If she will make a statement on her Department's aid projects in Burundi. [138104]

Burundi is still at war despite Nelson Mandela's efforts to facilitate peace. Our support is therefore confined to humanitarian assistance. We have contributed more than £41 million since 1994. We stand ready to provide appropriate support if peace is agreed, but are not in a position to take a leading role in Burundi. We shall also of course be providing considerable support through our European Union contributions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware that, since the outbreak of the civil war in Burundi in 1993, 200,000 people have died. What assistance might the Government be able to offer the peace process in Burundi? Might Burundi benefit from funds from the conflict prevention fund for sub-Saharan Africa?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the suffering in Burundi is great; in fact, 20 per cent. of the population of Africa are affected by conflict. That is devastating for the people of Africa and holds back human development. We must all do more to resolve conflict wherever we can.

Burundi is one of the least developed countries and would benefit from the everything but arms initiative from European Commissioner Pascal Lamy. That is greatly to be welcomed. Is the right hon. Lady aware, however, that that initiative, which is to be decided as early as 5 December at the ministerial meeting in Brussels, would in fact result in impoverishing some African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—in particular those that produce sugar, bananas, rum and rice?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking two slightly contradictory positions. The least developed countries—most of which are in Africa and thus benefit from the African, Caribbean and Pacific tariff options—make up 0.4 per cent. of world trade. Those are the poorest countries in the world. Pascal Lamy's proposal, which we strongly support, is that those countries should be given improved access to the European market. A campaign has been mounted by countries which produce sugar, bananas and rum, and which feel threatened. We shall obviously look into any adjustment help that is needed. I do not think that the least developed countries—least of all Burundi—will be able to build up their exports quickly—until peace is achieved.

This morning I had a very enjoyable breakfast with the World Service and heard about the World Service's Great Lakes lifeline project, a regular radio broadcast in Burundi that is funded by the Department for International Development. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such radio broadcasts can contribute to the peace-building process in Burundi, and will we continue to fund peace-building media projects that disseminate the peace message through civil society?

I hope that my hon. Friend's children enjoyed the broadcast as much as she obviously did. Such broadcasts are very important. In Rwanda, hate radio played an enormous part in building up the hate and lies that generated the atmosphere that led to the genocide. The same sort of thing happened in the Balkans. Now that radio technology has become so flexible, we are increasingly trying to deploy it to get truth through to people in situations where there is a lot of conflict, and a lot of dishonesty that feeds that conflict.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the continuing war in the Great Lakes region is a destabilising factor in Burundi? Does she also agree that the free flow of small arms into that region is a major factor in continuing that war? What pressure is she bringing to bear on her Government to introduce the promised legislation on the control of arms brokers?

I very much agree that the war in the Great Lakes is causing enormous destabilisation and involving many countries in Africa in conflict. Small arms are circulating around the continent of Africa that are manufactured within the continent, not imported, so we must do more to extract small arms, using different initiatives such as the one in the Southern Africa Development Community and the one in west Africa. The Government strongly support and will introduce the legislation to which the hon. Lady refers, although I cannot say exactly when.

If she will make a statement on her Department's aid policy to Sudan. [138105]

Since 1991 we have provided £217 million in humanitarian relief in Sudan, but 1.5 million people have died in the war and the suffering of the people continues to get worse. Our priority is therefore peace. We are working diplomatically to strengthen the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process and we have made it clear to local Church groups and non-governmental organisations that we are keen to fund any peace-building activities that they suggest to us. Unfortunately, the interest of regional leaders in a peace settlement remains very weak.

Does the Minister agree that there is acute underdevelopment in southern Sudan, and that development aid should be provided in many areas where there is now relative stability? Problems such as poor education and lack of access to health care can be addressed. To that end, how many proposals from non-governmental organisations has the Department supported, and what plans are there to support such organisations specifically in future?

We plan to spend £4 million in humanitarian assistance in the current year and we are looking forward to receiving proposals from Church groups and NGOs. Unfortunately, they have not come forward as quickly as we should like, and we are doing everything that we can to encourage them. If the hon. Lady, who may have contacts—or any Member of the House—will encourage them to come forward, we shall be very receptive to any proposal that would help in the peace process, would help with humanitarian assistance or would help poor people in Sudan in any other way.

