asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we are keen to support the Colombian Government's efforts to bring peace to Colombia. In preparation for the Madrid conference in July, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office hosted a meeting of senior officials on Monday 19th June to examine ways in which the international community can help. Neither we nor our EU partners has made any decision about what aid we could give to Colombia. We are determined, however, that any aid will support human rights, long-term economic and social development and an end to violence in Colombia.

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's Answer. Can the noble Baroness elaborate on the kinds of conditions that might be attached to any aid, especially with regard to military activity in Colombia and consultation with human rights organisations?

My Lords, I reassure the right reverend Prelate that, as I said in my original Answer, the aid to be given by Her Majesty's Government will be directed towards the maintenance and support of human rights and long-term economic and social development. We are at the discussion stage in this matter and a good deal of consultation will be needed. We are pleased that on 19th June the NGOs participated and were able to make a special presentation. We very much value their contribution.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the plan contains a 600 million dollar military component, including massive armaments such as Black Hawk helicopters, and that serious reservations have been voiced about it by some of our partners in Europe, including the Belgians, the Dutch, the French and the Germans? How will the Government and EU ensure that the views of non-governmental organisations are fed into the July consultation? In particular, has the noble Baroness noted the opposition to the plan by the Regional Association for the Defence of Human Rights and the National Organisation of Indigenous of Colombia? How will the Minister ensure that their voices are heard?

My Lords, there are no set figures relating to the aid that the Government intend to give. I hear what the noble Lord says about the military component of any such aid. Since we have not yet fashioned precisely how the aid is to be given, and its quantum, I am unable to confirm anything that the noble Lord says. However, as we have already demonstrated, I reassure the noble Lord that we shall continue to listen to, and seek to engage, non-governmental organisations as appropriate.

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the very important role that the Royal Navy West Indies guard ship has played in countering drug operations from Latin America and the Caribbean. Therefore, do Her Majesty's Government now regret their decision to cut the amount of time that the guard ship spends in the region, and why was that done?

My Lords, I am unable to answer the precise question put by the noble Baroness. However, with respect, that has precious little to do with this Question.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that in the past the American attitude to problems of social unrest, economic under-development and the attendant drugs problems in Latin America has been very much a military and policing response and not sufficiently a political and economic response? As a general part of this question, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that a broader response than merely a military one is an important part of Plan Colombia?

My Lords, in this situation EU and American aid needs to be co-ordinated in such a way that it responds appropriately to the perceived difficulties that Colombia faces. We hope that in the work that we do together we shall be able to fashion a holistic approach that better addresses the needs of Colombia.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness wants to review her response to my noble friend Lady Rawlings. The Plan Colombia with which the Question is concerned is about trafficking in narcotics, is it not? Is not one of the roles of the guard ship in the West Indies to try to stop drug trafficking? Surely, my noble friend deserved a better answer than the Minister gave.

My Lords, I assure the House that the patrols of the West Indies guard ship to control drug trafficking continue, and we are satisfied that it is able to do its job.

of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we welcome the report and are already taking action to improve standards. We are also considering currently all of the recommendations and hope to make further announcements soon.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Does it mean that he agrees with the report that urgent reorganisation is required in the supply of orthotic equipment such as callipers and surgical appliances because the quality of what has been described as fragmented services is, in many places, unacceptable?

My Lords, alongside many of the other recommendations, the Government are considering with careful interest the suggestion to which the noble Lord refers, in particular that units should be large enough and throughput sufficient enough to make for quality and cost effectiveness. Part of the process of improving the quality of services at local level is to remind health authorities and local authorities of their responsibilities in that area. Where changes need to be made to improve the organisation, I am sure that that will occur.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that his constructive response to a recent debate on the subject was warmly appreciated? The urgent requirement now is a clear timetable. In the debate, the Minister was not enthusiastic about that need. However, without specific targets, dates and outputs we shall get nowhere. Will my noble friend think again?

