me the report of the special envoy. The situation is due not to natural disasters or famine but, as the right hon. Lady says, to a failure of the peace process and the destruction of the Palestinian economy by Israel. Will she and her colleagues in Europe please impress on Israel that it should be addressing the humanitarian crisis, not the international community?
    Clare Short: The whole House is agreed that for the sake of the people of Israel and the Palestinian people, we must as rapidly as possible reach the two-state solution—the establishment of the Palestinian state, with enough international presence to make sure that the suicide bombings and the rest come to an end. That will be good for everybody in the region. The attempts by the quartet to put in place a road map to final status have been delayed by the Israeli elections. People across the world should focus on the problem until the elections take place and move forward on the peace process thereafter, for the sake of both peoples.
    Ms Christine Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Oxfam's recent report entitled "Forgotten Villages"? It spells out in graphic terms the devastating impact that the Israeli Government's closure policy is having on poor Palestinian farmers who cannot harvest their olives or get their water tankers
    242
    through the checkpoints. Does she agree that if the closure policy is not stopped, we will have a real humanitarian disaster in the west bank?
    Clare Short: I am afraid that we already have a humanitarian disaster. The situations in Zimbabwe and Congo are horrendous. It is now as bad for the children of Palestinians, who were until recently living at middle-income levels, as it is in those two countries. We have a humanitarian disaster, and the closures, which mean that people cannot work, are at the root of it. I am not familiar with the report but I am familiar with the situation. We are doing all that we can to improve humanitarian support, but we cannot arrive at a solution in that way—there has to be political progress.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The United Nations has been providing help to Palestine since 1948 through its Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, but it is short of funds for its programme of aid to refugees in the west bank and Gaza strip. Does the Secretary of State accept that any conflict in the region will affect the capacity of UNRWA to meet humanitarian needs in Palestine? What contingency plans have been made for the Palestinian people in the event of a war in Iraq?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right: because of the closures and the growing dependency of so many of the population of Gaza who are technically refugees, the need for UNRWA support has grown and UK support for UNRWA has increased considerably. I have written to several Ministers in other countries to point out that they are not funding UNRWA as they have done in the past, so the agency is underfunded at present.
    We are making plans for contingencies of all kinds, including optimistic scenarios, in Iraq. However, some of those contingencies will bring devastating problems to all the people of the middle east—let us all try to avoid having to live with one of those.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a World Bank report published earlier this year, which stated that gross national product in the west bank would need to grow by 6.7 per cent. to level the poorest people out of poverty. How integral to that is stabilisation in the region and the creation of a Palestinian state?
    Clare Short: I do not know exactly what the shrinkage in the economy has been, but it has been massive and rapid due to the political situation. If we could achieve political progress, of course there would be rapid economic growth. There is a lot to do, but there is a high number of educated Palestinians. Currently, the economy is dependent on people being able to move around to get jobs, so an easing of the political situation would lift the economy considerably. That is what we must try to achieve.

    Zimbabwe (Food Aid)
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What steps her Department is taking to ensure free and fair distribution of food aid in Zimbabwe. [84688]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Two thirds of the food requirements in Zimbabwe are being provided by the Government of Zimbabwe to populations either able to afford to buy food or eligible for supplementary feeding programmes. There is strong evidence that those supplies are being manipulated for political reasons.
    The UN appeal is separate and provides for those who are destitute. That food is being distributed according to need, and we are ensuring that it is not politically manipulated: but the UN appeal is only 50 per cent. funded and therefore many people are facing starvation.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I greatly admire the right hon. Lady's integrity, forthrightness and courage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in saying what she believes to be right. In the light of the facts that the Government of Mr. Mugabe are clearly denying opponents food and are using food to win elections, that Matabele women who go into hospital to have children are being sterilised and that brutal force is being used against anyone who stands up against Mr. Mugabe, will the right hon. Lady join me in urging the Government to bring down that African Milosevic who is destroying his country?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the situation in Zimbabwe is an absolute disaster. Of the 15.5 million people in need of food in southern Africa, 6.5 million are in Zimbabwe. One in three adults in Zimbabwe are infected with HIV. The economy is destroyed, an election has been stolen, and there is brutalism and misuse of humanitarian aid. I really fear that there will be a disaster such as we have never seen in our lifetime, with the lack of food, the political situation and HIV all playing into each other. I expect that that will bring an end to that awful regime. In the meantime, however, we must do all that we can to keep food flowing for the innocent people whose lives are being destroyed by that terrible regime.
    Mr. Peter Pike: To underline what my right hon. Friend has just said, the message from the townships in Harare, in Zimbabwe, is that the position is extremely critical and getting worse all the time. They believe that there will be serious problems within the next six months if action is not taken. They believe that the UK and South Africa in particular must do something to end the present situation to ensure that food gets to the people in Zimbabwe who need it so desperately—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.
    Clare Short: I share the view that we are facing a disaster. The United Kingdom is making the second biggest contribution to the appeal. I am currently scraping through my Department to try to find more resources, and I have also written to other
    244
    Governments. I am afraid that the shadow of Mugabe is preventing Governments from responding to the humanitarian appeal, so the people are being punished twice. The United Kingdom is taking a leading role in the humanitarian effort, and we will continue to do everything in our power to help.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: ZANU-PF's organising secretary, Didymus Mutasa, has stated that Zimbabwe would be better off with only 6 million people—the half, not surprisingly, that supports his party's aims. Given that selective starvation of the people seems to be official Zimbabwean Government policy, does the Secretary of State believe that the United States Government were right to warn last month of the need for intrusive measures to ensure that the food gets to all those who need it?
    Clare Short: I saw the statement in the press that was attributed to Didymus Mutasa. If he said anything like that, it is an absolute outrage. To welcome the death of nearly half the people in a country is completely unforgivable—no one should forgive him. I am aware also from the press that the US has implied the need for some enforced provision of food, but I am not aware of any action to follow up that statement. The situation is extremely complicated. We are doing all in our power, and the World Food Programme is doing a splendid job. There are petrol shortages in the country on top of everything else, and the unwillingness to accept genetically modified food unless it is milled outside the country is a further complication. I do not think that the proposals to use force in that situation would help us, but I am open to any serious suggestion that will. Most particularly, the WFP needs more resources just to keep people fed.

    World Poverty
    Mr. Neil Turner: What action she is taking to ensure that programmes to tackle world poverty continue after 2015. [84690]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): Some 900 million people are still likely to be living in extreme poverty in 2015, even if the millennium development goals are achieved, so our commitment to work against poverty must continue. The 2015 targets have been extremely effective in focusing our development work, and we will need new targets after that date.
    Mr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for recognising the importance of the need to fight poverty in the future. Does she agree that poverty and the hopelessness that comes from it provide ready recruits to those sectarian and fanatical organisations that seek to divide the nations of the world rather than to bring people together?
    Ms Keeble: There is a very clear link between conflict and poverty, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has addressed some of those issues in her goals. We are currently undertaking research to find out what will be the needs of the 900 million people who will still be in

    245
    poverty after 2015. All our efforts and those of the multilateral organizations—including the European Union, for example—must focus on combating poverty.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What progress are the Minister and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State making to deal with the collapse in commodity prices, which is having such a significant effect on the progress towards tackling poverty in the developing countries under the programmes of the various international bodies?
    Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the trade and aid issue. We are obviously working very closely to look at the impact of commodity prices, and we also hope to diversify agriculture in some of the countries that are dependent on a single commodity. Although we are making progress in dealing with the trade-related issues, it is also extremely important that we now increase the amount of aid going to developing countries to combat poverty.
    Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to meeting the millennium development goals in the poorest countries in Africa is the initiative under the New Partnership for Africa's Development, and that if we in the rich world are to deliver our part of NEPAD, we must take action to reduce food subsidies and to open up our markets to African products, particularly agricultural produce?
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to link the work that is being done in Europe in relation to the common agricultural policy with the work on the Doha agenda in opening up trade to deal with some of the deep-seated problems. He is also right to identify the importance of NEPAD as an African solution to African problems and to focus on some of the Government issues. Meanwhile, of course, the task of dealing with the worst poverty will be affected in particular by increasing the amount of aid. The Department for International Development is working very closely to increase the amount of aid to combat poverty in the poorest countries of the world.

    Afghanistan (Poppy Cultivation)
    Sue Doughty: What progress has been made in the elimination of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. [84691]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): During the 20 years of civil war and the period of Taliban rule, poppy cultivation became the mainstay of the Afghan economy. The drug economy will not be eliminated without extending security, justice and development across the country outside Kabul. Plans have now been agreed for the formation of an Afghan national army, and we need to develop plans on the demobilisation of militias and on extending security outside Kabul. We have already agreed interdiction programmes against production and trafficking.
    246
    President Karzai is strongly committed to the elimination of the drug economy from Afghanistan, but that will take sustained effort.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. As law enforcement is vital for the reduction of poppy cultivation, has she given any consideration to the establishment of a national police force in Afghanistan, and has her Department given any direct assistance to the Afghan Government for that purpose?
    Clare Short: The international community has a clear aim—all of Afghanistan's institutions are smashed and need rebuilding, including its police force. The Germans are leading on the rebuilding and retraining of the police force, and we are doing work on customs. Collectively, we are providing economic help for the Afghan Government and their budget—strengthening their Ministry of Finance, central bank and so on. That work is going on, and the tasks are being shared out among members of the international community—every single institution in the country needs rebuilding.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Kidney: If he will list his official engagements for 11 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, in addition to my duties in the House. I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Kidney: Great amounts of money are going into the national health service for the likes of workers' pay and primary care trusts, such as the one based in Stafford, but will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government's evident good intention to support the health service will not he undermined by their plans for foundation hospitals?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that. Foundation hospitals will be NHS hospitals and will service NHS patients. They will have greater freedom in the local community—they will be owned by the local community—to develop the services that NHS patients want. My hon. Friend is right; there is record investment in the national service, which is opposed by the Opposition, but it must be matched by reform—giving, on the basis on earned autonomy, the freedom to the front line to innovate and create in the way that the health service needs.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the loss of integrity surrounding the No. 10 press office and information provided by the Government, and how does he intend to restore it?
    The Prime Minister: No, I believe that all questions have been properly answered.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That is the most extraordinarily complacent answer. After 10 days of half-truths and evasions, the Prime Minister knows that questions remain about the changing of deportation dates after officials admitted contact with ministerial staff, the breaching of the ministerial code and the conduct of the civil service. Surely, the Prime Minister should ask for an independent inquiry to clear up this matter.
    The Prime Minister: First, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have answered all the questions put to them, and have done so conclusively. Secondly, on the ministerial code, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Cabinet Secretary has replied to him, and I have put the terms of that response in the Library of the House. Thirdly, I do not believe that anything remotely warrants the inquiry that he seeks.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister refers to the Cabinet Secretary's letter. In that letter he states:
    "I do not propose to respond to your invitation to detail what advice I gave to the Prime Minister and when."
    So there is no information in the public domain that will settle the issue. I remind the Prime Minister that he said a few years ago:
    "We are here to uphold the highest standards"
    and that his Government would be
    "whiter than white, purer than pure".
    After what has happened, people simply do not believe what he says. Does he not understand that the only way to restore integrity to his Government and to No. 10 is to hold an independent inquiry? Why does he not do so?
    The Prime Minister: First, the Letter does deal with the issue of the ministerial code, and it deals with it in detail. Secondly, as I just said, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have responded to all the allegations that have been made, all of which, I may say, have turned out to be false. Thirdly, it is typical of the right hon. Gentleman that he dives into the swimming pool just as the water is running out.
    Mr. Graham Stringer: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that Mr. Cook, charged with the 2001 census, cannot count, and that he massively underestimated the population of cities such as Manchester with its large ethnic minority and student populations? Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that those figures are not used in the planning of vital public services?
    The Prime Minister: The Office for National Statistics, as my hon. Friend knows, conducts an examination of the census, and it is confident that the 2001 census provides the most accurate estimate of the population, both nationally and locally. I know that that is a matter of great controversy in Manchester, and that the national statistician has met the chief executive of Manchester city council on two occasions to discuss the estimates. I understand that the dialogue is ongoing,
    248
    but my hon. Friend will understand that we must base our deliberations on the figures of the census, unless we believe them to be wrong. As the figures are checked by the ONS, we must take its advice.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On Iraq, given that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has criticised the style and approach of the American Administration in its handling of the Iraqi dossier, does the Prime Minister share the Secretary-General's criticism?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I can tell him that the United States and the Secretary-General are agreed on the key issue: that there is a United Nations resolution, that it must be obeyed, and that if there is a breach, action must follow.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm that the perception should be that the United Nations is the sovereign authority in all this business, and that that underpins the international coalition of interest against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism in general? If that perception becomes misguided or misinformed internationally, it is the worse for all of us.
    The Prime Minister: It is, of course, important that in all circumstances the integrity of the UN is upheld. I believe that it is being upheld. The resolution was passed unanimously by the Security Council. All those who backed the resolution are sovereign nations. I believe that it is right that we study the dossier provided by Iraq and see what is contained in it. The basic point remains that that declaration has to be honest and transparent, and if it is discovered not to be honest—in other words, if there is a breach of the duty to co-operate—action must follow.
    Liz Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that 2002 is autism awareness year, and Members from across the House, the National Autistic Society and others have played their part in raising the profile of the disability. One positive thing that has come forward is that it is to be used as an exemplar in the children's national service framework. To date, no information has been given about the resources to be put behind that initiative. Will he press for those resources to be announced so that we can all get an insight into the kind of support that children with autism will have both now and in the future?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue long and hard and she will know that earlier this year just over £2.5 million of additional money was allocated for research into autism. Autism affects many children in Britain and it is important that we study both its effects and its causes. I can assure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to doing that and to ensuring that the policies for research and for the health service generally take account of a condition that I know causes great difficulty for parents and carers who look after the autistic.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Chancellor says that he believes in a fair tax system, so does the

    249
    Prime Minister think it fair that council tax payers in Lancashire should next year have to pay a 13 per cent. increase in council tax, almost six times the rate of inflation, when council tax in the county has gone up by some 47 per cent. since 1997?
    The Prime Minister: I simply point out that the Government have put substantial additional sums of money into the local authority settlement. I think that I am right in saying that somewhere in the region of 25 per cent. additional money has gone into local authorities during the past few years. That compares with a cut in funding in the few years before we came to office. Therefore, particularly after my right hon. Friend's announcement earlier this week, we have been very generous to local authorities, and it is obviously important that they use the money properly.
    Denzil Davies: When my right hon. Friend attends the European summit at the end of this week, will he gently suggest to the German Chancellor that, in the interests of the European economy, perhaps Germany should consider withdrawing temporarily from the European monetary union, so that it can recover control over its interest rates, exchange rates and public expenditure, and therefore take the necessary measures to try to arrest its serious decline into deflation and economic depression?
    The Prime Minister: It has to be said that, from time to time, my diplomatic triumphs at certain European summits are not always exactly as I would wish with one or two other leaders in recent memory, but I do not think that it would be wise or diplomatic for me to suggest to Chancellor Schröder how to run the German economy. I am simply delighted that the British economy is in such good shape.

    Health and Social Services (Oxfordshire)
    Dr. Evan Harris: What assessment he has made of health and social services in Oxfordshire.
    The Prime Minister: Clearly, Oxfordshire is benefiting from the substantial investment in health and social services. For 2002–03, Oxfordshire has received more than £445 million, an increase of more than £41 million on last year's allocation. As for social services, the funding this year is £86 million. Local health and social services managers are working together, including pooling budgets, to find solutions to current issues.
    Dr. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman happy that in each of the past six years of his Government the most vulnerable users of social services have suffered cuts, and now all the strategic authorities in the southern region are projecting a mid-year deficit of £230 million? What should the new growth money this year be spent on—paying off deficits or new front-line services? It cannot be both.
    The Prime Minister: The integrity of the services is the primary concern, but—I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say this—during the past few years Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust has had
    250
    a new 54-bed trauma centre costing £9 million; there will be a major development of acute services, which is a £200 million scheme; it has received almost £1 million for additional accident and emergency nurses; and it is receiving an additional £2 million to secure additional capacity on delayed discharges. An extra £9 million has also been allocated by the trust for accident and emergency redevelopment.

    Engagements
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What is the Prime Minister's understanding of the meaning of the expression "blind trust"?
    The Prime Minister: Again, as I said, these issues have been canvassed extensively and answered many times before, and I have nothing to add to the answers that have already been given.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Does the Prime Minister recall that under both Tory and Labour Governments, I have argued that the press need to distinguish between politicians and their families and that failure to do so will lead to a great lack of willingness among ordinary people in all political parties to put their names forward for public office? When people such as Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail and a member of the Press Complaints Commission board, surround themselves and their own families with a wall of privacy and yet seek to attack the families of other people, they present themselves as both cowardly and irresponsible.
    The Prime Minister: The freedom of the press is and always must be paramount, but I would simply hope that people who have a personal agenda are open with their readers about it.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The National Association of Pension Funds says today that the rate of closure of occupational pension funds has doubled in the past year. Why?
    The Prime Minister: Because companies have found themselves, for the reasons of economic slowdown that he knows about, in difficulty. I think that the association also said today in the same interview that 70 per cent. of those schemes are still open and taking new members.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: One of the reasons that the Prime Minister did not mention as to why the schemes have closed is the Government's £25 billion pension tax. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, that will raise £40 billion from pension schemes. That is what is damaging pension funds—it is the single most important reason. Does he now agree with his own Downing street economics adviser, who said recently that there is a lack of vision in the Government's pension policy?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a pensions Green Paper is being issued next week that will deal many of those issues. As for the question of pensions and the changes in advanced tax credit, he will

    251
    know that that was done many years ago. The drop has happened in the last year, for the reasons that I have given.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: There has been a Green Paper or a consultation on pensions almost every single month over the past five years. Surely, what we need from the Government are funded pensions and less dependence on means tests. However, under the Government, despite what they have said, funded pensions are collapsing, and by next year 60 per cent. of all pensioners will be on means-tested benefits. Is that not an indictment of the Government's policy over the past five years?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman is actually referring to is the pension credit, which will help many pensioners who have made savings but are on lower incomes. It is important that we ensure that those people have more money. [Interruption.] Let us be very clear: the Conservative party is opposed to the pension credit. That is obvious. We should let every pensioner in this country know that when the pension credit helps them and gives them a better income, helping some to the tune of £20 a week, the Conservative party is opposed to them getting it.
    Jeff Ennis: Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituency has the lowest GDP of any constituency in the UK? It also has the highest level of disability, with more than one in three households having at least one disabled person. Yet, under the old formula funding system, Barnsley health authority was the worst-funded health authority in the old Trent region, and it is now also one of the worst-funded authorities in the new Yorkshire region. Can he reassure the House that, under the new system that is shortly to be announced, Barnsley will at long last get its fair share of health authority resources?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that Barnsley, like all other authorities, will get a real-terms increase. I know that he would also want to say that, partly through the Government's measures, unemployment is much lower arid many children have been lifted out of poverty as a result of child benefit measures and the working families tax credit. There is also a big investment in regeneration in the area. I agree with my hon. Friend that much more remains to be done, but I hope that he agrees with me that funding in Barnsley and the surrounding areas is infinitely better now than six years ago.
    Ann Winterton: Will the Prime Minister amend the European Communities Act 1972 to reclaim for the House control over British waters and thus prevent the imminent eradication of not only the Scottish white fish fleet but the United Kingdom white fish fleet, which is staging a major demonstration of protest on the Tyne today?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the Conservative Government of the time were right to pass that legislation because the abolition of the common fisheries policy—I understand that that is now the Conservative party's official policy—is not the answer to the problem.
    252
    It would be a disaster if we withdrew from the common fisheries policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about to explain why. It would mean that other countries would have the freedom to fish without restriction for fish that migrate into our waters. Consequently, we would end up in a worse position.
    As the recent scientific report found, there is a huge problem with fishing stocks because they are being depleted rapidly. The only way in which to deal with that is to come together with the industry and consider the necessary changes to tackle the difficult problem. To suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition did in a letter to me today, that there is an easy solution of withdrawing from the common fisheries policy, is cruelly to deceive those working in the fisheries industry.
    Mr. Michael Foster: My right hon. Friend will know that a ship carrying Scud missiles from North Korea to the Yemen has been intercepted by Spanish armed forces. What investigations has he undertaken into that disturbing incident?
    The Prime Minister: We are talking to our allies and to the Yemeni Government about that. It is a serious issue. If ballistic missiles are being exported from North Korea, that shows the danger that we face from weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. I emphasise to hon. Members that I believe that the threat is formidable, and that it confronts the security and stability of our world. It is important to investigate and deal with the incident. If it is true that ballistic missiles are being exported, we must keep up the pressure on North Korea to change its ways. Exporting such technology is an unacceptable threat to our security.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Given that only 23 out of 378 private finance initiative projects have been examined independently for value for money, and given that the professional fees for the Treasury building PFI project exceed £25 million—the National Audit Office was unaware of that—does the Prime Minister agree with the Labour party conference and the Institute for Public Policy Research that the time has come for a full review of value for money in the PFI?
    The Prime Minister: The Tory party is now against PFI too, is it? [Interruption.] I certainly will answer. We are absolutely committed to the PFI programme. School buildings and hospitals are being built around the country as a result of it. That is absolutely right. [Interruption.] It has been a useful session of Prime Minister's questions. We have another dividing line. Money is going to each Conservative constituency through the PFI, but Conservative Members want it taken out.
    Mr. John MacDougall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the many police forces throughout the country that have contributed to the seizure of drugs? Does he acknowledge that the drugs culture and its resourcing contribute to the sort of atrocities that we sadly

    253
    witnessed against the twin towers? Will he reassure hon. Members that the Government's resolve will strengthen?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we deal with the supply both from abroad and within this country. My hon. Friend will know that the Scottish Executive have committed almost £130 million more to fighting the drugs trade in Scotland. We are also taking measures in Afghanistan and around the world to defeat the drugs trade. That will be a long and steady business. I would emphasise that most of the heroin in this country comes in from Afghanistan, and that is an important reason for us to stay in Afghanistan and help to rebuild that nation, so that its farming community can make its living gainfully, not through the export of drugs.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year, under the 30-year rule, a civil service document was released which stated that in the context of the wider United Kingdom interest in Europe, fishermen must be regarded as expendable? That has been demonstrated many times by successive Administrations over the past 30 years. With so much at stake in so many coastal communities around the country at this time, and with some of the fish stocks—such as haddock—that are set for draconian cuts remaining in a healthy state, will the Prime Minister undertake to raise this matter at the Copenhagen summit and personally lobby other Community leaders in the run-up to the Fisheries Council, to demonstrate that he does not regard this industry as expendable?
    The Prime Minister: Whatever the position of previous Governments may have been, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not ours. What is more, we have already raised the issue, and we raise it continually. I have raised it personally with the Commissioner and with other European leaders. As I said to a member of the Conservative party a short time ago, there is a serious problem because of the depletion of fishing stocks, as the hon. Gentleman must know, and there is no answer other than to sit down with the industry, having got the best deal that we can out of Europe, and work out how we help the industry through this difficult time. It cannot be right, however, to withdraw from the common fisheries policy, which would make the position even worse, or to try to pretend to people that there is a simple solution, because there simply is not.
    Mr. Mike Hall: My right hon. Friend will recall that the decision to take the Diamond project away from Daresbury laboratory and place it at Oxford caused great concern in my constituency and across the whole of the north-west. The Prime Minister challenged us at the time to come forward with a world-leading science project that could be carried out at Daresbury. The Daresbury and north-west science group proposed the fourth generation light source project. I am pleased to tell the Prime Minister that this project has now completed its international peer group review and has been given the green light to proceed. The only thing standing in its way is the
    254
    decision on its location. The best location for that project would be Daresbury laboratory. Will the Prime Minister commit himself to that?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that we will listen very carefully to the representations that my hon. Friend has made. I know the concern that the Daresbury decision caused, but my hon. Friend will understand that we view Daresbury as a very important part of the future for science in the north-west. We have allocated additional funds to Daresbury on that basis, and I hope very much that we can offer him good news on that.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime Minister promise to study carefully the views of sound and sensible trade unions such as Unison, which have expressed serious concern about the effect on jobs and prosperity in Britain if we join the single currency? Will he at least give us an assurance that if we have a referendum that says no to the single currency, he will accept that as the decision for the foreseeable future and not return repeatedly to hold several more referendums, as has been the case in other European states?
    The Prime Minister: I somehow thought that the hon. Gentleman might get round to the single currency. Obviously, the position of the Government remains as it is, which is that the five tests have to be passed for a referendum to be held. We have to conduct those tests before June 2003. I am not going to say any more to the hon. Gentleman on that subject. Of course, we will listen to the views of the Unison-Conservative party alliance—or, at least, certain parts of it—with interest. The vast majority of people in this country believe that this is a decision that should be taken not on the ground of dogma—that is, that we should never join the single currency—but on the basis of what is good for British jobs, industry and investment.

    Africa
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When he next expects to meet his Commonwealth counterparts to discuss proposals for dealing with conflict resolution and human rights abuses in Africa.
    The Prime Minister: The next major Commonwealth meeting is the Heads of Government meeting in Abuja from 5 to 8 December 2003. It is very likely that conflict resolution and human rights in Africa will be discussed.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he continue the excellent work that is already being done by his Government in Africa and make special representations to President Mbeki, who is the only person who might be capable of bringing common sense, peace and prosperity back to Zimbabwe?
    The Prime Minister: It is a desperately serious situation as 7 million people in Zimbabwe are facing food shortages. I know that President Obasanjo and President Mbeki are due to visit Zimbabwe shortly, and

    255
    I hope that they have some impact in bringing home to the Zimbabwean regime the consequences of their actions.
    As for Africa, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are very proud of the enormous commitment spearheaded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and we are proud of the fact that, over the next few years, we will raise our contribution to Africa to £1 billion. We are also proud of the fact that we have been leading the way on international debt, which is one very good reason for having a Labour Government.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Zimbabwe face far worse than food shortages, as he has just put it? Is he aware that recently a delegation of very brave men from Matabeleland met members of the Foreign Affairs
    256
    Committee and told us stories of persecution bordering on genocide, the sterilisation of women and the forcible withholding of food from those who do not support the tyrant? Can he be a little more urgent in what he does to try to solve this despicable and dreadful problem?
    The Prime Minister: First, I wholly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the situation in Zimbabwe. In addition to the points that he makes, one person in three in Zimbabwe now suffers from HIV/AIDS. I have to tell him that the only thing that we can do, and we are doing it with urgency, is to try to isolate the Zimbabwean leadership at every level and work with the Governments in the region to ensure that the situation in Zimbabwe changes. For that very reason, we led the calls to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. It has indeed been suspended, but, in the end, the countries in the region can exert most pressure, and we will help them do so.

Bali: ISC Report
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report published today by the Intelligence and Security Committee in respect of the terrorist bombings in Bali on 12 October.
This inquiry was established at my request, as I announced to the House on 21 October in a statement. I said then that I would be making available all relevant intelligence to the Committee so that it could make its own independent assessments of the facts. The Committee has since reviewed all intelligence relevant to Bali and taken evidence from the heads of the agencies, other officials, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me.
The House will be aware that the Home Secretary is indisposed, recovering from a minor operation. For that reason, he cannot be here, but I hope that I speak for the whole House when I send him best wishes for a full recovery.
The Government welcome the report, and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the Chairman of the Committee, and her colleagues in the House and the other place for all their work. We will consider the recommendations carefully and let the Committee and the House know of our final conclusions as soon as possible.
I also know that the entire House will join me again in extending our deepest condolences to the relatives and friends of the victims of that terrible act. Special arrangements have been made today to contact the next of kin of the victims to tell them of this report.
As the report has only just been published, it may be helpful if I briefly summarise it and then tell the House of the Government's initial response. The Committee's report broadly covers four questions, which I shall deal with in turn. First, was intelligence collection in Indonesia a sufficiently high priority? The report says that sufficient priority was given to the collection of intelligence in respect of Indonesia, although since 11 September last year the volume of intelligence available to our intelligence agencies had increased
"by a factor of at least ten",
and that during the period in question the agencies received at least 150 separate reports covering at least 20 different countries.
Secondly, was any intelligence overlooked? That question, as the House will recall, was understandably raised by the relatives and friends who lost a loved one in the atrocity on 12 October. Having examined all the intelligence, the Committee concluded that it had
"not seen any intelligence that described or directly related to any form of terrorist attack on Bali on or around 12 October"
and that on the basis of the available intelligence
"there was no action that the UK or its allies could have taken to prevent the attacks."
258
Thirdly, did the Security Service make the correct assessment of the threat levels on the available intelligence? The Committee's report covers three areas. It says that the Security Service's current six levels of threat assessment do
"not provide a sufficiently clear definition of the threat to be of use to customer departments",
and makes recommendations for change. It questions why, in the wake of a failed grenade attack on a United States diplomatic property in Jakarta on 23 September, it took the Security Service over two weeks to issue an internal report on Indonesia. Lastly, it says that because there was intelligence of a terrorist threat in Indonesia, because there was the possibility of displacement of targets, and taking into account
"the reluctance of the Indonesian authorities to deal with terrorism",
the Security Service made what the Committee says was a "serious misjudgement" in failing to upgrade its assessment of the threat to British interests from "significant" to "high".
The staff of the Security Service must make fine judgments based on fragmentary intelligence and other information. In the absence of any specific material in the period preceding the Bali bombing, the service had assessed the threat to general British interests in Indonesia as being "significant". As a result, the security climate was judged to be such that United Kingdom general interests were likely to be a priority target for terrorists.
As I know the Intelligence and Security Committee itself fully recognises, the staff of the Security Service are dedicated people who work to the highest professional standards. They can never publicly justify or defend themselves. But they, and we, must also be properly accountable for what we do, and we will of course take the Committee's recommendations on board.
Against the background of the increased global threat of terrorism, the Security Service began to review the system of threat assessment earlier this year. That work will now be informed by the Committee's findings, and will be brought to an early conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary leads on this, and I know he will ensure that the Committee and the House are kept fully informed.
The Committee's fourth set of conclusions concern travel advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Committee says that the travel advice at the time of the Bali bombing did not accurately reflect either the threat or recent developments in Indonesia, although it also says that the advice issued was "proportional" to the Security Service's assessment of the threat, to which I just referred. It says that FCO travel advice is generally not communicated effectively to the public and the travel industry, and that the whole purpose of such advice should be reviewed.
Our travel advice is widely used by individual travellers and by the travel industry. There are some 670,000 visitors to our website each month. In the wake of the Bali bombing, I have put in hand a comprehensive review of the way in which our travel advice is both prepared and presented. We have already made some improvements, but we will be making further changes, drawing on the Committee's helpful recommendations.

