With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the European Union. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published a White Paper on prospects for the European Union. Copies are available in the Vote Office. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to the House for the fact that he is not present in the Chamber, as he is attending the conference on Afghanistan this afternoon.

In April 2004, the Government decided to publish the first in a series of reports intended to stimulate the closer and deeper involvement of Members of both Houses in EU affairs. Today's White Paper is the fifth such report. It looks at future challenges and provides a detailed report on our presidency, set against the objectives that we set ourselves in the White Paper, published on 30 June 2005 and relayed in a statement to the House on the same day by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Notwithstanding the EU's historical achievements, it has faced the pressing challenge in recent years of adapting to an increasingly globalised political and economic environment and of reconnecting as an institution to its citizens. That need was highlighted graphically last spring, when two member states rejected the constitutional treaty and the European Council failed to agree a deal for the next financial perspective—the European budget.

So when the United Kingdom took over the reins of the presidency in July, we were faced with three tasks. The first task was to follow through on Europe's promise to open accession negotiations with Turkey, against a backdrop of growing uncertainty in some parts of the EU about that aspect of future enlargement. The second task was to agree a deal for the coming financial perspective, and the third task was to begin the process of better preparing the EU for the globalised world.

First, I turn to enlargement. On 3 October, we opened accession talks with Turkey—that decision was welcomed on, and supported by, both sides of the House. That has the potential to bring huge economic and political benefits to Turkey, Britain and the European Union, not least through the Union's relationship with the wider Islamic world. At the same time, and in a welcome sign of how far the western Balkans has come in recent years, we opened accession negotiations with Croatia, began stabilisation and association agreement negotiations with Bosnia and Serbia and Montenegro, and granted candidate status to Macedonia.

On the budget, we brokered a deal that will shift spending towards the economic development of the newer, poorer member states and also mean that similar sized economies such as France and Italy will finally be making payments roughly on a par with the United Kingdom. The Council also agreed a full, wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the common agricultural policy, to report in 2008–09.

Finally, we took practical steps to strengthen economic reform within the European Union. Along with the European Commission, we agreed better ways of assessing the effects of proposed regulation on business. We also reached agreement on the capital requirements directive, which will help the European banking sector to remain competitive, and agreed the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—REACH—regulation. In two other areas directly related to the competitiveness agenda—the services directive and the working time directive—we made some progress during our presidency, and we will work to ensure that that is built on over the coming months.

Alongside those practical measures, we also began a broader debate on the future of Europe. The special summit of European leaders here in the United Kingdom at Hampton Court in October has already led to detailed work on areas such as improving European universities, increasing support for research and development and establishing a common European energy policy.

The issues of Turkish accession and the European budget and the debate on the future direction of Europe set the context of our Presidency, but so, too, did other international challenges. As the White Paper reflects, development was a key priority for both the EU and the G8. The European Union agreed, for the first time, a common vision and set out common objectives and principles for development work, as well as a comprehensive strategy on Africa. That will be backed up by the more and better development aid agreed by European member states last year, with aid doubled to $80 billion a year by 2010 and commitments on achieving the UN 0.7 per cent. gross national income target by 2015. The international finance facility for immunisation that we launched in September has the potential to prevent 5 million children from dying over the next 10 years. The deal on sugar reform will reduce trade distortion and, at the same time, save European Union consumers between $3.5 billion and $4 billion a year from 2010.

Another key area of work was the increasing role of the European Union outside its direct borders. During our presidency, we oversaw the launch of European security and defence policy missions, notably to monitor the Rafah border crossing and the peace agreement in Aceh in Indonesia. The EU worked closely with partners to support Israeli disengagement from Gaza and provided policing and electoral support in Iraq. The E3 continued to lead the ongoing and complex negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

During our presidency, the EU also engaged in dialogue with Russia, Ukraine, China and India and agreed a comprehensive work programme for economic co-operation with the United States of America. At the UN climate change negotiations in Montreal, against expectations, it was agreed, with European support, to begin UN talks on long-term action to address climate change and launch a process for agreeing targets beyond 2012.

We had always planned to ensure that counter-terrorism efforts would be a feature of our presidency. Those efforts inevitably gained far wider currency after the tragic events of 7 July here in London. During our presidency, the EU endorsed a new counter-terrorism strategy, agreed that phone and internet data from across Europe will be stored for use in criminal and terrorist investigations and set out an action plan to tackle radicalisation and the recruitment of terrorists.

We thus handed over to the Austrians a European Union that was stronger and more confident in the future than the one that we inherited back in July. Just as we inherited an agenda from the Luxembourg presidency, there are a number of areas of work that the Austrians are charged with taking forward. Over the coming year, enlargement will continue to be high on the European agenda. We are confident that Bulgaria and Romania will be ready to join in 2007, but only if they take urgent and vigorous action to address the main areas of concern recently identified by the European Commission. We will continue to provide significant bilateral assistance to help them to achieve that goal.

We expect both Turkey and Croatia to be ready to open accession negotiations on some individual chapters early in 2006. During his visit to Turkey and Cyprus last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated the need for Turkey to ratify and implement the protocol to the Ankara agreement. We are committed, too, to ending the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and finding a way in which it can trade with European Union member states. I am sure that all members of the House would agree on the importance of achieving a successful and ambitious outcome to the Doha development round of world trade talks. We want to build on the frankly disappointing outcome of the Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December, and we will continue to do all that we can to enable the round to be concluded this year.

That means committing to significantly increased market access for developing countries, particularly in agriculture; substantial reductions in all trade-distorting subsidies, including the elimination of export subsidies, as agreed at Hong Kong; and effective special and differential treatment for developing countries. In the first half of this year, the European Union will take stock of the "period of reflection" agreed by the European Council last June. Among other things, that means evaluating the status of the constitutional treaty. The United Kingdom has always made it very clear that the priority in this period of reflection and, indeed, for the European Union more generally is economic reform and a determined effort to advance work that actually makes a difference to the lives of Europeans.

That view was endorsed only this month by the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, who said that we should

"avoid a new division in Europe about institutions. The most important concern now of EU citizens is not institutional problems, but jobs and growth."

The focus of the spring European Council will therefore be economic. An important part of that agenda will be the work that the European Union will take forward on the six priority areas agreed at Hampton Court in October: research and development, universities, energy, demographics, security and immigration, and the common foreign and security policy. Finally, the future financial arrangements for the Union, agreed at December's Council, now have to be agreed with the European Parliament through a new inter-institutional agreement on budgetary discipline, which will provide the necessary formal basis for EU spending for the period 2007–13.

