asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their response to the Audit Commission report on accident and emergency services.

My Lords, the Government have taken note of the recent Audit Commission report. We launched a £118 million strategy Reforming Emergency Care to reorganise emergency care in the NHS. Reducing long waits in A&E is at the heart of this ground-breaking strategy. The strategy and the significant investment attached to it reflect the priority that the Government place on improving access to emergency care.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the Government's investment in A&E services and in other aspects of the NHS. However, the majority of people attending A&E departments are elderly, and for such people waiting times are often a life and death situation. Given that fact, does the Minister agree that it is important that older people, who often suffer from multiple symptoms and pathologies, should be seen in A&E by professionals who understand and are qualified to manage their various needs?

My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness. I certainly hope that, as part of the reform of emergency care and the implementation of our national service framework for older people, NHS trusts will ensure that services in A&E and others parts of a hospital are sensitive to the needs of older people. The patient forums which are shortly to be established in every trust will also provide a strong consumer view for the trust board to consider. I am sure that the needs of older people will figure largely in those discussions.

My Lords, will the Minister reassure the House that the triage system of determining those in most urgent need of treatment still operates in accident and emergency departments, irrespective of age?

Yes, my Lords. In the proposals on emergency care, one of the key recommendations is that in future patients should be streamed. A&E patients are currently expected to wait in a single queue. Often, that means that those with the least serious problems find themselves continually put at the back of the queue when patients with more serious problems arrive—and that is understandable. The new emergency care policy suggests that at the triage stage people are separated. Those in need of urgent treatment will be fast-tracked, but those who require non-urgent treatment will be seen by a dedicated group of staff. Research undertaken by Warwick University suggests that by organising services in that way we can reduce overall waiting times for everyone.

My Lords, my noble friend will perhaps not be aware of the fact that I spent eight hours in A&E last Sunday. I hasten to assure your Lordships that I was not the potential patient: I was simply the person looking after another potential patient. I hope my noble friend will agree that seven or eight hours is a very long period of time to spend in A&E. But the main problem, on which I should be interested to know the Government's view, is that no one knows what is going on. One is just sitting there, with, in this case, a young person—waiting, and waiting, and waiting. The psychological damage seems to me to be enormous—not merely to the patient, but in this case to me!

My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the psychological problems affecting my noble friend as a result of his wait in A&E. I agree with him. Long waits are very difficult in stressful circumstances. They are made all the more burdensome if people are not kept informed as to the reason for them. That is why establishing a new system whereby effectively patients will be streamed will enable people to he seen more quickly. I accept that we need to do more to inform patients and their relatives and friends as to how long it is before they are likely to be seen. Our target is that by 2004 the maximum waiting time for the whole process in A&E will be four hours. Although my noble friend regrettably had to wait eight or more hours, in terms of reduced waiting times we are on course for an interim target of 75 per cent by 2002.

My Lords, does the Minister realise that it was in 1995 that the Oxford Clinical Trial Service Unit completed its definitive report on the number of lives that would be saved if the so-called clot-busting drugs were used for heart attack patients within hours of their attack? How many patients does the Minister think have died because only one-third of our A&E departments come up to the nationally agreed standards? What will he do to ensure that the money that he talks about will not be top-sliced all the way down, so that it barely reaches the A&E departments, as has happened with the money for cancer treatment?

My Lords, the intention is that the money will be spent in A&E departments and that it will not be top-sliced. We shall performance-manage the situation to make sure that that happens. As regards drugs, in the national service framework for coronary heart disease we have set a target that, by April 2002, 75 per cent of eligible patients should be receiving thrombolysis within 30 minutes of hospital arrival, and within 20 minutes by 2003. We are making progress, and I am confident that we shall reach those targets.

My Lords, as many patients are children, does the Minister agree that in A&E departments there should be more facilities for children and more people who understand their needs?

My Lords, anyone who has taken a child to an A&E department can only agree with the noble Baroness. Some hospitals have introduced dedicated facilities for children. They have been aided in that by the modernisation fund that we have introduced, which has already brought additional moneys to 90 per cent of all A&E departments. We are also seeing an increase in the number of child-trained nurses, some of whom could work in A&E departments and ensure that children receive the kind of dedicated service that they require. We clearly need to build on that approach.

My Lords, is the Minister aware how absolutely splendid the accident and emergency people were at Perth Royal Infirmary when my daughter fell 10 feet off a ladder and the ladder fell on her leg? They dealt with her immediately.

My Lords, I was very glad to hear that. I only wish that I could claim responsibility for the trust in Perth, but I fear that I cannot. There is no doubt that we have some very high calibre and dedicated staff working in extremely pressurised situations in A&E departments. By increasing our capacity and our staff numbers and, crucially, reorganising the way in which they work, we can relieve some of the pressure on those staff and cut down the waiting times, which we are determined to do.

My Lords, I have made a couple of visits to A&E departments in the recent past. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that staff in A&E departments are properly protected from violent criminals, who come in every Friday and Saturday night, disrupting the work of the departments and intimidating the staff?

My Lords, the House is glad to see the noble Lord back in his place. I agree with him. NHS staff have been put under intolerable pressure by frightening and revolting behaviour by members of the public. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that we will support hospital management in taking decisive measures to ensure that action is taken against such people and that our staff are not required to cope with the situations that the noble Lord described. There have been a number of encouraging developments, including links with local police services. In some areas, the local police force has a police station in the vicinity of the hospital. We need to build on those initiatives.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, following reports of a possible trial of beta interferon drugs for multiple sclerosis sufferers, they would support a clinical trial of anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers.

My Lords, following a recommendation from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate to establish whether those drugs might be secured for patients in the NHS in a manner that could be considered cost effective. NICE is currently appraising anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and we anticipate that its guidance will be published in March. We will consider carefully all its recommendations, including any for further research.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I remind him that there are 600,000 sufferers from rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom. It is a very painful and often progressive disease. Many of them cannot get anti-TNF drugs, even though the best clinical judgment in the country prescribes them, because of the shortage of funds in the NHS. Will the Government set up some special funding for that treatment rather than allowing this dreadful suffering to continue?

My Lords, I certainly agree that rheumatoid arthritis is a distressing illness. Many members of our community suffer a great deal of pain and distress as a result of it. It was because of issues around the anti-TNF drugs that the noble Lord has mentioned that we referred the question to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The purpose of the institute is to give definitive advice on whether a particular drug is clinically effective and cost effective. I expect that the Government and the National Assembly for Wales will receive the outcome of that advice next spring. We must await that moment before any further decisions can be made. I do not believe that a special fund is the answer. We must have a proper process of independent advice so that proper decisions can then be made.

My Lords, I accept the Minister's points. But does he accept that although for many years traditional treatments such as gold and, more recently, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents have been helpful for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the first really effective treatment to strike at the heart of the disease and to have shown itself as likely to prevent its advance is the anti-tumour necrosis factor? Is it not therefore important that the treatment should be made widely available? At the moment it is subject to the problem of postcode prescribing.

My Lords, that is exactly why we have referred the drugs to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The tradition of the NHS is for postcode prescribing under which a particular drug can be obtained in one part of the country and not in another. The existence of the institute enables independent judgment to be made on the clinical and cost effectiveness of a particular drug. If the institute so advises, there will be uniform provision of the drug across the country. I understand the impatience of patients over NICE reaching its conclusions, but we must await the outcome of the process. At the moment we are in the middle of it.

My Lords, I too appreciate my noble friend's concern and he will understand my interest in the question. Is it known why more than three times more women than men develop this cruelly devastating condition; and does it not conflict with the founding principles of the National Health Service that postcode rationing can still discriminate between them?

My Lords, the answer to the first question is that I am not aware of any specific evidence as to why more women than men should be affected, although I shall draw the noble Lord's question to the attention of those responsible for NHS research and development. On the general point, postcode prescribing is unacceptable in a national health service. That is why we set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The longer that it does its work and the more advice that it gives to the Government, the more we will eradicate postcode prescribing.

My Lords, if taken sufficiently early, the drug in question can prevent a condition becoming debilitating. Should it not be a basic consideration, whenever any such drugs are considered, whether they can prevent a condition becoming disabling? Should that not be at the front of all of NICE's considerations?

My Lords, that is one of the factors on which NICE will have to make a judgment. Before NICE was introduced, new and innovative drugs were often taken up very slowly. We have already seen that the result of NICE decisions is that, once it has given advice that a drug is likely to be clinically effective and cost effective, take-up in the NHS is quicker. We are also seeing that the initial results of advice given by NICE is considerably to increase the amount that the NHS spends on drugs.

My Lords, is it not a fact that NICE considers clinical effectiveness only in terms of the cost of the drug? Is it not important to consider the cost of the social care of patients if they are not given the drug and therefore rely on the state for everything? Should that not be a further factor to be considered in the equation?

My Lords, I understand the point raised by the noble Baroness. However, NICE's approach is fully consistent with what is described in the jargon as a societal perspective. That certainly falls within NICE's responsibility to promote clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

asked her Majesty's Government:

Whether they intend to bring forward proposals to assist with housing problems in areas such as east Lancashire, which have large numbers of cheap and substandard terraced houses many of which are standing empty.