259
The purpose of travel advice is to provide reliable information to British travellers and residents overseas. It is vital that our advice is based on the assessments made by the Security Service. The intelligence agencies are best placed to evaluate the terrorist threat to British nationals both at home and overseas. That often involves difficult judgments where we have to ensure that travellers are warned of threats that we assess to be credible, while not causing panic by over-reacting to unsubstantiated pieces of information.
It is worth underlining that that often requires very difficult judgments. The safety and well-being of our nationals abroad is our prime concern, but as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last month, we must aim
"to take preventive measures without destroying normal life."
If rather than properly seeking to separate truth from fiction the Government treated every terrorist threat as accurate, on many occasions in recent months we would have had to shut roads, shopping centres, airports, factories and military installations. That would serve only to cause panic—precisely the circumstances that the terrorists are striving to create.
We are always looking for ways to do this job better, to work more closely with our allies to ensure that collectively we do all we can to protect our citizens from the threat of terrorism, while allowing people to live, as far as possible, normal and free lives uninhibited by unnecessary or exaggerated fears, but I remind the House of a sobering point about intelligence: by its nature, when it works, which is usually the case, the public rarely get to hear about it, but there will always be exceptions, instances where despite our best efforts the terrorists slip through the intelligence net.
The tragic lesson from Bali is that British nationals are targets of terrorism in many parts of the world. The message for the Government is that we must all exercise constant vigilance if we are to avert future such tragedies. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we will never bow to the evils of terrorism. Its purpose is to undermine the very foundations of our free and democratic life, and our campaign against it will continue to be unrelenting both at home and overseas.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance notice of both his statement and the report. I join him in sending our best wishes to the Home Secretary for a speedy recovery.
We on the Conservative Benches welcome the report and its contents. It is a very serious report with very serious implications for the security of British citizens abroad. We owe great gratitude to the members and the chairman of the committee for producing it so quickly. I take this opportunity to join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the dedication of our security services, which work largely unthanked and unsung on behalf of the citizens of this country. I renew our condolences to the victims and the bereaved from the murderous Bali bomb.
At the time of the bombing, I called for the Committee to investigate what information had been available prior to the Bali bomb. I also asked that there
260
be a full debate on the report. I hope that, notwithstanding the statement today, the Government will make time available for such a debate, particularly after they have completed their own consideration of the recommendations in the report.
I referred at the time to Australian Prime Minister John Howard's belief that we have an obligation to have procedure "thoroughly examined". Today's report supports that view, and its recommendations largely endorse the actions that I called for at the time of the Bali bombing.
As the report indicates, there are serious lessons to be learned from Bali. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary must share my concern at the Committee's findings that the pre-11 September Foreign Office travel advice was clearer on the threat to British interests in Indonesia than the advice that was available in August this year.
There are a number of urgent recommendations relating to the security services and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Those must be responded to swiftly, comprehensively and sufficiently openly to restore public confidence in the advice that flows from their activities. One of the major deficiencies highlighted in today's report concerns the levels of threat grading. The Committee calls for the gap between the level "significant" and the level "high" to be addressed. I am sure that the Government will wish to consider that. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the Australians and/or the Americans grade their threat assessments in the same way, and whether we can learn from them?
Even before this report, were early lessons learned from Bali? The Foreign Secretary said that improvements had been made, but the Australian Government, in particular, do seem to have learned lessons from Bali. Ahead of the attack in Mombasa on 28 November, they warned their citizens
"to defer non-essential travel to Kenya".
All that the Foreign Office warned was that there might be an increased terrorist threat. There is a substantial difference between those two warnings.
The Australian Government warned in mid-November:
"threats against Westerners and Western interests in Mombasa are high".
What was the Foreign Office warning, and why was Mombasa not mentioned? Why was travel advice not changed until I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 29 November raising the disturbing similarities with the action taken by the Foreign Office in the run-up to the Bali bombing?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is essential that the public can have confidence in the travel advice issued by his Department, and that the report must be acted upon swiftly to restore lost confidence? The inconsistency between the United Kingdom and Australia may have dented that confidence yet further. The right hon. Gentleman must tell the House today what steps have been taken to improve consistency.
Was our intelligence in relation to both Bali and Mombasa the same as that available to the Australian Government? Were the threat assessments that were made the same, and if so, why did we give the same travel advice on the first occasion, but different travel

261
advice on the second occasion? Were the threat assessments to the embassy in Jakarta and to the high commission in Mombasa the same or different? What were the levels for Nairobi when we know that in Jakarta the level was "high"? Were the equivalent threats to general British interests in Kenya the same as those being issued in Indonesia, where the level was said to be "significant"?
Has the Foreign Secretary seriously considered a more joined-up approach to the issuing of travel advice? Should not countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom consider a more cooperative approach? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of Foreign Office travel advice on the validity of travel insurance claims for holidays cancelled as a result of the advice given?
The report refers to there being insufficiency of information to prevent specific terrorist attacks, and the Foreign Secretary has written to me in similar terms—but does he not agree that although there may frequently be insufficient information to prevent an attack, that same information may be sufficient to establish a threat to British interests, which should be reflected in the travel advice? Was that not the case with Bali, and even more with Mombasa?
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to heed the words of the committee in its conclusion:
"The whole issue of travel advice, its purpose, target audience and presentation needs to be examined … as a matter of urgency".
Can he assure the House that he will waste no time in implementing all the recommendations of the report?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and about the relatives of the victims of this atrocity, and the staff of the Security Service—and, I might add, all the other intelligence agencies as well. He asked whether there would be a full debate on the subject, and I note his request. When I made my original statement six weeks ago I promised that I would do my best to ensure that the report was brought to the House as quickly as possible, and that is exactly what has happened; we received the report only yesterday. The request for a full debate will, of course, be dealt with in the usual way by the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points as a sort of reprise of the report—and yes, since he asks, we are, as I have already made clear, moving swiftly to consider the recommendations in full. We will report both to the ISC and to the House. For reasons that the House fully understands, we can report rather more thoroughly to the ISC than to the House, because the ISC meets in confidence—but we shall report to the House as thoroughly as we can.
The categorisation of threat levels is published in today's ISC report—probably the first time that it has been published in this way. The right hon. Gentleman asked about such categorisation in respect of Australia and the United States. I will write to him with more information—if I have it—but my understanding is that neither the United States nor Australia makes public even the categorisation. While we were content for the basic categorisation to be published—we will of course take full account of the Committee's recommendation
262
for an intermediate threat level between "significant" and "high"—it is firmly not our intention to make public the judgments made about threat assessments for individual countries, because in many cases to do so could inform terrorists that we have information about them. The Security Service makes its assessments as objectively as possible. They are then taken into account—not in an automatic way, but as a matter of judgment—alongside other factors, and that is reflected in the travel advice. Whenever a threat level changes, we reconsider the travel advice; it does not follow that, whenever a threat level changes, the travel advice is automatically altered.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the terrorist outrage in Mombasa. First, I am glad to say that there were no British casualties in Mombasa. In a letter to him, I said:
"No information was available to the UK, US or Australia which could have prevented the attacks which took place in Mombasa."
As Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, said:
"Australia had no specific information about the timing, location or method of the possible attacks."
[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seems to be muttering about the difference in advice, and I am about to come to that. It is always going to be the case that different countries, even if they are using the same intelligence, may come to different judgments. In some recent cases—they do not relate to the matter under consideration—the intelligence shared between key countries may be specific to the nationals of one country, rather than another; in others, we might come to slightly different judgments. So there may be good explanations as to why there are differences.
However, the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he suggests that, although there are high levels of co-operation at the moment between key countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand—and, to a different degree, with our European partners—we can always do more to upgrade co-operation. That is something to which I shall apply myself personally in the coming days.
Mr. Michael Moore: We also welcome the statement, and I am grateful for the advance copy that the Foreign Secretary provided. May I associate Liberal Democrat Members with the good wishes offered to the Home Secretary, and with the condolences expressed by the Foreign Secretary to the families of those killed in Bali? The tragedy there, and the subsequent one in Mombasa, has highlighted the real dangers of terrorism across the globe and the importance of high-quality intelligence to assess the threats that British citizens face.
We would welcome the Foreign Secretary's recognition that, despite best efforts and the high quality of our security services, mistakes were made in the assessment of intelligence and in the advice given before the Bali bomb. Will he be seeking changes in the ways in which intelligence is assessed and acted on once received? In the light of the Australian experience, does he accept that the public will now expect a qualitative improvement in the nature and timing of the advice that

263
the Foreign Office gives? Finally, does he agree that the Committee's inquiry process was a worthwhile exercise and a useful precedent, and that it should be given the remit and resources to extend this type of work in future?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. We accept that the report highlights a need for changes in the way that intelligence is assessed and threat assessments are made, and in subsequent processing to a public result in terms of travel advice. Changes were put in hand after Bali, and some changes preceded that incident. However, the nature of the ISC's report means that the changes are likely to be accelerated and made more thorough.
Travel advice given by the UK is well regarded. Huge efforts are made to ensure its comprehensiveness and integrity, but it can always be improved. I have been looking at the nature of the advice and how it is presented on the website. There are ways in which we could change and better standardise the format of the advice, to ensure that it is more easily readable and that it refers to the websites of comparable countries such as the US, as has been suggested.
The ISC inquiry to which the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) referred is the second that has been conducted. The first was established in September 1999 in respect of the Mitrokhin disclosures, when I was Home Secretary. The second inquiry, in respect of Bali, was established just six weeks ago. The ISC's specific inquiries and its general work show the value of such scrutiny by senior parliamentarians.
Ann Taylor: On behalf of members of the ISC', may I join my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in extending our sympathy to the families of those involved in the tragic bombing in Bali? I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and for making all the relevant intelligence available to the Committee. We could not have done our work without that, or without the full co-operation of the agencies and Ministers who gave advice. We are also very grateful for the high degree of co-operation in terms of what has been published in the report, which for the first time includes the system of threat-assessment levels. It is important that people can see that, so that better judgments can be made in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was right to draw the House's attention to the Committee's conclusion that, according to the available intelligence, there was no action that the UK and its allies could have taken to prevent the attack. It is important that we bear that in mind, as the report contains other important criticisms.
The ISC shares my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's view that the staff of the Security Service, some of whom we met again this morning, are dedicated people who work in a professional way. For that reason, the Committee did not reach lightly its conclusion that there was serious misjudgment in the threat assessment made for Bali. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will work with my right hon. Friend the
264
Home Secretary to ensure that the review of the system of threat levels is completed as quickly as possible? That is not necessarily so that we can monitor what happens in Australia, America or elsewhere, but so that we get the assessment right for threats to British interests such as embassies and people. Occasionally, different judgments will be made.
Will the Foreign Office ensure that the totality of the ISC's recommendations for changes to travel advice is taken forward urgently and put in the context of the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in his Mansion house speech about public awareness and education, given the new threats that everyone faces from international terrorism?
Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in particular, and the Government in general, for turning the report around so quickly. The Committee finished its work only on Monday evening, and we are impressed that the report has been published so quickly. I urge my right hon. Friend to use his best endeavours, as some Committee members will, to persuade my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to have a debate on these matters early in the new year.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for everything that she has said, and for the manner in which she said it. I am also grateful to all the members of the Committee, who have dealt with the inquiry very assiduously.
My right hon. Friend underlined the Committee's first conclusion that the United Kingdom could have taken no action on the available intelligence that could have prevented the atrocity.. It is very hard—indeed, it is awful—for those who were bereaved, and, as I said in my statement six weeks ago, they are bound to have the idea that some intelligence was overlooked that could have prevented the atrocity. That is not the case. Given the criticism that my right hon. Friend's Committee makes, I am glad that she has placed it on record—I know that she feels this very strongly—that the staff of the Security Service are dedicated professionals.
My right hon. Friend asks whether I will work with the Home Secretary to complete the review of threat assessments as soon as possible. Yes, although, as I explained to the House, it is primarily the responsibility of the Home Secretary, as he is responsible for the Security Service. We must get it right for the United Kingdom and I shall certainly act on the totality of the Committee's recommendations on travel advice.
As for having a debate, my right hon. Friend, as a former Leader of the House, will know that all Members who speak from the Front Bench are under a strict injunction never to offer a debate but only to say that we will raise it with the Leader of the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I allowed some latitude to the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), as Chairman of the Committee, but I appeal to other hon. Members to be brief because we have another statement and important business thereafter.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the son of a constituent of

265
mine was one of the British citizens who was murdered at Bali, that he had been married five months previously and that he relied on a life assurance policy taken out by his employer to offer financial protection to his wife—now his widow? Is he further aware that my constituent told me this morning, in advance of the Foreign Secretary's statement, that the employer has now expressed doubts as to whether the life policy will be valid because his late son lost his life in an act of terrorism? The Foreign Secretary has rightly made it clear that there is a continuing grave threat to British citizens abroad and possibly in this country as well. Can he assure the House that the Government will have immediate discussions with the insurance industry to ensure that life policy protection against acts of terrorism remains in place for the people of this country?
Mr. Straw: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question is yes. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I could, through you, pass on to the family concerned my sincere condolences. I would be happy to see the right hon. Gentleman and, if he feels it appropriate, his constituent to discuss the details of the points that he has raised.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Thanks to the new system of distributing ministerial statements, it is possible to quote the Foreign Secretary accurately. He said:
"The tragic lesson from Bali is that British nationals are targets of terrorism in many parts of the world."
Could it be that British nationals are targets because of the bombing of the already traumatised children of Iraq, and that although we must fight terrorism, if we go ahead with bombing and war against Iraq, might not the eventual winners be Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and the dreadful people who perpetrated Bali?
Mr. Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend is no and no again. Children in Iraq are traumatised by the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Foreign Secretary is surely right when he says that both Australia and Britain suffered grievous casualties at Bali and both avoided casualties subsequently in Mombasa. However, is it not the case that the one was the result of good luck while the other was the result of good judgment? Is it not a fact that, based on the same intelligence, Australia gave a much more specific warning to its travelling population than our Government gave to ours? Is it not a fact that this was a serious misjudgment and failure by our Government?
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. It is a matter that I have discussed separately with the Intelligence and Security Committee. I realise that the hon. Gentleman follows these things with some care, but it is very easy to have wisdom after the event. The Australians based what they said on similar intelligence to that provided to the United Kingdom, and United States intelligence was similar to that of the UK rather than to that of the Australians. Notwithstanding the criticism made by the ISC that I have published today, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom all gave similar travel advice in respect of Bali and none of our travel advisories warned directly against travel to Bali.
266
May I remind the hon. Gentleman of a point made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)? In our exchanges on 21 October, the right hon. Gentleman warned of the genuine problem of -warning fatigue". We must be careful to ensure that the credibility of our travel advisories is properly preserved. The primary concern has to be that of the safety and security of British travellers, but how we achieve that is a matter of difficult judgments.
Ms Meg Munn: May I, too, welcome the speedy production of the report? As my right hon. Friend knows, my constituent, Natalie Perkins, died in that terrorist atrocity, along with her young cousin, Laura France, the constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I especially welcome the fact that today a system has been set up to communicate the contents of the report to the families. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary again confirm his willingness to meet relatives, should they wish to discuss in detail concerns arising from the incident?
Mr. Straw: Yes is the answer to my hon. Friend. She raised her constituents' concern during the exchanges on 21 October. I am glad that we have put the special arrangements in place. I have written to the next of kin of all the British citizens who were killed in Bali. I have already seen a number of the relatives and if my hon. Friend would like to bring her constituent to see me, I shall be happy to oblige.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Bearing in mind that the security services of those countries most at risk are not necessarily the most reliable sources of information or the easiest to work with, may I ask to what extent and how often our security services or the Ministers responsible for them check their assessment of the risk in such countries with their counterparts in friendly countries, such as the United States, or other friendly countries in the region, for example, in this case, the Governments of Singapore, Australia and Malaysia?
Mr. Straw: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his previous ministerial experience, there are substantial standing arrangements for the exchange of intelligence, especially between some countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK being five of them—and there are liaisons with quite a number of intelligence services in other countries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say—it is a timeless verity—that the quality of intelligence and security services varies across the world. Countries where law enforcement is lacking may also—although not always—have security services that are below the quality required. That has to be taken into account. There is a continuous process of exchange of information and a large proportion of the intelligence that we see—albeit not every item—has been shared with our intelligence partners.
Mr. Harry Barnes: At one time, travellers used travel agencies to purchase package holidays, so they were likely to receive advice about any problems in their destination. However, as travellers

267
now increasingly make use of the internet, are there arrangements to ensure that the information that they pull down is linked to the Foreign Office advice for overseas travel?
Mr. Straw: Our travel advice is itself available on the FCO website. That is how the overwhelming majority of travellers access it. There is substantial and significant contact between our consular department, the Association of British Travel Agents and tour operators. They work together to improve the availability of advice, but I shall follow up my hon. Friend's specific point and write to him on the matter.
Mr. Michael Weir: On behalf on the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I join other hon. Members in sending condolences to the relatives of those affected by this terrible atrocity.
Following on from the previous point, is the Foreign Secretary reviewing how the travel information is made available to those who are planning to travel and those who are already travelling, since the situation can change fairly rapidly? In particular, even in this age, many people still do not have quick access to the internet. In places such as south-east Asia, the problem is that many young backpackers may be on long trips through that area and may not be aware of a changing situation. Will he consider whether there is any way in which information can be more widely distributed quickly to people who are already travelling?
Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the condolences that he offers on behalf of the SNP and Plaid Cymru; they are gratefully received.
Although the primary means of communicating our travel advice is through the website, whenever significant changes are made to the website a press announcement is made. We would draw a really
268
important change to the attention of the BBC World Service, for example, and local broadcasters and so on, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm the factual accuracy of his statement to the House this afternoon as opposed to the written statement that, during the period in question, the agencies received at least 150 separate intelligence reports a day? Will he also confirm whether the Government have thoroughly reviewed the deposition of the security and intelligence forces' assets throughout the globe so that they are correctly in place properly to assess the emerging threat from al-Qaeda, as the whole intelligence threat has changed since the dreadful events of 11 September?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's first point was a paraphrase of the ISC report, paragraph 11 of which says:
"During the period in question"
the security services
"received at least 150 separate reports a day relating to terrorist activity in more than twenty different countries, including Indonesia and the UK itself."
Intelligence priorities are a very important issue; it is the core work of the Joint Intelligence Committee, based in the Cabinet Office and reporting to the Prime Minister and three Ministers—the Defence, Home and Foreign Secretaries—who are involved day by day in intelligence work. The ISC itself said that it was satisfied that sufficient priority was being given to intelligence collection in respect of Indonesia.
Patrick Mercer: In view of the general threat posed to travellers by the Bali bombing and the specific missile threat in Mombasa, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what advice is being offered to British airline companies?
Mr. Straw: There are standing liaison arrangements with airline companies, but the crucial thing that we seek to do is to ensure that, so far as is possible and consistent with the protection of intelligence sources, the advice that we give is made public and is transparently available.

New NHS Resources
4.13 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement about devolution of resources and responsibilities within the national health service.
I am today allocating revenue resources to England's 304 primary care trusts. I have written to all right hon. and hon. Members with details on the PCTs that serve their constituencies.
The NHS today is the fastest growing health service of any major country in Europe. Just six years ago under the previous Conservative Government, NHS budgets were falling in real terms. By 2008, under this Labour Government, they will have doubled in real terms.
The dedication and commitment of NHS staff is turning those extra resources into improved results for patients. Deaths from cancer and heart disease are falling; waiting times are down; the numbers of doctors, nurses and other staff are up; and the biggest ever hospital building programme is under way. There is a long way to go, but real and steady progress is taking place. We can now build on that momentum by coupling record resources to radical reforms.
I can tell the House that I have made three major changes to the method by which we allocate resources to the NHS. First, for the first time, locally run primary care trusts will receive funding direct from central Government rather than through health authorities—that is about devolving power and resources direct to the NHS front line. PCTs will now control 75 per cent. of the total NHS budget. That was an election manifesto commitment and today we have honoured it. Secondly, the resources that I am allocating today are not just for a single financial year but for three years. Short-term funding has hindered long-term planning in the NHS for far too long, so I am distributing to PCTs resources for the years from spring 2003 to spring 2006 to give PCTs the power to plan with confidence and certainty for the longer term. They will be free to commission services from the public, private or voluntary sectors—wherever they can get the best health services—to meet the specific health needs of their local communities. We want them to use their considerable extra resources to achieve a better balance between services in the community and those in hospitals, and to promote prevention as well as treatment.
Thirdly, the resources are being distributed according to a new fairer funding formula. The existing weighted capitation formula has been widely criticised for failing to get health resources to the areas of greatest health need, and has restricted our ability to address the health inequalities which scar our nation. Poverty and deprivation cause excess morbidity and mortality and bring extra costs to local health services, which is why I asked the expert Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to review the existing formula and introduce a new one. The new formula reflects those costs by using better measures of deprivation and by taking greater account of unmet health needs. It reflects population changes in the 2001 census, and redistributes resources to some of the poorest parts of the country, such as Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and Dagenham in London; Tendring, Basildon and Thurrock in the south;
270
Birmingham, Telford and the Wrekin in the west midlands; Ashfield in the east midlands; Liverpool, Knowsley and Manchester in the north-west; Bradford in Yorkshire; and Easington in the north-east.
The new formula, in calculating health need, takes account of the effects of access, transport and poverty in England's rural areas too. In addition, it recognises not just the challenges for the NHS in areas of highest need but challenges in areas of highest cost. We all know that the cost of living in some parts of the country is higher than in others, which impacts on the cost of health care. The new formula takes account of that in a more refined assessment of labour market costs. The allocations also reflect the impact of the recent "Agenda for Change" agreement on regional pay flexibilities and the need to expand capacity in areas where waiting times for treatment are longest. Those changes benefit almost 180 PCTs, including more than 140 in London and the south and almost 30 in the north-west.
The new funding formula is fair to all parts of the country, reflects extra needs and extra costs, and benefits PCTs in both London and the north. The average PCT budget will grow over the next three years by almost £42 million—in real terms, an increase of 22 per cent, in cash terms, of over 30 per cent. No PCT will receive an increase in funding over the next three years of less than 28 per cent. For the information of Members on both sides of the House, the real-terms increase in resources for local health services in this Parliament will average almost 7 per cent. In the 1992-97 Parliament by comparison, it averaged just over 1 per cent—that is the difference a Labour Government make.
The resources, together with our reforms, will make a difference to the care that patients receive. There will be better emergency care, shorter waiting times and improvements in cancer, heart, mental health, children's and elderly services.
The allocations to PCTs include resources to finance the costs of pay reform, new drugs and treatments and additional NHS capacity. They include the commitments that we set out in the NHS plan. However, none of the growth money has been identified for specific purposes. PCTs will be able to use these extra resources to deliver on both national and local priorities. PCTs are about shifting the balance of power in the health service so that while standards are national, control is local.
I am today placing in the Vote Office copies of a document that provides details of the help—in cash and in kind—that the Department of Health will now make available to all NHS trusts to raise standards of service for patients. There will be help, support and, where necessary, intervention to raise standards in all NHS hospitals, from the best-performing to the worst.
We on the Labour Benches reject the internal market idea that NHS hospitals should be left to sink or swim. Equity in health care demands support for all, just as it demands national standards of care, but for more than 50 years uniformity in health provision has not guaranteed equality of outcomes. Sadly, health inequalities have widened not narrowed. Top-down Whitehall control has tended to stifle local innovation, and it has too often ignored the differing needs of different local communities.

271
Sustained improvements in local services can happen only where staff feel involved and local communities are better engaged—where improvement is something done by local people, not just done to them. That is why devolution is at the heart of our reform programme for the NHS. It is why PCTs are so important, and it is why we now took to reconnect local hospitals to the local communities that they serve.
I am today publishing a guide to NHS foundation trusts—again, copies are available in the Vote Office. These NHS foundation trusts will usher in a new era of public ownership where local communities control and own their local hospitals. NHS foundation trusts will be part of the national health service, providing NHS services to NHS patients according to NHS principles—services that are free, based on need, not ability to pay. They will be subject to NHS standards, NHS star ratings and NHS inspection. They will be owned and controlled locally, not nationally.
Modelled on co-operative societies and mutual organisations, these NHS foundation trusts will have as their members local people, local members of staff and those representing key local organisations, such as PCTs. They will be its legal owners and they will elect the hospital governors. In place of central state ownership, there will be genuine local public ownership. Subject to Parliament, NHS foundation trusts will be guaranteed in law freedom from Whitehall direction and control, so that we can genuinely unleash the spirit of public service enterprise that so many NHS staff share. By putting staff and public at the heart of this key public service, these NHS hospitals will have the freedom to innovate and develop services better suited to the needs of the local community.
NHS foundation trusts will operate on a not-forprofit basis. They will earn their income from legally binding agreements with PCTs based on a national tariff. They will not be able to undercut other NHS hospitals. They will be free to borrow from the public sector or the private sector. They will be able to retain any surpluses and any proceeds from the more efficient use of their assets, where this is for the benefit of NHS patients. They will have the freedom to recruit and employ their own staff. Indeed, NHS foundation trusts will be among the first NHS organisations to implement the new pay system that we recently negotiated with NHS trades unions. Providing they can undertake extra work and make improvements in productivity and performance, they will also be able to offer staff extra rewards.
NHS foundation trusts will operate under a statutory duty of partnership under which they will use these freedoms only in a way that does not undermine other local NHS organisations—for example, by poaching their staff. There will be other safeguards to protect the public interest. NHS foundation hospitals will operate according to a licence, issued and monitored by an independent regulator who will he accountable to Parliament, to guarantee NHS standards and NHS values. The presumption will be light-touch regulation, but there will be intervention powers where they are needed. In extremis, foundation status can be withdrawn.
272
I can confirm today that the proportion of private patient work undertaken by any NHS foundation trust will be strictly capped to its existing level. Indeed, we will be particularly interested to see applications for NHS foundation trust status that propose to convert existing private patient facilities for the exclusive use of NHS patients.
To prevent any demutualisation or any future Government seeking privatisation there will be a legal lock on the assets of NHS foundation trusts. They are there to serve NHS patients—not just for now but for all time.
The freedoms that NHS foundation trusts have will be a powerful incentive for others to improve. The first round of foundation hospitals will be drawn from trusts rated three star next summer. Forty per cent of existing three-star trusts are in some of most deprived parts of the country—places such as Sunderland and Liverpool, Doncaster and Bradford, Southwark and Hackney. As more NHS trusts improve more will be eligible to gain foundation status. There will be no arbitrary cap on numbers. Over time foundation trust status will become the norm for many, perhaps most, hospitals in the NHS.Subject to Parliament, the first will be in place by Spring 2004.
Today I am announcing large-scale investment accompanied by radical reform, investment to get more resources to the NHS front line, and reform to give more power to the NHS front line.
The Labour Government have an unquestioned commitment to the NHS. It is time not just to invest more resources in front-line services, but to invest power and trust in those front-line services. That is what we seek to do. I hope that it is what the House will support.
Dr. Liam Fox:I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in making it available beforehand to the Opposition. It is really two different statements rolled into one, so I hope that the House will understand if I deal with it in two parts. [Interruption.] As usual, the Chief Whip has had her diet of Trill this morning. She might wait to hear what the Opposition have to say.
I must begin by welcoming the move to three-year funding. That is a sensible and overdue move if it is matched by a genuine willingness not to hold money back so that there is a genuine increase in autonomy. However, I have a number of reservations about what the Secretary of State said in the first part of the statement, not least when he said that PCTs will now control 75 per cent. of the total NHS budget. It would be more accurate to say that they will handle 75 per cent. of the NHS budget, because they certainly will not control it given the number of Whitehall interventions that are still in place. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us today what working assumptions he has made in the allocation of funding to PCTs about the cost of the GP contract should that contract be accepted in the coming months.
One or two other matters will certainly be welcomed. When the statement says:
"We look … to achieve a better balance between services in the community and those in hospitals",
that is something that all parts of the Opposition have been asking for some time, because those who take those decisions on the ground could not make a worse

273
job of understanding the relationship between the acute sector and what happens in the community. Perhaps the person who best expresses the problem is the Prime Minister when he says that it is about schools and hospitals. The majority of care is not about hospitals but about what happens in the community, and the Government have not understood that.
What is most worrying about this part of the statement is the Secretary of State's assertion that the formula being used to allocate resources is now fairer than it was before, yet we are not told exactly what the formula is. We need to know the basis of any change to the formula so that we can judge for ourselves. There has been no public discussion about this, just a working group reporting in secret to Ministers. It lacks transparency and I hope that we will have a full publication of the reasons and the mechanisms of this particular formula.
As the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said at Health questions last week, it can never just be about money.Perhaps what is very troubling for many health service workers is the fact that in the past two years the Government have increased NHS funding by 21.5 per cent. Nobody doubts that that increase has been made; yet the figures that the Government produced last night showed that the increase in activity measured by finished consultant episodes was only 1.6 per cent. over the same period and that, in the past two years, admissions to hospital had fallen by half a per cent.
The question to which we want an answer is: where has all the money gone? Those who work in cancer services say that it has not gone there. There is a GP shortage, and GPs say that they have less time to spend with their patients. There are now more closed lists than ever before, 80,000 fewer people are receiving domiciliary care and waiting times in accident and emergency have increased. There are more cancelled operations and readmissions, and 60,000 care home beds have closed. There is a genuine desire to know where those beds have gone and where all that money has been used in the health service, as it is certainly not getting through to those on the front line. The Government need to address that issue.
On the second part of the statement and foundation hospitals, I understand why the Secretary of State feels the need to use as much left-wing rhetoric as possible, given the splits on his own Back Benches—the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) laughs at that—and he certainly did a good job in using the right words. The Opposition entirely welcome the principle of foundation hospitals, which lays the groundwork for the model that a future Conservative Government would like to see, with greater diversity in provision. As Bill Morris rightly said this week, it is a more market-oriented approach. I know that some Labour Members do not like that concept, but I think it is a good one and that Mr. Morris was right to say that. Such an approach also breaks up the NHS monopoly of supply, which again is a good thing and will ultimately benefit patients. However, it must not be about rhetoric, but about genuine substance. When the legislation is introduced, we will want to ensure that it delivers exactly what the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister claim to want and not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to want for it—an early death.
274
We have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. On the autonomy of foundation hospitals, how exactly will borrowing limits be set? How will they he monitored, and by whom? What freedom will there be to vary pay and conditions for clinical staff outside the "Agenda for Change" agreement? What will be the freedom to change the configuration of services? For example, will foundation hospitals be able to drop any particular type of clinical service and decide that they do not want a dermatology department or an ENT department, or will such issues be determined centrally on the basis of core services defined by the Government in the legislation?
I find rather odd the concept that the foundations will be locally owned. If I were looking to measure whether I owned something, I would want to know whether I had a financial stake in it and whether it could be taken from me against my will, but it seems that there will be no financial stake and that foundation trust status can be taken away by the Secretary of State.
On accountability, on which the Secretary of State laid so much stress, which councillors will be involved in setting up the running of foundation hospitals? What electors will be involved? What will be the constituencies for elections to the boards that will be playing that role? What powers will the boards have over the configuration of local services?
The statement contained a number of contradictions that are worth looking at. The Secretary of State said:
"NHS foundation trusts will be guaranteed in law"
and referred to
"freedom from Whitehall direction and control",
but he also said that the trusts would still be subject to the star rating system. In other words, as the star rating system is dependent on the Government's central targets, foundation hospitals will therefore be subject to those targets. That is saying one thing and doing quite another. He said that the trusts
"will operate on a not-for-profit basis"
and went on to say:
"They will earn their income from legally binding agreements with PCTs based on a national tariff. They will not be able to undercut other NHS hospitals."
In that case, what is the point of giving them the freedom to be more efficient, which would allow the same amount of resources to be used to treat a greater number of patients? Why give them the freedom, but not allow them to use it? The right hon. Gentleman said that trusts would not be allowed to undercut other NHS hospitals. What is the point of the reform if not to achieve greater efficiency?
The Secretary of State said:
"They will be able to retain any surpluses and any proceeds from the more efficient use of their assets, where this is for the benefit of NHS patients."
However, he also said that they are not allowed to use the efficiency to undercut other hospitals. What exactly does he mean?
The right hon. Gentleman said that foundation hospitals
"will operate … in a way that does not undermine other local NHS organisations—for example, by poaching their staff."

275
Who will define that? How is the measure to be policed? It is unworkable. A clinician in a hospital who likes the way in which a foundation hospital is being run and its freedoms might choose to work for it. He would not be allowed to do so because somebody—the identity is unclear—defines that as poaching, which is nonsense. Such a provision would have to be clearly defined in legislation.
I was amused when the Secretary of State said:
"The presumption will be light-touch regulation".
I presume that that is a tacit apology for the sort of regulation that has occurred under the Secretary of State so far. As for the idea that there will be a legal lock on assets to prevent demutualisation, all hon. Members know how meaningless that rhetoric is. Any future Government could change the law. The claim was included simply to give the Secretary of State a little peace from his Back Benchers. It is clearly meaningless in law.
We support the principle of foundation hospitals. Why will only a few hospitals be chosen? Is that a purely practical consideration? Do the Government want all hospitals ultimately to become foundation hospitals? Conservative Members would like that to happen. Is that the destination for the plans?
We will want to study the regulations that are associated with any legislation. That applies not least to the powers for the Secretary of State to expand and strengthen the foundation hospital project, without discussing them with the House of Commons.
When we believe that the principle is right, we will support it. The Secretary of State does not need to worry about problems on his Back Benches when introducing the foundation hospital principle in legislation because he will have the support of Conservative Members.
Mr. Milburn:I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's contribution for the insights that it provided into the Conservative party's thinking—or lack of it—on the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding for local primary care trusts. It is easy to stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and welcome three years' funding for PCTs, but when Conservative Members had the opportunity to vote for extra resources for every local PCT they voted against it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the GP contract. I do not know whether he has negotiated with a trade union—for example, the BMA—but I can give him some advice. In the middle of negotiations, one never declares one's hand.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that discussions on the formula had been conducted in secret and that the information would not be published. It will be published shortly. It is based on information from the University of Glasgow, the Information and Statistics Division Scotland and other universities in York and London. On secrecy, I remind him that, since 1976, every Government have taken evidence about the best way in which to distribute NHS resources through the same mechanism that we used.
276
The hon. Gentleman went on, in his usual vein, to say that although he welcomed the resources, they never produce results for NHS patients. He asked where they went. I can tell him what happened to them in his constituency. North Somerset PCT is in his constituency. Last year, it used its 9.4 per cent. increase to ensure that no patients waited more than 15 months for a hospital operation and that no patients waited more than 26 weeks for a first out-patient appointment. There has been a drop of one third in the number of people who wait 12 weeks or more. In the Weston Area Health NHS trust, with which he is familiar, no one waited more than a month for breast cancer treatment, elective and non-elective activity increased, a new 15-bed observation ward opened at Weston hospital, and a new endoscopy service began at Clevedon hospital.
What the hon. Gentleman might have said is that he very much welcomes the extra resources that I announced for his local PCTs—an increase for his constituency and his PCT of 32.47 per cent. He had the temerity to welcome the measure, but when he had an opportunity to vote against the extra resources, he did so. He does not believe in the resources; he does not want to see the results. We all know why: he does not want the NHS to succeed; he wants the NHS to fail.
On foundation trusts, to which the hon. Gentleman gives such a warm welcome, I look forward to him and his colleagues voting for an extension of public ownership. I knew that they had wanted to find their own clause IV issue, but I had not quite realised that they wanted to pick up our old clause IV.
The hon. Gentleman asked about borrowing limits for NHS foundation hospitals and who will set them. The borrowing limits will be set according to a prudential code on borrowing, whereby the only way in which a foundation trust can borrow is against its ability to pay. The independent regulator, accountable to Parliament, will determine the borrowing limits for individual NHS foundation trusts.
The hon. Gentleman asked how much freedom the trusts will have in relation to "Agenda for Change". I set that out in my speech. The trusts will be part of "Agenda for Change". I think that he knows fine well that, within "Agenda for Change", there is considerable local flexibility for NHS trusts—foundation or other NHS trusts—to "flex" upwards the rate of pay according to their local labour market circumstances.
In the normal course of events there would have to be consultation on a change in clinical services on the scale that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Local authorities' oversight and scrutiny committees would want to assess it and, if necessary, that would be referred to the independent reconfiguration panel.
The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he failed to understand one simple thing about NHS foundation trusts: they are part of the national health service; they do not sit outside the national health service. He seemed to be skating very close to the position that he probably advocated in government, and which he now continues to advocate in opposition: that there should be no national standards, no national targets and a local lottery in care, whereby local hospitals are allowed to sink or swim not according to the communities that they serve but according to happenstance or their individual circumstances.

