On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your forbearance to enable me to—[Interruption.]

Order. We need some order.

I seek your forbearance, Mr. Speaker, to enable me to apologise to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, for misrepresenting his position in my contribution following his statement on 30 November 2004 regarding the allegation of abuse at Deepcut Army barracks. I accused him on that occasion of referring to the four deaths as suicides. Having studied the official record, I can see that I was wrong to do so. He made no reference to the events at Deepcut in that context. It was in fact the Army that told my constituents, Des and Doreen James, that their daughter Cheryl had committed suicide before the coroner had even reported. The Minister did not do that. As he said to me in his letter:

"Those of us in positions of knowledge and responsibility have an added duty to ensure that we do not further confuse the situation with misinformation."

I agree with him, and as the campaign for a full independent public inquiry into the four deaths continues I hope that I will be able to work effectively with him. I hope that he will accept my apology.

I am sure that the Minister will accept the hon. Gentleman's apologies, and I thank him for putting the record straight.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will just have witnessed a disgraceful episode in which the Government Chief Whip hurled a substantial book across the Chamber at my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on the Front Bench. Will you now sort out the Government Chief Whip and throw the book at her?

I have tried to sort out a few hon. Members, but I shall not do so today. I do not want to tackle the Chief Whip; it is Christmas, after all. It would be best if the exchange of Christmas gifts were conducted outside the Chamber.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the point of order that I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker yesterday at column 1584, in which I pointed out that certain documents had been made available to Government Members, but were not available in the Vote Office before the debate and the vote took place? Mr. Deputy Speaker was helpful in his guidance as to what future practice should be. However, this morning on the radio, the Lord Chancellor said that the documents were available in the Vote Office to Members. They clearly were not available in the Vote Office to Members before the vote took place. Is there any way in which we can get the Lord Chancellor to come to this House to apologise for both misleading the House and telling an untruth?

When we refer to a senior Member of the other place, we should use temperate language. The Lord Chancellor did not mislead the House, and my Deputy, Sir Michael Lord, acted correctly and gave the proper guidance. The hon. Gentleman has made an allegation—at this stage, it is an allegation—that material was distributed from the civil servants Box.

It was.

I was not in the Chamber at the time, so it is an allegation as far as I am concerned. I have made a Speaker's statement about the conduct of the civil servants Box. The only communications that should be conducted from that Box are via a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister, one document at a time. I shall write to the Lord Chancellor and have instructed my officials to prepare a letter. I will not allow the mass distribution of documents and, if the allegation is correct, I will go as far as withdrawing privileges from civil servants who come into that Box—I take the matter very seriously. The hon. Gentleman has put the allegation to me and I will raise it with the Lord Chancellor.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have pointed out that intemperate comments are sometimes made when hon. Members raise points of order. What is the difference between a point of order raised by the Opposition deputy Chief Whip from the Dispatch Box and a point of order raised by him when he purports to be a Back Bencher? Is that not abuse of his paid position?

No, it is not abuse. If it had been abuse, I would have pointed it out. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years, and he has sailed close to the wind on a few occasions in this Chamber.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, much of yesterday's shambles came from the misuse of the programme motion, which meant that adequate time was not available to discuss the matters in question. Is there some means that you can employ to give guidance—if no more—on the imperative need to discuss those incredibly important amendments after the House of Lords has examined them in the proper time on the Floor of the House of Commons to remedy yesterday's disgraceful shambles?

Those matters are for the usual channels. The neutrality of the Speaker is important at all times and I will not be drawn into the arguments posed by the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday's Northern Ireland news reported on a young man who contracted variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease some years ago and who was left by the medical profession as a terminally ill person. However, his parents nursed him and his father fought in the High Court to get him particular new forms of treatment. Yesterday, it was announced that the health workers from the hospice and voluntary sector are withdrawing their help because he is no longer terminally ill. Have you received a request from a Health Minister to make a statement in the House both to encourage that treatment and to urge greater caution in diagnosing people as terminally ill?

I am deeply saddened by the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises about his constituent and his family. This is a matter that the Minister would have to take note of. No doubt he will read in Hansard about the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful to the House, in response to the point of order raised at column 1584 by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), to the ruling by Mr. Deputy Speaker and to your own comments today, if I could give the House the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will of course co-operate fully in ensuring that the facts are properly put on record as to what did happen yesterday with the distribution of letters. We do take these commitments very seriously. Our own investigation shows that the proper distribution methods were undertaken, but we will of course wish to present the House and you, Mr. Speaker, with the full facts to satisfy, I hope, hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I thank the hon. Gentleman; that is very helpful to me.

BILLS PRESENTED

Criminal Defence Service

Mr. David Lammy, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to make provision about representation funded as part of the Criminal Defence Service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 14].

Transport (Wales)

Mr. Peter Hain, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Paul Boateng, Ruth Kelly, Mr. David Lammy and Mr Don Touhig, presented a Bill to make provision about transport to, from and within Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 15].

Prime Minister Balkenende of the Netherlands will chair the European Council in Brussels tomorrow and Friday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be there representing the United Kingdom. Today, the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities before that Council.

The main business—

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way in due course, but the hon. Gentleman must allow me more than two sentences.

On this point?

Whether it is on this point or not—I am not that generous.

The main business of the Council will be a decision on opening membership negotiations with Turkey. Before I come to that, let me go through some other key issues on the agenda.

We expect some discussion at the Council of the European Union's budget for 2007–13. The budget negotiations are still at an early stage, and the Government welcome the work done so far by the Dutch presidency. The European Council will discuss a progress report and the presidency will seek to agree principles and guidelines for the continuing negotiations. For our part, we want to ensure that the money is spent effectively; that the budget is affordable; and that EU programmes are pursued only where they add value. More generally, we have made it clear that we seek an EU budget limited to 1 per cent. of Europe's gross national income, as opposed to the 1.24 per cent. that is currently proposed by the Commission. France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden share our view, and we have made our common position clear in public.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will, but I want to get through a little bit more before I first give way to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry).

There may also be some discussion at the Council of how the EU raises its revenue—the so-called own resources system. All member states have to agree to any changes, especially those that are net contributors, and everyone has a veto. We will oppose any attempt to reopen the discussion on the UK's budget rebate, which—as we continue to make forcibly clear—is fully justified.

The Council will also discuss a number of foreign policy issues, including EU support for the Palestinian elections in January and the situation in Ukraine. It is worth reminding the House that this is common European foreign policy in practice. If the UK decides not to work with other countries, there is no such policy—as, for example, there was not in respect of Iraq—because the policy requires the agreement of every one of the EU's member states. That will remain emphatically the case under the new EU constitutional treaty.

However, there are clearly many issues on which 25 nations speaking as one have a great deal more influence than we would on our own. On the middle east, the EU's membership of the Quartet—which also includes the United States, Russia and the United Nations—helps us actively to support the peace process. The EU is one of the biggest donors to the Palestinian Authority.

If anyone wants a good example of a common foreign policy working in practice, it is the united EU response and consistent message about the need for a free and fair electoral process that helped to resolve the political crisis in the Ukraine. The Presidents of Poland and Lithuania and EU High Representative Javier Solana playedan important role in that by helping to facilitate talks between the parties. The second round of the presidential elections will be rerun on our Boxing day and the EU is maintaining pressure for that free and fair rerun of the election. We discussed it in detail at the Foreign Ministers Council on Monday and we will contribute observers to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe election mission.

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

No, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Banbury.

Twice a year, we have an opportunity for a day of group therapy on Europe, but European competence covers many Departments. For example, it involves trade policy, migration policy and development policy. Yet junior Ministers from the other Departments do not even do us the courtesy of attending the debate. [Interruption.] I am referring to the Government. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an undertaking to relay to other Cabinet Ministers points that are made in today's debate that specifically relate to their Departments? Otherwise, we are simply speaking to the wind and the Chamber becomes a senate of Lilliput.

