Object.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the provision of rural housing in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [4190]

I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues, including the provision of housing. Rural housing has been and continues to be a high priority for the National Assembly. The Assembly aims to develop thriving rural communities, with everyone in Wales having the opportunity to live in good-quality, affordable housing and being able to choose where they live and to decide whether buying or renting is best for them and their families.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He will know that there is a crisis in rural housing in Wales, and that the crisis has become something of a politicised subject. May I ask him, respectfully, to work with some of his noble Friends, with other Labour party members and with all the political parties in Wales to build a consensus, so that we can produce proper and lasting answers for the people of Wales? If we fail them, we all, as political parties, fail them.

I have no problem with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Our rural communities in Wales are represented by Plaid Cymru, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party, all of which I think, have in mind the same solutions for rural housing in Wales. The Assembly has also taken very vigorous action on the issue, providing £18 million for social housing in rural Wales. Additionally, Homebuy is a low-cost housing scheme, and local authorities in Wales are identifying affordable sites for local people. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman on the issue.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on NHS waiting times. [4192]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First Minister to discuss the NHS in Wales. The subject of waiting times is of course often on the agenda.

Now that we are in the fifth year of this appalling Government, is the Minister aware that the number of patients waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment has increased from more than 6,000 to 9,385? It is a staggering increase. Who does the Secretary of State for Wales blame for that disgraceful increase?

The increase in the number of in-patient and day cases is 779, not the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. Clearly, however, the Government are disappointed by the increase, and that disappointment is shared by my colleague the Assembly Secretary, Jane Hutt. Disappointment, however, is not enough: we must do something about it. The Government are doing something about it. We are putting extra funding into the national health service: £35 million extra this year to ease waiting times and emergency pressures, on top of the £40 million that was put in last year. Additionally, there is a further £3 million to increase bed capacity, and £12 million to help reduce orthopaedic waiting lists. All those public expenditure increases are opposed by Conservative Members.

Ultimately, resources alone will not be enough; reform of the health service is also necessary. When the Government introduce measures shortly to reform the health service, I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and other Conservative Members will support them.

Now that the Government have given the country the opportunity, with devolution, to embark on different policies—both in the health service and in other services—in different parts of the country, what efforts are the Government and the Assembly making to compare and contrast the efficacy of the various policies on either side of the Severn and on either side of the border between Scotland and England?

A joint ministerial committee composed of Health Ministers from the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations will meet on Monday. There is a continuous dialogue between the Government and the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have one objective in mind: improving health care and the health service across the United Kingdom. As a result of devolution, there are of course different roads on which we shall travel to achieve that objective. Our objective, however, is the same.

Ulster Unionist Members welcome the concept of reform of the health service. Has the Minister discussed with his colleagues in Wales the possibility of using some of that extra money to purchase provision in Germany and France, where they seem to be able to provide the operations that we cannot?

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Of course, decisions on patients being treated in other countries in the European Union are initially a matter for clinical referral. They then have to be supported by the health authority that has to provide the funding, and they also require the support of the Department of Health. Discussions are taking place between the Department of Health and the devolved Administration in Wales on that matter.

The Prime Minister told public service workers yesterday that, despite the international situation, he would continue with his reforms to improve public services. We all want to see such an improvement, but let us consider the facts. In 1997, some 101,000 Welsh residents were waiting for a first out-patient appointment, but on 31 August this year 203,000 were waiting. In 1997, some 28,000 people were waiting for more than three months, but on 31 August 135,000 were waiting. All the Minister can say is that he is "disappointed". Those are appalling figures. Will the Minister meet the Secretary of State for Health to discuss what action needs to be taken now to turn around those figures and improve on the 1997 levels?

I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reaching his Front Bench position. A boy from the valleys is on the Front Bench—if it is not the Welsh valleys, at least it is the Ribble Valley. We need to put in resources and to reform the health service. We recognise the difficulties and that we are not achieving the targets that we want to achieve. However, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman's party would support the Government when we introduce measures to increase health spending and reform the health service to achieve the goal that we all share—to improve the national health service in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Before too long, he will have a chance to support from the Front Bench the Government's proposals for a health Bill for Wales. I hope that I can count on his backing.

I thank the Minister for his initial remarks. The chilling statistics hide the personal pain of those on the waiting lists. Yesterday, we heard the story of an 88-year-old lady, Violet Lee, who was left for more than 30 hours on a Cardiff hospital trolley. The sick pensioner was among a number of patients forced to wait hours for treatment in the emergency unit of the University of Wales hospital. She also had to wait more than 29 hours for a hot meal. One Pontypool GP I spoke to yesterday, Dr. Greg Graham, said that the situation was getting worse and expressed his frustration. It is little wonder that there has been an 11 per cent. increase in complaints by patients in Wales and that a survey of GPs released today showed that one in four wants to quit the profession. An increasing number are also going private for acute care. I ask the Minister again to meet the Secretary of State for Health and report back to the House on what new measures he will take to halt the rot for the sake of patients in Wales.

I have every sympathy with the lady the hon. Gentleman mentions. No one should have to wait in the circumstances that he describes. However, as I said earlier, it is by putting in resources and reforms that we will make changes. I appreciate the comments from Dr. Greg Graham. I know him well and he is a strong advocate of improving the health service. However, I note also that the overwhelming majority of GPs questioned in the survey the hon. Gentleman mentioned believe that patient care has improved in the past five years. The Government have a good record on which to build and we are improving on that. As I said earlier, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us his support, when he gets the chance, in putting those resources and reforms in place to improve the health service.

When he last met the First Minister of the National Assembly to discuss the funding of its functions. [4193]

I meet the First Minister regularly on a range of matters, including funding issues. I also recently met the Assembly's Finance Minister, Edwina Hart. Tomorrow, the Assembly will debate its annual Budget.

I thank my right hon. Friend, his Under-Secretary and his staff at the Wales Office for the excellent relationships that have been developed with the Assembly and the way in which the Department acts as a bridge with the Assembly, as exemplified by the flexibility on the Barnett formula that enabled the extra funding for objective 1. Will my right hon. Friend consider more flexibility for other functions of the Assembly, because needs in Wales have been shown to be much higher than those in other parts of the United Kingdom?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. On Monday, Edwina Hart, the Welsh Assembly Finance Minister, announced a further £17 million to support Welsh local authorities. Today, the Government are providing about £1.2 million for Wales, which results from extra money from the Department of Health in England. In recent months, extra money for Wales has included up to £2 million for rate relief grant, more than £2.5 million related to foot and mouth disease, and more than £2 million from the invest-to-save budget. We have also offered to clear outstanding housing debt when local authority stock transfers take place. Potentially, that is worth up to £300 million, and is in addition to the extra £100 million given last year for education and health, and for tackling crime, especially drug crime. All that comes on top of the spending review in 2000, and of the comprehensive spending review before that.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Assembly does not need a new building to carry out its functions and that it would be better if the money earmarked for that project went into public services, and especially the health service?

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Richard Rogers Partnership, the architects of the Assembly building, has issued a statement today, which refutes a statement made by the Finance Minister on 16 January? She said:

"I am pleased to report that since last June we have made excellent progress. We remain on course to deliver a high quality building, on time and within total budget provision."

The Richard Rogers Partnership refutes that statement, and accuses the Finance Minister of refusing to meet to discuss the matter. We are talking about a lot of taxpayers' money. Will the Secretary of State therefore offer to meet the First Minister, to sort out the problem?

May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the shadow Cabinet? He knows that this is a matter for the Assembly itself to decide. It is time that all hon. Members understood that devolution is here to stay, and that it is for the Assembly to decide whether to have a home of its own—just as we have our own home in the House of Commons.

With regard to the Richard Rogers Partnership, I understand that the Finance Minister is to write to all members of the Assembly—including those in the Conservative party. However, the House must bear in mind what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths): extra money—hundreds of millions of pounds of it—has gone to the Assembly for precisely those public services about which the hon. Gentleman spoke earlier.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on transport in Wales. [4194]

My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss wide-ranging current issues affecting Wales, including transport.

Transport generally is a matter for the Assembly, although railways, air and ports remain, generally, the responsibility of the UK Government, working closely with the Assembly. I am keen to continue dialogue with the Assembly and Cabinet colleagues in order to determine how best we can meet the transport needs of Wales.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the people and economy of Wales were especially poorly served by Railtrack, until it was taken into administration 10 days ago? Will he undertake to work in partnership with the Assembly to press the new company when it is set up to invest in the rail infrastructure that we so badly need in Wales? In particular, will he emphasise the need to improve the track west of Cardiff, so that in the 21st century our inter-city trains move faster than Stevenson's Rocket on its first test run?

As a regular user of the rail network, I understand—and share—the frustration passengers have had to put up with over past years. The Government are committed to working in close partnership with the Assembly and other stakeholders to improve the railway system. That is why, to achieve that improvement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has committed £30 billion to the network over the next 10 years.

Given the difficulty experienced by Railtrack, will the Minister say what discussions he is having with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the progress on the single rail franchise for Wales, and especially about improvements to the service in rural areas, such as the heart of Wales line that is so important to my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire?

Our colleagues in the Assembly attach considerable importance to developing the new Wales and borders rail franchise and the opportunities that will be derived from that for improving the whole rail structure and support in Wales. I have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Assembly's Minister for Environment, Sue Essex, to discuss the all-Wales franchise. We have also had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, and discussions are continuing. We hope to make progress.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly on education in Wales. [4195]

My right hon. Friend has met the First Minister on a number of occasions recently to discuss education in Wales.

My right hon. Friend and I have also had meetings and discussions with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales to discuss the forthcoming Education Bill.

I warmly welcome the National Assembly's discussion document, "The Learning Country". Does my hon. Friend agree that the foundations for such a learning country are being achieved by many schools in Wales, particularly Cymer Afan and Sandfields comprehensive schools in my constituency? Does he agree that our learning country will be achieved only if we base it on the principles of equity, lifelong learning and citizenship?

I congratulate Cymer Afan and Sandfields schools on their achievements. It shows what can be done with resources, commitment and the vision of good teachers. The opportunities for all our citizens afforded by a programme of lifelong learning is obvious to us all, and I believe that the publication of "The Learning Country", to which my hon. Friend referred, as well as that of the White Paper, "Schools Achieving Success" contributes to the continuing debate on improving the standards of education that we all want to see.

The Rees report on student finance, commissioned by the Welsh Assembly, clearly recommended the abolition of student tuition fees in the interests of widening access to higher education. Would the Minister be willing to promote the abolition of student tuition fees to the Department of Education and Skills in its review of student finance if called upon to do so by the Welsh Assembly?

Our core objective is to get more people into higher education. The review of student support was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on 4 October. The Government recognise that the fear of debt can act as a barrier to those wanting to go into higher education—that is why we are having a review.

I am aware of the Rees report, which I think is very constructive. It contains 54 recommendations, which the Assembly is considering. The report does not recommend that students make no contribution to their higher education. However, I believe that that report and the Assembly's response will undoubtedly form part of the consultation announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 October.