My Lords, having recently visited east Lancashire, I fully recognise the severity of the housing problems in that area. The Government already support a substantial programme of local government expenditure on private sector housing renewal, and we will soon put legislation before Parliament to allow authorities much greater freedom to develop their strategies.

My department has also just received a proposal for the creation of a market renewal fund. I cannot, of course, commit the Government to pursuing that approach, but I welcome the work that is being done collectively by local authorities and housing providers in the North and the Midlands on that issue.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting and intriguing Answer. The problem is that in many parts of England, the bottom end of the housing market has simply collapsed. Houses can be bought extremely cheaply or, in many cases, are worthless. The Minister is quoted as saying in a local paper, the Pendle Citizen, on 8th November that the sub-region has,

"consistently missed out on cash from central government and European union regeneration schemes".

Will he confirm that that is his view? Will he also comment on the fact that in my local authority area of Pendle, where I live, the amount of money available for private sector housing regeneration work was cut by a massive 30 per cent this year compared to last year, and, since the mid-1980s, has fallen by about 70 per cent in cash terms?

My Lords, yes, I confirm the quotation. I do not know what are the precise figures for money available for private sector expenditure by local authorities on housing in the area identified by the noble Lord, but I shall write to him about them.

The overall position is that English local authorities presently provide about £400 million a year for private sector renewal. I accept that in the east Lancashire area, which I visited, local authorities have insufficient money to deal with the range of private sector housing problems—although the problem does not involve just housing but must be considered across the board. The problem involves housing, bringing jobs to the area, providing economic prosperity and working together to try to find solutions. One of the most impressive things I found when I visited six local authority areas in east Lancashire was that they were all working together with the private sector and other statutory providers to seek solutions to what are deep-seated problems.

My Lords, to what extent do the Government advise local authorities to consider the parts of their areas that are amply provided with terraced houses that are falling into disrepair and are unused before they give permission for further housing to be built?

My Lords, the planning system is intended to deal with that issue. In our planning policy, we have sought to promote the idea that local authorities consider housing strategically throughout their area. They should consider what social housing and private sector stock exists and address the housing needs of the community as a whole, so that when they consider which houses in their possession to renovate and which planning permissions to grant, they have a strategic view of the community's needs.

My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Minister will be aware of the work that my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead—he is a good friend—is doing in Burnley. Perhaps the Minister had Burnley in mind when he mentioned visiting that area. Does he agree with my noble friend Lord Clarke that demolition of houses is a priority and that money should be provided to get the housing catastrophe into some order?

My Lords, I am aware of the good work that my noble friend Lord Clarke is doing in Burnley, and I should like to pay tribute to the amount of time and effort that he has put into his report.

When one visits east Lancashire—and other parts of the country—it is perfectly plain that there are significant areas in which substantial abandonment of housing is occurring. Once abandonment starts, it destroys communities. In some places, demolition and clearance will be the right course; but not in others. Each place will have a different solution, and the right thing is to identify what is the particular solution for the particular area.

My Lords, does the Minister realise the concern, especially in rural authorities, about the number of new properties that will have to be provided? Will he tell us how the Government will first deal with the 750,000 properties that are lying empty, before forcing authorities to provide far more properties than they require, especially in the green belt?

My Lords, we are conscious that a proper approach must be taken to releasing land for housing. That is why, in national planning guidance PPG 3, we have instituted a policy that brownfield land should be used first, and only if no brownfield land is available should greenfield sites be used.

The 750,000 empty properties represent an important issue. We have introduced several measures to seek to encourage the owners of empty properties to bring them back into use. Those measures have not been wholly successful, because it is frequently difficult to identify who is the owner of a property and many such properties are in areas in which there is total market failure—that is, a significant number of houses are being abandoned and no one wants to live in the area because there are so many voids.

The problem of empty properties is not simply about persuading owners to renovate them; it involves precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to in his Question: trying to revive the market—often in the areas of lowest income—to try to provide proper communities.

My Lords, the Minister did not answer my question.

My Lords, we have reached the 24th minute, and there is another important Question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will make public immediately the full text of the 1998 Survey of Employment Tribunals so that Parliament can judge the case for restricting access to employment tribunals as proposed by the Employment Bill 2001.

My Lords, publication of the full report has been delayed because a routing problem with the computer program means that we do not have a complete data set for a number of questions. We are planning to publish the full report and data set in February, recognising the desire of your Lordships to see them before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill 2001.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but does he appreciate that he is talking about a piece of research, a telephone survey, which was begun in 1995? Seven years later we do not have a complete data set. I think we should throw it away. But if we do not do that, perhaps we should do it again and in the meantime surely we should not keep quoting it, as we do, or misquoting it, as we have done. It has been misquoted to suggest that what it is telling us is that the workers and employers of this country are rushing to litigation like an avalanche. However, there is no evidence of that except, of course, the evidence of this useless survey. The employers—they apparently have some access to it—say it means that 64 per cent of respondents never approached their employers on the matter. The Government do not say that; the Government say a different thing every time they quote the survey. If we are to find out anything about this matter, and if we are to justify the Bill, for goodness sake publish the survey or tear it up.

My Lords, I am not certain of the question that I am supposed to be answering. I shall make some equally general remarks about the report. I believe that it was prepared in 1998. As I hope I explained, the problem is that these days these surveys are conducted by people who use a computer to direct them to different parts of a question. As a result of the failure of the computer program, we do not have complete data sets for some of the answers, but not all of them. We have used parts of the report where we have full data sets. As regards the statistic to which the noble Lord referred, that is based on robust data. Indeed, when we publish the survey—as I said, it will be published before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill—we shall at the same time deposit a full and sound data set in the ESRC data archive so that people can see how that statistic is derived.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that—if I ask a slightly more precise question to help him—many of the people who these days go to employment tribunals do so because of cases of racial discrimination or sexual harassment? If the Government in Clauses 22 and 23 of the new Bill bring in cost measures that are likely to deter those complainants, if this House is to pass that legislation we shall need more information than we have currently.

My Lords, two minor changes have been proposed in terms of costs. Those relate to the fact that the general principle of the Bill is a fair one which already exists; that is, that respondents or applicants who waste time making or defending hopeless cases should face the consequences of their actions. That applies both to applicants and to respondents. We propose that where there are additional costs other than legal costs they should be taken into account and that that can apply to representatives, although not to non-profit-making bodies.

My Lords, is it not true —

My Lords—

My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.

My Lords, is it not true that the excuse of computer programs not functioning is getting as much credence now as that of "the cheque is in the post"? Is the Minister responsible for computer programs and IT generally in the Government and, if not, will he pass on to whoever is the suggestion that perhaps it might be a good idea to have a root and branch look at all our computers as this excuse has come up on so many occasions?

My Lords, I think that there is much evidence over many years under many governments that when governments say there has been a computer problem there almost certainly has been a computer problem. There was in this case. I believe that the survey was carried out by agents for the government. I can only say that what happened was regrettable and we seek constantly to make certain that these incidents do not occur.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is not just regrettable but also not particularly funny if workers are not to be allowed to enforce their rights through tribunals? Does he further accept that the research produced for his own department published this year by Burgess, Cropper and Wilson, shows that the increase in the number of tribunal cases has nothing whatever to do with some fever for litigation by British workers, it has to do with changes in the labour force industrial structure and the tribunals' jurisdiction, as stated in the headline to their conclusions? Does he also accept, especially in view of what he said about the competence or incompetence of what has been done with the survey, that this "Mickey Mouse" telephone survey does not invalidate the Burgess research and does nothing—especially when the Government have themselves misrepresented the conclusions in their consultative document—to show that workers have engaged upon some fever of reckless litigation which any trade unionist knows perfectly well is not the case?

My Lords, I do not think that either I or the Government have implied that we are talking about a fever of litigation. There are a number of good reasons why the number of applications to employment tribunals has trebled since 1990. I refer to new employment rights; the effect of specific decisions of the European Court of Justice and certain case-law decisions. However, I do not think that they totally explain the rise. But that is not the issue that we are addressing in this case. We think it is in the interests of all parties, employees, employers and taxpayers, that there should be a proper dialogue in the workplace and that claims, if possible, should be dealt with there rather than be taken to a tribunal. It is not in the interests of anyone—employees, employers or taxpayers—that cases should be taken to tribunals which almost always results in a breakdown of the employment relationship. Through the Bill we seek to remedy what is clearly the situation; namely, that a substantial amount of these claims never go through a grievance procedure. That is the case as regards employers on many occasions and sometimes as regards employees.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has asked me to draw to the attention of the House a significant correction in Hansard which is to be found in last Friday's Hansard of 16th November at col. 859. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will be pleased to note that this was due to a computer error. The topic was a very important one, Europe, and those noble Lords whose offerings were not recorded sufficiently for posterity were the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Heathrow Terminal 5.

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

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 20, revising Article 207 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has built an extremely elaborate castle on the modest foundations of this amendment. First, I remind him that I was listening again—for the second time in two weeks—to a group of visiting American officials, who began by reminding us that the United States strongly supports a European security and defence policy. As one of them said, "We bought into this after St. Malo". They also said that the United States now sees the NATO relationship as being balanced between a more coherent European security and defence policy and the United States.