There is a general problem, which affects both sides of the House, about attendance in the Chamber. It has more to do with Back-Bench than Front-Bench attendance. In my 25 years experience, Front Benchers in such debates constitute only the Whips and the Ministers who are involved.

On the second point, I take seriously what the House says about the European Union—and any other issue. We initiated and established arrangements, which meant Parliament's full and active involvement in the Convention and the intergovernmental conference.

indicated assent.

I am glad to have the approbation of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). Hon. Members of all parties made suggestions and, consequently, beneficial changes were made to the Convention text, which is now a good text. I look forward to its general endorsement. On non-attendance, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) did not turn up once to the proceedings of the Special Standing Committee that preceded the IGC. Conservatives stayed away and I regret that.

rose—

On cue, here is one who turned up.

I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has given way because I am sure that he would not accuse me of not being present. On his opening remarks on budgets, does he accept the report from the university of Bonn, to which Wolfgang Munchau referred in the Financial Times the day before yesterday? The report stated that the main effect of the stability and growth pact—the Foreign Secretary knows that I vigorously opposed that even under a Conservative Government—has been to encourage countries to cheat by misreporting their deficits. Does not he regard that as a serious problem? Why do not the Government repudiate the stability and growth pact?

Assiduous though I am in reading around the subject, I have not read the report from the university of Bonn and I also omitted to read the column in the Financial Times. We have made it clear that we support amendments to the stability and growth pact—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that crystal clear. However, I stress that there is no ground whatever for countries that are members of the EU to fiddle their national statistics.

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

No, I shall make some progress and then I shall take interventions.

I am pleased that our work on Iran has been endorsed by all sides. Our work with France, Germany and the EU in the past 14 months has secured agreement by Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. On Monday, my French and German colleagues, EU High Representative Javier Solana and I met Dr Hassan Rouhani, Secretary General of Iran's supreme national security council, in Brussels to begin the process of negotiation on longer-term arrangements with Iran. One of the purposes of the negotiation is to provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme can be used only for peaceful purposes. That is the reality of EU common foreign policy, not the fantastical accusations that we so often hear from the Opposition. It shows how Britain benefits from the role that we play in the European Union, increasing our influence and impact in the world without in any way detracting from our independence of action. As we can have the best of both worlds—we can be independent and autonomous when we want but work with our partners when we want—I cannot for the life of me understand the logic adopted by the Opposition, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, who now says that the common foreign and security policy "should be abandoned". That would merely weaken Britain's influence in the world without adding to our autonomy in any way. It is even odder, given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an arch-proponent of Maastricht in 1992 and made lurid speeches in favour of it. He even said, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will recall, that he would rather be inside a superstate.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that one of our anxieties about the common security and foreign policy concerns the Government's refusal to answer questions about things that are being done in our name by the EU high representative, particularly the meetings that he has apparently had either with representatives of Hamas or with other individuals representing Hamas? To be told that information on those contacts is not held by the British Government when we hear regularly that such contact is taking place is simply not acceptable. The Government cannot pursue a foreign policy by proxy but refuse to answer questions on it.

That is a nonsensical point.

It is a red herring.

Indeed. It is complete nonsense to suggest that the touchstone for Europe and whether we support or reject a European foreign and security policy is having access at all times to the diary of the high representative. What makes the hon. Gentleman's point even more synthetic is the nature of the official policy of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition this time last year. Notwithstanding an EU-wide ban on anybody talking to Hamas, we were asked by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), their official spokesman on foreign policy at the time, to do so. Not once has that been repudiated by their Front Bench spokesmen.

There are many examples of the way in which we work better together on the agenda of the European Council. For example, the Council will discuss progress on the EU action plan on terrorism agreed last March, and it is expected to agree a new EU drugs strategy for the next seven years. Drugs and terrorism are self-evidently threats that cross national borders. We cannot just wait until they arrive at Dover—we have to tackle them by working together with our neighbours. Then there is the issue of economic reform. We have a clear interest in promoting stronger growth and greater flexibility in Europe, our most important market. British companies have benefited greatly from European liberalisation, and will gain further from reform in future. We are winning the arguments. The new President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and his team have already set out a strong commitment to promoting economic reform, including making better regulation a top priority. The Commission has just announced that it is withdrawing 100 pieces of pending legislation, and the EU has agreed the UK's proposal for "competitiveness-testing" of new regulations.

The "six presidencies" initiative on better regulation announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the ECOFIN meeting on 7 December gives us a clear strategy for making further progress. We will continue to work closely with British industry and the new Commission team on this agenda in the coming months.

rose—

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), then the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

And then me.

As the Foreign Secretary is talking about removing regulations, would he consider the notion that any proposal from the Commission should have a time limit on it? Unless agreement is reached within a set time it should be withdrawn, because other legislatures operate within limits set by, for example, the Queen's Speech or a general election. That would help to prevent proposals from dragging on endlessly.

I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's suggestion, as it is a constructive idea. [Interruption.] I would do the same for any hon. Member. However, while her proposal has many advantages it also has some disadvantages. We may wish a certain regulation, such as one on further liberalisation, to complete its passage, but it could effectively be vetoed and qualified majority voting overridden by simple delay. We must therefore work out a balance.

In addition to the agenda items that the Foreign Secretary has discussed, does he agree that further enlargement of the EU is important? Is he aware that within the past hour the European Parliament voted by 407 votes to 262 in favour of Turkish accession which, I am sure, he welcomes? Does he agree that it is important for the Turkish Government to continue to address democratic standards, human rights safeguards and the treatment of minorities, especially the Kurds?

I was not aware of that vote and I am grateful, as I am sure the House is, to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that information. I shall come to Turkey later, but I welcome that vote. I have not seen the text of the motion, but I hope that it is an unconditional vote in favour. We hope that Turkey's membership negotiations will be agreed on Friday.

Now, in the words of the late Ernest Bevin, I will give way to "'im".

Under the terms of the acquis communautaire, we do not have independence in trade policy, which underlines the importance of working together effectively within the European Union. Given that rape as a weapon of war, compulsory relocation, forced labour, the use of child soldiers and human mine-sweepers and the bestial destruction of villages are part of the cocktail of barbarity visited on the people of Burma every day, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is now incumbent on the EU to step up its act on sanctions against Burma? It should not concentrate action against the pineapple juice sector in that country, but instead develop targeted sanctions on oil, gas, telecommunications, timber and gems to hasten the day when the people of Burma have the freedom that we have long enjoyed and that they have been too long denied.

I applaud the hon. Gentleman, both for his interest in Burma and for his very strong feelings, which are shared across the House. The sanctions on Burma that we secured a few months ago were not as strong as we would wish, but they are much stronger than anything that the UK could have achieved by working alone without a common position. Different EU countries have different perspectives, and a price must be paid for the position that the Conservatives, like us, have taken, as our work in the EU is based on unanimity. We can only proceed at the pace of the slowest. Every member nation attending meetings of Foreign Ministers has a veto, so it was hard work to reach our position. One member state in particular—not the UK—had strong vested commercial interests in Burma, but we will continue to work on the problem.

The Foreign Secretary has discussed economic development. Is he aware of the enormous benefit experienced by the Estonian Government following the recent visit of its Prime Minister to the United Kingdom? Such exchanges are important in helping new countries such as Estonia to have a sensible voice and a strategic outlook on the very matters that he has discussed.

Indeed. I was delighted to entertain His Excellency the Prime Minister of Estonia when he came here. One of the subjects of conversation at lunch was the fact that we have a Member of Parliament of Estonian extraction who speaks good Queen's English and represents a Welsh constituency. It is refreshing to have the 10 new EU members in the room, because the further east they are the further west they tend to look. EU enlargement has long been an objective of successive British Governments, and rightly so.

