asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Department for International Development has contributed over £3.2 million for drought relief activities in west and south Asia. This support has been channelled through the World Food Programme for its regional operations; through Oxfam, Christian Aid and Tearfund in India; and through Save the Children in Pakistan. DfID also seconded a five-person team of specialists to support the UN in its assessment of the drought in Pakistan. The Government are monitoring the situation carefully and currently considering what further assistance to provide.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does she not agree that damage through drought is caused at least as much by the absence of a local water harvesting strategy and infrastructure? Is DfID doing anything about that?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that water shortages, which are partly the result of low rainfall, have been exacerbated by poor management of limited resources and by overpopulation. That is why our funding so far has been carefully targeted to agencies that seek to address some of these longer term issues. For example, in India we support cash and food for work schemes where local communities are employed to rehabilitate traditional water harvesting structures. International NGOs working on the provision of safe and adequate drinking water, fodder for livestock and health issues have also been supported.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned India. Does she agree—I am sure she does—that an unprecedented number of droughts and associated famines, and often floods, too, are occurring and that Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and other states of India are a particularly cruel example? All over Asia we are seeing droughts on an enormous scale—in China, North Korea, south Pakistan, Afghanistan and many other places. While it is not possible for governments to solve those problems, does the noble Baroness accept that water management, and the politics and technology of water management, are becoming the central issue in development tasks and in development policy? Will she assure us that our support for water management advances and for research into water technology is strongly focused to meet this new and vast area of tragedy to which there is no immediate solution?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we must take the whole issue of water management and environmental sustain ability extremely seriously. That is why we have given resources to assist developing countries in assessing their vulnerability to natural disasters. We plan to reduce that vulnerability through sustainable environmental and economic management. This is an approach we have taken for some time and will continue to take.

My Lords, what steps are taken to ensure that the relief reaches those for whom it is intended? How far is the human rights record of the domestic government taken into account? For example, in Afghanistan are any conditions imposed on the domestic government?

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that we have previously discussed in this Chamber the human rights record not only of Afghanistan but of other countries where we give humanitarian assistance. We make a distinction between the giving of humanitarian assistance in crisis situations and our long-term bilateral programmes where we are much more careful about supporting governments committed to pro-poor policies and to long-term economic development. As regards Afghanistan, we have had some difficulty working with NGOs on the ground. The security situation in Afghanistan also presents us with some difficulty. However, some funds are being channelled through the World Food Programme.

My Lords, I declare a broad interest covering water in the Middle East. Why does Britain fail, through lack of ECGD support, to promote British technology for providing developing countries with water supplies, in contrast to the support given in other European Union countries?

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount that we fail to give support to countries which need assistance in terms of water management and resource development. The whole area of environmental sustainability is one we have taken extremely seriously. Through our development programme we have prioritised that area of work in many of the countries we are now discussing.

My Lords, the noble Baroness knows of my interest in Plan International and therefore I shall not declare that interest yet again. Is she aware that in India NGOs such as Plan must work with a local partner and that the Indian Government will not allow many of them to work independently? Does that make any difference to the aid given by DfID? Is India the only country where that occurs?

My Lords, I do not think that India is the only country in which NGOs are expected to work with a local partner. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness having made further investigations into the matter. We are working through NGOs because we are very keen to ensure that the resources that we contribute to assist in the drought get to the local communities. That is often the best way to be effective.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, under the Railways Act 1993 the franchising director has powers to regulate rail fares. Key fares—approximately 40 per cent of fares—have been capped at 1 per cent below the rate of inflation. Her Majesty's Government are committed to increasing rail use by 50 per cent by 2010. We are looking to train operators to play their part by setting the price of unregulated fares and car parking charges accordingly.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He has raised the question of unregulated fares. Is he aware that the fare from Liverpool to London has quadrupled since privatisation? Is he further aware that restrictions on when one can turn up and travel—supersavers, cheap day returns and so on—have been altered in such a way that they no longer suit many passengers? Does the Minister have any way of dealing with this problem, which offsets many of the advantages achieved in other parts of the rail network and the rail fares system? In particular, has he considered referring the issue to the competition authorities?

My Lords, I should point out that 70 per cent of passenger journeys by rail are made with discounted fares. Since privatisation, in the four years from 1995–96 to 1998–99, the increase in standard class fares of 9 per cent was against an inflation rate in RPI of 9 per cent. Therefore there has been no real increase. Those figures take us until March of last year and will be updated in October of this year. We welcome the proposal of the Association of Train Operating Companies to band the 90 ticket types into six generic groupings to make the current fares structure easier to understand. We are talking to the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority about future fares regulation in the light of the current franchise replacement process.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at stations on the Hereford to Paddington line there has been an increase in car parking charges, a reduction of space and capacity for cars, and a universal refusal to install CCTV cameras, despite evidence of theft and vandalism at those stations—allegedly because there is not enough money to install them? Does the Minister agree that CCTV cameras at station car parks should be a standard service for the benefit of car owners?

My Lords, unlike fares, there are no provisions in the franchising agreements in relation to car parking charges. The previous government instructed the franchising director to let franchises in a way which left maximum scope for initiative, with requirements no more burdensome than necessary. However, the franchising director is seeking improvements in many areas, including asking operators to put additional security patrols on trains and in car parks, and to look at the provision of CCTV at stations and car parks.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the case for subsidised station car parks as a congenial and cost-effective way of relieving congestion has been made ever since the Buchanan report? Should we therefore conclude that this is one of those cases which is too sensible ever to get attention?

My Lords, we are giving attention to the matter. Indeed, recently in the South West, a proposal from a train operating company to put up car parking charges encountered great local resistance and the charges were subsequently reduced.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it should be a condition on the franchisee that car parking charges are not hiked by 60 per cent—as happened recently at Reading—and that car parks are not let out to local offices? Cannot those measures be incorporated in the new franchises?

My Lords, we can certainly examine the issue. It is not proposed that the franchising director should regulate car parking charges directly under the provisions of the Transport Bill. However, it is expected that there will be reasonable commercial and contractual incentives on operators to keep car parking charges to a minimum. The importance of car parking has been confirmed by the SRA and others as a result of consultation with customers.