The Minister is right to draw attention to the aid effort, which has probably been going on for 30 years, and the amazing work that has been done from Lokichokio in northern Kenya to supply aid, which is incredibly expensive. The solution can only come by the political route. My hon. Friend has mentioned the lack of concern by the other countries in the region, because some solution must come from there, but can he give us an up-to-date report on the response of the Sudanese Government to the situation in a country that has been torn apart by war?

We are certainly continuing our efforts and working with Norway and the United States in particular. However, there has been a setback recently. The visit of Susan Rice, the assistant Secretary of State from the United States, was very unhelpful and risked setting back the peace process. We urge the Sudanese Government not to respond negatively to the visit. We hope that the peace process will get back on track as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Of the 48 least and less-developed—LLD—countries, 21 produce sugar, and Sudan has the largest sugar production among them. If the European Commission's everything but arms—EBA—initiative goes ahead and Sudan and other countries have duty-free, quota-free access for sugar to the European market, it is very likely that other African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be driven into poverty. Will the Minister elaborate on the Secretary of State's response and tell us what assessment the Department has made of the impact of the EBA initiative on aid policies in Sudan and other African countries? Does he really support an initiative which, as it currently stands, will probably relegate several Caribbean countries to the very LLD status that the policies seek to alleviate?

No one is more sympathetic to the problems of the Caribbean than our Department, this Government, my Secretary of State and myself. We have been involved with the bananas problem and with issues relating to rice, rum, sugar and other products. Conservative Members have a strange sense of priorities. The hon. Lady spoke about it in Westminster Hall the other day, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked about it earlier and the hon. Lady now raises it again. The whole purpose of the everything but arms scheme is to help the poorest countries of the world, which make up only 0.4 per cent. of world trade. They contain the poorest people in the world, so I should have thought that they would have been made a priority by Conservative Members, as they have by the Government.

If she will make a statement on the effects of her Department's aid to promote improved health and living standards in the West Bank and Gaza. [138106]

We are working to support the Palestinian Authority to prepare for statehood as part of the middle east peace process, now tragically stalled. This work includes helping the Palestinian Authority to deliver better basic health services and to improve access to essential water and sanitation services. Closure of the west bank and Gaza has, however, led to continuing economic decline.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and draw her attention to a meeting that is being hosted by Christian Aid in the House this afternoon to highlight the situation in the middle east. Will she join me in refuting the ridiculous stories that have been placed in at least one national newspaper purporting to say that British aid is being used to fund terrorism? In refuting that, will she join me in saying that we cannot have full economic development for the Palestinian people while they are denied the human rights that most of us take for granted, while they cannot move freely around their own land, while their schools are shelled by Israeli troops and while they are forced to live in communities that often resemble Bantustans? Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying that the international community must redouble its efforts to accompany its aid programme by ensuring a durable and lasting peace in the middle east that is based on United Nations resolutions?

I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that, despite the claim in the News of the World, the technical assistance and the equipment provided to Palestinian schools in no way support terrorism. It is disgraceful to call into question that help with such slurs and lies, which were not checked with anyone in my Department. I also agree—I would have thought that the whole House did—that the situation in the middle east is tragic and dangerous and that life cannot improve or prosper for either the Israeli or Palestinian people as long as the conflict continues. We desperately need a just peace and we need it as soon as possible. It will come in the end, because neither side can achieve victory through military means. The conflict is a tragedy for both peoples.

If she will make a statement on her Department's plans for addressing violent conflict in Africa. [138108]

Of the 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa more than 20 are affected by conflict. This causes suffering and impoverishment to 20 per cent. of the population of Africa and blights the economic development of the whole continent. We contribute directly to many African and international peace-building efforts. Following the comprehensive spending review in July, a joint Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence committee has been established with a pooled budget to try to strengthen the effectiveness of the UK's contribution to conflict resolution in Africa.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she clarify how the new African conflict prevention joint pool will work? How will the British Government thereby help to play a greater part in conflict prevention in Africa?