Europe, and with it Britain, suffered in the last century from the two most destructive wars in human history and, until the mid-1970s, half of Europe's countries were dictatorships of one kind or another. But the fact that peace and democracy have now spread across the continent is, to a significant degree, thanks to the role that the European Union has played.

Since its foundation, the EU has helped to turn formerly bitter enemies into the closest of partners. It has brought divided communities closer together, as it did with Britain and Ireland when we joined in the 1970s. As Spain, Portugal and Greece threw off one-party rule and began to entrench democratic institutions during the 1970s, the prospect of EU membership acted as a powerful motor for change. In the 1990s, as the countries of eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, emerged from the shadow of communism, the EU again drove a similar process. The goal of EU membership gave those countries a powerful incentive for both political and economic reform, as they opened their economies to trade and implemented EU laws and standards in areas such as environmental protection.

The European Council this week will be asked to endorse the conclusion of EU membership negotiations with two more countries—Romania and Bulgaria—with a joint accession treaty to be signed early next year, putting them on track to join the EU in January 2007. EU leaders will also discuss whether to set a date for opening membership negotiations with Croatia—a goal that the UK supports, although we also want Croatia to improve its co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that until such time as these countries become members of the European Union, co-operation can still be achieved, to a limited degree, through the Council of Europe, which, thankfully, will have a summit meeting next year that I hope that he will attend? The Council of Europe is considering a convention on human trafficking, which is vital as such trafficking creates tremendous problems. Recently, I attended a meeting at the Council of Europe and we are concerned that the convention will not be strong enough. Will he examine the recommendations from its Parliamentary Assembly to see whether the convention can be strengthened?

I am delighted to say to my right hon. Friend that, of course, I will do so.

The issue of Turkey will dominate proceedings on Thursday and Friday—

The Foreign Secretary has been characteristically generous in giving way. Before he passes to what will obviously be the principal issue of Turkey, does he derive some encouragement from the recent presidential election in Romania, which suggests that the prospect of EU membership can have illuminating effects—if one likes to put it that way—on the attitude of candidate countries to tackling corruption?

The answer to that is yes. It has been wondrous to behold the way in which the prospect of EU membership has forced such former east European states—some of which were not states at all, while the rest, even if they were states, had ramshackle political institutions that met no internationally agreed standards—to change and raise their standards. Others have played a part, including NATO, the Council of Europe and the United Nations, but the intensity of work required to become members of the EU has made the big difference.

Turkey's European vocation has been recognised by the European Union since the association agreement with the EU in 1963. The prospect of EU membership, particularly over the last three years, has driven an impressive process of change in Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan's AKP Government have pursued a thoroughgoing and courageous programme of reform that has brought Turkey much closer to Europe and Europe's values. To date, the AKP Government and their predecessor have introduced nine separate packages of legislative and constitutional reform. Those have included the abolition of the death penalty, measures to combat torture and improvements in minority rights such as the freedom to study, register names and broadcast in Kurdish. The military is now under civilian control, restrictions on freedom of expression have been removed and a policy of zero tolerance of torture has been introduced.

The Turkish Government also did all that they could to promote a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, as they were asked to do. That those efforts failed earlier this year is no fault of the present Turkish Government.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

May I make some progress?

Our embassy in Ankara has worked hard to support Turkey's efforts on Cyprus, on liberalisation of the economy, on human rights—including familiarising judges and prosecutors with the requirements of European law—on the development of women's rights, on the development of non-governmental organisations, on Kurdish issues and on religious freedom. That work is part of a strong British commitment to supporting Turkey's European ambitions.

In its report and recommendation published on 6 October, the European Commission judged that Turkey now meets the EU's political criteria and is ready to open negotiations for membership. The British Government share that assessment. We therefore want agreement at the European Council to opening EU membership negotiations with Turkey next year.

Those negotiations are bound to take some years, but Turkish membership of the EU would bring major benefits to Britain and to Europe as a whole. Turkey has long been a strong partner in NATO, occupying as it does a strategic position between the middle east, central Asia and the Balkans. The presence of a European Turkey in that crucial region would be of enormous further benefit. One half of Turkey's trade is already with the EU, most of it under the customs union which has been in force since 1996. EU membership for Turkey would increase that further. It offers the prospect of significant benefits for British firms, who are already Turkey's fifth most important suppliers of imports. Turkey's dynamic economy and society would be a valuable asset to the whole of Europe.

Turkey's European destiny is also important for a wider reason: the signal that a European Turkey would send to people everywhere of Europe's commitment to diversity and truly universal values. We have heard a lot of talk over the past few years about a supposed "clash of civilisations" between the west and the Islamic world. The Government utterly reject that notion. First, it ignores how much the Muslim world and the so-called western world have shaped each other over the centuries and share a common cultural and historical heritage. Secondly, it supposes that Europe is an entirely secular place. In fact, many—if not most—European countries, including this one, have a strong religious tradition intertwined with their secular society, some European countries, including England, have state Churches and, in many parts of continental Europe, there are Christian Democratic political parties. Thirdly and most importantly, that view of a clash of civilisations ignores the enormous contribution that people of the Muslim faith—including the 25,000-plus in my constituency—make to Britain and to many other European countries today, and that they have made down the centuries. Britain and Europe today are more and more diverse, and we are richer for it.

We are justifiably proud to celebrate that diversity. We recognise that the basic values of this country, and of Europe, apply to people of all faiths and backgrounds. A European Union including Turkey would send a strong signal of that. We want to see an economically successful, democratic Turkey, anchored in Europe, which would deal a heavy blow to those who stoke up mistrust and division. That could be an inspiration to many others in the Muslim world.

I know that there is widespread agreement in all parts of the House that Turkey's destiny lies as a full member of the European Union, as that has the approbation of the Front-Bench teams. But I am also struck by a paradox. Something strange is happening in the Conservative party. It used to be a vocal supporter of EU enlargement. It would probably claim that it still is. But as proud, sovereign and independent nations such as Turkey queue up to join the European Union and as many others—Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states—see their hard-won membership as affirmation of their freedom and their independence, the Conservative party has gone rather quiet. Perhaps it is because it is difficult for it to explain why a country such as Turkey, with its distinctive traditions and its commitment to being a strong and powerful nation, is so keen to join an organisation that the Conservatives now say represents, with the new constitution, the end of 1,000 years of national history. It is another example of Conservative myths coming face to face with reality, and as ever, the Conservative party losing out.

rose—

The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes will have his chance to respond.

These are independent nation states, they know what is in the constitution and they are happy to join on that basis. As I pointed out, the fact that this European Council will take a decision on Turkey is just one of the items on the agenda that shows how this Government's policy of engagement in Europe is delivering results.

We have built strong alliances with our partners on the question of the EU budget. We are using the influence of the EU's 25 nations to support democracy in Ukraine and the Palestinian territories. We are leading the push for economic reform in Europe and we are helping to bring more countries into the EU, expanding markets for British business, entrenching stability and freedom across the continent, and promoting in Europe the diversity that we celebrate at home.

Let us be in no doubt that the advances we have made as a result of our engagement in the EU would be put at risk by a Conservative party that seeks isolation and exclusion from our European partners. Almost a decade ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes—who now mocks the idea—supported the most crass and counter-productive policy of non-engagement in the EU. Appointments in the EU were vetoed and meetings boycotted. The result was an even greater loss of power in Europe than had existed previously, under the Major Government.

Sadly, the Conservatives have learned nothing from that experience or from their increasing marginalisation in Europe today. Indeed, their policy of a fundamental renegotiation of Britain's existing treaties is an exaggerated form of the same approach. It is unworkable, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows only too well, and would be a disaster for Britain's national interests.

In contrast, the Government are serving Britain's national interests by engaging in Europe and shaping an enlarged EU that is flexible, outward-looking and reformed. We will continue that approach at this week's Council meeting and beyond.