My Lords, the whole point of the exercise is to get people to leave their cars at the station and then use a train. Would it not be sensible if the authorities made a regulation to deal with this matter rather than leaving it to the random effects of economic pressure?

My Lords, we shall certainly discuss with the SRA whether it is worth overturning the considerations of the previous administration in this regard. I should also say to the noble Baroness who tabled the Question that we are looking to the rail regulator to keep his eye on rail fares as regards competition.

My Lords, if the Minister and the Government want to administer the detail of railway operation, would not the sensible, effective and moral way of doing so be to renationalise it?

My Lords, after years of rail fragmentation and confusion which are only now coming to an end, it would be very unwise to go into another extended period of dislocation—especially when we are on the verge of investing £60 billion in the railways, which I hope will open up a new era of expansion and increase by 50 per cent the number of people travelling on the railways by 2010.

My Lords, I did not fully understand my noble friend's answer in connection with the competition authorities. Did he say that the competition authorities have no locus with regard to the setting of prices for railway journeys and no locus in regard to dealing with car parks, which in most cases are a monopoly? Is he saying that somehow the legislation was devised so that the competition authorities cannot deal with this subject?

No, my Lords. I am saying that the Rail Regulator is the competent authority concurrent with the Director General of Fair Trading to enforce the provisions of the Competition Act in respect of rail fares. I was also saying, perhaps not clearly enough, that the regulator has received a number of complaints from the public and from Members of Parliament concerning recent fare increases. He takes the matter very seriously in considering whether to take any further action under the Competition Act.

My Lords, did I hear the Minister just now say that "we" are in the process of investing £60 billion in the railways? Do I assume that by "we" he means the Government? Can he say how much of that money is government money and how much of it is private sector money?

My Lords, I said "we" in the context of the partnerships about which the Government are extremely enthusiastic. I should confirm that we will be putting in £15 billion of public investment through the 10-year plan, £11 billion of public resource revenue investment, and we shall look to the private sector to come forward with investment of £34 billion.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on previous occasions when the railways have faced significant increases in demand the reaction of the government of the day—of both parties—was to encourage the industry to choke off demand by putting up prices well above the rate of inflation? Can we be sure that, with the 10-year plan and the very welcome commitment to the 50 per cent increase in passenger usage, the rail companies will not be allowed to rip off the customers and will be required to invest in new facilities and new capacity?

My Lords, we will certainly not encourage any traditional habits of pricing customers off the railway in that way. In fact the RPI-1 formula is in place for the next three years. I should also remind noble Lords that since 1974 real income has increased by 185 per cent, whereas the cost of travelling by rail has increased up by 150 per cent. However, the total cost of travelling by car has remained at 100 per cent. So we wish to make rail and indeed bus travel more competitive against car travel.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, enhanced, or closer, co-operation has been possible since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. We are not opposed to it and recognise that in an enlarged EU it may prove useful. The Amsterdam IGC also agreed certain conditions governing the use of enhanced co-operation intended to ensure that it protected the coherence of the EU, in particular the single market. The issue for the IGC is whether those conditions are too restrictive. We will examine proposals for change carefully.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Can she say what harm to British interests could conceivably result from France and Germany, for example, introducing a carbon tax or harmonising their corporation tax rate or co-operating on environmental matters, provided these did not cut across legislation on the single market? Is it not the case that Europe, with the Danish opt-outs, the British opt-outs and with the Schengen agreement, is already a multi-speed, variable geometry Europe? Is it not time that the Foreign Office stopped its obsession with so-called "influence" and "dining at the top table", and, if I may mix my metaphors, stopped behaving generally like a dog in the manger?

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should so describe Her Majesty's Government. It is not a description which I recognise or with which I could possibly agree. The noble Lord will know well that closer co-operation was set out in Amsterdam. The reason that those conditions were attached was so that there would be coherence within the Union. The noble Lord will know that the Government are committed to enlargement. We are one of the countries leading the way in relation to that matter. It is extremely important to those countries that wish to join Europe that they know exactly what they are joining. For that reason we do look at the conditions that were attached at Amsterdam. It is a new structure. We should like to wait to see how matters develop. But it is right to say that this matter is being talked about.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to beware of any proposals that come from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on European Union matters, whether they are faster or slower. Does she not agree that the idea in principle of allowing, in an enlarged community, non-qualified majority voting so that member states could do precisely as they wished would create the kind of chaos the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, might like but which would not be sensible in a serious European Union?

My Lords, I cannot but respectfully agree with my noble friend. We would wish to see a Europe functioning at its best. We believe that the system is there to allow that to happen. This Government are determined that Britain should remain relevant, as opposed to becoming increasingly irrelevant.

My Lords, is it not the case that subsidiarity is becoming ever more important, particularly with enlargement of the EU? Should that not apply at every level, from the region upwards? In anticipating the next Question, might it not help to prevent over-legislation at Westminster?

My Lords, subsidiarity is of course a matter of importance. But Her Majesty's Government feel, and with force, that we have to create in Europe a fair playing field for all countries so that we know the way in which we are going and the conditions which apply to all of us.

My Lords, is it not the case that the real agenda of many Conservative Euro-sceptics is to take the UK out of the European Union altogether? On the question of subsidiarity, is it not outrageous that they are quick to accuse Brussels of a breach of subsidiarity but at the same time involve themselves in the domestic affairs of Denmark by interfering in Denmark's euro referendum?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a matter of great concern to hear reports of such interference. If it is happening, it is right that we should deplore it.

My Lords, can the Minister give one example of co-operation, enhanced or otherwise, in the European Union by the previous government? Does she agree with me that Britain's entry into and exit from the exchange rate mechanism perhaps provides a lamentable example?

My Lords, I would love to agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend. I must confess that I cannot immediately think of one example, but I am sure that noble Lords opposite may have a longer memory than mine.

My Lords, to pick up the expression of my noble friend Lord Lamont, is it not time that the British dog got out of the federalist manger? If we were to allow those who wish to create a federal Europe—certainly the German foreign minister is among them—to get on with it, among those countries that wish to do so, we could then exact a price in terms of the reorganisation of the Community which would accelerate the entry of the central European countries and others and allow us to regain control of, for example, our own agricultural policy.