277
The hon. Gentleman said that he found it difficult to understand the concept—and I perfectly understand why. What these NHS foundation trusts are not about is the sort of privatisation that he and the Conservative party advocate. This is a form of genuine public ownership, which Labour Members want to see.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, like everyone on the Labour Benches, I very much welcome the additional funds and the effort to ensure a fairer formula for distributing them? I hope that he accepts that there may be some minor errors in the new fund and that it will be adjustable in the light of experience.
However, does my right hon. Friend also accept that nothing he said this afternoon stills many concerns of Labour Members about the likelihood that giving financial advantages to a limited number of hospitals will put them in a position where they can offer better pay and working conditions, and thus attract staff who are in short supply from neighbouring hospitals? In the case of my constituency, if University College hospital were to become a foundation trust and have vacancies for nurses, how could anyone stop nurses at Great Ormond Street, the Royal Free, the Chelsea and Westminster or Barts hospitals applying to fill those vacancies, which would offer better pay and working conditions?
Mr. Milburn: My right hon. Friend has probably not yet seen the cash figures, but there is an increase for Camden PCT of 31.35 per cent., which is a total cash increase of £76 million. I hope that will help with the real pressures that he and people in the health service have to deal with.
I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. Friend and I very much enjoyed working with him when he was Secretary of State. On the issue of NHS foundation trusts, however, I believe that he is fundamentally wrong. He says that there is a danger of our somehow having two-tier care, and asks what will prevent a hospital from recruiting another's staff, yet he knows well from his own time as Secretary of State for Health that the national health service is not uniform. Sadly, different hospitals perform at different levels; some do very well and some not so well, while some need to do a lot better. That is the reality of the national health service, as it has been for many years. Of course, staff make their judgments in part according to how well local health services are doing. My right hon. Friend is wrong, incidentally, to say that NHS foundation trusts are just for the few; I want them to be for the many, and I believe that, in time, they can be.
I say in all candour to my right hon. Friend that there are two lines of objection to these proposals, one of which involves an absolute objection in principle. I have listened carefully to what he has said, especially during the debate on the Loyal Address, when he argued cogently that one way forward was to trial and pilot these trusts, so it does not seem to me that he objects to them in principle. [Interruption.] Well, that is what my right hon. Friend said. I heard his speech and I read it very carefully. The second form of objection is that, if the provision is good enough for some, it should be good enough for the many and, perhaps, good enough for all. I agree, but the question is how we get there. We have to
278
ensure that we start with those hospitals with a proven track record of success. We must help to raise standards in all parts of the national health service—my right hon. Friend knows well that we are trying to do so—through inspections, standards, intervention, help and support. That is what we need to do, but we also need to provide some freedoms and rewards for the best-performing organisations, not least as an incentive to others to improve.
Dr. Evan Harris: I thank the Secretary of State and welcome his improved performance in providing good time for Opposition spokesmen to read his statement. That is appreciated.
The right hon. Gentleman recognises that, unlike the Conservatives, my party voted for higher funding in the last Budget. Indeed, we called for that five years earlier.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the first job in recognising that we have a sick patient is to accept that the previous treatment was poor? He said that the funding rise under the Tories between 1992 and 1997 was 1 per cent.—1.76 per cent., in fact—and that it was now 7 per cent. under his Government. Does he accept that the 3.5 per cent. funding that he delivered in real terms in the last Parliament was insufficient, and is part of the reason for our not having the capacity that we need?
The right hon. Gentleman recognised that what I have been saying about the freedom of foundation hospitals has been right. They will be subject to so-called NHS standards, so-called NHS ratings and so-called NHS inspections, but those are Government standards, political targets and flawed and distorted ratings. So there will be no change or freedom as a result of the target-driven approach that he is taking for these chosen few hospitals. They will, however, still be able to poach staff from other local trusts, or from developing countries. Will he answer a question that has not yet been answered? Is he satisfied with the fivefold increase in the number of nurses coming from countries such as South Africa, or with the fact that his own code of practice has still not been adopted by more than one third of the private nursing agencies that NHS hospitals use?
On the question of where the money has gone, I hope that the Secretary of State realises that, in the southern region alone, there are forecast deficits at the six-month point of more than £230 million. Does he believe that the extra funding should go towards paying debts that have accrued as a result of previous poor settlements, or that it should be used for front-line staff? Will he also explain why only 75 per cent. of funding is being handled by primary care trusts, rather than 95 per cent? Will he tell the House whether anyone out there supports the version of the star rating system based on his targets, rather than considering it to have a distorting effect on resource allocation and clinical priorities? Furthermore, why will the Secretary of State not get rid of private pay beds altogether from NHS hospitals? They use up vital NHS capacity and are allocated on the ability to pay, rather than on the basis of need.
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that he must now go back to the drawing board? He has thrown away the baby with the bath water. He has pleased no one with the changes to NHS foundation hospitals because

279
they will still be subject to Government control and will therefore not have the freedom to become new entities, such as public benefit organisations, which we would like to see. He is trying to please everyone, and trying to have it both ways. This is typical new Labour.
Mr. Milburn: Typical new Labour! Babies, bath water and drawing boards—an interesting metaphor that speaks volumes for the confused state of the hon. Gentleman's mind, I fear. On some of those issues, he might have welcomed the big funding increases for his local PCTs—£39 million in south-west Oxfordshire, £38 million in Oxford city and £14 million in north-east Oxfordshire—that range between 29.1 and 31.55 per cent. over the next three years. They have been achieved precisely by the approach to public finances that this Labour Government have introduced over the past few years. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is quite right to say that it has been prudence for a purpose. If the Liberal Democrats had been in office, or anywhere near it, I fear that we would have gone back to the sad old, bad old days when deficits were out of control and unemployment was rising through the 3 million mark.
The hon. Gentleman raised specific issues and asked why 75 per cent. of funding is being allocated to PCTs. The reason is simple: certain budgets that he is aware of—for example, training budgets for nurses, doctors, scientists and others—are held nationally rather than locally. Indeed, the research and development budget is held nationally rather than locally because it has to be distributed not on an equitable basis but according to where the R and D centres are, and there is a large volume of cash for information technology systems, which we shall distribute in due course. He has been one of the strongest advocates of better IT in the NHS. I agree with him, but to achieve that we must ensure that the distribution formula is right.
On pay beds, when I last attended the Health Committee, or perhaps the time before that—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will remind me in a moment or two—I was quite prepared to hear proposals from all NHS trusts, not just NHS foundation trusts. If they would like to get rid of their NHS pay beds, which serve private patients, and if they think that sensible in order to allow extra capacity for NHS patients, I would be delighted to hear from them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I propose to move on at eight minutes past 5, so I appeal to Members for one short question and to the Secretary of State for brief answers.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: My right hon. Friend has brought us two Christmas presents today. One is his welcome present of increased resources for PCTs, and he should be warmly commended for the deal that he and his team have won for the health service and for securing the ability to plan health care locally, which we have never had before.
I like the wrapping paper that covers the second present—foundation hospitals—but when I open it I am not too keen on the contents. His statement is somewhat
280
inconsistent: on the one hand, we have the devolution of power to local communities and primary care but on the other we have foundation hospitals. Through them, we are rowing back to the tradition, which has been a weakness in the NHS, of empowering the acute sector to drive forward change at the expense of primary care and the community. He ought to address that glaring inconsistency in what he has said today.
Mr. Milburn: I hope that, in time, I can persuade my hon. Friend to love NHS foundation trusts, although I fear that that might be a sticky wicket. He will be aware of the funding increases for Wakefield of between 29 and 32 per cent. for the two PCTs. He was talking to me earlier about some of the considerable pressures that the NHS faces, so I hope that they very much help.
My hon. Friend raises the issue of NHS foundation trusts and the relationship with PCTs. He is on to an important point. Indeed, when he reads the guide, as I know he will, he will see that there are two important roles for the PCTs, particularly to guard against the acute-sector creep that he has talked about. First, for any NHS trust to get the go-ahead to become an NHS foundation trust, it must have the support of its local PCTs. A lock is built in to safeguard the interests of primary care. There is a second lock too, in that the governance structure in a foundation trust includes not just local people, patients and of course members of staff at the local hospital or hospitals, but the local primary care trust.
My hon. Friend is right: we must have a better range of services in the community. I very much hope that the commissioning powers we have given today and the extra resources for PCTs will help to make that happen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat my appeal.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May we have a little more information about the mechanisms whereby foundation trusts will engage their local communities? How will people qualify for membership of trusts; and if elections take place, how will the electorates be constituted?
Mr. Milburn: The guide that we published today, which is in the Vote Office, sets that out in considerable detail—but I shall not do so given your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The trusts will operate on a basis that will be familiar to Labour Members but perhaps not to Conservatives: a basis of co-operative societies and mutual organisations allowing people in an area served by a trust to become its members. Obviously there are different sorts of NHS trust—the Royal Marsden is a very different sort from my local trust—so some flexibility is built into the Government's model. There is, however, one important stricture that I think entirely right in terms of public ownership. Whatever happens, a majority of those on the governing body of a foundation trust will have to be elected by members of the public and by the patients who use the trust.
Mr. Keith Bradley: I welcome the 31.52 per cent. increase in funds for South Manchester primary care trust, which properly reflects the chronic health needs of the people of Manchester. It will allow the development of new, innovatory services in primary and preventive care at the new £20 million Withington community hospital, to be built next year. May I ask, however, how the foundation status of specialist hospitals such as Christie hospital in my constituency will properly reflect local needs?
Mr. Milburn: My right hon. Friend and many of his Greater Manchester colleagues have lobbied assiduously and made a strong case for precisely the changes in the formula that we have made today in order to recognise the pressing health needs of his community. As he says, the increase in resources is considerable—about £40 million for South Manchester PCT and about £50 million for Central Manchester PCT.
Christie hospital is rather like the Royal Marsden, in that it serves two sorts of community. It serves the local community, but it also serves, as a tertiary centre, a wider cohort of patients. As my hon. Friend will see when he reads the guide to foundation trusts, enough flexibility is built into the system to allow both members of the local community and patients who have recently used the hospital to apply to become members. In that way, services, even in excellent organisations such as Christie hospital, can become ever more responsive to the people who use them.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): How free will the foundation trust hospitals actually be? For example, will such a hospital be able to enter into its own private finance initiative project? If so, will it be prevented from exchanging surplus assets for new build facilities by the Secretary of State's legal lock on assets?
Mr. Milburn: A foundation trust will be able to enter into a PF I contract in exactly the same way as existing NHS trusts. As the hon. Lady knows, sometimes there are land swap deals, but trusts will have considerable freedom to enter into new sorts of contract as well.
Mrs. Gillan: That is nothing new.
Mr. Milburn: I think that when the hon. Lady bothers to read the guide she will find that a huge amount is new. For instance, the trusts' ability to borrow from both the public and the private sector will allow them to bring onstream precisely the new capital developments for which she and her hon. Friends have long argued.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I welcome the record 28 per cent. increase for Durham and Chester-leStreet PCT, and the 30 per cent. for Derwentside PCT. Although I have reservations about foundation hospitals, I also welcome the opportunity they give local people to have a direct say in their health care. Will my right hon. Friend consider extending that to PCTs?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on Durham, Chester-le-Street and Derwentside, parts of the country with which I am very familiar. I know of the pressing health needs in those
282
areas. On the extension of a more democratic form of governance to other parts of the NHS, the answer is yes but over time.
Mr. Paul Burstow: May I ask the Secretary of State about the financial flow system that is being introduced to recycle £100 million from the NHS into social services so that they can pay fines back to the NHS? Is that money to be top-sliced from the NHS before money is paid to the PCTs, or will it be taken from individual PCTs or acute trusts?
Mr. Milburn: No, it is already being top-sliced and then we will distribute it to social services. On paying fines, if I know local government and social services—at least this is what they tell me and I believe them—they want to spend extra money. The whole case that they have been making is about building capacity, particularly in elderly care services. We have just provided an extra £100 million so that they can do so. I know that that does not always happen in Liberal Democrat councils, particularly ones such as Liverpool, which talk the talk but then fail to walk the walk by cutting back on social services.
Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he intends that people from local communities who represent their communities on foundation trusts will be better known to those communities than, say, local councillors or even local MPs? How are they going to be representative of the views of those local communities, and how are they going to stay in touch with them?
Mr. Milburn: I suspect that those people will be better known than the current non-executive directors of NHS trusts. I may ask my hon. Friend later in private to name the five non-executive directors in his own NHS trust. I bet that he would struggle, and I would too. I believe that this is an imperfect form of governance. It is a public service and it should have greater public input—not just a community input but a staff input. We have important traditions, at least on this side of the House, not just of community ownership but of industrial democracy. We believe that services are better if local people and local staff are involved with them. I do not believe that the current governance structures in the NHS facilitate the involvement of either local staff or members of the local community.
Andy Burnham: Communities in Leigh and across Greater Manchester will today celebrate the passing of a funding formula that has left a legacy of entrenched ill health across the county and a deficit this financial year of about £55 million. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a formula that better reflects our health needs, but, to ensure that the resources have maximum effect, I ask him to give our PCTs perhaps the full three years to balance their books.
Mr. Milburn: I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend because, perhaps above all others from his area, he has argued assiduously for a change in the formula and made an extremely reasoned case. Some PCTs have inherited deficits. It is important that those deficits are managed out as quickly as possible, because we must get

283
services on to the front line to improve services for patients. However, three-year budgets give an opportunity to smooth those deficits out over a period of time if that is what is necessary.
Dr. Brian lddon: Authorities such as mine have bumped along at the bottom of the health provision league for many years far away from target. Can my right hon. Friend say following this welcome announcement that we will be levelled up with PCTs with similar health need?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, I can confirm that. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been able to see the figures yet, but the total percentage cash increase for the Bolton PCT is in the order of 31.8 per cent., which is well above the national average and recognises the problems of deprivation and poverty that have caused such pressures on the local national health service. It will still take time to meet the targets, but we have an opportunity now, with a better, fairer formula, to ensure that we get the maximum resources into the areas of greatest health need, including his constituency.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that elitism has been the curse of the national health service for the 50 years since its creation, and that he now appears to be setting up precisely the kind of division that will encourage that? Will he please accept that there is no legal way in which he can bind those trusts, and make it clear that creating such foundation hospitals will not only damage the interests of patients but will, in the final analysis, create a machinery that any incoming Conservative Government would use to privatise hospitals?
Mr. Milburn: I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend, but she has been in this place long enough to realise that any incoming Government can do whatever they like in terms of new legislation. If we genuinely want to protect the public benefit purpose of the national health service from future encroachments by any Conservative Government, however far away that might be, the best way of doing so is surely to lodge ownership in the public, among members of the local community. That is one of the main purposes of NHS foundation trusts. Then the Conservatives would not only have to pass a law but actively to take power, resources and assets away from local communities.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I welcome the experiment of foundation hospitals, but can the Secretary of State reassure me that the criteria used to judge the success of the experiment will be whether it delivers more efficient patient care and more choice for patients, rather than the ideological purity of the mechanisms used?
Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about choice in our health care system. Of course, there always has been choice in it—provided that people have had the wherewithal to opt out and pay for their health care. Most of us on the Government side—indeed, all of us—believe in choice being available on the national
284
health service. Why? Because we believe that health care should be available according to the scale of a person's need, not the size of their wallet.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I welcome the increase, but is not the reality—
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for the statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not shout at me that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) was not in for the statement. The hon. Gentleman came to the Chair and gave assurances that he was in for the statement. He is an honourable Member, and he is telling the truth.
Mr. Marsden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, I welcome the real-terms increase, but the reality is that for Shropshire, for instance, there will be only slightly more money than there has been in the previous five years. Who will appoint the independent regulator for foundation hospitals, and how independent will that person or body really be? How free will they be from Whitehall constraints?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman's muddle on figures is rather like his muddle on politics. The allocation per weighted head in his area in 1997–98 was £438. As a result of the changes that I have announced today, and the extra resources for his primary care trust area, that sum will rise to £1,090. By any measure, that is a huge and handsome increase in resources for his local primary care trust. I will appoint the independent regulator, but he, like the regulators of other parts of the public services, will be independent and report independently to Parliament.

New NHS Resources
  BILLS PRESENTED
    CO-OPERATIVES AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT SOCIETIES
    Mr. Mark Todd, supported by Mr. John McWilliam, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Simon Thomas, Linda Gilroy, Ms Meg Munn, David Taylor, Mr. Adrian Bailey, Mr. Andrew Love, Mr. Tom Watson, Mr. Gareth Thomas and Mr. Dennis Turner presented a Bill to enable the law relating co-operatives and community benefit societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to companies; to permit a registered society whose business is conducted for the benefit be amended so as to bring it into conformity with certain aspects of the law relating to of the community to provide that its assets are dedicated permanently for that purpose; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January, and to be printed [Bill 15].

    SUNDAY WORKING (SCOTLAND)
    David Cairns, supported by Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Miss Anne Begg, Jim Sheridan, Angus Robertson, Anne Picking, Mr. Tom Clarke, John Robertson, Sir Robert Smith, Ann McKechin and Mr. Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision as to the rights of shop workers and betting workers under the law of Scotland in relation to Sunday

    285
    working; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February, and to be printed [Bill 16].

    FIREWORKS
    Mr. Bill Tynan, supported by Mr. Edward Davey, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Shona McIsaac, John Robertson, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Michael Weir and Brian White, presented a Bill: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 17].
    RETIREMENT INCOME REFORM
    Mr. Edward Garnier, supported by Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Steve Webb, Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. David Willetts and Mr. Charles Hendry, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the provision of retirement income in respect of private and personal pensions, annuities and defined and additional voluntary contribution pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 18].
    MUNICIPAL WASTE RECYCLING
    Joan Ruddock, supported by Norman Baker, Gregory Barker, Peter Bottomley, Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Frank Doran, Sue Doughty, Ms Julia Drown, Glenda Jackson, Julie Morgan, Mr. Simon Thomas and Ms Joan Walley, presented a Bill to make further provision regarding the collection, composting, minimisation and recycling of municipal waste; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 19].
    SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
    Brian White, supported by Dr. Desmond Turner, Ms Debra Shipley, Sir Sydney Chapman, Alan Simpson, Ms Joan Walley, Gregory Barker, Mr. Gareth Thomas, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. David Amess, Sue Doughty and Mr. Don Foster, presented a Bill to make provision about the development and promotion of a sustainable energy policy; to amend the Utilities Act 2000; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed [Bill 20].
    FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
    Ann Clwyd, supported by Chris McCafferty, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Ms Diane Abbott, Julie Morgan, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Joan Ruddock and Ms Debra Shipley presented a Bill to restate and amend the law relating to female genital mutilation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 March., and to be printed [Bill 21].
    COMPANY DIRECTORS' PERFORMANCE AND COMPENSATION
    Mr. Archie Norman, supported by Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Martin O'Neill and Mr. Mark Lazarowicz presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to payment of a company director by way of compensation for loss of office so as to require boards to take the respective director's performance into account in setting the amount of any such payment, notwithstanding anything contained in his service contract; to require the board to disclose the amount of any such payment upon request by any shareholder; to require the insertion into the company's annual report of an explanation for the amount of any such payment, should it exceed the equivalent of the basic salary payable by contract to the respective employee in the previous 12 months; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January, and to be printed [Bill 22].
    AVIATION (OFFENCES)
    Mr. Frank Roy, supported by David Taylor, Mr. David Marshall, Siobhain McDonagh, Sandra Osborne, Paul Goggins, Sir Robert Smith, Miss Anne Begg, Patrick Mercer, Syd Rapson, Rosemary McKenna and Mr. David Stewart presented a Bill to make provision about the enforcement of certain offences connected with aviation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February, and to be printed [Bill 23].
    NATIONAL LOTTERY (FUNDING OF ENDOWMENTS)
    Mr. Keith Simpson, supported by Dr. Ian Gibson, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Richard Bacon, Norman Lamb and Mr. Anthony D. Wright introduced a Bill to make provision about the funding of endowments from distributions of money out of the National Lottery Distribution Fund: and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 24].
    HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (DECEASED FATHERS)
    Mr. Stephen McCabe, supported by Mr. Tony Clarke, Ms Debra Shipley, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Peter Bottomley, Sue Doughty, Mr. Anthony D. Wright, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. David Amess, Miss Julie Kirkbride and Mr. Stephen Hepburn presented a Bill to make provision about the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, a man is to be treated in law as the father of a child where the child has resulted from certain fertility treatment undertaken after the man's death; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed [Bill 25].

    LEGAL DEPOSIT LIBRARIES
    Mr. Chris Mole, supported by David Wright, Ms Meg Munn, Jim Knight, Mr. Stephen Pound, John Robertson, Mr. Chris Bryant, Dr. Ian Gibson, Brian White and Mr. Clive Betts presented a Bill to make provision in place of section 15 of the Copyright Act 1911 relating to the deposit of printed and similar publications, including on- and off-line publications; to

    287
    make provision about the use and preservation of material deposited; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 26].

    EQUINE WELFARE (RAGWORT CONTROL)
    Mr. John Greenway, supported by Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Jeff Ennis, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Richard Spring presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of horses from ragwort poisoning; to amend the Weeds Act 1959; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 March, and to be printed [Bill 27].
    HIGH HEDGES
    Mr. Stephen Pound, supported by Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Tony Clarke, Paul Clark, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. John Randall, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Richard Younger-Ross, Matthew Green, James Purnell and Ms Meg Munn presented a Bill to make provision for dealing with complaints about high hedges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed [Bill 28].
    GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS)
    Dr. Julian Lewis, on behalf of Mr. John Bercow, presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to the permitted number of Ministers of the Crown; to limit the powers of Ministers to make certain appointments; to make provision with respect to the parliamentary scrutiny of European Union proposals and other subordinate legislation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 29].
    DEALING IN CULTURAL OBJECTS (OFFENCES)
    Mr. Richard Allan, supported by Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Edward Garnier, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Ross Cranston and Mr. Robert Key presented a Bill to provide for an offence of acquiring, disposing of, importing or exporting tainted cultural objects, or agreeing or arranging to do so; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February, and to be printed [Bill 30].
    MARINE SAFETY
    Dr. Brian Iddon, supported by Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Graham Brady, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Andrew George, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Syd Rapson, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Desmond Turner and Mr. Joe Benton presented a Bill to make provision about the giving of directions in respect of ships for purposes relating to safety or pollution and about the taking of action to enforce, in connection with, or in lieu of, directions; to make provision about fire-fighting in connection with marine incidents; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 31].
    DISABLED PEOPLE (DUTIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES)
    Ms Bridget Prentice, supported by Mr. Roger Berry, Angela Eagle, Helen Jones, Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. Tom Watson presented a Bill to make provision in relation to public authorities for the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons and for the promotion of equality of opportunity for such persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed [Bill 32].
    FOOD LABELLING
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien, supported by Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, Alistair Burt, Mr. Robert Syms, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Bill Wiggin and Ann Winterton presented a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers, by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed [Bill 33].
    ENDANGERED SPECIES (ILLEGAL TRADE)
    Hugh Robertson, supported by Mr. David Amess and Mr. John Randall presented a Bill to increase the penalties for offences under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 March, and to be printed [Bill 34].

Sir William McKay KCB
5.13 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That Mr. Speaker be requested to convey to Sir William Robert McKay KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of this House, the House's gratitude for his long and distinguished career, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House, for his scholarly research into the history of the House, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
As the Leader of the House, I have become wearily familiar with the fact that not every motion that I move is a focus of unity within the Chamber, but I anticipate full support for the one that I put before the House on this occasion. By convention, the Clerk of the House is not present to hear these tributes, but I hope that he has found some instrument of modern technology in order that he may observe them, and that he may hear the warmth of Members' appreciation for his lifetime of service to this House.
Bill McKay first entered the Clerks Department in 1961. He has therefore been here longer than any serving Member of the House, and for one year longer than the Father of the House. He has served in the Clerks Department through momentous political events—from the Cuban missile crisis to the present day. When he first came, Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister and Hugh Gaitskell Leader of the Opposition. In the intervening period, he has served under eight Prime Ministers, and Leaders of the Opposition—of both parties—too numerous to recount. His record of service reads like a directory of the Clerks Department—Clerk of Journals, Clerk of Public Bills, Secretary to the House of Commons Commission, and Clerk to the Public Accounts Commission. In the past five years, as Clerk of the House, he has presided over momentous changes in the administration of the Commons.
Sir William McKay is the author of the biographical list of Clerks since 1363, when the office was first created. In that long list spanning more than six centuries, he is the first Clerk of the House also to hold the title of chief executive of the Commons—a post for which he gained valuable experience in his early years as Clerk to the all-powerful Catering Committee.
Over my three decades in the House, I have always found Bill McKay unfailing in the courtesy with which he responded to my questions, and in the authority with which he provided answers. I have also appreciated his tactful knack of always looking as though one had asked a really interesting question. There is only one recorded occasion on which his patience with an hon. Member failed him. He was Clerk of Public Bills during the passage of the Maastricht Bill, and used to receive a daily visitation from a certain very determined individual. After weeks of circular and fruitless argument with that hon. Gentleman, he took to seeking refugee status at a desk in the Journal Office—taking care not to tell his staff where he was, so that they could truthfully say that they did not know where he could be found.
I do not know the identity of the hon. Member involved, but we can all guess.
290
I suspect that Bill McKay will most want to be remembered in this place for his fine legacy of scholarship, and rightly so. He has been the editor of the second volume of Erskine May's journal, the author of a monograph on secretaries to Mr. Speaker, and he is the source of many of the authoritative revisions to Erskine May's guide to procedure. I am therefore delighted that he leaves us to take up a chair at Aberdeen university as professor in the school of law. It is a post and a location convenient to enjoying his retirement with his wife, the Rev. Margaret McKay, who serves as a minister of a parish in the presbytery of Buchan. Characteristically, Bill McKay and Margaret have already written the authoritative historical account of the parish.
Sir William leaves with the gratitude of hon. Members, with the respect of the House for having fulfilled the great tradition of Clerks, and with the admiration of every hon. Member for a great parliamentarian.
5.17 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: It gives me great personal pleasure to endorse very warmly what the Leader of the House has said about Bill McKay, and I happily add the Opposition's support to the motion before us.
I want to emphasise what the Leader of the House said about the breadth of the responsibilities now borne by the Clerk. Many people may not realise it, but the Clerk of the House is, at one and the same time, the chief executive of the House of Commons—the person who chairs the Board of Management—the corporate officer, the accounting officer and the custodian of our procedures, records and documents.
It may not be widely known but, as "Erskine May" points out, the Clerk is appointed by the Crown for life. It is therefore an unusually generous sacrifice that Bill McKay is making in standing down when he is still such a young man and could have continued for some considerably longer time.
The motion refers to Sir William's scholarship. Lest any hon. Members doubt that, I strongly recommend that they dip into his "Observations, Rules and Orders of the House of Commons—an Early Procedural Collection". The introduction states, on page 8:
"In the notes which follow, the appropriate Journal (or D'Ewes) reference has been inserted in the margin, under the note found in the Ms itself which usually gives the date or a Seymour folio reference. The foliation of the Ms is also indicated in the margin. Notes which bear on the textual history of the manuscript are given alphabetical references, while notes concerning the events noticed are in numerical series."
That illustrates the characteristic detail that the Clerk has always brought to his work, and to his history. More interestingly, page 1 of the text states that, on 18 November 1549, it was ordered
"That the Speaker with the Privy Council and twelve others of the house shall be suitors to know the pleasure of the King, if upon their humble suit they may treat of their late relief for cloth and sheep, at four o'clock in the afternoon".
More revealingly, however, on 1 June 1607, the text reads—and I hope that the modernisers will note this closely—
"Mr. Speaker, with sundry Members and officer of the House being assembled, sat from eight of the clock till eleven then did arise and depart, without a motion made or bill read."

291
I hope that the Leader of the House is not too tempted by that, but it illustrates that things move backwards and forwards in this House and that nothing is for ever.
Alternatively, as the Leader of the House mentioned, one could refer to Sir William's work entitled "Clerks in the House of Commons 1363–1989: A Biographical List". Among those listed was John Hatsell, 1768, who
"drew full pay for 20 years after he retired and did nothing but interfere with the promotions of his erstwhile colleagues."
We cannot expect that of Sir William. The great Thomas Erskine May himself, in 1871—and not a lot of people know this—
"fought a duel on the sands at Boulogne with the offended husband of a married lady."
Our Clerks are characters, are they not?
Finally, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, 1902, was the only Clerk of the House—so far—to have been worshipped as a god. When a parliamentary draftsman for the Indian Administration, he drafted a Bill implementing a measure of self-rule. It was very unpopular in Calcutta, but up country, where the news arrived in garbled form, they made an image called "Ilbert-bill" and paid great honour to it.
We do great honour to Sir William today, although he has not quite become a deity. He will be a very hard act to follow, and we wish every success to his successor, our Clerk-elect, Roger Sands, who is sitting in his place at the Table. Those of us who know him know that he will discharge his onerous new responsibilities from January in his own distinctive style, having served the House since 1965.
The Leader of the House mentioned that Sir William McKay is taking up a distinguished chair at Aberdeen university. Sir William has shown a great interest in comparative legislatures, not least the House of Representatives in the United States, and has befriended the parliamentarians there. I hope that we can look forward to some thoughts from Sir William when he leaves us as to how various legislatures can all learn from one another. I am sure that we in the House of Commons, in our usual humble way, would never eliminate the idea that we could learn from others, perhaps even those across the Atlantic.
Regardless of our length of service as Members, we have all come greatly to appreciate the wisdom of the Clerk and, as the Leader of the House said, his courtesy and helpfulness at all times. We will miss him greatly. We wish him well and we thank him for his long, distinguished and dedicated service to this House.
5.23 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Sir William McKay was the first Scot and the second graduate of the university of Edinburgh to be the holder of an office with an unbroken history of well over half a millennium—twice as old as the prime ministership.
The first Edinburgh graduate to be Clerk of the House was Jeremiah Dyson, who purchased the Clerkship of the House for £6,000. Who received the £6,000 is less than clear, but we must assume that it was Mr. Speaker. I refer to Mr. Speaker Onslow, who occupied your Chair, Mr. Speaker, for 33 years, between 1728
292
and 1761. I doubt whether Bill McKay purchased the Clerkship—he got there on merit. I say to Opposition Members that no wonder our late friend and colleague Cranley Onslow was so eager at one time to follow his illustrious ancestor into the Chair.
Bill McKay's baptism of fire was on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill in 1962. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can well imagine the difficulties of sorting out the amendments when the Member leading the Opposition was Willie Ross—a puritan teetotaller on Scottish licensing resulted in a cocktail of difficulties.
However, Bill McKay, who was second Clerk to Clifford Boulton, learned his trade and would have been an obvious choice to be Clerk of the Scottish Parliament had it been formed in 1978–79. Fortunately, or unfortunately, according to one's point of view, that post did not materialise and he and George Cubie were saved for Westminster. Between 1979 and 1981, Bill McKay was the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee and won golden opinions from the late Donald Dewar.
As it has already been referred to, we shall pass over Bill McKay's time as Clerk of Public Bills, with Maastricht and all the problems with killer amendments, but it was as well that there was a scholar in that particular position of impartiality.
One of Bill McKay's great legacies resides in the contacts that he formed with the Nordic countries. His great friend, Anders Forsberg of the Swedish Riksdag, whom I had the pleasure to meet, had the greatest respect for him and his international contribution. Bill McKay formed friendships with the Folketing and especially Henrik Tvarnoe; the Storting and Hans Brattesta; the Icelandic Parliament, the Althingi, and Fredrik Olafsson; and the Helsinki Eduskuntu of Seppo Tiitinen.
Bill McKay follows in a line of distinguished people of great quality whom I have had the good fortune to know through longevity: Sir Edward Fellowes, Sir Barney Cocks, Sir David Lidderdale, Sir Richard Barlas, Sir Charles Gordon, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw, Sir Clifford Boulton and Sir Donald Limon.
I speak for many of my colleagues of yesteryear—retired or departed—when I thank Bill McKay for his dedication, his expertise and his many kindnesses to many Members.
5.27 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of right hon. and hon. Friends, I am delighted not only warmly to welcome the motion but also to express good wishes to Bill McKay's successor.
We have found Bill McKay wise—as has already been said—but also very approachable. That is extremely important in the House, especially for new and less experienced Members. I understand that he is also eminently unflappable, which must be a quality that we should all admire.
As has already been said, Bill McKay is the first Clerk to fulfil the full role of chief executive officer, which is a recognition of the huge administrative task that falls on the Officers of the House following the Braithwaite report. It is as a team manager and a team player that Bill McKay will be especially recalled by members of our staff. His role on the Board of Management has

293
been not only unprecedented—for obvious reasons—but also a clear guide to the future management of this building.
Reference has already been made to the fact that Bill McKay is a distinguished historian. Many, many years ago, my academic discipline was history and I recall that history has been described as the study of past mistakes for the avoidance of their repetition. It sometimes seems to me that Members of Parliament should automatically have to take a course in history. Perhaps, in his spare time as a new academic, Bill McKay could put on some distance learning courses for those Members of the House who require constant reminders of the necessity to avoid past mistakes.
Bill McKay has given steady, practical and extremely useful advice to all Members of the House, but it is because he led such a talented team through a period of such change that we shall particularly remember his stewardship. It has been a time when the House has asked for major changes to our procedures in terms of the modernisation programme, but none of those changes could have been achieved without the Officers of the House loyally and professionally putting them into practice.
Today marks another important occasion. Mr. Speaker, you will not have missed the point that this marks a change in the Scots mafia in the House. The Leader of the House comes from north of the border, and the shadow Leader of the House originates from north of the border. The Father of the House comes from north of the Scottish border, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who speaks on behalf of the House of Commons Commission; and dare I say that it is not unknown for you, Mr. Speaker, to speak up for the Scots? As a fellow Celt from Cornwall, I am jealous of the Scots mafia's influence, and I hope that, from now on, we may be able to broaden the base of the House's control system to include other Celts.
I am delighted to speak in support of the motion. All of us not only thank Bill McKay for the very considerable contribution that he has made to the work of the House and to its reform and modernisation, but for the way in which he, I hope, will be able to ensure that students—not just in Aberdeen, but elsewhere—benefit from his study of the history of parliamentary democracy.
We wish Sir William and Lady McKay every happiness in their retirement.
5.31 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I should like to add my tribute to the contribution that Sir William has made to the affairs of the House of Commons. I wondered earlier today what key qualities the Clerk of the House and, indeed, an official who advises the occupants of the Chair should have. I thought that those qualities were probably honesty, intelligence and fairness, and Sir William has all those qualities. Those are among the reasons why he made such a valuable contribution to the affairs of the House for more than 40 years, as we were reminded by the Leader of the House. That is a tremendous contribution.
294
I met Sir William when he was the Clerk to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the early 1970s. He will probably remember an excellent report that the Committee produced after conducting an investigation into something called land resource use in Scotland—an issue that still causes a great deal of interest, but now in the other Parliament, of course, in Edinburgh. It was a pleasure to meet him.
Although I have not had a lot of contact with Sir William since then, I have clearly taken an interest in his career primarily, I suppose, because he comes from Leith. As some hon. Members will know, I have had the privilege of representing Leith—or perhaps I had better say part of the greater Leith area—for quite a few years. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have to be careful about the geography.
It is excellent that we have had the benefit of Sir William's contribution. I was aware that he was retiring to the north-east of Scotland, but I had not realised that he had gained a chair at Aberdeen university. I am sure that that is good news because it means that his talents will be deployed to the benefit of not just Aberdeen university but the wider Scottish, United Kingdom and world community.
5.33 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I am delighted to associate my colleagues and myself with the motion and to echo the tributes that have been paid today to Sir William McKay. Reference has been made to his length of service, to his scholarly research and interests and to his publications. Indeed, we have heard quotations from them during the debate. Of course, we have heard a most interesting contribution from the Father of the House himself. Reference has also been made to the changes that have been introduced during Sir William's time. Those changes have been considerable and a great deal of additional information and assistance has been made available to hon. Members. That is especially important. I noted in particular the introduction in 2001 of induction courses for new Members. I was tempted to say that my hon. Friends the Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for South Antrim (David Burnside), who are both here today and entered the House in 2001, benefited from them, but I took the precaution of checking with them beforehand and I regret to say that as traditionalists—all Ulster Unionists are traditionalists—they preferred to rely on traditional methods of acquiring information about the House and did not essay the new courses: but that does not mean that they are not a valuable introduction to the House.
The services provided by Sir William, as Clerk of the House, and the people whom he directs are important, especially for members of small parties. Without the resources that other parties have, we depend very much on the Officers of the House and the services provided by the House, and very much appreciate the way in which Sir William has managed them over the years. I was encouraged and reassured about the breadth and wealth of his interests when I saw him in a certain place where one repairs for a liberal cup of refreshment reading newspapers printed in the island of Ireland.

