With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the European Union's decisions of Monday last to open negotiations for full membership with Turkey and Croatia.

Turkey is part of Europe. It was a founder member of the Council of Europe in the 1940s, and was invited by the United Kingdom, France and others to join NATO as early as 1952. The prospect of European Union membership was first offered to Turkey some 42 years ago. That promise was repeated by the Union in ever more concrete terms in 1999 and in 2002. In December last year, and again in June this year, a specific start date of Monday last—3 October—was set.

By that date, Turkey was required to, and indeed had, introduce a further six laws, and it had signed the protocol to the Ankara agreement. In addition, the Turkish Government had actively co-operated to encourage a yes vote from the Turkish Cypriots for the Annan plan to reunify Cyprus. So, over this summer, there was understandable bitterness and apprehension in Turkey as further obstacles appeared to be put in its way, and as some in Europe argued that Turkey should settle for less than full membership.

The result was that, nine days ago, the European Union stood at a crossroads. It had to decide whether it would honour its commitment to Turkey and begin accession negotiations, or whether it would turn its back on the Union's nearest and largest Muslim neighbour. In the event, and after 36 hours of almost continuous negotiations, I am pleased to say that agreement was reached in Luxembourg to enable negotiations to begin. Happily, by sticking to what I described as "presidency time"—UK time—we were able to do so just within the 3 October deadline.

The negotiations, which had begun many weeks earlier, were at times difficult and complex. I am indebted to many Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers for the political courage that they showed. I also want to express my gratitude to EU Commissioner Olli Rehn and to High Representative Javier Solana and their staff; and not least to Sir John Grant, UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, to Sir Peter Westmacott, the British ambassador to Turkey, and to Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff in Brussels, Ankara, London and many other posts for their sterling efforts to secure this profoundly important result. I am also grateful to the House for the consistent, all-party support that Turkey's membership of the EU has for so long received.

There is no doubt that Turkey and Europe as a whole will benefit from this decision in equal measure. For Turkey, it represents another significant step on its long journey to becoming a fully European nation. The process will strengthen the wide-ranging reform programme that has been pushed through in recent years and will give renewed impetus to further improvements to the rule of law, respect for human rights and democratic institutions.

For the European Union, the decision means that a close partner will be brought even closer. Turkey has long been key to the security of Europe as a whole. Turkey's economy is one of the fastest growing in Europe and it is already a major market for European Union exporters. Turkey plays a vital role in the fight against international terrorism, cross-border crime and drug trafficking. By standing by our promise to Turkey, we will make the European Union stronger, safer and more competitive.

The decision made on 3 October was, however, even more significant than that. For more than 1,000 years, the boundaries between Europe and Asia have principally been decided through bloodshed and conflict. By welcoming Turkey, with its large Muslim population, we are embarking on a new era in which it is manifest that the European Union and Europe is not just an exclusive Christian club, at best cold to its neighbours, at worst actively hostile. Instead, we are able to show that what binds this modern Europe together is a set of fundamental rights and freedoms combined with a common purpose, regardless of race or religion. That is a powerful message not only to the people of other faiths who live in neighbouring countries, but to the millions who already live within the borders of the European Union.

I do not underestimate the challenges ahead, some of which are for Turkey. Turkey, like all candidate countries, has to align its legislation with that of the European Union—an enormous task that is broken down into 35 separate chapters covering issues from justice and home affairs through to economic policy and the environment.

Some of the challenges are for Turkey's neighbours—Greece and Cyprus—as much as they are for Turkey. The accession process holds out the clearest prospect of a satisfactory resolution to a host of historical regional issues, including disputes over rights in the Aegean and the reunification of Cyprus. Achieving those aims will require a positive approach by all concerned and a readiness to compromise. I have already spoken, since the decision on 3 October, to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan about the circumstances in which he would deem it appropriate to restart his good offices mission in respect of Cyprus under Security Council resolution 1250. I have also spoken to enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn about other measures that are needed, specifically the Union's commitments to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.

Some of the challenges ahead are for Europe as a whole, including continuing in good faith to help Turkey prepare for full membership of the European Union. Equally, the process means setting out clearly to our own peoples why having Turkey as a member of the European Union will bring direct benefit to all of them. We have to show that the greatest threat to our European culture and heritage comes not from opening our doors to a vibrant, secular nation such as Turkey, but from closing in on ourselves and allowing Europe to stagnate in the face of global competition.

At its meeting last December, the European Council decided that accession negotiations for Croatia should begin on 17 March. Croatia has made remarkable progress in recent years and has been able to satisfy the EU Commission that it has met all the so-called Copenhagen criteria relating to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, which are a prerequisite to the beginning of formal negotiations.

There was one issue still unresolved concerning the Croatian fugitive suspected of war crimes, Ante Gotovina. The Council thus made the start date dependent on Croatia fully co-operating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague. In the event, it took until last Monday before the chief prosecutor of the tribunal, Carla del Ponte, was able to say that such full co-operation had been forthcoming. The Union acted immediately in response by opening negotiations, and I am very grateful to the Croatian Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader, and his Government for that significant improvement in co-operation, which I hope will lead to the early arrest of Gotovina.

When the prospect of membership was first held out to Turkey, the body that became the European Union had just six members. Since then, the EU has acted as a powerful magnet for countries that see the benefits of membership from the outside and want to come into the fold. Each successive wave of enlargement has strengthened and broadened the Union. Each wave has also demonstrated how the EU can be a great and powerful force for good in helping to spread good governance and human rights.

Former dictatorships in the west of Europe and former Soviet satellite states in the east have been transformed by the prospect, and then the fact, of membership of the European Union, creating an ever wider community of stable, prosperous democracies. I have no doubt that the same force for good will now benefit the people of Turkey, Croatia and all the citizens of Europe. I know that the House will support every effort to achieve that result.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for allowing us to see a copy in advance.

Following the end of the cold war and the accession of the former eastern bloc countries, there remain two great strategic objectives on the continent: the stabilisation and incorporation of the Balkans and the stabilisation and incorporation of Turkey. We should be in no doubt about the historic importance of those decisions. They will determine whether the European Union becomes a narrow, inward-looking group of states that tries to shut out the wider world, or whether it becomes a broad-minded club, ready to ride the currents of globalisation and changing civilisation.

We share the Government's belief that Turkey must be allowed to join the European Union. At its best, the EU can be a driver for human rights, democracy and the rule of law among those that seek to join it. We believe not only that Turkey should be allowed to join the EU, but that it should be welcomed into the EU. Those who reject Turkish membership should ask themselves whether they want a pro-western, secular and liberalising state or a fundamentalist, theocratic nation on Europe's borders. There are those on the continent—noticeably in old, not new, Europe—who want to shut Turkey out. We profoundly disagree.

There are three groups for whom our message must have particular resonance. The first is the Turks themselves, to show them that if they move towards a liberalising, democratic state that shares our values there will be a reward for the Turkish. The second is the domestic Muslim population across Europe, to show that our war is not with Islam, but with terror, and that those who share our values can share our prosperity. The third is the oppressed people of the Islamic world, to show them that there is an alternative destiny other than theocracy and fundamentalism. Those are enormously important messages. We also welcome the beginning of accession negotiations with Croatia. They provide a great opportunity to entrench stability and democracy in the western Balkans.