What his latest assessment is of levels of employment in south-east Wales. [4196]

Employment in south-east Wales increased slightly to 69 per cent. in 2000. Some 3,800 new jobs have been announced in south-east Wales in the past 12 months through developments in retailing, electronics and communications sectors. However, that does not compensate for the heavy loss of jobs in the area due to the Corns closures. The Government are providing support to those affected in the form of a modernised ISERBS package. This is complemented by a range of Government employment initiatives and by the Assembly's training and regeneration packages.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the energy that he has put into brokering the well co-ordinated response in south-east Wales to the crisis in the steel industry and the job losses following from it. Does he agree that the fortunes of Newport are crucial to the fortunes of south-east Wales and to employment prospects in particular? Will he do what he can to ensure that at the very earliest opportunity an urban regeneration company is established in Newport with broad scope and depth of resources?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. I entirely agree that an urban regeneration company for the Newport and south Gwent area would be an excellent idea. I understand that Newport county borough council is making proposals regarding the urban regeneration company, which the Assembly is considering in detail. I welcome the proposals, which will serve my constituents as well as those of my right hon. Friend.

Do not the recent 800 job losses announced by United States-owned firms in Wales—Corning on Deeside, GEAES in Nant Garw and Dow Corning in Barry—confirm that the Government's core economic policies are destroying the Welsh manufacturing sector? As Secretary of State, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing? What proposals is he putting to his colleagues in Government to prevent further job losses in the Welsh manufacturing sector?

As I said in my previous answer and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are deeply concerned about losses in the manufacturing sector in Wales, but I reject the claim that the Government are destroying manufacturing in Wales. He will know that only last week about 250 new jobs for Blaenau Gwent were announced by the First Minister. There have been 350 new jobs at Morrisons in Rogerston, 400 at Oakdale, 188 at SkyTronics in Cardiff and 264 in my constituency. On average, about 300 jobs a month are coming to Wales.

Of course, that does not make up for all the jobs that we have lost, but it is not in any way true to say that we are destroying manufacturing in Wales.

Given the increasing number of jobs in Wales that are dependent on the aviation industry, will my right hon. Friend assure me that when he next meets the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will press on him that any aid package for that industry includes the capacity to protect aviation jobs in Wales, especially in my constituency?

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting next to me and listening. At the end of the day, it is the stability and strength of our economy in Wales that will protect our jobs. That will be the best sort of protection in terms of what has happened on the international scene in the past few weeks.

If he will make a statement on manufacturing employment in Wales. [4197]

Some 7,500 jobs have been announced in the manufacturing sector in Wales in the past 12 months. That is particularly welcome in the context of severe losses in the steel sector.

I am amazed by the complacency of the Secretary of State's comments. In the past four years throughout the United Kingdom 8 per cent. of the nation's manufacturing jobs have been destroyed by the Government. In Wales, the picture is worse. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this Government's tax and regulatory policies have been one of the main reasons why those jobs have gone? What is he going to do now to lift that burden from business in Wales and start to reverse the decline?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the basis that he represents a party that saw the loss of 2 million manufacturing jobs during its period of office. Of course we have lost jobs in steel and elsewhere, but as I said earlier jobs are coming to our economy in Wales. Of course I am not complacent. I live in Wales and I represent a Welsh constituency.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the seven years prior to 1997 under the previous Conservative Government only 100 jobs were created on the St. Asaph business park? In the four years since then, under a Labour Government, 1,100 jobs have been created on that £11.5 million project. Will my right hon. Friend join in congratulating the National Assembly for Wales, Denbighshire county council and the Welsh Development Agency on creating quality jobs in my constituency?

Not only do I congratulate my colleagues in the National Assembly, the WDA and the local authority, I congratulate my hon. Friend. He played a major role in the St. Asaph business park development. At present, about 520 people are employed there—100 are in inward investment companies. So, that is a great new story for north Wales and for his constituency in particular.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on the health service in Wales. [4198]

My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the National Assembly First Minister and the Minister for Health and Social Services to discuss the national health service in Wales.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He is aware of the plan to phase out health authorities in Wales by 2003 and to give additional powers to local health groups. Will he assure me that the legislation will be in place by 2003 to enable that to happen, so that the layer of bureaucracy can be removed and there can be a further reduction in the quango state and more money for patient care?

I know that my hon. Friend is a staunch advocate of the NHS. I can tell her that discussions are on-going about the proposed content of the Welsh health Bill. In addition, discussions are currently taking place between my officials, officials from the Department of Health and the Assembly on time-critical elements that we hope may be included in the NHS reform and decentralisation Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot tell my hon. Friend that the legislation will be on the statute book by the date that she says, because that is a matter for the House to determine when the Government announce their legislative programme, but I can tell her that we are working towards that end.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 October.

Before listing my engagements, may I express on behalf of Members on both sides of the House our deep sadness at the death of Jamie Cann? He was a conscientious Member of Parliament who always battled for his constituency, Ipswich. He will be sadly missed, and our thoughts are with his family at this time.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. Shortly before coming to the House, I spoke to President Bush.

In recognising that the terror groups who have struck again are fanatically opposed to a settlement in the middle east, should not the United States in particular do more to try to bring about a sovereign Palestinian state in the occupied territories? Would it not also be useful if countries such as our own told the Israelis that although they, like any other state, have a perfectly legitimate right to defend their country, as far as the occupied territories are concerned they cannot win against the Palestinians and, frankly, they do not deserve to win?

I think that the first thing that we should say to Israel is to give our complete condemnation of the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister, to express our outrage at his assassination and to urge the Palestinian National Authority to take all measures necessary to apprehend those who are responsible.

As for what my hon. Friend says about the peace process, I do actually believe that the United States of America has been making many efforts to establish a durable peace in the middle east, not least the Tenet plan and the Mitchell plan, which were conceived, and whose implementation was attempted, long before 11 September.

I think that now, however, there is a renewed sense of urgency and a desire to see a durable lasting settlement there, so that Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace. We shall certainly do all that we can to assist that process and move it forward. What we always know about such situations is that unless we do try to put in place a proper process where people negotiate the way forward, the extremists who are opposed to any form of peace settlement move in with their bloodshed, and we need to defeat the extremists and achieve a lasting and durable peace.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister's comments and warm thoughts about Jamie Cann. Those of us on this side of the House who knew him will have memories of a good colleague and friend, and our thoughts also go to his family.

I also associate myself with the Prime Minister's comments on the brutal assassination today of the Israeli Cabinet Minister. Those who may not even have thought about this should know that, as the Prime Minister pointed out, those responsible are determined to break the peace process and ensure that it cannot go ahead; it is not the other way round. Certainly, we, like him, will be very concerned about the way that others react to them.

Some argued, over a week ago, when we were talking about the military action, and some appear to be arguing now, a week later, for a pause in the bombing. I fully understand that bin Laden's propaganda, and pictures in the media of bombs going astray will worry some, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that, having started this action, we see it through, and that to stop now would send out a terrible message to bin Laden, the Taliban and any other rogue state bent on terrorism that they will be allowed to get away with atrocities in future because we lack the resolve to deal with them?

I do agree with that. I think it is important that we continue this military action and ensure that it is successful.

I can tell the House that we have now significantly damaged the Taliban's military capability, including fast jets, transports and helicopters. We have inflicted very severe damage on their command and control facilities, early warning systems, air defence systems, radar and surface-to-air missile sites, and we have also inflicted heavy damage on the terrorist network and terrorist training camps of al-Qaeda.

We are in the process of establishing an ability to take further military action against both the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda network, and we are giving additional help to the Northern Alliance in its efforts against the Taliban. The Northern Alliance is now taking territory from the Taliban, and is close to Mazar-i-Sharif in the north and to Kabul.

In any military action there are difficulties—there is no clean or easy way to deal with it—but I think that the House will know that, in the weeks that followed 11 September, we made every effort to give the Taliban regime a chance to be reasonable and to yield up bin Laden and his associates; they refused to do so. We now know quite clearly from the statements made by al-Qaeda and bin Laden since 11 September that, if they are not stopped, they will try to commit further terrorist atrocities. We have no option but to continue this, to bring it to a successful conclusion and to close down that terrorist network once and for all.

Following that point with the Prime Minister, is not it also correct that ending the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is clearly linked to the same military success? The biggest obstacle that we now see to delivering aid is the control of the vast majority of Afghanistan by the Taliban, who are now, I understand, taxing some of the aid that is going in and even sending some of it to market, not letting it go to those who need it. As we know that some of the key passes into Afghanistan will be closed by the new year, time, as the Prime Minister knows, is short. So would not the best way to ensure that vital aid gets through be for the existing Taliban regime to fall and for a new Government to come to power committed to assisting the aid programme?

It may again help if I say a word or two about this, because I understand the concerns of aid agencies and others about humanitarian assistance going through to people inside Afghanistan. Around Afghanistan, on the borders, we have sufficient provision of food, camps and shelter for about 2.5 million people. Some 4 million people are already being helped. Inside Afghanistan is the problem. The World Food Programme believes that it can get in some 12,000 tonnes of food in the coming week, even despite the difficulties, and it has already got in several thousands tonnes of food in the past few days. That is difficult, but it is important for people to realise why it is difficult.

It is difficult because the Taliban regime are harassing the UN convoys, in intimidating them and, in some cases, taking over their equipment, their communications or the sites where the UN staff are. They are taxing some of the food—so-called taxing—as it comes into Afghanistan, and they are trying to lift other parts of it and use it for their own purposes. If we have their co-operation in the humanitarian help to the Afghan people, we can make sure that that food gets through. It is they who are the obstacle, and we will do everything that we possibly can, despite their obstruction, to get that food through to people. However, it is very important that people realise that it is their obstruction that is stopping the food getting through to the people who need it.

Our aim must be to bring bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice, as the Prime Minister has said from the beginning, but until there is a Government in Afghanistan who are determined to rid themselves of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, that, as he knows, will be immensely difficult to achieve. Will he therefore, take this opportunity to assure the House that such a Government must be broadly based and include not just the mainly Tajik Northern Alliance, but other tribes, such as the Pushtun, Hazaras and others? Will he also confirm, against some reports, that he and the United States are talking widely to all the people who could help to put together such a Government and who may already have plans to do so?

We certainly are talking to all the people who would have to be involved in order to have a broad-based post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan. However, the work that is being carried out is being undertaken principally by Mr. Brahimi, the UN representative, and he is in talks with all the relevant ethnic groupings in Afghanistan. It is extremely important that we have a successor to the Taliban regime that has broad support in the country and that we commit ourselves to assisting that regime in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Now, some few weeks after 11 September, I can assure the House that the coalition for action remains strong and that countries are pledging their support—military, as well as logistical support—right around the world. On the humanitarian effort, we are doing everything that we reasonably, humanly can, and will do more. In respect of what happens after the Taliban fall, we are working to make sure that the Afghan people, who are the victims of the Taliban, get the best possible prospect of a decent and stable future.