295
As Clerk of the House, Sir William occupied what H.A.L. Fisher described as
"a pleasant opera box from which to view the comedy".
As the Leader of the House hinted, he may be relying on a much more inferior box at the moment, but whatever he is relying on, he and his wife have the best wishes of my colleagues and me for the future.
5.36 pm
David Winnick: Most Members will not be aware of one activity with which Bill McKay was associated. He was the first British Clerk of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Before our first meeting in early 1990, rules drawn up by Bill McKay and his Irish counterpart, Paddy Judge, were established and approved. In the 12 years since, they have come in very handy indeed in meetings between British and Irish parliamentarians. However, some of us with a suspicious turn of mind think that when the two Clerks were drawing up the rules they did so, to some extent, to keep the politicians in check. From time to time, when we wanted to do something, we were told to look at the rules but, at the same time, the Clerks were pretty flexible.
On behalf of the British and Irish members of that body, I should like to put on record our tribute to Bill McKay for doing so much to make the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body a success. I am sure that my Irish colleagues will be interested in the tributes paid to him today.
5.37
Mr. Alex Salmond: It is with great pleasure that I associate my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party with all the tributes to Sir William McKay.
I am not the first Scot to speak in this debate, but I am the first Scot to speak about one of his constituents. Indeed, I am the first Scot ever to do so because, as we know from Sir William's history of the Clerks of the House, he is the first Scottish Clerk of the House. I was therefore surprised that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested that there was some kind of tartan stranglehold over the key Officers of the House. A quota of one Scot in 650 years, or 300 years since the treaty of union, is not an overabundance of people of our nationality holding the post of Clerk of the House.
Bill McKay provides us with a clue to something that has fascinated many hon. Members. Why do the Clerks of the House—Bill, Roger and their colleagues—remain inscrutable, regarding our proceedings with equanimity without a shake or nod of the head and only the occasional raised eyebrow? I have the answer in Bill's case—he has balanced his time in this frenetic den of iniquity by commuting every week for the past few years from the village of Aberchirder, known locally as Foggieloan or Foggie, in the beautiful countryside of Banffshire. Before that, he balanced his time in London with building crofts on the island of Coll. I recommend to hon. Members who get caught up in this overcrowded corner of the country that they, too, should live in the
296
beautiful Banffshire countryside and take the same balanced view of life as we have seen from Bill McKay over the past few years.
As has been said, Bill McKay almost became the Clerk of the Scots Parliament in the late 1970s. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rather deftly waltzed his way round the fact that he did his level best to deprive Bill of having a job at that time. However, Bill was ensconced in Edinburgh preparing for the Parliament in 1978, and I am happy to say that the sterling spadework that was done by Bill in that period has no doubt been put to good use 20 years later. The hon. Member for Linlithgow was thus defied in his ambition.
I note that Bill is to be a professor at Aberdeen university. Indeed, Bill's wife is one of the pillars of the Buchan presbytery. I congratulate Bill on his retirement, but it is not really a retirement. Freed from all the bounds of impartiality that are required of the Clerk of the House, who knows on what issues of the day Bill might want to enter into public debate—top-up fees in the university, perhaps? For my part, I shall prepare for my surgeries in Foggieloan with considerable care, never knowing who might appear and demand an answer on the issues of the day.
I have one final remark. When Members come to the House, they often believe that the Clerks and the machinery of the House are somehow an adjunct of the Government or the Executive—[Interruption.] I see those on the Government Front Bench collapsing. New Members realise, however, that the staff of the House are there to serve the House, and do so very ably. I can say from personal experience that with the sole exception that the Leader of the House managed to identify, Bill McKay has unfailingly provided advice to Members in all parts of the House. Sometimes I took Bill's advice; sometimes I did not. I usually benefited from the advice and regretted it when I did not take it. For all Members of the House, his advice was always courteous, always informed and always practical. For that we should all thank him indeed. His has been a lifetime of outstanding service, and in every sense we are congratulating the real McKay.
5.42 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: Following the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I support the motion. I do so as a founder member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body—I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)—as a vice-chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and also as a member of the House of Commons Commission.
I was in the City not long ago having one of those lunches or dinners to which we often have to apply ourselves. I sat next to a lady of a certain age and told her who I was and what I was, and she said, "Oh, I used to work in the House of Commons." I asked how long ago that was. She said, "Forty years." I said, "Forty years is a long time to go back. Whom did you work for?" She replied, "Bill McKay". I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for mentioning the fact that Bill McKay came to the House in 1961 and has given 40 years of dedicated public service, unsung, unremarked but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said, with great prestige and great influence.

297
I have seen this, as vice-chairman of the IPU, at international conferences that I attended with Bill. He did not attend the last conference in Moscow; he broke a leg. I thought that Moscow was a wonderful place to go to, and that it was taking matters a little too far to break a leg so as not to be on that trip. But Bill was unable to go, and we had to manage without him.
Parliamentary occasions such as this bring the House together. All of us in all parts of the House can come together and recognise the role that we play in public life and the role that has been played behind the scenes for us. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke for the Liberal party, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spoke about the role that Bill has played recently as chief executive. That is a new and significant role, which he has played because he is a parliamentarian himself. He understands 659 Members of Parliament with their foibles, their egoism and their impatience. He has brought us all together, and that again is a role that is entirely unsung and for which he should take a great deal of credit.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned that William McKay might wish to write his comparative parliamentary scenarios. That would be useful, but I hope that we are not encouraging him to write his memoirs. If we were to do that, we would all have to hunker down and hope for the best. But I know that he will not do that. Clifford Boulton, his predecessor but one, who was referred to by the Leader of the House, did not do that.
My final remark, and the only remark that I can think of, in relation to William McKay, and for his wife too, is that
"He nothing common did or mean
Upon that memorable scene".
The House of Commons will long remember him, even in his retirement.
5.46 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I want to refer briefly to one aspect of Sir William's work that has not been mentioned. I speak on behalf of the officers of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association when I say that his contribution to our activities has been beyond measure. It has been appreciated throughout the Commonwealth.
It is fitting that Sir William should be going to a professorial career from his chair in front of your Chair, Mr. Speaker, because over the years he has given the most wonderful guidance, tutelage and advice to a succession of Clerks from around the Commonwealth, and he has made a not insignificant contribution to legislatures around that unique international institution. He will, therefore, be missed and appreciated for what he has done not only in this House, but in many far flung parts of what used to be the empire and is now the great Commonwealth of Nations; the name of William McKay will be honoured there, and we should honour him for that.
Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, I should like to add my own tribute to Bill McKay. As my principal adviser on procedure and privilege he has consistently offered me wise counsel, tempering his technical advice with good humour and common sense. For that I owe him a great personal debt. As chief executive of the House of Commons service, he has done much to enhance the efficiency with which we are all supported. I know that after 41 years of service to the House, Bill and his wife Margaret will take into retirement the thanks and best wish of all Members past and present.
Question put and agreed to.

European Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
5.48 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Danish presidency will host the European Council in Copenhagen tomorrow. It is due to run on to Friday, but I have already warned my colleagues that it could be a five-shirt summit. Today the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities for this summit.
I hope that the EU leaders will agree at Copenhagen to issue a formal invitation to the 10 most advanced candidate countries to join the union in 2004. These are: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Their accession has been a long-standing aim of the Government's foreign policy. Three years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first EU leader to call for this the largest expansion in the union's history, for the negotiations to be completed by the end of this year and for the accession to take place formally by 2004.
Much of the summit will be taken up with complex negotiations relating to the financial arrangements in an expanded union. Understandably, all member states and the candidate countries are looking for the most favourable terms. But I am confident that each country will keep an eye on the main prize—the unification of Europe and their place within it. The alternative—a failure of nerve to take the tough decisions necessary for enlargement—would be unforgivable. We would not just be denying future generations access to the economic benefits created by the world's largest trading bloc, but creating the conditions for future instability and even conflict in Europe.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the current round of EU enlargement. I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said that we will see few more significant events in our lifetimes. For what we are contemplating is nothing less than a new Europe—a unified political and economic entity that is larger than the United States of America and Japan combined. For the peoples of the countries that we hope will come into Europe, accession will mark the end of an epic journey. For almost 50 years, Malta and Cyprus apart, they were subjugated by a system whose raison d'être was to crush the human spirit and frustrate the natural human aspirations of freedom and prosperity.
The fall of the Berlin wall not only demonstrated the bankruptcy of the Soviet approach, but showed that an all-encompassing ideology and authoritarian state control were no match for the determination of millions of Europeans to rejoin a community of values that has inspired the world since the enlightenment. The fall of the iron curtain acted as a catalyst for an initial burst of wealth creation in many parts of the continent, but the gruelling process of political and economic reform has also created some disillusionment, especially among those who expected instant transition to western levels of prosperity. Nevertheless, EU enlargement and membership enjoy high public support in all the accession countries, but there can be no further delay, and developments in recent months suggest that Europe
300
is taking that message to heart. Two months ago, the people of Ireland endorsed the Nice treaty, which is crucial to an efficient accession process. At the Brussels European Council meeting in October, EU leaders agreed the broad framework of a new budgetary settlement for the new, expanded Europe.
A Europe united by a common attachment to the ideals of good governance and based on democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law advances the causes of stability throughout the continent. It also acts as a bulwark against the forces of dictatorship, ethnic division and the atavistic national rivalries that have scarred the continent in the recent as well as the more distant past.
Many of us in the House are of the immediate postwar generation. For us, Europe was divided not only to the east by the iron curtain, but to the south, with dictatorships in Portugal, Spain and Greece. It was the European Union that helped to put those nations, each with its own troubled history, irreversibly on to the path of democracy and human rights. Today, the prospect of European Union accession is acting as a stimulus for reform in the group of 10 candidate countries, and in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. In the Balkans, the long-term prospect of European Union entry is driving economic and political reform. Democratic, market-oriented government based on the rule of law is becoming the norm in a region that still bears the scars of dictatorship and authoritarian rule.
Llew Smith: I am not personally opposed to enlargement, but would the Secretary of State care to comment on the views of the Secretary of State for Wales, who I believe is the Government spokesperson on enlargement? He said:
"Monetary union is … probably incompatible with enlargement."—[Official Report, 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1093.]
Mr. Straw: Before I could comment in more detail, I would, as the Speaker says when he tells us that he is putting the Queen's Speech in the Vote Office, need to send out for the full text in the interests of greater accuracy. Meanwhile, however, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 October 1997. [Interruption.] I know it almost by heart.
Enlargement is not just a matter of historical obligation. [Interruption.] I ask the Whip to bear in mind his obligation to his bank balance—we give him a cheque and he stays silent. [Interruption.] My Whip is always helpful and I am helpful to him.
Enlargement is also matter of enlightened national self-interest. Britain needs more partners if we are to tackle the problems that do not respect borders, such as illegal immigration, environmental degradation and cross-border crime. We need stronger links with our European trading partners if the single market is to realise its full potential. The impact of enlargement on Britain's economy is potentially enormous. Recent studies estimate that it could increase national GDP for the UK by £1.75 billion a year and create up to 300,000 jobs throughout the European Union.
Angus Robertson: As a strong supporter of the European Union and enlargement, I am finding it very difficult to explain to my constituents and people throughout the rest of Scotland who are facing the prospect of massive closure in one of our most important industries why the fishing crisis is not on the agenda of the Copenhagen summit. The Foreign Secretary may not be aware of this point, but I have with me a letter from the Danish Prime Minister saying that the Prestige disaster is to be discussed at the meeting. That is important for the people of Spain, but the fishing crisis is a man-made disaster and why are the UK Government not pressing for it to be on the summit agenda?
Mr. Straw: Of course, we understand the great concern of fishermen in fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom and not least in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who speaks on fishing matters and is one of Europe's great experts in that regard, are extremely concerned to secure a fair deal that respects the needs of fishermen in the United Kingdom and, above all, ensures their long-term livelihood by further conserving fish stocks.
Fishing is not on the agenda of the European Council because it is on that of the Fisheries Council, which meets next week. That is a better forum in which the United Kingdom can settle the matter, as it can be dealt with there by qualified majority voting. The Prestige is a new issue that relates to new policy and we discussed it in the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which I attended on Monday and Tuesday. We are supporting the proposals being made by the Spanish Government about accelerating the phasing out of the single-hulled oil tankers that have caused such devastation to the northern coast of Spain and the south-west coast of France and could cause devastation here.
Alongside the enlargement process, the Convention on the Future of Europe is holding its deliberations. A key issue in the Convention is how Europe should operate and what its guiding political principles should be. Enlargement supports Britain's approach in that respect, as the 10 new member states share Britain's vision of the Union's future: a Europe of sovereign nations proud of their distinct identities, but cooperating together for the mutual good.
Ms Gisela Stuart: My right hon. Friend mentioned the candidate countries and the Convention on the Future of Europe. One of the issues that greatly exercises the candidate countries is what role they will play when the Convention draws its conclusions, after which there will be an intergovernmental conference. They wonder what the term "playing a full role" will mean. If that issue is discussed, what view will he take?
Mr. Straw: I cannot give my hon. Friend—
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I bet you can't.
Mr. Straw: Excuse me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is looking for equal behaviour from the Whips of both Front Benches.
Mr. Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend is not paid.
Mr. Straw: Of course he is not; he does not deserve it. At least sedentary interventions from Labour Whips are of the quality that one would expect for the money that they receive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) asked me a question. I hope that an unpaid Whip will not interrupt me again. I cannot give my hon. Friend a comprehensive reply because the matter has not yet been decided in the EU. We discussed it yesterday in the General Affairs and External Relations Council when we considered whether the IGC should take place in 2003 or 2004. We took account of the conclusions of Nice and Laeken that the accession countries should be involved. Indeed, they must be involved, because their future as much as that of existing members will be at stake.
From any perspective, the case for enlargement is overwhelming, but the process is not without pitfalls. In particular, there is a risk that the accession of the 10 will simply establish a new economic dividing line across the continent. Some stark figures underline that. The new 10 will add 23 per cent. to the landmass of the European Union, 20 per cent. to its population but only 4 per cent. to its GDP.
At Copenhagen, EU leaders will have an opportunity to deal with some of those anxieties. Our objective will be advancing the candidatures of Bulgaria and Romania. Both countries have some way to go towards satisfying the criteria for membership but the Union should acknowledge the political and economic reforms that both countries have adopted in the past 12 years. We expect the Copenhagen summit to reiterate strongly the Union's support for both countries' objective of accession by 2007. We agreed to that at the previous summit in Brussels at the end of October.
I want to consider Turkey's application for membership. Britain has long championed Turkey's membership of the EU. Last week, I echoed the call of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for a "firm date" to be set for negotiations with the Turkish Government. I reinforced that commitment during a visit to Ankara last week. It was my third visit to Turkey as Foreign Secretary.
Turkish membership of the EU is a matter of obligation to previous EU decisions and our history. Turkey must be treated the same as any other candidate country. Three years ago, at the Helsinki summit, all Heads of State and Government said:
"Turkey is a candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to other candidate states."
Since then, Turkey has made significant progress against the so-called Copenhagen criteria for EU membership. Improvements have occurred in its

303
approach to human rights and the application of the rule of law. For example, it has abolished the death penalty. It also supports a market economy. If the principal definition of a functioning democracy is that it allows peaceful change of Government, Turkey more than passes the test. We have a large stake in the success of the new Government's national vision as a model, democratic, Muslim country that is coping with the challenges of globalisation in a way that marks it out for EU membership.
That befits a country that has long been linked with the United Kingdom by the bonds of military alliance, and already plays a key role in other European institutions and on the world stage. That role includes peacekeeping in Afghanistan and the Balkans, hosting Operation Northern Watch over Iraq and being a crucial ally in our battle against drugs and people smugglers, and in the war against terrorism.
Irrespective of the Union's outstanding obligations, Turkish membership should be a major strategic goal. Europe needs a western-looking Turkey—a secular Muslim nation joining us in the family of European democracies. That is a goal for which it is worth striving in any circumstances, but especially now.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was anything said about the provision of air force bases in Turkey in relation to Iraq, which my right hon. Friend mentioned?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I did not quite hear the question, which my hon. Friend may want to repeat. However, as he knows, there is a major Turkish air force base in Incilik. Both United States and United Kingdom forces use it by agreement, which is renewed at least twice a year, with the Turkish Government.
Mr. Dalyell: Are the Turks happy about the uses to which it might be put?
Mr. Straw: They are happy about the uses to which it is put; it cannot be used unless they are happy. Future uses outside the existing agreement are a matter for the Turkish Government.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about Turkey, which is making a strong case for getting a date for accession at Copenhagen. However, one of the Helsinki criteria was progress on Cyprus. In the light of the Annan plan, which was published a couple of weeks ago, does my right hon. Friend accept that the case for Turkey would be greatly strengthened if agreement on a settlement in Cyprus was reached? Does he also agree that to achieve that, Turkey must put pressure on Mr. Denktash to come to the negotiating table and do a deal with Mr. Klerides?
Mr. Straw: I was about to consider Cyprus. Although the issue is obviously linked to Turkey, it is a separate matter. The key parties to a resolution of the Cyprus conflict are separate from the Governments of Greece or Turkey.
I say to those who question Turkey's right to a European future that it has been a loyal European ally in NATO for half a century, making a vital contribution
304
to the defence of the continent throughout the cold war. Turkey therefore deserves a great share of the credit for bringing down the iron curtain and making possible EU enlargement to the east.
The overwhelming majority of Turkey's peoples are Muslim. It has political parties that celebrate that, just as western Europe has equivalent Christian parties, but it is a secular state and accepts our concept of liberal democratic values. Its accession would be hugely important to the stability of not only Europe but the entire world. The fitting response from the Union at Copenhagen would be a positive welcome for a firm date for the beginning of accession negotiations, subject to the Copenhagen criteria. The Turkish Government accept that.
Let us consider Cyprus. Our objective is that a date for Turkey's accession should be agreed at Copenhagen as part of a package. The other elements will be ironing out some of the outstanding difficulties on European defence and finding a solution that allows the EU to admit a reunited Cyprus.
The Helsinki criteria made it clear that, if necessary, the EU should be ready to admit a divided Cyprus—that is, a Greek Cyprus—if a comprehensive agreement for a unified Cyprus could not be reached. We were party to that agreement and we stand by it. However, everybody agreed that it would be far preferable to have a united Cyprus joining the EU. The point was reiterated in the General Affairs and External Relations Council a few weeks ago. If that does not happen, the EU will have to deal with the issues that underlie the conflict.
The Cyprus problem has existed for too long. For the past half century, relations between Cyprus, Greece and Turkey have been characterised by tensions and strife. We have a great chance to change that, cement the process of rapprochement between Greece and Turkey that began in 1999, and, as envisaged by the United Nations Secretary-General, welcome a new Cyprus to the EU.
On 11 November, Kofi Annan published a comprehensive settlement proposal for Cyprus to end the years of separation on the island. It is both balanced and fair, and it has our strong support. Too many openings have been missed in the past. The parties should not allow the current opportunity to slip by, whatever the difficulties. I therefore warmly welcome the Secretary-General's efforts.
A range of other issues will be discussed at Copenhagen. They include the middle east and Iraq.
Mr. Andrew Love: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for waiting until he had completed his remarks on Cyprus before intervening. To take up the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), there is some anxiety that Turkey will delay a solution to the island's problems until it is ready to accede to the EU. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware of those anxieties. He commented extensively on Turkey's progress on other matters that concerned the EU; will he say whether Turkey has given him any reassurances on ending the division in Cyprus?
Mr. Straw: The best thing that I can do is to praise the constructive efforts that, to my certain knowledge, are being made in respect of Cyprus by both the Greek and

305
Turkish Governments. In the past few years, there has been a sea change in relations between Greece and Turkey—a dramatic change, for those who know the causes of the conflict. These days, it is the Government of Greece who are in the vanguard, pushing for an early and a firm date for Turkey's accession to the European Union. Of course there are some deep historical divisions that must be resolved, and both sides must take account of their own public opinions. However, in respect of Turkey's accession and of seeking unity on the divided island of Cyprus, both the Greek Government and the new Turkish Government have shown considerable statesmanship. I hope—I cannot be certain because it is fraught with difficulties—that that will pay off. I hope, too, that the diaspora communities of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in this country will recognise the huge importance for their relatives and friends in that divided island of ending the very longstanding conflict.
The three-monthly meetings of the European Council are the most important events in the EU calendar. The accession of 10 new members, which we hope will be agreed, will represent a profound change for the European Union; so will further work on Romania and Bulgaria. As I have already made clear, we want the Copenhagen Council to chart the course of Turkey's future accession to the European Union. Above all, reuniting Europe will be the greatest achievement of the current European generation. I hope that a further chapter in making Europe one continent will be opened at Copenhagen this weekend.
6.11 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: Walking home on Monday night, I bumped into a senior Labour politician—a keen European. I remarked how cold it was and he looked at me and said, "European weather." I decided that I had heard it all: an instinctive integrationism whereby even the weather is now European—despite the fact that the current weather may be known to northern Europe but is hardly known to the Mediterranean. There is no European weather any more than there is European foreign policy or European defence policy. Europe cannot be forced into conformity, yet that is precisely what the Government, often by stealth and very gradually, seek to do.
I listened to the Foreign Secretary's speech with some interest and, I have to say, with some enjoyment. I noticed that, unlike the Secretary of State for Wales, who has decided that the title of a lecture that I gave last year, "A partnership of sovereign nations", is now Labour policy, we heard very little from the Foreign Secretary about the partnership of nation states. The Foreign Secretary's Government and his party are instinctive integrationists. He made that clear tonight when he referred to the Europe that he was looking for as a "unified political and economic Europe". That may be his view, but I am glad that he stated it tonight, because I believe that that is the Government's position, rather than that set out by the Secretary of State for Wales.
We see that that is so from the Government's actions and words. They signed, to this country's cost, the social chapter. At Nice, they gave away the veto on 31 articles, and now they have only five areas in which they wish to keep the veto. We saw the Prime Minister's instinctive
306
integrationism when he spoke in Cardiff of a unified European foreign policy, of "communitising"—a terrible word, but it was in his speech—most of the justice and home affairs pillar; of a Europe without a fixed limit; and, in his words, of establishing Europe as
"a superpower, if not a superstate".
Despite what they say, the Government seek political unity, perhaps not as fiercely as Romano Prodi, but just as doggedly. After Cardiff and last week's debate on the Convention, the extent and nature of the changes in the EU that the Government seek are now becoming clear. We have also had Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's draft treaty and Mr. Prodi's proposals. Any new treaty is likely to represent a step change in the EU's structure, and I doubt whether anybody in the Chamber would deny that.
Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way in a moment.
The new structure will be more centralist and less democratic, and will mean a further loss of sovereignty from nation states. All those changes will last long beyond the life of this Government. I believe that this is a constitutional change so great that the assent of the British people must be sought, and that if it is sought it will not be given.
I therefore call on the Government to assure the House and the country tonight that there will be a referendum on the draft treaty produced by the Convention. If the Government believe in democracy, the new treaty—either in draft or in actuality—should be put before the country before the forthcoming intergovernmental conference or, at the very least, before ratification.
Angus Robertson: Let me say at the outset that I would be the last person to defend the Government's policy, but would the right hon. Gentleman accuse the acceding countries of central and eastern Europe—for example, Lithuania, which has fought so long for its independence—of selling out to Brussels and getting rid of their independence when they become full members of the EU?
Mr. Ancram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here for last week's debate; otherwise, he would have heard me say that many of the accession countries have complained to me about what Brussels has demanded of them in the negotiations. They have told me that they did not get themselves out from under the centralised bureaucracy of the Soviet Union merely to find themselves under another form of centralisation.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman has just committed himself to a referendum on the treaty. I am trying to remember whether he voted against the referendum on Maastricht.
Mr. Ancram: What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] This is very important. We said before the last election that a major transfer of sovereignty of the sort that we

307
understand is likely under this treaty and a move away from intergovernmentalism should require the assent of the British people.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me time to respond?
If the treaty is to be ratified before the next election, a referendum should be held, and I ask the Foreign Secretary to assure the House that one will be.
Mr. Straw: The question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman can be answered with a yes or no: am I right in thinking that he voted against a referendum on Maastricht?
Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State might remember that I was out of the House at the time of the treaty.
Keith Vaz: How convenient to be out of the House at the time.
Is it still Conservative policy to hold a referendum on the Nice treaty? If so, would it be held before or after the referendum that the right hon. Gentleman proposes on the Convention? It certainly was the policy when he spoke for the Opposition on these matters.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we called for a referendum on Amsterdam. He asks me about Nice, but Nice has been acceded to. I am talking about a treaty that has not yet been signed or agreed—a treaty that will make a major transfer of sovereignty from the nation states to the centralised institutions of Europe. In those circumstances, there should be a referendum before any decision is taken.
Mr. Straw: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to correct the record. My memory could be playing tricks on me, but my recollection is that the Maastricht vote took place after the 1992 election. "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" shows that the right hon. Gentleman was in the House and that he was an Under-Secretary and a Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office between 1994 and 1997. Thus, he was in the House. He knows the answer and there is no point in his being coy. He talks about frankness with the British public. Will he answer yes or no to my question about whether he voted against the Maastricht referendum?
Mr. Ancram: I voted for the Maastricht Bill, because I was here then, but I do not recall a vote on a referendum. If there was—
Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that there was such a vote, because the Secretary of State for Foreign and
308
Commonwealth Affairs asked me to come back from my honeymoon to vote. I can confirm that that is the case; my wife still remembers it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Regardless of those circumstances, I have to say that that is a point for debate, not a point of order.
Keith Vaz: Not for my wife, it isn't.
Mr. Ancram: To avoid getting into the more intimate details of the honeymoon of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I will check the record; if I did vote as has been suggested, I will certainly come to the House and admit that I was wrong. If I did so, may I say that, in the light of what is happening now, I regret that we were unable to seek the assent of the British people? I think it right that we should do so—
Ms Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I am going to move on now, because I am conscious of the time.
This is a particularly opportune time for the House to debate European affairs more generally than was possible in last week's debate. It is good to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) in her seat once again, as it is to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). They represent us on the Convention and were able to enlighten us in last week's debate on the direction in which Europe is moving.
Ms Stuart: This is a pertinent question, because quite a number of people on the Convention are asking for a Europe-wide referendum on the constitution. If there were a call for a referendum from Brussels, would the right hon. Gentleman support it?
Mr. Ancram: My concern is that the sovereignty of this country should not be sold out without the consent of the British people. If the constitution likely to emerge from the Convention were to propose such a sell-out—last week's debate suggested that it will—the House should not ratify it without the democratic consent of the British people. That is a very simple principle—and, I believe, a correct one—that will be supported by many people in this country.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I am going to move on, now. I have made our position on a referendum clear, and that is the position from which we will move forward.
The European Council meeting at Copenhagen will be of particular importance, as the Foreign Secretary said. We hope that four matters will be successfully taken forward from it. We look forward to the conclusion of negotiations on enlargement; we hope to hear something about reforming the common agricultural policy, whether or not the issue is formally on the agenda; we expect progress to be made on Turkey's path to EU membership; and we look forward to an acceptable resolution of the problems in Cyprus.

309
We support Turkey's membership of the European Union, but it raises an old question: what is Europe, and where does it end? The time has come for a wide debate, both in this country and across Europe. At the moment, we are talking about Turkey, but in the future we may also be talking about Ukraine or Belarus. We need to explore where we envisage the European Union ending and what we believe constitutes Europe. I believe that Turkey belongs in Europe. Its geography may be ambiguous, but its values are becoming increasingly democratic. Its membership will allow the European Union to show the Muslim world that it does not reject it as alien, that democracy and Islam are compatible, and that a country can be both European and Muslim. The Foreign Secretary was also suggesting that, and I believe that this would be a useful gain.
Britain and its partners in the European Union would do well to set a date at Copenhagen for the commencement of negotiations on Turkey's membership of the EU. It is important to welcome Turkey into the EU because it will help to underpin a stable settlement in Cyprus. Kofi Annan's proposals form a sound basis for a settlement that is fair to both communities, and I am pleased that the new Turkish Government's response has been encouraging, although the response of the Turkish Cypriot Government has been less so.
The island's division is one of Europe's unhealed wounds, and the impetus of EU enlargement and the United Nations plan give us the best chance in a generation to heal it. Having been involved in attempts at conciliation in the past, however, I would say to the Foreign Secretary that, in reaching an agreement, it will be important not to leave behind too many unresolved problems that could surface later to undermine a settlement. I hope that the Foreign Secretary would agree that progress on Cyprus could be faster if the Turkish Government were given to understand that Turkey would progress faster to EU membership if the Cyprus problem were solved. It would be a tragedy if this unique opportunity to unite the island were missed.
Last month also saw the expansion of NATO. It is a great tribute to the harmonious relations that exist between the United States, western Europe and Russia that we have been able to welcome Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria into the north Atlantic alliance. That showed that making Russia a cooperative ally—as we have done over the last few months—in both EU and NATO enlargement has been helpful. The Berlin wall was not torn down only for another wall to be set up further east. At the same time, however, we must understand the difficult relationship that some of Russia's neighbours have, and may continue to have, with her.
That is why it is vital that we get right the solution to the problem of Kaliningrad. The only way to guarantee that it will not become a permanent source of tension is to reach a fair settlement in which neither Russia nor Lithuania feels that its sovereignty has been compromised. Much progress has been made on this issue, but I hope that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, as relatively disinterested parties, will do their best in Copenhagen to ensure that a lasting settlement is achieved.
310
The 10 countries due to join the EU in 2004 are looking, above all, for two things from EU membership—prosperity and stability—but they will get them only in a European Union that is working to achieve them. The Lisbon process set out fine objectives, but in too many ways the EU has failed to deliver. The liberalisation of the energy market has been delayed, a single market in financial services is bogged down, and very little progress has been made in cutting youth unemployment. With the eurozone's main economy, Germany, in danger of recession, there must be more determination to move forward on the economic agenda. More red tape on business and more social directives only keep European economies stagnant. The deputy director general of the Confederation of British Industry told the Financial Times that, since Lisbon,
"we have seen a raft of inappropriate measures that have damaged British business and the reputation of the EU".
It is telling that, of the CBI's 10 most unpopular regulations, seven are EU directives. We must address that problem. In conversations that I have had with people around Europe, I have found that many who may fundamentally disagree with me about the future shape of Europe are as concerned as I am about the nature of some of the directives that are being issued.
A good example is the atypical workers directive, and the CBI has predicted that it may cost 160,000 British jobs alone. The directive is a fine example of how we have failed to fight our corner successfully in Europe, and have let down our partners by failing to win the arguments on economic liberalisation. The directive is a classic piece of Brussels bureaucracy and Labour MEPs supported it against the Government's wishes, so far as we can discern those wishes. The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions went to Strasbourg to plead with the European Parliament's Social Affairs Committee to support the amendments that our MEPs had proposed. His own MEPs avoided him like the plague and not only went on to vote against his wishes but led the whole Party of European Socialists to do the same. The British representation in Brussels even refused to advise British MEPs how to vote. It was a complete shambles. I have to say that, rather typically, the Liberal Democrats were, as we might expect, split. Our MEPs voted to protect British jobs. There is still a chance to correct the directive, and I hope that the Government and their allies in the European Union will take the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: It is seems strange, to say the least, that the right hon. Gentleman should complain about the non-completion of the single market in financial services when his own Conservative Government blocked many of the directives, more than five years ago, and when the City and the CBI are against many of the directives coming from Europe.
Mr. Ancram: We supported the outcome of the Lisbon summit and the Lisbon principles, and our MEPs have been pressing hard in the European Parliament for their implementation ever since.
Everyone wants enlargement to be a success. Most previous enlargements have been successful—we need only look at the economies of Spain and Portugal and compare them with how they were 20 years ago to see that. Many people have rightly pointed out that the

311
number of these countries' nationals working in other European countries dropped after enlargement. That is an encouraging example, but there is also the warning of east Germany. The old East Germany has struggled since it united with West Germany and thus acceded to the EU, and its population has fallen. Among the reasons for it struggling is the weight of social regulation and rigid employment practices to which it has been subjected. Enlargement will succeed only if the EU moves to become less rigid and if it encourages flexible employment practices. More directives such as that on temporary workers to which I referred do nothing to help either the existing or the new members to build wealth and jobs.
In particular, I want to ask the Foreign Secretary about an announcement that he made yesterday on the free movement of workers. Why does he think it suitable for Britain not to have the transitional arrangements with the enlargement countries? Germany has secured the full seven-year transitional arrangements and every other major European economy has such arrangements in place. Why have we, in what is an overcrowded island, decided not to give those arrangements effect?
The Foreign Secretary has mentioned independent studies that justify the Government's position. [Interruption.] I hope that we find an opportunity during the debate to hear from the Minister for Europe, who spends more time talking from a sedentary position than from the Dispatch Box, some explanation of the Government's position.
Europe is also tied down by the failure to reform the common agricultural policy. There was a lot to be said for the CAP 40 years ago; now there is little. It has become to the EU what the Old Man of the Sea was to Sinbad—a parasitical burden that cannot be removed. The financial demands that enlargement has placed on the EU make the CAP unsustainable its current form, yet the Government have—
Mr. Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I think that I gave way on that point last week, but if this is a different one I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that it is the same.
Mr. Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman is preaching to the converted in this Chamber. Is not the point on the CAP that he needs to persuade his colleagues in the Christian Democrat parties, if the Conservatives are still part of the Christian Democrat group in Europe, if we are to win on the issue?
Mr. Ancram: I am amazed by such an intervention from a Member representing a party that is in government and which claims that it is at the heart of Europe and that it will influence how Europe moves forward. Now I am being told that the future of CAP reform depends on my conversations with the German CDU. We are looking to the Government to produce answers. In Brussels the other day, France and Germany put together a scheme behind the backs of the British, but when the Prime Minister visited the House the
312
following week he told us that he welcomed that scheme. We have heard since that the Government are doing their best to try to unravel it because it is so damaging. It is for the Government to show that they can go to summits and get active reform in place on matters such as the CAP before they begin to undermine the enlargement process.
Mr. Wayne David: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is such a thing as a mid-term review of the CAP, which has been strongly argued for by the Government and is still very much on the table and the subject of debate?
Mr. Ancram: We know that the money has been set until 2013. That is what the agreement is about and that is what has been delivered from Brussels. We know also that, whatever happens, it will be difficult for each of the 25 states to receive the same money that currently goes to each of the 15 without enormous tensions and enormous rows in the enlarged EU. That is the reality, but it is what the Government have allowed to occur. We look to them to begin to unravel it before it begins to damage enlargement.
The offer made to candidate countries is seen by them as unsatisfactory. If it is implemented, their electorates will naturally ask why they should pay the club's full dues but receive only part of the benefit. The Brussels offer endangers successful and sustainable enlargement. The opinion polls in Poland are worrying. Many politicians in the accession countries are naturally concerned that their electorates will reject EU membership unless a better deal is offered.
Andrew Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I have given way a lot, so I shall make progress.
Why, therefore, have the Government apparently failed to support the Danish compromise package that has been put forward for the summit? What will be their position on the Danish package at the Copenhagen European Council? We heard nothing on that from the Foreign Secretary. Will the Minister at least support the Danish proposal to allow candidate countries some flexibility and allow them to top up direct payments? Far too much of the process of enlargement has been characterised by an attitude that treats the candidate countries as supplicants rather than applicants. Rigidity now may mean catastrophe later, and enlargement without Poland would be a huge blow to the enlarged EU's credibility.
In Portugal, we can see the effect of another side of the EU's rigidity. Yesterday, 1 million workers went on strike to protest against spending cuts imposed by the Commission. It was therefore heartening to see the Portuguese Prime Minister embodying the virtue of hope by telling us that we should copy them and that we would be better off in the euro. I look forward to further such lessons from him. Experience may point to a very different conclusion, however. Of course, we must sympathise with the Portuguese Prime Minister. If he had not inherited finances destroyed by the outgoing left-wing Government's profligacy, he would not be in such trouble.