There are questions that I am sure the Foreign Secretary will want to answer. First, he said that the Council concluded that Croatia was in full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and that that must be sustained. Is the eventual attendance of Gotovina at the tribunal a prerequisite of the negotiations' successful conclusion? Secondly, how long do the Government envisage the accession negotiations taking in the cases of Turkey and Croatia respectively? Thirdly, the Copenhagen criteria emphasise human rights, the rule of law and respect for the protection of minorities. How much progress do the Government believe Turkey must make in those, and how does the Foreign Secretary expect progress to affect the length of the accession process? In particular, what bearing will the Pamuk and Dink cases have on the course of negotiations? Turkey's accession will be the most challenging ever undertaken. Does he foresee a role for long, or even permanent, derogations from parts of the acquis, such as the free movement of workers?

We believe that the prospect of Turkey's accession is the best context in which to see an end of the division of Cyprus. How does the Foreign Secretary see the two processes interacting, especially in regard to Turkey's recognition of Cyprus, and the access of Cypriot planes and vessels to Turkish airspace and ports? In particular, will the Government press for recognition of Cyprus before, and not just at, accession?

There are two great challenges for European politicians in this process. First, a more flexible and looser Europe would make the accession of Turkey and Balkan states much easier. Perhaps more immediately, European leaders have a clear choice. They can have the strength and courage to argue for Turkish accession and security and stability for future generations, or they can pander to the xenophobia of parts of their electorate. The moral gauntlet has been thrown down to Europe's leaders. Our Government must give a lead.

As this is an ecumenical occasion, heaven forfend that I should make any point about people pandering to xenophobic electorates. I will bite my tongue and not utter such a thought—[Interruption.] I think that Conservative Front Benchers know exactly what this is about—it is about holding up the mirror to themselves. What we wish for others we should also accept for ourselves.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for what he said and for the way in which he made his remarks. The issue is important for Turks and for people of all faiths and of none in this country, and not least for those of the Muslim faith and for people of the Islamic faith throughout the world. Quite a number of democracies around the world have a majority Muslim population. An urgent process is required, particularly in the Arab world, and we hope that a leading part of the Islamic world will provide a beacon for reform elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether Gotovina's delivery to The Hague is a formal prerequisite of the negotiating framework. The answer is no. That was never the case, for reasons that become fairly apparent. We never expected the Croatians to be in a position of having to deliver Gotovina. After all, he might have disappeared to a place from where it is impossible for even the best law enforcement agencies to deliver him. However, we were clear that there had to be full co-operation. There was not, and we took the lead in insisting on better co-operation, with Carla del Ponte and the Commission. I am glad to say that as a result of that, Prime Minister Sanader of Croatia has been able to exercise greater authority over his own security personnel. That led to Carla del Ponte taking the view that co-operation is now forthcoming.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about time. Because Croatia is a smaller country it had got to the point of beginning negotiations, but for the Gotovina problem, at an earlier stage. I expect that it will be a few years before Croatia has a tick in the box for all of its chapters, at which point formal accession can take place.

The Turkish Government say that the process will take between 10 and 15 years. Long-term derogations will be subject to negotiations, but let us be clear that what Turkey seeks, what we want for Turkey and what the Union has now signed up to is full membership. However, we are not in favour of permanent derogations in respect of the four fundamental freedoms of the Union.

The hon. Gentleman asked about human rights and in particular about Orhan Pamuk. Turkey has made considerable progress, even in the four and a half years that I have been Foreign Secretary, on human rights, following the coup 10 years ago in which the elected Government were forced from office. There is much further progress to be made, but Members might be aware that Olli Rehn saw Mr. Pamuk when he visited Turkey late last week.

I quote from an interview that Mr. Pamuk gave on 3 October:

"I do not want my case to be exaggerated."

He did not want it to be used to block Turkey's entry to the EU or to abuse Turkey. He continued:

"I don't want to dramatise my case or that of some of my friends."

We are all concerned about Orhan Pamuk, but it is clear not only that many people are working directly for him but that others within the system also want the system to be radically changed.

On Cyprus, the hon. Gentleman asked how those two processes fit together. There is no formal linkage, but they have to fit together. We had hoped to achieve a unified Cyprus before the formal accession of Cyprus on 1 May last year. The Turkish Government pulled out all the stops to achieve a yes vote within the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and there was a yes vote among Turkish Cypriots. Sadly, there was a no vote among Greek Cypriots to an almost equal extent, and it is regrettable that the Cypriot Government, having been party to the Bürgenstock decisions, took a different view when recommending them to their peoples. We have a problem that must be resolved. I have therefore spoken to Kofi Annan to see whether and in what circumstances he would be ready to restore his good offices mission.

The recognition of Cyprus will follow a peace process—everyone knows that that is the case. People who are familiar with the 40-year history of this problem know that one must follow the other. They also know—the Turks know this, and I have spelt it out in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee—that a country cannot achieve membership of the European Union if it does not recognise another country sitting at the table. [Interruption.] As a matter of fact, these issues must be resolved well before then.

It would be churlish not to congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe on their considerable efforts to ensure that a proper settlement was reached. They proved yet again the well-known dictum that 36 hours is a long time in European Union politics.

It is obviously welcome that Croatia has agreed to provide full co-operation. The bringing to justice of alleged war criminals from the Balkans is unfinished business that must be prosecuted with as much vigour as possible. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will excuse me if I borrow an expression from the Ministry of Defence. The lateness of the indication that full co-operation was available reminds me of the just in time procurement principle adopted by Her Majesty's Government at the Ministry of Defence.

The Foreign Secretary referred to good faith, and I am he sure that he agrees that it must apply to both sides. As far as members of the European Union are concerned, there should be no artificial barriers, no unexpected hurdles and no cavilling technicalities. If Turkey fulfils the criteria it is entitled to accession. As for Turkey itself, I hope that we will make it clear from the outset that economic qualification is not enough, and that pluralism, the rule of law and freedom of speech must be realities, not merely aspirations.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and thank him for his congratulations to my right hon. Friend and me. I am grateful to all the staff as well, because this was a huge collective effort.

On Croatia, the offer was made just in time, but the Croatian Government thought that it would be profoundly embarrassing if we started negotiations with Turkey, but not with Croatia. The proposal was helpful in concentrating the mind of the Croatian Government and security forces. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct about the need for good faith on all sides, and I agree that there should not be any cavilling technicalities—a point that we kept making to some of our European colleagues, although in the end they all accepted the proposal.

As for economic progress, the European Union is not just about a customs union. Turkey already has a customs union, and much else by way of close association with the European Union. That is one of the reasons why the idea of a preferential partnership was not in the real world. What Turkey wants is membership. It knows that that will require even more changes—on the ground—in its governance, the full nature of its democracy, the control of its military, human rights and the operation of its judiciary. Prime Minister Erdogan's Government and his AKP party are in the vanguard of recognising the importance of change to Turkey itself, and using the prospect of membership to secure that change.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his pertinacity in pressing for negotiations for Turkey's entry into the European Union, on his success in securing them, and on noting the significance of the fact that the Cypriot Government did not oppose the commencement of negotiations. Will he confirm that before Turkey becomes a full member of the European Union—which most Members, including me, consider desirable—it will be an indispensable requirement for her to recognise Cyprus and withdraw her armed forces from the island?

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said.

We must not see just one side of the issue. It is two-sided. The history of the conflict on the island of Cyprus is very complicated. We need each side to recognise the other with dignity and within a unified single Government.