I have set out for the House the key features of the United Kingdom presidency as well as priority areas of work for the European Union over the coming six months. The fuller details in the White Paper published this morning give some sense of the depth of the business done and that which is left to do. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government are convinced that Britain's national interest is best served as a strong, active and influential member of the European Union, and I commend it to the House.

May I begin by sending on behalf of the official Opposition our deep condolences to the families and friends of the two British soldiers who were sadly killed in Iraq, the second one being the 100th British soldier killed there? We send our best wishes to the soldiers who were injured.

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, and for informing the House about the Government White Paper. Having read and heard the statement, however, many of us regard it as a non-event, to say the least. It is a curious time and place to make a statement but, nevertheless, it raises a number of interesting questions, not least because more than two thirds of the statement was retrospective and did not look at prospects for the EU in 2006.

The coming year may not be as dramatic as the last for the European Union, but we should be in no doubt of its importance for the EU's future. It will be the time for the EU to reflect on the constitution's rejection and the long-term strategic issues that it faces on competitiveness, security and its own future as an institution in the 21st century. The Minister stated the Government's position with his usual confidence, but does he remember that when the Foreign Secretary introduced a similar statement last year, he went into detail about the Government's position on the EU budget? He told the House that the Government were working

"to ensure that future EU budgets are limited to 1 per cent. of Europe's economic output and that that money is spent where it most adds value."—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 994.]

However, the Government ended up agreeing a rise in the EU budget to 1.045 per cent., which is an increase of £25 billion, but they obtained no guarantee of further common agricultural policy reform. The Foreign Secretary assured the House that Britain's rebate "remains fully justified" and reminded hon. Members that Britain had a veto. We all know what happened next—the rebate was cut by £7 billion for the budget period. Does the Minister understand that hon. Members are suspicious whether what the Government say will match what the Government actually achieve?

The White Paper rightly underlines the need for economic reform. Does the Minister agree that the services directive is essential in achieving a more competitive Europe? The European Parliament will vote on the directive in a fortnight. Does the Minister agree that the main aim for member states is to reach a political agreement in the Council by the March economic summit? Does he agree that there has already been extensive consultation with social partners? It would be unacceptable if further consultation became an excuse for yet more delay. Does he agree that the European Parliament's internal market and consumer protection committee has produced a balanced text to ensure the freedom to provide services, and that it should be our common goal to maintain it, particularly with regard to article 16?

Turning to trade, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were disturbed to hear Commissioner Mandelson say two or three weeks ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not spoken to him recently—it appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been ignoring him—which is causing much upset on the Government Benches. I understand that the Minister is a protégé of both Commissioner Mandelson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which means that he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Nevertheless, will he use his good offices to get them talking? It is good to talk, but on such a crucial issue, it is vital.

Does the Minister agree that Britain's opt-out from the working time directive is vital to our competitiveness in a globalised marketplace? Will the Government ensure that our opt-out is maintained in its entirety and that it will not be negotiated away in any form?

Paragraph 143 of the White Paper rightly emphasises the importance of energy security. Does the Minister agree that recent events in Ukraine and Georgia prove the need for secure and diverse supplies? Will the Minister outline in more concrete terms how the Government plan to achieve that?

All hon. Members agree that Europe's greatest achievement over the past two decades has been the spread of democracy throughout the continent. In March, a presidential election will be held in Europe's last remaining authoritarian state, Belarus. Why does the White Paper not mention that election? What steps will the Government and our European partners take to ensure that that election is free and fair?

The middle east is a vital area for our security and for the cause of peace in the world, so Hamas's election victory must be a matter of the deepest concern. Will the Minister tell the House the criteria by which the continued funding of the Palestinian Authority by the EU will be judged? Is it not essential that Europe and America hold a united position in dealing with Hamas? Does he agree that if a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority remains wedded to terror, it should not receive EU funding?

One of the most important questions for the European Union concerns how it can modernise itself to meet the demands of the 21st century. The constitution's defeat in last year's referendums proves that the old model of integration is failing Europe and alienating its people. Does the Minister agree that a British vision of an open, flexible Europe has never been more relevant? Is not that the issue for British leadership? Will the Minister explain why no British Minister attended last week's important Sounds of Europe conference in Salzburg? How do the Government expect to influence the debate, if they do not participate?

We all agree that the EU needs to be more open and accountable. To that end, what steps are the Government taking to achieve open voting in the Council and a stronger say—the so-called yellow-card procedure—on subsidiarity for national Parliaments? Some member states and EU commissioners still insist that the EU constitution will soon be ripe for revival. This month, the Foreign Secretary told us that

"it is difficult to argue that the constitution is not dead."—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 147.]

The dead parrot syndrome. Should not a British Government, leading in Europe, have a clearer view than "perhaps yes" or "perhaps no"?

Britain's last presidency was marked by the contrast between the hype in the last paper presented to Parliament, and a failure to deliver fully in many areas. Over the next year, we will support the Government where they take practical steps to reform the EU to meet its long-term challenges. But it is now time for the Government to outline a British vision of Europe that can meet those challenges, rather than merely parroting what the EU requires.

I will endeavour to answer the many questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman, who began his contribution rather uncharitably by describing the White Paper as a non-event. I shall resist making the same observation about his response to my statement and instead address his specific questions.

I shall happily send to the hon. Gentleman the detailed figures on the proportion of European gross national income accounted for in the agreement reached at the December European Council, but my recollection is that by the end of the financial period, the percentage of GNI taken in the European Union's budget will be as low as that achieved in any one of the past 20 years. That is a clear victory for those of us who have argued in recent years for greater EU budgetary discipline. Indeed, comparing the agreement reached at the December European Council with the figures proposed six months earlier by the Luxembourg presidency, or with those previously proposed by the Commission, shows how effectively we argued for taking a lower percentage of European GNI within the EU's budget.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the services directive, and we continue to regard it as important. An unfortunate delay on First Reading prohibited us from reaching a conclusion to our discussions during our presidency, but we want progress to be made during the Austrian presidency. It might assist the House if I make clear the issues that we came close to resolving, but which are still on the table: the directive's scope; whether it should apply to labour law, given that that was never the intention, even according to the original wording of the Bolkestein directive; and the country-of-origin principle. Discussions will continue on each of those issues, but I share the ambition of reaching a conclusion that will result in an effective services directive that can guarantee a much more open market in services. Such a market will directly benefit not just the European Union but, I am convinced, many British companies.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about our discussions with Trade Commissioner Mandelson. Commissioner Mandelson reported the latest position on the EU to an informal meeting of trade Ministers in Brussels on Sunday evening, and another report was made yesterday to the General Affairs Council, which the Foreign Secretary and I attended. A further ministerial discussion took place at the margins of the Davos conference, which took place in Switzerland this weekend. So I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of discussion is taking place at all levels of government, and not just with the European Commission. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chancellor from a sedentary position. There is little doubt that the Chancellor has made clear his position concerning an ambitious and balanced outcome for Hong Kong, be it in speeches to the Labour party conference, in recent radio interviews, or in countless speeches made in the cause of achieving greater debt relief, aid assistance and trade justice in the years to come.