My Lords, I am not in a position today to give an explicit timetable. I assure my noble friend that my honourable friend Mr John Hutton is considering urgently the recommendations in the Audit Commission's report and what the Government's response should be. The Government have taken action. They are promoting the value of integrated community services providing a single point of access for service users. The sum of £14 million is being provided recurrently for wheelchair developments. As my noble friend well knows, £4 million is being invested this year to modernise the NHS hearing aid service. We agree that the deficiencies identified by the Audit Commission need to be addressed.

My Lords, notwithstanding his previous answer, does the Minister agree that the report raises some points which could be dealt with easily? Recommendation 15 states:

"Service managers should review and eliminate the potential conflicts of interest that arise when commercial suppliers discharge the services of both clinician and salesman".

My Lords, the noble Lord raises the issue of whether the role of the orthotist as both clinician and salesman creates a conflict of interest. I understand that the matter has been addressed in Department of Health guidelines on orthotic services. Ultimately it is a matter for local management. We must ensure that the lessons of the Audit Commission report are fully considered at local level by health authorities and, where appropriate, local authorities. In order to have effective performance management of health authorities and performance assessment of local authorities the Government must ensure that account is taken of current guidelines and any future guidelines.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that some materials used are heavy and old fashioned whereas others are light and more attractive? Will he consider how important it is for a young girl, for example, who has lost limbs through meningitis to have equipment which is usable and attractive?

My Lords, I very much understand the noble Baroness's point. A working group has been set up to consider the introduction of silicone cosmeses coverings in artificial limb services. In addition, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency has set up a strategic commissioning group which brings together commissioners, providers, the industry and user representatives to inform future specification for artificial limb contracts. I hope that, as part of that process, we can take account of the point the noble Baroness raises.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the supply of artificial limbs in many places in developing countries in Africa is better and quicker than in this country? It is an urgent issue. What will the Government do?

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work over many years on this issue, in particular in relation to the artificial limb and appliance centres. We need to be careful not to suggest that everything is poor about current services. There are many examples of excellent services around the country. The problem is that high standards are not universal. The Government are seized of the need to ensure that best practice is adopted throughout the country. In addition, through its local inspectors, the Audit Commission will monitor what will happen at local level. Although we should always consider the experience of other countries, we can also look to our own country for experience of best practice.

My Lords, the Minister is aware of the problem when medical staff, in particular occupational therapists, are faced with widely differing standards from social services departments and health authorities about the equipment which can be provided for patients on discharge from hospital. The position as regards charges made and the type of equipment provided needs urgent consideration. Can the Minister say something on that?

My Lords, I do not disagree with that point. We need to bear in mind that effective investment in appropriate equipment in the long term will ensure that many people make fewer demands on the services in the future. We need to bring home to the health service and local government the message that the more effective services they can develop in this area the better the spin- off for users of the services and the services themselves.

My Lords, will the Minister recognise that, owing to our ageing population, demand for surgical appliances is increasing but that new materials and technologies, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, which are becoming available, could alleviate the situation?

Yes, my Lords. Part of the effective delivery of high quality services in future is the need to ensure that those in NHS health services and local authorities who commission services relating to community equipment are keeping up to date with developments and ensuring that its quality and acceptability are of the highest order. We want to encourage that.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, in July 1998, the Government announced that the annual intake of medical students in the United Kingdom would be increased by about 1,000 places per annum by 2005. In England, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has announced the allocation of a total of 1,126 additional places. The Government are now considering a further increase in medical school intake in England. The information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved administrations.

My Lords. I declare an interest as president of the University of Wales College of Medicine. I appreciate the increase of about 1,000 in the number of medical students. However, are the Government convinced that the number is adequate to meet the needs of the United Kingdom? Bearing in mind that during the past five years only 42 per cent of doctors registering each year for service in the United Kingdom have been trained here, is it not time that the Government changed their target?

My Lords, an additional 1,126 places is a considerable achievement. However, I assure noble Lords that as part of our further developments within the NHS we are looking at the number of places over and above the 1,126 which we shall need. As regards the statistics which the noble Lord gave, I understand that 76 per cent of the medical workforce is UK trained. The advice given by the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee in 1997, on which much of the development in medical school places is based, suggested that we needed to stabilise that proportion. I believe that the additional places we have announced will help us to do that, as will any future expansion.