Secondly, my understanding is that the model for the role of High Representative was precisely designed on the role of the NATO Secretary-General and that the intention was that something like that useful model would operate in relation to the High Representative. It was partly for that reason that the first person appointed by the European Union to be High Representative was the serving NATO Secretary-General.

Thirdly, I turn to the role of QMV in relation to that position and the President of the Commission. As those who were in the previous Conservative government should remember, one reason for the introduction of that approach was the competitive vetoing of nominees for President of the Commission by Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Major. As a result, we lost Ruud Lubbers, who would have been an excellent President of the Commission, and Jean-Luc Dehaene, who might have been a good president, and we found ourselves with Mr Santer instead. There is a good argument for gaining as much as we can in terms of consensus but for preventing the kind of competitive vetoing that unfortunately mars this business.

We should stick closely to the proposed clause and not wander into questions about the future European army or where we might be in 25 years. The proposal is an entirely helpful step forward.

We are dealing with a simple series of amendments, which relate to a simple series of provisions in the treaty, and we are dealing with a single point—the relevant voting arrangements. In other words, we are concerned with the change from unanimity to QMV in relation to several appointments to European institutions and other bodies, starting with the Secretary-General of the Council, which is the subject of the amendment. We shall later deal with appointments to the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is in his place. Although he apparently has nothing to declare on European affairs except his genius, on the previous occasion on which we discussed the Bill he commented on the pensions of some noble Lords. I am happy to state that I worked for many years in the United Kingdom Civil Service and that I have a pension from the United Kingdom Government. I worked for rather fewer years in European institutions and I have a pension from that source as well. That seems pretty normal to me. I am also a co-chairman of Europe 21.

Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, who sets some Members of the Committee an excellent example. I trust that it will be followed in the course of our debate.

I add that the noble Lord recognises that he has only to declare his genius—that is to be welcomed.

I made it clear at Second Reading that my view is that with the Treaty of Nice we have come to the end of the road of changes with regard to unanimity and QMV. It is wise to retain unanimity in relation to several important matters, such as constitutional change, taxation and so on. However, the decisions that we are now discussing—those about appointments—are suitable for QMV and may in some cases reduce the rather undesirable tendency to excessive bargaining about such appointments. There can be advantages in that. So far as concerns the Secretary-General of the Council, especially in his role as High Representative, we have to keep in mind the fact that we are in the intergovernmental sphere. Whatever his method of appointment, he remains fully under the control of the member states.

There is a wide difference between the types of appointments. Some of them are important, such as that of the Secretary-General of the Council, and others are less important because they are predominantly decided beforehand, such as the appointments to the Committee of the Regions. It is justified to move to QMV in relation to all of those appointments.

I do not in any way take a doctrinaire view on the question of QMV. We need efficiency and to protect the important interests of member states. The proposed change to the Treaty of Nice does not in any way damage the essential interests of the United Kingdom. I support the change to the treaty and I do not support the amendment.

My noble friend Lord Howell, who moved the amendment, highlighted one of the continuing anxieties—not so much what the proposed changes in the treaty imply, but whether ultimately they will lead to further consequences. As has already been said, this debate is being carried out not in a vacuum but against the wishes of Señor Prodi. He is obviously the star turn so far as concerns my noble friend; he is certainly valuable to all of us as a source of quotations. However, no joke is involved. He clearly has in view the completion of the slogan, "Europe: a nation". That involves saying that Europe should have the qualities that are normally associated with a unitary state and that it should have its own foreign policy.

The question of whether the appointment is made by qualified majority voting or by unanimity is a narrow one. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that it is not a ditch upon which one would want to fight and die. However, the issue touches upon whether a move to qualified majority voting will encourage those who have as an objective a European foreign policy, or whether staying with unanimity will retain the present situation whereby the affairs of the European Union are conducted substantially outside the existing, closely-knit Commission-generated apparatus.

This debate relates to the enlargement of the European Union. We should apply that test all the time. It is a Union that will accept the applicant states and inevitably, unavoidably and logically Turkey also. It appears to me that in a European Union of such a size we should play the hand of diversity because Europe will become diverse. We are a European Union of many proud, national states, with national interests, able to play those interests to the advantage of the Community generally.

I speak in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who played so signal a role in developing the Anglo-American relationship. We like to believe that we made that contribution to the European Union. The same may be true of other countries. The enlargement includes Poland. What better country is there to speak to Ukraine and to Russia than a country with Poland's experience? In relation to Turkey, we can consider the set of relationships that will be brought into play in regard to the Middle East, which will be so much more germane because of the events of 11th September.

That is the Europe that beckons; it is a Europe that is wider and more diverse. In my view, if the role of the Secretary-General did not exist we would still have a satisfactory arrangement for European policies based upon a reconciliation of our joint national interests. That is the shadow behind this debate. Of course, this debate is on a relatively narrow point, but I was delighted to hear my noble friend make his points. I do not know whether he will press the amendment to a Division, but I shall be happy to say that I look to a diverse Europe that does not need this drift towards centralisation. Indeed, it requires that such a drift be reversed.

It appears to me that qualified majority voting arouses strong feelings that are often based on a misplaced analysis. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, has just made a cry for diversity, but a European Union of 27 with no qualified majority voting would resemble the medieval Polish parliament where everyone had a veto. I doubt that our Polish friends would thank us for recreating their medieval parliament just as they arrive in the European Union.

On qualified majority voting for such appointments, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that unanimity does not always achieve good results. I shall choose my words carefully. The two "least good" Presidents of the Commission in living memory were chosen after a veto by someone. That is not a very happy precedent. Moreover, when qualified majority voting is used in the European Union votes are not required all the time as, frequently, it encourages consensus. It means that one country out of 27 cannot block abusively a nomination.

I believe that the case for the change to the Treaty of Nice is quite good and I support it. I also consider that what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the appointment of the High Representative was a confusion of two points. Whether the High Representative is appointed by qualified majority or by unanimity does not affect, one way or the other, his ability or stupidity in relation to exceeding his powers. That simply does not arise. However, there is the matter of whether in exceeding his powers the High Representative is under the control of the member states or not and that relates to whether foreign policy decisions are taken by unanimity or by qualified majority voting. The situation remains that such decisions are taken by unanimity, so the scope for exceeding his powers is slight. In that context I regard the matter of how the High Representative is chosen as an irrelevance.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the powerful arguments that he advanced for having qualified majority voting in the foreign policy area so as to stop a few countries preventing a joint action of the kind currently taking place with the United States. I am not convinced by that argument. I believe that keeping unanimity in the main issues of foreign policy will be necessary.

Furthermore, I do not agree with the view that foreign policy issues have been sliding towards the Commission. I am well aware of what the President of the Commission has said. Presidents of the Commission have been saying that for years and they have not advanced towards their goal of achieving greater influence in foreign policy. Rather the contrary has happened. In recent years, the foreign policy work of the European Union has moved away from the Commission; not towards it. The Commission has to play a role within that, but it does not direct it. That is the reality.

When the European Union set up the office of High Representative and appointed a distinguished former Secretary-General of NATO, Mr Solana, it drove a nail into the coffin of the Commission's hopes of controlling foreign policy. That does not mean to say that every President of the Commission from now until eternity will not make speeches saying that he believes that that is a shame and that he wishes it were otherwise.

The reality is as it is, and with Mr Solana, the servant of the member states, acting intergovernmentally and the dominant figure in the implementation of such foreign policy as the member states agree, I believe that the situation is much more solidly entrenched than before. I argue that the changes to make certain appointments by qualified majority voting are justified. They do not touch on the areas for which I could not support an extension of qualified majority voting; for example, a change to the treaty, an increase in the financial resources of the Community, new member states and taxation. They touch on much less important areas and I believe that the case for the change is a good one.

Any consideration of the merits of qualified majority voting always takes place on the terms of extending the role of QMV. We never have debates on the overall virtues of QMV and of unanimity. That is because there has been no case in the history of the European Union of a move away from the requirement for unanimity back towards QMV. In other words, this is a one-way street.

Of course, distinguished ex-civil servants from the Foreign Office, who have later served in the European Union, will always come forward to tell us that we are living in the best of all possible worlds, except that this treaty would make just one little improvement to make it even better than the best of all possible worlds. Never, in any circumstances, is the European Union said to have over-reached itself in its extension of its powers. This is not a debate on the merits; it is merely a debate on whether we shall take one further step this week, this year, in this treaty in the same direction. Having said that, on the issue of the appointment of the President of the Commission, there is a good case for unanimity.

The high commissioner.

The high commissioner, I am sorry. He must carry the absolute confidence of all member states.

It does not matter.

The noble Lord says that it does not matter. He need not carry—

The amendment is about the Secretary-General and not the President.

That was a slip of the tongue. We will get on to him perhaps a little later. But we can be sure that sooner or later that will come before us.

On the general issue of the merits of QMV and of unanimity, I say again what I half said in the debate on Second Reading. Those of us who in general take the view that unanimity is a safeguard must also remember that on many issues—not this one—of policy making unanimity is something of a two-edged sword. Once a UK Government say yes to a proposal—such as the Social Chapter—and it goes into the treaty, it would require unanimity of all member states to get it back out again.