The Prime Minister will know of the statement made by the aid agencies this morning that 400,000 people in Afghanistan are surviving on grass and wild vegetation. He will also know that that statement makes it clear that the problems of getting humanitarian relief through are caused by a combination of the tithes imposed by the Taliban, obstructions placed by the Northern Alliance and the bombing that makes drivers reluctant to go into the area. The aid agencies have called for a pause in the bombing to feed those 400,000, and the 2 million who will not have enough food to survive the winter. Will we take any notice of that call?

Of course, we take notice of the concerns that the agencies have raised but I must say to my hon. Friend that the principal problem for the drivers of the UN convoys is the Taliban regime's harassment and intimidation of them. We should remember that anyone who associates with the UN inside the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan is liable, according to the Taliban's own statements, to be prosecuted by them.

The World Food Programme believes that it can get 12,000 tonnes of food into Afghanistan in the next week. We are doing everything we can to remove the obstacles, but the single most important thing for the Afghan people is to be released from the tyranny of the Taliban regime as swiftly as possible. That is essential, and it is essential for humanitarian reasons, too.

I also stress to my hon. Friend and to the House that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan pre-dates 11 September by a long way. Literally millions of people were refugees before then and living in conditions of deprivation and, in some cases, starvation. So we will continue to do everything we can. We cannot have the Taliban regime remain in power and able to use this humanitarian crisis as a reason for warding off the action that we take.

May I associate Liberal Democrat Members with the proper expressions of condolences about the two individuals that the leader of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister have already offered?

Given the need for the military action in Afghanistan to be underpinned by the moral authority of the maximum humanitarian effort that is consistent with the military and political objectives that we support, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that anything that can be done to open the passage of roads into Afghanistan will be welcome? Is the international community, for example, considering safe corridors that will perhaps be under longer-term United Nations administration?

We are looking urgently at all the different ways that we can try to secure corridors by which food can get into Afghanistan. Of course, one of the areas in which the military and the humanitarian actions interconnect is that the more territory that is under some sort of control by forces hostile to the Taliban, the more aid we can get into Afghanistan. The actions are linked. We are also working very closely with the United Nations to see what further measures it can take too.

UNICEF warns today that up to 100,000 children could die over the next few months because of climatic conditions, dreadful internal conditions and the lack of aid, so will the Prime Minister tell us what steps if any—perhaps through the use of American spy satellites—have been taken to ensure that the aid drops that have already taken place have, in fact, reached the desired destinations?

We believe that most of the aid that is being put into Afghanistan reaches the people whom it is supposed to reach, but we cannot be sure. We are operating in extremely difficult territory in the areas controlled by the Taliban where, as I said, there is a great deal of intimidation and harassment by them. However, in the conversation that I had with President Bush a few moments ago, we both agreed that the humanitarian aspect of this mission is as important as the military. Indeed, the two are linked. It is important that we do everything that we possibly can to remove any obstacles there and to get the aid in. We will consider what further help we can give to the refugees both on the borders of Afghanistan and those on the move inside Afghanistan.

I simply express to the House the obvious point that it is an extremely difficult situation in which there are very poor communications, poor infrastructure and hordes of soldiers from the Taliban who can literally take over an area very quickly and intimidate the people there, including, of course, the UN staff.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will, as we understand it, withdraw his Ministers from the partnership Executive in Northern Ireland within the next few days, leading to the collapse of the power-sharing Executive and the unravelling of the devolved institutions? Does he agree that that will create a political vacuum in Northern Ireland that might only be filled by men of violence? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the hard-won peace process, even at this eleventh hour, can be saved, in partnership with the Irish Government, for the people of Ireland, north and south?

I am obviously deeply committed to the peace process moving forward. Of course it is important that we do everything we can to ensure that we have the stability and institutions that we want. However, that requires all those who have supported the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—to do what they are supposed to do under its terms. My hon. Friend knows full well what I am referring to. If all parties are to have the confidence that we are moving forward on an agreed basis—namely, peaceful and democratic means as the only way in which to advance their cause—it is important that everyone implements all the obligations under the agreement, not simply some of them.

Did the Prime Minister see the comments of the Anglican vicar who lost a relative on 11 September? He told the BBC that Jo Moore's infamous e-mail was

"basically burying bad news … under the bodies of six and a half thousand people.

Indeed, she did not even include the relatives of those who died in her belated list of apologies. Did anyone in Downing street speak to Jo Moore after her e-mail or seek her resignation at any time?

First, I do not defend in any shape or form what Jo Moore said, which was horrible, wrong and stupid. I do, however, defend the decision that to sack someone and end their career was too heavy a penalty. That was the decision taken. I supported it and regard the matter as closed.

If he will make a statement on the reform of local government finance.

We will publish a White Paper on local government. We are also working with local government to review revenue grant distribution to create a fair and transparent system that enables councils to meet the needs of their communities. These changes will be introduced in 2003–04.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I want to ask him about the standard spending assessment for education. Last year, a primary school pupil in my constituency received around £2,300 per annum; a primary school pupil in the city of Westminster received more than £3,300 per annum; and a primary school pupil in the best-funded local authority received £4,300. Does my right hon. Friend think that that is fair? Can the system be justified to my constituents any longer?

It is precisely because of people's concerns that we are reviewing the system, as my hon. Friend knows. However, it is important that such a complex system is reviewed properly and that we get the answers right. He will know that in Bury, as in other parts of the country, there has been a massive increase in the amount of money that goes into the education budgets, irrespective of what system we use. That is one reason why it is so important that we continue to invest in our public services so that education, health and other services get what they need.

Have recent events affected the Government's thinking on the siting of airports, especially those near London—

Order. This is a closed question. The hon. Lady cannot ask about that.

I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that Railtrack's fate sends all private companies involved in the delivery of public services a clear signal that they can no longer expect to be feather-bedded. Can he assure the House that any future developments will be determined by the imperative to give quality and value in services to the public?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It was important, particularly because we were being asked for billions of pounds of extra public subsidy for Railtrack, that we took the action necessary to put the company on a better footing for the future, so that the interests of the travelling public come first. We know what a disaster rail privatisation was; it is our job and our duty to make sure that it we put it right, and we are doing so.

Why does the Prime Minister think that more than a quarter of all family doctors now want to leave the NHS?

There are huge strains on family doctors at the moment because they are going through a period of enormous change. We are moving the whole of primary care to primary care trusts. However, I think that family doctors believe that primary care trusts are the right way forward. They also believe, as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the survey on which he based his question, that the services that they offer to their patients today are greatly improved compared with a few years ago.

If that is the case, why does the same British Medical Association survey show that nine out of 10 GPs believe that the Prime Minister's reforms are unachievable, and two thirds think that his plans will do nothing to improve care for patients?

It is not only the doctors. A constituent of mine—[Interruption.] They do not like it. A constituent of mine recently died in hospital after waiting nine hours on a trolley. His family were not aware that he had been admitted or, for a further three days, that he had died. When they came to pay their respects, they found that the body had been lost. Does not the Prime Minister think that all his promises of a better tomorrow will sound hollow to such people?

Of course what happened to the right hon. Gentleman's constituent is unacceptable. There are situations in the national health service today that are unacceptable. People wait too long for operations; we do not have enough doctors, nurses and consultants; we need to renovate many hospital buildings and introduce new technology. All those things require investment and money, and I am afraid that the difference between our two political parties is that we support the additional investment and his party opposes it.

It is the usual story. The Prime Minister talks about investment and then, as he did the other day, pleads for more time. What is the point when his own Ministers, some of whom are present, belie his words? His Health Secretary goes around telling everybody that the NHS will remain a state monopoly as long as Labour is in power. Labour Members are all nodding because they enjoy that. A senior Cabinet Minister is sent to tell the unions that their working practices will not change, no matter what. Is it not clear that when it comes to pleas for more time, with Labour it will be more wasted time? [Interruption.] They do not like it.

Order. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard.

They do not like it, Mr. Speaker. The truth that the Prime Minister has to be aware of is that Labour always puts favours to its friends ahead of fairness to patients.

First, on the trade unions, we want to ensure that when services are contracted out, it is not done on the basis of poorer terms and conditions of employment for the staff. One of the things that we have learned over the past few years, not only under this Government but under the previous Government, is that if the impact of contracting out is simply to undermine the terms and conditions of staff, it will not usually lead to a better service, and having discussions on that basis is perfectly sensible.

We are employing many thousands more nurses in the health service, and there are more doctors and consultants. The largest hospital-building programme since the war is under way, and GP premises are being renovated. Of course, it takes a very long time to do that, but it can be done only if we put in the necessary investment.

The position of the Labour party is that it is necessary to put investment into health care, education and other public services before short-term tax cuts. The right hon. Gentleman's position is to stand in the opposite corner. That is why, no matter how much the Conservatives talk about public services, they will never have credibility on that issue.

My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about the efforts to bring together the various interest groups that might form a post-Taliban Government. My concern is that they are probably all men. Does he agree that there are many courageous and able women in Afghanistan and in exile, and will he carefully examine the models of female participation that paved the way for women's political involvement in the transitions in South Africa and Northern Ireland?

Female participation would certainly be an innovation in Afghanistan after the Taliban regime. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering how to have a post-Taliban Government in Afghanistan that is as broad-based as possible, and how we can help Afghanistan get over some of the extremism that has so disfigured the country. Under the Taliban, not only are women not allowed to occupy any position of power in public life, they were first driven out of Kabul university, and then girls were forbidden to go to school. There are many changes in which female participation would be most welcome.

I remind the Prime Minister of the words of the Foreign Secretary in the House yesterday:

"There is no problem finding the money to pay for aid to Afghanistan".—[Official Report, 16 October 2001: Vol. 372, c. 1060.]

The Prime Minister has just told the House that the humanitarian aspect is as important as the military aspect. How does he explain the fact that to date the World Food Programme has received only one third of the money promised to it by the west to feed the starving in Afghanistan? How can we stop the Muslim world feeling that we find it easier to find money for bombs than for bread? Will he now lead a humanitarian coalition, as he has led the military coalition, to squeeze out of the rich west the money to feed 6 million people?

The hon. Gentleman's question is predicated on a misunderstanding of the true position: $700 million have been pledged and the World Food Programme needs about $130 million of that immediately. It has got it. When it needs more, it will have more. The issue is not the sum that has been pledged: it has been made absolutely clear that that money will be available. The issue is how we get the food into Afghanistan. On the question of the humanitarian coalition, we are doing everything that we can, but, as I said earlier, we face obstruction by the Taliban regime.

As for the military action, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that there is no alternative to taking action against those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on 11 September other than to say that we will sit back and let them carry on doing it, which would be interpreted as another sign of weakness. I find it extraordinary that anyone can look at the situation and not realise the absolute necessity of acting and of carrying that action through.

Of course it is difficult. Anyone with any sense of humanity who sees the humanitarian problems and realises the appalling difficulties of any form of military conflict would prefer not to take the action, but what have we learned since 11 September? It is that the Taliban will not yield up the terrorist networks and, what is more, those people will do anything they can to repeat the atrocities that they committed on 11 September. In such circumstances, we have no alternative but to act. Our primary aim should be to make the action effective and to get it done as swiftly as we can.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the existence of madrasas in Pakistan in which the indoctrination of young people in fundamentalist education takes place, preparing them for future terrorist activities? Is he also aware that there are in Pakistan centres where training in the use of weapons is carried out? Will he take the opportunity to speak to the President of Pakistan and say that those institutions should be closed to ensure that the culture of terrorism is rooted out of society?