In the spirit of Christmas, I welcome the Foreign Secretary back to the Floor of the House. We genuinely missed him during the foreign affairs debate on the Queen's Speech. We fully understood why he could not be here, but I can only say that his absence was a disaster. The Secretary of State for Defence was reading from a brief that he clearly had not mastered and the Minister of State, winding up the debate, obviously believed that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.

Today we have been treated to our biannual dose of what I call the European Strawfest—that somewhat indigestible mixture of cautious Europeanism, garbled and deliberately obtuse detail and, of course, the inevitable anti-Tory rant. At least the Foreign Secretary mentioned Europe, but what a different Europe from the one that we discussed in similar debates two years ago. In those debates, all the Government's dogs were barking. Now they are much more muted: it is almost as if the Foreign Secretary has lost his enthusiasm for the great European project. Today, the only dog that really barked was that pathetic mangy old mongrel that seeks to base the terms of the debate on a false choice between signing up to the constitution and getting out. We have heard that over and over again. The Foreign Secretary knows it is false, yet he continues to employ it. I have always found that particular dog a somewhat welcoming mutt, as it nearly always signals that the Foreign Secretary has nothing positive to say about Europe. In the words of the former No. 10 adviser Derek Scott—

Not again.

Derek Scott said:

"the Government never saw the discussions on the constitution as an opportunity to stand back and think clearly about the appropriate political and economic framework to sustain the EU. There was no strategic thinking."

The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) may say "Not again", but I think that Derek Scott, given his experience of Downing street and what went on there, is a man to whom we should listen. If I may quote the Home Secretary's famous phrase, the Foreign Secretary has once again presided over "a giant mess"—and today, as he prepares to attend this weekend's Euro summit, he is once again in a mess.

Let us leave aside the detail of the constitution for the moment. What has happened to it in practice? This time last year, it was so central to the Government's European policy that it could not even be put to a referendum of the British people. Last year, the Prime Minister described it as

"a gross and irresponsible betrayal of the British national interest."

At about the same time, the Foreign Secretary told us that there was

"no case for a referendum".—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol.406, c.724.]

As we now learn from the New Statesman, that was until the Minister for Europe, apparently, turned to the Foreign Secretary during a debate.

"I turned to Jack and said: 'Jack, we're'"—

I cannot repeat the next word; I shall have to say "expletive deleted". The Minister went on

"We've got to give a referendum. I don't think we can hold out".

That was a welcome U-turn, but where is the constitution now? Where is the road show that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—who is barracking from the Back Benches—promised us three years ago? I can only assume that it is an invisible road show.

The ratification Bill is the only piece of Foreign Office legislation in the Queen's Speech. What has happened to it? During a little publicised meeting of the parliamentary Labour party on 29 November, the Foreign Secretary apparently told his colleagues that he hoped they would

"become actively involved in the debate on the European Referendum Bill which would shortly be coming before the House".

He added, apparently without sarcasm, that

"this would provide a good opportunity to refresh"—

to refresh!

"support for the EU amongst the British people".

Where is this refreshing Bill? There will be no sign of it before Christmas. The Government Chief Whip is briefing that it will not be passed before the next general election. There are suggestions that it will not even be introduced before then. Who is right, the Foreign Secretary or the Chief Whip—or is this just another Straw mess?

The text for which we were told we would have to wait is now with us. The Foreign Secretary said that he wanted a document that he could put in his pocket. This is it. What are the Government frightened of? Could it be the fear that, before the election a full debate, far from being refreshing, would awaken the British people to the extent of the betrayal and sell-out of Britain that the constitution engenders? If the Government had the courage of their convictions, they would introduce that legislation now.

rose—

I normally give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he firmly decided that he would not give way to me, so I will not give way to him now.

Perhaps the constitution is becoming like the euro, which seven years ago was so important and central to our role in Europe that the Government lambasted my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for seeking to rule it out not just for the last Parliament, but for this one. That period, mocked by the Government, is now almost complete, and there is still no referendum. Once again, it was all words—but now the words are changing. The other day, the Minister for Europe helpfully described the single currency as "economically irrelevant" and the Chancellor's five tests as

"a bit of a giant red herring".

The Minister shakes his head, but I have the transcript. I will lend it to him to remind him of what he said.

Now we know from the horse's mouth where the Government stand on the euro. I wonder how soon this wretched constitution will also become irrelevant and a bit of a giant red herring.

A moment ago, I unfairly accused the Government of producing an invisible road show. I was unfair to the Minister for Europe, who has conducted a road show in at least one road—somewhere in the vicinity of Durham university. The transcript reveals just what a road show that was. It makes great reading. Listen to this:

"I mean you want criticism of the European Union? Where do you want me to start? The common agricultural policy? I would like to get rid of it".

Is that now Government policy? The Foreign Secretary need only shake his head or nod. If it is just the start of the Minister's criticism of the EU, I hope he will give us the rest this afternoon.

Is it Conservative party policy to maintain and defend the common agricultural policy?

We have made our position on the CAP very clear during the last few debates on it. The Government's position seems to be a complete departure from their former position.

rose—

I will give way to the Minister later. He may want to comment on one or two other things that I shall say.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share my surprise that the Minister for Europe favours scrapping the common agricultural policy, but not the common fisheries policy? He is happy to see the CFP entrenched in the European constitution at a time when Socialist International colleagues—from Portugal—are saying that it should not be in the constitution as an exclusive competence.

It is unusual for me to say this to a member of the Scottish National party, but that is a very interesting question, and I hope that the Minister for Europe will answer it when he winds up the debate. In fairness to him, however, I should point out that he described his decision to get rid of the CAP as a start. We do not know what other policies are being changed.

rose—

I have devoted a little section of my speech to the Minister. When I have finished it, I shall be happy to give way to him.

The Minister went on to talk about the treaty establishing the European constitution. He described it as "not the last word". That has been our warning for some time, but until now we have not heard it from the Government.

Next, I have an extraordinary quotation that I have been reading and rereading. I can only deliver it to the House verbatim and leave it hanging there. Perhaps the Minister will then explain what he meant. He said:

"I phoned up the King of Spain and said 'Buenos dias, your Majesty, I understand that a gentleman from Brussels is going to come round and measure up curtains in the Royal Palace'—and he put the phone down because he doesn't talk to lunatics".

It is a question of how one says it.

I can assure those who think that I made up that quote that it is in the transcript. Perhaps one day the Minister for Europe will provide a translation of it.

Fathoming the Foreign Secretary's position is not much easier. He exhibits schizophrenia on the question of a referendum. One moment he is aggressively against a referendum and the next he is passionately in favour. That is surely not just because the Minister for Europe, as we heard, swore at him. This is the same Foreign Secretary who blithely assured the House in the autumn of 2003 that EU enlargement would not create undue or unsupportable migration to the UK from the accession countries. He will remember the debate in question.

We now learn from Stephen Pollard's new biography that, according to the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary flew into an hysterical panic over migration when the EU was enlarged. I am very grateful to the Government Chief Whip. She kindly handed back the copy of the biography that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition tried to give to the Prime Minister as a Christmas present, so that I could better use it, having been unable to get a copy myself. I have had a moment or two to glance at it and it is worth reading the following quote into the record. It says:

"'Jack Straw and the Foreign Office just completely flipped on the position they had held before. Jack went into hysterical mode about what he now saw as the impending consequences of accession. He started making dramatic predictions of what would happen—completely the opposite of what he had wanted about five minutes earlier.' For months, Straw had been 'the man who said everybody was welcome to come and draw benefits', as Blunkett puts it. Come the moment of accession, however, Straw 'suddenly decides he's in a terrible panic and he doesn't want anybody here at all. And so we're going round in circles.'"

Does that not illustrate why having just two days a year to debate European policy is wholly inadequate? Every so often, we ought to have the opportunity to debate European trade policy and migration policy, because only then will we be able to flush out of the Foreign Secretary what the Government's policy is. His coming here just twice a year and speaking for the whole Government in what amounts to a group therapy session is pathetic and inadequate.

