Object.

What progress has been made on the dismantling of the structures of terrorism in Northern Ireland since April 1998. [2872]

The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda have had a number of significant successes against terrorists recently. Through the work of the agencies that come together in the organised crime taskforce, we have also seen considerable disruption to criminal activity.

I realise that the security forces are still fighting against the structures of terrorism, as the Secretary of State says. Does he recall that during the referendum campaign on the Belfast agreement in May 1998, the Prime Minister repeatedly said in speeches and wrote in articles that it would not be enough merely to decommission weapons, but that the paramilitary structures of terrorism must progressively be dismantled? We know that, sadly, the former has not been achieved. Has any progress been made with the latter objective?

That is our ultimate objective. We have made sure that everyone is aware of their responsibilities under the Good Friday agreement. That requires a rejection of not only the use of force but the threat of force. That point was made during the discussions at Weston Park, and it is one of the outstanding issues with which we have to deal. We will continue to do everything that we can to disrupt those elements of the paramilitaries that are involved in organised crime, and to make sure that progress is made in putting beyond use weapons that are illegally held on either side.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the guns are not silent in Northern Ireland, that beatings are on the increase, that paramilitaries continue to train, recruit and gather intelligence, that the IRA has imported £2 million worth of weapons from America recently and that in the past 18 months it has killed eight people for alleged criminal offences—offences that the IRA itself is committing? In those circumstances, should not everyone be part of a pan-decommissioning front calling for an end to the availability and use of weapons and for progress to be made in the peace process?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's last statement. It is an essential part of the peace process that we continue to make progress in putting illegal arms beyond use. It is opportune to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of those who have been involved in combating some of the illegal activity, particularly members of the RUC. They, along with their partners south of the border in the Garda, have been involved in thwarting dissident activity. Recent successes have included the seizure of a significant quantity of explosives, firearms and ammunition. Charges have been brought against alleged dissidents. An example of the illegal activity is the fact that in the past financial year more than 51.5 million cigarettes were seized by Customs in Northern Ireland. In the midst of all the change, we should recognise the marvellous work that is being done by police forces north and south of the border.

Does the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless agree that, with the prevailing uncertainty in the security situation, this would be no time to reduce the number of the security forces posted in Northern Ireland?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, his having had some experience of such matters as a former Armed Forces Minister, I will take due cognisance of and place great emphasis on the advice that I get from the Chief Constable, the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and other security advisers. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I would not take any steps without their advice.

Following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), will the Secretary of State welcome President Bush's comments on decommissioning, thus demonstrating that there is broad support among all democrats for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons? President Bush's statement shows that Sinn Fein and its handful of supporters are now completely isolated on this issue.

On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, we deeply appreciate President Bush's support, as we always do, for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I know that the whole House will welcome his generous comments on the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. As both Prime Ministers said at Weston Park last week, if we are to implement the Good Friday agreement we need to move forward on all the issues, which obviously include paramilitary weapons.

We all want decommissioning to occur and arms to be put out of use as soon as possible, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, whenever people start to impose deadlines and demand that others jump through hoops, they create a deterrent to those with the arms, who do not want to be seen to be controlled by ultimatums imposed by parties with which they disagree?

In terms of moving forward, the two Governments have made it plain through the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that the agreement can succeed only if all parts of it are implemented together. As a Government, we will discharge our responsibilities to set that context, but I hope that all the others who are involved will reflect carefully on their responsibilities and do likewise.

Will the Secretary of State make it abundantly clear to the House that there is only one reason for the present deadlock: the fact that decommissioning has not taken place? All other aspects of the Belfast agreement are moving forward, yet not one gun or ounce of Semtex explosive has been handed in by the paramilitaries who signed it, whether they are republicans or so-called loyalists.

As the right hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate, there has been some progress on the question of arms, in the sense that the arms dumps have been opened up for inspection, but he is absolutely right to say that we need more. We need arms to be put beyond use. Of course, there are other matters that we discussed last week and will continue to discuss—the two Governments will address them in the package of measures that we are currently considering—but, yes, there needs to be more progress on the issue that he raised.

The House will be grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State clearly wants to put pressure on the paramilitaries to decommission, but will he assure us that, in doing so, he will not jeopardise the security of the Province through further changes to policing arrangements or by reducing the armed presence or security operations?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall take no steps other than through consultation and with the agreement and advice of my security advisers.

What support his Department gives to victims of violence. [2873]

Like the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has a criminal injuries compensation scheme, which, in the last financial year, we funded to the tune of £47 million.

In paying tribute to groups that have helped victims of the troubles, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to several individuals who have not been able to access support from them? What are the Government doing to help individuals?

My hon. Friend makes an especially valid point. Isolation and lack of awareness of what is available are especially acute among the victims of the troubles. Consequently, the service that the family trauma centre provides is designed for individuals; those individuals whose education was disrupted by the troubles have received grants and bursaries of approximately £300,000, and the Northern Ireland memorial fund has devised schemes for individuals.

I understand that an eminent Queen's Counsel has backed the civil action being taken by the victims of the Omagh bombing. In those circumstances, are the Government prepared to give public support to, and encourage businesses to provide financial backing for, the legal fund for the Omagh victims?