My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about a century which has now gone. The Government are committed to the future and to reality. They remain centred on that. Britain's interests are best placed with Europe. As long as this Government remain in office, that is where we will be.

My Lords, is it not the case that if there had been more enhanced co-operation between France and Germany over the past 130 years we would all have been saved a great deal of trouble? In the forthcoming IGC and in regard to the Treaty of Nice, should not the attitude of the Government be relaxed and flexible towards these bilateral links that other European powers may wish and these pioneering ideas which may or may not carry European integration forward? I suspect that in some cases it will be backwards. What about the alliances that we should be forming with other European countries? Should we not be much more supportive towards, for instance, Poland and the other applicant states, which are now becoming increasingly disillusioned by enlargement and threatening the entire movement towards greater European integration?

My Lords, as I have already said, closer co-operation is possible under the conditions laid down in the Amsterdam Treaty. The noble Lord knows that we are encouraging Poland and the other applicant states to join. That situation will continue.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, no timetable has yet been drawn up for moving to directly elected regional government in England. We remain committed to do so where there is support demonstrated in referendums. In the meantime, governance in the regions is evolving through the work of the regional chambers, regional development agencies, government offices and others at the regional, sub-regional and local levels.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has confirmed that the amount of governance and decision-making undertaken at regional level is already high and is increasing. Is it not the case that the bureaucracy which is developing needs to be matched by equivalent democracy in order to make it legitimate? Furthermore, is the Minister aware of the increasing impatience and envy of people throughout all the regions of the north of England when they see the considerable amount of local decision-making now available in Wales, Scotland and, indeed, Greater London? There is a limit, I suggest, to the patience of those living in the North. The sooner that a timetable can be provided, the better.

My Lords, I recognise some of what the noble Lord says. Many people in the northern regions wish to see some movement towards a greater degree of accountability of regional government in their areas. That is not necessarily the same as the demands that have been made in Scotland and Wales or, indeed, in Greater London. We are looking at possible solutions that will suit each region. For that reason, the regional chambers and others within each region are considering possible constitutional settlements. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was involved in the North West constitutional convention which recently brought forward its interim report.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the northern region has not only set the pace in this matter, but has also set an excellent example in how regional government ought to be implemented? If, as I understand, the policy is to be implemented region by region, can the Minister give an assurance that, in view of what has been achieved so far in the northern regions, every possible help will be given by the Government to encourage full implementation as soon as possible?

My Lords, I recognise, as I have recognised on previous occasions, that developments in some northern regions have moved somewhat ahead of those elsewhere. I believe that the North West is now catching up with speed. The detailed work: undertaken by local government and business within the northern regions must be taken into account when the Government decide on their priorities for regional government. Whether the model that has been developed in the North East is directly applicable elsewhere, is, I believe, a matter for each region to consider. However, the work that has been completed will be fully recognised.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the boundaries of the new regions were agreed with the European Union? If that is the case, would he admit that it may be at least a twinkle in the eye of Brussels that any new regionally elected assemblies should end up reporting to our European masters, thus making Westminster more redundant than even our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches would like?

My Lords, the fevered imagination of the noble Lord as regards all things European never ceases to impress. The development of more regional government and the other elements of devolution and local decision-making which are supported and will continue to be supported by this Government are matters of British and English democracy. They are not determined by Brussels and are not relevant to any ambitions held in Brussels or elsewhere. If put in place, they will reflect the desires of English people in their own regions.

My Lords, I should declare an interest as a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree reform trust which supports the campaign for English regions. Last week we heard announcements regarding the spending review and transport plans until 2010. Bearing in mind the incredible increase in resources to be made available to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, in particular as regards transport to London, is it not the case that not to have established any form of timetable suggests a somewhat pedestrian approach to the Question put by my noble friend Lord Greaves?

My Lords, allocations made in the SR 2000 announcement and those concerning the 10-year plan for transport, which relate to my own department, will greatly benefit all regions in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Some decisions, relating, for example, to future transport proposals, should, indeed, be taken at the regional level. The pace of change is not determined by the Government or by announcements made by the Chancellor. The pace is determined by the people of the regions themselves.

My Lords, as the immediate past chairman of the North West Regional Assembly, perhaps I may thank the Minister for his comments on the progress being made. Does my noble friend agree that the most important process which now needs to be developed is that of ensuring that a proper debate takes place? This issue is not much talked about among ordinary people in the North West, or even in the North East. Does my noble friend agree that more needs to be done to help local people understand how a system of devolved, elected regional assembly will benefit them?

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. I was slightly cautious when the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in raising the initial Question, implied that this is a matter of priority that is debated in every pub and club throughout the northern regions. The reality is that only a limited number of people have addressed the issue. I believe that more should be encouraged to do so. Indeed, as my noble friend stated, the next stage should be to develop a wider public debate.

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 G8 Summit. The Statement is likely to be taken immediately after the grouping of amendments to the Local Government Bill that commences with Amendment No. 10.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That Standing Order 49 (Commons Bills, if not taken up in twelve sitting days, to be dropped and not to be further proceeded with except after eight days' notice) be dispensed with to allow the Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill to be taken on Thursday next.—(Lord Carter.)

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for moving this Motion standing in the name of his noble friend the Leader of the House. I saw that she was present in the Chamber a moment ago. Perhaps she slipped away to do something more important.

The Opposition have given their approval to taking the Disqualifications Bill on Thursday afternoon. However, can the Chief Whip explain why this Motion is necessary and why eight days' warning was not given to the House? After all, this is a piece of legislation which since January has been languishing in the black hole of the legislative dustbin in this House.

My Lords, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition knows that a Standing Order of this kind has not been used since 1980. Indeed, I had the privilege of serving with the group charged to revise the Companion. The members wondered whether this Standing Order was still required, but apparently that is the case.

It was last used on 1st August 1980, a year when the House finally rose for the Summer Recess on 8th August 1980. The Standing Order is required because we received notice about it only at the end of the last week. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that the timing of Bills relating to Northern Ireland is always sensitive. The Government have sought to take this Bill forward at a time when it was felt that it would be most helpful to the process taking place in Northern Ireland. It was agreed that it would be best to take the Second Reading before the Summer Recess. The only way in which that could be done was to table the Motion before the House today.

