asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, this is the most complex of the national service frameworks to date, but good progress is being made. The first part of the National Service Framework for Children—Standards for Hospital Services—was published in April 2003. Work is now in hand to implement that standard. The Government will publish the full National Service Framework for Children before the end of the year.

On 4 March, we published Every Child Matters: Next Steps, which sets out the first phase for implementing the Government's Green Paper on children with an important role for the national service framework in raising standards of care.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very encouraging reply. How will the National Service Framework for Children impact on the White Paper on public health? Does he agree that issues of public health for children are very important, for example, in matters of diet, nutrition and obesity?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend about the importance of the links between the National Service Framework for Children and the White Paper on public health that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State launched in March as a major consultation exercise. The responses to that consultation exercise will feed into the White Paper and will inform the national service framework, a key part of which is to promote children's health and well-being.

My Lords, the Mental Health Foundation recently highlighted the fact that some 50,000 children are on antidepressants and that the rates of suicide and self-harm among children have increased dramatically in the past 20 years. What focus will there be in the NSF on mental health services for children?

My Lords, there are likely to be eight strands in the National Service Framework for Children, one of which will be child and adolescent mental health services. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the Government are committed to improving child and adolescent mental health services, which will be backed up by significant additional funding of about £300 million in the three years to 2005–06, payable to local authorities and primary care trusts.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important for the National Service Framework for Children to get a good start? Could the Minister tell us what progress has been made in tackling health inequalities, particularly as regards reducing infant mortality and expectancy of life at time of birth?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The Government have made a huge investment in improving neonatal care and £72 million is being invested in neonatal intensive care facilities. Perhaps I may remind the House and the noble Lord that it was this Government who started the Sure Start programme. There are now more than 500 of those programmes doing a great deal to help children and young people in very disadvantaged areas, which are covered by about 1,700 child centres.

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that children with disabilities, including physical disabilities—the Minister referred to mental health problems earlier—will be fully considered in the framework?

My Lords, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that disabled children is one of the eight strands to be covered in the National Service Framework for Children.

My Lords, will the needs of children in special circumstances, such as refugees, looked-after children and children in secure provision, whose health outcomes are often the worst, be looked after in the national service framework?

My Lords, I have a feeling that we shall work through the whole of the eight strands in the National Service Framework for Children. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that children in special circumstances of the kinds that she mentioned will be covered in the NSF.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us if the National Service Framework for Children will also have an impact on schools? Is that another strand? As the Government are seeking to join up services and locate many health and social care services in schools, surely it is crucial that the National Service Framework for Children should bite on education providers.

My Lords, the Government have done a great deal to join together services that affect children and have appointed a Minister for Children. If the noble Baroness looks at Every Child Matters: Next Steps, she will see the way in which we are ] weaving together the strands of services for children. The National Service Framework for Children will do exactly that. There will be arrangements for integrated inspection of children's services.

My Lords, the NSF will be a statement of intentions. What will be the mechanism for seeing that the intentions are completed?

My Lords, the National Service Framework for Children is a 10-year strategy for delivering better health and social care for children. If the noble Lord looks at the other national service frameworks, he will see that there has been a strong emphasis on delivery. That is shown in the Government's record on improving death rates in relation to cancer and the reduction in coronary heart disease, both of which have a national service framework.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the links with Every Child Matters: Next Steps. How are these links made with the five outcomes for children and young people?

My Lords, the noble Baroness will have to wait for the detail in the national service framework, but the Government are integrating these different strands of work, and they will be covered in the national service framework when it is published.

My Lords, given the importance of joined-up questions, and joined-up government, what will the impact of the NSF be on the Children Bill?

My Lords, the Government's position on the Children Bill will be explained fully by my noble friend at Second Reading tomorrow. The national service framework will be totally integrated and co-ordinated with the Children Bill when it is published.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that one in 10 young people are infected with chlamydia, and that in the past year alone there has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of people infected with HIV, which has prompted the Health Select Committee in another place to speak of a crisis in sexual health. Does he think that there should not only be a section in the children's NSF devoted to young people's sexual health, but that there is also a strong case for a separate national service framework on sexually transmitted diseases?

My Lords, the National Service Framework for Children will be comprehensive in what it proposes in relation to improving integrated services for children. It will pull together information and expertise from a wide range of fields. In relation to the specific question asked by the noble Earl, a national strategy for sexual health and HIV was published by the Government in 2001, and large sums of extra money have been put in to modernise services and to tackle chlamydia, as well as a £4 million campaign on sex lottery, which is pitched at younger people.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Ministers sign off regulatory impact assessments to confirm that they are satisfied that the benefits of regulation, where it is necessary, justify the costs.

My Lords, if the system is to be taken to be working well, could the Minister quantify the benefits that justify the more than £30 billion of regulatory costs that the British Chambers of Commerce calculates to have been imposed in the United Kingdom since 1997? If the Minister disputes the latter costing, could he give us his own?

My Lords, welcome though the report British Chambers of Commerce Burdens Barometer was, some of the claims that it made were misleading. Some of the costs that were seen as red tape were actually the value of the policy to recipients, for example, the enhanced maternity rights for women, the minimum wage for 1.5 million workers, and better working conditions. Regulation is valuable. When the noble Lord was in government, no doubt he was the begetter of regulations. I could read out a long list of highly desirable regulations. We must look at the benefits of regulations as well as the costs. I am not able to provide a cost estimate, but the BCC cost assessment is somewhat wide of the mark.