My Lords, my noble friend has given us important information, but is he aware that we could do with many more trained doctors throughout Wales—in the villages, outside Cardiff and Swansea, where they are badly needed?

My Lords, I am in danger of trespassing on another country's arena. I pay tribute to the high quality of medical education in Wales, of which I have experience. The new training places allow us to develop links outside traditional medical school centres, both in terms of the new medical schools—for instance, in Norwich at the University of East Anglia and at the Peninsular Medical School in the West Country—and in places where medical schools have been expanded—for instance, in Birmingham through links with other parts of the Black Country. There is no doubt that in ensuring that we have high quality doctors we have to ensure a broad-based education for medical students which enables them to experience all facets of life in the health service.

My Lords, although the Government's announcement is welcome, the Minister will be aware of comments made by his honourable friend Frank Field pointing out that the number of doctors per head of population in France is 75 per cent greater than in this country; two and a half times greater in Spain than in this country; and three times greater in Germany. Are the Minister and his department examining the question of additional medical students in a sufficiently fundamental way?

My Lords, international comparisons can often be misleading. In terms of doctors per 1,000 of population, the UK is comparable with Finland, Norway, the Netherlands and the US. But we accept that we need to do better. We need to expand the NHS workforce as a whole and doctors will be an important component of that. Furthermore, we must break down some of the working barriers between the different professions. By the sensible reordering of responsibilities we can take some of the load from doctors, nurses and other professionals in order to allow them to focus on the most important and serious elements of their work.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we need a considerable increase in the number of doctors? Do the figures he has given mean an absolute increase over and above those who retire every year? Is what we read in the newspapers about the two new medical schools at East Anglia and Exeter true; that they will take in students with lower qualifications who will therefore require a longer training period? Can we be satisfied that they will achieve the correct standard?

My Lords, medical workforce planning has proved to be a difficult art. The noble Baroness is right that a considerable number of doctors are coming up to retirement. That statistic needs to be factored into the further development of training places.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to OECD figures, Britain's number of practising doctors per head of population is one of the lowest compared with the majority of OECD countries? Only Turkey, Korea and Mexico have a lower number. At the other end of the scale, will he comment on unemployment among fully trained obstetricians and on last year's cut of 33 per cent in the number of new consultants as opposed to an annual increase under the previous government of 4 per cent?

My Lords, so far as concerns obstetrics and gynaecology, the noble Lord will know that the Government have been in discussion with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. We are looking closely at a range of proposals to address that issue and the way forward. So far as concerns the OECD report, my understanding is that that information was based on 1996 statistics and therefore, I believe, comes under the responsibility of the party of the noble Lord.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the increase in prices in the year to September is used as the basis for the inflation increase in both excise duties and pensions. Exactly the same methodology has been used this year as in previous years. Next year we shall index pensions by the out-turn for September 2000 RPI, which we forecast at 3.4 per cent.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, in his Budget Statement the Chancellor said that he was raising both pensions and petrol tax in line with inflation. Why did he not go on to say that he was using two completely different measures of inflation; that is, petrol at 3.3 per cent and pensions at 1.1 per cent? How can he possibly justify using two completely different measures in one Budget Statement? Is that not a scam of epic proportions, even for this Chancellor? Is the Minister aware that, had pensions been increased by the same rate as petrol, they would now by rising by £2.25 per week instead of a measly 75 pence per week?

My Lords, pensions have always been raised on the basis of the out-turn in September figures. Excise duties were raised in the July 1997 Budget, which we had to introduce when we came into office, on the basis of the forecast. In order not to count the same year twice, we continued with the forecast base, which explains the difference. However, the noble Lord refers to this year's figures. He should recognise that these matters balance out. Last year, the excise duties were indexed by 1.3 per cent and personal allowances by 3.2 per cent. Next year, we shall index pensions by the out-turn for the September 2000 RPI, which we forecast at 3.4 per cent. On the whole, over the years the Treasury loses out and pensioners gain.