So the unanimity rule can make it impossible for an incoming Parliament, however large its majority in terms of votes or seats, to change something which has been agreed within the Council. Therefore, it leaves more and more areas open to reform—should that be what the British people want—only by the nuclear option of opting out of the Treaty of Rome altogether. It pushes us down that road. We must bear that in mind. But, in general, in cases that are more administrative than consist of policy, there is a strong case for maintaining the rule of unanimity.

The problem for many of us who have been engaged in discussing these treaties over a long period of time is that we remember some of the things that were said in previous debates. During the discussions on the Amsterdam Treaty, for example, when we dealt with this question of the High Representative for defence and foreign affairs, we were told that it would be all right because he would be appointed by unanimity. Therefore, if we did not like the appointment, Britain would be able to veto it.

The ratchet moves on. With the European Union everything happens by stealth and by ratchet. The ratchet moves slowly up one and then another until eventually we arrive at the position at which those who form the European Community always wanted to arrive: that is a country called Europe. With that in mind and with the assurances that we were given at earlier times we now wonder why we had the safeguard of unanimity and why we were told that that was a safeguard. We are now told that it does not really matter whether we have unanimity; and qualified majority voting is okay. So that is one of the problems.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I listened with the utmost respect because he has much experience in these matters. But he will forgive us, I am sure, for taking what people say at face value. We cannot get away from the fact that the President of the Commission in his interview with the Independent on 4th February 2000 said:

"Step by step. the Commission is like a growing government".

There is no equivocation about that. Mr Prodi, like all Presidents of the Commission, wants to see the powers of the Commission and of European government growing and growing. At least Mr Prodi is honest enough to say what he is about. Unfortunately, other people deny that that is what he is saying he is about. It is about time that we had some straight and truthful talking about what is intended.

Not everyone reads the new arrangements in the same way. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I am discouraged. I thought that perhaps there was some good in this new arrangement; that perhaps it meant that the Council will take power from the Commission; and that it was trying to arrive at a situation that would cut the Commission down to size, because it is growing, as Mr Prodi says, too big for its boots.

I had some hope—it seems that I was wrong—that the Council was saying to the Commission, "This is going far enough", and that, "We are going to listen to what Mr Chirac says about the Commission; that it should not grow into a government, but that it should be the civil service of the European Union and the servant of the Council and not its master; and that it should not be the sole organisation and institution that proposes policy". I had some hope that that is what this was about. But unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has had much experience in this area, has disabused me of the marvellous thought that perhaps the whole thing was going to become a little more democratic. So I am disappointed that perhaps I am wrong.

On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may be wrong. It may be that that is what the governments of the EU intend. They, like so many of us, have been concerned about the Commission accruing power which it should not have. It may be that they have been listening to what we have said. It may be that they want to take power from the Commission and to exercise their considerable power in a more democratic and open way rather than from behind closed doors.

Those are my thoughts. We are in Committee. This is when we put forward our ideas, our fears and our questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to come down on my side and say that at last the elected representatives will go backwards and regain power from the Commission and not allow it to take more and more power and, indeed, become the government of Europe, as Mr Prodi so wants.

Perhaps I may sound a warning to my noble friend on the Front Bench. If perchance he were tempted to come down on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, he would create far more problems for those who sit immediately behind him than he might solve.

The debate has been interesting and wide ranging, but the vast majority of it has borne no relevance to the group of amendments. There are three amendments in the group and they are identical. The only change in the treaty would be the addition of the words "by a qualified majority". The amendments do not deal with Mr Prodi, the Commission, or anyone else.

Were we to be tempted into dealing with the election of the President of the Commission, I remind members of the Committee that twice in recent years we have been the country that has exercised the veto. I am not sure whether we are more proud of having created the presidency of Mr Jacques Santer or Mr Jacques Delors.

The noble Lord. Lord Tomlinson, has put his finger on the point. We are dealing with another example of Euro-creep in that we are discussing the move towards qualified majority voting for the appointment of the High Representative for the common foreign and security policy. I do not know why the European Union has to indulge in the hubris of always putting the word "high" in front of representative. There is a high representative of this, that and the other, which smacks of something from Gilbert and Sullivan. I fear that that is a little more dangerous than was intended.

My noble friend Lord Tebbit made an excellent contribution, but I may have misunderstood him when he said that, in the progress of these unions towards the glorious European mega-state that awaits us at the end of the gilded ladder, there has never been a move from QMV to unanimity. There has never been an example of giving up the veto. All the examples show a move from unanimity towards qualified majority voting.

If I did get it the wrong way round, I was going to say that I would be sure to send my secretary up to the Hansard office in the manner of Ministers to put into the official record what I thought afterwards that I ought to have said rather than what I actually did say.

I am sure that the Committee would agree that the Hansard office will be invited to oblige.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his excellent contribution, referred to "the ratchet". It is important to understand that we are dealing with a ratchet that can move in only one direction. The treaties say that it must do so. They say that the so-called acquis communitaire can never be reversed. If your Lordships do not agree, I can name the articles concerned. It is worth reading them so that one can see exactly how one is caught. I refer to Articles 2, 3 and 6.4 of the Treaty of European Union and Protocol 30, which is supposed to be the protocol on the glorious clause on subsidiarity, which supposedly allows member states to do their own thing. It is interesting to note that it is Protocol 30 on subsidiarity in the TEC—the treaty establishing the European Community—that makes any reverse of power acquired by the European Union impossible. But, once the European Union has something, it keeps it for ever.

On the specific matter of the common foreign and security policy, it is worth saying that there is a case for suggesting that the events of 11th September do not show that we need more CFSP. We do not need to move towards ever closer union on that issue. I know that those who support the European dream immediately pounced after those events, saying that we must have more collaboration and CFSP, and that it was once again the hour of European unity in standing and fighting together.

I note that the Prime Minister, whom everyone believes has done a magnificent job since 11th September, and on which he should be congratulated from all sides of this Chamber, did not rush off to sit down with his friends in Brussels. He contacted the President of the United States immediately and has stood shoulder to shoulder with him ever since. The other leaders in the European Union have been rushing round the world trying to emulate him in a rather unsatisfactory manner. The Dutch Prime Minister rushed to Downing Street to a dinner to which he had not been invited because the Prime Minister had rightly put together the big hitters of the European Union and asked them to dinner. There was the spectacle of the Dutch Prime Minister muscling in on that.

We also heard chippy remarks from the Belgian Prime Minister when he said that our Prime Minister was hogging the world stage too much, which was not helpful. Our Prime Minister was trying to help in the interests of civilisation and humanity as we know it.

I do not agree with the theory that the events of 11th September mean that we should have more common foreign and security policy in the European Union.

Is the noble Lord suggesting that Luxembourg should have had a veto on who to invite to that famous dinner?

No. I was merely pointing out that it is not the European Union that responds in times of crisis, but the old and tested alliance and friendship of this country and the United States of America. The behaviour of the Dutch Prime Minister shows an ambition to muscle in on this tried and tested and, if I may say so, powerful and effective alliance. It shows how pathetic the ambitions of some of those leaders of European countries are.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is making an admirable speech as usual, but I cannot understand what it has to do with the amendment.

If the noble Lord will be good enough to read Hansard tomorrow, he will find out that I am trying to suggest that the last thing we need is more unity over common foreign and security policy. That includes the appointment of a High Representative.

When one considers matters of Euro-creep, one always does well to consider just how bad things have already become. In that respect, I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that there are already 28 foreign policy security groups which meet in Brussels. I do not expect the noble Lord to respond today, but I should be grateful if he could write to me, placing a copy in the Library, saying which areas those 28 groups cover. To whom do they report? What action have we ever taken outside the agreement of one of those 28 groups in Brussels? I do not suggest that these groups are binding but that they have already compromised our foreign policy to a degree which many of us would find unacceptable. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide some enlightenment on that matter at least by way of correspondence.

Following this debate I have a problem; namely, that I can reply either to the amendment or to some of the speeches. I shall cut my speech on the amendment and very briefly respond to the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on foreign policy. There is so much misunderstanding contained in a period of only 14 minutes that something needs to be said in public. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said—I must repeat it from the Dispatch Box—foreign policy is made by member states, not the Commission. Foreign policy is made by unanimity, not qualified majority voting. The arrangements for foreign policy were established in the Treaty of Maastricht, not the Treaty of Nice. There is no change in the Treaty of Nice. Any change would require the unanimous agreement of the member states.

The High Representative—we come to the tenuous link between these debates and the amendments—whether chosen by qualified majority voting or unanimity, implements the policy agreed by the member states. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly said, the role of the High Representative is modelled on NATO's Secretary-General. There is no danger in future of a high representative following a policy which is inconsistent with the unanimous views of the member states. That is as much as I want to say about foreign policy.

However, I should like to deal with qualified majority voting because it refers not only to these amendments but to all the others which were grouped with it by agreement last week but have now been ungrouped. I shall not speculate in public on the reasons for that.

I know that the Minister, in referring to the adoption of foreign policy by QMV through the Council—that is part of the Treaty of Maastricht, which he will recall I strongly opposed—will draw the attention of the Committee to the second paragraph of Article 11 which provides that member states shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union, or is likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. Clearly, that means that once a policy has been adopted any member state which seeks to deviate from that policy after a change of government will be in breach of the treaty.