I agree. Indeed, my point is that this issue relates to two Departments that the Foreign Secretary has led. We now learn that he gave to this House an account that differs totally from the actual truth. This is another fine mess.

The shadow Foreign Secretary has been speaking for 11 minutes, but he has raised none of the issues that will be before the European Council at this weekend's meeting. This is our only opportunity to debate these important matters before that meeting. Will he get on and put forward the Conservative party's agenda, rather than relying on tittle-tattle?

I will make my own speech in my own manner, just as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless do.

A far more important question is, what is the Government's position on Europe today? For all the Prime Minister's talk about being at the centre of Europe, the Government have never really had a policy on Europe, except to adopt the course of least resistance. They are always the poodle, never the bulldog, hence last year's surrender over the separate European military planning capability—there can be no other explanation—and the current apparent readiness to go along with the EU's proposed lifting of the embargo on arms sales to China, in the full knowledge that it will cause a deep breach with the United States. In terms of military equipment, that could be very damaging to our national interest.

The Foreign Secretary tried to make light of this issue yesterday by suggesting that the embargo has "no legal force", but that we now have a legally enforceable EU code of conduct. That seems strange, given Amnesty International's criticism of that code of conduct as "not legally binding". The EU embargo, however, applies as a Council decision. If the Foreign Secretary is right, why is China—backed by French commercial interests—so keen for the embargo to be lifted, and the US so adamantly opposed?

Two months ago, the Prime Minister signed the treaty establishing a European constitution, even though it contains many elements that he had assured us would not be in it. First, there is the constitution itself, which he told us in October 2000 was not necessary. Secondly, reference is made to EU control of justice and home affairs, matters which we were told would be dealt with through co-operation between nation states. Thirdly, the EU is given a single legal personality, a proposal which the Prime Minister once described as "potentially damaging". Fourthly, reference is made to a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, even though we were promised that such a charter would not be legally binding and would have no more legal force than the Beano. Fifthly, the promised vetoes in respect of social security and criminal law have been watered down into so-called "emergency brakes". The Government's firm opposition to a European public prosecutor has been overruled by the constitution and control over our asylum and immigration has at best been compromised, at worst surrendered. And what about the 248 other amendments that the Government tabled, but which were rejected?

Why did the Prime Minister sign up to a constitution that flies in the face of his Government's promises? As I have said, the answer is that this Government have no policy on Europe other than to adopt the course of least resistance. Still they tell us that this constitution is nothing more than a rule book to run the enlarged EU. What sort of mugs do they take the British people for? That is not what the EU is telling the wider world. When in Israel last week, I asked a senior Minister about his views on the EU's relationship with the peace process. He said that the EU was being very pushy about playing the lead role and that EU representatives were now telling him that Europe was more powerful and influential than the US. They said that it had more people and that, under the constitution, it would soon have its own president, foreign minister and diplomatic service, complete with ambassadors. They also said that it would have its own foreign policy and currency, and eventually its own military forces—and the clout, therefore, to deliver in the middle east.

Once again, we see the use of the forked tongue. The Government are minimalists at home to allay public suspicions, but enthusiastic integrators abroad. That is not a clear picture; it is more of a tangled web. By way of contrast—

Does the shadow Foreign Secretary not think that the EU has an important role to play in resolving the Palestine-Israel issue?

Of course I do, but as I shall discuss later, we should play that role alongside the United States, not in competition with it. That is the lesson that Europe has to learn.

In contrast with the Government, we have a clear view of Europe and of the EU. We are in Europe, and we are determined that Britain should be a positive and influential member of the EU. We are looking for a more flexible, less bossy Europe, in which the strengths and wishes of individual nations count. We believe that to achieve that, Europe must change. We oppose the constitution in principle because we believe it is a gateway to a country called Europe to which we do not want to go. We also oppose it in detail, because it erodes our essential rights in respect of self-determination. I have been through the list of those erosions—the trappings of European statehood—many times, so I need not do so again today.

I will, however, allude to a new erosion of our rights. The accusation has been made that the constitution will make the already serious problem of EU fraud even worse. Let me quote whistle blower Marta Andreasen, who certainly knows the workings of the EU institutions backwards. Last week, she pointed out that those institutions needed reform, rather than more powers. She charged that the constitution would create a dangerous system of "shared control" that is "equivalent to no control". She said:

"my experience from the inside allows me to say that we are at great risk if we vote for a Constitution that increases the powers of institutions which have proved up until now to be totally unaccountable and lacking in transparency. If we let go this opportunity to express our dissent there will not be another opportunity again".

We should listen to her.

We will therefore campaign to defeat this constitution in the referendum, when it comes. With us in government, it will come by next September, and I believe that the British people will have the good sense to vote no. That will, in turn, open the door to the building of a new Europe that works for its peoples, not its elites. We will reverse the conveyor belt that for too long has transferred powers only one way—from national Parliaments to Brussels. It is clear that the EU has powers in respect of matters that would be better dealt with by member states, and we are not alone in thinking this. As Commissioner Margot Wallström said,

"in the European Commission we must accept that more power is moved back to the member states".

The Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said that

"the EU needs to practise self-restraint. It should look expressly at those parts of common policy for which member states could take responsibility again."

The Minister for Europe will be delighted to know that included in that list of parts were aspects of the common agricultural policy.

My right hon. and learned Friend is setting out a healthy catalogue of concerns about the direction in which Europe has been going, but does he also accept that it is extremely important to have regard to the political structure of Europe and the manner in which the integration process has been developed under existing treaties? We should approach that not in an individual or isolated manner, but by reference to a proper and radical renegotiation of all the treaties, so that we could then live comfortably with whatever emerges.

We want to see a reformed Europe and I do not believe that that can be achieved in one go. What we must do is set the process in motion and reverse the conveyer belt. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have comprehensively failed to do so. As Derek Scott said:

"It should have been on the agenda of the Convention for the Future of Europe. If it was not, it was because the Government was too gutless to put it there."

Those were his words, not mine. We would negotiate to restore local and national control over our fisheries. As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, the common fisheries policy has been a disaster, while nationally managed fisheries off Norway and Iceland have been a success.

We would also restore Britain's opt-out from the social chapter, which has allowed costly regulations to be imposed on Britain. In the light of the shocking examples of fraud in the EU overseas aid budget uncovered by OLAF in its latest report, it makes sense for more of our overseas aid budget to be spent from London and less of it from Brussels.

The Government scathingly deride the notion that it is possible to negotiate to bring powers back from Brussels to Britain. The Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that

"no one will support his attempt to renegotiate the conditions."–[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c.161.]

The Minister for Europe takes a different—and, I have to say, on this occasion—a more realistic view. [Interruption.] I am about to cite the wise words of the Minister for Europe, so he should listen. What I call negotiation, he calls networking. He spoke about convincing the Irish, Austrians, Spanish and Italians that there is a better way forward. I call that constructive negotiation. He believes that he can get rid of the common agricultural policy that way. Add a little grim determination to secure our objectives, and I do not believe that we are that far apart on our ability to renegotiate sensible decisions within the EU. Let us hear no more defeatist talk about the EU being unamendable and unchangeable.

Different European countries want different things from the European Union. The British people want free trade and a structure to help us work together with our European partners to tackle common problems such as the environment and international crime. Others want a full-blown political union and a federal state. There can be only one answer to those divided positions—a flexible Europe. We should let those countries that want to integrate further do so, but other countries should not be compelled to join them. Outside the core area of the single market, they should be allowed to reclaim powers from the EU where the EU is performing badly.

If all the other 24 countries decide that one of the things that they want is a constitution as expressed in the constitutional treaty, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman then do?

The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of intergovernmental conferences. If there is one veto, the treaty dies. That has been made clear on both sides of the House and has been accepted by those responsible in the Convention for producing the constitution.