The hon. Lady knows that a specific initiative was taken in conjunction with the local health organisation to respond to the trauma of the Omagh victims. Research has revealed the need for significant support, which has been put in place.

What factors the Parades Commission takes into account when deciding whether to ban or re-route a march. [2874]

As my hon. Friend may know, the Parades Commission has no statutory power to ban a parade. The factors to which the commission has regard in deciding whether to impose conditions on a procession are set out in the Public Processions Act 1998 and in the commission's statutory guidelines. It may, for example, take into account the likelihood of public disorder or damage to property, the potential impact on community relations and whether a parade is a traditional parade. In reaching a decision, the commission also takes into account the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.

I understand that only 151 out of 3,400 parades have been re-routed. A tiny number of parades cause problems, yet the same parades cause them year in, year out. Should not parades that habitually cause offence and disorder and offend community relations be re-routed as a matter of course? The Drumcrees would not then happen year after year.

My hon. Friend exaggerates slightly. As always with Northern Ireland, it is important to keep matters in perspective. Last year, the Parades Commission found it necessary to restrict routes on only 130 of the 3,440 parades of which it was notified. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have consistently stated that our preferred outcome is the resolution of disputes through local agreements that reflect mutual respect for people's rights, traditions and sensitivities, thus rendering determination by the commission unnecessary.

Will the Minister join me in condemning those who took part in a republican-orchestrated attack on the RUC while it was carrying out its lawful duty of upholding a decision by the Parades Commission? In upholding that decision, the RUC made limited use of plastic bullets. Does the Minister agree that the do-gooder, naive comment by Professor Brice Dickson that the use of plastic bullets should be ended should be put to him face to face and that he should be asked to withdraw such a ridiculous statement?

And he should resign.

And he should resign.

May I first place firmly on record our appreciation of the work, courage and endurance displayed by the RUC in the situation that it faces? It is important to recognise that it was serving both sides of the community in implementing the decisions of the Parades Commission.

I welcome my hon. Friend's strong expression of support for the police service in Northern Ireland. It is not responsible for creating the divisions, the sectarianism or the ensuing disorder that still blights Northern Ireland's society. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the police to do their job in Northern Ireland, they need adequate manpower resources, in terms of the number of officers available to go on to the streets during times of disorder, and financial resources to cope with the disorder and violence and to see through the reforms resulting from the Patten legislation? Will she reassure the House that those manpower and financial resources will continue to be made available to the police in the coming years?

I am happy to give the House those assurances. As my right hon. Friend says, policing in Northern Ireland will require additional funds during 2001–02 and in subsequent years. That is due to the specific pressures caused by sectarian tensions and parades. We are well aware of the concerns expressed about funding, and we have given assurances—I do so again today—that the RUC will have the resources necessary to continue to deliver a high-quality policing service.

As we have already heard, the RUC is primarily responsible for enforcing the determinations on marches. I hear what the Minister says about adequate resources. Is she saying, therefore, that she will make good the £117 million shortfall in resources that the RUC estimates it will require adequately to do the job that we all agree it must do? Will she confirm that specific figure?

I will not confirm any specific figure today. My officials are continuing discussions with the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, and it is likely that we shall consider carefully the proposals that they make.

If he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [2875]

At the conclusion of the Weston Park talks, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach issued a paper setting out the progress made so far in implementing the Good Friday agreement; a copy is in the Library.

My constituents, a large number of whom are either Irish or direct descendants of Irish people, will be grateful for those words because they fully understand that the Good Friday agreement has brought great prosperity and the alleviation of many of the troubles of Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the full implementation of that policy will bring to the Irish people the rewards that they deserve?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Full implementation of the Belfast agreement is the only basis for lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and the agreement can succeed only if all its parts are implemented together. We as a Government will discharge our responsibilities and I hope that all others will do likewise. My hon. Friend will recognise that, as a Government, we are working hard in the midst of conflicting pressures and sensitivities to ensure that all the parties implement all parts of the agreement.

Is it not the case that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary said last week that the IRA orchestrated and organised violence in Ardoyne in my constituency? In view of that breach of the ceasefire and the revelations that the IRA at the highest level was involved in importing arms, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he continues to negotiate the future of Northern Ireland with IRA-Sinn Fein, which are in clear breach of their ceasefire, and exclude representatives of the Democratic Unionist party, which has more votes and more seats in the House'? [Interruption.]

Order. I must ask the House to come to order.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can assure him that I will, as I have over recent weeks, act on any information given to me by my security advisers, including the Chief Constable. The hon. Gentleman referred to a specific case, but information has not been put to me on it. If it is, I will consider it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, there have been significant troop reductions in Northern Ireland, the closure of more than 40 security installations and the highest economic growth in the UK? Is not that a powerful argument for persisting with the peace process and encouraging all parties to press ahead with the full implementation of the agreement?