My Lords, has the Minister told the Bank of England that inflation will rise by well over 3 per cent? According to the rules laid down in the Act of Parliament which set up the Monetary Policy Committee, I should have thought that that would put the jobs of its members at risk. However, leaving aside that interesting answer from the Minister, does he believe that it is a good defence to say that when the Chancellor suggested using the same rate of inflation, he then went on to use two rates? Is that not a case of double standards? Those are not my words. It was the Daily Record, the determinedly Labour paper in Scotland, read by all the Chancellor's constituents in Dunfermline, which accused the Chancellor of double standards. Is the Daily Record right or wrong?

My Lords, when the noble Lord asks me a question and then proposes to leave it on one side, I am not sure whether or not he wishes me to answer. I shall answer, because I always answer his questions when they are serious. As he very well knows, the figure of 3.4 per cent which appears in the Red Book was announced at the time of the Budget. The answer to the second question is that I am not responsible for the Daily Record. I have explained exactly and precisely on what basis the September figures are calculated for each of the two purposes.

My Lords, is it not the case that perhaps the main reason why the pension increase last year came out at such an appallingly, ridiculously low figure was that the index on which the increase was based included mortgage interest? Given that very few pensioners have mortgages and that, on the other hand, cuts in interest rates harm pensioners because the income from their savings is reduced, would it not be desirable, once pensioners have had a chance to catch up from the effects of last year, to base pension increases on an index which does not include mortgage interest?

My Lords, there are several different bases for calculating inflation. Some of them are unfair to some people and some are unfair to others. The RPIX version is used widely for a variety of purposes.

My Lords, in the light of that answer, can the Minister explain why the Government have refused to subject their calculations of inflation to the independent scrutiny of the new statistics commission?

My Lords, I am not aware that that is the case. The new statistics commission is barely in existence. When it is, it will no doubt ask for the figures that it wants.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall whether, when they introduced the fuel escalator, the last Conservative government believed that pensions should be accelerated by the same amount?

My Lords, my noble friend points to the fact that it was the previous government who withdrew the earnings link and replaced it with a prices link for pensions. My noble friend is also aware that the full benefit of the provisions that have, and are being, made for pensioners in this Parliament amount to £6.5 billion whereas restoration of the earnings link would cost only £4.5 billion.

My Lords, surely the Minister agrees that the public, pensioners and motorists were misled by the Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a shabby trick to play on pensioners and motorists. Does the Minister agree that it is high time that Statements from whichever government department should be unassailably true?

My Lords, unless the noble Lord is saying that something that I have said this afternoon is not unassailably true, I believe that he should be careful about the words he uses.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the European Council at Feira.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I believe that the House is being asked to approve a Motion which, frankly, is ridiculous. Perhaps I may trouble the House with a few questions that I wish to ask the Chairman of Committees. First, item 1 of the report states that:

"The Committee agreed to new arrangements"

"for paying fast-stream Clerks",

"undertake a review of the management structure and the structure, including the Committee structure, for taking decisions about the services of the House".

My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend. I understand that Mr Braithwaite is picking up £70,000 for the job.

"the thing that concerns me about the report is its lack of clarity on what is happening to ordinary staff here".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/00; col. 1083.]

My Lords, the motor allowances increases in paragraph 3 are said to be in line with the retail prices index. What index was used for their calculation—the figure applied by the Government for pensions or the one used for petrol prices?

My Lords, consultants never come cheap. How many days will Mr Braithwaite be working in return for his £70,000?

My Lords, I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who, not for the first time, has rendered great service to your Lordships' House by drawing our attention to the shortcomings in the report. I associate myself with every word that he said.

My Lords, I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. In doing so, I shall refer to other noble Lords who have spoken. If it is the wish of your Lordships that more information should be given, I am certainly prepared to view that request with sympathy. On the whole, I attempt to put forward less written material rather than more because, as I have said on previous occasions, I do not wish to overburden your Lordships. However, if your Lordships want more, you are entitled to have more. I also remind your Lordships that the minutes of Committees are available in the Library and can be consulted there.

My Lords, I succeeded soon after the Ibbs report on the House of Commons. I have a belief that I was appointed Chairman of Committees for the sole reason that we did not think that we needed an Ibbs report but that we could manage to find somebody, and it happened to fall upon me—for goodness knows what reason—to take on the job which the noble Lord now fulfils. We did not need Ibbs here. Our affairs were in far better shape than the affairs of the House of Commons. I merely make the point that there surely is enough talent sitting on the Benches in this House, not to mention sitting at the Table and among all the other learned Clerks who look after us so well, for it to be totally unnecessary to bring in somebody who will not have a clue about how well we conduct our affairs compared with the other place.