The need for a flexible Europe has never been greater. As the Foreign Secretary said, enlargement has not reached its limits and I am delighted that there is cross-party support in this country for negotiations to begin for Turkey's membership. Ukraine, too, is showing a European vocation, but an EU of 30 or more countries would be unworkable under the current tight structure and would be worse still if the constitution came into force.

The Foreign Secretary chided me for wanting to see Turkey open negotiations while saying at the same time that we should vote against the constitution. May I remind him that the constitution's designer, Giscard d'Estaing, said:

"the European constitution currently submitted for ratification was not conceived to welcome in a national power the size of Turkey."?

On this occasion, Giscard d'Estaing and I are as one. We believe that if we are to have an enlarged Europe, we need a different constitution.

We have seen two rather different elections in Romania and Ukraine. I congratulate the new President of Romania and I would like to see Romania in the European Union, but first the Government must show that they have dealt with current concerns about the integrity of the political process and the judicial process, and with corruption elsewhere in Romanian society. We salute the Ukrainian people for their defence of, and enthusiasm for, democracy. We very much hope that the elections on Boxing day are free of fraud. Ukraine will always have a special relationship with Russia, but equally it has a right to look to join the European Union.

Deregulation is another key feature of the Europe that we want to see. The failure of the Lisbon agenda is a matter for regret. The EU is burdened with far too many regulations and we need systematically to reverse the drivers of regulation.

The European Union has achieved much that is good. It has effected a lasting reconciliation between countries that were once bitter enemies. It has nurtured young democracies. It has been the lure for countries emerging from dictatorship to uphold the rule of law. It has created wealth by opening up European markets. It has done all those as a partnership of sovereign nation states. That is what we must now build on. The antithesis of that would be to follow those who seek to create a superpower to act as a counterweight or rival to the United States—and that we must resist. It is a vain vision that would make a dangerous world even more dangerous.

As we approach the EU summit this weekend, there is a choice of approach—to stand up for British interests or to continue to be Europe's poodle. The Government have pursued the latter path for too long. Within Europe, it is time to make our true voice heard again.

I cannot begin without expressing my profound disappointment that the Government have neither published nor introduced to Parliament the Bill designed to facilitate the ratification of the treaty, establishing a single constitutional document for Europe. It has been reported that the Government Chief Whip believes that it would be difficult to put such a Bill on the statute book before the election. If that report is true, it conveys two pieces of information: first, that the likely date of the election is almost certainly 5 May—probably the worst kept political secret in Westminster—and secondly, the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government to put such a measure through Parliament.

I find that particularly disappointing, as I had been looking forward to campaigning with the Foreign Secretary. I could see him, myself and perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) going to mass meetings of the British people, strenuously arguing the case for endorsing the constitution. It now appears from what the Minister for Europe has told the people of Durham that I was responsible for persuading the Foreign Secretary of the virtues of the referendum, so I count it as a personal failure that I have not been able to persuade him of the virtues of early legislation on this matter.

Enlargement will undoubtedly be a significant issue for discussion this weekend. Not much reference has been made to Bulgaria, but I understand that that country has now pretty well closed all her chapters and will, in that sense, be eligible for membership. I hope that that membership proceeds smoothly and expeditiously.

In the matter of Romania, to which some reference has been made, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was right that considerable doubts remain about corruption, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, but we are entitled to derive some encouragement from the election of Mr. Basescu, who was elected expressly on an anti-corruption ticket. As the Foreign Secretary was willing to agree a few moments ago, that is a clear indication of how the prospect of European Union membership—and, indeed, its requirements—may have considerable influence on electorates, who are aware that without substantial change and their support for suitable political candidates, their aspirations for membership may not be able to be realised.

It is inevitable that the principal focus will be on Turkey. One national newspaper this week rather portentously said that "Turkey's moment has arrived". The admission of Turkey will be a strategic decision of historic importance. The Foreign Secretary himself spoke of Turkey forming a bridge between Islam and the west. There is reason to believe that Turkey's ultimate entry may not be for some years—10 years in some estimates. In the meantime, there is an opportunity for inward investment and modernisation to take place. Just as the whole House supports Turkey's accession to the EU in principle, so it will also support the view that Turkey must implement all necessary reforms in full. There is a sense in which Turkey and the Turks must prove themselves, but it is important that they do so according to the same conditions as apply to everyone else, and that the bar is not set higher for Turkey than for any other applicant country.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not a question merely of the European Council agreeing that negotiations should start? A recent opinion poll in France reported that 70 per cent. of people there were against Turkey's membership. Does he welcome President Chirac's decision to go on television tonight to argue Turkey's case and to say that EU member states have a responsibility to sell Turkey's membership directly to their people, rather than waiting until the end of the negotiations?

Indeed, and opinion polls suggest that persuading public opinion in France or Germany, for example, will be something of a task. It is to be welcomed that President Chirac will go on television this evening to make the case that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but the notion that privileged partnership can be an alternative to membership needs to be killed now. One commentator this week said that it was of "dubious legality" and "transparent bad faith".

Passing legislation, as the Turkish Parliament has done, is one thing, but changing attitudes is quite different. We must bear it in mind that showing anything less than enthusiasm for Turkey's candidature, and instead offering something equivalent to a rebuff, could cause the progress being made in Turkey to be stalled or even reversed.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the opinion poll that came out about two weeks ago which showed that 58 per cent. of all people in the UK—and 68 per cent. of people aged between 18 and 24, and 65 per cent. of people in Scotland—wanted the existing European treaties to be reduced to trade and association agreements? Does he agree that adopting that as a policy—which I would certainly advocate—would also help in the context of Turkey? It would demonstrate that we could work together without giving way to the primacy of the European constitution.

I did not see that poll, but if it is as pessimistic about Scotland as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it fills me with a certain anxiety. However, I have never regarded the EU—or the Coal and Steel Community, or the European Community that developed from that—as being solely about trade. I consider it to be about the rule of law and human rights as well. The hon. Gentleman's question seems to imply that the arrangements between the European countries should be modified to provide only for trade and economic co-operation. Were that to happen, I believe that we would be giving up something that I consider to be of enormous importance and significance.

That is how it was regarded in the immediate post-war period, when the impetus to find mechanisms to ensure that France and Germany were not at each other's throats—as they had been three times in the preceding 80 years—was at its highest. I should be very reluctant to see an association emerge that was more akin to the European Free Trade Area, for example, in which the fundamental issues of human rights and the rule of law were put to one side. That might help a lot of countries to join the EU, but I am not sure that it would necessarily be in the UK's interest.

The opening of accession negotiations with Turkey is the surest way to maintain the momentum already evident in that country towards reform, securing respect for freedom and human rights and promoting a stable and prosperous future. However, those objectives must be achieved in substance and not merely in form. That is why accession provides Turkey with a great opportunity and also a considerable obligation. Persuading public opinion in the EU and Turkey of the merits of Turkish accession remains a considerable task.

I turn now to the question of the EU budget. It is inevitable when budget considerations are under discussion that there should be a very sharp focus on the UK rebate—or abatement, as it is more properly described. I have no doubt that the view that it continues to be justified remains correct. Even with the abatement, between 1995 and 2002 the UK paid into the EU two and a half times more than either France or Italy.

The European Commission appears to have some general proposals for a rebate mechanism applicable to all net contributors. So far, there is not sufficient detail about the proposals to make clear exactly how they will work, and what the consequences would be for the UK. Important, significant and justified though the abatement may be, however, the long-term question must concern the level of Britain's net contribution. If a more acceptable and sensible method of financing that had the effect of reducing in the long term Britain's net contribution could be achieved, then I shall continue the animal metaphors that have characterised today's debate by saying that it would be a rather dog-in-the-manger attitude not to include the abatement in the discussion. The abatement is significant more for its consequence than for any intrinsic merit.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the problem is the CAP, without which there would be no budget problem? Is it not right for Britain to make a net contribution to the EU budget so that poorer states and new members can benefit?