I have already made it clear that in the European Union it would not be possible for us to operate if members did not recognise, de jure, the states around the table. That does not mean, however, that the obligations to achieve that position rest entirely on Turkey or on the Turkish Cypriot community. They rest equally on Turkey, the Turkish Cypriot community and the Government of Cyprus, as well as on the international community. That is made absolutely clear in a number of Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1250.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on a statement that has achieved near-consensus so far, on a non-controversial subject. I welcome his announcement for all the sound geopolitical reasons that have been well propounded on both sides of the House. Does he accept, however, that he will have to maintain support for Turkey's eventual accession over the next 10 years? There is a serious danger that a public backlash may begin to develop across Europe as people concentrate on their fears as opposed to the advantages.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is really analogous to our admitting Greece, Portugal and Spain, and more recently the eastern and central European countries, for geopolitical reasons, but that we see in the medium and longer term a great accretion of strength to the Union, bringing economic and political benefits? Does he agree that it would be wrong to allow anyone to encourage some people on the continent to go any further in their protectionist, cautious, restrictive fears? This is a very long-term project, but we need to persuade people that it has positive advantages for Britain and the rest of the European Union, not just for the Turkish population.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support.

It is striking that in the United Kingdom, because of the leadership shown by all parties, there has been not a whiff of hostility to Turkey's membership of the European Union. Far from it: there has been very active support, and we should thank ourselves for having achieved that.

We are all winners!

Yes, the whole of Europe should be winners as a result of Turkey's accession. In my judgment, the hostility towards Turkey that has emerged in recent years has nothing to do with the prospect of its joining the European Union, and everything to do with a lacklustre economic performance in the countries concerned, with people blaming others for problems within their own borders.

We know from the successive waves of accession that the Union and its existing members have always benefited from the widening of the Union's borders. Let me pick up a point made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). What we must say to European citizens is "Think of the alternative". Of course there will be a process of adjustment as Turkey comes in. But if we were to push Turkey away, we would not be in a stable state. That alternative would be far worse not only for Turkey, but for the security, prosperity and peace of all Europe.

As chairman of the all-party group on Turkey, I thank my right hon. Friend for the report offered to the House today; the group as a whole will doubtless have been delighted to hear it. On the Opposition's reference to the recent hostilities and to the prospect of a backlash, I ask my right hon. Friend to point out to those who have that thought in mind that we owe two debts of gratitude to Turkey. First, for decades, Turkey effectively, efficiently and readily offered itself as a bulwark against the perceived threat from the Soviet Union. Secondly, after the cold war it has readily, and so far effectively—and with an Islamic party in government—offered itself as a bulwark against the most extreme elements of Islamic fundamentalism. We will owe that debt for a long time to come.

I agree with my hon. Friend in both regards. I simply say that when we needed—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) should not make faces at me. It is very rude indeed to do that, and it leads to his not getting called.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook). I simply say that when we needed Turkey as the eastern flank of our defences, no one said at that stage that Turkey was not European. People across Europe need to remember that.

What progress does the Foreign Secretary want the Turkish Government to make during the accession process in terms of a positive relationship with the Kurdish community in that country?

We expect the Turkish Government to make significant progress in that regard. They have already recognised the language, and they are seeking the further emancipation of that part of Turkey. By the end of this period, we need to see that the Kurdish minority in Turkey is being treated the same as equivalent minorities are treated in any full member state of the European Union.

I was not too satisfied with the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). May I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that there should be no question of opening negotiations with Turkey until Turkey itself has not just promised to end the occupation of northern Cyprus, but actually done so? If Turkey really wishes to be a member of the European Union, that is the least that we can expect of it. It is no good securing feeble promises; we need something specific on the drawing board concerning the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island.

I understand that my hon. Friend takes a particular and partisan view of this issue, but doing so does not help. There is a complicated history on both sides, which we can debate another time. Recognition of the current Republic of Cyprus Government simply was not a precondition of beginning these negotiations. The EU has always recognised that this process had to run in parallel with the good offices process—the processes are not directly linked—run under the auspices of the United Nations. Moreover, I remind my hon. Friend that the Government of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots on the island of Cyprus voted in favour of the Annan plan, and that it was rejected not because of their efforts, but because of what happened in the Greek Cypriot part of Cyprus.

I did not intend to ask a question, but I want to follow up that asked by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). I fully support Turkey's membership of the European Union for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and my other hon. Friends. But I do not think that we quite got to the bottom of what will happen when we reach the point at which Turkey's accession has to be decided on. May I press the Foreign Secretary? In his opinion, is it conceivable that Turkey will be allowed to enter the EU fully if, as has been stated, the Cyprus issue has not been settled?

Leaving aside my opinion, which I have expressed in clear terms, the Union itself made that clear in the declaration issued when the negotiations began. The declaration by the European Community and its member states said:

"Recognition of all member states is a necessary component of the accession process. Accordingly, the EU underlines the importance it attaches to the normalisation of relations between Turkey and all EU Member States, as soon as possible."

It is worth drawing attention—as my colleague the Irish Foreign Minister did recently—to the Irish-UK parallel. When we and Ireland joined what was then the European Economic Community 32 years ago, the Republic of Ireland laid claim to the sovereignty of a significant part of the United Kingdom. There was an unresolved claim of sovereignty to part of our territory, and it was many years after we had both joined that that was resolved. This is a complicated situation and the EU has made its position clear, but we are not going to resolve an historic conflict on the island of Cyprus without the good offices of the Secretary-General of the UN and without a clear understanding of the need for a compromise on all sides.

Is not Turkey's application to join the EU the best possible incentive for that country to continue to improve its human rights record, as it has been doing over a number of years? To be blunt, is not some of the opposition to Turkey joining the EU—from Austria, a former French President and one or two others—nothing to do with Cyprus or human rights, but probably anti-Islamic? Should we not recognise that?

They would say that it was not, but in parts of Europe there is a much narrower conception of what the EU is. As some have said, the idea is that it should be, as it were, a Christian heritage club, but that is not the view of this country, or of this House.

Will the Foreign Secretary accept the support of my party and the Scottish National party for Turkey's accession to the Union? However, does he accept also that accession is contingent upon not only the resolution of security, democratic and human rights issues, as well as the Cyprus question, but the emancipation of the Kurdish language and culture? How does he view the recent substantial setbacks to Kurdish-medium education only a few weeks ago in eastern Anatolia?

As I have said, progress has been made, but there have been some setbacks, including the recent prosecution of a novelist and other things that have been happening in eastern Anatolia. However, the Government of the Republic of Turkey and their Parliament understand the direction in which they have to go. The EU Commissioner Olli Rehn and his colleagues will be monitoring closely the progress that is made. As I said in my statement, 35 chapters have to be closed; agreed, in other words. These cover a range of issues, including human rights, that will be monitored by the Commission and by the Turks themselves.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts on this important process, but it is a continuing process. I know that he does not underestimate the difficulties in persuading public opinion in Europe. My right hon. Friend made a profound case as to why Turkey's long-term entry into the EU is in our national interest and in the interest of the whole of the present EU. Will he make sure that that message is communicated clearly not only in this country, but across Europe? Turkey must be invited to become a party to delivering that message, which will assist those in Turkey who want that country to be brought up to the standards of fitness of a member of the EU.

Yes, we will. What was striking about the long discussions in the General Affairs and External Relations Council during last Sunday, Monday and the early hours of Tuesday was the leadership demonstrated by Governments whose populations were in many cases not as keen on Turkish accession as we are in the UK. In the end, the decision was not reluctant: it was a positive decision that recognised the strategic importance of having Turkey in the EU. We all now have a big job in trying to convince citizens across Europe that Turkey's membership will prove a benefit to them, but I believe that we can do that.