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that those terrible figures, which reveal the extent of conflict in Africa—the suffering that results from it and the block on development that it constitutes—show that the whole world needs to do better to resolve conflicts. Many conflicts are not between states, but between failed states that are involved in banditry over diamonds, for example, and the people there cannot do anything to bring about peace without outside assistance. The pooled budget brings together the efforts of our separate departments in Africa to see whether, by sharing analysis country by country and establishing priorities, the United Kingdom, through its work at the UN and elsewhere, can do more to resolve conflict, starting, of course, with Sierra Leone.

The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned that conflicts hold up the development aid that we provide. Will she comment on the conflict in Ethiopia with relation to development aid?

I can indeed—in fact, I flew back overnight from Ethiopia. We are pleased, and the UN is optimistic, that the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea is deepening, and we expect peackeepers to be deployed soon. Ethiopia is, I think, the poorest annually on food aid. We must have to create development. We need development aid that invests in improved economic performance followed by trade that builds up the economy and enables people to Work. We are hopeful that the War is over and Ethiopia can get back to development.

In view of the circumstances of violence and civil war in many parts of Africa, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's humanitarian aid programme is very commendable? Does she also agree, given the evidence of the need for access to education, particularly for girls, and for infrastructure to provide electricity and telecommunications, that it is essential to have a programme of sustainable development, especially in sub-Saharan Africa?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that where people are affected by conflict and the quality of their lives is deteriorating, we must provide humanitarian relief. The tragedy is that that does not bring a solution. Sudan has had a prolonged war and received masses of humanitarian aid, but there have also been many deaths and the war has displaced many people whose lives are getting ever harder. Humanitarian aid is as essential as Elastoplast, but we need a much bigger effort to end conflict so that resources can go into development and building the economy instead of continuing the suffering.

The Secretary of State is consistently right on many matters—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members may want to wait until the end of the question before cheering.

When the hon. Gentleman started his question, I thought that for a change we might be able to exchange compliments, but sadly that is not so. Anyone who intelligently observed the trouble in the Balkans and Kosovo, and the contribution that Europe made to that conflict on our own borders and our lack of heavy lift equipment to get our troops there, knows that European armed forces need to co-operate. That is the intention so that we can do our job properly in our own continent and take seriously our international responsibilities. Anyone with any sense should be proud of that development.

The right hon. Lady has clearly not been properly briefed about the 4,000 km radius of the ERRF. My question was about Africa. Is the right hon. Lady not concerned that our capacity to help bring an end to violent conflict in Africa will be seriously undermined, either by the new army focusing narrowly on Europe, or by overstretching our armed forces so that UN peacekeeping for operations such as Sierra Leone become impossible?

It is very sad that, with some strength in its historical record, the Conservative party is becoming so neuralgic about Europe that it is making itself completely stupid. In the post-cold war world, we must clearly be better at peacekeeping and prevention of conflict in our near abroad. European countries co-operating in that effort must be good for all parts of the world.[Interruption.] I am afraid, again, that the hon. Gentleman is heckling, so he cannot learn. If he listened, he might be a bit wiser.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that countries with a poor record in protection of human rights also tend to be those with high levels of violent conflict, and that the protection of human rights is in itself a method of conflict prevention? If she does, will she confirm that both her Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will include in their pooled resources support for human rights projects in sub-Saharan Africa?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Conflict is often caused when one group in a country tries to take the political power and all the economic resources—not sharing them fairly—so that other people feel the need to use force to get justice. That is a very frequent cause of conflict in poor countries.

What proposals she has for reforming the EU' s generalised system of trade preferences for developing countries. [138109]

The European Commission is reviewing the generalised system of preferences, which allows access to the European market for developing countries that do not have any other preferential trading arrangements. The UK has been one of the most active member states in pushing for improvements. We are pressing for reductions in the complexity of the system and to increase the level of market access—especially in the areas of agriculture and textiles.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the once idealistic system of trade preferences has been enormously devalued by the proliferating red tape and numerous exemptions given to protectionist interests in European agriculture and industry? Will she commit the British Government to a radical reform that will roll back trade barriers for developing countries in general and provide unrestricted access for the world's 48 poorest countries?

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. The GSP is good but very complex, and there is evidence that many countries do not take up their preferences because it is so unclear that they have them. So, the system is clearly not working well. I agree also that there are protectionist instincts in some EU countries.