I do not think that it is for us to start dictating to countries what they do, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we address the issue. I found, both when I was in Pakistan and out in the Gulf, that there was considerable understanding of the need for the moderate parts of Islam to regain full and proper ownership of their own religious beliefs from the extremists. I hope very much that that is what happens; I know that it is essential for the future stability of the world.

Does the Prime Minister share the opinion expressed by Northern Ireland Assembly Minister Brid Rodgers that only the IRA can save the Belfast agreement? Does he agree that the issue of decommissioning all illegally held weapons and explosives cannot be fudged? All terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, whether so-called loyalists or republicans, must commit exclusively to democratic processes and sever immediately all links with other terrorist groups, such as those based in Turkey, Slovakia, Spain and, indeed, Colombia.

I do agree that it is important for all people to express themselves and indeed to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Of course, that is the very reason why we are insistent that weapons are put beyond use, not merely by republicans, but by loyalists and all those groups who have acted and used terrorism in the past 30 years to do so much damage in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that, if we can get that process under way, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will work with us to make sure that the institutions can be given the stability that they need, derived from people's confidence that exclusively peaceful and democratic means are going to be used.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Foreign Secretary is representing the United Kingdom at a meeting today in Luxembourg of the General Affairs Council, which will discuss the European Union's overall counter-terrorism policy in response to the atrocities on 11 September. In particular, EU Foreign Ministers will review progress on the package of measures called for at the emergency European Council on 21 September. They will also discuss the way forward on Afghanistan and how best to ensure a better future for the country and its people. The Foreign Secretary will then immediately travel to Turkey for further talks. The Turks are an important part of the international coalition against terrorism, and we will continue to work closely with them and all other allies in the coalition to ensure that terrorism does not prevail.

I recently made my first visit to central Europe as Minister for Europe. In Hungary and the Czech Republic, I saw countries, Governments and people determined to be a part of the EU. I have also met Ministers from Poland, Cyprus, Malta, Estonia and Slovenia; they all look to the EU as their future and they look to Britain as their champion. They want EU membership, and they want it now. They think that the EU has delayed too long. They, and all other candidates like them, want to take their place as full members of the European family, which history has long denied them. They asked me with some bemusement how those in Britain who say that they are in favour of enlargement can at the same time be against the only treaty that will deliver it on time and in good order. I put that same question to the Conservative Opposition today. By voting against the Bill, they are voting against all Britain's friends and allies in eastern, central and southern Europe who are anxiously knocking on the door to enter.

I am grateful to the Minister. Like him, I have spoken to officials, particularly in Poland and Hungary, about their countries joining the EU. Did they ask him what arrangements the UK Government have tried to put in place to make sure that the common agricultural policy will work effectively? As he knows, agriculture is particularly important to those countries. What did they ask him and what did he reply?

Perhaps I have the advantage over the hon. Lady, as I have spoken to Ministers in those countries, not simply officials—[Interruption.] Okay, and officials as well. The answer to her question is simple. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have all completed negotiations on a range of chapters, up to the total of 31, which is their aim for full accession. Agriculture is one of those that still have to be negotiated. There are concerns, in relation to Poland especially, about the reforms that will be necessary in the common agricultural policy. We will tackle that agenda and tackle it with the candidate countries, as we are doing.

Reform of the common agricultural policy must not be used as an excuse to deny enlargement. A series of vested interests need to be overcome among some of our fellow member states in order to reform the CAP. It is important that we do not allow those vested interests to triumph by blocking enlargement. We want the candidate countries in, and we want to conduct both reforms in parallel.

I endorse the Minister's remarks. Can he confirm that in our efforts to achieve enlargement within the timetable set out, it will be necessary for all the applicant states to meet the full requirements of the acquis, and that there will be no political fudge at the last minute to achieve our political requirements of enlargement of the EU?

No. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that cannot be the case under the treaty. Each of the applicants must sign off and agree the 31 chapters involved in the acquis, then they must ratify the treaty through their domestic process. There is no question of fudges. Detailed negotiations are necessary and much progress has been made. The Czech Republic, for example, has signed off 19 chapters. Cyprus is in a similar position. In the next year or so, we must redouble our efforts to make sure that the other candidates can come in, particularly those that are likely to be in the first wave. We are determined to play our part to ensure that enlargement happens on time, from 1 January 2004. Getting the Bill through the House tonight is an important part of that process. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whom I see sitting on the Front Bench instead of complaining from the Back Benches about European policy, says "Nonsense." Enlargement is the only show in town. If hon. Members want enlargement, and if they do not want all our friends in eastern and central Europe to be denied the opportunity of joining the European Union, they should vote for the Bill. If not, they are against those countries and their interests, and they should go out and tell them that that is their position.

I thank the Minister for giving way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) cannot answer for himself, may I suggest an answer on his behalf? The Nice treaty covers many matters other than enlargement, such as the creation of a European military force outside the NATO structure. How can the Minister try to blackmail the House into saying that we must vote for the Bill, because if we vote against it for any reason whatever, we are voting against enlargement? That is, as my hon. Friend rightly said, utter nonsense.

Part of my duties is to educate Opposition Members about Europe. That is hard work in several cases, and the hon. Gentleman is an example. I thought that the edict from the new leadership of the Conservative Opposition was for them to take a low profile on European matters. I thought that they had instructions not to say anything about European policies that might deflect attention from the domestic agenda. However, I am not surprised. Their policies are not just unmentionable; they are unspeakable as well. We must make it clear, so that the House and voters understand, that Opposition Members such as the hon. Gentleman and the entire Eurosceptic Conservative Front Bench are not so much anti-Europe as anxious to be out of Europe, as the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) so eloquently said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is a Conservative Whip? Does his intervention indicate a new dispensation within the Opposition? Apparently, in order to get a job on the Front Bench, Opposition Members must be able to defy their leader about keeping quiet on Europe.

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. I look forward to hearing many more interventions being made from the Back Benches by Front Benchers such as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is there at the moment. It is a new novelty in opposition.

Novelties are new.

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is very quick, and I congratulate him on that.

Let us be clear that our Government want enlargement just as much as the candidate countries, not only because we have strong ties with each of them and because it is in their interests, but because it is in Britain's interests.

The Minister is right that the practical effect of denying the Bill its Third Reading would be to ensure that Britain could not ratify the Nice treaty. Does he agree that the certain consequence would be the throwing of a major spanner into the enlargement works?

I am grateful that sense has prevailed at least somewhere on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. If we do not carry this Bill in the House and the other place, we will be unable to ratify the Nice treaty, which will fall apart. Britain would then be in a dangerous position, as it would be a champion of enlargement that could not introduce its own Bill to ratify the treaty that makes enlargement possible. I am sure that I have his support in saying that there is no alternative. If we want enlargement to occur on time and to ensure the entry on 1 January of the first wave of countries, including many of our friends, such as the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and others, the Bill needs to pass through the House—and quickly.

My right hon. Friend stressed the importance of the House enacting the Bill so that the treaty can be ratified. Is he aware that Ireland has rejected the proposal on which the Bill is based? Does that mean that all our discussion is immaterial or does not the Irish rejection matter?

Neither suggestion is true. Three countries have already ratified the treaty and we intend also to be in the first batch that do so. The more countries that ratify it, the more progress can be made in securing the enlargement that we, at least, want.

On the Irish decision, my hon. Friend made an important point to which I want to respond fully. Consultations have taken place between the European Union leadership, including Britain, and the Irish Government. They have asked for time to consider their position. [Interruption.] It is interesting to hear scoffing, howls of laughter and cheering at that prospect. However, if ratification is not agreed by any member state, including Britain, enlargement cannot proceed. If enlargement is desirable, as I believe it to be, it must proceed.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is sometimes difficult to understand the exact position of the Opposition, it is clear that they are not against the enlargement of the European Union, but want an enlargement that will weaken or undermine it, instead of consolidating it and reinforcing its capacity to act?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not think that the Opposition are in favour of proper enlargement. They want to wreck the prospects of the candidate countries, as well as Europe, the Bill and the possibility of getting ratification from Britain. Fortunately, we have a clear majority over the Eurosceptics who sit on the Opposition Benches and it is just possible that the Bill will be introduced without their support.

Does the Minister really think that the Bill is indispensable for enlargement? From my experience of the Community, it seems to me that it would be perfectly possible to convene an intergovernmental conference tomorrow in Brussels to discuss enlargement issues in the Nice treaty that are completely uncontroversial and without any need to ratify the treaty itself. One could have such a conference tomorrow and get on with enlargement.

The hon. Gentleman is a formidable journalist, but if he imagines that he can convene an intergovernmental conference tomorrow and renegotiate enlargement, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Britain increased its voting strength in the Council of Ministers under the Nice treaty. We got a better deal than any of the other larger countries; we increased the share of our vote under qualified majority voting. If we reopened the Nice agenda, does the hon. Gentleman believe that that increase, which is embedded in the treaty, subject to ratification, would be left untouched? Of course it would not. Several parties are not happy that Britain's share of the vote increased.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is a formidable journalist, but I do not believe that The Spectator had correspondents at the Nice summit. He would otherwise know that the decision on the voting weight was exceedingly controversial and that representatives of several member states threatened to walk out. If the treaty falls through, the whole matter might have to be renegotiated with consequent enormous complications.

The hon. Gentleman is right; I shall continue to take his interventions if he wishes to make them. He makes a valid point: several other countries are extremely upset about the deal to which they agreed and they would desperately like to unravel it. The opposition of the hon. Member for Henley and his colleagues to the Bill would promote that outcome.

My right hon. Friend said that his mission was to educate the Opposition. He has shown them that their zealous anti-Europeanism would recklessly annoy many of our friends. However, will he also educate them about the changed attitude of the United States Administration to European security and defence policy? It undermines yet another plank of their anti-Europeanism.

My right hon. Friend is right. The President of the United States has been steadfast in his support for the European security and defence policy. He speaks for the Administration in Washington, and some of the offstage noises to the contrary should be ignored. As I shall make clear later, if I am allowed to get that far, the events of the past month have increased the importance of a European role in security. The progress has been endorsed.

Will the Minister give way?

I am sorry, but I shall make some progress before taking any more interesting interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

Enlargement is not a favour that we are doing the candidates. It is a favour we are doing ourselves. Why? It will reunite Europe at long last after the bitter divisions of world war two and the cold war. It will make us safer; war between the EU's members is now unthinkable. By enlarging, the EU will extend stability throughout Europe.

Enlargement will make us richer. Taking in the central Europeans alone will boost British gross domestic product by £1.75 billion. That is an important prize. It will create more jobs for British workers. Enlargement will create thousands of them throughout the UK. It will mean lower prices and greater choice for UK consumers. They will have access to a wider range of products at more competitive prices as the single market is enlarged to become the largest in the world, with a population of nearly 500 million.