In general, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.

In addition, I should need a great deal of persuading before I could accept the Commission's proposals for substantial increases in EU funding. There are continuing allegations of corruption, and the auditors have still not signed off the accounts. As a result, this is no time to ask for more money and to do so would display a certain amount of insensitivity in political terms. In that regard, I support the British's Government's position, which is buttressed by France, Germany, Sweden, Holland and, I understand, Austria. The aim is to stabilise current expenditure and to limit the budget to 1 per cent. of gross national income. Given the present rate of current economic growth in the EU, increased spending at this time would be both unwise and even unsustainable.

On the CAP, the priority for budget savings must not be the abandonment or destruction of the CAP. People who believe that it can be simply wished away or destroyed have a rather optimistic view of such matters. What is essential is reform. The CAP's failings are self-evident. They include excessive production, unsustainable farming practices, the penalising of both taxpayers and consumers, and an impact on the developing world that we may sometimes forget in our discussions but which matters a great deal when it comes to issues of universal free trade. No doubt that is an issue to which the newly appointed British Commissioner will give his considerable attention.

Moreover, implementation of the reforms to meet the Lisbon targets has been very slow. Growth in the EU is slow and intermittent, and that is of some concern. Unemployment in France, Germany and Italy is now on the order of 10 per cent. That is a clear indication of the need for economic reform.

Another issue is the dependency ratio—the ratio of non-workers to workers—which is rapidly increasing in the EU. We have an ageing society with a high proportion of non-workers. Coupled with low growth and high public spending, that will inevitably be unsustainable in the long term.

Does not that also emphasise the need for Europe to remain competitive, especially with China? If European competitiveness does not keep up, we will fall further and further behind the new emerging economies.

The fact that we are in the EU does not immunise us from the consequences of globalisation. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that point.

It is clear that a large part of the discussions this weekend will concern external relations. Before I address the situations in Iran, Ukraine and the middle east, I wonder whether hon. Members shared my distaste at the reports that the telephone conversations of Dr. el-Baradei may have been the subject of electronic eavesdropping by our American friends? We have had reports in the past of the telephone conversations of the Secretary-General of the United Nations being subject to the same intrusion, and it seems to me that the confidence that we are entitled to have in international institutions—both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations—is not served by such actions.

We should welcome the agreement, to which the Foreign Secretary was party, by which Iran has undertaken to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. But it is also clear, as the Foreign Secretary will acknowledge, that some long-term agreement is required to cover not only nuclear matters, but economic, security and technical issues. The overwhelming priority must be to achieve a permanent end to uranium enrichment and the production of plutonium. Those are legitimate under the non-proliferation treaty as part of a civil energy programme, but—as everyone knows—it is a short step from that level of expertise to the production of nuclear weapons. There is much to be said for the view that Iran has come close to mastering nuclear technology. That is of consequence not just in the context of Europe.

Hon. Members will be aware that next year we are to have another review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If those with long memories cast their mind back to 2000, they will recall that success was achieved at the review conference only by virtue of the declared nuclear powers entering a separate agreement committing themselves to nuclear disarmament and to practical steps to achieve and implement it. At the NPT conference next year, the declared nuclear powers may be asked to account for their obligations under that agreement. No doubt the EU will have a view on the conference, but I suspect that it will be a difficult occasion, with several countries being forceful about what they regard as the obligations undertaken by the declared powers and the extent to which they have been implemented.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important issue. However, our record in meeting the obligations of the 2000 review, as a nuclear weapons power, is better than any of the other nuclear weapons states.

Before the Government came to power, I was one of those who supported the reduction in warheads on the Trident system. The Government implemented that quickly and got rid of the freefall bombs—the WE177s—and several other systems. In that regard, the Government have acted properly, but I am not sure that that will be enough to satisfy many of those who attend the NPT review conference.

If there is to be some long-term agreement with Iran, it should of course cover more than nuclear or security issues. Other issues for discussion and, one hopes, agreement include trade and investment, independence and impartiality of the police and judiciary, freedom of expression and the discriminatory treatment of religious minorities.

The EU response to the situation in Ukraine has been both well judged and effective and we should take some pride in and confidence from that. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that reports this week suggested that a member of the Commission said no unequivocally to the notion of membership of the EU for Ukraine. The Prime Minister of Luxembourg recently said something similar. In the same reports, it was said that the UK Government were non-committal.

I do not disguise the fact that Ukrainian membership would present difficulties. The Ukrainian economy, for example, is by no means compatible with that of the European Union. The gross domestic product per capita in 2003 was £2,800. In the EU in the same period, the average was £14,900—a substantial disparity. Then there are the problems of governance in Ukraine, which recent events have thrown into sharp relief, and the historical relationship with Russia, which the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes mentioned. However, it appears to me that something is going on in eastern Europe, especially in Romania and in Ukraine. It might not be as dramatic as events in 1989, when the Berlin wall came down, with all the consequences that followed. I have the sense that some movement is taking place in countries that previously were thought to be impervious to arguments about the rule of law, an independent judiciary and control of the military. If that is so, we have an overwhelming responsibility—and it would be in our interests—to be responsive to such movement. That is why we should never say never about Ukrainian membership. We should be willing to say that there may be circumstances in which Ukraine's membership becomes both feasible and desirable. The Government have not said anything on the record about that, but I hope that some consideration will be given to it. In particular, the Government should ensure that no communiqué is issued this weekend that appears to bar for ever any application by Ukraine.

I am in no doubt that in the circumstances presented after the death of President Arafat collective engagement by the EU in the situation in the middle east is essential. We—by which I mean the EU—have, after all, been the largest supporter financially of the Palestinian National Authority, although much of what has been built with the money that we have supplied has been destroyed. Interesting questions arise as to who should be responsible for its replacement. Everything must be done to facilitate the Palestinian elections, which appear to be proceeding remarkably smoothly so far.

I do not believe that a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will be any substitute for a comprehensive settlement that does not take account of the right of return, the status of Jerusalem and, perhaps most significantly, the settlements on the west bank. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes said that the EU should not compete with the US, and he is right. He was right to say that we need a joint approach, but the evidence on which he sought to rely to suggest that some kind of competition is taking place could fairly be described as hearsay evidence, not evidence that one would wish to stand in the way of a joint approach. The EU may be very persuasive, but no one will be more persuasive in Israel than the US. If we are still talking about a two-state solution—as we must do—it will require the full effort of the whole Quartet. Most certainly, the European Union should in no sense be competing with the United States.

I shall finish with a few words about the constitution. My view may be unique, but I think that the constitution is neither the glorious victory that the Government claim nor the shattering defeat that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes claimed. The constitution is a sensible balance—it enshrines properly, once and for all, in one document rather than several, the relationships that are at the heart of the European Union. In the course of this weekend, I doubt that the constitution will come under much discussion. In the UK, discussion about Europe may never be brought to a conclusion, but it will certainly not be brought to a proper state of consideration unless and until we have the opportunity provided by the referendum to which the Government are committed. The sooner that day comes, the better.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). He speaks with great authority on these issues and I disagree with little that he has said so far.

I agree that it is important for the Government to continue campaigning on Europe, but do we not need a date for the referendum campaign? Ministers and Members would then be able to go out to the country to talk about Europe. In fact, it would be much better if we did that in advance of a referendum campaign, because the European project is such an integral part of our foreign policy that we should not need an artificial reason to start talking about it.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his work on enlargement. It is right that Britain has been the champion of enlargement over the last few years, starting with the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw five years ago. It is also right that the Foreign Secretary should point out the importance of Turkey's membership of the EU, for all the reasons that he set out, and because once Turkey joins—as I hope it will—Europe will never be the same again. Turkey will bring a new religion to Europe, through the Muslim faith, as well as different cultures. We should see that as a positive development in the history of Europe. We should take into consideration, too, what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has just said about Ukraine.