My Lords, it is indeed the case that there is a great deal of talent in your Lordships' House already. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, about that. Also, I pay tribute to him on the way in which he carried out his duties as Chairman of Committees when he occupied that post.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I am sorry to interrupt him. It would be extremely helpful if he could tell us what experience Mr Braithwaite has of management problems in legislative assemblies.

My Lords, he is a former senior partner of Deloitte & Touche. He has considerable experience of management matters. He carried out the inquiry for the other place.

My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees sits down, although he has generously and freely offered a great deal of information which has been sought, for which I am sure the House is grateful, I am not clear whether he proposes that the House should agree to that which many of us are worried about and on which we should prefer to have a rather fuller debate. Will he agree to that?

My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees responds to that point and, indeed, to any other points that are made—and I can see that a number of noble Lords wish to play a part—perhaps I may make a few remarks not just as Leader of the Opposition but also as a member of the Offices Committee. Apart from the Chairman of Committees, I believe that I am the only person so far who has spoken as a member of that committee.

My Lords, I must say I was very disturbed by the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition just now. I had intended to rise earlier, but the Chairman of Committees got to his feet before I was able to join in. I am particularly concerned about how we operate. We are told that, of course, when we get this document we are free to spend as much time as we like debating it, except that if we debate for too long everybody gets irritated, so de facto, we are not.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask—

Lord Barnett!

My Lords, first, I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I thought it was very helpful. If I may say so, I have found quite incredible some of the replies from the Chairman of Committees. He told us that he did not want to overburden us with information. Well, he certainly did not do that. He said that he would send me the details. I do not want him to send me the details; I want your Lordships to have the details. We were told that the procedure of this House is that such information is sent to committees and that committees examine it, and that that is the normal way that we do these things. Of course, we also have another normal course of action: we do not have to agree with committees when they put a report before us. I do not suggest to the Chairman of Committees that we should vote against this report today. I hope that he will withdraw it—

Hear, hear!

My Lords, it would be, frankly, outrageous to ask us to agree to a report which suggests, for example, spending thousands of pounds on a consultant without telling us the answer to all the other points that we need to know, some of which have not yet come forward. Therefore, I hope that the Chairman of Committees will tell us that he does not propose to put this Motion to the House. If he does, I ask your Lordships to oppose it.

My Lords, the only point I wanted to make has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, with greater force than I would have been able to make it. I sincerely ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees if he will withdraw this Motion now and for it not to be debated today.

My Lords, as a former member of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Peston is actually wrong. We did divide the House over the matter of carparking at the front of your Lordships' House, so there is a precedent. I, too, hope that the Chairman of Committees will withdraw this Motion, but if he decides not to do so, I shall certainly vote against it.

My Lords, perhaps I may provide one or two additional pieces of information before I respond to the suggestions which have been most recently made. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, for raising the points that they did. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a very helpful point as a member of your Lordships' committee which considered these matters in some detail.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has said that he will produce further information. Does he mean that he will refer the matter back to the committee—I think that is what the House wants—rather than just produce more information? I think that we want this to be referred back to the committee before we reach a decision on it.

My Lords, my immediate answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, which I well understand, is that I should like to consider that. Another meeting of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee is scheduled for early July. If I may reflect upon it, that may be the appropriate point at which to ask that sub-committee to take another look at this. I do not want now, on the spot, to commit myself to referring the matter back in that way. What I shall certainly do, as I have indicated, is come back with a new report which contains more information. If the noble Lord will allow me to reflect upon that I will do so and if, on reflection, it does seem to be a better way of proceeding I will of course do that.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on the Feira European Council which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows: "Together with my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, I attended a meeting of the European Council in Santa Maria da Feira, Portugal, on 19th and 20th June. A copy of the Council's conclusions is available in the Library of the House. I had a series of meetings in the margins with the Prime Minister of Belgium, Mr Verhofstadt, on illegal trafficking in people and football hooliganism; with the Prime Minister of Greece, Mr Simitis, in the wake of the appalling killing of Brigadier Saunders; with the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Aznar, on economic reform; and with the French Prime Minister, Mr Jospin, on French plans for their presidency.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I understand that she has taken time off from the "Body Image Summit" being held by the Prime Minister at No. 10. I thank her for putting the interests of the House first.