It will also make Britain cleaner and greener. Common environmental standards applied in all EU member states, new and old, will reduce the cross-border pollution that affects our skies and rivers.

Enlargement will make our streets safer. Together, the EU member states are tackling cross-border crime, drug smuggling, people trafficking and illegal immigration. If we are to deliver lasting success, we need the candidates inside the EU, working with us on those tasks.

As I said earlier, enlargement is even more important after 11 September. After the horror of that day, we need enlargement more than ever. If we are to defeat the terrorists, we need the bigger, stronger Europe that enlargement will bring. We need the practical co-operation across the continent that enlargement will allow.

Let me explain. On 21 September, European Union leaders agreed on an action plan to fight terror across Europe and beyond. That plan is based on much closer co-operation with the United States, and on much closer co-operation among the EU's member states themselves.

We agreed on a European arrest warrant. The warrant will be most effective when it applies not just in the present 15 member states but across Europe, in what are now the candidate countries. It will, when they join. There will be nowhere for the terrorists to hide any more. A common definition of terrorism in each nation's laws was also agreed. When it applies across Europe, as it will when the candidates join, the days when terrorists could avoid justice through legal loopholes will be ended.

We agreed on quicker freezing of assets and evidence, through recognition by each EU member state of others' court orders. When that applies across Europe, as it will when the candidates join, terrorists will no longer be able to hide the funds that pay for their campaigns, or the evidence that will convict them across Europe.

We agreed on better intelligence-sharing between member states. When the candidates are part of that network, as they will be when they join, all Europe's eyes and ears will help to ensure that we can crack and pre-empt planned terrorist action throughout our continent.

Those are important prizes, which enlargement will bring.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the fight against terrorism, one of the most important aspects of this treaty is the headline military goals? As has been revealed in recent weeks, many of our NATO allies have not the military capability to contribute to NATO. If the goals within the treaty for the European targets are achieved, the capability will exist.

I am not sure about that, but I take my hon. Friend's general point.

A bigger European Union will mean a stronger European defence policy too—which relates to what my hon. Friend just said. It will mean more troops able to handle the peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis-management operations that Europe may need to run in the future. It will mean an EU better able to stop the kind of instability, on its borders or further afield, in which terrorists can hide and thrive.

I hope that the Minister will not be seduced by the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)—with whom I often agree, although I do not on this occasion. It would do nothing for the strength of NATO if it were somehow thought that to achieve the headline goals of the European rapid reaction force was equivalent to achieving the objectives of the defence capabilities initiative, and NATO itself.

I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. He usually speaks with great authority, conviction and, indeed, persuasiveness about these matters.

Our biggest weapon of all in the fight against terrorism, however, is not more troops. It is not just better intelligence sharing, and not just enhanced extradition arrangements. It is international solidarity. The member states are showing that: not just Britain but all our European partners gave immediate and unconditional support to the US after 11 September. The European Union is emerging through this crisis as a force to be reckoned with on the global diplomatic stage. It is no longer simply passing resolutions in its Council of Ministers meetings; it has earned a right to be taken seriously in Washington and, indeed, in the rest of the world.

Let us remember that the candidates too have been steadfast in giving unconditional solidarity. They too have voiced their full support to the US, for the anti-terrorist measures that the EU is establishing, and for the broader fight against fear. All—each one—did that voluntarily and immediately. Without being prompted, they demonstrated that, at a critical time internationally, they were already embryonic members of the European Union. We welcome them and commend them for that. We need their support, for this struggle has no boundaries. We need their solidarity; their accession will consolidate it. We need their co-operation; their accession will strengthen it.

What kind of Europe will the candidates join? We want them to join our kind of Europe. We want them to join a practical Europe that delivers real things for real people: jobs, prosperity, cleaner air, safer cars, and the right to live, work and study anywhere inside the European Union. We want them to join an accountable Europe, whose agenda is set by the democratically elected leaders of the member states; an open Europe, which consults its citizens and makes decisions with full transparency.

We want them to join a comprehensible Europe that uses language that people can understand and procedures that they can follow, and a diverse Europe that cherishes the differences between its member states and empowers them all while respecting the national identity of each. We want them to join a Europe that stands in a strong transatlantic alliance with the United States—as it has so steadfastly in the fight against international terrorism, and as it must also do in opening up trade, on conflict prevention, on a new deal for Africa, on humanitarian assistance and in fighting world poverty. That is our kind of Europe. That is the Europe that our Government are building and the Europe that we want the candidates to join.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, and I very much agree with him on the merits of enlargement. Does he agree with me and Romano Prodi that, as Mr. Prodi said on 21 June 2001, in The Irish Times,

"legally, ratification of the Nice treaty is not necessary for enlargement"?

Does the Minister accept that?

I noticed renewed interest in the debate among Opposition Members when my hon. Friend mentioned Romano Prodi, who is very popular among Opposition Members. Legally we could have an accession treaty with each member state, one by one, and convene an intergovernmental conference to agree that. However, is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting—I hope that he is not—that that is a sensible way to proceed on enlargement?

We need a unified position to address issues such as the common agricultural policy—which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised—security, the single market and the various other issues raised in the 31 chapters. A single treaty to which each country joining the European Union has to accede makes far more sense than the alternative and is indeed the only practical way of proceeding. That is the only sensible and practical way of pursuing the matter. Legalistically, one could pursue the extremely unlikely strategy that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) seems to be supporting, but that strategy would never deliver enlargement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although it would be perfectly possible to fix in each treaty of accession the number of seats that each new member state would have in the Council of Ministers, it is very hard to see how one could embody in each treaty of accession a voting weight for the current 15 member states?

The hon. Gentleman speaks great common sense on the issue. We are discussing blindingly obvious points. If we want enlargement, Nice is the vehicle by which to achieve it. If we wreck Nice, we will not achieve enlargement.

Will the Minister comment on the Foreign Secretary's comment on this issue in a previous debate? The Foreign Secretary said that

"it is not true in a legal and technical sense that the Nice treaty is necessary for enlargement."—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 287.]

I am answering the same point. Nice is the only realistic, practical and feasible vehicle to achieve enlargement.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I shall give way one last time.

My right hon. Friend is very generous indeed. Romano Prodi and I are of the view that, as I said,

"legally, ratification of the Nice treaty is not necessary for enlargement."

We would both go on to say:

"It's without any problem up to 20 members, and those beyond 20 members have only to put in the accession agreement some notes of change, some clause. But legally it's not necessary."

As that was in The Irish Times, on 21 June 2001, it must be true.

I do not know whether to treat roughly or gently my hon. Friend's remarks, but I shall treat them gently and say that I think that he should study the response made by the Foreign Secretary when he answered that precise point.

Does the Minister agree that the mechanism that he is proposing has the advantage of enabling us to underline that Europe is seeking to find a way of working together and a framework within which, by working together, each of us becomes stronger? The alternative does not provide that clear object lesson.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and is speaking sense. The logic that he, like the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), brings to the debate is the only logic that can achieve enlargement. That is the point.

The majority of Conservative Members want to wreck enlargement. It is impossible to achieve enlargement for the first wave of countries by 1 January 2004 by proceeding on some magical mystery tour of individual treaties to be signed one by one on behalf of the accession states. That is simply not feasible.

Those Conservative Members should visit Poland, the Czech Republic, Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Slovenia and all the other countries and tell them that they oppose their desire to join the EU on that date. The Conservatives should tell those states that they do not want an enlarged Europe, that they do not want to reunite Europe. Those countries are desperate to join the European family, and the Government are providing them with a vehicle to do so in this Bill.

I have described the Europe that will be made better for Britain by the Nice treaty. Nice is not the penalty that we have to pay to get to enlargement: it is part of the prize. It is a benefit in its own right for Britain. Why? Because, as we have already explained in the House, Nice will give Britain more power. It will give the UK more votes in the Council relative to the small and medium-sized countries. Nice will extend qualified majority voting where that is in Britain's interests—in the single market or to deliver a more efficient EU. It will preserve unanimity for decision making on key areas of national interest, including tax, social security, defence, the EU's own resources, border controls and treaty change—just like we said we would achieve.

Nice will reform the European courts to enable them to cut delays in the exercise of justice, which can penalise British interests. Nice will reform the Commission. It will make it smaller: there will be only one Commissioner per member state from 2005, and once the EU reaches 27, fewer than one. Nice will make the Commission more efficient. It will give the Commission President—the great buddy of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok—new powers to organise the Commission and sack individual Commissioners if necessary. Nice will make the EU more flexible. It will make it easier for groups of member states to act together without requiring all to join in, or undercutting the single market.

So Nice and enlargement are both in our interests. Both are necessary and both are urgent. The task now is to press on with the ratification of Nice.

On the point about the benefits to Britain, has my right hon. Friend received representations from British business on the desirability of enlargement? What assessment has he made of the benefits to British business and jobs of achieving enlargement as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend is right. We have had discussions with British businesses, many of whom have taken advantage of the period before enlargement to visit those countries to obtain new markets and contracts, and the jobs that those will bring. Thousands of jobs will be created in Britain as a result of enlargement. It is estimated that 300,000 jobs have been created across the European Union member states as they are currently constituted, just by bringing in the first wave of enlargement. Enlargement will bring enormous opportunities for British businesses, jobs and prosperity.

We must press on with the enlargement negotiations, to conclude on schedule by the end of 2002, so that new members can join by mid-2004 at the latest. We hope that they will be able to join by 1 January if possible, to deliver the Europe we all want. That is a challenging agenda. It can be achieved, but only if all of us, including the UK, the other member states and the candidate countries—it would be nice to include the Opposition, too—make every effort to achieve it. There can be no more obstacles and no more excuses for delay on any side.

I have explained why we brought the Bill to the House soon after we were returned to office. The Bill is necessary for a treaty that, in turn, is necessary for enlargement on time and in a sensible form. All member states agree that the enlarged EU we want cannot work effectively without the changes that Nice will make to the EU' s institutions and procedures.

All member states agree that Nice is necessary for enlargement. All member states also agree that Nice is all that is necessary for enlargement and that once Nice is ratified the EU will have completed all the institutional changes necessary for the accession of the new member states. That is the point. Nice will complete all the changes necessary—instead of a shambolic, treaty by treaty approach that would never reach a conclusion—and that is why the other member states support Nice. That is why the candidates support it. That is why the Government support it. That is why we brought the Bill to the House. That is why I urge the House to support the Bill today, and the stronger, safer Europe that it will help to build for Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.

It is some years since I faced the Minister at the Dispatch Box, and in those days he was a Minister at the Welsh Office. I am delighted that his breathtaking arrogance has not been altered by his promotion to the Foreign Office.

I come late to the legislative process on this Bill, which has now reached Third Reading. However, the jockey may have changed but the horse remains the same—although I hope that this slightly heavier jockey will not injure it. Moreover, it is clear that I shall have to learn the niceties of behaviour in the Chamber on this Bill. I was interested to note that, during his speech, the Minister was subject to friendly fire that came symmetrically from both sides of the Chamber.