313
By design or default, the Government are leading this country into ever tighter integration. Two years ago, the Prime Minister said in Warsaw that the EU did not need a written constitution; two weeks ago, he said that it did. We were told that the charter of fundamental rights would have no more legal weight than the Beano. Now we hear that its incorporation is acceptable, provided that there are certain horizontal guarantees. Before Nice, the Government had a limited list of areas in which they wanted the national veto abolished. Now the Prime Minister tells us that it should be abolished practically wholesale.
The Government's thinking on Europe's future structure is once again muddled. The Prime Minister has called for a "unified European foreign policy", but the experience of the past 18 months must show him how impossible that is to achieve. He will remember last year's Council of Ministers in Ghent and the communique that, in effect, had to say nothing because the countries represented there could not reach any agreement on their reaction to 11 September. For the past few months, we have seen the differing views among the British, French and German Governments as to how to deal with the threat of Iraq.
A unified foreign policy, in the end, would be either the lowest common denominator or it would try to impose on member states foreign policies that they were not prepared to accept. Nor is the Prime Minister's proposal for a unified foreign policy backed up by the means to enforce it. Some reinforcement of the high representative's powers will not achieve that. Once again, the Prime Minister is willing the end without willing the means.
On the other hand, if the EU works as a partnership of sovereign nation states, it will be able to accomplish the promotion of peace, prosperity and stability that are its proper goals. The single market needs completion, and we can look to the EU to help to maintain environmental standards in eastern Europe.
Last week, we debated the EU's structures in the context of the Convention, and I set out our views on reform of the Council and the Commission, restoring greater accountability and the role of national Parliaments, but there was a wider issue in that debate that has not been touched on today and which I believe must also be central to the Copenhagen summit: the need for Europe to re-engage with its peoples. It can do that only if it reforms and decentralises. It does not need to increase its central powers. It must have the courage to trust its peoples and to involve the national Parliaments.
As I have said before, the proposals made by the Convention's subsidiarity working group do not go far enough. National Parliaments must be able to enforce subsidiarity and proportionality. An early-warning system is not enough. We need a sense of finality—an end to what has become known as the ratchet effect. Only the elites of Brussels want ever closer union.
In summary, I believe that the EU can be made to work better. In the 21st century, it still has a vital role to play in building prosperity across Europe. We have the opportunity to enable it to do that and to build the true partnerships of sovereign nations that we wish to see. We in this country should have a vision of a Europe for the 21st century—firm in its cohesiveness, agile in its
314
international operations and taking pride in its diversity. Such a Europe could take on the challenges that face us while leaving intact the national aspirations that will be essential if it is not to collapse under the weight of its own centralisation. That is not the Government's vision, but it is ours. I believe that it is the vision that the British people support.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
6.39 pm
Keith Vaz: I am delighted with the opportunity to speak when we are on the threshold of the important summit that will take place in the next few days. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on what he has said recently about freedom of movement for new applicant countries, and I am convinced that when Ministers, including the Prime Minister, go to Copenhagen they will do what they have always done under this Government and present a strong, dynamic case for Britain's full engagement in the European Union. I wish them well.
Let me also add my congratulations to those extended by other Members over the last few weeks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the Minister for Europe. When we worked in the Foreign Office together, I told him that he would be Minister for Europe one day, and now he is. I can think of no one better qualified, and I wish him well, specifically on the occasion of his first European summit.
The House is united in our wish to see an enlarged Europe. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) tried hard to sound radical and Eurosceptic, but it did not really come through: we know that, deep down in his heart, he supports most of what the Government are doing. He supports the fact that when British Ministers go to Europe they bat for Europe—they want to ensure that we get the best deal in Europe. And that is precisely what we have done in respect of all the other agenda items.
That is precisely what we have done on enlargement, for instance. Our country, and our Prime Minister, championed enlargement. We rightly suggested that it was essential for an enlarged Europe not just to benefit the European Union, creating the largest single market in the world, but to unite an historically divided EU. My visits to applicant countries give me the impression that that mood—enthusiasm about joining a European Union that is, in a real sense, led by the United Kingdom—has not diminished. Of course the results of opinion polls have changed in some of those countries when I was in Poland a year ago, there was concern about the need to maintain enthusiasm there—but I think that when it comes to a referendum the Polish people, like those in all the other applicant countries, will prove strongly in favour of EU membership.
The reason for the waning of support was the fact that the negotiations were taking so long. I welcome what has happened under the last two presidencies. There has been a desire to move forward and to establish a date for entry-1 May 2004. Nevertheless, we should not gloss over the problems that will arise over the next few

315
months and years. We must help the applicant countries as much as we can. It is not just a question of providing extra resources; it is a question—a very important one, I think—of this Parliament's working with parliamentarians in each applicant country so that we can build bridges and links.
When the applicants join the EU, they will have to engage in a bewildering exercise. Some of us who have attended European summits have had to do the same, of course, because the EU has its own language and subculture. When 10 are added to the existing 15, it is necessary to look at a reform agenda. Enlargement is surely nothing without reform, and it must be right for our country, our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary to be in the lead in that regard.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will tell us something of the progress that has been made on the famous Blair-Schröder letter sent earlier this year. As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister of our country and the German Chancellor compiled a list of areas in which they wanted reform. During the last debate of this kind before the last European Council meeting, I asked the Foreign Secretary how many boxes had been ticked. I know that he was concentrating very much on the enlargement agenda, but it is important for us to look at those boxes. I do not object to a single one of the items presented by the leaders of Germany and the United Kingdom—I consider them all important—but we now need to benchmark them.
The right hon. Member for Devizes said that the Opposition supported the Government on Lisbon. I went to that summit, and I was here for the Prime Minister's statement. The right hon. Gentleman may say that there was support for what the Government had achieved, but not much support came from the then leader of the Opposition. We want real support for the reform agenda, not just soundbites from the right hon. Gentleman. Without genuine reform, we cannot make the progress that we need to make in engaging the British people.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that need to engage the British people, but this Government are engaging them everywhere. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe have attended meetings all over the country in an attempt to ensure that the people understand what is happening in the EU, and to defeat the nonsense that issues from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and some of the tabloid newspapers, when they undermine everything that the Government are trying to do.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman talks of public support. Does he now regret giving all sorts of assurances, when he was Minister for Europe, that the charter of fundamental rights would not be made legally binding? Less than two years later, the Government have signalled their assent to its being legally binding: I was attending a plenary session of the Convention when that U-turn took place. Is that how to secure public support—giving assurances that are abandoned shortly afterwards?
Keith Vaz: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, and as I have just been reminded by my hon. Friend the
316
Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), that is not what the Government have said. They have made it clear, in the context of the charter, that we want no extension of the current laws. That is what the charter was about: it was intended to encapsulate the rights and responsibilities that currently exist. It was not about making new law, but about codifying what was already there. The right hon. Gentleman knows that very well.
Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were connected with the people on European issues. Can he perhaps imagine how connected the Government may be with people throughout the north and north-east of Scotland after this weekend, when a crucial move that may involve tens of thousands of job losses—the equivalent of more than 100,000 job losses in England—will go ahead because it will not have been discussed at the summit? It will not be discussed because the United Kingdom Government do not consider it to be of vital national interest.
Keith Vaz: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Of course the Government consider such issues important, and of course they are connected with the people of Scotland. Along with other Ministers over the past five years, I spent an enormous amount of time in Scotland discussing those issues. The First Minister, moreover, is a member of the European team of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, and attends meetings regularly to talk about such concerns.
Of course we must go on reminding people of Europe's importance. Rather than standing at the sidelines carping and attacking everything that the Government do, the right hon. Member for Devizes should do what any decent shadow Foreign Secretary would do when they are trying to fight for our agenda abroad, and support their intention.
Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if the Government are trying to sell out our sovereignty, I should support them even though I fundamentally object to that?
Keith Vaz: That is precisely what I mean! What a load of rubbish. There is no question of this Government doing that. This Government support a British agenda in Europe, leading and fashioning the European debate in accordance with what we are trying to do. What an absurd suggestion that was from the shadow Foreign Secretary.
As I have said, the reform agenda is important, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will tell us what progress has been made on the Blair-Schröder letter. Let me also express my concern about the ongoing debate on Turkey, and add that subject to the caveats of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love)—that the Cyprus issue should be discussed and settled. We are not supposed to refer to those who watch our proceedings, but I know that the high commissioner for Cyprus is also aware of what is going on. Of course we have to deal with the Cyprus issue but it is vital that we have a date to begin negotiations for the entry of Turkey. I think that everyone accepts that that is a long way off but it is

317
important for the Turkish Government and the Turkish people to know that they will be fully included in a Europe of many nation states.
I hope that we will get out of Copenhagen a date for the start of those negotiations, because, as we all know from the recent negotiations and discussions with the 10 applicants, it takes a long time to move the process forward. Commissioner Verheugen may be very busy dealing with the 10 applicants, but it is necessary for the European Commission to appoint a senior official, perhaps one of the Commissioners, to look carefully at what Turkey wishes to do and to begin that negotiation process.
I hope that that will happen at the summit because the entry of Turkey is important to an inclusive Europe. We have heard far too often the view that because Turkey happens to be a majority Muslim country, Europe does not want Turkey to join. I was glad to hear what hon. Members on both sides of the House said about Turkey's inclusion in Europe. I hope that there will be more than good words—I hope that there will be good deeds. Let us get a date out of Copenhagen.
Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend accept that if it is not possible either at Copenhagen or next April to resolve the division of Cyprus, taking into account all relevant factors, as the Helsinki agreement has already stated, Cyprus should be allowed to accede to membership?
Keith Vaz: It is vital that Cyprus be allowed to join with the other applicant countries on 1 May 2004. The issue of Turkey also has to be addressed but that should not stop the enlargement of the European Union. It should not stop us accepting those 10 countries and enlarging with Cyprus, so I hope that that happens. I have two final points. One concerns the case of Catherine Meyer, which I raised with my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe when he spoke from the Front Bench in a different capacity. I understand that the Prime Minister has written to Chancellor Schröder about the Catherine Meyer case. I recently tabled a parliamentary question asking for details of the reply. That has not come forward yet. I know that the Minister knows Catherine Meyer, and is involved and interested in the case. It is important that we know what Chancellor Schröder has said.
It is unacceptable for the German Government and German courts to continue to act in the way in which they have. Catherine Meyer has not seen her sons for years and years. They are going to be 17 and 16. The whole of their childhood has disappeared. We are not talking about a country that does not subscribe to democratic values. We are talking about Germany, a close ally of our country. The judicial systems should be working together—not necessarily the same judicial systems. The court systems are independent but there should at least be some co-operation. There is no point in having a justice and home affairs summit meeting, and Home Office Ministers and Ministers from justice departments meeting when people are not prepared to talk to each other.
I want some progress to be made on the Catherine Meyer case. I urge the Minister, in the margins of the summit, when he meets the German Minister for Europe, and the Foreign Secretary when he meets
318
Joschka Fischer to talk about that case, because it is a blot on the relationship between Germany and the United Kingdom. I hope that we will have some news.
I end as I started by wishing the Minister and the Government well in the negotiations at Copenhagen. We always talk about things being historic but this is a historic conference. The summit will produce for us a new and united Europe, not a federal Europe but a Europe of nation states. The Poles no more want to have a federal Europe than do people in the United Kingdom. We want not a superstate, as the right hon. Member for Devizes says, but a Europe of nation states working together for the people of Europe and for the people of the individual countries.
6.54 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: Last week in the Chamber, we spent a brief time concentrating on the future shape of Europe and its institutions. In this debate, properly, we have been focusing on this week's summit, where the European Union is poised to take a major step towards the historic reshaping of Europe. It is not simply the symbolic achievement of bringing eight former communist countries within the European Union but the sheer scale of the exercise. At one stroke, the union will admit more new members than in all the previous enlargements put together. As the airwaves and newspaper columns are filled this week with the haggles and disputes of last-minute negotiations, it is important that we do not lose sight of what is under way.
In the past half century of European integration, the world has changed significantly but the appeal of European Union membership has remained remarkably constant. The original six countries were brought together by common desires to end the uncertainties that had plunged Europe into war over many centuries, creating security by linking competing countries together. They sought to entrench democracy in the face of totalitarian disasters that had preceded the war in fascist Europe and arisen after it in communist Europe. They also sought to create prosperity by the creation of a common market for trade and economic development. Those themes of security, democracy and prosperity are as relevant to today's applicant countries as they were to the founding countries and many of those who have joined in the meantime.
After the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989, Lech Walesa talked of the creation of "a common European home", which in many ways is realised by this expansion of the EU. It is a development that the Liberal Democrats welcome wholeheartedly.
We must not presume that the anticipation of membership is universally positive within all the candidate countries. The latest evidence from the Eurobarometer polling indicates a high level of support, with 61 per cent. of populations in candidate countries believing that the European Union is "a good thing", but in particular countries it is obvious that the case has yet to be won. In the so-called Laeken 10, which have the prospect of imminent accession, there is still a majority who regard it as positive, but it is only 52 per cent. on the most recent poll. In individual countries, opinions ranged from 32 per cent. in Estonia to 67 per cent. in Hungary. Much of that wariness is due to the detail attached to the accession negotiations.

319
We should pay tribute to the candidate countries and latterly to the Danish presidency for the progress that has been made. When we debated the issue before the Seville summit, it looked a daunting task to get anywhere close to completion ahead of Copenhagen, but the last few days will be crucial to getting a set of agreements that can win favour in each of the applicant countries.
Attention will inevitably focus on some key areas. In particular, agriculture is a current cause of concern. The debate in Westminster Hall that I was unable to attend this morning focused on the fact that the common agricultural policy is a mess. It is costly, inefficient, and in its current form unsustainable. Farmers rightly want reform, although given the experience of previous attempts they are highly suspicious of the way in which it is being handled. Reform will undoubtedly be required but the mid-term review has been plunged into chaos and looks in danger of being fudged, and its credibility has been damaged.
The impact on the accession countries is of great concern to them. They have argued strongly about the proposals for phasing in the payments that they will be allowed to receive, not least because some of those will be back-loaded, whereas their contributions to the European Union will start almost immediately. The candidate countries are at best bemused and at worst hostile to contributing from the start to the British rebate and to French agriculture subsidies.
The crucial moment at the summit will probably relate to the island of Cyprus. The difficulty that we have there is obvious to all who have been following the debate, and Cyprus is the case in which we must be least presumptuous that accession will actually occur. Kofi Annan's November plan, updated this week, has offered real hope and a prospect of a solution to the problems experienced since the 1974 division of the island. Key players have made serious efforts to engage in the negotiations, although Mr. Denktash has made his reservations clear and there is much work still to be done. The news that the Turkish Cypriot leader must return to hospital is not good, and we must hope that he will make good progress, and that in his absence the talks in Copenhagen, too, will progress.
The Secretary-General wrote to the parties saying:
"Cyprus has a rendezous with history … it should not be missed".
The summit is not the final word ahead of the accession treaties being signed, but with the expected presence of the United Nations Secretary-General we must hope that, notwithstanding the illness of Mr. Denktash, progress will be made.
In all this, Turkey will of course play a key role. It is inconceivable that a solution can be found without Turkey's support. Likewise, progress on Turkey's own desire to join the European Union in future is inextricably linked to a solution to the Cyprus problem. There has been much comment and concern about the prospect of Turkish entry—not all of it confined to the European Union and Turkey.
At the previous Copenhagen summit, criteria were set out that applicant countries had to match to be eligible for membership. Stability of institutions is crucial,
320
guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for the protection of minorities. A recent European Commission report has stated that Turkey has not yet satisfied those criteria, and the Danes have also questioned Turkey's readiness to participate.
Clearly there are issues to address. Turkey must be under no illusion about its responsibilities, but it is also true that the country has made significant progress. Mr. Erdogan, the leader of the governing party, has set out encouraging objectives since the elections a few weeks ago. Although we may concur with the judgment that the country has not yet achieved the standards necessary for entry, it should be given the clear incentive of a clear future starting point for substantive discussions. Without that, the prospect of Turkey taking the EU seriously will disappear and the hope for further integration within European will be dashed. The prizes are significant—a modern democratic pluralist Turkey, and the important signals that that would send out to other Islamic states that democratic and liberal economic policies are the starting point for closer ties with the European Union. There would also be the prospect of resolving NATO's relationship with the European security and defence policy, and the issues surrounding the use of NATO assets by the EU in that respect.
Enlargement and associated issues will dominate the summit, but the opportunity of the gathering must not be lost; we must ensure that other crises are addressed. In particular, fishing must be a key priority for UK Ministers, especially the Prime Minister.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Moore: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make slightly more progress first.
The crisis arising from the reduction in fish stocks and Commissioner Fischler's proposals is real. The strength of feeling has been evident across the UK, not least in Scotland; a massive petition taken to the Scottish Parliament has now been sent to the Prime Minister, and many have sailed from Scotland to take part in the protest taking place at the mouth of the Tyne.
Strenuous efforts are being made to tackle the issue, and the Scottish Executive Minister, Ross Finnie, has been working closely with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers to maximise the impact of the UK's arguments on the issue. Fishermen all over the UK know that there is a serious problem to tackle, but nobody can be expected to accept the Commission's draconian proposals.
Next week's Fisheries Council will seek a solution, but the Prime Minister's involvement at the summit is still essential. In other circumstances, the French President or the German Chancellor would have no hesitation about arguing the cause on behalf of their countries, and we should expect the same for our fishermen on this occasion.
Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prime Minister recently wrote about the fishermen in the Daily Record. Referring to Ross Finnie and the Westminster Fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) he said:
"but they will also, I promise, have the full backing of both the UK Government and the Scottish Executive, right to the very top".

321
I do not believe that Ross Finnie, the Liberal Democrat Minister with responsibility for fisheries, will be in Copenhagen. Is the Liberal Democrats' position that the British Prime Minister should raise the issue of fishing at the Copenhagen summit?
Mr. Moore: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said before his intervention, which was that I do believe that the Prime Minister should raise that issue. If an equivalent issue faced another member country, it would be inconceivable for its Prime Minister not to raise it, and I hope that our Prime Minister will do what is expected of him.
The debate will, of course, be carefully watched by many, not least by the accession countries, which will see the resolution of that problem as symbolic of the nature of the organisation that they seek to join. An article in the Financial Times yesterday by the Prime Ministers of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, stirringly entitled "One step away from making history", acknowledged the huge efforts made by existing and candidate countries to find solutions to the innumerable problems that have characterised the accession process so far. In taking the last few steps towards final agreements, they appealed for vision, statesmanship and pragmatism to go hand in hand. That catches the spirit of how the EU should do business, and is the right approach for the European Union leaders when they meet in Copenhagen.
7.6 pm
Donald Anderson: I welcome the critically positive speech by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and I contrast it with the negative speech made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who, alas, in spite of his general geniality and good nature, cannot bring himself to say anything positive about the European Union.
Mr. Richard Spring: Absolute rubbish.
Donald Anderson: I at least concur with that—
Mr. Spring: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened last week to the debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe, he would have heard spelled out in the greatest possible detail policies dealing specifically with our relationship with the EU in a wholly positive and constructive way.
Donald Anderson: Perhaps the right hon. Member for Devizes was so positive then that he felt that he had to be totally negative tonight.
I approach the question of enlargement, which is, of course, the main item on the agenda of the Copenhagen Council, in a spirit not of caution or anxiety but of total rejoicing. I like the word that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary used when he said that this was not enlargement but unification. I know the countries of central Europe; I have lived for a year and a half in Hungary, and my eldest son has just married a citizen of Slovakia in Prague—and those who know these countries know that they are part of Europe. It is a uniting Europe that we see. Looking around the
322
architecture and the culture, who can doubt that although there have been artificial divisions in the past, especially after the second world war, those divisions are now, happily, being ended?
It was only in 1989, on 8 and 9 November, that the Berlin wall fell, and only in 1993, at the Copenhagen Council, that we saw the start of the enlargement process. It is a happy 10 years that has led from that Council in 1993 to the Copenhagen Council in 2002. Enlargement has proceeded apace. It is a tremendous tribute to the Danish presidency that it has done so well over the past six months to further the aim of the enlargement—or, as I would prefer to say, the unification—of Europe. This is indeed an historic time. The year 2002 will be remembered for the security changes, with the accession to NATO at the Prague summit in November and now the 10 countries being welcomed into the unity of Europe.
I also pay tribute to a good friend of mine, Commissioner Günter Verheugen, for the way in which he has brought the ship to port. It is sad that that coincides with a time of financial stringency, when Germany, which has been so ready to be the paymaster for the European Union in the past, is facing much difficulty, and is ready to throw its weight around as it did not do in the past. None the less, there is positive change, and we should welcome it. Indeed, it will have profound effects on the nature of Europe, which I shall come to in a moment.
When we began this process in Helsinki in 1993, there seemed to be so many obstacles, some of which were in danger of proving decisive, in the way of each of those countries. Estonia, for example, had a problem with its Russian minority and its border with Russia. Lithuania had a problem with its power station, and Latvia had problems with its own Russian minority. There was the question of how we could possibly welcome in a divided Cyprus. There was deep division between the parties in Malta, and the possibility of a negative outcome of the referendum. At times, Hungary had a more nationalist leadership that held perhaps irredentist views about the minority populations in Romania, and across the border in Voivodina. Poland had impossible problems with agriculture. The Czech Republic had problems with its minorities, and Slovakia suffered a setback because of Meciar. Save perhaps for Slovenia, every country had problems that at times seemed insuperable, but happily, by working through them and always seeing the broad vision, Europe has triumphed. The Copenhagen Council, on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, will be a signal date for us.
At least I agreed with the right hon. Member for Devizes when he talked about the disconnection between the elites of Europe and the people of Europe. We clearly have a long way to go in convincing our peoples about enlargement. According to the Eurobarometer surveys of candidate countries, there was no overall majority in favour of the European Union in seven of the 10 leading candidates. So far as the UK is concerned, there is a general lack of interest in enlargement; indeed, the latest Eurobarometer survey found that only 51 per cent. even knew that enlargement was taking place. It is clear that a great task needs to be undertaken in terms of public relations.

323
I turn to two key issues that affect us: Cyprus and Turkey. Cyprus is a country with which we are on the most friendly of terms. Happily, two Commonwealth countries—Cyprus and Malta—will be joining the European Union. There are valued Cypriot communities in this country, and we are a guarantor power. Now, after 1974 and so many disappointments, there seems at last to be a real prospect of a happy conjunction of favourable factors in respect of Cyprus. The Turkish Government no longer includes Mr. Ecevit, and in Mr. Erdogan they have a leader who can deliver. Two elderly gentlemen—President Clerides and Mr. Denktash—sparred for far too many years. Mr. Denktash is alas ill, but we hope that that will not delay a settlement.
A happy rapprochement has taken place between the Greek and Turkish Governments, and through the initiative of Mr. De Soto, who had such triumphs in E1 Salvador, we have a package that, although unacceptable to the extremists, at last provides a chance of real progress. I anticipate that absolutists on both sides will reject it, and if they do, the prospect of a united Cyprus will be set back for perhaps a generation. Those who sign the document must also recognise that there will be some in both communities who will shout "traitor!" That is part of what far-sighted politicians have to bear, but we look forward, at last, to a solution to the Cyprus problem.
Others have already mentioned that Turkey is making serious progress towards meeting at least some of the criteria established in Copenhagen in 1993. Our Foreign Affairs Committee report stated:
"We conclude that Turkey's cultural and religious traditions will make a positive contribution to the diversity of the EU. Pursuing Turkey's candidacy evenhandedly gives an important signal that the EU is not a closed Christian club, but an open organisation which can embrace those parts of the world within its geographical compass, both Christian and Muslim … We recommend that the Government speak out forthrightly in defence of Turkey's EU candidacy"—
and they have done so magnificently. However, the report also states that the Government should
"temper this encouragement with the pragmatic advice that accession is certain to be some years away".
Hopefully, that is not a rendezvous date, but an actual date—
Mr. Love: Should we also temper that judgment with the recognition that Turkey has many steps to take to meet the criteria for accession to Europe, not least in respect of democracy, the treatment of its minorities, and—perhaps most importantly in terms of sending a signal—support for a resolution of the division of Cyprus? Unless we can get those messages across, I fear that Turkey's entering into negotiations will not lead anywhere very fast.
Donald Anderson: I am absolutely confident that the Turkish leadership knows that positive moves on Cyprus will be extremely important to Turkey's candidacy. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, in that the same Copenhagen criteria on matters such as democracy, rule of law and human rights as are applied to other candidates should be applied to Turkey—no
324
more, and no less. Turkey could become an important model of Islamic democracy in the world. It is clear that it wishes to take the path into Europe. It has already undergone significant reforms, and we hope that implementation will follow.
I end on the issue of the new neighbours and the future expansion of our Europe. We know that, if there is to be a Europe, there has to be a non-Europe, and the danger always exists of instability at the borders. I understand that a new document is expected from the Commission in January, on our new neighbours. There are important problems not only in the south, in the countries of the Maghreb, because of the attraction of the region to the north of the Mediterranean, with their booming populations, but in those countries which have no reasonable immediate prospects—Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus—without substantial reforms. In that regard, I agree with Mr. Prodi. There have to be some new borders, and the question of where we draw the line will lead to problems. On a recent trip to Zagreb, I visited the cathedral and saw how the changes in European architecture are wholly reflected in that country; it is part of central Europe. Other Balkan countries, particularly Albania and Macedonia, prove far greater challenges.
A line will have to be drawn, and when we do so we will have to find creative solutions for those countries that are the wrong side of it. We do not know what the final outcome will be; all that we do know is that the Europe that began with the vision of de Gasperi, of Jean Monnet, and of Adenauer will not be the Europe that we end up with. It began for a certain reason, and involved relatively rich, homogenous peoples. The Europe that will emerge will be far more diverse and valuable. It will still be a model for the world, but when the new, poorer countries are admitted, it will indeed be very different in 10 or 20 years' time. The applicants therefore need to be realistic about their own chances, and we too, as Europeans, have to be realistic and expand our thinking as Europe itself expands not just geographically, but culturally. That is an enormous challenge, and the Copenhagen council will be a major step on the road to meeting it.
7.19 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for catching your eye in this important debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). He has done the House great service as the longstanding Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I may not always agree with everything that he says, but I always listen with great care and attention, as the right hon. Gentleman has a lot to offer in foreign affairs debates.
Like the Foreign Secretary, who opened the debate, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East used the language of Europe reunited. To me, that sounds like the language of the superstate. I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's superior intellect when it comes to examining such matters, but I feel able to disagree with him from time to time.
Much has been said about enlargement in this debate, and I think that it is one of the greatest challenges facing Europe. There have been four enlargements since the

325
community was established by the six founding member states, but there has been nothing approaching the ambition of this project. I want briefly to touch on some of the specifics this evening.
If enlargement is to succeed, the candidate countries must be able to receive the benefits, but they will not reap the full fruits of enlargement unless businesses, and business men and women, are happy to invest their money in them. For that to happen, they must have confidence in those countries' legal systems, but the quality of the judiciary and the trustworthiness and efficiency of the criminal and civil justice systems are serious matters in some candidate countries, as reports on enlargement by the Select Committee on European Scrutiny and by the European Commission show.
If the trustworthiness of the criminal justice system in some states remains in doubt, we are exposing British businesses to serious risk of injustice, for example with the introduction of the European arrest warrant. I hope that the Minister for Europe will say what the Government are doing to help in that respect when he winds up the debate.
We must also encourage the new states to make their criminal systems of satisfactory quality. I hope that the Minister will say whether any candidate countries are causing the Government specific concern.
In addition, trustworthy and efficient civil legal systems are vital when it comes to building prosperous societies that attract investment. I understand that it is not unusual for civil law suits in Poland, for example, to take up to five years before receiving a judgment. I have heard from British investors that the weaknesses of the legal system there are a serious impediment to business. That is a challenge that must be overcome if our new partners are to enjoy the prosperity that they deserve. Inefficient legal systems effectively put property rights at risk. Helping the candidate countries reform their legal systems should be a priority for the Government.
Structural operations, or regional subsidies, are potentially of great benefit in building up these countries' economies. In particular, they can help build up the infrastructure that many of these countries badly lack. To enjoy that benefit, however, the candidate countries must be able to absorb those subsidies. As the European Scrutiny Committee's report says, some candidate countries have
"weaknesses in public administration which call into question the candidate's capacity for sound management of EU funds".
That is dangerous. Unless we can encourage reform, those countries will not receive the advantages of EU membership that they need, and taxpayers' money will be at risk. Are the Government, with our European partners, looking at ways to simplify the allocation of structural funds without damaging their integrity? Again, that should be a priority. I hope that the Minister for Europe will answer that point.
There is also the question of a proper management of funds by the Commission. It would be hypocritical of existing EU member states to insist on the new members raising their administrative game when one of the EU's central institutions has such a lamentable lack of financial self-discipline. We now have a chamber orchestra of whistleblowers, if the House will forgive the term, and the unsympathetic manner in which the Commission handles them is deeply disappointing.
326
It is clear that current systems of financial controls are not satisfactory. Major reforms, along the lines suggested by the sacked chief accountant, Marta Andreasen, are only now beginning to be implemented. The latest Court of Auditors' report also pointed to continuing serious weaknesses in the EU's finances. We need significant improvements urgently. For all of us, it is scandalous that taxpayers' money from all over Europe is treated so carelessly.
We have heard very little from the Government about this matter. One could almost believe that it does not seem to be of particular concern to them. I believe that it should be. Eurostat has today reported that only 31 per cent. of the British public think that EU membership is a good thing. That is unlikely to improve while the Commission seems so arrogant. It must become better at taking care of public money—taxpayers' money. Romano Prodi's grand plans for the Commission become particularly risible when the Commission fails to do properly the jobs that it already has. The Commission should learn to walk before it even thinks of beginning to run.
If we can deal with these matters, we can vastly increase the chance of enlargement being a real success. Enlargement, and this summit, must not be about fine words alone, but about hard work on the practicalities of making the EU work. The cost of failure is too high a price for any members of the EU to pay.
7.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I begin by declaring an interest. In October, I visited Cyprus as a guest of the House of Representatives there, and of the Morphou municipality. I shall refer to Cyprus in a little while. Also, I visited Greece last week, where I met various Ministers, academics and journalists. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) commented on the quality of European weather, but I took London weather with me on my visit to Athens. It poured with rain most of the time.
I undertook the visit because I wanted to look at some of the issues related to the presidency of the EU, which Greece takes over in January. The debate has focused on the proceedings in Copenhagen in a few days, but it is important for us to look beyond that, and to examine the forthcoming presidency. I shall set out some of the key priorities that will emerge—one of which is, of course, enlargement. The Greek presidency will see to the finalisation of enlargement and the signing of the treaty, and I shall say more about that in a little while.
Asylum and immigration are extremely important matters, and so is the Lisbon agenda, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) referred. The Greeks are concerned that their presidency may be overshadowed by security issues, in particular the confrontation with Iraq. However, Greece has made real progress on security matters, especially with the break up of the November 17 terrorist group. I am also pleased to say that the bilateral aspects of Greece's concerns about European security and defence policy, a major source of disagreement between our countries earlier in the year, have now been resolved. Greece now regards the matter as being between the EU and Turkey, rather than between Great Britain and Greece.
The Greek presidency will want a reaffirmation of the Lisbon process, and it is especially keen to look at matters related to social inclusion. Special attention will