Would the Foreign Secretary kindly clarify the position of Turkey's and Croatia's accession with respect to the treaty of Nice? Am I right that the treaty will have to be amended to enable those countries to enter and, if so, when will that happen?

Not soon. The voting system is currently dependent on the treaty of Nice and the voting weights would have to be changed for Croatia and Turkey. Though many issues were discussed in the negotiations, that was happily not one of them—may the Lord be praised! My guess is that the matter would be dealt with through the accession treaties, which would have the same force as any other treaty in the EU.

May I urge the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to temper their remarks, which give credence, albeit unintentionally, to the idea that the existing EU is somehow a Christian club, when we should be reinforcing the view that it is a secular body? There is a danger of these repeated remarks giving credence—albeit unintentionally, as I said—to the discomforting notion that the EU is a Christian club that should not therefore allow an Islamic country to join it. Should not the Copenhagen criteria be central—having a robust parliamentary democracy, a market economy and the capacity to fulfil the acquis? Given that Turkey borders Azerbaijan, Georgia, Syria, Iraq and Iran, I also want to ask the Foreign Secretary how those porous borders will be policed after accession.

Turkey's border is not porous—far from it. Indeed, it is completely closed in respect of some of its neighbours. Whatever other worries we may have, we do not need to worry about a porous border. As Turkey moves towards becoming a full member of the European Union, it will become a remarkable exemplar to its neighbours and act as a real force for good.

As to the notion of the EU as a Christian club, I used it twice, but only in response to others who used it. The EU is a secular, treaty-based organisation, but we must care for our own history. Anyone who understands the history of the EU knows that some of its very concepts—subsidiarity, for example—are drawn from Roman Catholic canonical law. We must be alive to that and also alive to the danger of the EU retreating—

With respect, that is complete nonsense.

No, it is not. Anyone who knows the history of Europe and who understands the vision of the early pioneers of the European Union will know where some of their inspiration came from.

I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said this afternoon, but may I press him further on the timetable for the accession, particularly of Turkey? While recognising the complexities, is there not nevertheless a danger that the 10 to 15 years that is being spoken of could provide time both for the present hostility of some EU states to Turkey's accession to increase and for the enthusiasm within Turkey to wane? Can the Foreign Secretary envisage circumstances in which the timetable could be foreshortened?

It is really a matter for Turkey; there is no set timetable. What is set is that accession will take place when the 35 chapters, or sub-headings, have been completed. If Turkey could complete the process earlier, it would come into membership earlier. That depends on Turkey.

May I add my congratulations and welcome for the process that will now commence for Turkey and Croatia? However, does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is substantial concern that the amendments to the Annan proposals that were put by Turkey made the result acceptable to Turkish Cypriots but left the people of the Greek Cypriot community unable to accept it? It included, I believe, the troops remaining on the island, perhaps for a very long time. I ask, in a spirit of helpfulness, whether it is possible for the Annan mission, when it starts again, to revisit some of the late amendments to its proposals on Cyprus that went to the vote.

Any plan to resolve such a long-standing and difficult conflict such as that between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities on the island of Cyprus, is bound to involve all sorts of compromises. That is what was agreed at Burgenstock. As I have said, it is a matter for regret that it did not find complete favour. It is also obvious that if the Secretary-General decides to revive his good offices mission, a future plan will have to have some modifications from the previous plan, to take account of concerns on both sides.

rose—

Order. The House has a busy day today, and we must move on.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the anti-social use of motor vehicles; to make provision for the seizure of motor vehicles used in an anti-social manner; and for connected purposes.

My purpose today is to promote increased use of seizure, and stronger laws and sentencing measures to help protect people from the dangerous and antisocial use of motor bikes, quad bikes and similar vehicles off highway. I also want to clarify the action that local councils and the police should be taking under existing laws.

Antisocial off-roading is often destructive of biodiverse and sensitive environments and recreational areas, and damages residents' quality of life and is dangerous to the public and to the off-roaders themselves.

My constituent Mr. Roy Hutson said:

"Not only are the daily lives of residents being disrupted by the noise of these off-road motorcycles, but the safety of those persons who use the land legitimately for recreational purposes, dog walking etc. is also at risk because of the selfish and intolerable attitude taken by this illegal, anti-social behaviour."

Another constituent, Ursula Fuller, said:

"The Northwick SSSI site on Canvey Island is a wonderful bio-diverse asset for our community, but it is subject to regular damage from illegal off-road motorcycling and its fragile habitat and protected species are being systematically destroyed. We must give it more protection."

I congratulate Roy and Ursula and others who are fighting to help their communities on such issues. They are true heroes. The public want tougher action to protect people's quality of life. They want to conserve precious environments. They value habitats which, like Canvey's Northwick area, support rare and delicate wildlife, fauna and flora. They want to preserve recreational land for walking, sport, or even just for flying kites with their children. We must not stand by and see land destroyed. It must be safeguarded for future generations and for biodiversity.

Of course, there are many decent off-roaders and I unreservedly commend them. They suffer from the bad name that the activity gets because of a few off-roaders who could not care less. Sadly, those irresponsible people are not just teenagers but adults who should know better—especially as it is the most vulnerable people, the elderly, who suffer most from this nuisance. As the Prime Minister said last week, we cannot tolerate yobs damaging the quality of life of the elderly.

What can be done? Prevention is the obvious first step, but that is often difficult. Earth mounds and fences are expensive and are not respected by some who tear them down and even use them as ramps. Existing laws are difficult to enforce and the police have important and diverting priorities. Off-roaders escape on their vehicles when the police arrive, often using several alternative exits from a site, so we have years of recurring complaints, resulting in costly but often ineffective action.

In such circumstances, I suggest the following approach. First, the pattern of activity should be established. Then a warning leaflet should be given to riders, where possible, and posted at the site entrances, stating that confiscation will follow if offending continues. Then a surprise sting operation should be mounted, with mass police descending quickly around the site and taking positions at the various exits to trap the offenders. There must then be immediate and mandatory confiscation of all vehicles and prosecution for any offences, with appropriate sentences handed down by the courts. Offenders would then know that their illegal behaviour was harmful and would not be tolerated. In the long run, such an approach would save time and costs for everyone, protect the environments, restore quality of life for residents and improve public safety.

One of Castle Point's excellent police officers, Kevin Diable-White, wants

"a longer term, sustainable solution to stop these recurring incidents".

He told me last Friday that he spent more time on this issue than on many other important areas of crime. His experience is not unusual, because it is a national problem.

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is in his place to support the Bill today, because off-roaders in Essex harm communities and terrorise people in public parks in Basildon. In Bristol, antisocial behaviour orders have been taken out to stop juveniles riding motorcycles and abusing and harassing residents. Stroud police have issued confiscation orders to bikers who were wreaking havoc in ancient woodlands. A helicopter was used in Liverpool to crack down on scrambler bikes, quads and gopeds—whatever they are—and the National Trust has raised the issue of children and adults riding motorbikes, quads and gopeds, destroying the environment and rights of way and putting themselves and innocent walkers at real risk. Problems have been reported in areas as far apart as Stafford, the Yorkshire dales, Scotland and Manchester—and I could go on.

We can make good use of existing laws, where there is a will. For instance, in Durham residents were plagued by children, teenagers and adults riding motorbikes and quads off-road, on public footpaths and on private land. In one operation, the police confiscated and destroyed 33 motorbikes. Residents near Warwickshire's Brandon Woods have suffered misery and land destruction similar to that seen on Canvey Island, with dozens of off-road bikers having meets on a Sunday. Those residents were rescued by a police helicopter operation that trapped more than 20 of them on the site. More than 100 off-road motorcycles were impounded by police and the local council in Barnsley.