I thought that I had said enough about foreign policy, but even now the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, appears to believe that decisions on foreign policy made by member states are by qualified majority voting. He just said so.

When the United Kingdom joined the then European Economic Community there were already a number of articles in the Treaty of Rome which were subject to QMV. As the EEC, and later the European Union, has grown larger there has been a need to extend QMV to stop decision-making grinding to a halt. The biggest extension came with the Single European Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may have disagreed with the Treaty of Maastricht, but his party did not. Literally thousands of directives and regulations have been passed using articles to which QMV has been extended. That allowed progress on the single market to be accelerated—and a very good thing, too.

My partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—for the extensive range of information that he requires he must refer to published documents—is that Maastricht also introduced QMV into many new areas of activity: implementing measures for common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs pillars; trans-European networks and transport; telecommunications; energy infrastructures; development policy co-operation; consumer protection; environment, and many others.

I have a whole section of brief which attacks the Conservative Party but I do not propose to use it.

Like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I did my best to oppose the Treaty of Maastricht. Any attack that the Minister may make on the party is not something which will worry me very much. The noble Lord may have misunderstood my question when he cited a list of items which moved to QMV under Maastricht. My question concerned the 28 foreign policy groups which meet in Brussels and, as I understand it, already decide most of our foreign policy. I accept that it is not appropriate for the noble Lord to provide all this information, even if he had it at his fingertips—which I suspect he may not—during Committee stage. To establish just how bad is the situation already, my question is: what areas do these groups cover, to whom do they report and what action have we ever taken outside them? Have we ever acted against the view of the majority in those 28 groups?

Since the question has nothing to do with the amendment I shall write to the noble Lord referring him to the published documents which will answer his question. I believe that that is as fair as I can offer. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is entirely consistent about Maastricht, but it was their party which put forward that treaty. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as a member of the then government object to the Single European Act 1986 in quite the same way.

I turn away from the Conservative Party, with some pleasure, to talk about this Government's views. The Government take a pragmatic view of QMV which is based on calculating Britain's best interests. Qualified majority voting works for Britain and has built the single market on which over 3 million UK jobs and thousands of businesses depend. It simply is not true that Britain always loses out and others almost always win. In 1999 the UK was not outvoted on a single issue, but Germany was twice, France three times and Italy eight times.

We are clear that more qualified majority voting in the right areas can work strongly in Britain's interest in future. That was how we approached the negotiations on the Treaty of Nice. Where we felt strongly that an issue was of such fundamental importance that the decision must remain with the UK—with this Government and Parliament—we simply said that we would not agree. We made that clear to this House and our European Union partners even before we started the negotiations. We set out in advance in a White Paper in February 2000 the areas where we would not agree to QMV. We said that we would not accept QMV for tax, social security, defence, border controls, treaty change or the Union's own resources—its budget—nor did we. The UK veto remains on all these issues.

Nice extends QMV in 31 articles of the treaty, and there are good reasons for all those changes. How significant are they compared with those articles which were agreed by the Conservative Party—I am sorry, previous governments? How many times is the new article on the appointment of the CFSP special representative to be used compared with the number of times the articles which moved to QMV under the Single European Act have already been used? Consider the significance of moving consumer protection to QMV as the opposition did at Maastricht compared with moving the rules for the procedures of the Court of Auditors as we did at Nice.

This is not about numbers but about British interests. To oppose QMV in principle is short-sighted. Every one of the 31 moves to QMV that we agreed at Nice will be in Britain's interests. It is in Britain's interests to have QMV for industrial policy to increase competition. Our companies do very well out of the single market. It is in Britain's interest to have QMV for international agreements on trade and services. Our companies benefit from the liberalisation that this is likely to deliver.

It is also in the UK's interests to have QMV for the rules and procedures of the European Court of Justice. That will deliver more efficient procedures and speedier judgments to ensure that the EU's rules are respected. In this group of amendments, it is in the UK's interests that decisions on who should be appointed to official positions should be made efficiently. They should not be held up on the principle of Buggins' turn, or on the basis of nationality or cross-border rivalry. We need the best people appointed quickly and efficiently so that they can get on with their duties. That is what QMV will do for us in this area.

We have nothing to apologise for in the changes made in the Treaty of Nice. I oppose the amendment.

The Minister extols the virtues of QMV and says how helpful it has been to the British economy. Does he agree that there have also been occasions when we knew that we would be outvoted on a matter and therefore did not even put it to the vote? I refer, for instance, to the directive on young people at work with which I was associated. Let us also take the example of the British art market—a valuable asset to the country—which has been destroyed by QMV. I trust that the Minister will agree that QMV is not all one-way traffic.

It is not all one-way traffic. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, last week we had a specific example of one-way traffic in the other direction which I meant to draw to the Committee's attention. The noble Lord challenged whether there were any cases of QMV moving to unanimity. Hansard will show that we debated last week the changes to Article 175(2) on the environment which restored to unanimity decisions on measures of a general nature on land use.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that this debate is about appointing the secretary-general of the secretariat, but not the President of the Commission—an even more important issue which we shall debate in another amendment. I am sorry that we have missed the attack on the Conservative Party which sits steaming in the Minister's brief. That might have stimulated a wide debate. However, I am on his side. We want to keep the debate to the issues in the amendment as much as possible.

I do not apologise for considering the implications underlying the amendment in order to argue the force of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reproved me for that. I believe that that reinforces and defines some of the problems under both governments with European Union legislation. When one seeks to halt a trend or a broad drift, every grandmother's footstep looks somewhat small, Therefore any attempt to halt that step opens itself to the charge of pettiness. Yet when those steps are added up, when each little salami slice is put together again, one has moved significantly in a certain direction.

The noble Lord may say that this step is not very great. However, since Maastricht and the Amsterdam Treaty there has been a constant underlying murmur that the inter-governmental pillars shall one day somehow be brought into the full Community system. One needs to be on guard against that trend. Many of us believe that it will be very unhealthy.

With his usual authority the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that it does not matter how the person is appointed because he or she will be a servant of the Council of Ministers. That is undeniable; but it surely does matter, even if it appears to be a marginal issue, as to whether it is one person or another. That might well be shaped by a QMV or unanimity with general agreement and consensus.

I agree with the view that power is drifting away from the Commission to the Council. I may not carry with me all my noble friends on this point. The trend in decentralising the tendencies and longings of the Commission to establish a major role in foreign and military policies has been encouraging. Under the present arrangements that has been prevented. The present arrangements have begun to develop a fascinating pattern of redistribution of power in the European Union which weakens the motor role of the Commission over previous decades. That is a healthy development which we need to reinforce. There are quite solid moves to ensure that foreign policy is kept as far as possible in a sensible, flexible pattern of arrangements and not too centralised or "communitised". That is good.

I close this lively short debate by appealing not to higher glories and higher principles but merely by asking, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Those who want to see a flexible, democratic Europe may be just about holding their own. The Prime Minister has done magnificently in holding his corner against too much centralisation and singularisation of foreign policy in Europe. It is just about working. By bringing in QMV—it is a small touch—we are allowing matters to drift a little in the opposite direction. It is time that here as elsewhere in many areas the drift was stopped. It is an important principle. It is not a marginal issue. I should like to have the opinion of the Committee tested on this matter.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Statement is as follows:

"I should like to make a Statement concerning the proposal to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport and to outline our intention to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system.

"I am today publishing the inspector's report into Heathrow Terminal 5 as well as my decision letter. Copies of both have been placed in the Library of the House. My decision and the reasons for it have been set out in the decision letter itself.

"The inquiry into Terminal 5 was the longest in British planning history. It opened in May 1995 and closed in March 1999. The inspector, Mr Roy Vandermeer QC, reported to my department on 20th December last year. I should like to thank the inspector for his report. I am grateful to him for the great diligence which he has shown.

"The delay in reaching a decision since the report was received in December arises because, since the inspector reported, the applicants—BAA, who are the owners and operators of Heathrow Airport—warned in May that they wished to revise the Twin Rivers Scheme which was a part of the original application. It was August before they put forward any details. Those then required consultation, which was completed in mid October.

"After considering the inspector's report and taking into account all the relevant considerations, I have today given my approval to the development of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Such a development is in the national interest. It will enable Heathrow to remain a world-class airport. It will bring benefits to the British economy, both locally and nationally. At the same time as giving my approval to the development, I have also imposed conditions in order to protect the interests of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow.

"The inspector stresses in his report that the issue is essentially one of striking a balance. He identifies the benefits of Terminal 5. They are considerable. He sees Heathrow as essential for keeping the UK air transport industry strong and competitive.

"The inspector sees wider benefits beyond the aviation industry. He points to benefits for London and for the UK as a whole. He says that Heathrow has done a great deal to attract investment to the United Kingdom and that London's success as a world city and financial centre could be threatened unless Heathrow stays competitive. He says that by ensuring Heathrow's continued success, Terminal 5 would make a major contribution to the national economy. And he says that it would be good for passengers, providing a terminal equal to the best in the world and relieving the pressure on the other four terminals. I also agree with the inspector that the real beneficiaries, if Terminal 5 is not provided, would be Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, Schipol in Amsterdam and Frankfurt Airport.

"The inspector rightly draws attention to the disadvantages. They, too, are important. There is noise: the inspector looks at that issue at length. And he looks at matters such as extra road traffic, air quality, intrusion into the Green Belt and the effects of construction.