My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the Government Chief Whip correctly. Did he mean to say that the last time that this Standing Order was set aside was in 1980? I suppose that he takes some comfort from that; but I do not. It is extraordinary that we should be setting aside the order purely for the convenience of Her Majesty's Government, who have made a mess of their legislative programme. If they do so, that is their problem, but we should not alter the Standing Orders of the House to make it easier for an incompetent administration to shove through more legislation.

My Lords, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Conservative Party was prepared to agree to this Motion being passed. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I do not think it is a question of incompetence. What the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said is manifestly sensible. It is desirable to have this matter dealt with on Thursday at a time when we shall be dealing with Northern Ireland business.

My Lords, that is exactly the position. We are merely suspending the Standing Order; we are not exactly doing away with it. It was the intention to take the Second Reading of the Bill in the overspill. It became apparent towards the end of last week that, as part of the sensitivity of the Northern Ireland process, it would be helpful if the Second Reading were taken before the Summer Recess. I am extremely grateful to the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their assistance.

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

Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:

Table of Fees

• Line 2, leave out "£3,500" and insert "£4,000"
• Line 3, leave out "£3,500" and insert "£4,000"
• Line 23, leave out "£3,500" and insert "£4,000"
• Line 29, leave out "£1,750" and insert "£2,000"
• Line 36, leave out "£1,750" and insert "£2,000"
• Line 41, leave out "£1.40" and insert "£1.60"—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the G8 Summit I have just attended in Okinawa, Japan. Copies of the communiqués we issued and the accompanying Okinawa Charter on the Global Information Society have been placed in the House Library. I give thanks to Prime Minister Mori, who hosted the occasion with great skill.

"We discussed, first, the state of the world economy, which is now recovering well from the financial crises of 1997 and 1998. The reform of the international financial architecture we set in hand when the UK chaired the G8 is firmly on track. Thirty countries have now signed up to IMF assessment of their compliance with the new international codes and standards. The IMF's new Contingent Credit Facility for countries in crisis is in place. We have established a Financial Stability Forum to look at weaknesses in the global financial system and taken action to involve the private sector more effectively in resolving crisis.

"We agreed at Okinawa that the next priority is to improve the existing mechanisms for crisis prevention, by strengthening IMF surveillance, to reform the Multilateral Development Banks to strengthen their focus on poverty and to promote improved co-operation and co-ordination between the IMF and the World Bank. Though the worst of the international financial crisis is behind us, there is no room for complacency. Above all, there was clear recognition at the summit that we must try to launch a new WTO trade round this year. Nothing is more important for the world economy than the early and successful conclusion of a new comprehensive trade round.

"Secondly, prior to the summit, Prime Minister Mori of Japan chaired a discussion with representatives from the G7, the OAU, the NAM and ASEAN which underlined once again the immense problems faced by many of the world's least developed countries, particularly in Africa—a debilitating and self-reinforcing cycle of conflict, poverty and weak governance. The G8 agreed on the following: a renewed effort to implement the Cologne agreement on debt relief. Already nine countries are receiving additional relief under the HIPC scheme, worth over 15 billion dollars. We agreed to quicken the process to get another 11 countries through to decision point by the end of this year—a further 20 billion dollars of debt relief—and to reach out to the countries currently in conflict to see how they can be brought into the process.

"We agreed to go further and faster on trade. The European Union is already committed to giving the least developed countries duty-free, quota-free access to our markets for almost all products by 2005. We agreed to strengthen the effectiveness of our development assistance and after years of wrangling finally secured a firm timetable for untying aid from January 2002 based on recent progress in the OECD.

"We agreed to support concrete quantitative targets for reducing deaths from AIDS, malaria and TB by between 25 and 50 per cent over the next decade and backed those up with a strong commitment to provide increased resources. We for our part are doubling our support for international efforts to develop new drugs and technologies for priority diseases.

"The G8 also agreed to take forward the UK initiative on conflict diamonds. Britain and Russia will now chair an international conference to consider an international agreement on a certification scheme for rough diamonds, and to tackle the link between the trade in illicit diamonds and the conflicts in Sierra Leone and other diamond-producing countries in Africa.

"At present, it costs far more to access the Internet in Uganda or Kenya than it does here or the United States. We agreed a series of measures set out in the charter to close the digital divide between the developed and the developing world, with huge potential for delivering educational and medical services cheaply or free across the Internet.

"This comprehensive programme reflects the real sense at the summit that with our own economics in good shape, the time has come to devote more attention and more priority to the plight of the world's poorest countries. This is not only a matter of solidarity and justice, it is also a hard-headed economic investment in our markets of the future.

"Third on our agenda was the enormous problem of drugs and organised crime. With the global market for drugs now estimated at up to 500 billion dollars a year, we need to see the international cartels for what they are—major international businesses with the same need for banking facilities, working capital and investment funds as any other business. The G8 agreed to a further clampdown on money laundering, tax evasion and banking secrecy. That will be underpinned by eight standards developed by G7 Finance Ministers in a new report published at Okinawa which set out the measures with which financial centres will need to comply to avoid sanctions in future.

"Fourthly, we discussed the issues raised by GM foods and crops. Obviously there are still differences of view within the G8 on the risks associated with the new GM technologies. But we all agreed on the need to work harder to establish a clearer scientific consensus and to base policy and trade decisions on science.

"Fifthly, we discussed the environment, where we agreed to tackle illegal logging, and to encourage renewable energy in developing countries where 2 billion people currently have no electricity, and pledged to work harder on early entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

"In addition to the formal business of the summit, I had bilateral meetings with the other G8 leaders. My meeting with President Putin was especially valuable. I also had a useful discussion with President Clinton on the Middle East, the Balkans and Africa.

"People will always find plenty to criticise when international leaders gather. But it is worth remembering that it was the decisions made following the Birmingham Summit two years ago that led to a new financial architecture that has brought greater stability to the world economy; good for jobs; good for living standards. It was at Cologne last year that we made the big breakthrough on debt, and contributed substantially to ending the conflict in Kosovo. And as a result of the decisions made this year in Okinawa, over time fewer children will die of killer diseases like AIDS, TB and malaria; more children will be lifted out of poverty; more children will get access to basic education; more people in the developing world will get access to computers and electricity, and the measures agreed in relation to crime and drugs will make a real difference in a fight that can be won only at the international level.