My Lords, would a greater deterrent to over-regulation be if Parliament had better scrutiny of regulation, not least in secondary legislation? So much of the over-regulation comes from Ministers using powers long after Parliament has passed the original Act. For example, the Licensing Bill that we passed for 24-hour licensing, has just had 198 pages of guidance notes published by the Home Office. Some of that guidance should have been closely scrutinised by Parliament, and there should be a reform that allows Parliament to look at secondary legislation much more thoroughly before Ministers use their powers under it.

My Lords, I agree that Parliament is the place where regulations should be closely examined. Your Lordships' House does a fine job in that, through the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. The Commons already has a regulatory reform committee. Your Lordships' House debates and considers in great detail those statutory instruments and orders that come before it. We do a good job in that respect, and I am intrigued by the noble Lord's example. I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House can think of many positive examples of regulations that they consider each and every day of the year.

My Lords, if the noble Lord was really satisfied with his Answer to my noble friend, I suggest that he has no grounds for it at all. It was about the most casual brush-off to an important Question that I have heard for a long time. My noble friend seeks to know whether the Government have any idea at all about the cost to themselves of their regulatory exercises, and, even more difficult, but more important, the cost to those who are obliged to obey and observe some of these absurd rules.

My Lords, the whole purpose of the regulatory impact assessment process is to measure costs and benefits. It is not an easy task to quantify in the way in which the noble Lord suggests. In some ways, the British Chambers of Commerce report tells us that. Things that report sees as costs are actually, in some senses, savings, for example, the working time regulations, which the BCC report claims cost £11.1 billion. In fact, the assessment is that those regulations probably saved businesses somewhere in the region of £13 million. This business of costs and benefits is perhaps much more complex than the noble Lord would like to think.

My Lords, if, as the Minister said, these regulations are regularly scrutinised, can he say how many regulations have not been taken forward as a result of an adverse regulatory impact assessment?

My Lords, I can give some examples of regulations that have not been taken forward as a consequence of an impact assessment. The United Kingdom was successful in convincing the European Commission to drop the proposal on emissions limits for vehicles following an RIA; after a consultation, the Government's powers to take control of financial markets following a terrorist attack were considered unworkable and would have undermined London's competitive advantage, and that regulation was dropped; and the recent changes to transfer pricing rules were heavily influenced by the regulatory impact assessment. Following a consultation on analysis and costs, it was considered that they would be disproportionate for small businesses and, as a result, small and medium-sized businesses were exempted. Those are three examples I can cite to the noble Lord.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many regulations today lay down not what people should or should not do, but the standards which a society such as ours should try to live up to?

My Lords, my noble friend speaks a great deal of sense. That is exactly one of the purposes of regulation. It is also there to ensure fairness at work, better health and safety, the promotion of equality of opportunity, to tackle fraud and to improve maternity leave arrangements. Those are the kinds of matters that the vast majority of sensible regulations cover. I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite would want to argue with them.

My Lords, given that some of the individual regulations may be desirable, does the Minister acknowledge that it is the cumulative weight of all the costs—the cost of taxation as well as the cost of regulation—that crushes small businesses? It is that cumulative weight that the Minister has refused to try even to evaluate in response to my noble friend's original Question.

My Lords, it is perhaps worth taking a longer view on these matters. If you look at some of the independent evaluations of the regulatory regime in the United Kingdom you will discover that they believe Britain is the place in which to invest. The World Bank's Doing Business in 2004 publication named the United Kingdom among the top 10 countries, out of 130 countries, with the least regulation. That is a powerful endorsement from a major institution. While understandably concerned about regulation, I believe that noble Lords opposite too often forget its benefits.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, complete eradication of bovine TB is not likely to be achieved within the next 10 years using current control methods. The current public consultation on a revised TB strategy for Great Britain looks at what might be achieved in this timescale, potential control methods and the role of government and key stakeholders. Our priority in the shorter term is to prevent further spread of the disease.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that bovine TB has reached the stage where it has now become virtually impossible to contain? Is he aware that the estimated cost of compensation for infected animals is in excess of £50 million per year and that the disease is increasing by 19 per cent per annum? Does he agree with his right honourable friend Mr Nick Brown, the former Minister of Agriculture, who now believes that the disease must be eradicated'? I speak as a sponsor of the original badger protection Bill. Does the Minister agree that badgers and cattle should now be treated equally and that diseased cattle and badgers should be eradicated, on an area by area basis, so that we have healthy badgers and healthy cattle and human health is not threatened?

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that this is a very difficult animal disease—it is the largest threat facing us at the moment. In fact, help in containment of the disease and compensation for it cost £74 million last year. It is possible to slow down and, it is to be hoped, reverse the spread of the disease. There were severe setbacks during the foot and mouth epidemic but the backlog has since been overcome and the measures are at least containing the spread somewhat. Nevertheless, it is a very difficult situation.

There are clearly a number of viewpoints in regard to badgers and we are currently still conducting scientific experiments to assess the effects of various forms of culling badgers in particular areas. We are about to receive the results of a review of that process which will inform future strategy.

My Lords, has there been any progress in the search for an effective vaccine against bovine TB? Has there been any improvement in the situation that, I fear, existed when I was responsible for these matters, where every new incoming Minister was told that a vaccine was a decade away?