327
be paid to the applicability of the Lisbon process to the new applicant states, assuming that enlargement goes ahead. It is important that we recognise that Lisbon sets a challenging agenda for states that already belong to the EU, and for those set to join in just over a year's time.
Immigration and asylum are also key issues for the Greek people. Over the past 10 years, Greece's population has increased by 8 per cent., or almost a million people, as a result of immigration. That immigration comes primarily from the Balkans and Albania, and from north Africa.
Greece is very concerned about the policing of the Aegean and the Mediterranean, and considers its national border to the south and to the east to be the EU's front-line frontier in the battle against illegal immigration. We must bear it in mind that the total length of Greece's coastline is the same as that of the continent of Africa. It is therefore not surprising that the Greeks should have great difficulty in trying to prevent illegal migration into the EU through Greece. It is fair for Greece to hope for help from the EU in developing the policies necessary to police that EU frontier. It is important that we recognise that it is better to stop illegal migration into the EU in the Mediterranean than in the English channel. Greece needs help and I think that it will be looking for financial support from the European Union, as might Italy and Spain, which face similar problems.
On the social issues arising out of immigration and asylum, I was pleased that the Greek Government are looking at the regulation of legal migration. The written statement issued yesterday on the free movement of people to the UK from the accession countries is an important contribution. There is an important debate to be had on this issue, and I hope that we will be able to play a constructive role with Greece in dealing with a problem that affects all European Union countries.
On enlargement, Greece is keen to press the road map forward for Bulgaria and Romania, as Bulgaria is a border state with Greece and Romania is not very far away. It would also like to see progress towards integration of the western Balkans into Europe. Obviously it will be a long time before there is sufficient stability for them to become members of the European Union, but progress in that direction is welcome.
As many speakers have said tonight, the key enlargement issues for this European summit are Turkey and Cyprus. Those who have followed Greek politics for as long as I have welcome the rapprochement in recent years between Turkey and Greece. Several years ago, they were not far short of going to war over a rather obscure rock in the eastern Aegean but since the recent earthquakes that struck both countries so tragically, there has been a much more friendly relationship, piloted in particular by Foreign Minister George Papandreou and the then Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Cern. The very positive attitude that I saw in Greece to the new Government of Mr. Erdogan was extremely welcome. Some commentators described it as being one of reserved optimism, but certainly everyone whom I talked to had a rather more welcoming approach. The early statements issued by Mr. Erdogan were very positive, even though their content may have
328
been reined back under the influence of the Turkish military. They are, however, a clear sign of the good intent of the new Government in Turkey and are welcomed by the Greek Government.
Greece also recognises Turkey's importance for regional security, because bringing Turkey into the European Union would strengthen regional security in south-east Europe. Greece sees Turkey as a key partner in the development of south-east Europe and the Balkans. People often talk about Greece as the key state, the entry state, with Thessaloniki as the key port for entry to the Balkans, but the Greek view is much wider than that. It knows that it needs key partners such as Turkey to achieve proper development in that important region. Like us, Greece is keen for a date to be set for the start of accession negotiations for Turkey.
When considering Turkey in the European Union, one must inevitably take a reality check against the Helsinki process. With the new AK party Government in Turkey, there has been a welcome break with the past system of musical chairs that has bedevilled Turkish politics for so long. The same faces and personalities have been changing seats and changing places, in and out of Government for decades. There was really very little change and, as others have said, the Government were pretty detached from the population at large and operated as a political elite.
The new Turkish Government have learned the lessons of previous parties which were portrayed as Muslim. The AK party sees its role as evolutionary not revolutionary. In fact, if one were to describe the party to itself as Muslim, it would take exception. Its members call themselves Conservative Democrats. However, looking at their programme, they are probably more like social democrats than conservative democrats. I was interested to see that Mustafa Akinci, the leader of the Social Democrat party in northern Cyprus, believes that he is far closer to the platform of the AK party than to Mr. Baikal, the leader of the official Turkish Social Democrat party.
The new Turkish Government have a clear programme on human rights and constitutional reform. It is perhaps not surprising, when one sees that the leader of the AK party, Mr. Erdogan, is banned from sitting in Parliament because of statements that he made several years ago. There have been important reforms on the death penalty, torture and minority rights. The state of emergency has been lifted and progress has been made on incommunicado detention and access to lawyers. The question is whether all those constitutional reforms going through the Turkish Parliament can be delivered, and I think that Turkey needs help on that. I was pleased, therefore, to hear that one of the outcomes of the visit to Ankara by the Foreign Secretary last week was a $3 million bilateral arrangement between the UK and Turkey to provide support for prison reform, modern policing, economic affairs and banking regulations.
The Turkish Government's other priorities include economic revival and stabilisation, key facts in developing progress towards European Union membership within the context of the International Monetary Fund. Perhaps most important is the question of European Union accession. As has been said, EU accession will help to strengthen the reforms in Turkey, but we should not see Turkish membership as a one-way

329
street. Turkey has an awful lot to offer the EU. We must recognise that at the very least, before my generation has retired, Turkey will start to provide quite a lot of the young labour that we will need in western Europe as our population increasingly ages, and more people become less economically active than the economically active population can support. Turkey is a young country—half of its population is aged under 20. When I come to retire, the people looking after me in my old folks' home may well have a Turkish background.
I have said optimistic things about Turkey, but there is always the great "but": the role of the army in Turkish politics to defend what it sees as the secular state and the principles of Kemalism. Although the general mood of the army now appears to favour EU entry and the new chief of staff is seen as a progressive, none of the reforms so far contemplated considers the role of the army on the National Security Council in Turkey, where 50 per cent. of the seats are reserved for the military. If the Turkish army is serious about withdrawing from politics and Turkey is serious about European Union entry, the National Security Council has to become a purely civilian body.
Cyprus is also an important topic in today's debate. Turkey is trying to link its membership of the European Union with progress on Cyprus. However, the two are not linked, and we need to resist that even though Turkey is trying to push that agenda. It is also trying to link its acceptance with the reform of the European security and defence policy Ankara document. Certainly a settlement in Cyprus is desirable, but I do not think it right to link it with its EU accession. That has been said on many occasions since Helsinki, most recently tonight, and previously in answer to a question that I asked the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago.
We must recognise the constructive role played in the negotiations by the Republic of Cyprus. It is also fair to say that the time pressures that have been put on those who are being asked to make extremely difficult decisions can be counter-productive. People need time to adjust to the serious concessions that may have to be made to make progress.
We must reflect the fact that both sides have to agree in a referendum if the deal is to go through. In this respect, I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) when he talks about extremists being rejectionists. Many people on both sides are concerned about the proposals not because they are necessarily extremists but because they see the possible problems arising from implementing the plan or believe that they could lose out. Refugees from Kyrenia, for example, would see very little in the plan for them as it stands. Those people are not necessarily extremists but they are concerned about their position. We must recognise that we are talking about the lives, properties and futures of real people with real concerns. It is easy for us in the House to talk about things in a very glib way without recognising that those problems are long standing and deep seated.
Bob Spink: In saying that there should be no linkage between the accession of Cyprus and the settlement there, does the hon. Gentleman think that if the settlement goes ahead on terms that are not proper and sustainable in the future, so that property rights and the legal rights of the original owners are protected in
330
areas such as Kyrenia and Ayios Ambrosios, it would in the longer term deliver a solution in Cyprus akin to that in Northern Ireland during the past few decades?
Mr. Dismore: If a solution can be put to the people in a referendum, it is important that it commands overwhelming support from both communities. Acceptance of 51 per cent. by either community may be technically sufficient to carry the vote but it would be disastrous. Adjustments were made to the proposals yesterday and I hope that the final version will command confidence.
I am concerned that the Turkish Cypriots have been delaying progress. There has been time for negotiations for well over a year, and they have the most to gain from a solution. That was exemplified by the big demonstration that took place a couple of weeks ago when 20,000 people were on the streets of north Nicosia asking for a solution—indeed demanding a solution—and showing support for the platform of "This country is ours" which is bringing the opposition parties together. In our country, the equivalent would be that about 5 million people took to the streets of London.
The Greek-Cypriot side has clear reservations and the adjustments made yesterday made some progress to address them. I have yet to see the details, but I understand that a review clause was proposed with a shortening of the transitional period. More Greek-Cypriot refugees should be able to go home and a fund will he set up for the voluntary repatriation of settlers.
Major issues remain, however: freedom of movement, settlers and property rights. They could all breach the acquis communautaire and will require detailed derogation. Those substantive issues must be considered. None the less, it is important that the negotiations continue and that they are not forced by an artificial deadline. In the Northern Ireland peace process, for example, deadlines became more elastic as deals were getting closer.
I return to the fundamental point: Cyprus must join the European Union, irrespective of whether there is a settlement. It is a settlement that we all want, but it is not and should never be a precondition.
7.42 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I want to outline seven principles that should guide the Government at the forthcoming Council. Indeed, they should probably guide any Government at any Council meeting.
First, I am sure that it is widely agreed among Members on both sides of the House—there is no dispute—that it is important that we reassert the fact that enlargement is of huge importance. In its successive guises and titles, the European Union has had a series of purposes. Clearly, its first and primary purpose was the establishment of lasting peace between Germany and France.
We take great pleasure from the way in which democracy has been sustained and built in Spain, Portugal and Greece. Some of the elder statesmen, who were involved in the early days of European union, resisted even that enlargement. They wanted a tight nucleus of traditional, western European countries to form the basis of the EU, so early enlargement was unacceptable.

331
I am glad that there is now consensus that the next historic task is to underpin reform and sustain democracy in the countries of the former Soviet bloc; 10 of the 13 applicant countries come from that bloc.
I have changed my mind about Turkey. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said in a most persuasive speech and what the Foreign Secretary said when he opened the debate. The idea of a democratic, Muslim, European Turkey being part of the EU, if it can meet the necessary tests, is indeed attractive. I do not claim to know a great deal about Turkey. My family has visited the country twice in 100 years. I was there about 12 years ago on a business trip and my father was at Gallipoli in 1916, but I know enough to agree with the verdict that has been given in the House: it is right that Turkey should be encouraged in every way to join the EU and the negotiations should proceed as smoothly as possible.
In relation to the middle east and Muslim issues, I hope that at the Council the EU as a whole will do what it can to encourage the partners in the middle east process—Israel and Palestine—and indeed the United States to re-engage in the process as aggressively as possible. I realise that the Quartet has the greatest responsibility, but a clear message from the Council that it attaches importance to the resolution of the dispute between Israel and Palestine would be of immeasurable help in addressing the broader middle east questions that we face. I hope that such a message will come out of the Council.
The second principle that Governments should always bear in mind at Council meetings relates to the general direction in which they want the EU to move. In a sense, we are always at a time of decision about that, but the prospect of enlargement makes the decision starker than normal. People sometimes say that we face a choice between two models in Europe: heterogeneity or homogeneity; diversity or integrationism.
However, there is a third choice and it is interesting to observe that the draft constitution highlights the fact that that third choice is a more realistic possibility than it has been for a long time: renegotiation of or withdrawal from all but the free trade aspects of the Union. The draft constitution contains a procedure for voluntary withdrawal from the Union, which has been broadly welcomed by the Convention. Mr. Giscard d'Estaing has said that countries choosing that route would have a similar status to members of the European Free Trade Association because:
"We have to abrogate the … treaties that exist. If a country says that it does not like the new treaty, there's no existing structure for them to cling to, they cannot seek refuge in the old agreement … you can maintain an economic role, but you can no longer be in this political system."
The prospect of that looser arrangement, which has been attractive to many people in the UK, will be more realistic if the wishes of the Convention are fulfilled. I think that would be the wrong direction to take and that the middle way advocated by the Conservative party for many years, characterised at the last general election by the phrase "In Europe, not run by Europe", is the right way. It is a route of heterogeneity and diversity—of variable geometry—and I hope that it will be the Government's guiding star, too, although I do not think that it will be.
332
The third principle relates to what Britain's position should be and it flows from what I have just been saying. It is clear that Britain's future is inextricably linked to the EU and will become more so as the Union enlarges. In his opening remarks, the Foreign Secretary gave a dramatic portrayal of just how large the new EU will be in geographical and population terms. Britain's unique status in the world will thus become even more important—it will be at the centre of Europe, of the Commonwealth and of the relationship with the United States of America.
It is right to say that the Prime Minister's skilful handling of issues relating to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has currently enhanced our relationship with the USA. We thus have a unique and historic opportunity, which is growing in strength, to broker our relationship in those three areas.
Those of my constituents who write to me advocating withdrawal from the EU—I am glad to say that it is a small number at present—should realise that our relevance to the Commonwealth, the USA and the world would diminish significantly. But—and it is a big but—we can be close to and at the heart of Europe while remaining critical of individual decisions taken by the Union. Too often, the Government have made the mistake of not being sufficiently critical. They have embraced changes when they did not need to do so and received nothing in return. I am thinking especially of the opt-out from he social chapter.
The fourth principle is that the Union has to be outward looking. It has been said repeatedly, but it cannot be said too often, that there is still a danger that the EU will not be as outward looking as we want it to be. Changes in world trade and the irresistible trend towards globalisation mean that we must not get sucked into an inward-looking, protectionist, high social cost economy. All the dangers are still there, especially in respect of social costs. I urge the Government to be very wary. I am not convinced that they have been. Individual directives have caused great concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) pointed out at the beginning of the debate. We constantly talk about the dangers, but we must also understand them and work them out in practice during the negotiations at the Council.
The fifth principle is flexibility. In order to advance, the EU does not have to be more integrationist; it must be more flexible and more accommodating to the needs of more different nations. The degree of integration that the EU has already achieved would surprise its founding fathers—the Monnets of this world—and they would not want to drive that integration much further. The original treaty of Rome, amended at Maastricht, talked of
"creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen".
That must be remembered. We are talking not about a union of states but about people who believe that they belong together in peaceful coexistence. Many people on the continent often forget that.
Variety—the sixth principle—is obviously important. One-size-fits-all policies never would work in the EU and they will work even less well in the new enlarged Europe. That is especially true as regards the single European currency and interest rates, but that debate is for another day.

333
Crucially, in the run-up to the possible new constitution, the seventh principle should be listening to what people actually want from the EU. We can think of countries in the EU that have failed to listen effectively to what their people wanted and the consequences have often been difficult and painful for the whole union.
We have to use our sovereignty to advance the interests of those who elected us. That is what we are talking about, and it will be much more complex in an enlarged EU. Given the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe, we as parliamentarians have to be increasingly aware of the need to be accountable to our electors for the way we choose to use that sovereignty.
I am generally opposed to referendums. I cannot remember how I voted during the Maastricht debates on the question of a referendum. In fact, I cannot even remember whether there was such a vote.
Mr. Spring: Was my hon. Friend a Member of Parliament then?
Mr. Luff: I certainly was a Member of Parliament at the time, but I have no recollection of how I voted. I rather hope that I voted against a referendum because referendums were then strange and alien tools in the British constitution, but this Government have made them commonplace.
Mr. Mark Todd: That is an exaggeration.
Mr. Luff: There will be a whole stack of referendums in the so-called regions of England if the Government have their way. Referendums were held in Scotland and Wales. There will be referendums everywhere we turn, and I am glad to say that there will be a referendum on the single European currency if the Government ever have the courage to put that before the British people.
Angus Robertson: What about the Belfast agreement?
Mr. Luff: I very much thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about the Belfast agreement. So referendums are much more commonplace than they were. If we can have a referendum on the question of whether Birmingham should run Worcestershire's affairs—I emphatically think that it should not—there should be a referendum on a new constitution for Europe, if there is to be one, preferably before the treaty is ratified, not afterwards. I hope that that referendum will take place at the earliest possible stage.
The trouble is that the Government do not look for the right things at Council meetings and that so much of what Europe needs to do is rather boring and nitty-gritty. The great aspirations of enlargement are obviously important—we share them—but proper reform of the CAP is central to achieving them. That is said in every debate ahead of a Council meeting, but it just does not happen. Before the Berlin meeting, which took place three or four years ago, we were told that a major reform of the CAP had been achieved and that it would permit enlargement of the EU.
Nothing of the kind had been achieved at that Council meeting. Jacques Chirac talked into the early hours of the morning and continuously negotiated the
334
CAP, wearing down the other Heads of State. The tape recordings were still being transcribed many days, if not weeks, later to work out exactly what had been agreed because the Prime Minister wanted, possibly quite reasonably, to cling to the rebate as the essential achievement of that meeting. He was prepared to squander any progress on CAP reform to hold on to that rebate. That may or may not have been the right tactic, but I wish that he could have been more effective in securing CAP reform.
Every chance must be seized to advance CAP reform, but it is just not happening. CAP reform is in the interests of the taxpayer and the farmer, as well as those of the developing world, so I hope that the Government will insist that CAP reform is pursued at successive Council meetings, as well as at every other opportunity.
I am not convinced that the fisheries issue should be on the agenda at the Council meeting. I am persuaded that the relevant DEFRA Minister, who has rather more experience of such issues than those who will attend the Council meeting, should pursue those negotiations. However, that is clearly another issue of great importance.
We still have not completed the single market. Public procurement remains a scandal in the EU. Unless those issues are addressed effectively, how can we say that the Government are negotiating in the interests of Britain and, indeed, an enlarged EU? The European negotiations that we need to permit enlargement are about very practical issues designed to make Europe work better and to be more diverse. That will strengthen, not weaken the EU.
The Prime Minister often says that the Conservative party is the enemy of Europe and that it is full of extremists who want to destroy the EU. He regularly says that literally and by implication. I think that he is absolutely and completely wrong. To belong to a club, to be critical of that club and to argue for its improvement is to support that club. To turn one's eyes from the problems that exist is to be an enemy of that club. I fear greatly that by driving the countries of the EU to excessive conformity—to bureaucracy rather than democracy—he risks a reaction that can destroy the EU, which he claims to support.
The Prime Minister risks economic failure through single interest rates; institutional gridlock, as issues are not properly devolved to national Parliaments but are maintained at European level; possible American hostility to the EU, as it seeks to assert itself against American interests, which is a matter of great concern; and, above all, a reaction of the peoples of Europe against the old federalist agenda, to which he and the Government are still tragically wedded. In a sense the issues never change, but, as we face a very exciting chapter in Europe's history, they have probably never been more important.
7.55 pm
Mr. Siôn Simon: I shall begin with the parochial, by reassuring the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). He is clearly losing sleep worrying about the possibly aggressive expansionist plans of Birmingham vis-à-vis Worcestershire. He may sweat at night worrying about lebensraum, but I reassure him that we have no such

335
desire. In fact, we are sufficiently incapable of running Birmingham to be by no means keen to run Worcester any more than it wants to be run by us.
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): What about Sir Albert Bore?
Mr. Simon: I am sure that Sir Albert can hear from where he is.
Mr. Spring: In Birmingham, but not run by Birmingham.
Mr. Simon: Exactly.
I also wish to reassure the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is personifying—indeed, embodying—the Scottish National party in its entirety tonight, as well as the Welsh National party and apparently all the Irish parties. My constituency is entirely urban. It is in the middle of Birmingham city centre. It includes spaghetti junction. It is almost as far away from the sea as one can get. I know nothing about fish. There is no point intervening to ask me about fish. I have nothing to say about them.
Mr. Bryant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Winston Churchill once said that Baldwin was thoroughly bored by Europe and that Chamberlain thought that Europe was no more than a greater Birmingham?
Mr. Simon: I have nothing to say about that, but I thank my hon. Friend for that instructive intervention. I was terrified for a horrible moment that it would be about a piscine matter.
I hope that I have dispatched the parochial, so I wish to join the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire in offering my right hon. and hon. colleagues on the Treasury Bench some morsels of principle that they might take with them to Copenhagen and which they might, I hope, bring back again and continue to deploy thereafter. Two principles—maxims might be a better word—could be usefully applied widely in European matters. First, please let us get on with things to the greatest possible extent. Secondly, it would be wrong to say, "Start being honest with people", but perhaps I can recommend a move to an even more candid style of discourse.
For example, let us apply those two principles to the euro, setting aside, for the sake of argument, the Chancellor's five economic tests. For debating purposes only, let us assume that the tests could be met pretty much at any time and that the real political dynamic is not about the five economic tests, but about winning a referendum. [Interruption.] I am assuming that as a debating point for the sake of argument. There seems to be an assumption that the polling data militate against a referendum because there is apparently a significant, consistent majority of people who say that they would not vote in support of the euro. However, that number is offset by an almost equivalent number of people who say that they believe that euro entry is inevitable. The latter number is not a quirky figure but a significant percentage. The chattering classes dismiss it as a
336
manifestation of the general contempt in which the public hold them—they think the public believe that they will implement that chattering class-project, whatever the people want. That tells us more about the chattering classes than about the people. Commitment to a referendum must be absolute, and we can adopt a new currency only if people vote for it. Everybody knows that.
When someone tells the pollsters, "I'm not going to vote for a single currency, but I think it is inevitable" they mean, "I'm instinctively suspicious of foreigners and loath to give up the pound, to which I have a sentimental attachment, but I'm not stupid—I know that a historic tide is swelling beneath me. I do not feel any enthusiasm for the euro, but I accept that it is right and I am going to vote for it." I am trying to gird the loins of my ministerial colleagues. "Opposed to entry" means emotionally and romantically opposed, and "I believe entry is inevitable" means "I know that it is right and I am going to support it."
Mr. Richard Bacon: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Government being truthful, does he accept that if there is a single interest rate it follows, as night follows day, that there must be greater power at the centre, particularly over taxation, to deal with the consequences? Greater harmonisation of taxes is inevitable, whatever verbal assurances have been given by the Government. That has been recognised by Hans Tietmeyer, so why will the Government not admit it?
Mr. Simon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not speak for the Government. However, what he proposes may be fair. I am not terrified of foreigners—I quite like them—so I would not consider a little more harmonisation, fiscal co-operation and, indeed, other non-damaging forms of co-operation, the end of the world.
That brings me to the need to tell the truth. For a Labour Member, I have an unusual number of Tory friends. I talk to Tories more than usual—perhaps even to a dysfunctional extent. I can even say that some of my best friends are Tories. For the past 10 to 15 years they have talked about such issues and asked repeatedly, "Why do you people want to do this? Why do you feel like this? Why do you line us up with the frogs, jerries and all those dastardly foreigners when you could be magnificently, proudly and beautifully English?" They cannot get their heads round that.
I am not English. I was born in south Yorkshire, grew up in Birmingham, a quarter of my family is Marseille Corsican, my name is Siôn Llewelyn, which is as Welsh as its gets, and my kids have Welsh names. A couple of weeks ago in west London, my sister had her first child, whose father is an Ulster Protestant who supports Republic of Ireland sports teams. A lot of the time, the concept of Englishness is simplistic, which may colour my approach to integration.
There is something else that Tory Europhobes hate. The last thing they want to hear about and the most disastrous example of how bad things can possibly be is Tuscan evenings—the sun gently setting over San Gimignano, Vesuvius viewed from the Golfo di Napoli, Fellini, "La Dolce Vita" and all that malarkey, the

337
Vieux Port at 9.30 pm as the children and prostitutes come out to play. Tory Europhopes hate that rosy European dream, as well as Stendhal, Mozart, Strindberg, Mahler, Michelangelo, Racine, Flaubert, Baudelaire—all those centuries of amazing art, history and culture in common. Historically, we have been embarrassed by all that stuff, but we are wrong. We dare not tell people about those Tuscan evenings, but we should admit that there is nothing wrong with them or thinking that way—it is about vision, dreaming the dream and thinking big thoughts, and we should not be ashamed of that.
Obviously, the integrationist project—I have no problem calling it that—is about more than that. The shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly used the word "integration" as if it were akin to molestation. However, I am an integrationist. I am not frightened of foreigners, and do not consider myself better than the French or Italians. The project has practical benefits, which Members have talked about today and will continue to talk about. However, it is also visionary, and we should not be frightened to say so. I am not ashamed of dreaming the dream, as the people who dreamed it in the past have brought us to the decent, liberal, humane, prosperous, plural society in which we have the privilege of living.
To recap, continental Europe is a nice place with nice people. We have a shared history and culture, and in many ways its people are just like us—they are no better and no worse than us. There is nothing to be afraid of.
Mr. MacShane: Does my hon. Friend recall that the previous Leader of the Opposition made a speech in which he said that if people voted Labour, England would become a foreign land? Somebody wrote to The Times saying, "Yes—could it be the south of France?"
Mr. Simon: I thank the Minister for making my point more eloquently than I ever could have done. However, suspect that he will not be quite so keen to support my next point.
If we are shy about telling the truth about Europe, we are terrified of going a step further and admitting that some foreigners influence our legislative process. Bedraggled clichés about being run by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels stem from disingenuousness or illiteracy. However, as qualified majority voting is extended, some of our laws are increasingly inspired by foreigners. That is okay, because they are not foreigners but Europeans, like us, and we should not be afraid of them. Why should we assume that my constituents, who have never had the opportunity to vote for my hon. Friend the Minister, are instinctively more attached to him than his counterparts elsewhere in Europe—
Mr. Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simon: No.
Mr. Bacon: The hon. Gentleman asked a question—will he give way?
Mr. Simon: I have not finished asking it yet.
338
Why should we make that assumption when the Minister's counterparts have been directly elected by our fellow Europeans elsewhere in the European democracy?
Mr. Bacon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a simple answer to his question? People in this country can understand the Minister when he stands at the Dispatch Box, and read parliamentary debates and court judgments, but they cannot do so for the whole of Europe.
Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman assumes that my constituents are monolingual and incapable of understanding foreigners. He may be speaking for his constituents, but he should not presume to speak for mine because they are a highly educated, multi-skilled, multilingual, multicultural bunch.
The late Mick McGahey came back from the Soviet Union and was asked what he found there. As succinct and eloquent as ever, he said, "People."
Mr. Todd: He did not say it like that.
Mr. Simon: It would be wrong for me to do an impression. Mick McGahey did not say, "Happy people", but his point was that people are people—my people are like your people. We do not have to be afraid of foreign people. No one is diminished by being European—it does not make me less British or less of a Brummie or the Italians less Italian. What we do not need is fear and bunkerite isolationism. We need a little imagination and courage, and a continuation of the progressive and confident way in which the Government have dealt with the matter so far.
8.10 pm
Angus Robertson: I speak on behalf of the Scottish national party and Plaid Cymru and do so gladly, especially after the earlier contribution from the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who gave a broad sweep of the vision of enlargement. Although I do not subscribe to the entirety of the vision painted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), it is a vision in general that we need to retain. While we are speaking about technical matters, we should understand how important enlargement is to everybody on the European continent.
I speak in the debate with mixed feelings. I am a great supporter of enlargement, both on a political and a personal level. On a political level, I think that I am right in saying that my party is the only party represented in the House that has Europe at the core of its central policy platform, and independence in Europe as our main policy. That policy is being pursued by all the countries acceding to the European Union at present.
On a personal level, I am a product of integration, my father being Scots and my mother coming to this island as a refugee after the second world war. I therefore have a degree of mixed identity and I have no fear of losing my identity in an enlarged and enhanced Europe. Despite all the criticism that I could level at the UK, being in a Union has not made me any less Scots, and I

339
am sure that the European Union in the future will not make a Frenchman any less French or an Estonian any less Estonian.
The downside for me in the debate, with which I shall deal later, is the matter of fishing. I shall speak first about enlargement. My party and I are strong supporters of enlargement, in part because of the tradition in Scotland which has viewed our historic nation as having long and good relations with the nations of central and eastern Europe. That was brought home to me only last week when I met the mayor of Tallinn, a former Prime Minister of Estonia, who proudly took out his membership card for the Scots club in Tallinn. There is a link between Scotland and many of the countries of central and eastern Europe. The SNP welcomes enlargement as being good for a peaceful continent and for enhancing prosperity, co-operation and an improved environment.
It is estimated that enlargement will create about 300,000 jobs across the EU, which will benefit many thousands of people in Scotland and throughout the entire continent, as companies take advantage of trade opportunities. It cannot be lost on anybody looking at enlargement from a Scottish perspective that more than half the enlargement candidate countries are the same size as Scotland or smaller—Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta are all roughly the same size as Scotland or smaller. I was reminded of that last week when the Foreign Secretary, in a speech to the Press Gallery, waxed lyrical about the new proud nation state that had so recently gained its independence—that is, Slovenia. Like the other nations acceding to membership of the EU, it is aiming to be independent within Europe, something that I would like to see for Scotland.
Not only Slovenia, but other countries too have had to think long and hard about that. I look back to Lithuania and remember my party's former deputy leader, the late Dr. Alan McCartney, who worked closely with Vytautas Landsbergis, the first President of an independent Lithuania. It is clear that all the candidate countries are looking forward to accession and to playing their role in a confederal Europe, without losing their identities.
All those countries will have a guaranteed seat at the top table of the Council of Ministers. They will have permanent representation on the Council, the right to nominate a Commissioner, and considerably more Members of the European Parliament per head than Scotland. They are rightly set to enjoy first-class status, while Scotland unfortunately does not, but that is no bar to all those countries rightfully taking their place.
I endorse entirely the view expressed by many hon. Members in all parts of the House with regard to Turkey's possible membership in the future. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a strong case for that. Having spent most of my working life on the continent in Austria and Germany, I can pay tribute to the substantial contribution made to those societies by people of Turkish origin. I look forward to their country being a full member of the European Union.
With reference to reform of the EU, which is central to the work that is taking place on the Convention and which is tied to enlargement of the EU, I put on record
340
again my support for the proposed reforms to improve the efficiency of the EU, bringing it closer to the citizen, and supporting transparency, accountability, democracy and subsidiarity—for example, with the opening of proceedings of the Council of Ministers. At least we will be able to see what Scottish Executive Ministers are doing when they say that they are playing an important role at Council of Ministers meetings.
However, it is supremely ironic that while the EU is becoming more transparent, European policy within the UK remains confidential. The concordats ensure that discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive are secret. Both the Scottish Parliament's European Committee and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee have called for changes in that regard.
On the likely constitution or constitutional treaty, I am glad that the Conservative party takes the view that that should be put to the people in a referendum, although that is not entirely consistent with the party's view of previous treaties, which were of equal or greater significance. The Scottish National party has been consistent.
Mr. Spring: If there is an overarching constitutional treaty, it changes the fundamental base of the relationship between the member states, which has up to this point been intergovernmental.
Angus Robertson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. That is one of the reasons why the SNP has a standing policy. We would like a constitution or a constitutional treaty put to the people in a referendum, because we support such a treaty. We want it to be endorsed by the electorate so that it has the full mandate of people in Scotland and anywhere else that would choose to hold a referendum.
I shall touch briefly on the workings of the Convention, noting that there are no Scottish Executive or Scottish Parliament representatives on the delegation from the UK to the Convention, despite the fact that First Minister Jack McConnell, in an article in Business a.m. on 20 December last year, said that he had
"pledged to fight for a place on the convention".
Of course, he failed.
Unlike the UK, Germany takes the role of its devolved areas, the Lander, seriously, with the Premier of Baden-Wurttemberg, Erwin Teufel, being a full member of the German delegation. Mr. Teufel has argued for better rights for devolved Governments in the EU in the Convention, whereas the UK has not. The UK Government's representative. Peter Hain, has spoken in the Convention six times. His contributions amount to 2,869 words and he has never mentioned Scotland once in his contributions. He mentioned Wales once, but only in connection with where his constituency is, not in terms of how the EU should progress and Wales's place within it.
I am pleased that there are two democratically elected Scottish representatives involved in the Convention process, although not through the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament. It will not surprise the House that both are members of my party, Professor Sir Neil MacCormick MEP for the Greens/European Free Alliance group, and Councillor Keith Brown of

341
Clackmananshire council. We will continue to make the case for the improved representation of Scotland in the EU, with equality of status and the same rights and obligations as other EU countries. At a time when more decisions are being made at a European level, it is essential for Scotland to be there and that way we would at least ensure 100 per cent. attendance at key meetings, as opposed to UK Governments, both Tory and Labour, who have terrible records in representing Scotland. That for me is a positive vision of Scotland's place within a changing Europe, and that is why I welcome what is on the agenda of the Copenhagen summit. However, I come now to what is not on the agenda, which disappoints me greatly—namely, fishing.
I have reason to believe that the Foreign Secretary would not have mentioned fishing at all were it not for the fact that I intervened on him during his opening speech. The right hon. Member for Devizes made no mention of fishing either. He spoke about competition policy, the CAP, European security and defence policy, European monetary union, the Convention—the list goes on, but fishing was not on it. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) will be able to say when he replies what the Conservative party's official policy is on the question that I am about to raise, which is the unmitigated impending disaster for the fishing industry, and not just in Scotland. Anyone who listened to the "Today" programme this morning will have heard concerned fishermen from North Shields. Fishermen from around the coast of this island and Northern Ireland face disaster if the Commission's plans go through.
In a recent article in the Daily Record, the Prime Minister put a figure of 14,000 on those in the fishing industry who are under threat. Unfortunately, that seems to undermine the warning by the Scottish Executive that the figure is over 40,000, many of whom are likely to lose their jobs.
I appeal to Members representing constituencies south of the border to imagine the prospect of more than 100,000 people losing their jobs within a short matter of months as a direct result of EU policy. Imagine the Front Benchers of a British Government not raising that at the most important meeting that the EU can hold. It is unimaginable that Jacques Chirac, facing the prospect of 100,000 French farmers losing their jobs, or Premier Aznar facing the prospect of 100,000 Spanish fishermen losing their jobs, would not raise those matters in a Council meeting, especially a summit meeting. I have grave concerns that Government policy on this is completely out of sync. I note with interest that the Secretary of State for Scotland tried to persuade us yesterday in the Scottish Grand Committee that the Prime Minister has said that
"he has already raised the matter at the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 10 December 2002; c. 12.]
I have followed EU business for a long time and I have never heard of a Prime Minister taking part in a European Agriculture and Fisheries Council. The Prime Minister takes part in summit meetings of Heads of State and Government. That is what will take place at the end of this week and that subject is not on the agenda. We are repeatedly told, because apparently the UK Government think it important, that the Prime
342
Minister did talk with Franz Fischler on 14 November in what was described as a short meeting, and that was confirmed earlier today by his office.
I am glad that the Minister of State is here because I intervened during questions to raise the matter and he said:
"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. "—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 149.]
I note with interest that there is no mention of the fishing industry on the agenda. I have confirmation from the Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who holds the presidency of the EU, that an important issue for the Government of Spain is set to be debated—the Prestige disaster. Hon. Members will know about the oil spill off Galicia, which is tremendously important, and understandably so for the people of Spain. Their Government have made the effort to have the matter put on the agenda, yet the UK Government have not made a similar effort with regard to fishing.
I asked the House of Commons Library yesterday if it would produce a list to show how often member states have put matters of vital national interest at the top of the agenda of European Council and summit meetings, and it ran to five pages. I summarise by mentioning that in 1965 France secured veto powers on CAP reform, in 1983 the UK raised the budget rebate, and in 1992 Spain raised cohesion funding—the list goes on. With an impending disaster in the Scottish fishing industry, people in my constituency and throughout the coast of Scotland and elsewhere in the UK cannot and will not understand why the Government are not batting for them at the most important meeting that can make decisions, or seeking to impress on other Governments that it is imperative to deal with the issue.
Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Angus Robertson: I shall not, because I am in my last minute. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
I have come to this debate with a heavy heart and with mixed feelings, because I am a convinced and proud European who is over the moon about the prospect of enlargement. It breaks my heart to stand here and persuade representatives of any democratic Government to stick up for people. Having marched with the steelworkers at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh with colleagues from the Labour party, I thought that there would be an understanding of what mass wholesale unemployment would mean, and I hope that the UK Government will make that effort and raise the matter at the Copenhagen summit. Every single effort needs to be made to secure the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people.
8.25 pm
Ms Meg Munn: I am pleased to take part in the debate as we enter a new era in the development of Europe. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made a case for Scotland's involvement in that, and I hope that in future Yorkshire will also have its chance to have its voice heard in Europe as the regional agenda develops in Britain.