I can confirm the figures referred to by my hon. Friend. Troop levels in Northern Ireland are at their lowest for 31 years: at about 13,500, they are half what they were—26,000—at their height and 34 military establishments and nine joint establishments have been closed. I emphasise to him that the number of troops deployed to Northern Ireland is commensurate with the threat, and I shall continue to take advice on that from the Chief Constable and others.

I think that I heard the Minister correctly earlier, but will the Secretary of State confirm on the record that all necessary resources continue to be available to the RUC in protecting the law-abiding from the lawless, including, if necessary, the use of plastic baton rounds at the discretion of the Chief Constable?

Yes, of course I will discuss the problem with the Chief Constable, and ensure that he has the financial and personnel resources to match the task.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 July.

This morning, I met Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister believe that, following the sacking of Mr. Bob Kiley, the chairman of London Transport, by the Transport Secretary yesterday, there is strong evidence that the sacking of distinguished chairmen who have the temerity to utter unpalatable truths to the Government is becoming something of a habit? Should not we have a debate on the future of the London underground, which is of grave concern to the travelling public? At least we might then have the chance of reinstating the chairman.

No, because what is important is that money and investment go into the tube as quickly as possible. If we had suspended the negotiations on the public-private partnership, there would have been a delay of about two years. That is why every other member of the board was going to resign unless Mr. Kiley withdrew his threat.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the charity Cancer BACUP that pain has no place with someone living with cancer or dying from cancer? Does he agree that it is important to ensure that all the professions in the health and voluntary sectors believe that it should be eliminated? Would he sign the freedom from pain charter to give it the importance that it deserves?

I certainly agree with the principle set out in the charter. The additional £600 million going into the treatment of cancer in the next few years will result not just in patients being seen and treated more quickly, but in about 1,000 extra cancer specialists. Together with the extra radiographers and nurses, that will result in a substantial advance in the treatment of cancer in this country.

Is it still the Prime Minister's view that the Government's annual report is a major innovation to be repeated every year?

Before I answer the right hon. Gentleman's question, as this is his last Prime Minister's Question Time I want to say that Members on both sides of the House wish him well and good luck for the future. We shall all miss his wit and humour—although I may not, as I was the object of most of it. Anyway, we wish him well in the future.

I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about me. Debating with him at the Dispatch Box has been exciting, fascinating, fun, an enormous challenge and, from my point of view, wholly unproductive in every sense. I am told that in my time at the Dispatch Box I have asked the Prime Minister 1,118 direct questions, but no one has counted the direct answers—it may not take long.

"The Annual Report is a major innovation. People are entitled to know how we are shaping up … This Report is part of that process. We will repeat it each year."

I confess that I never thought the right hon. Gentleman was that keen on our annual reports when we did publish them—but what we do, of course, is publish all the results of the things we have done during the year, and the things we have not done, as well. Those are the things about which the right hon. Gentleman has asked me in the more than 1,000 questions that he has asked from the Dispatch Box.

Where is it?

"Where is it?" is indeed the question. As the Prime Minister has abandoned the annual report as a way of holding the Government to account, what about the traditional way of holding the Government to account? What about Ministers—[Interruption.] Labour Members must understand that Governments must be held to account between elections as well as at elections.

Of course we take responsibility—all of us collectively, as a Government— for both the publication of results and the AS-levels. The AS-levels were introduced to ensure that children were tested properly throughout their schooling; that is in common with the system in many other countries. Of course, after their introduction it is important for us to look at the way that has been done and there may well be lessons that we can learn, but I think it would be a big mistake for us to end up saying that it was not important to test children throughout their schooling and to publish the results.

In other words, no Minister will take responsibility. AS-level students are told that if they

"do not offer an adequate attempt to answer the question or complete the task"

I do not agree that it must be a public tribunal inquiry, for the reasons given by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which said that it was sensible to have a different type of inquiry in order to produce an inquiry more quickly. We will have that inquiry, and we will publish the results. But we have also said, again in line with what the royal college has said, that it is better to have the inquiry after we have eradicated the disease, which must remain our No. 1 priority.

Well, for the whole Government to resign immediately would be a rather extreme step to take over AS-levels. [Interruption.]It might be a welcome step, however.

I gather that the Modernisation Committee decided this morning to look into the matter. It will publish a report and we will consider it carefully.

My 1,123rd and final question is on the same theme of accountability. May I ask the Prime Minister about what he and I know to be the case—that allowing one Prime Minister's Question Time a week is not an adequate way of holding the Prime Minister of our country to account? Members of all parties should have an opportunity to question the Prime Minister of the day more frequently, and on a more sustained basis. Would that not be in the best interests of the Government, Parliament and public engagement in our political life?

In respect of holding the Government to account, let me point out that over the four years that I have been Prime Minister I have answered questions in the House for longer than either of my two predecessors, and made more statements.

During Dover's difficulties with asylum issues, does my right hon. Friend remember telling my local newspaper

"I also accept Dover has suffered an unfair burden"?

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern and I will make sure that the relevant Minister sees him today. I understand the deep concern that there is over the issue in Dover. Therefore, it is entirely right that it be discussed with him properly.

May I first associate the Liberal Democrats—

Who cares?