"The inspector weighs all the benefits and costs very carefully. He says—and I use his words—that he has come to the clear conclusion that the benefits of Terminal 5 would substantially outweigh the environmental impact as long as its effects are properly controlled.

"I agree with him that Terminal 5 should go ahead, but subject to conditions. I would like to outline the key conditions to the House. First, a limit has been set on the number of flights each year at 480,000. This limit has been imposed on a precautionary basis and because of the inspector's concerns about noise. This was recommended by the inspector. Last year Heathrow handled some 460,000 flights and just under 65 million passengers. Even with a limit of 480,000 flights, the inspector adopted a figure of 90 million passengers per annum as the potential capacity of Heathrow if Terminal 5 were built.

"Secondly, the noise effects of Terminal 5 will also be limited by a condition restricting the area enclosed by the 57-decibel noise contour to 145 square kilometres as from 2016. Again, I follow the inspector's recommendation.

"The inspector recommends stricter controls on night flights. I recognise that there is considerable concern about night noise. I am not legally entitled to change the night noise regime without consultation. I will consult on an extension of the night quota period when I next put forward proposals for the night noise regime for the BAA London airports. I have decided that this consultation will take place by 2003 at the latest.

"The House should also be aware that we have already announced a change to the system of so-called 'westerly preference' at Heathrow to reduce the number of night flights over built-up west London. This is in line with one of the inspector's recommendations. We have also announced a major study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. This will permit a fresh look at the present 'Leg' noise index on which the inspector commented.

"I have also agreed with the inspector on the need to promote the use of public transport. So I have imposed conditions, as he recommended, requiring the extension to Terminal 5 of both the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line before the new terminal is opened.

"And I have agreed with the inspector in cutting the provision of car parking spaces for the airport as a whole below that in the original proposals. I am imposing a condition limiting total spaces to 42,000 rather than the 46,000 proposed by BAA. Of these only 17,500 rather than the 21,700 originally proposed, will be available for employees.

"The terminal proposals also included widening of the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b. But I agree with the inspector that widening would not be appropriate. I have therefore refused approval for it.

"As to timing, I have imposed conditions requiring that work to implement any of the planning approvals should not start until a separate approval has been given to the essential scheme for diversion of the twin rivers that flow across the Terminal 5 site. That will ensure that there will be proper opportunity for full examination of that scheme.

"I should touch on three further points. First, the tragic events of 11th September and the effects of those terrorist attacks on air travel. In reaching my decision, I have noted that the inspector has based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016; and clearly, Terminal 5 is expected to be in operation much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis.

"Secondly, honourable Members will know of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 2nd October in the case of Hatton and Others v. the UK. This concerned night noise at Heathrow. The court held by a majority that there had been an infringement of the convention. I am considering that judgment, which does not become final until at least three months after it was delivered. Quite apart from my decision on Terminal 5, I will of course wish to ensure that the night noise regime at Heathrow complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Thirdly, I am well aware of the length of time that was taken by the process of the public inquiry into Terminal 5. In saying that, I mean no criticism of the inspector; but there must be an issue as to whether such lengthy inquiries are appropriate. Accordingly, I announced on 20th July that we were considering a package of measures to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. This included a commitment to publish up-to-date statements of government policy before major infrastructure projects are considered in the planning system, to help reduce inquiry time spent on debating the policy, the introduction of new arrangements to give Parliament the opportunity to approve projects in principle, and improved public inquiry procedures. We shall be publishing further details for consultation in the next two months.

"Taken together with the other steps we will be proposing to improve the operation of the planning and compulsory purchase systems, these measures will both safeguard the rights of people to have their say and reduce the time that is taken in future to reach decisions on major infrastructure projects.

"My decision and the reasons for it are set out in full in the decision letter which I have issued today. Nothing I say here today should in any way be seen as a substitute for what is in that lengthy decision letter.

"Giving the go-ahead for a fifth terminal at Heathrow is essential if we are to maintain Heathrow as one of the world's leading airports and bring benefits to the British economy both locally and nationally.

"I have no doubt that the national interest requires that this project should proceed as long as we put in place measures to safeguard local people and their communities. This I believe my decision achieves and I commend it to the House".

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. Perhaps I should first congratulate the inspector, who has produced an extremely good report. It is a mammoth feat considering that the public inquiry took four years. The Government's will be welcomed by the airlines.

The Secretary of State has had to balance difficult considerations. On the one hand, there is a need to maintain Heathrow as a major European hub to compete with Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris and to benefit the aviation industry in this country. On the other hand, there is the contrary need of safeguarding the interests of those living near Heathrow.

The Minister has outlined some of the steps that the Government believe should be taken before Terminal 5 is opened. I should like to comment on some of those steps and to ask a number of questions.

The noble and learned Lord said that there would be a limit of 480,000 flights and that that would be a planning condition. We welcome that. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no increase in the number of night flights? We believe that there should be a presumption against night flights over residential areas unless it can be proved that there is a real need for them. We are as concerned as the Government about noise. The report states that there will not be a final decision until 2003. Why will it take so long? Will the effect on sleep disturbance be considered?

The Minister said that the Government will insist that rail and tube links are improved. We welcome that. Can he explain why there will be a limit on the increased usage of the Heathrow Express? I do not understand why there should be such a restriction.

What will be done to improve the rail links from the west? At the moment, if you get on a train to Heathrow from the West of England you have to stop at Reading and get on a bus. We believe that, at the very least, there should be a western rail link, if not, indeed, a southern rail link as well.

When coming to their decision in regard to Terminal 5, did the Government consider the capacity of other London regional airports such as Stansted, Luton and Gatwick? Indeed, did they look at whether there was a need for a new runway in the South East? The noble and learned Lord explained the need for increased capacity but, at the end of the day, if capacity is to rise at that level, will another runway be needed to cope with it? Can the Minister confirm that a new runway is not in the Government's plans at the moment? Can he confirm that there will be no need for an additional runway at Heathrow when Terminal 5 goes ahead?

In coming to their decision, did the Government consider the House of Commons Select Committee report published in 1995–96, which stated that consideration should be given to constructing a new airport in the Thames Estuary?

This has been a mammoth inquiry which has cost more than £83 million. It has taken far too long—more than eight years—and it will be at least another six years, if all goes well, before Terminal 5 can be opened. The Minister announced plans to change and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects. We are concerned that the Government's plans should not undermine local involvement when considering such projects.

My Lords, we, too, welcome the Statement made in another place and repeated by the noble and learned Lord. I wish to concentrate, particularly, on the issue of access to the airport.

We learn from the papers that the motorway will not be expanded. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I, too, am concerned about surface access by rail from the South West, the West and the North. It is apposite that we are considering the report at the same time as the CAA has published its first report into the funding of airline landing charges for the next five years. In terms of improved access to the airport, nothing in that report gives any comfort. It will happen if someone else pays. We believe that it should be either a condition of planning consent or that we should change the rules—which are to go before the Competition Commission—so that money is set aside for decent surface access, including the extension of the Piccadilly line and the Heathrow Express.

It says in the Statement that those lines are to be extended, but it does not say how that is to be paid for. They have to be paid for, and we believe that they should be paid for by airport users. We should not forget that "airport users" include not only passengers but "weepers and greeters" and people who work at the airport and travel there every day. The present means of access are either very inefficient or very expensive. We want these issues addressed because, inadequate as it is, the Airport Express is not a suitable way for workers to get to the airport.

We welcome the fact that the Minister will look at the planning system. This inquiry is a monument to inefficiency and has cost a vast sum of money. It is time that we moved towards an inquisitorial system and away from the adversarial system which was used here. The inspector should ask questions and people should not read out long statements. Several improvements can be made. But, whatever the outcome, inquiries should be held efficiently.

We know that there will be more noise. Unfortunately, that will be one of the effects of this decision and it is one of the crosses that people who live near the airport will have to bear. It is an area of bad air quality, which will get worse. There will be more car parking spaces than there are now. We believe that a real attempt should be made to deal with the issue of decent surface access above all others.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their welcome for the decision. I shall now deal with the points that they have raised

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the 480,000 flights limit and asked for an assurance that there will be no increase in night flights. There can be no change in the night flight regime without consultation. My right honourable friend in another place said that he would consult about the night flight regime in the light of the concerns expressed. That consultation will be thorough and detailed and concluded by 2003. It is right that the process should be detailed, thorough and take some time.

The reason for the limitation on the number of Heathrow Express train journeys from Paddington is to deal with traffic around the Paddington area. The Secretary of State deals with that issue in paragraph 55 of the decision letter, where he sets out his reasons.

As to capacity at other airports, the report of the inspector deals in great detail with the issue of capacity at other airports in the South-East of England. He refers to capacity at airports in the country as a whole, but he obviously deals in detail with capacity in the South-East.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the fact that it will take another six years, if all goes well, before Terminal 5 is completed. He drew attention to the fact that the procedure has taken too long. With respect, we agree that the planning stage of major infrastructure projects needs to be dealt with in a way that will lead to a quicker result than occurred on this occasion.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that access to the airport should be paid for by the users of the airport. The British Airports Authority is committed to encouraging the introduction and use of additional public transport services at Heathrow. The Secretary of State expects the BAA to fulfil that commitment, including additional rail services—to which paragraph 54 of the decision letter specifically refers.