Retaining the opt-out continues to be the British Government's position, and we discussed this issue with our colleagues during the British presidency. Not only was there a blocking minority to any proposed change to the opt-out; we are increasingly winning the argument for the need for flexibility in the development of the European economy in years to come.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about energy supplies in the light of developments in Ukraine and Russia. Such developments partly explain why we had what was widely judged to be an effective and helpful meeting with the Russians—an EU-Russia summit—during our presidency; why one feature of that summit was discussing the need for a structured dialogue on energy; and why at Hampton Court, the Prime Minister showed real prescience in identifying the need for a common approach to energy issues, ahead of the difficult negotiations that took place between Russia and Ukraine at the turn of the year. Taking forward that work on energy policy, we are examining ways of making sure that there is a genuinely open market within the European Union. Issues relating to energy security have been on many people's minds in recent weeks and months, and there is also the pressing matter of diversity of supply. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue the work identified at Hampton Court and now being taken forward.

I was asked about the omission from the White Paper of reference to Belarus. Only yesterday a leading politician from one of the principal Opposition coalitions in Belarus met a range of delegations in Brussels, at the margins of the General Affairs Council, as well as Javier Solana, the high representative. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the discussions that took place, Belarus was very much in people's minds, not least as we anticipate the elections coming up in March.

Next, the hon. Gentleman turned to funding for the Palestinian Authority. There is little that I can usefully add to the contribution to the debate that has been made by our Foreign Secretary and by others in recent days, since the Palestinian Authority elections. Suffice to say that the policy remains as stated. In relation to specific British aid, I recollect that approximately half of that aid is in direct budgetary support, although that is suspended at present—indeed, it was suspended prior to the elections—because of our concerns about corruption in the Authority. The overwhelming additional resource is provided through the auspices of the United Nations. This is a subject to which I am sure the House will return in the weeks and months ahead, during which we will see the formation of a Government within the Palestinian Authority.

I was questioned about the Sounds of Europe conference that took place in Salzburg this weekend, where we were capably and effectively represented by our ambassador to Vienna, Ambassador Macgregor. The conference did not invite all 25 members of the European Union to address the conference. Rather, there was a round-table series of discussions involving academics and members of think tanks. There were contributions from some politicians, and of course British delegates were present at that conference. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not lose any opportunity in the months ahead, whether from public platforms or in private discussions with the Austrian presidency, to continue to press the case for the kind of open Europe that we believe makes sense in a globalised world.

On subsidiarity, the Sharing Power in Europe conference, which was jointly hosted with the Dutch during our presidency, specifically considered engaging national Parliaments more effectively. It was rather curious for the hon. Gentleman to begin by expressing surprise at Parliament being involved in European Union discussions, and later in the same speech arguing for greater involvement of national Parliaments in the affairs of the European Union. We regard that as an important step that needs to be taken by the EU. That is why we hosted the conference with the Dutch.

I hope that that addresses each of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but no doubt other hon. Members will have questions for me in due course.

Following yesterday's meeting, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that a united Europe and the United States work together on Iran's nuclear programme, to bring maximum pressure to bear through the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council? Can he assure the House that Ministers are striving to resolve the issue through the UN?

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Even the sternest critics of European diplomacy would struggle to question the importance of the work that, along with the French and the Germans, the British Government have been taking forward as part of the so-called E3 process. Since the outset of that process, we have enjoyed and benefited from the support of the United States. I am glad to say that only last night here in London a meeting of the P5 was convened—the five permanent members of the Security Council, with the Germans also in attendance. That conveys an important message that needs to be heard by the Iranians: the growing consensus across the international community about finding a diplomatic solution to a challenging and complex matter.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I express our sincerest condolences and sympathy to the families and friends of the two British soldiers who, it was announced today, were tragically killed in Iraq.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving us advance notice and sight of his statement. There is much in the statement and in the White Paper with which we do not disagree. Some of the achievements of the UK presidency are rightly underlined as important achievements, notably the very significant agreement to launch accession negotiations for Turkey's eventual membership of the European Union—a decision of enormous long-term significance for the future evolution of the EU.

The White Paper and the statement are characterised by the now time-honoured hyperbole that occurs at the end of presidencies. It is a familiar routine that whoever has occupied the presidency for six months then hypes up its achievements, almost suggesting that any presidency that preceded it or might succeed it could never reach such heights of achievement. Hyperbole aside, much in the White Paper recommends itself. I should like to ask the Minister some questions that might help us to understand whether the decisions taken in the six months of the UK presidency will stand the test of time and be durable decisions that make the difference that is claimed.

On the famous, or infamous, budget deal, part of that deal includes a commitment that there should be a review of the common agricultural policy some time midway through the next budgetary period. Will that review be conducted by the European Commission? If so, what pressure, if any, will be brought to bear on member states to adhere to any of its recommendations? There is a legitimate concern that a review by the Commission, even were it to advocate the kind of agricultural reform that many people in this House wish for, could summarily be ignored if it was not placed on a more forceful footing. Will the review include proposals for co-financing, which Members on both sides of the House have raised as a possible future solution to the financing of the common agricultural policy?

The Minister made much of the summit at Hampton Court at which six areas of work were identified as meriting further investigation—research and development, universities, energy, demographics, security and immigration, and the common foreign and security policy. Can the Minister give us any detail about what occurred at that summit, or subsequently, materially to affect the way in which those policies are being conducted in the European Union? It appeared then, and still appears, to have been a catch-all list of policy areas, ranging from foreign policy through to research and development, which might not contain the substance that he implied in his statement.

The Minister said that the priority for this period of reflection about the fate of the constitutional treaty, and indeed the European Union more generally, must be on economic reform. That is a sentiment that many Liberal Democrat Members share. But does he think that there is no merit in any debate about the constitutional and institutional future of the European Union? Surely it is impossible to deny that in an enlarged European Union the arrangements that were in place for a much smaller club need some re-examination. Some highly positive reforms are suggested in the constitution, including greater Council openness, rearrangements of the way in which the European Union organises its common foreign and security policy, and the involvement of this House and other national Parliaments in examining EU legislation. Can the Minister assure us that while the emphasis is rightly on economic reform, such crucial constitutional and institutional issues will not be forgotten? They cannot be ignored in a club that has expanded so dramatically in recent months.