The Opposition oppose this Bill, as we have done throughout its passage through the House. I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against it tonight, for two reasons. First, we believe that the treaty agreed at Nice fails to achieve even the aims set out by the Government. Secondly, it fails to advance the vision of a flexible Europe that lies at the heart our policy. We believe that that flexibility is essential to the successful enlargement of the European Union, as we wish to see it.

We have always been in favour of enlargement. The Minister related a litany of all the benefits that would accrue from enlargement, which by and large I welcome, as they are broadly the same as those that we have identified. However, they are not what the Nice treaty is about—a subject to which I shall return.

We have long argued for a more flexible Europe, yet—as has happened again today—the unsubstantiated response that we receive when we do so is that we are flying in the face of achieving greater strength through political integration. Much of the debate on this Bill has centred on those two different basic positions.

It is worth pausing to consider those differing positions in the light of the current international situation. Europe is an essential part of the coalition that has been put together so painstakingly in the fight against international terrorism. As it happens, the European Union's ability to contribute constructively to the coalition has depended not on further integration but on the flexibility that currently exists in Europe. The Nice treaty, and other initiatives, would reduce that flexibility.

That flexibility has allowed our partners in the EU to be part of what has effectively been a layered coalition, with different levels of participation and, even, enthusiasm. If the supporters of integration had had their way—if the implied common foreign and defence policies had been established—would it have been possible for the Prime Minister to attach himself so firmly to the American cause? Would he have been able to sign up so readily to the longer-term objectives of the fight against international terrorism, and could he have committed armed forces to the military phase in Afghanistan? I think that the answer to those questions is: almost certainly not.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the remarks of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi were helpful in building the coalition? Does he think that it would be in the interests of European unity—or of the Conservative party—for his party to continue its discussions with far-right former fascists in Italy?

I am not certain what those questions have to do with the debate. I am making it clear that the coalition works because all partners are not being asked to give precisely the same response. I am sure that the Minister, if he has met Ministers from around Europe, will be aware of that. That is what flexibility means. The lowest-common-denominator approach that would have been adopted otherwise would almost certainly have restrained the valuable support that the Prime Minister has been able to give the USA. Almost certainly, it would have prevented military engagement by forces from the UK, France or Germany, and it would have militated against the best interests of this country in the fight against international terrorism.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for a layered response within Europe—probably the most important one—is the variation in the military capability of NATO allies in Europe and the fact that some could not contribute to the extent that we did? The headline goals in the treaty will help those assets to be developed within NATO as well as within Europe.

I was with the hon. Gentleman until his last phrase, because that is precisely my argument about flexibility. That is one reason why we believe that a flexible Europe is a stronger Europe, better placed to take on the enlargement that we all seek. The events of the past weeks have underlined the strength of flexibility, which is an asset that should not lightly be thrown away.

In the right hon. Gentleman's pursuit of greater flexibility within the European Union, is he limiting himself to opposing the treaty of Nice or would he, if he could, unpick previous treaties such as Amsterdam and Maastricht and even the Single European Act? Where does it stop?

We are dealing with the Nice treaty. However, we have made it clear throughout the debates on the Bill that we would have liked the Nice negotiations to be used to return certain powers to national Governments. That would be in the interests of a stronger Europe. People feel disconnected from what is happening in Europe, and I believe that that is one way to deal with that. I shall come to that in greater detail shortly.

I hope that when my right hon. Friend does so he will explain why he thinks we should reject the Nice treaty on the basis that it does not provide us with sufficient flexibility, when in fact it makes provision for enhanced co-operation to be extended and developed.

If this were an à-la-carte Bill, we could pick the bits that we thought were better for Europe and say no to the rest. However, we cannot do that, as the Minister says—we have to take this lock, stock and barrel, and we happen not to like the stock and the barrel. That is why I will be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight.

I would like to make some progress, but will give way later.

Nice was, in our view, a missed opportunity. It was a chance to create greater flexibility, to give powers back to national Parliaments and to create a closer connection, through those Parliaments, between the institutions of Europe and the people of Europe.

The debates on the Bill have all been conducted in the shadow of the Irish referendum. That referendum and its result cannot be ignored; it was symptomatic of people's feeling of alienation from Europe, which has been growing ever since the Maastricht treaty was signed. Nice was an opportunity to address that and find a way of reconnecting with people. The Minister said that that was one of his aims, but I do not believe that it has been achieved. It could have been a way of showing the disillusionment felt by so many at what they understandably see to be the immutability of European-made law, but the opportunity was missed.

The Government went to Nice with no clear view of the Europe they were seeking ultimately to achieve. To put it bluntly, they were ill prepared. They indicated before they went that they would not give way on qualified majority voting and then promptly did so when they got there. Now they do not seem to be able to make up their mind as to whether the areas of QMV that they conceded are unimportant or essential to the future workings of the European Union. They appear to be trying to play this both ways but they cannot do so. The extension of QMV was a further move towards integration.

The Government declared that they would not undermine NATO through the approval of the rapid reaction force, and then signed up to a report in the annexe to the treaty that clearly does so. They claimed that in approving the inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights as an annexe they would be doing more than agreeing its principles. Now there is every indication that they signed up to something very much more.

Suffice it to say that, in each case, the Conservative party gave the Government due warning. They chose to ignore those warnings. Tonight we will try once more. The Bill seeks to ratify a treaty that failed to achieve the Government's objectives. It flies in the face of our vision of a flexible Europe, and it is increasingly integrationist.

The strongest arguments made for Nice, which the Minister made again this afternoon, was that it enabled enlargement of the European Union to take place. Our opposition to it has been inaccurately described as anti-enlargement. I stress that nothing could be further from the truth. We are the long-standing and very committed supporters of enlargement. We were pursuing enlargement in 1990–11 years ago. We have always believed that the European Union should welcome the new democracies that emerged from behind the iron curtain at that time. That would not only bind them into the European family of democracies, but enhance the concept of the flexible Europe of nations of which we are a natural part and which has always been at the heart of our European policy.

Throughout this process, therefore, we have made it clear that we remain strong supporters of enlargement and that we would accept immediately those aspects of Nice that relate to enlargement, such as Commission size, which has been mentioned, and vote re-weighting. That remains our position, but this legislation does not allow us to do so. It would ratify a treaty that contains much more to do with integration, which carries within it the disincentive to enlargement, and much less that is central to the enlargement that we seek.

If the treaty of Nice fell, what is the earliest date at which enlargement of the European Union could take place?

I will deal with the treaty of Nice, which is an important point in view of the Irish referendum. We have not had an answer from the Minister on that. We have been told again today that the treaty is necessary for enlargement. Until the Irish referendum, that was the firm position of the Government.

The Labour party election manifesto claimed that

"it is vital that we ratify the treaty of Nice which is essential to enlargement".

Those were the two key words—vital and essential. Like so much of that manifesto, we now discover that that is at best a distortion of the truth and that Nice is not necessary for enlargement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

When I have finished this point.

Since 7 June, with our general election out of the way and the Irish referendum results staring the Government in the eye, the European Commission has had to admit the truth. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who has now left the Chamber, questioned the Minister and quoted to him what President Romano Prodi told The Irish Times on 21 June:

"Legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement".

Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley also pointed out to the Minister that the Foreign Secretary told Parliament on the next day:

"It is true that a treaty is necessary for enlargement; it is not true in a legal and technical sense that the Nice treaty is necessary for enlargement."

He then said:

"We would have to have an alternative treaty."—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 287.]

He did not tell us at that stage that we would have to have a series of treaties, which the Minister sprang on us today. I suspect that if he checks with his advisers he will find that one treaty would secure the accession and enlargement that is necessary.

There we have it. Nice is not and never was necessary for enlargement or capable of affecting it on its own.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he believe that the countries that are seeking to join an enlarged European Union will understand those arguments? Does he not see a risk that they might think that British Conservatives are more concerned with the minutiae and with their own interests than with building bridges with other countries in Europe? At this time, is that not a dangerous signal to send to other partners beyond Europe?

The hon. Gentleman will have to speak for his party and its relationships with those countries. We have been in contact with them and they understand our position. In many cases, they understand our concerns, which would affect them if they continued with their applications for accession.

rose—

I will give way in a moment. I keep on being asked what will happen about accession if the treaty is not ratified, but what will happen if the Irish continue to vote against ratification? At the time of the referendum, many people thought that that was the end of the treaty. That was not the line being taken by Commissioners in Europe or by the Government earlier. I want to hear a categorical answer from the Minister. If the Irish do not ratify the Nice treaty, is he saying that enlargement will be impossible, or that there are other ways of achieving it?

Legally, the treaty has to be ratified by all 15 member states, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows.

I shall ask the question again. Is the Minister saying that if that treaty is not ratified by the Irish, accession and enlargement cannot take place? That is a very straightforward question; I ask him to give me an answer.

I have already answered it. The answer is, in the terms of this treaty, yes. The treaty cannot proceed—enlargemen; cannot proceed—unless all member states endorse it. The right hon. Gentleman wants us to follow the same course: to put another roadblock in the way of enlargement. That is what he wants to do.

I want to get this clearly on the record, because the Minister is now saying that if the Irish continue to refuse to ratify the treaty of Nice, enlargement is finished. It is not what has been said previously, so it is interesting to hear it being said now. I give the Minister a chance to correct himself if he is wrong, but that is what he has put before the House today: that if the Irish continue to say no, enlargement is ended. Is that right? The Minister does not know.

rose—

rose—

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson).

Does my right hon. Friend consider that the effect of a negative vote in the House on Third Reading would help or hinder the Irish people in deciding to ratify the Nice treaty and enable enlargement to take place?

I must say, with great friendliness to my hon. Friend, that I spent some time dealing with the Irish people, in Northern Ireland and in the south, and I learned very early on not to try to tell the Irish people what to do. I doubt whether they would listen, particularly to what is being said in the House. They will continue, as they always do, robustly to make up their own minds.

rose—

rose—

I want to make progress; then I will give way.

We need to take the argument further, because Nice failed to address the single biggest obstacle to enlargement: the unreformed common agricultural policy. The truth is that enlargement cannot succeed with the CAP as it stands, and I believe that the Minister would agree with that—he is nodding.

Agriculture currently absorbs nearly 50 per cent. of the European budget—the Minister provided my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) with an answer that says that the figure is just under 50 per cent. at the moment—but if Poland acceded, that figure would rise to 85 per cent. Therefore CAP reform must be a necessary precursor to enlargement, yet at Nice it was totally ignored. That treaty—that negotiation—which was to do with enlargement, did not deal with the single most important precursor to enlargement.

That precursor will continue to be ignored. The Minister talks about accession by 2004, but he should read what President Chirac said last week. He said, with an eye to his own domestic political requirements, that as far as he was concerned there would be no reform of the CAP until 2006. I should like to place on the record what he said, because we can speculate in the House, but we know that if there is no reform of the CAP, enlargement is in danger to a far greater degree than anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage has suggested.

President Chirac said:

"On this plan, I would like to say first of all that, because it is an important point, and because it is not bad that the world should know the clearly expressed position of the French authorities, we are absolutely opposed, and we will do everything to oppose, a re-opening of the agreement of Berlin, that is to say a redefinition, a reform of the common agricultural policy before 2006."