My Lords, six years ago, I addressed the Select Committee on Transport in another place at length about the marinair airport, which my noble friend Lord Astor mentioned. I declare an interest, as chairman and chief executive of the Thames Estuary Airport Company. Another Peer, who is seated behind me, is on the board—and another Peer present is the company's political adviser. We hope to make an announcement in the next few weeks. Two of the people with whom we were working closely were killed on 11th September, which did not add to our speed or joy.

We heard today about concern, which is reasonable, over night flights and flights over towns. A Thames Estuary airport, some 30 kilometres downstream from Tilbury, would kill any night effects on London. It would also avoid daytime traffic over London and the risk from crashes.

Judging by the post that we have been receiving, interest in the airport is enormous—not only from local councils. People throughout the South East are worried. If we can make our announcement, I hope that the Government will listen with great interest. That would be to the Government's advantage financially and in every other way. Such a development would be in the Government's favour and the country and employment would gain. Above all, new runways at existing airports would be totally unnecessary.

My Lords, I note the noble Lord's remarks in respect of a matter on which there has not yet been any announcement. Today, we are dealing with a decision in relation to Terminal 5 and we should focus on that issue.

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on reaching a decision which removes a great deal of uncertainty after such a long public inquiry. Many people who live, work or have businesses locally will be pleased.

My noble and learned friend commented that BAA is committed to encouraging public transport. Is that really sufficient? Most other airport developments in Europe not only have rail services to the airport but local and national rail services pass through the airport. Paddington might get congested but that is nothing like what Heathrow will become if more people are not encouraged to use trains. I echo the comments by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the need for west-facing rail services. Are BAA committed to such services and to opening them before the terminal itself is opened?

The relevant part of the decision letter states:

"The Inspector recommends at paragraph 32.4.4 and paragraph 35.1.1.1.f of his report that conditions should be imposed requiring BAA to use their best endeavours to provide a four trains an hour service linking Terminal 5 to St. Pancras, and to secure the opening of the Gateway North station, before Terminal 5 is opened. The Secretary of State has concluded that such a condition could not easily be enforced and agrees with the Inspector that there are problems in providing such a service as identified by the Inspector … Therefore, and bearing in mind the guidance in Circular 11/95 on the use of conditions, the Secretary of State has concluded that he should attach these conditions. However, the Secretary of State expects BAA to comply with their commitment to encourage the introduction and use of additional public transport services at Heathrow and to consider securing a four trains an hour service linking Terminal 5 to St. Pancras and the opening of the Gateway North Station, before Terminal 5 is open"

That is a partial answer to my noble friend's question.

My Lords, the Statement referred to 480,000 flights a year. Can the Minister give the definition of "flights"? Does that phrase include landings as well as take-offs or is a "flight" a landing or a take-off? Regardless of the answer, will the noble and learned Lord confirm—I am no way being facetious—that an airplane is an airplane is an airplane? Is a business jet exactly pari passu with a Boeing 747?

My Lords, the figure of 480,000 relates to air traffic movements—take-offs or landings. An airplane is an airplane is an airplane, so all air traffic movements will involve a range of sizes.

My Lords, at a time when the airline industry is facing massive shutdowns and losses and is begging for structural funds to survive, is it not paradoxical that a new airport is being predicated on rosy traffic forecasts? If, following 11th September, traffic patterns and travel habits change drastically, will there be a chance to reconsider in the next two years or so? We may find that there may soon be excess airport capacity, rather than a need for a fifth London air terminal.

My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement dealt in part with my noble friend's point:

"In reaching my decision, I have noted that the Inspector has based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016; and clearly Terminal 5 is expected to be in operation much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis".

The decision must be based on a long-term look into the future.

My Lords, the Statement referred to reviewing the lengthy planning processes involved in major infrastructure projects. Will that review be included in the report?

My Lords, that aspect will not be included in the report, which will simply be about Terminal 5. In July, my right honourable friend gave indications in another place of the areas where we shall try to speed up and streamline major national infrastructure projects. Within the next two months, we shall issue a separate consultation document that will set out our proposals for improving and streamlining major infrastructure project processes.

My Lords, I note the restrictions on car parking and the welcome improvements in public transport announced as part of the decision. The south-west link proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—from the Feltham-Staines line to Terminal 5 and other terminals—is long overdue if the number of people travelling to the airport by car is to be reduced. Is there any intention to establish a target maximum number of passengers and staff travelling by car to the airport in future? Fifty per cent is the sort of target that other airports seek to adopt. That would send a signal that the Government are serious about encouraging people using Terminal 5 to travel by public transport rather than driving there in their own cars.

My Lords, we are keen to encourage public transport. As to a specific target, I shall write to my noble friend.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the reduction in the amount of car parking space available. Is it realistic to expect that it will be possible, by any means, to reduce the amount of car parking space required? Do the figures quoted by the noble and learned Lord include car parks outside the perimeter of the airport itself?

My Lords, as to whether it is realistic, the noble Lord will recall that one of the conditions imposed in relation to Terminal 5 going ahead is an improvement in the frequency of various public transport services. That will assist in some respects. So far as concerns car parking, I believe that the figures given are for parking within the vicinity of the airport, including Terminal 5.

My Lords, it is my observation with regard to people who work at Heathrow that the airport authority is already attempting to discourage them from coming in by car. I suspect that the main cause is that the land is rather too valuable to allow it to have cars parked on it all day long. I am talking about people who work there, not people who travel.

Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on his public transport announcement. Will he accept that when the airport authority brought forward this project, it tried to convince people that underneath the new Terminal there would be an "all singing, all dancing, all modal" transfer station, as it were, where rail—I do not mean rail into London; I mean rail to the North West and the South West—bus, taxi and motor car could all come and go in relation to the aeroplanes arriving and the passengers arriving. Is that being done?

My second question relates to the enormous landside shopping facilities that were planned. Are those landside facilities—said to be as large as the entire shopping area of Staines, the nearest sizeable town to the airport—going ahead? If so, they will of their very nature increase the number of people who want to reach the airport by car.

My Lords, I do not know the detailed history of what was on offer by the BAA—and I am not inviting the noble Baroness to remind me of the details. The inspector addressed the issue of what public transport improvements are required to deal with Terminal 5. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has considered those carefully and has given his conclusions. Those were not on whether the facilities would be "all singing and all dancing"; they were on the precise public transport improvements that are required in order to facilitate Terminal 5. He addresses all those considerations in the detail of his decision letter. The right place to look for the answer is the decision letter. So far as concerns retail decisions, I fully understand the noble Baroness's point. Perhaps I may write to her on the matter.

My Lords, I accept that this is an important decision to have made. But it seems extraordinary that it has taken a year since the inquiry finished to come to this point of a decision being made today. In the future, could these important inquiries have a slightly shorter time-scale? Six years is a long time in reality.

My Lords, an application for permission to go ahead with Terminal 5 was made by the British Airports Authority in 1993—so the decision has taken eight years. The time-scale is much too long. That is why the Government, in parallel with the decision announced today, are proceeding with a consultation process on how to shorten the period in which decisions of this kind are taken. That is the consultation paper to which I referred in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there will be considerable disappointment at today's announcement among people living around Heathrow and around the London approaches and the western approaches? There will be a considerable increase in the number of passengers. An increase of 38 per cent, or 25 million, means that there will be an extra 80,000 movements of people each day. Furthermore, I am not sure that the figures tie up with an increase of only 20,000 in the number of flights. The increase in passenger numbers is given as 38 per cent, and in flights 4.5 per cent. People will need to examine those figures.

Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that, unless there is a radical alteration in transport facilities to Heathrow, the congestion on the M4 and in west London will be more than people can bear—and it is unbearable now? The decision having been made, I urge the noble and learned Lord to put as much pressure as he can on the Heathrow authorities to bring forward a transport plan which will not bring about those increases in traffic, fumes, noise and general additional environmental pollution. Also, will he give those people the assurance that this is not the run-in for a third runway at Heathrow?

My Lords, the answer to the first question is yes. I am aware that there will be significant numbers of people for whom the decision will cause considerable dismay. Those views were expressed during the course of the inquiry. The inspector and my right honourable friend in another place have considered them extremely carefully. As has been made clear, the decision seeks to provide a balance between the benefits of a fifth Terminal and the consequences for those in the vicinity who will be affected by it.

I shall not attempt to address the specific figures raised by my noble friend in his question. However, I assure him that those issues were considered by the inspector.

So far as concerns congestion on the M4, surface transport to and from Heathrow after Terminal 5 is built was considered in considerable depth by the inspector and again by my right honourable friend in considering the inspector's report. The issue has been fully taken into account, both in the inspector's conclusions and by my right honourable friend in his detailed decision letter.

My Lords, following on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, does the Minister realise that hardly a thing that he has said today gives any comfort at all to the general travelling public? It is hell getting to Heathrow with suitcases and perhaps with children; and doing it by public transport is virtually impossible, particularly for more elderly folk. Nothing that the Minister has said indicates that it will become easier. Using public transport is not the answer, given the difficulty of trans-shipping luggage from trains to platforms, to airport check-ins and so on. What the Minister wants to think about is making life easier for the passengers, not easier for the planners.