"Britain played a leading role in shaping the agenda and the main outcomes of the summit. Both on the world stage and in Europe, the Government are standing up for Britain and standing up for what is right".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago in another place. But I wonder whether the noble Baroness read the Guardian this morning, and whether she has any response to the conclusion that it reached that Okinawa was a "talking and eating shop".

Naturally enough, in his Statement, the Prime Minister did not report on the alleged costs of this summit. However, can the noble Baroness confirm the reported cost? Is £500 million not a little on the steep side for such a meeting? Indeed, it would keep this House running not for just a weekend but for a decade. We can imagine what that amount of money could have done to relieve poverty and sickness in Africa. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Foreign Secretary, whose taste for frugal living is so well known, raised any concerns over the level of spending? Can she also tell us what specific action the Government will take to encourage a limit on spending at future summits?

We note the active involvement of President Putin in the summit. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether Mr Putin's visit to North Korea led to any breakthrough on the North Korean missile programme and whether there was any discussion on the proposal of the United States for an anti-missile shield? If so, can she tell us how her right honourable friends set out the UK's policy to Mr Putin on AMD? Further, was the Prime Minister able to support Mr Putin's proposal to hold the next meeting of the G8 in Russia?

Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the Prime Minister had the opportunity in these bilateral discussions to raise the now increasingly fatuous boycott of Austria by the EU 14? Did he try to involve Japan or the United States in a diplomatic boycott of Austria? If not, is it not high time to drop participation in this boycott unilaterally? If the Government fail to raise it, does it not mean that they have no real commitment to it?

The conclusions that have been reported refer to discussions on GM foods at the summit. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how the Prime Minister set out the UK position? Did he, as has been widely reported, echo the views of President Clinton that GM foods are safe and that that trade should be opened up? I wonder whether that is consistent with current United Kingdom policy and the very real fears that are held by people in this country.

Before the summit, the Prime Minister set out the central issue for the summit as being to carry forward action on third-world debt, and pledged his leadership on that issue. He said that he wished to be associated as closely as possible with the conclusions. There is a feeling that, once again, in this as in much else, rhetoric was followed by failure. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether anything new was actually achieved in this area? For example, was any debt cancelled as a result of this summit at Okinawa? Were new defences put in place to prevent future irresponsible spending on arms and lavish living by élites in highly indebted nations? Is the noble Baroness aware that we on this side of the House would welcome real progress on debt relief, accompanied by such measures? But, sadly, we see none as a result of this summit.

What new thinking emerged from this summit reflects credit on the Japanese presidency. It tried to cut through verbiage to find ways to help poorer nations, to extend the IT revolution, and to combat disease and poor education. But how will that now be translated into very real practical action? The problems of malnutrition, poverty, disease and inadequate education are too real and too painful to be assuaged by fine words alone. This summit must not be allowed to go the same way as did so many in the past that the Prime Minister has attended—seemingly fine words, followed by hollow and empty inaction. On this occasion, we must all hope that that pattern is not repeated.

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for what I regard as the unrewarding chore of repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I put it that way because, despite the enjoinder in the Statement, it is right to be deeply sceptical about the purpose and achievements of Okinawa; and, indeed, of G7, and now G8, generally.

I agree with the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the cost of the event. There were reports of television screens being provided for the whole of Africa under one initiative. Indeed, there were times when one thought of men and women in many of the worst-affected parts of the world sitting in front of their computer screens surfing the Internet, while dying of poverty or AIDS. I am glad to say that later in the summit some attention was given to those matters. But it is easy to believe that such occasions sometimes border on the frivolous when dealing with some of the most fundamental issues of our time.

However, the problem of G7/G8 goes beyond the events of Okinawa. It is right to ask whether there is a crisis of identity that the Government should address as regards the future of G7 and G8. For example, the European Union has four places on G7, but the very important East Asian group of nations—particularly important financially—has only Japan to represent it. Russia is included in G8, not for reasons of its wealth but for geo-political reasons. If Russia is included, why not China? Then there is the role of Canada. Canada is included, although the United States is an adequate representative of North America. But Australia, which has an important geo-political role and is a rich country, is not represented in either G7 or G8.

The latter are important issues. I do not expect the noble Baroness to give a detailed reply, but I should find it reassuring if she were to say that such matters are in the Government's mind and that they are considering whether G7 and G8 in their present forms will really serve our purpose best in the future. I should also like to know whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the right mechanisms exist for ensuring that summit decisions are implemented. Alternatively, do the world leaders go from summit to summit, year after year—for example, Birmingham, Cologne and now Okinawa—paying very little attention in the mean time to what happens in between to implement their decisions?

Of all recent summits, it is true to say that there is a dangerous gap between declaration and delivery as regards the aspirations of summits, which are often worthy, and the consequences of the decisions that have been made. For example, that would apply to a number of references to the future made in the Statement that I believe all of us can welcome. I have in mind the references in its closing paragraphs to health and other matters. We have to say that these remain aspirations until there is evidence, next year and thereafter, that steps are being taken to implement such declarations.

When it comes to the question of debt, the issue of delivery is particularly in evidence. When we debated the Cologne Statement and the question of world debt on 21st June last year, I recall that I asked (at col. 680 of Hansard) what "practical steps" would then be taken to implement the decisions taken over that weekend; in other words, I wanted to know precisely what would happen after the summit. I was struck this Friday by the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, seeking to justify what appeared to be a lack of progress in this respect. I make no criticism; indeed, I found her arguments to be quite strong. However, at the same time, the Prime Minister's team in Okinawa was suggesting that he was surprised at the shortfall and was making inquiries as to how it had occurred. We need to know whether the Government are keeping abreast of developments on the repayment of world debt.

Here I turn, again, to the Statement and what it says about the new timetable. It indicates that the summit hopes that the countries to which G7/G8 were committed last year will begin to gain the benefits of the decision on their debt by the end of the year. Could the noble Baroness tell the House what practical steps will be taken now to implement that decision? Within the next few months, how can we measure whether we are making adequate progress in that direction?