My Lords, we have expended some considerable effort on research into a vaccine, both for cattle and for badgers. The position is that there are various vaccines which would be appropriate for cattle but which would have side effects. However, even though there are more promising possibilities within that area, it will be a number of years—probably less than 10, but nevertheless a number of years—before we will have a general cattle vaccine. However, even though we may have an effective badger vaccine, the means of distributing it are a little hit and miss at the moment.

My Lords, is not the Minister slightly concerned about the vast increase in numbers? For example, the incidence of bovine TB in herds in the south-west of England has risen from more than 11,000 in 1994 to more than 19,000. The number of new herds infected has multiplied by three times and the total number of new incidents has multiplied by four times. I urge the Minister to push ahead because nothing is happening. What has been the response to the Central Science Laboratory's collection of badger carcasses? The project has been running since 1 June 2002: how many carcasses have been collected and how many were found to be infective?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is wrong to say that nothing is proving effective because the spread has slowed down; the backlog has been eliminated in terms of testing; and, at any given time over the past year, only 5.7 per cent of herds within the UK were affected by TB restrictions. Although there has been some spread of the disease, that indicates that one can exaggerate the problem. Nevertheless, although we wish to achieve the objective of eradicating the disease in the long term, it looks increasingly difficult to achieve within any given timescale. We are therefore concentrating on reducing the spread, restricting the amount of disease in the country and developing vaccines. To elaborate on my previous answer, we are spending £15 million a year at the moment in order to deliver an effective vaccine. As to the CSL trials, I do not have the exact numbers. I shall let the noble Baroness know. Clearly this is part of the scientific information that we are receiving in relation to our future strategy for badger culling.

My Lords, as an innocent in these matters, and in a spirit of honest inquiry, how do we know the numbers of infected badgers? Are badgers collected and tested for the disease every three months, every six months or what? If, as suggested by the noble Lord, the disease is to be eradicated, is he suggesting that the only way to get rid of it is to eliminate every badger in the country?

My Lords, although badgers are one means of transmitting the disease, cattle movements and, to some extent, human movements may also contribute to its spread. Indeed, the spread from the south-west up the country tended to coincide with restocking following foot and mouth. So badgers are by no means the only method of transmission and there are biosecurity measures which can limit the access of badgers to herds. As far as concerns testing, the noble Baroness has already referred to one type, which is on carcasses found at the roadside and elsewhere. Within the areas where the scientific cull is taking place, the culled badgers are being continuously tested. The effects on the herds in those areas are part of the so-called Krebs trials assessment in which we are engaged. We hope that it will inform how we will deal with this process once we have the full results from the trials.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government congratulate Mr Zapatero on his success in the Spanish elections and welcome his commitment to taking forward work on the constitutional treaty for the EU. The European Council agreed last week that negotiations on the new treaty should resume with a view to concluding no later than the next European Council in June. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will make a full Statement on this to the House later today.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I realise that these matters will, to some degree, be covered in the Statement later. However, did the Minister note the Prime Minister's statement on Friday that, after the events in Spain, he is in favour of a quick agreement on the constitution and that the constitution is a good thing? Has she also noticed the excellent report about the European Court of Justice from this House's European Union Committee that confirmed that powers will be transferred to the Union by the draft constitution? That is contrary to what Ministers have claimed and asserted in recent months. How can the Prime Minister go on saying that that is a myth? How can he go on saying that it will be good to have this constitution when it means transferring powers to unaccountable central institutions? Can the Minister shed any light on the complete contradiction that confronts us now, quite apart from what will be said in the Statement later this afternoon?

My Lords, on the noble Lord's final point, I refer noble Lords to the 41st report of the European Union Committee, which states:

"The draft Treaty makes plain the intention that the European Union remains a union of sovereign member states … It is clear that the balance of power is going to shift from the Commission to the Member States".

That is what our own Peers have said. That is what we have discussed on a number of occasions. We have been over this issue. There may be differences of opinion but your Lordships' own peer group said something quite different.

On the other point mentioned by the noble Lord, we look forward to a swift conclusion to the negotiations. The treaty is an important step forward. It spells out that the EU is a union of nation states. We believe that it reinforces the role of your Lordships' House and another place in ensuring that the EU legislates only where it can provide added value.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that conferred competences are the basis of the draft treaty? It is very clear from the draft constitutional treaty that competences not explicitly transferred to the European Union remain with member states. Therefore, there is no transfer of sovereignty to be feared in this draft treaty that is comparable to the Single European Act passed by the previous administration.

My Lords, I emphatically agree. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson has spoken with his usual admirable common sense and I remind noble Lords that my noble friend is not alone in taking that view. I do not know many noble Lords are avid listeners to the "Today" programme. I listened to it on Saturday and was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, say:

"Why did Mrs Thatcher not have a referenda on the Single European Act?"

He went on to say that it was:

"far and away more significant in the surrender of British sovereignty than anything involved in the present constitution".

It was not a noble Lord on my side of the House who said that but one of the cardinal figures on the other side of the House.

My Lords, we saw the eurosceptic press winding itself up to its usual hysteria at the weekend, as soon as it seemed likely that there will be an agreement by June. We have not yet heard any positive speeches by Ministers arguing the advantage to Britain of this further change in the treaty. May we anticipate that Ministers will be making the case loudly and clearly in weeks to come?

My Lords, I do not know many times I have stood at this Dispatch Box arguing the case over the draft treaty. We have said on a number of occasions that nothing in this draft treaty is agreed until everything is agreed. Noble Lords know that there is still a great deal of work to do. I shall not mislead noble Lords for a single instant about the importance and difficulty of the work that still faces the European Union on this point. The Irish Presidency's report to last week's European Council identified a number of issues that are unresolved. As noble Lords know, there are a number of issues that are enormously important to the United Kingdom Government.