I join both spokespeople of the Opposition parties in extending deepest sympathy, on behalf of the Government, to the family of the brave serviceman whose life has been lost in Iraq.

Let me first tackle the budget deal, especially the review clause, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) mentioned. He is right that the Commission will undertake a review clause, but it will ultimately be for the European Council to decide whether to implement the changes. They could be effected in the coming financial perspective, which runs until 2013.

I do not want to prejudge the review's outcome on co-financing. It is right to acknowledge that the matter has been raised on the Floor of the House several times. Other European Governments have also raised it and I suspect that it may well feature in the discussions. However, I cannot prejudge the review's outcome.

The hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the priorities that were identified at the Hampton Court meeting in October. The six workstreams were subsequently divided into those that high representative Javier Solana would take forward and those that the Commission would tackle. If I recollect correctly, an initial progress report was made to the December European Council.

Another point merits the House's consideration. The notion of the Hampton Court priorities is already entering the lexicon of European policy making. I have been encouraged by the Austrian presidency's willingness to commit time and resources to taking forward the work that we initiated in Hampton Court. If I were to identify one matter that takes special precedence, it would be the recognition in October of the importance of finding a way forward on energy security and supply and a genuinely more open energy market.

The hon. Gentleman asked about institutional change. Labour Members have never denied the need for important and sensible institutional changes. Indeed, in the course of our presidency, following the Prime Minister's reply to questions in one of his appearances before the European Parliament, we made progress on the transparency of the Council of Ministers. However, it is right to reiterate that we perceive the key priorities for the coming months to be, as José Manuel Barroso said, jobs and growth in the European Union and the economic reform that that requires.

To save the Austrian presidency and the German Administration time and trouble, will the Minister clearly rule out any new European tax levied through the European Union? Will he rule out introducing the constitution's provisions by the back door before yes votes in all countries that need referendums?

Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's latter point first. The Government have consistently made it clear that the mechanism in the United Kingdom whereby the European draft constitutional treaty could be implemented is approval by the House of Commons followed by a referendum of the people of Britain. There is no question of implementing it by the back door.

I closely followed Chancellor Schüssel's comments at the outset of the Austrian presidency but the British Government's position remains unchanged. In principle, we are not convinced of the case for a European tax. We believe that there should be fair competition in taxation and that the competence for taxation rests with nation states.

May I say to my right hon. Friend that there is a genuine danger of his being the longest-serving Minister for Europe in this Administration? I believe that he is about the seventh, on which I congratulate him. I hope that he remains in that position for a long time in the interests of the United Kingdom. The problem is that the Foreign Office often dictates our European policies because Ministers for Europe are not in post for long enough.

Belarus is the elephant in the room that is not mentioned in the White Paper. I urge my right hon. Friend to address the European Union's policy, which is not a sanction against the existing Government in Belarus.

Why is there no permanent diplomatic representative in Podgorica, given that, in a few months, Montenegro is likely to be independent and knocking at the door of European Union membership?

Let me deal with both my hon. Friend's questions. On diplomatic representation in Podgorica, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the referendum that is scheduled to take place later this year in Serbia and Montenegro. My understanding of the constitutional provision is that Serbia and Montenegro is entitled to hold that referendum after February this year, and that it will be held a little while after that. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will take the point that he has raised to the relevant individual in the Foreign Office.

My hon. Friend also asked about Belarus. It is important to emphasise, because this bears more widely on the question of enlargement, that for certain new member states in the European Union of 25 members, Belarus is not a distant country but a near neighbour. We want to see significant change in the approach taken by the regime in Belarus to date, and we should therefore welcome the greater influence that could be brought to bear by those new member states of the European Union taking a full and active role in the development of policy towards that country.

I should like to associate my colleagues with the expression of sympathy for those mourning their loved ones who have been lost in Iraq.

The Minister has clearly stated that we need jobs and expansion. The agriculture and fishing industries in my part of this United Kingdom are in serious crisis. It is strange that in a White Paper that contains 186 paragraphs, only seven refer to agriculture, and that the Minister mentioned it only once in his statement. Has he a programme to present to his colleagues in Europe in the coming days that will help us to save the agriculture and fishing industries in the parts of this United Kingdom that are so sorely pressed at the moment?

The Government's position on the need for the fundamental reform of agriculture—and in particular on the type of support provided to the agricultural sector not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe—was set out in a Government paper published in December during our presidency. I appreciate the concerns about agriculture and fishing that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and I will ensure that they are passed on to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

May I follow on from the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) about Iran? Does the Minister agree that the E3 grouping is crucial in this regard because of the limitations of the United Nations, not in coming to a policy position but in acting on that position and trying to broker a settlement? Does he agree that this is a key role for the European Union, and that the E3 would have no credibility without its role in the European Union? Does he also agree that the European Union needs to promote its role in dealing with such issues? Will he ask the Austrian presidency for some initiatives on this matter?

I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's final point. The significance of the E3 process speaks to the effective joint working between ourselves, the French and the Germans. It is no secret that there have been disagreements in the past between ourselves and one if not both of those countries on specific issues of concern in the European Union. Notwithstanding whatever challenges we may have faced bilaterally, however, I am heartened by the effective way in which we have worked directly with Berlin and Paris on this issue.

My hon. Friend's question also raises the broader issue of the effectiveness of the United Nations. We have Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, here with us in London today. I was particularly encouraged by some of the conclusions that were reached at the millennium review summit in New York in September. I had the opportunity to represent the British Government the following week at the United Nations General Assembly and to take part in meetings on behalf of the European Union during the course of that week. It was made very clear to me by the permanent representative of this Government that, had it not been for the significant steps taken by European nations in particular, prior to that summit, we would not have been able to secure the commitments either on development or on United Nations reform that many of us welcomed at the conclusion of the summit.

Does the Minister not realise how little time remains before the Doha development round collapses? If it is not completed before the expiry of fast-track authority in the United States, it will not be completed at all. Do the British Government believe that it is now time for the European Union to make a further offer on agriculture?

First, on the timing of the fast-track procedure, although that does not expire until 2007, any practical assessment of when decisions need to be reached requires us to aim for conclusion of the round itself by the end of this calendar year. That is why I said in my statement that we are keen to ensure that we reach an ambitious and balanced outcome in 2006 to allow sufficient authority for the President to be able to use the fast-track procedure in 2007, before it expires.