Under current laws, local authorities and the police have powers to seize any vehicle being driven off-road without the authority of the landowner. If an offender drives his off-roader on the public highway, even for only a few yards, it may constitute an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 or the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989. Antisocial behaviour orders are also available.

I propose two new measures. First, the Government should ensure that previous warning is deemed to have been given to an individual by virtue of a leaflet having been handed out at the site and posted at the site entrances, with no need to prove that the individual has previously been warned. That would enable local councillors and police to be confident in mounting the sort of stitch-in-time sting operation that I described earlier. Secondly, the courts should impose significant periods of disqualification from driving for such antisocial offences. An elderly Canvey resident chased a youth on a motorbike from a field just behind his home. The resident was nastily abused—I shall not tell you what was shouted at him, Mr. Speaker—and the yob said that he did not care about the law and would be back. The one thing that such people care about is their driving licences. For youngsters, disqualification should be deferred until they reach 17. That would make the sentence fit the crime, and increase its deterrent effect. The provision should also apply to illegal boy-racing on the highways.

Minimotors and gopeds pose a new problem. Gopeds are motorised skateboards, whereas minimotors are tiny motorbikes. They may seem innocuous and fun toys for kids of all ages, and I do not want to be a killjoy, but these are motor vehicles and real issues arise. It is illegal to use them on public roads, and they are subject to the same regulations as all cars and motorbikes. They can cause a nuisance and they pose a serious accident risk, such as when they come into conflict with a full-size motor vehicle. I am afraid that a child will be hurt in an accident, so parents who buy these vehicles need to be properly informed about the law and about the dangers involved. I have no doubt that this House will return in due course to the sale and safety awareness issues associated with these toys.

The Government have repeatedly voiced concern about vehicles that cause nuisance, and one Home Office Minister has said that the antisocial use of vehicles can blight communities and cause misery and distress to people going about their daily lives. My Bill would secure tougher action from local councils and the police, and require the Government to produce new and clearer laws. In that way, people would be protected from the increasing problems posed by the vehicles to which I have referred. We must protect communities from this form of antisocial behaviour and deter people who may not understand the danger, nuisance and destruction caused by the antisocial behaviour that is off-roading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Spink, Charles Hendry, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Kevan Jones, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. David Heath, Mr. David Evenett, Mr. Lee Scott, Mr. Michael Clapham and Mark Francois.

Motor Vehicles (Anti-Social Use)

Bob Spink accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the anti-social use of motor vehicles; to make provision for the seizure of motor vehicles used in an anti-social manner; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 20 January, and to be printed [Bill 54].

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

It is a pleasure to be able to return to this Bill so soon after the summer recess. Given what the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has just said about off-road vehicles, it is especially appropriate that we should begin with this new clause, which would give the national park authorities powers to make traffic regulation orders in respect of unsealed roads. The new clause follows points made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).

Some national park authorities already carry out limited highway authority functions in respect of rights of way, which are delegated to them by agreement with their local highway authority under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. However, it is unclear whether those agreements are able to cover the making of traffic regulation orders.

Therefore, national park authorities must rely on negotiations with the local authority when they want to impose a TRO. That process can be time consuming and resource intensive, and the outcome is often uncertain. As I said in Committee in response to the points made by the hon. Members to whom I have referred, I believe that the national park authorities should have the necessary tools to manage traffic effectively on recreational routes in the national parks.

The Minister is absolutely right; Exmoor national park has exactly that problem. But would he differentiate between recreational users and people who have legitimate reason to have their vehicles up there? There are areas where people use their vehicles for farming and so on, and if the national park has measures that are too draconian it could be a problem. Would the Minister be able to arbitrate in a dispute between landowners?

I am not sure that I personally would want to arbitrate in all those matters. The expectation would be that the national park authorities would use those powers sensitively, as highways authorities currently do. We would be applying the rules that currently apply to highways authorities in respect of the powers to make TROs also to national park authorities, who would use them in the same way.

The amendment will make it easier for the park authorities to protect routes that are most vulnerable to damage of the type that we heard about from the hon. Member for Castle Point when he introduced his ten-minute Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for commencing this afternoon's proceedings with what I might call a bit of a climbdown, because he will remember that he opposed the amendment when it was tabled by the Liberal Democrats in Committee. To be fair, he said, as he has just repeated, that he wanted national parks to have the tools but he was not at that stage prepared to give them the powers. Now he is doing so and he is doing that correctly.

I also want to express my gratitude to the Minister for informing those of us who were involved with the Bill, early in the recess, that this was his plan, and for making similar comments about other things. I only hope that this presages a useful next four-and-a-half hours of proceedings and that there will be other measures on which we can agree, but clearly it is sensible that national parks authorities should have the opportunity to issue traffic regulation orders. We shall return to traffic regulation orders later this evening, but the fact that the Government are seeing fit to give national parks authorities the power to issue TROs is an important step forward, not just because of national parks but also because of the principle of using TROs to deal with some of the negative effects that mechanised vehicles can have on byways that are open to all traffic. We need not repeat at this stage all the damage that can be done—members of the Committee and many other Members of the House are well aware of it—but it is very serious, and giving national parks authorities the opportunity to issue TROs takes us a long way forward. It still leaves the rest of the country and we shall return to that in a later group of amendments, but I appreciate the Minister's concession on this new clause and welcome it.

I very much welcome the new clause. As the Minister knows, the Peak district is the most beautiful part of England and he is welcome to come and see for himself at the earliest possible time all that the area has to offer. Unfortunately, one thing that he might see on a visit is damage that has been done by 4x4s and off-road vehicles to the rights of way that we are talking about today. Many national parks have had this problem for a long time, but the issue has perhaps been growing faster in the Peak district.

I should like to raise with the Minister a number of issues on which I hope he can provide answers, but whatever he says in answer, he can be assured of my 100 per cent. support for the new clause. First, is this just about 4x4 vehicles or is it about other forms of mechanised transport as well? I am thinking of trail bikes, motor bikes and so on. Secondly, in recent months there has been a rush by various groups to try to squeeze some rights of way under the finishing rope, to get them recognised as rights of way on which they can use motorised vehicles before legislation such as this comes into effect. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure me that where there is evidence that these have been raised at a late stage to try to get them under the wire, that can be resisted. I am not really asking for retrospective powers for the national park, but I am asking for it to have powers to resist applications for rights of way status that are already in the pipeline where, for example, there is no evidence that motorised vehicles have ever regularly used those rights of way.

I am also interested to know about the use of the definitive map in these cases. Why is it that only rights of way are on the definitive map, rather than other routes that may well be established as walking routes and so on and could be abused by users of motorised recreational vehicles? Does the Minister envisage that, as a consequence of the new clause, powers will be given to national parks to repair, upgrade or make changes to rights of way or to force others to do so in order to maintain or restore their essential character?

The final point—I think that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) hinted at it—is that if the national parks had such powers they would obviously need the resources to impose them. Can we be assured that national parks funding will take into account the need to maintain the character of rights of way?