My Lords, what powers of scrutiny of the treaty will Parliament have? Will Parliament be able to change a single word of it, or will it have to be accepted or rejected whole?

My Lords, the noble Lord has been in this House long enough to know the answer to that question. Once the treaty is presented to your Lordships' House and to another place, that is the treaty on which your Lordships will decide. We cannot tinker with a treaty that has been agreed elsewhere. I think that the noble Lord really knew that when he rose to ask his question.

My Lords, is it not—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that the House would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harrison.

My Lords, is it not a fact that the proposed new constitution will enhance the powers of scrutiny of national parliaments?

My Lords, taken with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary's proposals on scrutiny, which I had the honour of repeating to your Lordships' House recently, there will be considerably enhanced powers of scrutiny by this House and by another place. I am sure that all noble Lords will take full advantage of that. At least, I hope that they will because in recent months when opportunities for discussion have been offered I have sometimes found noble Lords sadly absent from the meeting rooms.

My Lords—

My Lords, I am sorry to spoil the fun but we are back to Business. With permission, two Statements will be repeated this afternoon. The first will be on the European Council and update us on Libyan relations and will be repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House. The second will be on serious and organised crime and will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Scotland.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 190A:

Page 79, line 28, at end insert—

"( ) Where a consent is given under section 36 of the 1989 Act for the construction of a renewable energy installation in—

(a) tidal waters and parts of the sea in or adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea; and

(b) waters in a Renewable Energy Zone,

the Secretary of State shall, before that consent is implemented, publish a program for the decommissioning of that installation."

My Lords, we moved this amendment in Committee. While supporting the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, says, in this rare instance we were satisfied with the Government's answer on the particular issue.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for that. The first part of what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said related to the construction standards and the built-in standards as against any outside shock, which would be part of the original consent.

As far as decommissioning is concerned, in serving a notice on a person to submit a decommissioning programme—which is covered by Clause 97(7)—the Secretary of State will have the power to direct a developer to consult interested parties. That involves everybody: shipping interests, conservation interests, the Environment Agency, and so forth.

The Secretary of State will also have the discretion under those powers to require a developer to make such proposals public—on a website, for example—as part of a formal consultation process. On receipt of a draft decommissioning programme, the Secretary of State will need to have regard to the general requirements for decommissioning which will be set out in those regulations, but should also have the discretion to consult further, if she so decides. Once the programme has been approved, it would be the intention that developers would provide that information on their website for public inspection. There does not appear to be a problem in relation to this, as it is already common practice for the decommissioning of oil and gas installations.

The Bill therefore already provides the powers for the Secretary of State to do what lies behind this amendment. As regards specifying more of the details—for example, if the noble Baroness suggests that the entire structure should always be taken away—it would depend on environmental factors and the science at that time. Clearly there is a decommissioning requirement at the beginning, which will be subject to consultation and, if necessary, the Secretary of State already has powers to extend that consultation to the decommissioning programme as such. I hope that the noble Baroness will, therefore, not feel it necessary to press this amendment.

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said, but what happens if a developer, by the time you reach that point, is no longer solvent? What powers do the Government have to ensure that the provisions which the noble Lord has been describing will be written into the licence?

My Lords, they will have the powers to ensure that there is some security in place in relation to that; for example, if the company moved abroad. In the case of bankruptcy there may be a more complicated situation, particularly as we are talking of what would be a considerable time-scale. However, some security is provided.

We will not be able to deal with all such risks, but neither can we do that in relation to oil and gas installations. By and large, we have found that the present regulations and the security provided in relation to those do work, have covered the cost of decommissioning and, where necessary, destruction.

My Lords, to what degree does the noble Lord find his own answer satisfactory, in terms of satisfying the point raised by my noble friends?

My Lords, it is as satisfying as it can be in the circumstances. We are talking about a long time-scale. Where a decommissioning programme is approved, its technology of decommissioning will of course change over the period of time; but the costs of decommissioning are, as far as is possible, built into the security provided at that time and into the contract and consent that are set up at that time. In a normal situation, I would have considered that to be pretty substantial security.

My Lords, I am not at all happy about that response. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, because I find the Minister's answer somewhat disappointing. He said that in the Bill there is the power to consult everybody, and that they can use their discretion and have regard to such issues. There is, however, no laid-down imperative that these things should be concluded. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for asking the question that I tried to pose: what happens if somebody is insolvent?

I urge the Government to give this more thought. Before Third Reading, perhaps the Minister could write to me and place a copy of his letter in the Library, outlining the type of security that people will have to provide before receiving permission to develop these wind farms. That would be helpful. I am not at all happy with the response, and I shall return to the matter at Third Reading, but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 190B:

Before Clause 107, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the points that he made in moving his amendment. He is right to say that he was aware that it would not go far enough to satisfy us, but we are always grateful for small mercies. With regard to the other matters that he brought up, we will leave those until the debate on Amendment No. 209ZA, which would be appropriate.

My Lords, I am giving way to my noble friend who is leaving the Chamber. It has been clear from the start that the insolvency of a significant contributor to the buy-out fund will lead to a shortfall in the fund and therefore a reduction in the sum that will be available to those who wish to cash in their renewables obligation certificates. Although the measures that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has described to the House are aimed at trying to mitigate the implications of that, the fact remains that there will be, from time to time, as a result of an insolvency such as we faced with the company TXU, a reduction in the amount available to those entitled to benefit from payouts of the fund.