I think that public empathy out there probably cares. We associate ourselves with the good wishes that have been properly expressed by the Prime Minister to the outgoing leader of the Conservative party. We wish him well and commiserate with his successor, whoever it will be.

I will explain exactly why. Mr. Kiley was appointed chairman of London Transport in order to negotiate what he wanted, within the outlines of the public-private partnership, and he came back a couple of weeks ago and said that he was unable to do so. The dispute with Mr. Kiley, and, indeed, with Ken Livingstone, is not about the running of the tube as such; it is about the financing of it. We are putting billions of pounds of investment from the general British taxpayer into the underground, the largest ever investment that has been made, and we need to make sure that there is value for money and that taxpayers' money is properly used. I understand entirely why Mr. Kiley and Mr. Livingstone want to take the money and spend it as they wish, but we have a duty on behalf of the taxpayer to get value for money and that is what we will do.

Is not the real lesson of the episode that the Prime Minister fails to understand in his second term that power devolved is not power retained? Would it not make more sense to allow the elected representatives, of whom Ken Livingstone is obviously a primary example, to make decisions, whether they be on the London underground, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, Bob Kiley, or for that matter the Select Committees of the House of Commons? To let go once in a while would be a very good reflection for the Prime Minister over the forthcoming summer recess.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Devolving the running and management of the underground is of course precisely what the devolution to the Mayor is all about, but the financing of it coming from the general British taxpayer is billions of pounds. We know that the real problem on the tube is financing the construction, the track and tunnelling. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is simply wrong. That is the problem that the tube has. We need investment in the capacity of the tube, and it is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats do not want any private sector involvement in the financing of the system when that plainly offers the best value for money. We are doing this because although the running and management of the tube will, of course, be for the Mayor and Transport for London, when it involves general British taxpayers' money—not just from London but across the rest of country—the Treasury has a duty to ensure that it is properly spent, and we will discharge that duty on behalf of the taxpayer.

I know that the House will join me in my heartfelt concern for Peter Falconio's family while he is missing in the Northern Territory of Australia. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the Australian police, the Aborigine trackers and the people of Australia who are helping in the search for Peter? Will he also join me in asking anyone who has any evidence of where Peter might be—possibly people coming home from their holiday in the Northern Territory—to tell Scotland Yard or their local police force and help to find Peter so that this nightmare can end for the Falconio family?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. We extend our sympathy and concern to Peter's family, who must be desperately worried. We have been in touch with the Australian high commission. As my hon. Friend said, the Australian police are doing everything they can to assist, and of course I join her in asking anyone with any information to come forward and speak to the proper authorities.

Why do the Prime Minister and the Government persist in forcing local councils to build up to 165 new waste incinerators at the expense of far more environmentally sustainable recycling plants? For example, my constituents will be the victims of pollution from such a plant in Wrexham, which is just across the border from my constituency. Under the Prime Minister's devolution arrangements, my constituents have no powers of representation for objection at local level, and it is causing great anger.

Incineration has been used by Governments for many years. In fact, it is the last method that we wish to use. First, we want to reduce waste and, secondly, we want to improve recycling. That is why we are putting substantial additional investment—from memory, about £160 million—into improving recycling. Thirdly, there will be situations in which we have to incinerate. Although we regret that and wish to avoid it where we can, it is not realistic to think that we can deal with all the waste we have in any other way.

In his meetings with the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister make it clear to him that his presidential pronouncements about his commitment to cleaning up the environment and making the world safe for democracy have done nothing but strike fear into the hearts of my constituents? Will he make it abundantly clear that they value the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States but would wish for rather more understandable commitment on the part of the President to those two issues?

We remain committed to the Kyoto protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have achieved reductions of about 14 per cent. on the 1990 levels, and we will carry on doing a great deal more to meet the targets set out. We have a disagreement with the United States over this, as we have said on many occasions. We are in a position to ratify the Kyoto protocol but America does not agree with that. It is important, however, that the United States Administration have agreed that the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important and right, and we are now debating the means of achieving that. I hope that we can continue the dialogue with them so that we can bridge the gap and make the discussions on this important issue succeed.

I call Sir Michael Spicer.

More ballots.

Not now.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is giving me a lesson in party management. May I say how much we welcome his contribution, as the person responsible for the Conservative leadership election, to our political debate? Of course there will be an interesting and lively debate on public service reform, but that is what politics is about, and I am confident that we shall win that debate.

Could my right hon. Friend find time to visit the Metropolitan police training centre in my constituency to meet some of the excellent new recruits with which the training centre is now bursting at the seams? Will he also give my constituents an assurance that when those police officers leave the training school, my constituents will see a real increase in police numbers on the streets of Hendon?

There is, I think, a record increase—certainly the best increase for many years—in the number of recruits entering training in the Metropolitan police. The numbers are increasing again, after 10 years of declining, and we shall in the next few years hit our target of having the largest number of police officers that this country has seen. I pay tribute not only to those who have been recently recruited but to serving officers in the Metropolitan police area who do such an excellent job protecting our citizens.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the annual general meeting of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is being picketed today by multiple sclerosis sufferers who are angry at a two-year delay in obtaining a decision on drugs that can make a difference to their lives? Does he accept that the institute's foot dragging has cost hundreds of MS sufferers their health and condemned them to irreversible disability?