343
Like the hon. Gentleman, I also claim mixed parentage. My father was born in Yorkshire and my mother, alas, was born in Lancashire, so there are some differences there. I am reassured by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), who is no longer in his place, that even people in Lancashire are people.
Since the second world war it is good to say that much of Europe has enjoyed peace and stability, and I hope that enlargement will mean much greater peace and stability throughout Europe. Last month the Prime Minister described the forthcoming enlargement as the creation of a new Europe by free will. Unfortunately, we know that many of today's threats come not from within individual countries but from terrorism. I believe that together in Europe we can work with the other parts of the world to try to continue in the peace and stability that we have all enjoyed for many years.
The EU has greatly boosted trade, jobs and the economy. We have heard today, and have been encouraged by it, positive speeches on both sides of the House about the EU, and a real desire to see how it can develop.
South Yorkshire has recently benefited from objective 1 money and I hope that with the enlargement of the EU there will be a commitment to achieve development across all of Europe's regions. We see within our own country how some regions have not done so well in the economy, hence the reason for the structural funds that have come to areas such as mine. It is important for stability, peace and justice that huge disparities are avoided in wealth, health and development throughout Europe and ultimately the whole world. Of course, there are many other issues as well as security and economic success. Increasingly, we have environmental concerns that do not stop at national borders.
We have often heard the European Union criticised for being complex and a difficult institution for its citizens to understand. Some take the view that there is a disconnection between the European institutions and the citizens of Europe and that that has led to apathy, so I should like to discuss an area that has been little mentioned, but was brought to my attention yesterday when the Select Committee on Education and Skills met members of the British Council. I refer to European education programmes, which should spread out and benefit all countries, including those that are joining the European Union as well as those that are already members.
The British Council runs many of the European Union education programmes in the United Kingdom. The number of programmes is probably greater than many hon. Members think, as they span the entire breadth of our education systems. For example, school education and joint curriculum projects operate between schools and colleges, giving staff training opportunities and allowing them to develop networks with teachers in other countries. Two such projects exist in Sheffield.
On adult education and lifelong learning, the aim is to improve the availability, accessibility and quality of adult teaching and learning by supporting European co-operation projects, learning partnerships, staff training
344
and the development of networks across countries. If we want a Europe in which adults have the skills and abilities to work in the sort of jobs that will arise in the next decade, adult skills and education are very important.
The Lingua programme promotes the learning of foreign languages. The hon. Member for Moray might like to find out a bit more about it, as he was somewhat sceptical about the ability of this country's citizens to read and converse in other languages. As a linguist, I think it is very important that we promote the learning of languages in schools and for adults. The Lingua project supports the raising of awareness of language learning opportunities and seeks to develop such opportunities. As people get to meet the citizens of other European countries and learn about them, it is only natural that they should learn their languages. That enriches our culture and makes us all Europeans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) said.
Arion study visits are themed study visits for education decision makers. Again, they involve the sharing of education issues and ideas across Europe. The Government have rightly made education our No. 1 priority, and I should like to see it on the European agenda as well.
In addition to the programmes run by the British Council, there are other European Union educational programmes such as Erasmus, which relates to higher education and aims to encourage co-operation between European universities and support the mobility of students and staff and the development of joint programmes and courses and thematic networks. I was heartened by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who recognised that the development of the European Union is not only about economics, peace or defence, but about culture and learning.
Of course, education has an intrinsic value, but it is especially important for the European Union in promoting co-operation and understanding between countries as we stand at the threshold of an enlarged European Union. By learning languages, we can begin to recognise the importance of the knowledge economy, in which people can benefit from being able to converse in another language in terms of trade between countries. In England—I say England advisedly—we are too often happy to sit back and allow other people to deal with things because they speak English. Is it not time that we learned those other languages so that we can expand our trading and cultural links as well?
Programmes such as those that I have mentioned support and create opportunities for all our citizens. I believe that enlargement provides opportunities not only to secure economic development, but to promote through such programmes understanding and co-operation across an increasing and I hope ever-enlarging number of countries. I firmly believe that enlargement will bring greater stability and prosperity to increasing numbers of people and that all European citizens will be working together for a more peaceful, prosperous and stable world.
8.34 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward: We are holding an important debate on an important subject, and considering an important meeting in Copenhagen in the next few days.
Britain's future unquestionably lies at the heart of Europe. I speak from experience when I say that we also unquestionably have the right Government to negotiate that future. I say that with some pleasure because in a former guise in another party I spent some time undergoing the twists and turns of trying to explain to my constituents and activists why I was pro-European, how that view could be accommodated with going no further into Europe, the way in which Europe presented all sorts of problems, and that closer integration was not a good idea.
In the debate, Conservative Members expressed similar conundrums, which individuals are trying to solve. When the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke about the reasons for a new constitution, I wondered whether the Conservative party was prepared genuinely to consider what the Government are trying to achieve. The Prime Minister made it clear in Cardiff last week that we need a proper constitution for Europe because of the EU's expansion to 25 members. Without change, it is impossible to take forward such a Europe in the way that we support. The Prime Minister spelt out that we want a constitution,
"which makes it clear that the driving ideology is indeed a union of nations and not a superstate".
Secondly, he made it clear that
"the Convention is proposing a radical strengthening of the subsidiarity principle."
Subsidiarity will not be compromised but enshrined. The Commission and the Council are currently judge and jury. The Convention wants national Parliaments to be given new early-warning rights. They are important because if sufficient national Parliaments object, the Commission's proposals will require revision. That means expanding the principle of subsidiarity and giving national Parliaments in a union of nation states greater control. It makes perfect sense for us to go back to the treaties and create a sensible, simple constitution in plain language.
At Copenhagen, two crucial issues will be considered: enlargement and the future political architecture of the EU. That is necessary because we are entering a new phase in this millennium. Interdependence means the expansion of the global economy. However, there is a dark side to that. It includes the problems of climate change; trans-border crime, and AIDS and HIV. The list is long. We must have effective structures for dealing with them. They must be flexible but integrated in order to work. Archbishop William Temple once said that the art of government was creating structures in which
"self-interest will prompt what justice demands."
Structures and integration therefore matter.
Of course, democratic accountability is critical in that architecture. People feel stronger if they have a greater sense of democratic accountability. A constitution would ensure that it was enshrined in a principle that underscores enlargement in the next few years.
346
The right hon. Member for Devizes spoke of failures in the EU under the Government. He should visit the north-west, where two thirds of our exports go to the EU. He should witness the 400,000 jobs that have been created in the north-west and which depend on our exports to the EU. There has been £5 billion of inward investment in the north-west. Structural funds are being poured into Merseyside. The infrastructure projects in my constituency include roads, railways, new schools, new equipment, community projects, regeneration, and two new business parks. We even hope that we will get money for rebuilding or finding a new home ground for the Saints. All those projects are due to structural money from the EU.
The summit will critically tackle where we go from here. We face many problems. Twenty-five years ago, the EU constituted 15 per cent. of the world's population; the figure is now nearer 5 per cent. In the early 1980s, there was a 10 per cent. gap in GDP per capita between the peoples of Europe and those of the United States. Today, the figure is closer to 42 per cent.
Unquestionably, we must do something about improving economic performance and reviving failing economies. We must increase our markets and make them more efficient. I say to Opposition Members that it is impossible to make the single market work without further integration. It is absurd for Conservative Front-Bench Members, as architects of the single market, to argue for less integration in the context of the single market. External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten recently observed that in Europe at present we are seeing a unique experiment in regional integration. It is unique for a number of reasons, but it is absolutely unique across the globe.
We must look at the important question of Turkey. The Foreign Secretary was right to refer at the beginning of his speech to Turkey's accession to the EU as an "obligation". This weekend, we shall look to the summit as much to see what it says about Turkey as to see how that reflects what it says about ourselves. Our response to Turkey's accession is, as much as anything, about the kind of Europe we want to create. Do we want a Christian club for reactionary economies or a dynamic union of nation states focused on improving the economic performance of those countries and providing security and a climate free from terrorism?
In that context, I refer to the lamentable remarks that former President Giscard d'Estaing made recently about Turkey joining the EU. He said that those who support Turkey's accession are enemies of Europe. He said that Turkey is a different culture, with a different approach and a different way; that Turkey is a country that is close to Europe but it is not a European country. Those arguments—those prejudices—are serious, because when Giscard d'Estaing speaks, he speaks for many, albeit not a majority, who would prefer to see the European Union as a club, not an effective single market working for the peoples of nation states.
What are former President Giscard d'Estaing's objections? His first is a prejudice about the religious nature of most of the peoples who make up the European Union. That argument excludes the 18 million Muslims who are already a critical and well-integrated part of it. He regards the admission of more Muslims as potentially destabilising. His second objection seems to be about Turkey's size: it has a

347
population nearly the size of Germany's, so it is too large and its backwards economy poses a threat. I understand that what he proposes for Turkey is a trade association with the European Union, but not full integration. On that, he is entirely wrong. It would be a terrible backwards step for us were we to go with that advice.
This is about the kind of Europe that we are trying to shape, and how the political architecture that we are forging can best serve the peoples of these nation states. Former President Giscard d'Estaing has been economical with history. He forgets, for example, that at the time of his own presidency, Turkey was already on its way to membership. He forgets that, back in 1963 when Britain's membership was vetoed, Charles de Gaulle recognised that Turkey was indeed a European country.
More compelling today, however, is the logic of Turkey joining. In 1989, the Berlin wall fell and we saw the curtain lifted for a new generation, with hope and possible prosperity offered to it. Today, the curtain can be lifted between the east and west. Former President Giscard d'Estaing fears that Turkey as part of the EU bordering on Iraq would be dangerous for the EU. I believe that the opposite is true: it is a real opportunity. As John F. Kennedy said when he was at the Berlin wall in the 1960s, "Freedom is indivisible", and as Attaturk said 75 years ago,
"Countries vary, but civilisation is one."
Geographically, Turkey offers us an opportunity to create a bridge between the east and the west. It stands at a crossroads between Europe, the middle east and central Asia, yet it serves not as a bridgehead between east and west, but as a bridge to unite civilisations, providing an opportunity to bring 80 million Muslim people into the institutions and ideas of Europe. Three years ago, former President Clinton paid a visit to Turkey. While he was there, he said:
"When people can celebrate their culture and faith in ways that do not infringe upon the rights of others, moderates do not become extremists and extremists do not become misguided heroes."
There is a lot for us to learn in those words. There is also a lot for us to learn by thinking about what we might lose if we do not embrace Turkey.
Turkey sits on the eastern flank of NATO. It is a strategic ally of Israel, a buffer against Iran, and an ally against Saddam. In the past, it has been a shock absorber against an expansionist Soviet Union, and today it absorbs the Russian pressures on the middle east. It is a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. In short, Turkey offers us the chance of having a window into the Islamic world. We have made many mistakes in the past in relation to Islam. Today we see new contours emerging in the post-cold war world, and we can see the importance of this new order. In the past, the United States and the European Union have missed the opportunities to create new paradigms with which to deal with Islamic fundamentalism. Today, Turkey gives us that chance.
The old Turkey of 70 years ago has gone. It has begun a journey, and that journey is now advancing at speed. This Turkey is drawn by European values such as
348
democracy. It has abolished the death penalty. It has also outlawed torture, and punishes those who are guilty of it. Its "Midnight Express" culture is giving way to one in which it is trying to establish freedom and human rights. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) rightly observed, the Turkish model, with its 80 million Muslim people, is a democratic alternative to the models of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is important that we embrace it.
Turkey has the strongest economy in its region. President Giscard d'Estaing's question about whether Turkey is European is simply the wrong question to ask today. The right question is whether the European Union can afford not to include Turkey. That question whether to include Turkey and offer it a real prospect of accession is central to the success of this weekend's summit, and central to all those in Copenhagen who are framing the architecture for successful European Union enlargement.
8.48 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): I am delighted that we are having our third debate on European affairs in 10 days. We have now had two in the Chamber, and one in Westminster Hall earlier today. I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) assert that the Conservatives had many warm things to say about Europe. When his boss, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), spoke earlier, he gave away the Tories' understanding of Europe when he gave us his little vignette on European weather. He seemed to think, in his "little Englander" way, that the isobars that wave across Britain are somehow entirely British, and that French, Spanish and Italian isobars never have anything to do with this little island, which is more precious than anywhere else. It reminded me of the approach to foreigners adopted in "The League of Gentlemen", in which anyone who goes into the little shop is told: "This is a local shop, sir, for local people." It is a bit depressing to hear that the Conservative party still has such outmoded views.
Someone once said of the BBC that it was the greatest cultural invention of the 20th century. I believe that the European Union is probably the greatest political invention of the 20th century. It is certainly one of the greatest feats of diplomatic engineering. Countries that were at war not only in the last century but across the last 10 centuries and countries that not long ago had fascist or left-wing dictatorships have managed to find peace with one another; countries that had communist dictatorships will soon enter the EU; and countries that had and have great industrial muscle and might will soon join countries that have had little industrial might over the past 250 or 300 years. There is a common endeavour of abandoning Europe's history of rich and poor countries, areas and regions, and trying to abolish grinding poverty across the whole of Europe. That is a significant political and diplomatic achievement.
Part of that success has relied on the enormous flexibility that the Union has been able to establish. Despite the fact that the original founding fathers of the European Economic Community—they were, in the main, men—had a clear idea in their mind, which, as Members have said, is not one that many in the Chamber would share, we have none the less been able to move through major transitional periods, such as the

349
accession of the United Kingdom and that of Spain and Portugal, with their history of fascist dictatorship. Over the next 18 months, we face the accession of 10 new members, but all that shows the enormous flexibility in the EU, which has been part of its phenomenal strength.
As we shall see, enlargement will bring many changes to trade, which other Members have mentioned. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that when Spain acceded to the EU, British trade with it increased by 40 per cent. across the next five years. We can probably expect significant additional prosperity for this country as a result of enlargement.
Significant philosophical changes in the understanding of the EU will come about through enlargement. For a start, the old-school idea of the EU, whereby it was seen as a club whose members shared a virtually identical cultural, philosophical and historical heritage, will disappear. In other words, the old grand tour vision of Europe—the Prado, Louvre, Uffizi and Parthenon version of the EU—will go. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's remarks on why Turkey should not be part of the EU reflected that old grand tour understanding of Europe, which will now finally disappear.
Enlargement will also mean a far more diverse understanding of the term "liberal democracy". That will help the EU to establish a much greater and more sensible understanding of subsidiarity. The EU will involve not only republics and constitutional monarchies, which function in many different ways, but countries such as this, which have asymmetric devolution, and such as Belgium, which is barely a country at all in respect of its degree of devolution. The EU will also involve republics formed out of revolution and republics formed after the end of communism. It seems clear to me that we must have a greater understanding of a Europe of the regions in which the regional and individual identities of each different country will be far more significant.
On an issue that is perhaps significant to British understanding of the EU, some major institutions in each member state will start to change how they operate. For example, the understanding of British people about what constitutes a public service broadcaster is far different from that of people in Poland or Hungary. Over the years, the model that we have espoused—a free press and an independent public service broadcaster—will increasingly become that for the rest of the EU.
Significant institutional change will be necessary. Although I do not want to go over last week's debate, it is essential that we achieve much greater clarity about the respective roles of the Commission, the Council, the Parliament, the member states and the EU as a whole. It seems to me that ordinary members of society, ordinary members of the public, need to understand where authority lies in any given area. Unless we can provide a set of treaties, a constitution, making that much clearer, we will do ourselves a great disservice.
Although Anders Rasmussen is doing a wonderful job and will, we hope, do an even more wonderful job over the next few days, I feel that the current stop-start presidency often gives the many industries that rely on decisions made at EU level a sense of instability and uncertainty. They do not know how fast an individual directive or area of policy is proceeding until they discover the current presidency's criteria and priorities
350
for the next few months. That is why I passionately believe in a much more long-term presidential system, which would also give us a better understanding of the significance of elected Governments in the Council of Ministers—hopefully more transparent than in the past—as opposed to the Commission.
Incidentally, it would be nice if the process of enlargement ended transmigration between Brussels and Strasbourg, which must be one of the craziest things that diplomacy has ever led to.
I also think that some of the Commission's institutions need to be strengthened. This is not always a popular view, but I feel that the competition directorate in particular must, in years to come, play a vital role in ensuring that the concept of state aid is not abused, especially in new member states, where the history of intervention in industry is very different from that in established EU countries.
The Trade Commissioner will, I think, play a far more significant role in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. There will undoubtedly be times when the EU wants to stand four-square with the United States, and unless we have a Trade Commissioner who can do that robustly we will again do ourselves a disservice.
There will clearly be many challenges relating to crime and defence, and we will need to strengthen our competences in those contexts. In one respect, however, I think that further accessions may lead to a significant turn towards Britain. I expect English to become, increasingly, the language of the European Union. That is already happening in many European debates. It is no longer a case of English, French and German; nearly everyone speaks English. There will, of course, be a consequence for the English language, whose future now lies more in the hands of non-native than those of native English speakers.
The problem of MEPs' pay and conditions will have to be resolved before the entry of the new member states.
Many Members have referred to Turkey's accession. I agree wholeheartedly about Turkey's strategic significance, but I reject the argument advanced by some that as only a small part of its land mass is in the historical continent of Europe, and much is beyond the Bosphorus, we should not entertain the idea of its membership. Like others, I also reject the rather anti-Islamic argument that some have advanced. It always strikes me as ironic that a profoundly anti-Islamic view should exist in many southern Mediterranean European countries in particular, while at the same time a passionately partisan view is adopted on the issue of Palestine and Israel. That has always struck me as a contradiction. Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said that Turkey was Islamic while Europe was fundamentally Christian. Let me remind him that the Moors defined much of Spanish culture, and that without that history Spain would not be the country it is today.
One other issue will impinge rapidly on the United Kingdom by virtue of enlargement of the European Union: UK membership of the euro. It is getting ever clearer that all the states that are seeking to become members in the next 18 months will be fast upon the escalator to joining the euro. I have a profound worry that this country will be trying to chase the coat tails of the Polish Prime Minister when it comes to our own membership.

351

There are dramatic dangers in Britain staying out of the euro, not least a fall in inward investment, which we are already beginning to see. Investment in France and Germany as a percentage of their gross domestic product has risen since the euro began, whereas in the UK it has dipped in the past two years. We already know of the logistical and cost problems for any UK business that trades in the rest of Europe. At the moment, 57 per cent. of our trade is with European countries in the eurozone. For all those businesses, there are additional costs to our remaining isolated from the euro. The chairman of the British Tourist Authority has argued that tourism in Britain is already losing out by many millions of pounds a year because American long-haul visitors are deciding to visit the rest of the Europe and not the UK because of the euro. Many European travellers are deciding not to come to Britain.
I also worry that we will be sitting on the political sidelines in Europe with other people deciding our economic destiny if we do not join. There are the dangers of the shocks of exchange rate volatility, which dramatically affect in particular manufacturing industry but nearly every aspect of the British economy.
Many arguments are advanced against the UK joining the euro, not least that there will be a significant restraint on UK spending, despite the fact that the French and Irish economies manage themselves differently: 33 per cent. of GDP is spent as opposed to 50 per cent. of GDP by this Government. We would have similar flexibility.
One could advance many arguments. Some people argue that the UK will survive well on its own, that that is what is happening at the moment, that we are doing better than the rest of Europe, so why on earth should we bother? I say to those people: we will be able to survive as an economy on our own—as a niche. If we stay isolated from the euro we will become a niche market, with all the dangers that that entails: we will be prone to the ups and downs of the world economy, and threatened by exchange rate volatility. Of course, we could survive as a country—with higher prices than in the rest of Europe, with fewer jobs than in the rest of Europe and with less economic clout.
9.3 pm
Mr. Mark Hendrick: The forthcoming summit in Copenhagen will deal with enlargement, which will bring together the nations of Europe on the basis of free trade, international agreement and co-operation founded on current democratic institutions. It will mean a Europe capable of looking after our interests in a global context. It will mean a bigger trading area to create even more prosperity and more jobs. That is why the Government support enlargement: it is good not just for the applicant countries but for the British people.
Europe in the previous century was for the most part divided: there were two world wars, millions of people were killed, and nations across the continent lived in fear of each other. What has been achieved in the past 50 years is astonishing, and history is accelerating. The achievements of the last 50 years outweigh those of the previous 2,000 years. National barriers to goods, people
352
and services have been swept away by the European Union. The development of international road, air, rail, energy and information networks has turned the globe into a village and Europe into a neighbourhood—a community two clicks of a mouse away. These networks are the arteries of the European economy, and the health of that economy is totally dependent on the ability of goods, services and capital—and people—to flow freely around Europe.
An enlarged Europe will bring even more prosperity to its citizens. This is about a strong Britain in a greater Europe. At Copenhagen, EU Heads of State and Government are expected to take all the necessary decisions to conclude accession negotiations with the 10 candidate states identified as ready for EU membership: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia are all destined to become EU members.
The European Council is also expected to decide on a detailed road map for the future accession negotiations and preparations with Bulgaria and Romania, and on the next stage of Turkey's candidacy. I have been fortunate enough to visit Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia this year to look at their preparations for entry into the European Union. I have also visited Romania, which, with Bulgaria, will have all the 31 chapters required for accession closed by 2004, ready for it to enter in 2007.
The popularity of the European Union in those countries is enviable. They all recognise the potential for peace, prosperity and security that membership will bring. It is lamentable that the Conservative party always chooses to attack and denigrate what many other nations hold in high esteem.
Turkey's new Government and eventual accession hold the key to two major problems—
Mr. Bacon: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of what he says we attack that other nations hold in high esteem?
Mr. Hendrick: The very institutions that bring prosperity and peace to Europe, such as the European Commission. From many Conservative Members, we have heard nothing today but regular attacks on the European Commission and the other institutions.
Mr. Bacon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, earlier last week, the Court of Auditors of the European Union qualified the Commission's accounts for the eighth year in a row, and that his constituents and mine, as taxpayers, work hard to earn money that they then lose through fraud?
Mr. Hendrick: All institutions lose money. The hon. Gentleman's local authority and mine will have outstanding debts and money that has—
Mr. Bacon: Qualified accounts.
Mr. Hendrick: I am not going to get into a discussion with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bacon: Obviously not.
Mr. Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman has made his points, and they do not stack up.

353
I was talking about Turkey. The willingness of Europeans to accept a predominantly Muslim but secular democracy into the European Union will, as many of my hon. Friends have said, send a signal to all the Muslims in the world that the west is not anti-Muslim, and that the European Union is about peace and democracy, not race and religion.
As I said earlier, I also believe that Turkey's accession would solve the problem of a divided Cyprus—if Kofi Annan's plan has not solved it beforehand. The economic and political security that Turkey's and Cyprus's membership of the EU could add to the military security already provided by NATO would help to remove the scars of a divided island.
Too often we hear from people who should know better that Britain and the rest of Europe are anti-Muslim. Turkey is a key opportunity for Europe, and should be seen as a problem only in so far as it still has to meet the Copenhagen criteria.
With anything up to 25 nations as members, the reform of EU institutions such as the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers is also on the agenda. The Danish presidency has responded positively to that agenda by producing a report detailing many of the discussions so far and describing three models of presidency reform.
The first option maintains the main features of the current rotating presidency, while extending the co-operation between successive presidencies. I would call that the least change option. It would improve presidency preparations and handovers, but not alter significantly the workings of the presidencies themselves. In an EU of 25 nations, the current model, even in an enhanced form, would be unworkable.
The second option combines an institutional presidency for the Council's co-ordinating chain—the General Affairs and External Relations Council and the Committee of Permanent Representatives—that could be chaired by the secretary-general/high representative or his representatives, with a system of rotating presidencies or elected bodies for most other Council configurations. That model seems arbitrary, and I am not sure what advantages it would bring.
The third option offers the prospect of a team presidency. The team could be composed of three to five members, selected according to criteria such as geography and size, for a given period—one and a half years or two and a half years, for example—renewed at fixed intervals or through a rolling system. That seems the most exciting proposal. It offers a much wider involvement in the presidency, along with maximum co-operation between member states.
I understand that the Danish presidency has proposed strengthening the role of the high representative to respond to the problem posed by the presidency's role in external relations Proposals include chairing certain Council meetings; representing the EU in international organisations or in meetings with third countries; negotiating international agreements in respect of common foreign and security policy, and in European security and defence policy; submitting proposals; informing the European Parliament; and supervising EU special envoys.
As the European Union enlarges still further, there will be an increased need for a coherent voice to express the EU's general views on both soft and hard diplomacy
354
issues. The ideas put forward by several member states on an elected president of the European Council are also important. This variant could be combined with the second or third of the models that I have mentioned. A European Council president would be elected for a longer period—up to five years—prepare and preside over the European Council, and represent the EU in relations with third countries at heads-of-state level.
In the absence of a European Government, that proposal would go a long way towards giving the EU the identity that it currently lacks. For all the importance of the President of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, citizens view them with scepticism, and as not being their own. An elected president would give them a figurehead—someone with whom they could identify. I look forward to a successful summit in Copenhagen, and I wish our Government representatives all the best in their deliberations.
9.12 pm
Tony Worthington: I must apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being unable to be present for the opening speeches; however, I wanted to get in on this matter if possible.
I want to raise an issue that I do not suppose has been raised by anybody else in this debate or elsewhere: the relationship between the European Union, ourselves, the United States and the International Criminal Court. That issue should be debated in this place, and the Government should make a statement on it. Less than two years ago, this House passed legislation on the ICC. For many of us, it was a matter of great pride that we ended something that started at Nuremberg. There were obstacles in the way for many years, but ICC legislation is now on our statute book, and 85 countries throughout the world have ratified the ICC.
However, the ICC is now in danger because of the actions of the United States. The US is not merely saying that it does not agree with the ICC; it is trying to eliminate it. It is doing so, first, by threatening to withdraw peacekeeping forces around the world unless agreement is reached that American forces and personnel will not be subject to the ICC. Secondly, it has passed the American Service Members' Protection Act 2001, which prohibits US involvement in peacekeeping unless US personnel are excluded from the powers of the ICC. Ultimately, it gives the US the power to liberate any American personnel who are kept in The Hague.
Thirdly, the US actively pursued countries to sign bilateral impunity agreements. That is of great significance, as the EU was at the forefront of establishing the ICC. Unless the EU and those countries seeking full EU membership act in a united and coordinated fashion, there will be a severe danger that the ICC will be undermined.
When the US approached the EU with the idea of establishing bilateral agreements to exclude US personnel from the activities of the ICC, I hoped that the UK would take the lead and say that that was not on. I hoped that we would say that the ICC could have no credibility if the most powerful nation in the world were excluded from its provisions. Instead, however, the UK sought to establish that there could be bilateral agreements with the US if they followed certain principles.

355
I do not have time to go into those principles, as I want other hon. Members to be able to contribute to the debate. Also, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will not have time, when he replies, to give me the answers to the several questions that I want to raise. However, I hope that he will assure me that he will respond in writing later.
First, will my hon. Friend the Minister describe the current state of negotiations between Britain and the US over an impunity agreement? We know that the Americans have been seeking bilateral agreements with each of the countries in the EU. What stage have those negotiations reached? I think that the House should be told.
Secondly, the EU laid down various principles for the conclusion of bilateral agreements. Have the Americans accepted the European conditions as to when an impunity agreement can be signed, or do they consider the conditions to be inadequate? I believe that about 14 bilateral agreements have been signed so far. The countries that sign such agreements tend to be placed under great pressure by the US. For example, the US has negotiated very aggressively with East Timor and said that it will withdraw resources unless that country agrees to a bilateral agreement. Have any of the agreements signed so far been ratified by the Parliaments of the countries concerned?
Does it remain a condition of EU entry that countries should sign up to the ICC in its entirety, or has that requirement been dropped? What legal advice have the Government received on whether it was legal for the UN Security Council to defer for one year the application of the ICC to the US? Also, what legal advice have the Government received regarding bilateral agreements that conflict with the intentions behind the International Criminal Court Act 2001 that we passed less than two years ago? What has priority—the intentions and contents of the 2001 Act or a bilateral agreement?
This is an important issue. I realise that the Minister cannot answer it fully in 15 minutes. However, the negotiations on legislation that mattered so much to the Labour party in establishing an international criminal court are very important. Does he agree that we should be kept in touch with what is happening if actions are taken that will inevitably weaken something that we created less than two years ago?
9.20 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: I have listened to the debate with great interest for the past two hours. I am conscious that there is at least one other Member who wants to speak, so I will be very brief.
Having listened to a number of contributions, I want to respond particularly to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), who, unfortunately, is not in his place, and to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said that Conservative Members were against Europe and what he called Tuscan evenings. I have to say that I have spent some of the happiest days of my life sitting in deckchairs in Tuscany looking at the towers of San Gimigniano. I had hoped for a rather more profound contribution.
356
The Italian writer Primo Levi, in one of his greatest books, "I sommersi e i salvati"—"The Drowned and the Saved"—said that as a Jewish holocaust survivor, he could not accept that people should be judged because of the group to which they belonged. He wanted to be judged, above all, as an individual. None the less, he had to accept that there was such a thing as a Hispanidad, a Deutschum and an Italianata, without which there would be no purpose in being a nation.
I think that we have fundamentally misjudged the extent to which there is an emotional glue—here I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda—that binds the European Union project together. I am talking about people's experiences when Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Greece were fascist dictatorships—some of them even in my lifetime—the experience of the low countries as areas for war and, above all, the experience of France, which was invaded three times by Germany in 70 years. Even if there are good and rational reasons why people might object to this project, I believe that many people are beyond those rational arguments because the emotional glue is so strong. I do not necessarily blame them for that—it is probably right. Fundamentally, however, they underestimate—as I suspect that many people in the House of Commons do—the absolute difference between their situation and ours. We underestimate their emotional glue and they underestimate our tradition and attachment to parliamentary self-government.
We are faced with a project that already has, or will soon get, a Parliament, a flag, an anthem, a currency, a central bank, a driving licence, a passport, a concept of citizenship, a legal system with a hierarchy of courts and a Supreme Court, a criminal justice system with a public prosecutor and a police force, an army, a president and a constitution. That is not what the people of this country wanted or will ever want. I believe that they will uphold their right, expressed through the House of Commons, to be a self-governing democracy, capable of making their own laws, making their own arrangements, setting their own taxes, issuing their own currency and controlling their own destiny.
9.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I want to focus my remarks on the accession of Cyprus to the European Union.
Let me set the scene by agreeing with almost everyone that the UK is and will be a champion of enlargement in Europe. Ten countries are looking to enter the European Union in 2004 and although they are at various stages of the negotiating process, and there are one or two hiccups, there is a strong political will for that to happen.
I strongly believe that Turkey should be given a date for accession—as several hon. Members have said—although that will be controversial in some quarters. Hon. Members have referred to human rights and the related issue of minorities, as well as democracy in Turkey and the role of the army. Although progress has to be made on all those matters, we should remember that the package of measures passed by the Turkish Parliament earlier this year was deemed to be a good start to the process.