"A two-speed Europe already exists. You should know because you are not a member of the euro"?

"there will be leaders and followers".

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating today the Statement made by the Prime Minister elsewhere.

My Lords, as always I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers, for their overall welcome of this report on the summit and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, for his enthusiasm for certain parts of it.

"in the context of cohesion and solidarity within the European Union".

My Lords, I welcome the agreement that the proposed charter will not be legally enforceable. Perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that that would be a very useful precedent for future agreements. That arises because the Treaty of Rome and its enactments have, to a great extent, not been legally enforceable. The economies, constitutions and climates of the European countries differ so greatly that it is difficult to expect them to be legally enforceable. Will the Government do all that they can to ensure, especially if the Community is to be enlarged, that future agreements will not be legally enforceable, but merely good aims?

My Lords, I would be reluctant and foolish to give from the Dispatch Box this afternoon that overriding assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. However, I was very interested to read the extremely authoritative debate on the charter of fundamental rights which was held in your Lordships' House last Friday, when regrettably I could not be present. The way in which those issues were covered lends great credit to those who took part in the debate, and notably the people who were actually involved in the discussion on the convention. Many of the points made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were thoroughly examined and very positively aired.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the Statement. It is one of unusual importance. She has covered a vast menu of subjects. Looking ahead to Nice, one has to pick up, as it were—this Council is only a stepping stone towards that—what will be the big issue. The big issue is undoubtedly closer co-operation, which the French and Germans have placed on the agenda of the IGC. However, we would be only too happy if it was not there.

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. I hope that it is self-evident that the Government are thinking about the issues. However, the question remains as to whether or not they are thinking about them from the same perspective as that of my noble friend. I am not sure whether my noble friend was present in the Chamber when I said in response to an earlier question that the Government have recognised for some time—the Prime Minister stated this explicitly at the news conference that he gave yesterday afternoon in Portugal—that these issues would be on the agenda for the Nice summit. As I said, this is not something into which we have suddenly found ourselves "bounced".

My Lords, I am surprised at the passing reference to EU enlargement in the Statement as many of us consider that this is the main strategic project for the European Union for the next five years. Will the Government give us an assurance that one of their objectives for the Nice European Council is to achieve an agreed target date for EU enlargement? As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is aware, the current timetable is slipping badly. The date has informally been agreed to be January 2003. I understand that the other week the German Chancellor said informally to the conference of Baltic states that they should not expect to join before January 2005 because serious negotiations are unlikely to begin until after the next German and French elections.

My Lords, as regards the target date, it was decided at Feira—this may not have been set out in the conclusions as precisely as the noble Lord wished—that all remaining chapters with the best prepared Helsinki 6 countries would he opened as early as possible in 2001. The noble Lord will be aware that the EU is committed to be ready to welcome new members by the end of 2002 and has set aside funding for new member states to join the EU from 2002 to 2006. However, as the noble Lord will appreciate, the date of accession depends on each applicant's readiness. It would be foolish to make artificial predictions about that this afternoon.

My Lords, I hope that I may put one short and one slightly longer question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. First, has she seen the report in yesterday's Times which reveals that support in Poland for EU entry has dropped from 80 per cent to 50 per cent and is still falling, and gives the reason why that has occurred? I hope that the noble Baroness will comment on that report, if she has read it.