I accept entirely the frustration that people have at the delay. However, I also tell the hon. Gentleman that in a decision of this nature, which affects thousands of people suffering from MS, it is important that all the information is tested and got right. The national institute will make known its deliberations when it can; that is up to it. It is an extremely important decision to get right and has huge consequences not only for MS sufferers but for the whole of the national health service.

May I place on record—I know that I am speaking for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—our deep gratitude to the Prime Minister for the enormous energy, commitment and work that he is putting into resolving our current crisis? In so doing, he has revealed that he sees that problem as the greatest human problem facing this House—although one might not believe that, listening to some hon. Members in today's Northern Ireland Question Time. We await with great hope the package that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be producing. Let us all hope that it will lead to the full and absolute implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement and create lasting peace and stability on our streets.

I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments. I do not begrudge any of the time that we spend on this peace process, first, because it is so important and, secondly, because I believe that there is a chance of resolving the issues and implementing the Good Friday agreement in full, which is what everyone wishes to see. The two Governments are in agreement that it is the right package and that it covers all the outstanding issues. We believe that the package will be a fair and reasonable one that should recommend itself to all political parties. We need only look at the middle east peace process to see what happens when we stop moving forward in such processes. I believe that the package offers us the chance to overcome the remaining obstacles and give people in Northern Ireland the future that they deserve.

Why are the Government so reluctant to award a long-term franchise for the east coast main line to GNER, which is generally thought to have done a good job? Is it not clear that short-term franchise extensions will stifle rather than encourage much-needed investment? It is not only Bob Kiley who is out of favour: what was the point of asking a rail expert such as Sir Alastair Morton how to improve the railway only to ignore his advice?

I think that being lectured by a Conservative on railway privatisation is a little bit much. It is important that we have different ways of dealing with the franchises. Some franchises may be short, while others may be longer. That is sensible, because it gives us the flexibility that we require. As for GNER and the east coast main line, that decision will be taken shortly.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who referred to Wrexham in his question. I would like to point out to him and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that Wrexham council has recently appointed a recycling officer. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is fully in accordance with his policy, the Labour policy, which is to re-use and to recycle?

Yes, it is indeed in line with Government policy. As I explained a moment or two ago, we are increasing the funding available for recycling. That will significantly increase the amount of recycling that takes place, giving us a considerably better record than the Conservative party.

When there is an inquiry into foot and mouth disease—be it public or private—could the Prime Minister ensure that one of its terms of reference is to look at the effect of the disease on non-farming businesses? My constituency has probably lost out more than most, in particular because of the cancellation of the Cheltenham racing festival, when millions and millions of pounds were lost by small businesses that could least afford it.

The impact on the non-farming industry is extremely important too. That is why it is necessary to take all possible measures to try to stamp out the disease, as we have done. It remains extremely important that all parts of the farming community take the relevant biosecurity measures in terms of disinfection. The way in which the disease is still being spread is essentially through farm-to-farm movements or agricultural trade vehicles. We have given every assistance we can so that people know the measures they have to take, but the only way to make sure that we use these summer months to eradicate the disease is if the biosecurity measures are in place and followed.

Will my right hon. Friend assure council tenants in Birmingham that if they do not wish to change their landlord, the Government will honour their commitments to bring their homes up to a decent standard by 2010? Will he ensure also that necessary resources will be made available as, under current financial predictions, the necessary resources are not being made available?

First, people have the right to vote on the system they wish. Secondly, we are substantially increasing investment in housing: over the next three years or so, it will rise to somewhere in the region of £4 billion. I am aware that there are always greater demands for money, but we must put money into the health service, schools, the police and other things. We are doing what we can on housing in my hon. Friend's area and others. In respect of the proposals, it is for her constituents and others to vote upon them.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of his personnel policies? He sacked his Foreign Secretary, who is now a runaway success as Leader of the House. He sacked the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and now they have been restored and are held even higher in the public esteem. Yesterday, he sacked Mr. Bob Kiley who—obviously, at this rate—will stop the privatisation of the tube. Can the Prime Minister deny that he is power mad, as some people believe, and say that he is actually engaged in a very subtle demonstration of the limits of prime ministerial power and arrogance?

Since the hon. Gentleman has congratulated me on my personnel changes, perhaps I can congratulate him on his; not least in respect of himself. I gather he said that he wished to have nothing whatever to do with the Westminster Parliament, since it was inconsistent with Scottish nationalism; yet, lo and behold, here he is, popping up and asking me questions—but then, that type of double standard is nothing new from the Scottish National party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plight in India of Ian Stillman—formerly of Reading—a charity worker who is disabled, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison because he was in a taxi in which cannabis was later discovered? What representations can Ministers make to the Government of India to help secure the release of Ian Stillman?

We are indeed aware of Mr. Stillman's case. We are making representations and are in touch with the Indian authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep this case closely under review and that we will be in close consultation throughout with the appropriate authorities.