Effectively, he is saying—this is another challenge to the Minister—that the precursor to enlargement will not occur because the French will not allow it to happen. What is the Minister's answer then, in terms of enlargement? How does he deal with that?

The answer, for the record, is that common agricultural policy reform is not necessary for enlargement. It is not necessary: it is desirable. It is not technically necessary, however. In any case, the treaty does not deal with common agricultural policy reform. [HON. MEMBERS: "Exactly."] Exactly so. That is being proceeded with on a separate road; it has already started, as a result of the British initiative, and will continue. There is, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, an agricultural chapter, which must be negotiated, state by state, in order for the accession of each of those states to be ratified, and that is one of the next sections of the enlargement process down the road.

Although I am new to this particular legislation, I am again astounded by the Minister's attitude. Is he really suggesting that the common agricultural policy does not matter as far as enlargement is concerned? How will an enlarged Community or Union pay for itself without a reformed common agricultural policy? Is he suggesting—

rose—

I will allow my hon. Friend to help the Minister in a moment, but I should like to ask the Minister the question first. Is he seriously suggesting that we could have an enlarged Community or Union of the sort that we are talking about without a reform of the common agricultural policy, and believe that it would work?

I have given the answer to the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions. The treaty does not include reform of the CAP. Legally under the treaty, agricultural reform is not necessary for those countries to ratify the treaty to enable their accession and, therefore, for enlargement to occur. Has he understood that point?

indicated assent.

As I have already said, of course, such reform is desirable. That is why we have already started a process of reform—it began in 1999, and it will continue. In the meantime, 10 of the 12 applicants have already opened the chapter on agriculture, and those negotiations will proceed.

The right hon. Gentleman gives us the answer that reform is not legally necessary, but only about half an hour ago he said that his view of Europe was a practical one. How will an enlarged EU be paid for without reforming the CAP? He should take further advice from his officials on that point because, once again, he is in danger of misleading the House. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage; I promised him that I would.

My right hon. Friend is a true friend of enlargement—indeed, I agree with that point of view—but it seems absolutely clear to me, and I hope that this will commend itself on reflection to my right hon. Friend, that to put the agriculture issue on the table before enlargement would effectively prevent enlargement from happening, because to do so would call forth vetoes from all the member states that have a great stake in the existing structure of the CAP. The significance of 2006 is that it is the year in which it has been agreed that negotiations will take place on whether to increase the own-resources ceiling. That is a point at which we could exercise our veto to enable reform of the CAP to take place.

To return to the racehorse analogy with which I started, at some risk, my hon. Friend may be dealing with carts and horses, rather than with two things that have to run alongside each other. I am asking the Minister an important question: without having done the work on reform of the CAP, how can he know that it will slot in at the time of accession; and can he actually say that the EU will be financed? That is very difficult to answer in the affirmative, and he has not sought to do so.

I should like to deal with the other side of the coin. If we were to take the right hon. Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion—throwing out the Nice treaty and achieving enlargement by different means, thereby delaying it until 2006—the cost to British non-agricultural business would be nearly £4 billion, according to the figures that he has accepted as representing the benefit of enlargement. Is he prepared to pay that price?

I have never said that I want to delay enlargement until 2006. I was saying that one of the great co-operative leaders in the EU—one of the partners—has said that he is not prepared to change the CAP until 2006. So the hon. Gentleman's question is better addressed to him than to us. We have made it clear throughout that it is taking far too long for enlargement to happen. We want it to happen as quickly as possible; we are not the obstructionists. We will not be led down the path to further political integration behind the smokescreen that has been raised about enlargement.

I am happy to admit that we do not support further political integration. Indeed, we believe that it will only further alienate people from the institutions and processes of the EU. We have long made clear our view that further political integration will create a one-size-fits-all Europe, which would seriously undermine the basis for the sustainable, prosperous and harmonious Europe, in all its diversity, that is our aim. In pursuit of that, we would want some powers to be returned to national Parliaments, where the national interests can be most effectively pursued. That does not mean that we are anti-European, as our opponents like to suggest.

I had an Italian grandmother; I am by blood a European, but my belief in Europe is one of a Europe of nations, which are happy to be part of Europe so long as we retain our basic national rights of self-determination. The simple fact is that political integration is the enemy of an enduring community of nation states. It cannot be argued that the treaty of Nice was not integrationist. It includes several integrationist measures, including the extension of qualified majority voting, to which I have already referred.

rose—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall make some progress; I have given way often.

Extended QMV will make it even more difficult for our Government to block measures that are not in our national interest, and we should never forget that that is what we are all elected by our constituents to the House to serve. We have consistently opposed the extension of QMV for many years. We did so in our 1997 manifesto, and we continue to oppose it now.

This is part of the salami-slicing tactics by which integration proceeds and national self-determination is diminished. We believe that the salami has been sliced through quite far enough.

Yet alongside the treaty in the annexe lie two further integrationist initiatives. First, I shall deal with the charter on fundamental rights. The European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitorino, said in Lisbon on 13 May 2000:

"The Charter will mark a definitive change in the Community which will move it away from the essentially economic raison d'être of its origins to become a full political union."

That is what the Commissioner believes; we could not have put it better ourselves.

The Government may seek to belittle the importance of the charter and I am sure that they will insist that they will block its incorporation in 2004. We shall have to wait and see, but the fact that it is integrationist cannot be doubted. In its extradition measures, it would increase the chances of interference in the ability of a democratically accountable British Government and politically accountable Ministers to act against threats. Instead, it would put decisions in the hands of unaccountable European judges. It would operate alongside the European Court of Justice, thus creating two sets of integrationist judges. Even unincorporated, it would undoubtedly affect the judgments of the court, which will seek inspiration from it as it does from other fundamental rights instruments.

The Commission's report on the legal nature of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union was published on 18 October 2000. It states:

"It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of European Law".

As a Scottish lawyer. I look to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who also shares the distinction of being qualified in the Scottish law. Like me, he will remember the strengthened force of principles in the Scottish law, which, after all, is part of the European tradition. When the report uses the word "principles", I believe that they have special significance.

Surely much of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the charter is redundant because, as the Government have made clear and as is clear in the treaty, it is a political declaration.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has listened to what I and the Commission have said. The courts will take inspiration from the charter in the way that they take inspiration from other fundamental rights instruments. The courts, in their interpretation, will ensure that what is in the charter will, in practice, become law. The charter is integrationist and interventionist.

The second initiative is the report on European security and defence policy, which discuses how the rapid reaction force will relate to NATO. I will leave the more detailed analysis of that to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, who will wind up for the Opposition. However, although we have long supported the concept of pan-European defence co-operation in pursuit of the Petersberg tasks, we have firmly registered our opposition to the proposed rapid reaction force and we will continue to do so.

If ever the importance of NATO, and of our relations with the USA within it, has been clearly demonstrated, it is now. We must do nothing that would undermine the value of those relations within NATO. However, the rapid reaction force would endanger those relationships at this time.

I share some of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns, but members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have just returned from a two-day trip to meet representatives of the Belgian presidency, and we talked to members of NATO yesterday. No one there sees any threat at all. Can he substantiate his fears when even NATO does not have them?

We must consider not just the present but the future of such a proposal. Essentially, what is being proposed are the beginnings of a European army. The proposal already envisages a command, logistics and planning structure independent of NATO and the ability to act without the approval of NATO. That would undermine the relationship that I have mentioned.

rose—

rose—

I shall give way for the last time to my hon. Friend.

Is not the real problem the fact that the Prime Minister has persuaded the United States that the proposal is totally benign in terms of NATO's command and control and planning? General Jean-Pierre Kelche, the French chief of staff, has said clearly that the annexe of the presidency report was deliberately worded to rule out any interpretation that would give NATO a decision-making priority. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister has spun the Americans a line that does not reflect what is in the treaty?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. My point, which is important, is that we have to deal with realities, and the reality is to be found in the document to which she refers. It makes it clear that the dangers of the rapid reaction force undermining relationships within NATO are considerable. We must take that into account.

Third Reading is not the time to consider at length the future of Europe and the lead-up to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, but the Bill and the Nice treaty prompt certain questions about it. It is our strong belief that the integrationist agenda is the wrong approach for a diverse, enlarged Europe. Indeed, it is precisely that approach that has slowed down enlargement.

We will issue positive and constrictive proposals for the IGC and reject the old-fashioned bloc mentality within which the Government are fixed. Through the concept of a flexible Europe, we will pursue a Europe of deregulation and decentralisation and seek a Europe that will be best placed to prosper in an increasingly globalised world. We will challenge the Government to produce their own positive vision, to which the Minister referred but on which he did not enlarge. I reiterate the challenge that if the Nice treaty is ratified, a While Paper should be published on its effects.

In the aftermath of the Irish referendum, we will oppose the Bill. The time has come to stop being driven by officials in Brussels and to start listening to the people of Europe again. They want enlargement; so do we. They want decision making closer to them; so do we. They want a Europe that is relevant to their needs; so do we. What is important is that there is still time to achieve that, which is why I invite the House to join us in voting against Third Reading.

My right hon. Friend the Minister dealt mainly with enlargement, and I do not criticism him for that. The Bill is, technically, the vehicle by which the provisions of the treaty of Nice will be incorporated into UK domestic law. Like most European treaties that we sometimes debate, the Nice treaty continues and accelerates the process of European integration and the transfer of power from the democracy of the House to the central institutions of the European Union.

Perhaps the Nice treaty is not as extensive as the treaty of Maastricht or the treaty of Amsterdam, but it continues the process that, over the past 30 years, has gradually denuded the democratic powers of all EU member states. We should not be surprised by that because that is what ever closer union means. The EU's powers are not conjured out of the ether somewhere in the sky; they come from the powers of the democratic member states of that union.

If we consider the treaties, as European institutions and their staff sometimes do, the main loser is usually the House. The winner in this case is the European Parliament. The treaty of Nice gives it the power of veto, which adds insult to injury. As I mentioned to the Minister when the Bill was debated in Committee, the European Parliament is to be given the power of veto on some decisions that are made by the Council of Ministers. Although the power is not referred to as a veto—it is not the right type of word—"co-decision" is mentioned. We would be happy to have co-decision-making powers with the Council of Ministers, but the treaty removes those powers from the Government and the House.

Co-decision-making is not new. There is a modest extension of that power, but it has been in existence for a long time.

I did not say that it had not; I am merely relating my remarks to the treaty. My hon. Friend knows that it grants powers of veto to the European Parliament. It also removes powers of veto from this Parliament and affects the way in which the Government cast their votes in the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament gains powers of veto while this House loses powers of veto. The European Court of Justice does well out of the treaty, as does the Council of Ministers, in its newer form as a collegiate or collective body. Perhaps I can return to that point in a few minutes.

The national veto will be taken away in about 30 policy areas. As I argued in previous debates, the reason for the veto— or the unanimity rule, to give it another name—in many international and supranational bodies is to protect the democracy of the nation state. It is there to bridge the gap between decisions taken, more and more globally, in not only the European Union but other supranational bodies. However, that gap seems to be getting wider, which is a matter for real concern.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will finish my argument.