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot be as helpful as I normally like to be to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as regards both his questions. First, I regret that I have not read the article in The Times to which he referred. I am sure that he will know as well as I that in general the perspective of the populations of individual countries on such matters tends to vary enormously. The views expressed in, for example, Denmark and the United Kingdom in relation to the Maastricht Treaty showed variations in public opinion at different stages of the process.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that perhaps my noble friend Lord Shore would be able to avoid some of his nightmares about a United States of Europe if he were to remove Mr Joschka Fischer's speech from his bedside reading and not read too much into it, particularly when most of the 15 member states do not seek a "United States of Europe" but a "united Europe of states"? That makes a great deal more sense.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Grenfell for raising the point of the Portuguese initiative. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who specifically raised that issue in his initial comments. He asked whether there had been any further action in relation to Austria after the Feira summit, and I am afraid that I simply forgot that in responding to him.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that it is a measure of how deeply we have become involved in this whole perilous European venture that we should regard the kicking into the long grass of the entirely destructive and senseless proposal of the withholding tax with such relief? In that respect, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the rest of tax harmonisation—which, as she knows, is "Eurospeak" for British taxes being increased by some 20 per cent—is now firmly off the agenda, both at Nice and in the related initiatives which are running parallel to Nice?

My Lords, as your Lordships are well aware, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes a particular constitutional stance on this country's position vis-à-vis the European Union. Indeed, I think it is true that he has introduced legislation in his name to try to effect that. Am I right? The noble Lord looks sceptical. I give way.

My Lords, in 1997 your Lordships' House was good enough to give a Second Reading—by two votes in a record vote on a Friday afternoon—to that effect. But the Bill which is passing through your Lordships' House at the moment has the entirely reasonable purpose of requiring a committee of inquiry to consider what life may be like outside the European Union.

My Lords, in that case the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, deals in hypotheticals to some extent on this issue. In practical reality, of course, the directive has been agreed around some of the issues on the exchange of information rather than the withholding tax. The noble Lord feels that that is an indication of the mire in which we find ourselves, but he was kind enough to say that we had at least extricated ourselves from this particular mire with some degree of dexterity.

My Lords, can my noble friend—

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House recognise that the Feira Council—

My Lords, can my noble friend give some indication of the official legal status of a presidential declaration as distinct from an agreed communiqué? It may not have much significance today, but it may have some significance in the future.

My Lords, I cannot help my noble friend on that technical point, but I shall, of course, write to him on it.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 132:

Page 21, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("under") in line 39 and insert ("(1) The Council may direct—

moved Amendment No. 134:

Page 21, line 43, leave out subsections (6) to (11) and insert—

("(6) If the Authority fails to comply with a direction under this section it shall, if so required by the Council, give notice to the Council of the reasons for its failure.").

moved Amendment No. 135:

Page 22, line 19, at end insert—

("(12) Neither the Authority nor any licence holder shall be required by virtue of this section or any regulations made under it to supply any information which the Authority or that licence holder could not be compelled to give in evidence in civil proceedings in the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.").

These amendments are designed to exclude legally privileged information from that which the authority or the Secretary of State may require to be disclosed under Clauses 92, 93 and 97, and from that which the council may require under Clause 24.

I understand the Minister to be saying that he agrees with my amendments but that he does not accept them.

On the contrary, I am saying that none of these amendments is necessary. There are no circumstances in which any of these requirements could involve legal privilege.

Can the Minister tell me why it would subtract from the Bill if these amendments were included? Clearly, the Minister agrees with the policy that lies behind the amendments.

The Bill already provides the protection which the noble Lord seeks. It would therefore be quite inappropriate to include his amendments.

In light of the Minister's last remarks, I shall again look closely at the Bill and consider whether it will be necessary to pursue this matter at Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:

Page 22, line 21, leave out ("24(7) or (10)") and insert ("24(4)").

Page 22, line 23, leave out ("not be") and insert ("be excluded from any notice").

moved Amendment No. 139:

Page 22, line 28, leave out ("disclosure") and insert ("publication").

moved Amendment No. 147:

Page 22, line 44, leave out from first ("section") to end of line and insert ("(General restrictions on disclosure of information)".

moved Amendments Nos. 148 and 149:

Page 23, line 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

("(1) The Authority may direct the Council to supply to it, in such form as it may reasonably specify, such information specified or described in the direction as it may require for the purpose of exercising its functions.

(2) The Council shall comply with a direction under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable.").

Page 23, line 18, leave out subsection (5).

moved Amendment No. 150: