§ Mr. Andrew TurnerTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the evidential basis used to support the statements in A Constitutional Treaty for the EU: The British Approach to the European Union Inter-governmental Conference, Cm 5934, that(a) outside the EU the UK would have less, not more, control of its economy, (b) the proposed constitution is no more than a tidying-up exercise, (c) the proposed constitution is arguably the most significant development since the foundation of the EEC and (d) the national Governments of member states remain in control. [135455]
§ Mr. MacShaneIn relation to point(a) the full quotation from the White Paper makes our position clear: "Outside the EU, we would have less, not more, control of our economy—because to continue to trade with the Union, we would still have to be bound by its rules. But we would end up with much less say in shaping them." On point (b), the White Paper does not contain any such statement. On point (c), the White Paper does not say this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comments in his foreword that the enlargement 406W administer the system of payments. We understand from the Afghan authorities that they provided compensation of $1,750 per hectare. Information about the total number of farmers who took part is not available. The Afghan Government estimated that 17,000 hectares of poppy were destroyed.
In 2003, the Afghan Transitional Authority ran a non-compensated eradication programme through the Province Governors. The UK was not involved in this programme. There has not been any estimate of the amount of poppy destroyed.