We can welcome some of the things in the Statement, but given past performance overall, I believe that we in this House and the nation need persuading that it was not just another meeting of world leaders, useful in itself, but with its importance much exaggerated.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to discussions on defence. I add my voice in asking whether—obviously not in the main conference, but on its margins—there was any discussion about the Strategic Defence Initiative. In this context we must remember that the show was stolen by President Putin. If there was discussion at the margins of the meeting, what did President Putin say about his discussions in North Korea and what in turn did the Americans say as to whether or when they might push the matter forward?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for welcoming the Statement. I begin with the point that each of them made concerning the cost and what they referred to as the extravagance of the summit, and its appropriateness. As always, both noble lords were immensely courteous and considered in their responses. But I believe that the individual criticisms of the way in which the Japanese Government hosted the conference perhaps verge on the discourteous. It is clearly not for the UK Government to criticise their host in that way. When the Birmingham Summit was held two years ago, the cost to this Government was £6.5 million. That was considerably less than the cost of the Okinawa Summit. However, it is worth pointing out what the Japanese Government and their spokespeople have pointed out on several occasions; namely, that a great deal of the expenditure was investment in what is quite a poor area of the Japanese economy. As I say, it is not for the UK Government to criticise the way in which their host chose to hold this particular event.

The question of debt was clearly the most important and, in some ways, the most difficult part of the summit itself. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged that there was not such fast progress as the UK had hoped for. But there have been positive moves on debt repayment. For example, more has been achieved in the 10 months since the last IMF meeting on debt repayment under the HIPC II agreement than was agreed in three years under the previous initiative. There has been more done in one year than there was in the previous decade on that basis. That means that there has been real progress. Countries such as Uganda and Bolivia came within the scope of the original debt relief. They have already been in receipt of an extra 1.3 billion dollars to spend on their own economies. In a sense, that answers some of the issues on the way those economies and the people who live within them will be directly affected.

As noble Lords will be aware, nine countries have so far come within the terms of the HIPC II agreement. As a result of the Okinawa Summit it is hoped and intended that a further 11 countries will come within its scope. In practice that means that of the 100 billion dollars agreed at Cologne last year, as I am sure the House understands, 50 billion dollars of that figure was for the states themselves to "forgive", if that is the appropriate word, and give up the requirement on the debt repayment. At the moment around 20 billion dollars have been repaid. If we include the extra 11 countries by the end of the year, there will be another 15 billion dollars. Therefore, we are talking about making progress towards three-quarters of the target suggested at Cologne.

As I have said, the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that from the perspective of the United Kingdom, we would have preferred to go faster. But those particular achievements should be neither ignored nor underestimated, particularly in the context of the previous decade of non-activity in this field.

It is also worth underlining what the United Kingdom has done bilaterally. It has taken a leading position. We understand that the HIPC countries owe us £1.7 billion. So far, of the nine countries which have reached their so-called decision point, we as a country have been writing off about £241 million which they owe us. If the further 11 countries reach their decision point by the end of this year, the total UK Government write-off will then be £659 million for the 20 countries. That leaves £1.6 billion of HIPC debt outstanding.

It should be pointed out that a great proportion of this money is from countries involved in conflict. That is the problem for many of the countries which have not reached the decision point in the overall HIPC plan, and precludes writing off the debt. It would be quite inappropriate for the debt to be written off with the understanding that any of the moneys that became available were being used to finance internal conflict, unlike Bolivia and Uganda where we hope that they have been used for investment in public services and so forth. That would be entirely inappropriate and against the programme's objectives.

We have expressed concern about keeping up the momentum. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, we will monitor closely the progress of the other 11 countries. We believe that the United Kingdom has made good progress in this field. Overall, three-quarters of the agreements made at Cologne will have been achieved by the end of this year. The other agreements have not been achieved largely because of internal concerns, particularly wars within the countries which have not yet reached the decision point. They might be potentially eligible for relief, but not under those circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, raised the question in general as to whether the G7 or G8 has any locus in the context of discussing the issues leading to proper action. It is worth recalling that there have been substantial agreements in the past, and indeed at this particular summit, as a result of the leaders coming together in an informal context leading to frank and useful discussion. For example, when one considers the things achieved by G8 since the Birmingham Summit which this country hosted, one sees that we have secured substantial reforms of the international financial architecture in response to the Asian financial crisis. That was begun under the presidency of the United Kingdom. I say in parenthesis that material relating to the meetings of the finance ministers before the summits which produced the detail on this subject and financial crime have been placed in the Library. They are ongoing and are additional back-up to the G8 process and they are useful in that way.

Another achievement has been the united response to the India-Pakistan nuclear testing question.

There is also the question of heavily indebted countries' relief. As I have said several times, we are making slightly slower progress than we had hoped. However, progress would probably not have taken place at all but for the G7 and G8 arrangements. I believe it would be widely agreed that in 1999 the G8 was the effective forum for negotiating the Kosovo peace agreement culminating in Russia's reconciliation with the West. Indeed, this particular summit has enabled President Putin to play a very important part and to be a significant player at international conferences in a way which we perhaps might not have been foreseen some time ago.

As regards President Putin's involvement in the summit and the Russian situation, it is not the case that the missile plans of the United States were discussed formally within the summit. My understanding is that the only issues which were talked about as regards nuclear safety concerned the surplus Russian weapons grade plutonium. How that is dealt with is obviously of paramount importance for the fulfilment of a G8-shared non-proliferation and disarmament goal. Once again, once sees the G8 format and forum as a medium through which these matters can be moved forward.

As far as I understand—I was not present—the Russians did not ask for debt rescheduling or to host any summit in the future. I was not personally present. I believe they recognised that as they are not yet even members of the WTO, they need to improve some of their international arrangements, particularly on the financial side, before that type of issue can be discussed in any realistic way.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me about GM foods and whether anything which had been said, either within the summit or in the policy statements and press conferences since then, reflected a change in UK government policy. As has been said consistently, there has been no change in UK government policy either pro or anti-GM foods or crops. However, we have consistently argued—and did again at Okinawa—that there should be a sensible debate based on science rather than emotion, as the Statement said. That was the rationale behind the Edinburgh conference on GM food safety that the UK funded. The UK is keen to see the development of other fora based on scientific exchange of information and view of that kind. We hope that that will be progressed as a result of the discussions at Okinawa.