Does the Prime Minister believe that there will be a downturn in the British economy over the next two to three years? If so, how will the Government fund their promises on education, health and the police?

We are confident that we can fund those programmes as the money for them has been set aside. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the successful management of the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, our public finances are in a very healthy state. Therefore, unlike the Conservatives, who want to cut investment we can put money into schools, hospitals, transport and the police.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 1, leave out "should" and insert "shall".

`Regulations governing political parties at European level and rules regarding their funding adopted under Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by Article 2 paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice, shall not have legal effect in the United Kingdom unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

New clauses 4 and 5 relate to an issue of fundamental importance to the House and to the future development of the European Union—the funding and regulation of pan-European political parties. The treaty of Nice allows the Council of Ministers to lay down regulations governing political parties at a European level and, in particular, rules on their funding. I am aware that Ministers may point to the statement in declaration 11 claiming that there is no transfer of competence to the European Community. Currently, however, article 191 makes no mention whatever of the funding or regulation of parties.

"The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251"—

"shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding."

"holding political views favourable to European integration is not a precondition to obtaining the status of a European political party, nor for receiving Community financing."

Why is the hon. Gentleman asking a Government Minister of another party for guidance on how the Conservative party should find friends in Europe, just because no one is prepared to serve in the same group with it?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the basis of our relationship with the EPP, he is classically misinformed.

"factor for integration within the Union"

"contribute to forming a European awareness."

Does my hon. Friend agree with the verdict reached in the 19th century by the great philosopher John Stuart Mill, that peoples who lack fellow feeling and who speak and read different languages cannot achieve the common public opinion necessary for representative government?

As always, my hon. Friend brings a welcome sense of erudition and historical perspective to our debate.

"Article 191. It is proposed it deals with political parties, which it says are a good thing, and it goes on that the amendment is that the Council acting by QMV should lay down regulations governing political parties in Europe and in particular rules regarding their funding."

"You will be intrigued to hear that it is missing from the Foreign Office list, by which I take it that we are not wildly enthusiastic about it … I personally am not aware of having given a view whether or not it should be QMV."

"reasons of democracy and political common sense."

"The Union would greatly benefit from having a number of members of the European Parliament elected on European lists, presented to all European voters throughout the Union."

"Organising the European elections in this way would encourage the development of Europe-wide political parties and produce members who could claim to represent a European constituency rather than a purely national one."

I am not surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). The debate on the treaty has been going on for a few days now, and it is clear that Conservative Members are opposed to any form of co-operation or integration with our European partners, even where political parties in their own part of the political spectrum are concerned.

How does the hon. Gentleman square the observation that he has just made with the contents of the Schleicher report and specifically its emphasis on the importance of European political parties being instrumental in securing public support for the European integration project?

I am sure that the report has been passed since I left the European Parliament in 1999. I know Mrs. Schleicher well; I was friendly with her. Given the preponderance of right-wing parties in the European Parliament, her view is not necessarily held by parties such as mine. To answer the question directly, the hon. Gentleman supposes that any funding received centrally, albeit out of taxpayers' money, would necessarily be unpopular among the general population. A poll has never been taken to see whether that is the case. It is merely the assertion of the Conservative party.

EPP.

In French, it is PPE. I am happy to correct the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members often mention the European Democratic Union. There are some very right-wing organisations in that group. We have seen associations between the Conservatives and the Alleanza Nazionale in Italy and Forza Europa. It is clear which way the Conservative party is moving, and it is not towards mainstream European political activity.

This is an interesting point. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has heard about amendments to the intergovernmental conferences that take place from time to time. The very Bill that we are debating is the product of renegotiation. If we are renegotiating the treaty of Amsterdam to turn it into the treaty of Nice, is that calling for withdrawal?

Of course it is not. The hon. Gentleman knows well that that is not the case, because the Government are approaching the negotiation positively. We know that the Opposition oppose not only the Nice treaty, but the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties. They want to unravel decades of European development and our agreements with European member states, which have kept the peace for many years in Europe. They want to wreck the treaties, stretching back to the first treaty at Messina.

I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is over-reaching himself. He is in danger—I put it no stronger than that because it is a matter for you, Mrs. Heal—of straying from the confines of new clause 4 in the broad historical sweep in which he has just engaged. Does he seriously contend that opposition to the proposals on the funding of pan-European political parties is somehow a byword for withdrawal? That is an absurd proposition, even by his standards.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual entertaining intervention, but it does not get away from the fact that the proposal on pan-European political parties is just one of many that, as we have seen during the past few days, the Conservative party want to introduce to wreck the Nice treaty.

That was a partisan contribution to our deliberations—perhaps a little more partisan than some that we heard earlier in the Committee's consideration of such matters, and I shall try, so far as I can, to be a little more objective.

Following that logic, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman support the proposition that Members of the Scottish Parliament should be able to scrutinise the dissemination of moneys to political parties represented in this House?