My Lords, the purpose of the decision in building a fifth terminal at London Heathrow is to facilitate in particular the comfort and convenience of passengers at Heathrow. There are specific public transport aspects to the decision, in particular connecting London to Heathrow, which the decision specifically deals with. It is to be hoped that the travelling public will find greater facilities as a result of this decision.

My Lords, now that the Government have come forward with a decision on this important issue, no one should under-estimate the complexities or the controversial nature of the decision. I, for one, fully understand why it has taken the Government some time to digest the very full report from the inspector. What the decision does provide is clarity for all concerned, particularly those in the airport and airline industry—clarity against which they can make their investment decisions.

Perhaps I may briefly ask the Minister about a point of detail. Having praised the length of time and the diligence with which the report was studied before a decision was reached, perhaps I may ask about the announcement itself. Last night, the media were full of the fact that this decision was about to be made and gave some impression of what it would contain. This morning's press carried fairly full details—which miraculously coincided with the Minister's announcement this afternoon. Given that BAA is a publicly quoted company, and given that some 3 million shares in it have been traded this morning on the Stock Exchange, first, did the department, or Ministers, authorise the disclosure of any information whatever about the decision in advance of the Secretary of State's announcement? Secondly, what does the Minister believe the effect would have been on the stock market of this period of limbo?

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his characteristic understanding of how long it took before the decision was made, although, as I have made clear, such decisions need to be made more quickly in future. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear that Parliament would be given the announcement first. That is what has happened today. I am not aware of any earlier disclosure. It is not surprising that there will be great speculation about the result when such a decision is about to be announced. That is inevitable. I am not sure what the noble Viscount means by the period of limbo. If he means the past six years when the decision was in gestation, that is the nature of such projects.

moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 22, revising Article 214 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"

I am sure that we do not need to rehearse the arguments on qualified majority voting that we had when discussing the previous amendment, but it may be worth putting on the record how the particular example of Euro-creep to which the amendment relates occurs.

When the Treaty of Amsterdam was introduced, the President of the Commission was, in effect, given a veto over the other members of the Commission appointed under him. Until then, the whole Commission had to be approved by the member states. Under Amsterdam, the relevant provision is at Article 214—thoughtfully renumbered by the Brussels bureaucrats to muddle any of us who may have known it as Article 158 under the Treaty of Maastricht and earlier versions of the treaty. Article 214(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam states:

"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament".

The new provision there was getting the Parliament's agreement, but the President of the Commission was still appointed "by common accord".

We then have one of the real beauties of European drafting—one must say that it is clever. The Amsterdam Treaty continues:

"The governments of the Member States shall, by common accord with the nominee for President, nominate the other persons whom they intend to appoint as Members of the Commission".

So that is how they did it: they slipped in three little words—" by common accord"—that in effect gave the President of the Commission a veto, because no one could be appointed to the Commission without common accord with the president-elect.

We now see the process stalking on an extra step in the Treaty of Nice—as usual, it never goes backwards, always forwards—under which the president himself is to be appointed by qualified majority voting. I support my noble friend's amendment. I do not want to sound monotonous, but the treaty provision is yet another example of the ratchet moving eternally in the same direction.

During the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford presented the argument, "If it ain't broke; don't fix it". What he perhaps neglected to recognise was that, so far as the European federalists are concerned, the treaty is "broke" until it becomes a treaty for a European state. That is what they are trying to fix each time that they fix new amendments to the treaty.

However, as we are a bunch of reasonable people in this Chamber, and taking my noble friend's point that, "If it ain't broke; don't fix it", will the Minister tell us which appointment as President of the Commission he believes was so unsatisfactory as to justify a new system? Which one was it? Is it the present president or one of the previous ones? I ask him to name names, because unless he does, we should all conclude that the present system is working perfectly well, in the Minister's opinion.

I invite my noble friend, before he replies to that question, to reflect on the fact that many members of the population of this country, many Members of the Committee, and certainly many members of the European Community think that President Delors was an excellent president. In him, we managed to get as President of the European Union a good federalist who pursued a good federal line. He was there by virtue of a British Prime Minister exercising a veto. I am in many ways grateful for the exercise of that veto. We got a splendid President of the Commission as a result. The only problem was that he was frequently abused once we had got him, because he managed to do what he had said that he would do.

On the other hand, a British Prime Minister used his veto later, when the excellent candidature of Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene, the President of Belgium, who was a rather robust individual—certainly one who would have controlled his Commission—was blackballed. As a result of that use of unanimity and of the veto that arises from it, we had President Santer. By common consent, President Santer was a nice man—in many ways, an amiable man—and I had much regard for him, but not even his best friends would call him a successful President of the Commission.

I ask Conservative Members of the Committee to reflect on the two stories of the use of the necessity for unanimity, and to determine of which of those two events they are most proud. I am certainly more proud of the former than the latter. Especially as we now have a treaty that looks beyond the Community of 15 to a Community of 25, 26, or 27 member states, that process of horse-trading, which has not automatically served us well in the past, is now past its sell-by date. It is now appropriate that we move to qualified majority voting.

Before the Minister replies, will the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, confirm that he said what I think that he said? I understood him to say that he thought Mr Dehaene from Belgium would have made a good President of the Commission. Did I hear him correctly?

I had already sat down, but I think that the words that I used—Hansard will confirm this tomorrow—were that he was certainly a robust individual who would have led his Commission

I am no more tempted into history by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, than I am by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am lost in admiration for the historical overview of the presidency since the time of Walter Hallstein given by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but I shall not follow him in that direction either.

However, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, it is worth saying what Article 214(2) provides, as amended by the Treaty Of Nice:

"The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.

The Council. acting by a qualified majority and"—

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is paying attention because the words

"by common accord with the nominee for President"

are not new. They are as they were in the previous treaty.

I hope that I shall not irritate the Minister but that is actually what I said. The three little words "by common accord" were introduced at Amsterdam. I was merely giving an example of "Euro-creep".

I apologise to the noble Lord; I misheard him. The article continues,

"shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

"The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament".

All that is as it was in Amsterdam. It then states:

"After approval by the European Parliament, the President and the other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority".

That is another of the new bits.

I do not have much more to say about qualified majority voting in these appointments. I believe that I have said it all. I think it is clear that we take the view that in these circumstances we support qualified majority voting for appointments because it will mean greater efficiency. As regards what is meant by efficiency, I think that it means less inefficiency. It means getting quicker decisions on the right person regardless of nationality.

We do not think that it would be right for one country to be able to block appointments, as has been possible in the past, or, worse, to hold policy decisions to ransom by insisting on its own candidate. I cannot promise the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that such a step will cut out all infighting; that is idealism. However, we want the best person for the job chosen on merit and experience not on nationality and we believe that this is the way to get it.

Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may press him on the following point. Does he think that this change will get us a better quality of president in future than we have had in the past?

We have a better chance of getting a better quality of president. I do not promise that every single nominee will be better than every single nominee in the past, which is how the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, could be interpreted.

The Government have agreed to this change in signing the Nice Treaty. However, the argument always cuts both ways. It may turn out that the measure will not make much difference at all, and judging by what we have just heard, that is one possibility. Life will go on with all its complexities and, therefore, one may ask why we oppose the measure as it is not important. Alternatively, the measure may be considered an immensely significant part of the new European system and, therefore, one may ask why we oppose it as it is so important.

I refer to those of us who believe that we see a vision of Europe ahead which is modern, not centralised, in which there is not too much power at the centre; in which the laws, rules and procedures of the network prevail over the laws, rules and procedures of the hierarchy; and in which European unity is not constructed as a kind of ersatz scaled-up nation state with all its symbols and so on, but is something much more gentle, tolerant and flexible. Therefore, every time we are faced with the proposition that there should be more power at the centre we are concerned.

The Commission—we debated this matter on earlier amendments—may or may not be losing power to the secretariat. The European institutions are, of course, enhanced by every QMV move. We shall discuss later the substantial list—these matters have been somewhat belittled in earlier debates—which comprises considerable and important areas where QMV is to apply under the Nice Treaty. However, as regards the matter that we are discussing, this is one more area where we are not persuaded. The case for taking this step seems to me to be minuscule, but the principles involved in taking it, however small it may appear, are gigantic.

I was interested to hear the fair assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, of past presidents. I thought that he was fair even with regard to President Santer. I, too, shall be fair in that regard. It seems to me that President Santer was defeated by the system. He was an extremely decent man who intended to do good but he was dealing with a Commission system which has defeated others and may not yet have been put back in its box.

I hope that Commissioner Kinnock will win through with his reforms. However, when one examines the detailed progress of those reforms, Commissioner Kinnock must occasionally be rather cast down as there has been little progress as regards the Commission making big reforms and adopting the role of servants, which the Members of the Commission are. They are servants of the people of Europe and of the nation states rather than their masters. As I say, there has been little progress in that regard despite the tribulations which poor President Santer experienced. I do not blame President Santer for the situation; I blame a system which is bad and which is not in any way improved by what we are being asked to do in the Nice Treaty in this respect. Therefore, I suggest that we would be far wiser not to tinker with this area, but to look for other deeper reforms to make a better Europe than the one we have today. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.