Turkey's association with the European Union began in 1963 when it signed its first agreement with the EU, with the eventual promise that it would join at some stage. That is almost 41 years ago, so the forthcoming European Council will have historic connotations—at last, we shall be saying to Turkey, "Let us begin the negotiation process".

Of course, it is right that Turkey should meet all the criteria of every other country. It would be quite wrong if we changed the rules for Turkey or had a different standard from that for other countries. I hope that the go-ahead will proceed this weekend and that when the Prime Minister returns on Monday he will tell us that it has been achieved at last and that negotiations can begin. Whether the process lasts for five years, 10 years or more, I hope that Britain will be at the forefront in developing relations with Turkey and ensuring that not only our trade relations but our people-to-people relations improve.

The comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) were interesting. It was Conservative policy to hold a referendum on enlargement, yet the Conservatives now claim to be fully supportive of the enlargement process. They argued in favour of a referendum on Nice, but if we had had such a referendum it is possible that enlargement would have been blocked. When the shadow Minister for Europe winds up the debate, I hope that he will reassure us that there is no question that a Conservative Front Bench will call for a referendum on the admission of Turkey to the EU when that eventually happens.

As I said in my intervention, I am concerned about public opinion in countries such as France. The latest opinion polls suggest that 70 per cent. of people in France oppose the entry of Turkey, so I am glad that President Chirac will be appearing on national television in France tonight to argue the case for Turkey. It is extremely important that Governments begin to talk about the enlargement process at an early stage. We did so only at the last moment in respect of the enlargement of 1 May.

It is important to note that, despite the hysteria surrounding the entry of Poland, the Czech Republic and the other eastern European countries, and the predictions of the Conservative party, the Daily Mail and its sister papers, a huge number of people have not entered the UK. In fact, enlargement has gone extremely well. The people who have come over have taken part in the registration scheme; they are contributing to our economy, although of course they send remittances to their countries of origin, and are strengthening it by their presence. We should welcome that. I think the same will happen when Turkey joins—whenever that is.

I hope that the Government will fashion a policy on the freedom of movement of Turkish citizens at a very early stage. We do not want a repetition of what happened just before 1 May, when there was a slight change in the Government's position and registration was introduced. I argued very much against the need for registration and I think that view has proved correct. Let us get things right now. Let us tell the Turks—as potential fellow partners on an equal basis—what we plan to do about freedom of movement, so that nobody misunderstands our position.

The enlargement of 1 May will not be a huge consideration this weekend, although no doubt progress will be noted when the 25 Heads of Government meet around the table. I hope that we can do more to build the new member countries into the existing structure of the EU. Recently, I looked at the number of European agencies and how many were sited in the various EU countries. Obviously, there are no European agencies in the new member states and no plans to hold European summit meetings in any of them because of the deal struck in Nice, which was, as I recall, undertaken to make the Belgians feel a little happier. That is why so many European Council meetings take place in Brussels. Now would be a good opportunity to move one of the agencies from the old 15 to the new 10. Perhaps one of them could be in Prague, Warsaw, Cracow or one of the other new EU countries. It is essential to show that the enlargement process did not end on 1 May. If those countries are to be full and true members of the EU, we should be willing to hold more summits in them and move more of the agencies to them. The new members would feel reassured by that.

The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes mentioned the Lisbon agenda, which will, I am sure, be discussed at the Council this weekend. He was wrong to say that the Lisbon agenda was a failure; it was not. The difference between what happened at Lisbon and at other EU summits was that for the first time economic reform was benchmarked. It was part of that process to review the Lisbon agenda after five years to see how well the European countries had done. In fact, the Kok report, published a few weeks ago, makes it clear that Britain has done well, as opposed to some other EU countries. We have not done as well as the Scandinavian countries—we would expect to see Sweden, Finland and Denmark right at the top, partly due to their population size—but the economic reform agenda that our country is pursuing was praised in the Kok report. The House will know that the 112 indices have been reduced to 14 core indices, but we are in the top tier in a number of cases. So it is wrong to say that we have not done well out of Lisbon. Of course we can do better, but the Kok report is very clear. I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), will have read that report. He will know that we have actually had a good report, but we need to do better.

rose—

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Kok report was about Europe as a whole; it was not with regard to the United Kingdom? Does he also accept, as one who has studied the Kok report in detail, that there is no doubt that Mr. Kok did severely criticise the failures of the European Union within the eurozone? Does he further accept that the consequence of that is that the only reason why the United Kingdom is seen to be doing comparatively better is despite, not because of, its policies, for example, on economic and monetary union? In the past, Labour would have supported, and did support, our engagement with the exchange rate mechanism, which the Prime Minister constantly throws at us but actually was supported by the then Labour party in opposition, so we should point that out, too.

The hon. Gentleman is right—we have been an economic success in the United Kingdom because of the policies pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is right also to say that the Kok report does outline a number of serious criticisms. The point of having a report of this sort is that when we look at Lisbon, five years on, as we shall do in the spring Council next year under the Luxembourg presidency, we shall at least have the basis for ensuring that there are action plans. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has read this report, that what is being suggested is that each member state produces an action plan between 2005 and 2006, so that when we get to the spring Council in 2006 each EU country will have an action plan detailing what they will do as a result of the Kok report.

I am very pleased that only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills appointed Will Hutton a member of the Kok team, to lead for us in conducting the gap analysis that is being sought to see why we have fallen short of the criteria that have been set out. A gap analysis in the area of learning and skills and education is very important. I know from my time as Minister for Europe that these reports are wonderful, summits are all wonderful, and everything is always such a success in the European Union, but as we have this detailed report we need to act on it, and yesterday a domestic Department has decided to become the first of our Departments of State to ask a person—Will Hutton, an excellent choice as he served on the Kok committee—to produce a gap analysis so that we know where we are going wrong. I want to see other domestic Departments doing the same thing. The predictions of the hon. Member for Stone would be correct if a similar approach is not taken by the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments that are affected by economic policy. So, we have to take those criticisms; we have to accept that we need to do better. The proposals put forward yesterday and the proposals that will emerge from Departments will be very valuable in ensuring that we get our action plan in place.

I also want to raise an issue that I have raised at every one of these Adjournment debates that has been held before a European Council meeting—I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), will take a note of this so that he can pass it on to the Minister for Europe—and that issue is reform. On 25 February 2002, our Prime Minister, Mr. Aznar and Gerhard Schröder wrote a joint letter on reform to the then European President. The point that we raised then was that there were key areas that needed to be looked at, and I raise it again because I hope that we shall have some answers at the end of the debate. How many of those points mentioned in that letter of 25 February 2002 have actually been realised? How many boxes can we tick? When I last raised this, we did not have an answer, but I am giving notice because I hope that information will be passed to the Front Bench by the time of the winding-up speeches.

There is no point in our taking brave leadership positions in Europe, as our Prime Minister has rightly done, if the rest of Europe does not follow. Our job is to ensure that if we set benchmarks, we know whether they have been realised, and I think that four years is long enough to have looked at this process. I have said before that the people of Britain will never learn to love the EU until the EU learns to love reform, and that means that we need to explain to the people of this country, on an ongoing basis—not just if, but when the referendum campaign is called—the benefits of membership of the European Union. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) tried to do so during the process of formulating the European constitution, and, to give him his credit and his due, so did the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) when he sat with her on the Convention. They went out and tried to discuss these issues, and I have received many invitations to events all over the country where they have been speaking on them. That is exactly what we should be doing.

The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, instead of knocking the EU all the time, should be supporting what Britain is doing. We know where he really stands on this issue. We know that he has to adopt a hard-line approach because he speaks for the Conservative party, but we know where his heart really lies on Europe. Unlike others in his party, he wants to stay in the European Union. I will not mislead people by saying that that is not what he wants to do. If that is what he believes, he should be spending his time supporting what Britain is doing, as we spent our time supporting what Government Ministers did before 1997.