On the general point of debt relief, I mention again not just the enormous change that has occurred in the past 10 months as a result of the agreements at Cologne but also the fact that the aid budgets have been increased. The UK aid budget, for example, has increased by 20 per cent under the new CSR agreement. That is something of which we should be proud, both as a government and as a people.

I was slightly surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, criticise the record of the Government in this international development area when one considers the record of the previous administration where the aid budget was reduced and where in 18 years no progress was made on any kind of debt settlement of the kind which I have described as having occurred in the past 10 months and the past year. However, I fully recognise—as did my right honourable friend in the Statement—that we have not made sufficient progress, but something is better than nothing.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while many of us would applaud what she said about the record of this Government in their commitment to the third world, there is on this side of the House profound disappointment about the progress made on debt? For many of those working in the front line of development, debt is a life or death issue. After the British Government have given such a magnificent lead, it is disappointing that the response of others has not been better. Does not my noble friend agree that it would be unfortunate if the message that went out was one of rationalising that some progress has been made rather than one of profound disappointment that more progress has not been made? Does my noble friend also agree that while it is excellent that Russia is becoming part of these conversations about the future of the world—that cannot be anything but good for the future of the world—part of that process means that one must abide by the spirit and the commitments of those who are already in the club? I hope therefore that my noble friend can assure the House that a firm line was taken with Russia on the totally unacceptable way in which it has conducted its campaign in Chechnya.

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. I hope that he took from what I said that the UK Government have been concerned about the rate of progress on the debt issue and recognise that a number of the NGOs, for example, Jubilee 2000 and Oxfam, with which my noble friend has a distinguished association, were disappointed by what happened. I believe that that is reflected in the tone of the Statement. As I said earlier, we should acknowledge what has been achieved; namely, that a great deal of debt which might not have been cancelled has been as a result of the G8 process. I am sure that my noble friend would acknowledge that some of the other progress made at Okinawa, particularly as regards the commitment to untie aid by the end of next year—it is estimated that the tying of aid reduces its effectiveness by up to 25 per cent—is a great support for development of a productive kind in the developing world. Other matters such as the commitment to tackling health concerns in the developing world, particularly AIDS and tuberculosis, will assist the development and prosperity of those countries. As was mentioned in the Statement, the UK has agreed to double its commitment to health expenditure in those fields in the developing world.

My noble friend referred to Russia and Chechnya. I reassure him that the UK Government's concerns about Chechnya were expressed to President Putin. I am sure that all members of the group who met in Okinawa expressed those concerns. However, I reinforce what the Prime Minister has said on several occasions; namely, that engagement with President Putin and with Russia is the best way to achieve influence with that new government.

My Lords, the Government's Statement referred to the proposal for the introduction of a scheme for certification of diamonds in international trade by which each stone would be accompanied by a certificate of origin. If this is the case, I have serious doubts about its practicality. I hope that the Government will consider this matter again for the following reasons. It is only too easy to see that the certificate could be detached from a diamond and itself become an object of value. It is impossible by examining a diamond to determine from where it comes as they all resemble each other with certain rare exceptions; the one that is familiar to me being yellow diamonds which come from Brazil, artificially manufactured diamonds for industrial use which come from the United States, and blue diamonds which are so expensive that one ought not even to think of buying them. Would it not be better to think of an alternative arrangement of a central market-place in which each diamond producing country would be responsible for the authenticity of the diamonds it presented and they would have to appear on a list approved by the Security Council of the United Nations?

My Lords, the noble Lord suggests an interesting and useful way to tackle this dilemma. I am sure that the noble Lord and the whole House recognise that problems arise in such countries as Sierra Leone where the illegal diamond trade—if one may express it in that way—is obviously financing and fuelling a vicious internal conflict and internal war. Therefore, some degree of regulation needs to be sought, even if it cannot be achieved perfectly, as the noble Lord suggests.

I hope that I may correct the noble Lord on a small point which I was confused about. I understand that the proposed scheme does not relate to individual diamonds but to blocks of diamonds—if one may use that term—in the sense of the resources of particular products from individual markets. That is being taken forward by a working group known as the Kimberley Group, which has brought together a number of those involved in the industry and in the production of diamonds in several countries, notably from South Africa—as noble Lords will gather from the group's title—but also from other countries.

This process has been ongoing for some time. I do not know whether the group has considered the noble Lord's proposal for a practical solution to the problem, but it is considering many different issues. The Okinawa conference agreed that there should be an expert conference to review the outcome of the Kimberley Group's findings and perhaps to take on board some other good ideas, such as the one we have just heard. That will be co-chaired by the UK and Russia as countries with a particular historic and current economic interest in that field.

My Lords, in her positive account of the achievements of Okinawa, my noble friend the Leader of the House referred only briefly to market access which is of key importance to developing countries if they are to lever themselves out of poverty. Can she say a little more about what happened there and whether the Government achieved their aim?

My Lords, my noble friend rightly mentions market access as being of immense importance to the developing world. The UK Government have led calls for strengthened commitment to that for the least developed countries. The G8 committed to go further with much greater urgency in this area. The UK would have preferred there to be a specific deadline agreed of 2005. This has been agreed by the EU as its target date for duty free access for nearly all goods. However, the general expectation that this was an important issue on which more and greater action needed to be taken was recognised at Okinawa.

My Lords, at future G8 summits will the United Kingdom retain its own separate place if this country joins the euro?

My Lords, I see no reason to suppose that any change of this country's position on the euro would have any impact on its G8 status any more than it has done in the case of other countries.

My Lords, the Statement referred to major communicable diseases; I welcome the British additional contribution on this front. Does the Statement mean that additional funds will be available to the World Health Organisation? Does the Leader of the House consider that using this organisation, in partnership with developing countries, is the best way of tackling the problem?