In these circumstances the answer has to be that that has to be spread among consumers generally. It is far from clear that that will be the effect of what is happening. The effect will be to the disadvantage of those who invest in renewables and buy power from renewable generators—they will get less than they would otherwise have done. So the burden of an insolvency of, for instance, an ordinary generator from coal or gas will impact not on consumers as a whole but on those who invest in renewables.

The Government have now faced one case, TXU, which had an immediate impact on the tradable value of the certificates, reducing them quite significantly and thereby disadvantaging the purpose of the renewables regime. Can the Minister give a figure for how much that deprived the renewable generators of what they would otherwise have received if TXU and the other small company had made the required payments? I am not sure that the Government have this right yet, because it impinges directly on their renewables objectives.

My Lords, the noble Lord rightly refers to the TXU situation. The full effect of that on the shortfall of the fund, which would in one sense therefore be spread across the other suppliers in the first instance, was £23.1 million and another £500,000 for the other maverick—the other small supplier. In that instance it applies to almost 20 per cent of the total fund. Clearly, in any such situation the initial effect of that will be to hit the other suppliers and adjustments will subsequently be made to their prices. It may well mean that the consumers make a contribution to it, but the noble Lord is undoubtedly right that that is inevitably the effect of the system and that the other suppliers will bear the initial brunt of such a bankruptcy and shortfall. We have to balance the requirement to secure the fund with the interests of the suppliers and their delivery of the renewables obligation and the interests of consumers.

However, these amendments will make the situation of a shortfall less likely to arise or to arise at an earlier stage when the actual substantive effect would be less. But I am not pretending that it would not be there at all and that it would not have some of the consequences to which the noble Lord referred.

moved Amendment No. 190C:

Before Clause 107, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 191:

Before Clause 107, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I support the amendment, which was moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. This issue emerged in Grand Committee, much was said about it and the noble Baroness has fully answered the critique that has been made that it could be costly to the renewables sector.

In fact, as the ILEX report showed in great detail, that would not be the case if the proposals in the amendment were adopted. What is worrying is that although the Government and, indeed, everyone else fully accept the contribution that combined heat and power could make to the reduction in carbon emissions, so far those objectives have not been achieved. They are not yet at the target level that was set for the year 2000 and the prospect, on the basis of present policies, of achieving the 2010 target of 10 gigawatts remain remote.

CHP capacity for the past three years has remained unchanged while generation from that capacity has fallen. So urgent action is required if the Government are to do what they set out in the energy White Paper regarding CHP. We realise that the Government will publish a further report on CHP before long, but we do not know when that will be and we do not know what positive steps will be proposed.

We propose one measure that will immediately offer some alleviation and change the current feeling within the CHP sector. We strongly recommend that the Government adopt our amendment. I was involved in the lengthy debate on the Utilities Bill and it was certainly not our opinion that, arising out of that Bill, CHP would be discriminated against in the way proposed by the Government and treated on the same level—as the noble Baroness argued—as other sectors that emit far more CO₂. There is not the slightest doubt on these Benches that this is a desirable amendment which goes some way to start a move towards more CHP operations by, at least, making fuller use of existing capacity and introducing additional capacity that would be required if the Government's objectives are to be achieved.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I do so following the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who for some years was one of the few voices in this Chamber who consistently argued for the expansion of combined heat and power. My noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon has made a compelling case, to which I hope the Minister will listen.

I shall make one central point. When the White Paper was published last year it was widely interpreted as having set out a new approach to a low carbon energy policy. Indeed, in paragraph 1.18 of that White Paper, under the heading:

"The goals of our new energy policy",

the first goal, printed in bold, was,

"to put ourselves on a path to cut the UK's carbon dioxide emissions—the main contributor to global warming—by some 60 per cent by about 2050".

When the Royal Commission published that figure there was much scepticism, but that target has become a central plank of the Government's aspirations—I use that word because we recognise that they cannot be more than that at this stage. There it is—the first goal is to reduce CO₂ emissions.

The next page contains the proposals for how that will be achieved. Under the heading,

"How we will achieve our goals"—

that is, the goal of reducing carbon emissions—paragraph 1.29 states:

"We believe it is possible to achieve this goal by reducing the amount of energy we consume, together with"—

these are the key words—

"a substantial increase in renewable energy".

So, there is the goal—the end, as it were—of reducing carbon dioxide, and the means: the increase in renewables.

As my noble friend Lady Miller said, sight has been lost of the ends and the means have now become the primary target. They have become the goal. CHP is a technology that can achieve a marked increase in energy efficiency, by either reducing emissions for the same amount of output or increasing output with no increase in emissions; but receives no support. I shall weary the House by quoting, yet again, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Grand Committee:

"We need to ensure that the renewables target is met and not undermined by anything that we do to CHP".—[Official Report, 10/2/04; col. GC 528.]

That position stands the policy on its head. The means have become the ends—and there are other such examples that will be considered later—where a perfectly satisfactory and proven way of reducing carbon dioxide and the CO₂ equivalent is being denied the help that it deserves in order to save the Government's face as they head towards their targets for wind power.

What has happened? The CHPA made an interesting statement that capacity in CHP fell last year for the first time since 1991. That sits alongside an announcement from Defra, the noble Lord's own department, last week on 25 March, which said:

"Statistics published today by Defra show that carbon dioxide emissions increased by 1.5 per cent during 2003".