On the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's point, I can assure him that we are in discussion with our other European partners—and, indeed with other countries—on how we might secure the sequenced changes to the trade rules that we were unable to secure ahead of December. The European Union has a role to play, but most observers recognise that, increasingly, Brazil and India, and certainly the United States, also have a role to play. That was, in part, the substance of the discussions that took place in the margins of the Davos conference this weekend.

Will my right hon. Friend bring us up to date on the time scale for Turkey joining the EU?

I can probably do no better than quote the Turkish Government's own assessment of the time scale—they estimate more than a decade, notwithstanding the opening of accession talks on 3 October last year. That reflects the scale of the transformation necessary to be achieved in Turkey, but we continue to believe that it will be the right choice for Turkey, for Europe and, indeed, for Britain.

On the question of the failed free trade talks in Hong Kong, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) from the Front Bench and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is not that failure directly attributable to the EU's failure to offer a reduced agricultural subsidy in that round? Is not that, in turn, directly attributable to the Government's failure to deal with the budget issue? How is the EU meant to offer reduced agricultural spending when it had already been agreed in the botched budget deal given by the Prime Minister? Is it not time for the Government to be more open about what this will cost? At the moment, they are refusing to answer questions that are on—

Order.

It is time for the hon. Gentleman to be more accurate in his questions. The mandate from which the Trade Commissioner operates was agreed in the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council. That is a matter of record. I fully accept, and want, further progress on agriculture, and specifically on agricultural subsidies. I was heartened in December that we managed to secure agreement on agricultural export subsidies, albeit for the later date of 2013. It is a manifesto commitment for us that we would have liked agricultural export subsidies to be phased out by 2010. None the less, there is some progress on which we can build in the months ahead.

It also has to be acknowledged that as well as the EU making offers in relation to agriculture, which preceded the December Hong Kong talks, there is an increasing responsibility that needs to be borne by other key partners in those trade talks. This is partly, not solely, an issue of agriculture. There is also the key issue of non-agricultural market access, which is why it is important that, in the weeks to come, we should talk to other partners—principally Brazil and India, but also the United States—to see whether we can secure the sequenced series of offers that would allow real progress, which eluded us all in Hong Kong.

The European Union will have to take a decision very rapidly on whether it intends to continue its large contribution to the Palestinian Authority in terms of support. Where will that decision be taken? What will the Government's advice be?

I have already set the position before the House. On the consequences of the decision reached by the Palestinian people, we respect a democratic decision when it is reached, but equally we are clear about the fact that Hamas now faces the primary responsibility. It is for Hamas to answer the question whether it recognises what everyone in the House would recognise, which is that people cannot simultaneously advocate and perpetrate violence while operating as a democratic Government.

The formation of a Government for the new Palestinian Authority will, I understand, take a number of weeks. This matter was discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council—the meeting of Foreign Ministers from across the EU—yesterday, but I am unwilling to say, and unenthusiastic about saying, anything today that would do other than place the responsibility for answering that pressing question principally on the shoulders of Hamas.

Do the Government support the proposed enlargement of economic and monetary union to include three eastern European countries, and how would that affect the prospects of British entry?

It will perhaps not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I have nothing new to add to our policy, set out to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December 1997, if I recollect accurately, on the key economic tests in relation to the single currency. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the three new member states seeking membership of EMU, that is entirely a matter for them. In that regard, we would allow the decision to be taken on the basis of what they judge to be in their interests, given the obligations under which they entered the European Union.

To return to the services directive, I urge my right hon. Friend not to listen to the Opposition's seemingly uncritical view of the directive, but to stick with what he told the House some moments ago. If not properly constructed, the directive will cause real concern, not simply to employees but to employers, particularly in terms of the country of origin issue. Were the directive to be passed in its present form, it could seriously jeopardise the ability of many companies in this country to operate without seeing terms and conditions—not simply labour rates but other important contractual terms—set at nought. It is really important that we get this right, and I hope that the Government will stick to their position and get a proper deal.

I think that a balance needs to be struck. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the terms of the original Bolkestein directive did not find favour with many European partners. In that sense, I would fully expect changes to the terms of the original directive. On the other hand, the Government continue to believe as a matter of principle, and on the basis of the evidence available to us, that there is much for the European Union to gain by having an effective services directive. If one considers, for example, the progress made in prosperity and growth as a consequence of the original establishment of the single market, it ill behoves others to criticise the prospect of a genuinely single market in services. It is right, however, to have due consideration for the concerns raised, for example, in relation to labour law, as it was never the intention of those who designed the services directive to change the position fundamentally on labour law. That is why we welcome the ongoing discussions, but we would be keen to see a resolution so that we can secure the very jobs and growth about which José Manuel Barroso spoke only a few weeks ago.

The Minister talked about enlargement and, clearly, one of the key benefits of enlargement is the strengthening of democracy. With an increasingly belligerent Russian Government behaving in damaging ways towards their near neighbours, will he confirm that small countries such as Moldova, which are not yet engaged in accession negotiations, can retain some hope of eventual EU membership? That hope is a real factor in strengthening democratic institutions in that sort of country.

I am fully aware of the importance of the prospect of European Union membership in securing the transition towards effective democracy. I had the privilege of travelling to the western Balkans in September during the British presidency, and saw for myself the tangible evidence that the prospect of European Union membership is perhaps the strongest single motor driving those countries out of a history of ethnic cleansing and civil unrest. The prospects for future enlargement of the European Union are best described on the basis of the existing treaties. In that sense, the basis for an application to be received by the European Commission in relation to further candidates in future is a matter of record.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his impressive work during the presidency and I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to economic reform. He will know that although the United Kingdom has reached seven of the 17 quantifiable benchmarks under the Lisbon agenda, France, Germany and Spain have reached only three. What steps will he take to ensure that our colleagues in the European Union embrace economic reform as effectively as we have done, especially in the run-up to the European Council business meeting in a few weeks' time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of economic reform. We have already worked closely with the Austrians to ensure that the focus of the spring Council meeting will be on exactly the subject of economic reform. We have sought to make progress in relation to the better regulation agenda over recent weeks, but the recent spring report by the European Commission highlights the scale of work that still needs to be taken forward on the Lisbon agenda, which he had so much direct responsibility for authoring several years ago.

May I introduce a dissenting note on Turkey? I am aware that there is consensus between the three Front Benches on Turkish accession, but does it really make sense for us to talk in terms of a state joining the European Union when that state does not recognise an existing member state and prosecutes people for writing books on Turkish or Armenian history?

Is there not a real danger in holding out the hope of Turkish accession? It is very likely to be vetoed through either parliamentary vote or referendum by one of the existing member states in some years' time, and that would create a major long-term crisis in our relations with Turkey. Would it not be better to talk in terms of a special relationship that does not involve full accession?