What lies behind that intervention is an attempt to make the Scottish Parliament the equivalent of the Westminster Parliament. We understand that that is the raison d'être of the Scottish National party, but it is the United Kingdom that is a member of the European Union, and it is the United Kingdom Parliament that has the responsibility for ensuring that Britain's relationships with the EU are proper and that the necessary supervision is carried out. I do not agree that those matters should become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. They might do some day, if the hon. Gentleman's prayer is answered and Scotland becomes independent, but that day is a long way off, and for the moment I see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should be invited to intervene in an issue that is essentially one for the Westminster legislature.

I shall make a short contribution to this important debate about article 191 of the treaty of Nice, which creates the legal base for the Council to introduce a statute to regulate European political parties. I emphasise the word "regulate", because anyone listening to the debate might think that as a result of the measures that we will pass this evening, we are creating some new beast in the European jungle, in the form of transnational parties, that will threaten our country's well-being and independence.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has helpfully confirmed a suspicion that has been fuelled in my mind for some time. Will he put it on the record so that it is clear beyond peradventure that he accepts that the flow of funds to European political parties as currently proposed will necessarily and inexorably increase the pressure for more supranational legislative activity? If that is what he wants, it is not dishonourable, but I think it is wrong.

I do not accept that that will give rise to inexorable pressure. The hon. Gentleman's comment is a further example of a knee-jerk reaction to any proposal in the name of European co-operation. As regards funding, we need to know about the flow of funds into European political parties and the source of those funds. That needs to be properly regulated by statute at a pan-European level, which is exactly what article 191 of the treaty of Nice seeks to achieve.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is inadvertently supporting the cause of the Opposition. He says that he wants transparency. The place to air such issues in relation to British political parties is in the House of Commons.

I shall deal with the detail of the new clauses later. The point of article 191 is to provide a legal foundation for the Council to introduce a statute to allow for the regulation of European political parties. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that the treaty of Nice will allow the development of such parties. One can see why some of them think that a bad thing. They do not like Europe or the idea of Governments-let alone political parties-getting together. They think that they have found a hint of conspiracy and have removed themselves from any co-operation or participation in transnational groups of the centre right. It is clear why they would be against such political formulations, but it is also clear that article 191 does not establish them, as they already exist. I am in favour of the article because it provides a basis for the regulation of European parties.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept our simple point, which is that although we are delighted that he feels so at home with his socialist friends in Europe, we do not believe that the British taxpayer should be required to pay for that interaction?

That has been a common theme at every stage of our debate. Opposition Members are sometimes good enough to recognise that Britain's membership of the European Union has benefits, but they want to have them at no price. I am afraid that that view, which has been repeatedly expressed during our deliberations, is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he is against the existence of European political parties in principle, as his party seems to be, or whether he merely does not want to pay for them.

The difficulty of examining such issues in the clear light of day in the House of Commons is not clear to me. We talk about the disconnection between the people of Europe, their Parliaments and European institutions and the funding for them. We now have an opportunity to give uncontentious support to enhancing the House's scrutiny procedures. If the hon. Gentleman were impartial, he could not object to that.

If the hon. Gentleman believes that political parties can reconnect people with the political process, he should support the concept of European political parties. He claims that he objects to it.

I regret that I was unable to be present at the meeting this morning. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Committee believes that the article does not require debate? Did we refer it for debate in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House?

We decided that we would not refer it for debate because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that would handicap the Government in progressing with negotiations on the statute.

How inconvenient.

If the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had been present at this morning's meeting, he could have made his point. However, we discussed the matter and, as he knows, the Committee does not refer for debate every item that comes before it.

Order. We are straying wide of the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now confine his remarks to it.

I am grateful for your advice, Mrs. Heal. We debated the matter in the European Scrutiny Committee this morning.

We have just been treated to a pretty astonishing series of admissions. We have been told by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) that the European Scrutiny Committee did a good job this morning in ensuring that there would not be a debate on the regulation to which we are supposed to be referring. If that is scrutiny, I should like to know what is not.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, he will not. Not a chance. I have not even started yet.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reason why there are relatively few Members on the Government Benches is that there is still a great deal of euphoria among Labour Members at the result of the election yesterday.

I have no idea how all that will pan out in due course. All I can say is that I am confident that my Learned Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is going to do extremely well and, in my opinion, win. Then, Labour will discover some serious opposition to the sort of proposals coming from its Front Bench. I am just doing my best, at the moment, to supplement some of the arguments that I have been developing over a long period. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has done a marvellously urbane job in speaking to the amendments and I pay tribute to him as a dear friend and colleague. Sometimes, however, I think that we could go a little bit further in some of the decisions that we take when voting on these matters.

"Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report".

"shall not have legal effect in the United Kingdom unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

"be incorporated in the domestic law".

"approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give us an explanation of this roly-poly process?

It is called roly-poly pudding, and it means that we will get rolled up somewhere in the attic, like Samuel Whiskers in Beatrix Potter, and left there for a long time unless we are lucky and someone comes along to save us. Someone must save the Conservative party and the country from these arrangements. That is the problem. Believe it or not, the Labour party is also caught up in this, but it has not twigged yet. It will not be able to differentiate itself from the Conservative party under the principles that will be laid down in the regulations. Sooner or later it will wake up.