What could be madder than that? My noble friend called it "creative book keeping", but, with great respect to her, it is much worse than that: it is standing the policy on its head, confusing the ends with the means and ensuring that the Government will not achieve their first goal, which I quoted from the White Paper; namely, the reduction of CO₂.

It is nonsense to refuse to support CHP in order not to blunt the incentive for windmills, but that is what the Government are doing and why I support my noble friend's amendment. I hope that she will press it to a Division.

My Lords, I too support my noble friend's amendment. I admire her persistence, eloquence and vigour and the way that she has sustained those qualities having gone through the anaesthetic experience of proceedings in Grand Committee in the Moses Room. I do not know how your Lordships can summon the patience to go through that dreary business when the Committee's teeth are removed and you are told at the beginning that you have no power to amend the Bill but that you must go through it and discuss it and take what pleasure, enjoyment or satisfaction you can from government explanations.

I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I cannot understand why he instead of the Department of Trade and Industry has been saddled with this Bill. I thought that energy was subject to the DTI. I regarded the White Paper as a product of the DTI and I cannot for the life of me understand why the DTI is not here to answer for it. The explanation that occurs to me is the natural inborn coyness of the Secretary of State, who probably knows awfully little about electricity and does not care much about security of supply; perhaps she will be out of office when the penalties arrive.

The Government, particularly the DTI, have a sort of yearning. In case the Minister is under any misapprehension, I must tell him that my admiration, respect and regard for the DTI is extremely limited. It seems to suffer from the ambition of wishing to tell people what to do while at the same time taking little responsibility.

The Government and Ofgem have materially and substantially reorganised or been responsible for the reorganisation of the electricity market in our country. In the course of doing so they have reshaped it. The investment target of 10 gigawatts by 2010, which they accepted in their White Paper, has been rendered impossible to achieve. In the past two years, my understanding is that 2.7 million gigawatts have been put on hold, with the result that that target has become virtually unattainable, so the future security of supply has been jeopardised.

I do not understand how the Government have allowed such an important subject to be buried in the DTI, which is responsible for many other matters. As a result, they have put this vital matter into jeopardy. I hope that the Government will accept the powerful arguments of my noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, so that they show at least a gleam of sense in wishing to go in the direction which they stated in the White Paper.

My Lords, I am pleased to have my name to the amendment. Nothing is more important than cutting our carbon dioxide emissions. The Government's chief scientist says how important that is in counteracting climate change, which he views as the greatest threat.

We have heard that not only have the Government failed in their target but carbon emissions have increased by 1.5 per cent. In response, the Environment Minister Mr Elliot Morley said on Thursday that the Government would be reviewing UK climate change programme measures and policies to try to introduce new measures and policies so that climate change might be tackled more effectively. By writing this amendment into the Bill we will help the Government to do just that.

My Lords, I am grateful for some important speeches, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has long been an advocate on the matter. I turn first to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which was also enlightening but shows us that there is a misapprehension on the part of the Opposition Benches—he is not the only one to suggest it.

The energy White Paper, the Bill and our energy policies as a whole are a product of the whole Government. Nothing is buried, as he put it, in one department. We are all party to these policies and that is why we present them across government as a whole: the DTI, Defra, the Treasury and everyone else is engaged in their delivery.

CHP is an area that can clearly make major contributions towards a lower carbon economy. That is why the Government have set a target for it and supported it in a number of ways set out in the energy White Paper and since, fiscally in terms of support and the Government's commitment for their own estate and so forth.

The achievement of the Government's strategy on energy requires us to deliver on CHP and renewables. We cannot trade one against the other. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, argues that we should not maintain the renewables target at the expense of CHP and accuses us of doing the opposite. But both are necessary.

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was asleep at that point, because I never said anything of the sort. I was quoting him as saying that he could not give help to CHP because he saw it as a threat to renewables.

My Lords, exactly. The logical conclusion is that the noble Lord would prefer us to adopt a policy in relation to CHP that undermined the target on renewables. I am saying to the House that we should do both. We have a target to meet our objectives for renewables and a target to meet our objectives in relation to CHP. I agree to a large extent with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we need to redouble our efforts in support of CHP and that we need to ensure that we deliver the target of 10 gigawatts of CHP by 2010—not to the extent that she implied, but we are short of meeting that target at the moment. She is undoubtedly right that there has been some serious setback to the momentum on CHP, but the latest estimates suggest that even on current policies and current price matters we would be delivering about 8.5 gigawatts of CHP by 2010 and therefore the gap is achievable. Provided that we can focus support for CHP, we intend to deliver 10GW of CHP in line with our target.

CHP is not, as a result of the renewables obligation, discriminated against. Every form of power generation must meet the renewables obligation, whether it is coal, oil, gas nuclear or CHP. It is not discriminated against.

The noble Baroness has half an argument on the initial stages of the NETA proceedings, which probably disadvantaged CHP to some extent in terms of the supplier to the National Grid. However, that has been rectified by Ofgem so, that apparent discrimination has been removed.

The noble Baroness is wrong to say that the ILEX report says that it would have no effect on the ROCs' structure. In fact, it says that the effect on ROCs prices, and therefore the proper operation of the market in that area, will be about 5 per cent. We consider that it might be somewhat larger, but 5 per cent is a significant effect on the ROCs market. Indeed, it is almost the equivalent effect created by the TXU shortfall, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly drew our attention on the previous amendment. If it has an effect of that magnitude, surely we should take it seriously. The fact of the matter is that CHP, although a hugely more efficient form of fossil fuel, is a fossil fuel. It is therefore odd to take it in a way that undermines the achievement of the renewables obligation.