The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to ensure that consensus does not break out absolutely in the House. I pay tribute to his long-standing interest in these issues. As for the idea of some kind of privileged partnership, Turkey has had that with the European Union for a number of years. A customs union—the Ankara protocol, which I have mentioned—applies to the original EU Fifteen, and the prospect of EU membership has been held out to Turkey for 42 years.The debate has been well rehearsed, especially the hon. Gentleman's argument about the non-recognition of an EU member state. Such issues can, of course, be addressed during the accession talks.

I find common ground with the hon. Gentleman, however, on the need for fundamental reform in the Turkish economy and, indeed, in Turkish society more generally. Labour Members are convinced that those of us who share an interest in a more democratic and effective Turkey would best serve the interests of that goal by seeing Turkey join the EU, if it adheres to the rigorous thresholds of accessibility that are set out for all candidate countries.

I genuinely believe, in relation to, for instance, the case of Orhan Pamuk—who, incidentally, said that he did not wish his trial to be seen as a bar to EU membership for Turkey—that those of us who continue to be concerned about human rights have a great deal to gain from the high level of scrutiny that will take place on civil and human rights issues relating to Turkey, given the accession process that is now under way. There is a long way to go, but continuing the accession process gives us the best guarantee we can have that the scrutiny will continue.

The Minister made an interesting statement, but, as I suspect he will agree, it will not make my constituents jump up and down in great excitement. Will he now deal with two issues that do concern them?

First, has the Minister any intention of giving more priority to stopping the gold-plating of all the EU directives to which we sign up and then reinforce to a much greater extent than the rest of Europe? Secondly, what will he do to protect the pint?

Very sound!

Again, I had no fear that consensus would break out when my hon. Friend rose.

I can assure my hon. Friend and, indeed, her constituents that I made inquiries of officials about the pint only this morning. I understood from them that the matter was raised by the European Parliament rather than the Commission. The suggestion in many British newspapers that there is a devilish plot by the European Commission against the great British pint is simply untrue. There is no recommendation that we should see the end of, for example, the pint of beer or the pint of milk. On the other hand, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that there can be common measures across the EU—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Let me answer the question. Those common measures are to guarantee the degree of transparency that is necessary to ensure that suppliers of products are not able to hoodwink consumers. If my hon. Friend opposes greater transparency in pricing, that might be of direct concern to her constituents.

I think that this was a batsqueak of a statement with very little substance behind it, and a reflection of the vanity of those who govern us at present. Matters of great substance have not been addressed, such as international competitiveness for the British economy and how we can recapture or retain our ability to make judgments on regulations—a point raised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

I am struck by the sheer emptiness of the Government's strutting over the past six months. They gave away a huge negotiating hand in terms of the budget. Where is the reform of the common agricultural policy, which is so detrimental to the third world and those who are poor? This was a nothing statement, and an ecological waste of all the paper produced to send more words into the air.

With the greatest respect, I disagree. On the issue of economic reform, not only was there progress on the better regulation agenda, but we set down a course that will, I believe, yield results. Better regulation, whether in Whitehall or Brussels, involves not just process changes—for example, regulatory impact assessments—but cultural change. I was heartened in particular by the comment of Commissioner Verheugen during the British presidency that he now regards better regulation as a key priority, not simply for the presidency of the European Union for six months, but for the Commission.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about the common agricultural policy, we continue to argue for fundamental reform. We set out our position in the Government paper that was published in December. We have secured the 2008–09 review, of which I spoke in my statement and which was mentioned in the White Paper. That will be the means by which we can secure further reform of how Europe spends its money.

As for whether it was worth having the White Paper or, indeed, the statement, the Conservative party cannot have it both ways. It argues that national Parliaments are being disregarded in European policy-making, but when there is an opportunity seriously to discuss European issues, it chooses to indulge in arguments that are not entirely convincing.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will also address the other point that was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—

Order. The Minister does not need to do that. That was not a question that I allowed.

On the intervention by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about the future of the pint, if, as the Minister says, we have to have more transparency and more standard measures in the European Union, what hope will there be of saving the pint in the UK?

I do not know how much more clearly I can put it. I am convinced that there is no threat to either the British pint of beer or the British pint of milk. I was making a general point. I think that, within a single market—I hope that, as a supporter of the single market, the hon. Lady may agree with this point—there is a case for ensuring transparency for consumers. If she disagrees with transparency for consumers, perhaps she could get in touch with me and confirm that.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, unlike the Conservative party when it was in power, we have a commitment to the development of Africa. Is he convinced that European leaders share our commitment?

I was heartened by the fact that we agreed a strategy for Africa at the December Council of the European Union. That decision came after a decision last year by European Union Finance Ministers and, before that, Development Ministers, significantly to increase the level of development assistance both to Africa and to other developing areas of the world. I believe that one of the things that the British presidency and the European Union in 2005 will be remembered for is the significant progress on the development agenda. The credit for that goes not to one country, but to all 25.

rose—

Order. We must move on. I will give the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) some priority at the next statement.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the trade in endangered animals on the internet; and for connected purposes.

The trade of endangered animals on the internet is a growing and serious problem. Independent commentators estimate that the trade is worth up to £25 billion globally and up to £3 billion involving UK websites and consumers. Those large figures include both live and dead animals and animal products. Today, I would like to disaggregate those figures and focus on the millions of pounds being spent in the sale of live endangered animals on the internet, driving some of those species near to extinction.

It may come as a shock to some hon. Members to discover that this morning, in my office at the House of Commons, I logged on to the internet and could have purchased a leopard, a zebra, sea turtles, chimpanzees, an American bald eagle, an alligator, a dromedary, a mountain lion and a Lear's macaw. Sadly, the list goes on and on. I was very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about the elephant in the room at the Foreign Office. That escaped my research, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pass on the details to me.

In August 2005, the International Fund for Animal Welfare found that 9,000 endangered live animals were offered for sale online in one week. That search was limited to five categories of animal, but I am sure that the House will be interested to know that animals of all categories are sold every minute of every day, year after year. That same research found that 146 primates were available for sale in the UK. All of the sales were illegal: all the animals were endangered, and all were being traded through UK-registered websites. We do not know where the animals involved in such sales come from, how they are transported, or the conditions in which they are kept.

The Government rightly recognise the need to protect the environment, but what about the natural environment? Given the obvious scale of the problem, is not it incumbent on the Government, industry and us all to do far more to tackle this serious problem? The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), is attending the debate, and I know that he is a good-natured man who takes animal welfare very seriously. I hope that he will consider the suggestions that I have to make, especially given that the Animal Welfare Bill is currently before the House.