Very briefly on organised crime, will the noble Baroness, as Minister for Women, take a special interest in the trafficking of women for prostitution? Can she try to ensure that police forces in various countries do not try simply to contain this, but really make an effort to stop it?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. On the health issue, I agree with him that the WHO is clearly a very important partner in this area. He will know very well how the funds for the WHO are arranged, which is not through the G8 but through the member governments of the WHO. The overall commitment to agree the very ambitious targets—on, for example, AIDS and TB—will require additional funds if they are to be fulfilled. Of course, although the WHO is very important—indeed, it is probably the leading player in this international field— others are involved. We have, for example, worked with the international pharmaceutical business and others to try to reduce the prices of expensive drugs in the developing world.

One cannot overestimate the need within the developing countries—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa—for a basic improvement in primary healthcare before any sophisticated changes in terms of new pharmaceuticals and new drugs can usefully be exported, and before any new technologies for dealing with these infectious diseases can be taken on board.

Education is also very important in this area. Health promotion and health education are particularly important in relation to, for example, the fight against the spread of HIV and AIDS. Substantial budgets and resources to support the role of health promotion and education are probably almost as important as the enormous expenditures needed for the treatment and care of those already infected.

As to crime, I am grateful to the noble Lord for rightly raising the issue of the growing problem of trafficking in women. It is an issue which, wearing my other hat as Minister for Women, I have taken up with the European Parliament and the European Commission. It is one of the issues which, extraordinarily enough, leads in this country, although obviously not in the developing world, to a circular arrangement in which other infectious diseases are imported precisely through this route. So, as well as for reasons of social justice and the appalling crime involved in the trafficking in women, there are self-protective reasons which lead this country to take an active interest in the problem.

My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that the indebtedness of some of these countries has been caused by misappropriation of funds in the past, which have been spent on arms and on the personal expenditure of many of the leaders? Can she assure the House that in future no British taxpayers' money in aid—or, indeed, in forgiveness of debt—will be allowed to increase the profligate expenditure of these people?

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, poverty reduction is the main aim of this country's bilateral aid programme, as it is of most of the multilateral programmes to which we subscribe. The noble Lord is right, there are countries in which the issue of the way in which their internal governance is arranged—this covers most of the points raised by the noble Lord—is at least as important as some of the other matters I referred to in my original answers to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers, which concerned, for example, issues relating to internal conflict.

The noble Lord asked me to make a commitment. It would be foolish of me to do that from the Dispatch Box. On the other hand, as I said, poverty reduction is the main aim of the Government. We have said in relation to the HIPC initiative that some 12 countries have failed to come up to their eligibility status because at present they do not have agreed programmes under the IMF poverty reduction programme. Some of the disturbing factors of their internal governance, to which the noble Lord referred, are instrumental in that.

My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government have a view on how long the current arrangement of G7 plus one—that is, G8—should be maintained, or whether it would be much better to look for an early conversion from G7 to G8? I raise the issue because I am not at all clear about the substantive reasons for maintaining the current situation. President Clinton is purported—I stress, purported—to have said that it is simply a question of finance; that is, that it is necessary to discuss the finances of a debtor country among its creditors in private, without the debtor being there. I find that rather strange. Does not the noble Baroness agree that it would be much better if, at the earliest possible occasion, the Russian Federation should become part of the G8?

Does not the Minister further agree that perhaps the Federation's behaviour in Chechnya might have been rather more acceptable if it had become a proper member of the club and had been bound into the G8, rather than being held somewhat on the outside of it?

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grenfell makes a rather hypothetical and retrospective point about Russia in relation to its activities in Chechnya. We could discuss that matter in a theoretical way, but it would not throw much useful light on the future so far as concerns Russia's membership of the G8. As I said in reply to an earlier question from my noble friend Lord Judd, as a country and as a member of the G8, we are concerned to see that Russia plays its full part, and we are fully committed to supporting its integration into the global economic family of democratic states.

My noble friend raised the question of whether Russia's exclusion rests solely on financial matters; I referred to its lack of membership of the WTO and its continual indebtedness. I know that my right honourable friend and other participants in the G8 forum were very impressed by the contribution made by President Putin, but there are other elements to Russia's record—for example, its respect for international norms of human rights—which must be taken into account before the G7 becomes fully the G8.

My Lords, I, too, warmly applaud the Government's emphasis in the Statement on poverty reduction, and the length of time that the Leader of the House took to consider those problems. I also associate myself with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

However, my question concerns the issue of the trade round. Is the noble Baroness aware that in our recent debate on the World Trade Organisation, a number of very experienced Members of the House voiced their concerns about going ahead so quickly with a new trade round, bearing in mind the failures of the multilateral agreement on investment and the Seattle summit? Why do the Government wish to take the European Union line of proceeding so quickly with a new trade round?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his overall support of the underlying point of the Statement. I fully take on board the concerns he expressed about the speed of the indebtedness programme, which I reinforced in my response to my noble friend Lord Judd. As to the WTO, we need to keep the existing structures in place. Obviously those were enormously threatened last year by the failure of the Seattle meeting. But the international community, as represented in Okinawa, is concerned to see that there is not a dissipation of the structure, however skeletal and inappropriate it may have been demonstrated to be last year. Therefore, although it may seem like a rush to something which may or may not need further work and support to achieve a successful outcome, it would appear that if one relinquished the ambition to achieve the new round before the end of this year, that would be a counsel of despair.

My Lords, can the Leader of the House tell us what percentage of the funds to reduce the debt of third-world countries, which were committed with much fanfare by the Chancellor of the Exchequer following the Jubilee 2000 campaign, have now been delivered?

My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the UK's position on this matter, I can repeat—I am sure that he can do the arithmetic—the figures I gave previously. The heavily indebted poorer countries owe the UK £1.7 billion. As I said in repeating the Statement, nine countries have reached their decision point, eight of which owe money to the United Kingdom. We are therefore writing off the £241 million owed by the nine that have reached their decision point.

If the 11 countries reach their decision point by the end of this year, the total the UK will be writing off is £659 million from the 20 countries. That leaves, as I am sure the noble Lord has already worked out, £1.6 billion of outstanding HIPC debt. Sixty-five per cent of that is owed by Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo, countries for which the effect of conflict undermined progress on the commitments to poverty reduction and hence to debt relief. We have already discussed those points in a way which will have made clear to your Lordships' House the kind of barriers that still exist to debt relief on a universal scale.