Nobody would deny that opening up trade to the least developed countries is bound to be to their advantage, but may I take the right hon. Lady back to the issue of sugar? It is not right simply to say that because such countries have only 0.4 per cent. of world trade, the market should be opened to everybody. To pauperise some of the underdeveloped world in order to help another part will not achieve anything. Will she have another look at the Government's support for the inclusion of sugar in EBA—there should at least be a proper impact assessment and the ACP countries should be properly consulted.

I am shocked that although the Conservative party claims to be in favour of free trade, when it comes to a specific provision for the poorest countries in the world, it is suddenly against it. As I have said, I do not agree with Conservative Members. The historical record—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) should listen instead of heckling. The ACP treaty—Lomé—gave Africa privileged access to the European market, but the poorest countries did not take it up because they had other difficulties with their economies, such as the incidence of conflict and with transport. The arrangements will help them, but there will not be a massive take-up. In the meantime, because of the World Trade Organisation bringing down tariffs right through the international system, the countries that depend on preferential systems will adjust anyway. We will look to that adjustment and look to help them. The hon. Gentleman and his party should think again about questioning this help to the poorest countries in the world.

If, when he last met leaders of other NATO member states, matters relating to military operations and non-military sanctions against Iraq were discussed.

We maintain regular contacts with allies over sanctions on Iraq.

While people everywhere regard Saddam Hussein and those around him as evil men—men who should face trial at an international criminal court in the future—does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there is deep concern everywhere over the dreadful misery inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the sanctions regime? Has not the time come for the Government to agree to support the case for the suspension of sanctions, even though that might cause anger in Washington? Sanctions have to go, do they not?

The problem is that while Saddam continues to try and develop weapons of mass destruction, it would be a serious mistake to lift those sanctions. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that of course we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Some $16 billion will be available to Iraq for food, medicine and infrastructure development this year alone, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in every month over the past six months, Saddam has imported more than 300 million cigarettes and 28,000 bottles of whisky. He could have spent the money on food and medicine for his people, but he chooses not to do so. That is why we will make sure that every possible bit of humanitarian relief gets through to the Iraqi people, but we cannot act in a way that would allow him to be a menace to that part of the world again.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 November.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have having further such meetings later today.

The Prime Minister regularly refers, quite rightly, to the importance of law and order, and the importance of the defence of the realm. Is he not a little concerned that he might go down in history as the Prime Minister who destroyed the most effective police force in the world—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—and undermined the most successful defence alliance of all time—NATO?

No doubt we will discuss the European defence initiative later. NATO is fully in support of the European defence initiative—[Interruption.]. I know that that is an inconvenient fact to Opposition Members, but it is the truth. In respect of the RUC, we decided as part of the Good Friday agreement that we would have an independent commission headed by a former chairman of the Conservative party who was also a former Northern Ireland Minister. The commission produced a series of proposals which are not designed to undermine the RUC, but are designed to make sure that we can attract people from all sectors of the community into the police force of Northern Ireland. That is manifestly, I believe, in the interests of all in Northern Ireland who want people, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, nationalist or Unionist, to join the police service of Northern Ireland.

In welcoming the extra £1.8 million that the Government have given to the East and West Kent health authorities to help with winter pressures, may I tell my right hon. Friend that there is a bid to the Department of Health for an extra £750,000—at least—to assist with the care of the elderly over the winter? Is my right hon. Friend able to assure me that Health Ministers will examine the issue seriously so as to give confidence to elderly residents throughout Kent that services will be paid for and available?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are putting record additional resources into the national health service. Indeed, several hundred million pounds are going into the NHS and social services to deal with the winter crisis. As for my hon. Friend's constituency issue, I shall come back to him on his request. By contrast with the Conservatives, who would cut public spending on our main services, the Government are committed to getting in that investment.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the person who said:

Yes I do agree with that. The proposals made in 1997 would have meant that NATO and European defence ran alongside one another rather than European defence being an issue where NATO as a whole did not want to be engaged. It is for that very reason that we sought changes in the policy, and secured them.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman's pretending that what is on the table now is different from before. What he said was an ill-judged transplant operation. What he told The Guardian would undermine the US commitment to Europe. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments of General Sir Peter de la Billière, who commanded our forces in the Gulf war? He said that

Perhaps it would be as well to agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, who said:

I've never heard anyone in authority in the chain of command in this country, whether they he ministers or servicemen, talk of a European army, navy or air force. There is an argument that a strong, more assertive Europe will undermine NATO. I think that wrong. A Europe that remains allied to the US simply because of its own weakness is of limited value.

The Prime Minister likes to say that there is no European army. Mr. Prodi of the European Commission said:

I'm not joking when I call it a European Army.

You could call it Mary—Ann, you could call it Margare—a good name for an Army and an even better one for a Prime Minister

If we manage to achieve this in the year 2000, we will have crossed a milestone to the creation of a united political Europe.

Interestingly, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was on the Dimbleby programme. When asked whether he would withdraw Britain's contribution to the force, he said:

Well this of course depends on what happens at the time that we take Government.

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

The Prime Minister's whole life has been a bandwagon, from selling out to unilateralism in the 80s to selling out to federalism today. We have been doing our own research into quotations from the past. Just before the Prime Minister joined the Labour Front Bench, the magazine "Sanity", of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said:

Parliamentary Labour CND supports the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory.

Let us return to the facts. First, there is no proposal for a European army, which was made clear by the statement that was made three days ago:

This process … does not involve the establishment of a European army.

rose—

Order. I am going to call the Leader of the Opposition again. He must not be shouted down, as that brings the House into disrepute.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Was not the real reason the Prime Minister did a U-turn by committing a quarter of our Army, a quarter of our Air Force and half the Navy to a European army revealed yesterday by the French Foreign Minister? He said:

Tony Blair can't go as far as he would like because [of] public opinion in his country … on the euro, but on defence he saw he could move. He … changed the British position.

Again, on the facts, it is the case that there can be no use of British troops without specific British agreement to each and every mission. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that UK troops should never fight alongside other troops or—as this is limited to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions—be engaged except with NATO, may I point out that, since 1990, there have been 23 separate military operations, of which 20 have not been under UK command, and 17 have been non-NATO. How can it be right that our troops can perform alongside those from Argentina, India, Pakistan, Nigeria right round the rest of the world, but not alongside French and German troops? That is absurd. We will carry on having complete control over British forces wherever they are used. This is not against NATO. On the contrary, as has been pointed out by NATO itself, it helps to give us an extra option when NATO chooses not to be involved.

We simply agree with the former Labour Chancellor and Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Healey, who says:

The alliance is a proven and effective tool for crisis management. Why replace it?

As usual, when it comes to the pre-prepared jibes, the right hon. Gentleman is fine, but when it comes to the argument, he does not have an argument as to why British troops should not be alongside others in this way. The argument was put best in this way:

Our objective must be to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance and improve European defence co-operation 
 If we wish to … ensure that our views continue to be given due weight by future US Administrations, the European Allies must find answers to some difficult questions: Are we able to take on a larger share of the responsibility for our defence? … The answers make it evident that such problems have to be tackled jointly.

The Government have just received a dividend from Railtrack of £300,000 in respect of their 0.2 per cent. shareholding. Will my right hon. Friend use that money to increase the Government's equity stake in the company?

No, but with the private sector, we are making a record investment in our transport infrastructure, which it desperately needs. As the Treasury White Paper showed today, Britain is seriously under-investing in schools, hospitals, transport and the police. That is why we are proposing such a huge increase in capital investment in Britain. That is why it is so wrong for the Conservative party to be committed to cutting that vital investment for our public services.

May I bring the Prime Minister back to an item of domestic policy, rather than wider European policy? Incidentally, it is quite ironic that the Leader of the Conservative party wants to speak about European policy on a day when it has become clear that he cannot even command his own MEPs, who are joining us.

Yes, the ratio is 0.3 worse than it was in 1997. Those class sizes had been increasing for] about 10 years before that. We had to decide where our first priority was. As we said in our election manifesto, our first priority was to get money into primary schools and reduce infant classes. That is why the pupil:teacher ratio in primary schools has fallen. We are putting a substantial amount of extra investment into secondary schools, but it is less of a priority there than it has been in respect of primary schools.

I thank the Prime Minister for that straightforward reply. Does he agree that many within the education sector, as well as the parents themselves, concerned about their children, feel that there is a sense here of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Will he also acknowledge that, simply to return to the position that we were at in terms of class sizes and pupil:teacher ratios in 1997, an extra 9,000 teachers are urgently required for the education sector?

That is precisely why we have been increasing investment in teacher training. It is also why, earlier this week, the first rise in teacher recruitment for eight years happened and why we will be recruiting some 28,000 additional teachers this year. As for robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is simply not correct. There is a huge increase in overall investment in education. I remind the right hon. gentleman that he stood at the last election on a manifesto commitment to put an extra 1 p on income tax to pay for education. The extra education spending that we are putting in is four times that amount.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the noise or silence in this place, the issues that matter to the British people today and in future will be the economic stability and competence, the increasing job opportunities and the decent health and education opportunities delivered by the Government? Those are the issues that will matter, and not the hysterical diversionary antics of the barmy army that is the Conservative party today.

I agree with that one—those remarks were uncontroversial. However, the serious point made by my hon. Friend is that we have clear choices: between stability or a return to boom and bust, between investment in our public services or cuts under the Conservatives, and between action on poverty—such as the £200 winter allowance and free TV licences for over-75s—and the Conservative proposals to scrap those schemes, as well as the new deal and the working families tax credit. That is a difference not only of policy but of fundamental values and philosophy.

At the last general election, the Prime Minister promised the people of Preston more police officers. Currently, one in 10 of Lancashire's officers are either sick or on light duties, and the officers promised via the crimefighting fund will merely replace those who are retiring. Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Preston when they will get extra officers to meet the rising tide of violent crime in the town?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman managed not to point out that crime has fallen in that particular police force area. He is, of course, correct about police officer numbers, which is why we are putting in the extra money to recruit more police. Conservative proposals, however, would mean cutting that investment in police.

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not his party's policy. Let me quote remarks made by the shadow Treasury spokesman last Wednesday; he said that it was true that the Tories were not committed to Labour's spending plans. So we know that, if the Conservatives were elected, they would cut back on those plans.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that global warming is the biggest environmental challenge faced by the world, is difficult to tackle and has far-reaching consequences? Britain has a good record on the matter, as does the European Union, but the United States is finding it difficult at the Hague summit to commit itself to making genuine reductions in carbon emissions. What does my right hon. Friend have to say to the American delegation in The Hague?

I hope that we can agree in The Hague on the importance of keeping to the Kyoto targets on climate change. We have had enough experience, not only in this country, but around the world, of the need to take action on climate change. This country will be at the forefront of that. We will comfortably meet our targets by 2010 and many other countries will also do so. It is obviously essential that the United States, which has the largest economy in the world, should also be committed to taking action. I hope that we can secure agreement in the next few days. It is vital for the future of the world.

Will the Prime Minister undertake today to veto the proposed treaty changes at Nice which would extend qualified majority voting to cover worker representation, including co-determination? If those changes become law, they will allow the imposition of worker directors on boards.

This may come as a shock to my hon. Friends, but the answer to that question is, yes, we would veto those proposals. We will be in a far stronger position because we will not be taking such an absurd line—ours is set out in Government policy. Because we are not vetoing every change, including those that are in our interest, we are, as ever—as a result of what we do—more likely to secure our objectives.

Back to European defence. Now that the Americans have made their position clear—William Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary in October last year and, on Monday, Madeleine Albright—is it not just a little arrogant and patronising of the Opposition to say that they know United States interests better than the United States does? Since all the European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members that are not part of the EU—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking about the Opposition's policy, but it is not for the Prime Minister to answer for that. Will he rephrase his question?

Since all the European NATO members that are not part of the EU have pledged contributions to the force, what sort of political signal would be sent if, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, we withdrew? Would not a withdrawal be a sign of a new isolationism?

Of course it would be absolutely disastrous. If the Opposition went to the European summit and said that they would withdraw from European defence co-operation even if NATO and the United States were in favour of it—of course, they already have their proposal to block any enlargement of the European Union unless the rest of Europe agrees to a treaty change—the rest of Europe, to a single entity, would say that it would not accept that. That would alienate not merely all the people inside the European Union, but all the people waiting to come into the European Union.