What could the Government do? First, I encourage them to work in collaboration with internet service providers and auction houses to launch a public awareness campaign on this matter. That campaign should be targeted at both consumers and traders and should inform them about what is lawful and what is not. Secondly, I encourage the Government to establish a hotline—for telephones and/or e-mails—so that illegal activity can be reported to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That information should then be shared with wildlife crime officers and the police.

Thirdly, a legal help desk should be set up so that people who are not sure about the law can contact someone to obtain clarification. Very often, the terms and conditions of websites involved in this trade are hidden somewhere in the back of beyond in the ISP's terms and conditions. We need to expose what is lawful and what is not. Finally, as I said earlier, the Government should liaise more closely with crime enforcement agencies.

Earlier, I saw the Home Secretary appear briefly in the Chamber before dashing out. I wish that he had stayed, because I know that the Government are keen on targets. I hope that the Minister will speak gentle words of encouragement in the right hon. Gentleman's ear about the adoption of a new Home Office target to ensure that police forces around the country bring successful prosecutions of those involved in this illegal trade, leading to their conviction. The House will be astounded to hear that only two successful prosecutions were brought last year for trade involving endangered animals. In both cases, the animals were dead and stuffed, but we know that there is a trade in live animals. With the greatest respect, I believe that the fact that there has not been a single prosecution in respect of the trade in live animals is an indictment of the Government.

The Government and the Minister could take the lead in this matter, both in this country and in Europe. Under the convention on international trade in endangered species, they could use our EU block vote to lead the way internationally. There is a CITES conference in June next year: I hope that the Minister will go there and declare that the UK is leading the way on animal welfare and that it has forged agreement in Europe about a new way forward on the matter.

Possibly the best and most immediate way to deal with the illegal trade in endangered animals is to establish a code of conduct for all ISPs and those involved in the internet market place to ensure that they do not facilitate the sale of endangered animals, directly or indirectly, through their products and services. As a Conservative, I hope that that could be achieved through a voluntary code, not a statutory one. We will have to wait and see whether the ISPs are prepared to go along with that.

What can ISPs do? We know that web content can be curbed because we have seen the excellent work of the Internet Watch Foundation, which works to prevent access to child pornography. ISPs should work in partnership, perhaps with the Government, to extend their remit to involve animal watch internet work. If they are not prepared, or are unable, to do that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs to work with them to set up a dedicated animal watch foundation to ensure that that evil trade stops.

It is no longer good enough for ISPs or the Government to argue that such a task is too great, too complex or the amount of data too overwhelming. We know that when ISPs have a will, they can find a way. For example, they can monitor, block and stop links from sites that promote political thought or messages. We have seen that with Google in China in the past week. If Google and other ISPs can regulate free speech in China, the least they can do is regulate the sale of endangered animals on the internet in the UK.

ISPs should also co-operate with Government and each other in agreeing a code of conduct. They should make it easier to report illegal activity, because current abuse processes are not user friendly, and provide better training for staff. ISPs should not see this Bill as a threat to their business, but as an opportunity to differentiate their products so that discerning and promiscuous—in the marketing sense—consumers can say, "I do not want to give my money to this ISP if it is not animal welfare friendly." Consumers should make the choice. They should email their ISP and threaten to take their business elsewhere unless this issue is taken seriously. I hope that the Government will take the lead on that. ISPs could gain a competitive advantage by taking this matter seriously.

If ISPs do not take action, consumers will, and the courts might. There is a case before the courts at present, but I shall not go into detail. However, we know that the courts may take action if the Government do not. This is a serious and growing problem and I hope that the Government will take it more seriously. I know that the Minister is serious about animal welfare—this is his opportunity to prove that to the country and to put an end to this abhorrent trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mark Pritchard, Mr. Roger Gale, Jeremy Wright, David Howarth, Mr. Eric Martlew, Hugh Robertson, Mr. David Drew, Michael Fabricant, Ms Celia Barlow, Mr. John Randall, David T. C. Davies and Mr. Edward Vaizey.

Trade in Endangered Animals on the Internet

Mark Pritchard accordingly presented a Bill to end the trade in endangered animals on the internet; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 122].

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as a defender of Back-Bench interests. How can I glean from the Home Office how it spent £32 million of taxpayers' money on renovating a building yet refused to answer one parliamentary question and two freedom of information requests?

The hon. Gentleman can of course raise the matter on a point of order and I suggest that he persists until he gets the information he needs.

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 83A(6)(Programme motions),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21st June 2005 (Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Coaker.]

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Question agreed to.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a matter of such constitutional importance is to be debated is it normal for people to call unnecessary votes?

The hon. Lady is well aware that that, fortunately, is not a matter for the Chair.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that all four Lords amendments are to be debated together. Mr. Speaker's selection shows that a number of Opposition and Back-Bench amendments have been grouped with Government propositions. Members will wish to know that if the questions on the Lords amendments have to be put under the programme motion Standing Order No. 83F does not allow the Speaker discretion to call propositions other than those moved by the Government.

Lords amendment: No. 1, page 1, line 2, leave out "Part 3 of"

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

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2 and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment No. 3.

Lords amendment No. 4 and Government motion to disagree.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 and amendments (i) to (iii), (xxiii), (iv) to (vi), (xxiv), (vii) to (ix), (xxv), (x) to (xii), (xxvi), (xiii) to (xv), (xxvii) and (xvi) to (xxii) thereto.

This promises to be yet another interesting and wide-ranging debate on an important issue. In moving the motions in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary let me make it clear to the House that the Government support Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 3, but not Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4.

The Bill was last debated in the House on 11 July 2005, on Report and Third Reading. A number of hon. Members expressed concerns, not so much about the Government's policy aims, but about what they feared would be unintended consequences in relation to the freedom of expression. The Bill passed with a substantial majority, but further debate and Divisions in the other place resulted in substantial changes being made.

The Lords amendments make four significant alterations. They separate the religious hatred offences from the racial hatred offences. They remove what was known as the "likely limb", so that only intentional behaviour will be caught. They insert a wide-ranging freedom of expression provision and remove the words "abusive and insulting" from the offence, so that only threatening speech and behaviour will be caught. Those changes considerably reduce the scope of the Bill, to the extent that, in our view, it would be virtually impossible to bring a successful prosecution.

Can the Minister explain why Labour Ministers are so down on the civil liberties of freedom of speech that they now wish to hound religious groups?

It is important that we adopt a measured and constructive tone in the debate. That is certainly what I intend to do and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise by the end of my introductory remarks that the Government are firmly committed to the freedom of expression and that we will fulfil the promise that we made in earlier debates that, if it was possible to find words that would include a commitment to freedom of expression in the Bill, we would do so, and I will come to that in a few moments.