The veto exists to bridge the gap between decisions taken globally, internationally or supranationally and the needs and requirements of accountability and local and national democracy. That is why most international or supranational institutions require the unanimity rule. In these days, when that gap is getting wider, surely it is a retrograde step to try to do away with the rule of unanimity.

As far as I understand the matter, my right hon. Friend poses two philosophical opposites that are not in fact opposites at all. He says that the rule of unanimity must be preserved, but that unanimity is anti-democratic because it means that only a few can determine the arrangements for everybody, whereas democracy has always preserved the rights of the majority, pure and simple.

My argument is that when a nation state is represented in a supranational body, the rule of unanimity generally applies. I was merely saying that the reason for that is to keep a link between the democracy of the nation state and decisions taken globally that may be in the interests of more than one country. That is why it is preferable that there should be a rule of unanimity in those cases.

The veto is, frankly, incompatible with the European goal of ever closer union. The veto has to go, because ever closer union can be achieved and advanced ultimately only at the expense of the democracy of the nation state. In the 30 or so policy areas in which the veto will disappear, the British electorate may in future have laws imposed on them that have been passed by the votes of Governments whom they have not elected. The votes of the British Government, whom they have elected, will be overruled by the votes of Governments whom they have not elected and, in some cases, by the votes of Governments whom they would perhaps never elect. I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who made some remarks about Mr. Berlusconi. However, the democratically elected Governments of other countries may one day be able to pass laws for the electorate of Britain who have not elected those Governments.

I do not know whether any Scottish lawyers are present who could tell us whether that is a novel constitutional principle. I do not remember it being in Dicey's "Law of the Constitution" when I read it many years ago. It may have happened before, but it seems to me to be a change. If we do away with the veto and move towards qualified majority voting, Governments who have not been elected by the British people may pass laws for the British people.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way when he was about to finish speaking. He made the point that the European Parliament was gaining powers of co-decision or, in his terms, veto, and was making decisions. He says that Governments of other nations are making European laws. Does he accept that the European Parliament is directly elected by the peoples of Europe, and that if they have a part in that decision making it is not purely and simply other Governments who are passing those laws?

Of course the European Parliament sometimes agrees laws for the whole of Europe, but I was referring to the nation state and the democracy of our nation state. If a proposition is made in the Council of Ministers and is carried by the votes of Governments other than the British Government, who vote against the proposition, and a law is made as a result of that vote, that law will be imposed on the British electorate, who will not have elected the people who actually passed that law. I do not know whether that is a novel constitutional principle; perhaps we can return to that issue at another time.

I do not know where it will lead us, but I consider it ironic that when the veto is abolished, power shifts in a curious way from the nation state to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers was always intended to be the body that represented the democracy of the nation state, but over the past few years it has become a sort of collective or collegiate body. The other institutions of the European Union have criticised the development of the Council of Ministers into a collegiate body with a personality of its own. That has been revealed in the attempts to bypass other institutions in the so-called pillars—the second and third pillars affected by the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties.

I think that the motives behind that development were good: Ministers and Governments felt that there was a democratic deficit in the EU and they wanted to redress that in some way, by increasing the powers, profile and bureaucracy of the Council of Ministers. However, in doing so they have made it into a collegiate body with a personality of its own.

Every time the veto is taken away and replaced with qualified majority voting, the Council of Ministers is backed further into the position of being unable to defend the democracy of the member state. Ultimately, even within the Council of Ministers, the veto is not compatible with current developments, because it cannot be allowed in a union in which constant progress has to be made towards an ever closer union.

We are told that the veto is to go in 30 policy areas. The Government argue that its loss does not matter in some cases because the policy areas involved are trivial, and in other cases it is not in the national interest to keep the veto. I have three points to make about that.

First, many of the areas so affected are not trivial. We discussed that in the Committee of the whole House, but I shall list some of those areas now. The rules on EU structural funds are not a trivial matter, nor is economic and social cohesion outside the structural funds. Implementation of agreed foreign policy, joint actions and common positions is not a trivial matter, nor is trade in services or intellectual property rights. The issue of who is to negotiate for the Community with, for example, the World Trade Organisation, is not trivial. The appointment of the head of foreign policy—its supremo—is not a trivial matter, nor is external representation of economic and monetary union. The implementation of rules on visas, issues relating to asylum, refugees and illegal immigration, and measures of co-operation in justice and home affairs are not trivial matters.

Secondly, even if those matters are currently perceived to be trivial, or even if worrying too much about the veto is not currently perceived to be in the national interest, circumstances change. Let me give an example. During debate on the Maastricht treaty, some of us tried to discuss whether it was possible for a member state, once it had subscribed to monetary union and signed up to the single currency, to finance a war. Those who spent a lot of time on the treaty will remember that it prohibits the printing of money, or words to that effect. In future, the situation may change. In the case of the Maastricht treaty, would this country not be able to finance a war if other countries in the monetary union did not wish to participate in it? That is one factor. Circumstances change, and policy areas that the Minister and the Government dismiss as trivial or not in the national interest could change. Once the power of the veto is entrenched in the acquis communautaire, that is the end of the matter; it cannot be retrieved or changed. However, states will come back and ask for more—next time, it will be taxation, social security or defence. The veto is not compatible with ever closer union.

The veto is also done away with in the proposal for enhanced co-operation. The French have a much better phrase for enhanced co-operation, which they translate as the "avant-garde". It was established by the Amsterdam treaty, which proposed that countries outside the potential inner core should have a veto. However, that did not satisfy France and Germany, which wanted to go ahead and establish the avant-garde, so, after only a few years, the veto on enhanced co-operation has gone and, subject to the conditions of the treaty, several countries can now go ahead.

The avant-garde policy has been well described by European statesmen. Mr. Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, gave a speech on 12 May 2000 at Humboldt university in Berlin, in which he said:

"The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European Federation … such a group of States"—

I assume that Mr. Fischer was referring to the avant-garde—

"would conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of the constitution of the Federation. On the basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice."

A month later, Jacques Delors put it much more concisely, as one would expect. On 17 June, he told a French newspaper:

"We will have to create an avant-garde … We could have a union for the enlarged Europe and a Federation on for the avant-garde."

That is what will happen; that will be the result of losing the veto even on the establishment of enhanced co-operation.

With reference to the debate sparked off by Foreign Minister Fischer's remarks, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House about the letter that Mr. Fischer received from the French Foreign Minister explaining precisely why his proposals for a federal Europe were mistaken?

I am not party to Mr. Fischer's correspondence—I was merely quoting from an interesting and open speech. At least he was honest, which is more than can be said, unfortunately, for many British politicians in relation to the EU. Mr. Fischer's interesting views may not have been German Government policy, but, as I tried to show, they were echoed by Jacques Delors, a distinguished President of the Commission and a clear thinker.

The pressure is now on. The veto has gone. The pressure will be, in Jacques Delors's words, to create a federation of the avant-garde. Given the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for such matters, Britain will have to be part of that, will it not?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be in there with the Foreign Office, punching our weight, or punching above our weight—I am not sure; I stand to be corrected. Punching above our weight all the time must get a little tiring. We will certainly be in there, punching our weight as part of the federation of the avant-garde. That will mean more integration still.

The train rolls on, discarding national vetoes and national democracies as it goes along. The next pressure will come from joining the inner core. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government will easily win the vote this evening, but before the ink is dry on the Royal Assent, work will begin—it probably has begun—on the next treaty. Happily or unhappily, before 2004 we will be debating the next legislation incorporating the treaty of 2004 into the law of the United Kingdom. That will be an integrationist treaty, like the present treaty and most past treaties.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

No, I am coming to an end.

Perhaps before long the member states of Europe will call a halt to the process, but they had better do it soon. If not, there will not be much left to halt.

I do not propose to delay the House over-long, as I confess that I do not have anything very new to say about the Bill. As some of the contributions so far have suggested, albeit that they were couched in elegant and even intellectual language, there is not much more to be said by many others, either. The speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary echoed some of the elegant contributions made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) during the various stages of the Bill's progress.

As we know, we are having the Third Reading today, after the summer recess, although it could quite easily have been held before the summer recess. However, an internal decision had to be taken in the Conservative party, and there were those who thought that the nature of that decision might determine their attitude this evening. That, as we now know, is not the case.

So far in the debate, we have traversed some pretty old ground. We heard from the shadow Foreign Secretary—who is no longer in his place, but who explained to me that he had another pressing engagement—that he had an Italian grandmother, which made him European. Well, I have a Glaswegian grandmother, which still makes me European. We should recognise that our Europeanism is determined not by the exotic nature of our relations, but rather by the fact that we are firmly embedded in the European tradition. In particular, the Scots law to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is, of course, a European legal system based on Roman Dutch law. Large parts of our life are firmly embedded in Europe, and the sooner we recognise that, the better.

The shadow Foreign Secretary was at pains to suggest that President Bush, whose perspicacity, maturity and sound common sense have been generally commended in the House in recent debates, had somehow been the subject of an exercise in duplicity by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: President George W. Bush cannot be a great leader and at the same time a dupe of the British Prime Minister. The two are wholly incompatible. As was pointed out in an intervention, at NATO, where one might think that there would be real anxiety about anything that might undermine its effectiveness, there is no such apprehension as has now and previously been expressed from the Conservative Benches.

I should like to make one point about the rapid reaction force, returning to comments that I addressed to the Minister following an intervention by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). If we have a poor rapid reaction force, and the headline goals are not achieved and capability does not become an important part of what is done, we will damage NATO. A successful rapid reaction force will most certainly strengthen NATO. I suspect that many hon. Members share my anxiety that there does not seem yet to be sufficient commitment to providing financial support to ensure the military capability that will be necessary if we are to achieve either the levels required by the headline goals of the rapid reaction force, or those that are likely to be imposed on us—some might say that this point is more persuasive—by the defence capabilities initiative of NATO, which are higher than those of the rapid reaction force. That is why I was at some pains to suggest to the Minister that he should not be seduced by the intervention of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier point, may I briefly defend my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in his absence? He pointed out reports that President Bush had said that Mr. Blair had assured him that the European defence effort

"would in no way undermine NATO … that there would be joint command"

and

"that the planning would take place within NATO".

The fact is, however, that the report that is attached to the Nice treaty says exactly the opposite.

We know that things have moved on since then. As I understand it, there is now general acceptance that operational and strategic planning responsibilities must remain within NATO. It would make no sense to duplicate them. I have frequently referred in the House to NATO's right of first refusal, which is, as I understand matters, generally accepted. It is important to reflect in our discussion the fact that debate outside has moved on.

I should like to reinforce the points that my right hon. and learned Friend makes. The messages are coming loud, clear and strong from Brussels and the people who make these decisions that NATO will have first refusal and that planning, strategic and contingency elements will remain with it. That is the situation and it is agreed. Does he agree that the issue that must be addressed is the shortfall in capability in respect of NATO and the rapid reaction force, which is clear in the light of current circumstances?

I do not think that anyone doubts the validity of my hon. Friend's second point. His first point—I think that he has recently returned from Brussels—corroborates my own.