"European political parties, on the other hand, exist outside the parliament. Clearly, where both a group in the EP and a corresponding political party exist, there will be close links between the two, as is the case in the UK between Westminster parties and national parties, but they are plainly not the same thing. European funding already exists for both MEPs and political groups in the EP. The proposals now on the table, and especially those outlined in the report prepared by … Ursula Schleicher, MEP"—

"which is currently before the EP, are for European political parties, not for groups in the EP."

"The definition of a European party is clearly set out."

"Such a party must have representation in the European parliament, or in national or regional parliaments, in at least five member states, or have achieved at least 5 per cent. of the vote in at least five member states at the last European elections."

We can't work it out, Bill. Tell us who it was.

I shall have to tell the hon. Gentleman later. It will all emerge in due course.

"Parties need not necessarily"—

"be advocates of European integration; Euro-sceptical parties may also be supported if their policies focus on issues of European integration"—

I always applaud my hon. Friend's careful study of the minutiae of these matters, but does he not agree, on a broader level, that the very notion of pan-European political parties is transparently absurd, given that they have no demos to represent'? Does he not agree that they would only cease to be absurd and become meaningful if there were among the peoples of Europe a common identity, a common purpose and a common willingness to make equal sacrifices to achieve that purpose? As none of those conditions exists, what is the point of such parties?

Excepting one or two minor matters that have arisen recently, which I am glad to say we have now put behind us, I always agree with my hon. Friend, particularly on the issues that are before us. Three cheers for the fact that he is here fighting with us on this particular issue! That goes to prove that we really are a political party—and we will remain one, by the way.

"They"—

"are seen as instrumental in securing public support for the European integration project."

"So that's all right then. And remember it will be either federalist `wise men' or the federalist EP—

"which will decide on eligibility."

"We decided to fight back. The Schleicher report was the subject of an extraordinary procedural ambush in the Strasbourg plenary on 16 May 2001, planned and executed by a group of committed Euro-realist Tory MEPs".

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wandering rather wide of the new clause.

I will only say that the Tory MEPs managed to ambush the project, but the triumph did not last long: it was all over the next day following a procedural motion.

The Minister has his notes.

Indeed. I saw a lot of frantic scribbling going on over there. I trust it is accurate but we will find out later.

Order. I fail to see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's argument to the new clause.

It is absolutely relevant and I say that with great respect, Mrs. Heal. The European People's party is in fact a group in the European Parliament. It is absolutely relevant to the question of where the money will go. I think that that is a fair point. It is bang slap wallop within the arrangements that are stipulated by the regulations.

May I correct a misapprehension that was suggested earlier with regard to the sitting of the European Scrutiny Committee this morning? The reason why the Committee decided not to discuss this subject was that we knew full well that this debate was taking place this afternoon; it was as simple as that.

We are well versed in Tom Paine. All I can say is, was he not extremely lucky to get away without being guillotined? Was he not a lucky man?

Yes indeed, he was very lucky. It is lucky for us, too, that he was not guillotined, because we can all learn a great deal not only from his thesis on democracy but from his internationalism. However, I do not want to stray from the point.

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, a Labour Member, has chosen to quote a republican political philosopher.

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Labour party is a broad church.

I shall not take up much of the Committee's time, but I want to touch on two very specific points: the funding of transnational political parties, and the level of democracy at which scrutiny should be exercised over such an enterprise.

I assure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that his persistent arguments do indeed lead to a great deal of scribbling by Foreign Office officials. The legendary "JB"—the foreign Office official who was outed yesterday morning on the "Today" programme— nothing but scribble, because of the formidable points made by the hon. Gentleman. I am told that JB may even have to cancel his annual holiday to respond to the detailed submissions, which we await with enthusiasm, that the hon. Gentleman promised me last week.

I have been familiar with these procedures for some time. On what date is it intended that this matter will be put through? Is it a matter of urgency?

It is a presidency proposal, which will be put to the forthcoming General Affairs Council.

When?

In October, I think. We will continue to keep the Committees and the House informed on the issue.

I was rather perturbed by the Minister's unsubtle attempt at censorship of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr Spring). In the context of the funding and operation of political parties, may I put it on record for the House that in the event of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) becoming leader of my party, I for one intend to express my views about European political parties as forcefully in the future as I have in the past?

And a jolly good thing too. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman will be doing so from the Front Bench.

No.

Exactly. I am anxious to see the hon. Member for West Suffolk—a very able Front Bencher—continue to sit on the Opposition Front Bench for as long as possible; I am concerned about his career.

Will the Minister come to the question of the definition and the criteria that enable people to qualify for those arrangements? The key question is what one stands for; if one stands for something outside European integration, one is clearly at risk.

The hon. Gentleman is erecting false phantoms. A report is a report; in the end, this is a matter for negotiation between Governments. The Nice treaty, by means of amended article 191 of the EC treaty, provides a specific new treaty base for such measures. Qualified majority voting will ensure that the provisions governing European political parties' funding are agreed, or, as necessary, updated speedily. No single member state will be able to block much needed reforms. That is important.