In closing, the noble Baroness referred to the views of another trade association. The only way in which the amendment could stack up would be to increase the size of the renewables obligation to compensate for the effect which the removal of the CHP from that obligation would cause. That is not in the amendment before us. It is more logical, but it would impose an effect on the rest of consumers and industry. The noble Baroness also referred to the cost of achieving the renewables obligation more generally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others referred to the strategy on CHP. We will bring together into the CHP strategy all the measures in support of CHP through the fiscal process and any new measures. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that it will slip a little from 1 April, but will be in place immediately after Easter. Therefore, the degree of government support for CHP will be clear.

While I am deeply sympathetic with the need to support CHP, the amendment has serious problems which undermine the renewables obligation and thereby the achievement of the carbons target. We should not be favouring one means of achieving—and we are talking about means—by acting detrimentally towards another. We need CHP and renewables in order to meet what we have set out in the energy White Paper. This amendment would distort that achievement and does not of itself contain rectifying measures to offset that negative effect. I therefore consider that we should not go down this road.

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He said that in part he agreed with me but he clearly did not agree with me enough. I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council which I attended in Brussels on 25 and 26 March. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent organisation and chairmanship of the Irish presidency and of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in particular.

"We met in the aftermath of the bomb attacks in Spain. We expressed our sympathy and solidarity with the Government and people of Spain. Co-operation in the fight against terrorism in Europe was stepped up after September 11 with the establishment of joint investigation teams, the freezing of terrorists' assets, the establishment of the European arrest warrant and a number of measures of co-operation with the United States and other countries. But we recognise that not nearly enough has been done especially on implementation of agreements, the provision of information to Europol and co-operation with third countries.

"At this European Council we have set deadlines for the implementation of EU measures. We set out further measures on counter-terrorist legislation in all member states, confiscation of crime-related proceeds, creating a comprehensive database of forensic material, strengthening border controls, better intelligence sharing, transport security and a number of other matters listed in the text that we adopted at the Council. We have appointed a single person to co-ordinate the Union's work in this area and are establishing a new counter-terrorism intelligence assessment cell, so that we will have the means of assessing intelligence, combined with effective police co-operation through Europol and co-operation among prosecuting authorities via Eurojust.

"I briefed my colleagues in the European Council on my visit earlier, on 25 March, to Libya. I made clear to Colonel Gaddafi our support for Libya's decision to abandon voluntarily its WMD programmes, and our welcome for the full and transparent co-operation which Libya had subsequently given.

"Libya's actions in the past have caused grief and pain to many individuals and families, which we cannot forget. I raised Lockerbie and WPC Fletcher with Colonel Gaddafi, stressing the importance of the forthcoming visit to Libya by the Metropolitan Police team investigating WPC Fletcher's murder. We shall stay in close touch with the families in both cases. But if change in Libya is real, we should support it. It is the beginning of a process and we should take it step by step. But I believe that a Libya free of WMD and with no links to terrorism is overwhelmingly in our interest and that it is right to pursue this dialogue, and we will.

"What has happened over the last few weeks has reinforced the determination of all member Governments in Europe to equip a Union of 25 member states to be able to operate efficiently and effectively. As honourable Members will see from the conclusions, the Council took substantive decisions on growth, employment, research and development and on how to equip our citizens with the education, training and access to lifelong learning which are vital if Europe is to maintain its competitive edge.

"But it is already clear that in a Europe of 25 and then of 28, decision-making cannot remain as it is. The result would be paralysis of Europe and an inability to make progress in vital areas of co-operation that are emphatically in the British national interest. We need to be better able to set priorities, pass simpler laws, and have a completely different system for the day-to-day running of the European Union. That includes governments setting the strategic direction in the European Council with a full-time chairman of the Council, chosen by governments, to take forward their programme.

"In almost every field—job creation, sustainable development, the environment and the fight against terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime—we need to work together as one in the European Union. That is what the constitutional treaty is about, and we shall seek to negotiate it to a successful conclusion under the Irish presidency. Britain will ensure that we keep control over our tax and social security systems, over the future of the UK abatement, over our own criminal justice system and over defence and foreign policy, as we have said we would. Provided that we do so, this treaty is right for Europe and right for Britain because, in today's world, particularly after the events of recent months, Europe needs to work more effectively to protect and enhance the lives of our people.

"The European Council gave its continued strong support to the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. This is a historic opportunity to end the long division of the island and we urge all the parties to seize it.

"The European Council welcomed the recent positive political developments in Iraq and the UN Secretary-General's acceptance of the Iraqi Governing Council's invitation to help. It condemned, however, the recent terrorist attacks in Iraq, which have had as their aim maximising civilian casualties. The European Council also expressed grave concern over the situation in the Middle East.

"The European Council strongly condemned the recent ethnically motivated violence in Kosovo. All leaders locally must now take responsibility for the situation to ensure there is no repetition.

"By negotiating within the European Union we have succeeded in establishing common policies to deal with terrorism, crime and illegal immigration. We are taking forward a programme of economic reform, long overdue. We have a common European stance to deal with the challenge of climate change. Last year in the context of the WTO negotiations we achieved the biggest ever reform of the common agricultural policy; not enough but a substantial step forward. We are developing a common foreign and security policy to tackle the common global threats we face. Our security, stability and prosperity depend upon our successful membership of the European Union. Under this Government, it will not be put at risk".