I welcome the wisdom of the Minister in tabling the new clause. In all respects, it replicates my intention in tabling an amendment in Committee. I have no doubt that the statutory intent is expressed in better language, and I welcome that, too. It is desperately important for national parks, which have the statutory duty to conserve the appearance of the countryside as well as to promote recreation and enjoyment of those areas, to have the power to make TROs. The national parks are best placed to strike a balance between conservation and recreation. I have no doubt that they will use the Sandford principle in coming to decisions. The Sandford principle puts the emphasis on conservation if there is ever a dispute between the two statutory duties.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who represents Exmoor, made a point about landowners having access over rights of way when TROs are made. I am sure that in the consultations that national parks will undertake with the local residents and the local authority such access would be protected, because it is so important to the local economy.

One of the issues that I touched on was the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and national parks. Two national parks have MOD land on them—Dartmoor and Northumberland. I have seen little mention of that. Both bodies have statutory rights, and Crown immunity is going. I wonder whether the hon. Member has any thoughts on that.

The hon. Gentleman raises a valuable point. I am not aware of the military use of national parks where the MOD either owns part of the national park or has been given use of land. The military uses the Brecon Beacons national park on a rather more informal basis. The MOD has a very good relationship with the national park, and I am sure that the national park would see that no damage was done.

I welcome the new clause. I am sure that it will give national parks great heart that they are in a better position to look after the countryside for which they have responsibility, and to promote enjoyment and recreation.

The hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench represents part of one of the most beautiful counties in England—Dorset. Scrambling and offroading are major problems in that region. Is he aware that the courts have recently ruled that gopeds and, presumably, mini motos are classified for legal purposes as motor vehicles? Will those new miniature motorised devices be covered by the national park TROs?

Is my hon. Friend's Department considering issuing any guidelines to national parks and others about the use of traffic regulation orders, particularly where upgrades to BOATs—byways open to all traffic—have already made progress and where there is the possibility of countering those upgrades that may have been objected to but passed in advance of the Bill becoming a statute? If so, what is the time scale in relation to such advice?

While I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) about farmers or gamekeepers gaining access to national parks, I realise that national parks will treat such use sympathetically. Similarly, I am critical of the use in national parks of trail bikes and other vehicles that can cause damage. However, can the Minister allay my concerns about legal motor sports in national parks that are undertaken with the landowner's permission and are sometimes a valuable source of income to the landowner? In particular, trial riding, as opposed to trail riding, is a sport enjoyed by many families and young children and a valuable part of the activity that takes place in national parks.

A lot of points have been made in quick-fire succession, which is obviously an efficient way for us to go about our business. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for his comments, which do not require me to add anything.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) raised some important and valid issues, some of which we will deal with much more fully when we come to the fourth group of amendments, which relate to rights of way, 4x4s, trail-bike riders and so on. Clearly, the use of traffic regulation orders by national park authorities will apply to all vehicles, depending on how those orders are framed. As I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), we shall simply apply the powers that are currently available to highways agencies. I shall deal later with the rush to make claims if my hon. Friend will be patient with me.

The powers are not limited to rights of way on the definitive map and statement. The powers also apply to all unsurfaced routes within the national park boundary—in other words, to all routes that are likely to be vulnerable to damage by mechanically propelled vehicles. My hon. Friend's next question related to the associated works that might need to be carried out in support of that. We are confident that the powers that the proposals confer will be implicitly granted to national park authorities under the new clause.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked the inevitable question about resources. We have consulted the national park authorities about the funding implications of the new powers. I visited several of them over the summer, and they are all very enthusiastic about them. Indeed, I spoke to the annual general meeting of the Association of National Park Authorities, and I got the closest thing to a cheer during my whole speech when I said that I was actively considering introducing such a proposal. The national park authorities have said that they are happy to take the new powers without additional funding. They believe that determining the priority of such things within the funds available to them and how best to use their resources to protect the landscapes that they are responsible for protecting are matters for them.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) for his comments. In respect of the intervention made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, I am happy to write to him about the issues that he raised about the Ministry of Defence, if that is helpful to him.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will be pleased to know that, yes, despite being new devices, gopeds—I share some of his mystery about what they are specifically—and certainly mini mopeds, which I do know about, will be regarded as mechanically propelled. In any case, traffic regulation orders will apply to all vehicles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked about guidelines on using the new powers. Those will be published shortly and I shall be able to talk a little more about that later.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) raised an important point, which I did not have time to write down, so it has subsequently escaped me, but if he wants to make a rapid intervention it may be possible for me to remember.

To help the Minister, the point I made was about legal motor sport in national parks. I referred to uses that would almost invariably be treated sympathetically by national park committees, such as use by farmers, but there are a number of such activities; for example, in my constituency, the Colonial trial—a national motorbike trial event—is held with the landowner's permission and is a valuable source of income for many farmers. It is a family activity and is by no means antisocial. I should like an assurance from the Minister, as some national park committees might take a dim view of that type of legal activity.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that for me. We are talking about rights of way and unsealed routes in national parks. The national park authority would have to make a judgment about whether it should use the powers for such things, but the Government have proven supportive of responsible use of motorised vehicles in the countryside, especially in our interpretation of the single payment scheme for farmers, to allow that sort of activity on land being claimed for SPS. The hon. Gentleman should take that as an indication that, although we intend to deal robustly with those who abuse the countryside with motorised vehicles, people who choose to be responsible and use vehicles without damaging the environment should be able to continue to do so.

I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12 — Agreement between Secretary of State and Designated Body

'(1) The Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with a designated body authorising that body to perform a DEFRA function—

(a) either in relation to the whole of England or in relation to specified areas in England;

(b) subject to paragraph (a), either generally or in specified cases.

"Specified" means specified in the agreement.

(2) An agreement under this section—

(a) may be cancelled by the Secretary of State at any time, and

(b) does not prevent the Secretary of State from performing a function to which the agreement relates.

(3) This section is subject to sections (Reserved functions) and (Maximum duration of agreement) (reserved functions and maximum duration of agreement).'.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 13—Agreement between designated bodies.

Government new clause 14—Designated bodies.

Government new clause 15—Reserved functions.

Government new clause 16—Maximum duration of agreements.

Government new clause 17—Particular powers.

Government new clause 18—Agreements with local authorities.

Government new clause 19—Supplementary provisions with respect to agreements.

Government new clause 20—Interpretation.

Government amendments Nos. 19 to 28.

Government amendments Nos. 31 to 34.

I now turn to an important part of the Bill, which is essential to help make the new delivery arrangements work in practice, give us flexibility to respond to further changes in the future, deliver better services to our customers, and provide important efficiencies.

In Committee, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) proposed a number of amendments to chapter 1 of part 8. They were designed to restrict the power of Ministers and designated bodies to enter into agreements to delegate their functions to another body unconditionally. In response, I said that although I was confident that the Bill contained adequate safeguards to ensure accountability and control, the amendments had highlighted legitimate concerns about the breadth of clause 70 in particular. In fact, I ventured to say that I did not think his amendment went far enough. I suggested that the clauses might be better restricted to DEFRA-related functions only, and I undertook to reflect on the balance of the provisions, consult delivery bodies, and come back with a clear line on Report.

Over the summer, we have reviewed carefully the clauses in part 8, chapter 1 and have concluded that some further limitation on those powers would be appropriate. We now propose that the Bill should be amended as in these new clauses and amendments, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The amendments would delete clauses 70 to 77 and replace them with new clauses 12 to 20. Although that may appear to be a somewhat radical revision to this part of the Bill—indeed, a transplant—in practice the amendments are not extensive. They introduce some further limitations on the clauses while leaving them essentially flexible, to enable DEFRA and its delivery bodies to respond swiftly to the need for changes in delivery arrangements. For ease of understanding, we felt it would be preferable to present the changes to the House as revised clauses rather than as detailed amendments—hence the transplant. It may, however, be helpful if I summarise the changes that we have made in the amendments.