We want to see a Europe that can act effectively through the Alliance or, if NATO is not engaged—

or, if NATO is not engaged on its own. Period. End of debate.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep anxiety felt in the UK sugar industry—among both growers and manufacturers—at proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime? Does he agree that while the everything but arms proposals are well intentioned, they could devastate both African and Caribbean as well as Pacific producers? Why should Britain suffer quota cuts in sugar when we have only 50 per cent. self-sufficiency and other member states have a massive surplus?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, yes, we are concerned about the proposal. I gather that there was a debate on it a short time ago. Of course, that is precisely why it is important that, if we wish to influence the proposals coming out of Europe, we are constructive, we are engaged in Europe and we have a leading role in Europe. So many different items come up, day on day on day, that it is important that this country remain in a position from which it is capable of influencing the rest of Europe, which is precisely why I believe our policy is right.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are probably about 800 people with autistic spectrum disorders in his constituency, but that it is not possible to produce exact figures because no one collects them and there is no agreed mechanism for screening people with autistic disorders or for collating the figures? Will he put his support behind initiatives to collect such data, to agree an objective method of screening and assessing autistic people, and to apply it to children at an early age? Will he put the Government's resources behind supporting those children?

Autism is one of the least understood, but most frightening and difficult conditions, for families in particular, to contend with. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of the issue. We are committed generally to more resources in this area and we also support strongly the work of a £350,000 research programme being undertaken by the British Medical Research Council. I shall certainly look at other ways in which we are contributing to that, and perhaps I could write to him about that.

Will the Prime Minister, along with the Home Secretary, review the way in which the Criminal Cases Review Commission deals with its work? Is he concerned, like me, that it took some time for the commission to refer the case of Stephen Downing, who has been in prison for some 27 years, to the Court of Appeal? Will he also ensure that, when a review takes place, bail can be granted straight away?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of his question. If I may, I shall choose my words carefully in responding to him. I understand that Mr. Downing's case is complex. The commission was asked as part of its review to explore many lines of inquiry, which, I am told, it was at pains to investigate thoroughly. Early in the review, Mr. Downing's representatives told the commission that they wanted fresh and more detailed representations on his behalf. These were received in July 1999, and they are carrying on their review in the light of those representations. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's raising it with me, I will take a personal interest, in the sense of finding out exactly what the current position is in respect of the case, and I will contact him about it.

Having just arrived from the NATO parliamentary assembly meeting in Berlin, may I tell my right hon. Friend that a resolution was passed by NATO parliamentarians unanimously supporting the creation of a European rapid reaction force? Does he agree that the main reason why they did so is that such a force would enhance NATO's military capability—a capability that was dangerously undermined by the Conservative party when in government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the support of NATO parliamentarians probably will not be reported in many quarters here, but it is true that they support the creation of that force, where, as I say, NATO as a whole is not engaged. One of the best examples, and one of the reasons why it is supported, was Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, where for years British and French troops struggled with others to try to maintain peace. America, and therefore NATO, did not wish to be involved, yet we did not have the proper European defence capability to engage in that mission successfully. It is precisely for that reason that, in a sensible and mature debate, it would be recognised that NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but it is important, where NATO is not engaged, to have a European defence capability.

This not an answer but a lecture.

I am sorry it is a lecture, but the hon. Lady needs one.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4, Lords amendment No. 5 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

These amendments relate to the compensation scheme for fur farmers who will be put out of business by the ban on keeping animals coley or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. In the House and in another place, concerns were raised about the form of the proposed compensation scheme. As I explained at the time, this is an enabling Bill, and it is therefore not appropriate for the full and exact details of the compensation scheme to be included.

The debate is now drawing to a close on this rather contentious legislation. If one reads the reports of all the Bill's proceedings in both Houses, one does not find much support for it from the vast majority of Members who contributed to the debates. At all stages, compensation was the key issue. Given the weary resignation of fur farmers to the inevitability of the Bill reaching the statute book because of the Government's huge majority, the defence shifted from opposing the Bill in principle to achieving the best possible compensation deal for fur farmers.