Although the Government were clearly disappointed that their lordships decided to take such an approach, one thing at least is now clear: there is now a consensus that an offence of incitement to religious hatred should be placed on the statute book. The Government have listened, as we said we would, to the widely and deeply held concerns that have been expressed. I fully accept that those views are sincerely and very strongly held both by hon. Members and people outside the House.

In the search for common ground, we have given careful thought to the way that the Bill is framed and taken into consideration a wide range of opinion. As a result, a number of those who actively opposed the Bill as originally drafted have indicated their acceptance of the Government's proposals. We believe that the amendments that we have tabled for consideration today strike the right balance and it may help the House if I set out our approach to them.

The Minister gives the impression that he has made concessions, but this is his message in the Labour party briefing:

"Is this a climb-down by the Government? Definitely not. Isn't this a watered down bill from your original proposals? No. The Bill does essentially what was originally proposed."

Does the Minister accept that at least he is saying that we are back where we were the first time around, to all intents and purposes?

No, I do not accept that position. Our proposals will give us a Bill that deals with not only incitement to religious hatred, but the kind of assurances sought by those who have raised their genuinely and honestly held, strong beliefs with me as the Minister outside the House and during debates.

Can the Minister explain whether if at a Christian open-air meeting reference were made to there being only one true God and to Jesus Christ, his son, being the only intermediator between God and man for the forgiveness of sins, that most basic and fundamental cornerstone of the Christian faith would be viewed as incitement to religious hatred?

The hon. Lady asks a serious question about a serious subject and my answer to her is absolutely not. That would not be covered by the offence. It would not have been covered even as the Bill was originally drafted and it certainly will not be covered if the Government amendments are accepted because they make it absolutely clear that an individual must have the intention of stirring up hatred, or stir up hatred by acting recklessly through their behaviour or use of words.

rose—

There will be plenty of time for hon. Members to intervene, so please let me finish my reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson).

If it is clear that people have intended to stir up hatred, or behaved recklessly, they will be caught. If people express a strong religious belief, or adopt an attitude of ridicule, they will not be caught, even if they use intemperate language, unless there is clear intention.

This is an important issue because there was a recent case involving a minister of religion. He was standing in the open air on Christmas day reading the birth record of our Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel of Matthew, as he had done for years. A police officer said to him, "You must stop reading this because it has been objected to," and told the people standing round that they had to move on. I have accepted what has been said by Ministers and spoken about those assurances in speeches that I have made. However, when such a thing happens, we run into great difficulty.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I accept that there is sometimes a lack of clarity in the way in which the law is interpreted. I have said in Committee and on the Floor that, when the Bill is enacted, it will be important to draft appropriate guidance for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with organisations outside the House, so that there is confidence in how the law will be interpreted.

Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), can my hon. Friend confirm that my constituents would not be caught by the Bill for saying, "There is forgiveness only in the name of Jesus," or, "Mohammed's marriage to a six-year-old was immoral, and a call for the right to marry children is to be condemned as immoral."?

I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. I hope that hon. Members throughout the House will take this as an assurance in response to various questions that have been asked of them: people will not be caught by the Bill if they use language about their belief, or other beliefs, even to the point at which the language is abusive and insulting, if they do not intend to stir up hatred.

rose—

It has been pointed out by Opposition Members that we have three hours for the debate, so I would now like to go through the four areas that are fundamental to my argument. I will of course take interventions at appropriate moments, but if I do not start to make those points now, I will not have even started my speech before the interventions end.

First, I make it clear to the House that we now accept that the religious hatred offences should be separate from the existing racial offences in line with the framework agreed in the other place. The amendments mean that the offences will now form a new part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, rather than being simply an extension of the racial offences in part 3 of the Act to cover religious hatred. The Government have had to think long and hard about that because we always argued for parity between the racial and religious offences. However, we have come to the view that as long as we can achieve a viable offence of incitement to religious hatred within that format, we should agree to the new framework.

Does the Minister accept that separation is meaningful only if there is a difference? As I read the proposals, there is no difference. What does he see as the difference?

There are differences because incitement to racial hatred will still have a likely limb, whereas incitement to religious hatred will have a recklessness limb. This is a serious business. As the Minister in charge of the Bill, I have considered it my responsibility to engage in constructive discussions to determine whether we can achieve the objective of attaining a measure that was a commitment in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election in a way that will calm people's fears and represent a practical way forward. There are differences, but we will achieve our objective of introducing a Bill that tackles incitement to religious hatred and which means something in practice.

I accept that genuine efforts have been made to try to reach consensus, although they have plainly failed. The Minister has decided to stop trying to find absolute parity with racial hatred provisions. In the circumstances, that is a major concession, because the Government placed a huge emphasis on that parity and, indeed, sold it to a large number of communities as such. Having made that concession, why do they not accept the logic of the Lords amendments that the offence of incitement to religious hatred should have a much narrower focus? The amendments that the Government are seeking to overturn would largely turn the Bill back into its original form.

What I said was that we were not seeking absolute parity, because I wanted to make a point about complete intransigence and the failure to engage in dialogue people who hold a different view. There is not absolute parity, but we do not want the offences to be so far apart that the difference between the two is very great indeed, because we would not achieve our objective.

rose—

I shall accept two further interventions before pressing on.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the precincts of Parliament, the police have been deployed in extraordinary numbers to watch and to herd into a corner a peaceful group of Christians who are singing hymns. Is that restriction of people's right to come here and demonstrate peacefully a good or decent advert for our Parliament, or does it foretell the way in which the Bill may be used?

I am not aware of the proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I trust that they can be safely left to the Serjeant at Arms and the House authorities. I suggest that we make progress with the matter before us.

I was just about to indicate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) before I press on with my next point.

Wearing three hats as a former president of the National Union of Journalists, as someone who has attended many freedom of information trials in different parts of the world and as the current chairman of an all-party inquiry into anti-Semitism, may I point out that the key provision for working journalists is proposed section 29K? It says that someone is not guilty of an offence if their action

"consists of criticising, expressing antipathy towards, abusing, insulting or ridiculing (or seeking to ridicule) any religion, religious belief or religious practice".—[Interruption.]

By any measure of plain English, that gives protection to any journalist, any latter-day Voltaire, anyone writing the equivalent of "The Merchant of Venice", and anyone willing to criticise the Koran and the Bible. I hope that the Minister will stick to his guns and that the views of individuals who have caused huge offence to many of my Muslim constituents, who are anxious that the House of Commons should not reject their genuine beliefs and concerns, are not taken into account when we vote tonight.