I welcome this move; the Minister is acting sensibly. However, I want to make a practical point. He may use the phrase "clear lines", but this bit of the Bill is far from clear. It shows how difficult it is for the various bodies operating in this sector to interrelate. One of the real weaknesses of the Bill—the bit that we need to think through—is how we can co-ordinate activity across the countryside so that the various elements of biodiversity, economics and social access all link together. I am not confident that we have achieved that at the moment.

As ever, and as I was in Committee, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's wisdom. The new clauses and amendments are essential to allow the delegation of powers between bodies carrying out DEFRA-related functions so that we can achieve exactly the aim that he seeks.

The most important change is that we have limited the types of delegation provided for in old clauses 70 and 71. Previously, clause 70 provided for any Minister of the Crown to enter an agreement with a designated body to perform any eligible function, while clause 71 provided additionally for the Secretary of State to delegate an eligible DEFRA function to an undesignated body. Under new clause 12, the Secretary of State may enter an agreement to perform a DEFRA function with a designated body only, as listed in schedule 7. Like old clause 72, new clause 13 provides for the possibility of agreements between bodies, but only between designated bodies—we have removed the possibility of delegating functions to undesignated bodies—and only of DEFRA-related functions.

That is clear then.

I am glad that it is clear to all right hon. and hon. Members.

As in the existing clauses, we have retained the possibility in new clause 14 for the Secretary of State to add new designated bodies to the schedule, by negative resolution order, to provide future flexibility. Such additional bodies must exercise functions related to, or connected with, DEFRA functions in line with the general limitation of these powers to the DEFRA area.

Because there is no longer the possibility of making agreements with undesignated bodies, we have taken the opportunity to review the list in schedule 7 to ensure that it covers all those bodies with which DEFRA, or other designated bodies being set up by the Bill such as Natural England, might need to make agreements in the near future. As a result, we are adding to the schedule English Heritage, which is described as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, and local authorities. The addition of local authorities gives rise to the need for some technical changes to ensure consistency with local government legislation, and these are contained in new clause 18.

New clause 15 deals with the reserved functions, which may not be delegated and which were previously in clause 73(4). This now additionally provides that the Secretary of State may not authorise a designated body to perform functions under the Water Industry Act 1991 or subordinate legislation made under it. This was an important clarification for the industry. The new clause also retains the requirement that functions to be delegated must be compatible with the purposes for which the receiving body was established, together with other limitations to ensure that this power is not used inappropriately.

I believe that these changes significantly improve this part of the Bill. They address the genuine concerns that the Opposition raised about the potentially wide implications of these agreements and they introduce greater certainty and transparency into the types of functions involved, and the bodies that can enter into agreements. But—this is essential, to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)—they also provide us with the tools that we need to continue to deliver a challenging programme of reform in DEFRA now and into the future. They will give DEFRA and its bodies the flexibility that we need to look at the best ways of delivering our strategic outcomes, to assist customers by operating in a joined-up way, to avoid duplication and waste, to devolve delivery to the regional and local level and to respond to changing needs over time. These amendments and new clauses strengthen important provisions in the Bill. I commend them to the House.

It is not often that the Opposition manage to persuade the Government to tear up a whole chapter of a Bill and rewrite it. I will take all the credit that is going for achieving that. Indeed, I was reflecting on whether to send a letter to the chairman of the 1922 committee on the strength of it, given things that are going on—

A dark horse candidate.

Very dark.

I shall not use emotive words. The Under-Secretary described the sensible complete revision of this aspect of the Bill. He kindly said that we had raised a range of worries about the powers that were being given, not only to Secretaries of State but to any Minister of the Crown, to devolve virtually anything to anybody. We thought that that was excessive, bearing in mind the House's important role of accountability to the people who elected us. If we start devolving any function to any organisation, theories of accountability seem to go out of the window. I am thus especially pleased that the Government have backed down from providing for such a widespread power and now want to give a power to only the Secretary of State that will relate to the functions only of DEFRA.

I am also pleased that the Government are getting rid of clause 71, yet are effectively not replacing it. In other words, agreements will be entered into only between the Government and a designated body. The idea of entering into agreements with non-designated bodies seems to have gone. I welcome that decision, because the point of having designated bodies was completely nullified if one could delegate to a non-designated body.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) read schedule 7, he identified the fact that the Government would be able to delegate to the Wine Standards Board. He is concerned about what they might want to delegate to that board, but no doubt the Under-Secretary will clarify that important point for us. Perhaps we will need to go on for a moment so that he can receive a note from the Box, because I suspect that the answer is not in his brief.

We want to debate substantive issues tonight, so I do not wish to detain the House. We welcome the new clauses as a significant change of heart by the Government. They bode well and reflect the constructive way in which the Government and Opposition parties have engaged on the Bill. The measures take us a long way forward and I welcome them.

There is not much to add, beyond comment on the Wine Standards Board. That body clearly carries out DEFRA-related functions and we wish to retain the potential to delegate to all bodies that carry out DEFRA-related functions. However, right now I am struggling to think of a specific example of something that we might want to delegate to the board. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13 — Agreement between Designated Bodies

'(1) A designated body ("A") may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into an agreement with another designated body ("B") authorising B to perform a function of A that is related to or connected with a DEFRA function—

(a) either in relation to the whole of England or in relation to specified areas in England;

(b) subject to paragraph (a), either generally or in specified cases.

"Specified" means specified in the agreement.

(2) The Secretary of State's approval may be given—

(a) in relation to a particular agreement or in relation to a description of agreements;

(b) unconditionally or subject to conditions specified in the approval.

(3) Subject to subsection (5), the Secretary of State—

(a) must review an agreement under this section no later than the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the date on which the agreement was entered into or was last reviewed by the Secretary of State, and

(b) if it appears appropriate to do so in the light of the review, may cancel the agreement.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), an agreement under this section may not be varied except—

(a) by agreement between A and B, and

(b) with the approval of the Secretary of State.

(5) An approval given under subsection (1) may provide that subsection (3) or (4) does not apply (or that both of them do not apply).

(6) This section is subject to sections (Reserved functions) and (Maximum duration of agreement) (reserved functions and maximum duration of agreement).'.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14 — Designated Bodies

'(1) In this Chapter "designated body" means a body listed in Schedule 7.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 7 so as to—

(a) add a body to the list, or

(b) remove a body from it.

(3) But the Secretary of State may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2)(a) unless satisfied that at least one of the purposes or functions of the body to be added to the list is related to or connected with a DEFRA function.

(4) A body to be added to the list need not be a public body.

(5) The power to make an order under subsection (2) is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. —[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15 — Reserved Functions

'(1) An agreement may not authorise a designated body to perform a reserved function.

(2) The reserved functions are—

(a) any function whose performance by the designated body would be incompatible with the purposes for which the body was established;

(b) any power of a Minister of the Crown to make or terminate appointments or lay reports or accounts;

(c) any power to make subordinate legislation or give guidance or directions (or to vary or revoke any of those things);

(d) any power to fix fees or charges other than a power prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State;

(e) any function of an accounting officer in his capacity as such;

(f) except in relation to an agreement authorising a public body to perform functions—

(i) any power to enter, inspect, take samples or seize anything, and

(ii) any other power exercisable in connection with suspected offences;

(g) any function of the Secretary of State under the Water Industry Act 1991 or under any subordinate legislation made under that Act.