357
As an hon. Member said earlier, the election process cleared out—if I may use that phrase—all the old guard, the old faces who turned up regularly in Turkish Governments. We have hopes that the new Government will be much more progressive and that they will recognise what needs to be done if the country is to enter Europe in the future.
As I said, I want to concentrate my remarks on the accession of Cyprus. First, it needs to be said loud and clear that Cyprus more than meets the accession criteria. However, the problem for Cyprus is different from that of the other nine states because the island has been divided for the past 28 years. We must give the highest priority to trying to end that division before the accession of Cyprus.
In many international forums nowadays, we talk about the failure to implement UN resolutions. Over the past 28 years, there have been a number of UN resolutions on Cyprus, so its case is stronger than most. A further problem is the continuing isolation of the Turkish-Cypriot community and its relative economic decline during the past 28 years. The Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities in the UK greatly want the island to be reunified. There are thus many reasons to give that priority. There have been many, many attempts to deal with the problems in the past so if we are not successful, for whatever reason, we should recognise that, as has been said many times, Cyprus should none the less accede to membership.
There are three reasons why that is important. First, Cyprus has developed extremely close ties to the EU. It may come as a surprise to some Members that those ties go back as far as the association agreement that was signed in 1972. The history behind that is that when Britain was in the process of entering the EU, Ted Heath went to Cyprus and said that the Cypriots should be thinking along similar lines. They did not take that step then, but entered an association agreement. That was followed, in 1987, by a legal framework, which is still in existence.
Cyprus made its first membership application in 1990–12 years ago. In 1993, the EU recognised for the first time that the Government of Cyprus could make an application on behalf of the whole island. All the subsequent Councils—Luxembourg in 1993, Corfu in 1994, Essen in 1995 and so on—recognised the validity of Cyprus's application.
In 1998, it was agreed to start accession negotiations and the watershed came at Helsinki. In that connection, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was then Foreign Secretary. He played a role in resolving the controversy at that time by saying that Cyprus should accede but that all relevant factors should be taken into account. That view still stands.
Since 1998, all the progress reports have stated positively that Cyprus should be able to enter the EU. Indeed, the last report, before the Council meeting in September, confirms once again that Cyprus fulfils the political criteria, that it respects human rights and freedoms, that it has developed a market economy and can compete within the EU. Indeed, there is talk of Cyprus joining the euro almost as soon as it enters the Community. It will indeed be a member.
358
Everyone realises that there are still one or two things to iron out as regards the acquis communautaire, but no one sees that as a stumbling block. We would then see the culmination of the closer and closer relationship that has developed between the EU and Cyprus.
Secondly, there has been all-party support in the House for Cyprus's membership. I can trace such support back to the 1997 Labour party election manifesto, which gave priority to the enlargement process. More importantly, that manifesto refers particularly to Cyprus's application to join the EU. Indeed, an accompanying document was issued at the time in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It was called "Labour on Cyprus" and stated:
"We all want Cyprus to join as a united island. But we are clear that accession must not be made conditional on settlement and that there must be no right of veto for any third party."
That policy was adopted across Europe at the Helsinki conference. I could quote one ministerial statement after another—indeed, I could quote Opposition Members who sit on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches—all confirming and underpinning that policy.
If we are to be entirely consistent, if we are to recognise our long-term commitment to Cyprus and, indeed, if we are to maintain the integrity of our position and that of Europe, it is critical that Cyprus should enter. Given all the commitments that I have mentioned, we should not countenance the loss of credibility that would occur—not only in the United Kingdom and on the island itself, but across Europe—if Cyprus were not to enter.
Thirdly, I want to consider the phrase "all relevant factors", which was arrived at during the Helsinki meeting. All sorts of people have interpreted that phrase and related it to the UN negotiation process. I shall briefly mention the background to those negotiations because the Whip is waving at me even though I thought that I still had another four minutes to speak. The background includes UN resolutions, the high-level agreements that were reached and the acquis communautaire. The Cyprus Government have lived within those agreements and tried to interpret them constructively; so much so that, in June this year, the UN commended them on being constructive in trying to assist and on being flexible in trying to reach an agreement.
It was not possible to reach an agreement, but the recent framework agreement produced by the UN Secretary-General shows that all the political parties—not only Greek Cypriot, but Turkish Cypriot—have agreed that that document can form the basis of negotiations. So people are working constructively, but there are problems. I often read about the difficulties, and I was somewhat embarrassed and saddened by the comments made by Mr. Denktash on returning to Cyprus a couple of days ago, but we need to maintain a positive attitude to the process. That has been done in Cyprus, and it is what we should do. With good will, we can move towards a settlement, but I return to my original point: if that settlement is not achieved, we need to accept that Cyprus should join the EU.
9.33 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: Today we are certainly at a critical and historic juncture in the EU's development. We are on the brink of enlargement and, will effectively make history in Copenhagen, as the EU is extended to many of our eastern European friends, as well as, of course, Cyprus and Malta. There have been many excellent speeches today—of course all with the theme of welcoming the enlargement process—and I should like to mention one or two of the hon. Members who have spoken.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) talked about Cyprus, as indeed the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has done. There is cross-party support and understanding on that issue. We earnestly hope that a settlement will be reached, but, of course, if that does not happen, it cannot in any way be allowed to impede the process of the Republic of Cyprus into full membership of the EU. I agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) who talked about the historic fulfilment of a process and said how remarkable it was that we had overcome obstacles that hindered us for many decades and reached this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that there was still work to do and talked about the need for judicial reform in the accession countries, and for transparency and efficiency in the European Commission. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) talked about rapprochement between Greece and Turkey, which is very important. Many hon. Members have welcomed Turkey's progress towards accession to the EU and the resulting positive developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) talked about Turkey and withdrawal. We want an EU that works for its members so that the question of dismemberment and withdrawal does not arise—we are dedicated to that aim. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) talked about Tuscan nights and all sorts of things. I am not quite sure what his two principles are but he certainly spoke powerfully. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) also talked about Turkey and, importantly, fishing. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has written today to the Prime Minister asking him to raise the specific issue of the common fisheries policy in Copenhagen. I believe that all hon. Members accept that that problem needs to be resolved.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) was right that enlargement is an extraordinary event. His many achievements include writing "Glenda Jackson—The Biography", but I do not know how many copies have been sold. However, he talked about the relationship between the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Last week, the debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe demonstrated the Government's flabby attitude. We need a practical, step-by-step process to enable the EU to face up to the challenges of the 21st century, and in last week's debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) set out in detail the building blocks that are vital to reconnect the EU to its members and tackle the democratic deficit. It was saddening but
360
not entirely surprising that the Minister for Europe failed to respond to any of my right hon. Friend's practical and imaginative suggestions, and concluded:
"We finish where we began, alas, on the debate between those in the House who want a stronger and more effective European Union in which nation states have a clear and defined role, and those who want us to leave the European Union. That, again and again, is the difference."—[Official Report, 2 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 723.]
He missed the point entirely. Throughout the European Union, there are people who either wish to withdraw from the EU or oppose its enlargement. That view is more widely held in some countries than here. Conservative Members are trying to address the issue head-on by making constructive policy suggestions. That is the real difference between the Opposition and the Government both now and in last week's debate.
In the past five and a half years, members of the Government have made many accurate criticisms and observations about the EU's structures and direction—they have spoken of the "elites" of Europe and a sense of disconnection. However, despite their analyses of the problems facing the EU, they have failed to secure the return of even one increasingly centralised power to national Parliaments. It was instructive that not one Government Member has mentioned the role of national Parliaments—they speak the language of subsidiarity but have consistently failed to deliver.
Mr. Woodward: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I talked extensively about the role of national Parliaments, but he was not in his place.
Mr. Spring: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, and will read what he said in Hansard with great interest.
Two years ago, before Nice, the then Secretary of State talked about the extension of qualified majority voting by the French presidency. He ruled it out in advance and said that the vast majority of proposals were unacceptable. In practice, as we have seen time and time again with this Government, they meekly accepted a clear majority of the proposals that had nothing to do with enlargement.
Similarly, we witnessed the creation of the European rapid reaction force. We are, of course, committed to enhanced pan-European defence co-operation, but that must be achieved under the umbrella of NATO. Again, before St. Malo, the Prime Minister made it clear that he did not want an EU defence capability outside NATO, but at Nice that is precisely what was signed up to. Once more, the Government gave way.
It is hugely important that we continue to engage with our US ally. We are already seeing defence spending levels that are wholly inadequate right across the EU. I note that in Germany the defence budget is to be cut still further. In addition, the Government should clearly have refused to allow the charter of fundamental rights to go forward. We were told that it was simply proclaimed on the sidelines of Nice and that it would have no legal significance greater than the content of the Beano. As always, the Government were wrong. The Commission stated at the time:
"In practice, the real question is when and how it"—
that is, the charter—
"should be incorporated in the Treaties".

361
The Government speak about constructive engagement, but do not stand up for their beliefs and give in, time and again.
The same thing is now happening on the proposed constitution. We were told one thing, and in practice something entirely different has emerged. It will simply lead to a great expansion of judge-led law in this country. During the debate last week, we heard much justification from the former Minister for Europe, now Secretary of State for Wales, for horizontal articles that would somehow
"block the charter from being invoked to change nationally determined domestic law."—[Official Report, 2 December 2002; Vol. 395,c. 681.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out clearly in the working group that that was simply not the case, and that the great arguments that had been advanced by the Government and won by the Government, according to the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), were not true at all.
The Government have been in office for five and a half years, and we are entitled to make judgments on their conduct of foreign policy in relation to the EU and elsewhere. When the Government came to office, we witnessed the extraordinary event of the then Foreign Secretary announcing a foreign policy based on ethical considerations, with the bizarre and offensive implication that distinguished former Foreign Secretaries such as my noble Friend Lord Hurd and Sir Malcolm Rifkind pursued an unethical one in their defence of UK national interests. Over a period of five years, as with any Government, there will be high and low points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has freely acknowledged recently the constructive role played by the Foreign Secretary in securing the Security Council resolution in respect of Iraq.
However, nowhere has an ethical dimension of foreign policy been more blown to smithereens than by the way the Foreign Secretary and the former Minister for Europe have conducted themselves with regard to Gibraltar. Never can a Foreign Secretary have acquired the dubious distinction of infuriating not only the people of Gibraltar, but British public opinion, and sending the Spanish Government up the garden path. It was a fantastic diplomatic failure. It is not only those on the Opposition Benches who take that view. The Foreign Affairs Committee report spelled that view out clearly.
The Prime Minister has spoken of a unified foreign policy, whatever that means. Of course, we do not favour a common foreign policy that would deprive Britain of an independent capability to pursue our national interests. The UK is at the centre of many concentric circles—the EU, the UN Security Council, NATO, the G8 and the Commonwealth, which, coupled with our history, places us in a unique position for a medium-sized power and gives us unparalleled global reach. Our country, able to pursue these links and operate freely in international affairs within these circles, offers considerable benefits to the EU. Those are a bonus, not something to be given up.
Of course, increased co-operation in foreign affairs is desirable, but when the EU needs to come to a common position—for example, on the issue of Zimbabwe—
362
difficulties can arise, as in the meeting between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on the question of visas. I hope that the Minister will refer to that, as it is a matter of genuine concern. I hope that the Minister will explain when he replies how we are to send a clear message when we have such problems with international organisations linked into the EU.
Europe faces a massive challenge post-enlargement. The EU has been hugely successful in keeping the peace on the continent, developing the single market and bringing the people of Europe together, but it has been less good at forging an economic environment that will enable it to compete in the 21st century.
The culture of centralisation and harmonisation runs powerfully in the EU and must be fought against because it undermines its success. That is the challenge. The EU was originally forged in the cold war era when the bloc mentality prevailed. It is perfectly understandable that the attitudes of a generation of European leaders were influenced by that, but the time has now come to move on.
We, in contrast to what has substantially become a mentality that is frozen in time, have set out a clear vision, as my right hon. Friend did last week, and a set of steps, which will reconnect the people of Europe with the EU and offer the necessary flexibility to the accession countries during the next few years. That will enable us to escape the bloc mentality that has informed much of the European debate in order to offer the much needed flexibility necessary for the EU to thrive and prosper.
History is to be made in the next two or three days. Let us embrace the challenge that it offers, but offer the people of Europe, both in the existing and the accession countries, structures with which they can feel comfortable. For that we need fresh and radical thinking. History, in turn, demands that of us.
9.46 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I, too, have a printed out, pre-cooked and pre-digested speech, but as Minister for Europe I am trying to respond to debates and to have a conversation about Europe. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) will forgive me, I would rather not reply to each point in his pot-pourri of ideas, which contained every cliché and obsession about Europe of the past 20 years. He referred to the problem of the bloc mentality. My difficulty in debating with some Opposition Members in particular is their blockhead mentality
In his opening remarks, the shadow Foreign Secretary condemned the idea of an integrationist approach to Europe. I want to integrate in NATO and in the World Trade Organisation. I have no problems with our integrating in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman accused us of being instinctive integrationists. For my part, I plead guilty. He is an instinctive isolationist. From the 1930s, through imperial preferences and right back to Tory support for the corn laws, that problem has condemned the Tories to year after year in opposition.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the Conservatives are all in favour of Europe. In a speech on 9 May 2002, the shadow Foreign Secretary said that EU enlargement had always enjoyed the support of the

363
Conservative party. It had its own referendum only a few months ago and it booted out the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), whom the shadow Cabinet had selected to represent the Conservative party on the Convention, and through a free vote of all its Members elected the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). Speaking for the Conservative party on the Convention on Radio 4's "Analysis" programme on 5 December, he said that he was very worried about enlargement—that it was one of those unexamined good ideas that people were afraid to oppose but had not really thought through the consequences of. He went on to say that it would be extremely expensive. That is the formal voice for transmission to Warsaw, Prague and Bratislava of the Opposition Front Bench, but where is their real voice? There is only one Member on their Back Benches now. He spoke well, but the rest are utterly absent. I do not think that the burghers of central and eastern Europe, the folk of the Mediterranean who are coming into the European Union or even my very good friends in Gibraltar will be very impressed by the emptiness of the Opposition Benches during this important discussion.
We have heard some constructive speeches. In particular, excellent speeches about the importance of Turkey's entry into the European Union and the rightful claims of the people of Cyprus in that regard were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I think that they spoke for the majority in the House and across the party divide.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for his congratulations and prescience. His blessing upon my head has turned out to have put me where I am. I hope that I will last at least as long as he did. He emphasised the need for reforms and spoke about the case of Lady Catherine Meyer, which concerns many of us in government. There is a problem, as the German court system does not work in accordance with norms that have been agreed elsewhere in Europe, and if we are to secure justice for Lady Meyer we need a more integrated approach. There is no justice to be gained for her from the Tory approach.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, welcomed enlargement and referred to the need for common agricultural policy reform. I think that he spoke for many in the House. Along with the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), he also referred to the very serious crisis that faces the fishing communities and fishing folk of Scotland. The subject is technical and I am not entirely sure that it will not be best dealt with at the specialist council, where moves can perhaps be taken forward under qualified majority voting. I assure both hon. Gentlemen that I have had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the Bench tonight and that we will discuss the matter with the Prime Minister tomorrow. The tactics of exactly how an issue should be brought to the fore in the European Union are difficult and need to be considered. They must also be put into effect in the most efficient way. One can always pick up a megaphone and
364
shout across the channel, but I am not sure whether that is the best way of advancing the cause of Britain, Scotland and the fishermen. None the less, I promise to keep in the closest touch with hon. Members from Scotland about the issue.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who is not in his seat, made a very constructive speech. [Interruption.] I see that he has been transposed to the Front Bench. He made an important speech in which he referred to the need for discussion at Copenhagen about the Israel-Palestine dispute. I assure him that that will be discussed—indeed, Foreign Ministers are already discussing it—and I hope that there will be a positive declaration on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) made a remarkable speech. He promised to be candid, which makes me think of the lines of a former Foreign Secretary, the great Lord Canning, who said that of all the ills that heaven can send,
"save me … from the candid friend."
My hon. Friend took us to the highways and byways of Tuscany and San Gimignano, and called for us all to be honest with people. He also said that his first and most important principle was to get on with it, so I propose to do exactly that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) called for more focus on language learning in Europe, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said that English was going to be an increasingly dominant language in Europe. Indeed, when I heard the Foreign Ministers of the accession countries making their presentations at my first Brussels General Affairs Council meeting, they all spoke English. However, we make a huge mistake if we believe that a monolingual Britain will make advances in a European Union, let alone a globalised community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley gave excellent examples of programmes. I should like her to send details to Opposition Front Benchers. Although I am sure that they are all gifted linguists, or can certainly do wonderful things with their tongues, it would be no bad thing for them to learn a foreign language and thus understand the cultures of the countries with which we must communicate. Indeed, 10,000 EU students are studying in UK universities and approximately 1 million students from the EU study in universities outside their countries. I welcome that development. We must look forward to the new Europe that is being built by younger people and students in their universities, not the Europe of separated nation states, closed borders and frightened peoples, to which Conservative Front Benchers bear witness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda made the important point that the European Union is the world's greatest experiment in liberal democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) said that the achievements of Europe in the past 50 years outweighed those of the past 2,000 years. The shadow Foreign Secretary, who is muttering, read history at Oxford. I believe that he got only as far as Hobbes and the invocation of the war of all against all. I do him an injustice because I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a convinced European. He does not believe a word of the anti-European drivel that his leader forces him to

365
pump out. Conservative Members should pay attention to the recent intervention by Lord Heseltine, a great Conservative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentioned the increase in trade. He is right. Trade with the accession front-runners from the former Soviet bloc has increased by 400 per cent. since 1990. That is 10 times the growth of the UK's trade with the rest of the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) posed an important set of questions. He is a former Minister, and he was extremely courteous in saying that I could write to him with the replies. I shall do that.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) made a fine, short intervention in which he talked about the emotional glue that holds nations together. He is right, but we can all
"call spirits from the vasty deep"
to quote Hotspur, and turn them into fears. We have a choice: we can live under the shadow of our fears about Europe or in the sunshine of our hopes and the vision of our ambition. The House and the country want to live with ambition and hope.
Reference has been made to referendums that might be called on various aspects of Europe, but two great consultations on Europe have taken place in the past five years. One happened in 1997 and the other in 2001. In both cases, the British people had a simple choice: yes to Europe or yes to the Conservative party. There was no contest.
I hope that in our next debate, we can set aside the clichés, talk to each other and find ways in which to reconnect the great Conservative party to its internationalist and European tradition. To that end, I shall not invite my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who made a powerful and eloquent speech, to recross the Floor because he is happy here and we want him with us.
At some stage, the Conservative party will have to talk sense on Europe. Conservative Members had a choice tonight—at the beginning of the debate and at the end—but, once again, we heard nothing from them. They have missed the bus on Europe and they have missed any chance of connecting with the British people.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Winter Fuel Payments
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
10 pm
Paul Holmes: During a bitterly cold week such as this, it is appropriate and timely to debate entitlement to winter fuel allowances. I welcome the fact that pensioners are entitled to claim them, although a decent basic state pension might be a better alternative. We might question the eligibility of pensioners who over-winter in places such as Guadeloupe, Martinique, southern Spain or the Canary islands—hardly cold weather areas—for claiming the £200 winter fuel allowance.
The real issue, however, is the denial of winter fuel payments to severely disabled people. Although it was a fully costed Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment in the 2001 general election, this is not a party political issue. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) submitted early-day motion 289 on the subject in October 2001 and I submitted early-day motion 209 14 days ago. The two motions were signed by more than 170 Members from every party in the House—Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Plaid Cymru, Scottish nationalist, Ulster Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour, and Democratic Unionist.
In the other place, Lord Ashley of Stoke, Lord Rix and Lord Addington have all pressed the Government—to no avail—to reconsider on this issue on a number of occasions.
The all-party Trade and Industry Committee report on fuel poverty, dated September 2002, recommended:
"An increase in the level of benefits for particularly vulnerable groups is another obvious way of tackling fuel poverty. The Winter Fuel Payment has been of benefit to pensioners. We urge the Government to look at extending this to other vulnerable groups. For example, there is a powerful case for extending the winter fuel payment to disabled people whose condition requires extra spending on heating."
The all-party parliamentary group on disability has challenged Ministers several times on this issue, and many disability organisations are campaigning on the matter. They include Disability Now, the Disability Rights Commission and 21 other groups at the last count. Ann Robinson, chair of Energywatch, gave evidence to the Trade and Industry Committee, saying that she, too, supported payment of the allowance to severely disabled people.
Why does such a wide range of people, parties and expert groups believe that severely disabled people should qualify for the winter fuel allowances? Disability Now launched the campaign in October 2000 with a survey of its readers. More than 4,000 disabled people and their supporters responded. Of those, 1,800 severely disabled people filled in a questionnaire explaining how they manage and why they need the winter fuel payment. Their comments have much in common: they cope as best they can with extra layers of clothes and hot water bottles, by living in just one room in the house, missing out on holidays, skimping on food and by, as some describe it, hibernating. They all say that the £200 would allow them to turn on or turn up their heating. There is a widespread dread of heating bills, and some people are still paying them off over the summer. Those

367
are exactly the arguments that we used to hear on behalf of pensioners before they became entitled to the allowance.
In July 1999, major Government research, "Disability in Great Britain", found that disabled people most frequently put fuel and transport at the top of their costs. The research found that many severely disabled people with impaired walking function and care needs experience severe financial hardship because they are at home most of the time with no job and they need to maintain a constant temperature, including at night. As a discrete group, they are as likely as, if not more likely than, the broad, heterogeneous group of people aged over 60 to experience financial hardship and fuel poverty. Leonard Cheshire, in its research, found that one third of the disabled people in its survey could not afford to meet the extra heating costs arising from their disability, and that they had a lower average income than did the general population.
Severely disabled people often need extra heat and hot water because of their medical or physical condition. Because they are often housebound, they have to keep their heating on all day—unlike those who go out to work—and they often have to keep it on all night because of their disability. It has also been pointed out in the Government's 1999 research and by Leonard Cheshire that such people are often in financial hardship.
Given some previous answers from Ministers, it is likely that we shall hear tonight that the disability living allowance can be used to cover heating costs. The need for extra heating is not, however, one of the eligibility criteria for disability living allowance. The mobility component of the allowance is awarded when someone needs help with mobility outside the home. It has nothing to do with heating requirements. The care component of the disability living allowance is awarded when someone needs substantial help with personal care. It does not even cover the full cost of such care. For example, two hours of care per day at £5 an hour is £70 a week. The disability living allowance care allowance is £37.65 a week. Despite that, disabled people are also told by the Government to put their disability living allowance towards any extra clothing requirements, laundry costs and special food requirements that may arise from their disabilities. Just how far is this one allowance supposed to stretch?
Another Government response has been to refer to the availability of insulation grants, but Tricia Higgins wrote to Disability Now to say:
"My pain levels are massively increased, and my mobility greatly reduced, during cold weather because I cannot keep the house warm enough. I live in a modern bungalow, with all the insulation, draught proofing, double glazing, etc., but because of my limited mobility and poor circulation I have major problems in keeping warm—like many other people around the country. I would simply like to be able to keep my living room and bedroom warm enough so that I don't suffer so badly during cold weather, without building huge debts—is that too much to ask? Apparently for this government, it is."
The Government have also argued that older people suffer the most from fuel poverty, and that that is why they, and not disabled people, are targeted for the winter fuel allowance. Even if that were true, it would not
368
represent a humane and just approach to severely disabled people. Lord Ashley was given figures from the 1998 follow-up survey to the English house conditions survey that showed that, while 29 per cent. of pensioner households were in fuel poverty in 1998, 22 per cent. of disabled households were also in fuel poverty—a not dissimilar proportion.
The Government have also said that additional payments are available for people on income support—the disability income guarantee, which provides an extra £11.05. The introduction of this payment in 2000 was an admission that the existing support was inadequate, but it is only £11.05, not £200. Furthermore, it is only available to about 130,000 adults and 30,000 children who need 24-hour care. It will not help people with mobility impairment, for example, who need extra heat but have lower care needs, and so do not qualify.
Lord Ashley has argued that the Government's refusal to extend winter fuel payments is "illogical, anomalous and unjust". He has said that severely disabled people suffer from immobility in the cold just as much as pensioners and, in some cases, more. The hon. Member for Kingswood has said that the Government's position on this matter is "incoherent". I hope that the Minister will reconsider this illogical, anomalous, unjust and incoherent position, and end this powerful injustice that discriminates against severely disabled people.
10.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate on an important subject at a very appropriate time. May I say at the outset that the Government do, of course, take the issues concerning people with disabilities very seriously? That is why we have provided extra cash benefits—social security benefits—for this group of at-risk people, as I shall demonstrate later. However, we introduced winter fuel payments during our first winter in office specifically to help older people with their heating bills. Research from the 1996 English housing condition survey showed that about half the households in fuel poverty contained someone aged 60 or over—only 4 per cent. were headed by a person receiving disability living allowance or their partner. We wanted to ensure that no pensioner was afraid to turn up the heating in cold weather, such as the spell that we are experiencing, owing to a worry over cost. Now, more than 11 million older people in about 8 million households are receiving help with their heating costs. We are proud of that.
The winter fuel payment cost some £1.7 billion last year, but as usual, the speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches was a cost-free zone. There comes a time in grown-up politics, however, when people have to discuss the cost of their proposals.
Paul Holmes rose—
Malcolm WicksObviously, I want to respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but of course this is his debate, so I am happy to give way.
Paul Holmes: As I pointed out, the 2001 manifesto was fully costed and it said where the money would come from and where it would be spent. The argument depends on the number of severely disabled people: if it were about 1 million, the cost would be £200 million while the cost for the maximum suggested—1.7 million people—would be £340 million. That compares with the £1.7 billion paid out to 11.5 million pensioners last year.
Malcolm Wicks: Yes, indeed. We are spending the £1.7 billion and we are, perfectly properly, spending a considerable amount more on benefits for people with disabilities. At some stage, those on the Liberal Democrat Benches must get out their calculator and work out whether all their demands on the public purse add up to a penny on income tax, which seems to be their main funding commitment in the 21st century.
Richard Younger-Ross: Cheap, cheap.
Malcolm Wicks: It is not cheap. The Liberal Democrats are proposing quite an expensive policy and they need to do their political arithmetic.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield did not allow for the fact that those receiving the winter fuel payment include about 850,000 people who get DLA and all 1.3 million who get attendance allowance, as they are over 60. He talks about people with disabilities as if none are receiving the winter fuel payment—large quantities of them are. In fact, about 60 per cent. of all people with disabilities already get the winter fuel payment, which he does not seem fully to understand.
Of course we are aware that people with disabilities can face extra costs in doing what others take for granted, especially, perhaps, younger people. That is why there are specific benefits available for disabled people in recognition of their extra costs. Let us consider the benefits available. The hon. Gentleman predicted that I would talk about DLA, but why should I not do so? I do not know whether he understands the public expenditure implications, but that allowance alone costs £7.6 billion in the current year. Quite properly, a considerable sum of public money is being spent on one allowance; he referred to it rather pejoratively as just one allowance. Does he have any understanding of the considerable support that that money gives to people with disabilities? He simply did not recognise that.
The care component of DLA ranges from £14.90 to over £56 a week, and the mobility component is up to £39. That means that the maximum DLA is over £95 a week. DLA is a contribution towards extra costs resulting from the effects of disability and the amounts payable are not based on the calculation of specific costs. People are free to spend the money according to their priorities and needs. I repeat that the amount we are spending, well over £7 billion, is considerably more than that involved in what could in a sense be described as the rather modest proposal presented by the hon. Gentleman.
Disability living allowance is a contribution to the extra costs facing people with disabilities. It never constituted a guarantee to cover every extra penny that a person might spend. In the late 1980s, however, the then Government commissioned four surveys from the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys to provide
370
comprehensive information about people with disabilities. The results showed that the then benefits were well directed towards the most common costly disabilities. In most cases it was found that the amount was more than enough to cover disability-related expenditure. That is why disability living allowance, which is increased each year in line with prices, continues to be paid according to a person's care and mobility needs, and allows that person complete freedom in terms of how the benefit is spent.
We give extra financial support to the poorest people with disabilities. For example, a severely disabled person receiving the highest rate of care component—more than £56—and a higher rate of mobility component—more than £39—of the allowance could be entitled to both the disability premium of £23 and enhanced disability premium of more than £11 in his or her income support. That represents some £6,700 extra benefit per year.In dismissing this as a single allowance, the hon. Gentleman deliberately understated the amount that we are giving people with disabilities.
The new disability income guarantee from April 2001, which includes the enhanced disability premium in the income-related benefits, is helping 125,000 of the poorest severely disabled people under 60, ensuring an overall income of at least £144 a week for a single person over 25 and £189 for a couple. This is detailed arithmetic and comes rather late in the day, but I am forced to present it here because of the rather cursory way in which the hon. Gentleman has dismissed the considerable support that the Government, on behalf of the wider community, are properly giving to people with disabilities.
From April 2002, young people disabled early in life who have not had the opportunity to work can receive up to £28 a week more in incapacity benefit than they would have received under the old disablement allowance. Since October 2000 families with a disabled child have received extra help through the disabled child tax credit, and from April 2001 very severely disabled adults and children can receive the enhanced disability tax credit. Both are part of the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit. Those disability and enhanced disability elements will be carried forward into the new child tax credit and working tax credit, which replace working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit next April.
People whose income support includes a disability premium are also entitled to cold weather payments. If the average temperature drops below zero degrees centigrade for seven consecutive days, a payment of £8.50 is made automatically. Such extreme circumstances may well be recognised, and the payment triggered, during the current cold period, but it will be up to the Met Office to decide. The amount that needs to be spent is only one element of the problem of fuel poverty, however. Fuel poverty is caused by a combination of factors including poorly constructed and poorly insulated houses, inefficient heating systems, under-occupancy and fuel prices as well as low incomes.
Tackling fuel poverty in the United Kingdom is one of our key priorities. That is why a number of measures have been introduced to ensure that by 2010 no

371
vulnerable household will have to struggle to heat its home. Those measures are detailed in the Government's document "The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy", which we issued on 21 November 2001. Its publication followed a wide-ranging consultation, beginning in February 2000, with some 300 interested parties. The fuel poverty strategy sets out a comprehensive package of initiatives designed to meet specific targets for the reduction of fuel poverty throughout the United Kingdom. The measures deal with factors causing fuel poverty, in particular, energy efficiency and fuel prices. They include a cut in VAT on fuel and radical improvements to the home energy efficiency scheme.
In June 2000, the Government launched the new home energy efficiency scheme to help those households most at risk from cold-related ill health. The scheme is now marketed as warm front, and offers a range of insulation and heating measures to those who receive certain benefits. Both attendance allowance and disability living allowance are benefits that can entitle a person to help from the scheme. The grant maximum for people under 60 has been increased to £1,500 this year.
The warm front team acts as the delivery mechanism for the scheme. It recognises the wide range of organisations that are involved in identifying households in need and in delivering help to them: voluntary organisations, doctors, health professionals, social services, local authorities, as well as the installers and scheme managers. I have been referring to England but, of course, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have similar schemes.
I hope that hon. Members will see from what I have said that people with severe disabilities can, and do, receive considerable help. I hope that hon. Members will encourage their constituents to claim the help that they are entitled to. However, we are still convinced that winter fuel payments should remain targeted at the people they were introduced to help: older people.
Richard Younger-Ross: I fear that the Minister is missing a key element of what my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) was saying. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would not decry a lot that the present Government have done to help disabled people; we welcome it. However, the Minister is not recognising the essential difference for people who are very poor and struggling. If they are on benefit, by definition, they do not have a lot of money. They would never argue that being on benefit makes them wealthy and gives them a lot of disposable income. Ministers and Members of Parliament do have disposable income. We spend our money throughout the year without regard; it is easy. Winter budget and summer budget differences are key for people who are poor. If they spend more money in winter, it is difficult to cope. The winter fuel allowance picks that up and recognises the difference between summer spending and winter spending.
Malcolm Wicks: In many respects, the essence of the winter fuel payment scheme is its simplicity. It goes to all older people without a means test. It does not have the
372
complexity of income-tested schemes—of course, we need income-tested schemes in certain sectors—and it is geared towards older people, because of our recognition that older people, although in a variety of housing and financial circumstances, are more at risk of the cold physiologically.
Of course, it is always easy—I do not mean that pejoratively—for Back Benchers to suggest ways in which other groups, often with great needs, should be allowed to benefit from different social security entitlements. I can well imagine someone in an Adjournment debate making an eloquent case as to why winter fuel payments might go to poorer families with children under five, for example. One could put together quite a good speech on that issue, but the winter fuel payment is a benefit that works because of its simplicity. I have also argued that considerable resources are expended, properly, in other ways on people with disabilities, some of whom depend on their homes virtually 24 hours a day, while some, because of the disability living allowance and mobility component, can go into the community and work in the mainstream labour market like the rest of us can. To say that it would be a very targeted benefit if we provided it to all people on disability benefits is a little inaccurate. It is easy to come to the House and argue that we should spend public funds in other ways.
One of the reasons why I am pleased to be here is that at least we are discussing a winter fuel payment scheme; if we did not have a scheme we could not discuss it. This reminds me of debates about whether the minimum wage should be higher. I welcome those debates, because we now have a minimum wage and winter fuel payments—thanks to this Government.
I have not come here tonight just to read a speech written by my Department to defend our policies—although I am happy to do that. As long ago as 1972, as a young social scientist, along with consultants in geriatric medicine and other scientists of different kinds, I took part in the first ever survey of environmental conditions and body temperatures affecting elderly people in Britain. We published our work in the British Medical Journal in 1973, and produced the first ever estimate of the extent to which our elderly people are at risk from low body temperature.
Some years later I wrote a book called "Old and cold: hypothermia and social policy". I assure the hon. Member for Chesterfield that whatever our differences, I have a deep commitment to the issue. We can argue about the extent to which other groups should be included in the policy, although I am proud to make a robust defence of our position, and our policies on disability and winter fuel payments.

Although I am proud of the progress that we have made over the 30 years since I did my research with others, I am nevertheless struck by the fact that as we meet tonight in a well heated House of Commons, the cold spell is currently affecting at-risk people. Despite our efforts with home energy efficiency, with winter fuel payments and in other ways, there will be people who take to their bedrooms at 6 or 7 o'clock this evening because that is the only warm place that they have.

373
I know that the excess winter mortality rate in this country, compared with that in other European countries—not least the cold countries of Scandinavia—is far too considerable. I am not complacent, but I am confident that we have in place fuel policy strategies, insulation strategies—and yes, our winter fuel payment schemes too—allied to our other policies on
374
employment and disability, which one day, although sadly, not tonight and not yet, will consign the problem of fuel poverty and the "old but cold" issue to the place where they belong: the dustbin of British social history.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.