(3) The power to make an order under subsection (2)(d) is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2)(d) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. —[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16 — Maximum Duration of Agreements

'The maximum period for which an agreement may authorise a designated body to perform—

(a) a DEFRA function, or

(b) a function that is related to or connected with a DEFRA function,

is 20 years.'. —[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17 — Particular Powers

'(1) Nothing in this Chapter prevents a designated body from being authorised to perform a function conferred on that body by or under this Act or an Act passed after the passing of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State or a designated body ("A") may, under an agreement, authorise a designated body ("B") to perform a function even though under the relevant enactments or subordinate legislation—

(a) the function is conferred on A by reference to specified circumstances or cases and the same type of function is conferred on B in different specified circumstances or cases,

(b) the function is exercisable by A and B jointly,

(c) B is required to be, or may be, consulted about the function (whether generally or in specified circumstances), or

(d) B is required to consent to the exercise of the function (whether generally or in specified circumstances).

(3) An agreement may provide—

(a) for the performance of a function to be subject to the fulfilment of conditions;

(b) for payments to be made in respect of the performance of the function.

(4) A designated body which is authorised under an agreement to perform a function—

(a) is to be treated as having power to do so;

(b) may, unless (or except to the extent that) the agreement provides for this paragraph not to apply—

(i) authorise a committee, sub-committee, member, officer or employee of the body to perform the function on its behalf;

(ii) form a body corporate and authorise that body to perform the function on its behalf.

(5) However, where the designated body is a local authority—

(a) subsection (4)(a) is subject to section (Agreements with local authorities)(5)(a), and

(b) that section applies in place of subsection (4)(b).

(6) Subject to subsection (4)(b) and section (Agreements with local authorities), a designated body which is authorised under an agreement to perform a function may not authorise any other body or other person to perform that function.'.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18 — Agreements with Local Authorities

'(1) This section applies where a local authority is authorised under an agreement to perform a function.

(2) Subject to subsection (5), the function that the local authority is authorised to perform is to be treated as a function of the local authority for the purposes of—

(a) any power of a local authority to arrange for the discharge of the function by any person mentioned in subsection (3), and

(b) any power of a person mentioned in subsection (3) to arrange for the discharge of a function by any other person mentioned there.

(3) The persons are any committee, sub-committee, member, officer or employee of the local authority.

(4) "Committee" does not include a joint committee of two or more local authorities.

(5) If the local authority is operating executive arrangements—

(a) the function is to be treated as a function of the local authority for the purposes of section 13 of the Local Government Act 2000, and

(b) if (or to the extent that) the function is the responsibility of the executive of the local authority—

(i) subsection (2) does not apply, and

(ii) sections 14 to 16 of the 2000 Act, and any regulations made under sections 17 and 18 of the 2000 Act, apply.

(6) "Executive arrangements" and "executive" have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the 2000 Act.

(7) An agreement may provide that the provisions of subsection (2) or those mentioned in (5)(b)(ii) do not apply (or do not apply to a specified extent).'. —[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19 — Supplementary Provisions with respect to Agreements

'(1) An agreement, and any approval given by the Secretary of State under section (Agreements between designated bodies), must be in writing.

(2) The Secretary of State must arrange for a copy of an agreement to be published in a way that the Secretary of State thinks is suitable for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.

(3) No power of a Minister of the Crown under any enactment to give directions to a statutory body extends to giving a direction—

(a) requiring it to enter into an agreement;

(b) prohibiting it from entering into an agreement;

(c) requiring it to include, or prohibiting it from including, particular terms;

(d) requiring it to negotiate, or prohibiting it from negotiating, a variation or termination of an agreement.

(4) Schedule 15 to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40) (restrictions on disclosure of information) applies in relation to an authorisation by a designated body under this Chapter as it applies in relation to an authorisation under section 69 of that Act by an office-holder.'.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20 — Interpretation

'(1) In sections (Reserved functions) to (Supplementary provisions with respect to agreements) "agreement" means an agreement under section (Agreement between Secretary of State and designated body) or (Agreement between designated bodies).

(2) In this Chapter "DEFRA function" means a function which at the material time falls to be performed by or through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

(3) A certificate issued by the Secretary of State that a function falls to be performed as mentioned in subsection (2) is conclusive evidence of that fact.

(4) In this Chapter—

"designated body" has the meaning given by section (Designated bodies);

"local authority" means a local authority as defined in section 1(a) of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority;

"Minister of the Crown" has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26);

"subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30).'. —[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 — Enforcement Powers in Connection with Pesticides: Entry and Search by Force Without a Warrant

'(1) If a constable or an inspector reasonably believes—

(a) that evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43 is to be found on any premises, or

(b) that the evidence is likely to be removed, destroyed or lost before a warrant can be obtained and executed,

he may at any time enter the premises and search them for evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43.

(2) Subsection (1) does not authorise entry into any part of premises which is used as a private dwelling.

(3) A constable or an inspector exercising the powers under subsection (1) may (if necessary) use such force as is reasonable in the exercise of those powers.

(4) An inspector may not exercise the power of entry conferred by subsection (1) between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. unless accompanied by a constable.'. —[Mr. Paice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant—

'(1) If, on an application by a constable or an inspector, a justice of the peace is satisfied—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(i) an offence under section 43 is being or has been committed on any premises, or

(ii) evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43 is to be found on any premises, and

(b) that one or more of the conditions in subsection (2) is met,

he may issue a warrant authorising a constable or an inspector to enter the premises and each them for evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43.

(2) The conditions are—

(a) in the case of any part of premises which is not used as a private dwelling, that the occupier of the premises has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant;

(b) in the case of any part of premises which is not used as a private dwelling, that the occupier of the premises—

(i) has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and the reasons for that decision.

(ii) has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by a person mentioned in section [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] (1), and

(iii) has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant;

(c) in either case—

(i) that the premises are unoccupied, or the occupier is absent, and notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or

(ii) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant is inappropriate because—

(a) it would defeat the object of entering the premises, or

(b) entry is required as a matter of urgency.

(3) References in subsection (2) to the occupier of premises, in relation to any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, are to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, and "unoccupied" shall be construed accordingly.

(4) Sections 15 and 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) shall have effect in relation to a warrant issued under this section to an inspector as they have effect in relation to a warrant so issued to a constable.

(5) A constable or an inspector exercising powers under a warrant issued under this section may (if necessary) use such force as is reasonable in the exercise of those powers.'.

Amendment No. 8, in page 16, line 11, leave out clause 44.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 44, page 16, line 13, after 'premises', insert

'which he has reason to believe may be relevant.'.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 45, page 16, line 31, leave out 'and 44' and insert

', [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant]'.

Amendment No.10, page 16, line 41, at end insert—

'(5) "Inspector" means—

(a) a person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State to exercise the powers under sections [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant] in relation to England;

(b) a person authorised in writing by the National Assembly for Wales to exercise the powers under sections [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides; entry and search with a warrant] in relation to Wales.'.

Government amendment No. 30

We move on to a specific matter that was debated in Committee, so I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to address it again because it is important and needs to be examined further.

We are worried about the open-ended nature of clause 44, which details the enforcement powers to be given to inspectors to deal with the Government's decision that is set out in clause 43 to make it an offence for people to possess certain chemicals that could be used to poison birds, primarily birds of prey. I emphasised in Committee and repeat now that we condemn anyone who unlawfully uses a chemical—a pesticide or whatever—to poison birds or mammals. It is already illegal to do that and we understand that the Government want an extra power to deal with the problem, but we are worried about the powers that will be given to inspectors.