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement. I join her in again expressing the sense of outrage that the whole House feels about the barbaric atrocity in Madrid and in associating this House with the sentiments voiced by all European leaders.

It is good to voice abhorrence of terrorism. Words help. But it is also necessary to act. The noble Baroness knows that we on these Benches strongly support the stand taken by the Prime Minister against terrorism. He was right to associate himself so closely with President Bush after 11 September; right to support international action in Afghanistan; and right to take a lead in the removal of Saddam Hussein. So long as he holds firm, he can expect our support.

But when will we see similar firmness on these issues in every European capital? The Prime Minister has forged a strong alliance with Mr Berlusconi—they are clearly of a like mind on these issues. But did President Chirac and Herr Schroeder give any new commitments to join actively in the war on terrorism? And, while understanding the agony of Spain, are the Government worried over what many saw as a signal of weakness to Al'Qaeda from the new Spanish Government? Spain is now talking about removing troops from Iraq: did any other EU countries offer to send troops in their place?

We note the undertaking over closer European cooperation on security. But, given frankly varying standards of security in different member states, will the noble Baroness assure the House that no information will be shared with any other country that might jeopardise our security or that of our Armed Forces, or which might imperil the crucial security co-operation between this country and the United States?

What was the reaction in Brussels to the Prime Minster's report on his summit with Mr Gaddafi? Did the Prime Minister in his meeting with Mr Gaddafi persuade Libya to break ties with Mr Mugabe and the vicious Government of Zimbabwe? Were any concrete new steps pressed by the Prime Minister against Mugabe and his henchmen? Were any agreed? Was there a discussion of the role of Libya in the civil wars in west Africa, which are a matter of such great humanitarian concern to all in the EU?

Not long ago the House was told that the prospect of a new constitution for the EU had receded. Now it seems Paris and Berlin are back in the driving seat.

The Prime Minister himself once agreed that there was no need for a constitution. At the start of this process he said the British way for Europe was not a,

"single, legally binding document called a Constitution".

Why does he now support a constitution which would give the EU many of the attributes and trappings of statehood—a new president, a foreign minister and a new legal status—and one in which, as our EU Committee said in the conclusion of its most recent report on the future role of the European Court of Justice:

"In a number of respects the powers of the Union would be increased"?

At Question Time it appeared that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, had not read the report. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will have an opportunity to study its conclusions in due course.

The Prime Minister once agreed that the constitution was not essential for enlargement. In December he said:

"This is not constitutionally necessary in order for enlargement to take place".

Now he says that it is essential for enlargement. What made him change his mind?

Can the noble Baroness give any indication of when the next draft of the constitution will be published, and an indication of the timings? Assuming that the constitution is signed in June, when will the Government seek to ratify it—presumably in the form of legislation? Will they hope to publish that Bill of ratification soon after the June summit?

The events preceding this summit point to the acute dangers that stalk the international scene. For us on this side of the House they underline the crucial importance of this country's links with the United States, and make all the intrigues over a new EU constitution look insular and hopelessly short of the call of the hour.

What Europe surely needs now is a unity and common resolve against real and imminent external dangers. Should not every nation of Europe first help defeat terrorism, before courting further divisions over ill conceived new treaties? I hope that the Prime Minister will continue to hold out for that commonsense order of priorities. But if he does not succeed—or if, red lines or no, he turns into an advocate of a new EU constitution—then surely the Leader of the House must agree that the Prime Minister must carry the British people with him.

Several other governments have already given their citizens a promise of a referendum. The constitution will decide how this country is governed. This is a Government who have already held 34 referendums so far, but on this historic issue the Prime Minister refuses the British people a say.

Along with many Labour Members of Parliament such as Frank Field and Gisela Stuart, I believe that any proposal for a new constitution must be put to the British people. At least seven other member states of the EU are giving their people a say; the British people must have a say too. Why did the Prime Minister not tell his colleagues in Brussels what others of them told him: that his country could not ratify a new EU constitution without a test of the settled will of the British people in a referendum?

The Prime Minister tells us to trust him. On this side of the House we say trust the people.

My Lords, we on these Benches congratulate the Irish presidency on finding a very effective way of taking the position forward following a change of mind by Spain and Poland. This has again opened up the possibility of reaching a constitutional agreement by June.

Secondly, we strongly support the Prime Minister. A constitution would clarify the relationship between the member states of the Union and the Union's institutions. It would make things a great deal simpler, and go a long way in dealing with some of the murky areas of suspicion that surround the EU. It would also enable those of us who would like to see an honest and open debate to deal with the buzz of propaganda that creates an extraordinary picture in the British media of what the European Union is, and what a constitution would do. A large number of people in this country are greatly mislead by this.

We also congratulate the Prime Minister on his meeting with Colonel Gaddafi. Colonel Gaddafi may be, at best, a returned prodigal son, but the Prime Minster is surely right in saying that we need to pursue the possibility of diplomatic and peaceful methods to bring countries that are potentially very dangerous within the structure of international law.

We congratulate the Prime Minister on a courageous act, but I would like to add a word of warning. There was some discussion about possible arms deals. I hope that they will be closely limited to such brilliant deals for buying anti-mine equipment that Sir Richard Branson is now apparently developing. That is the kind of arms deal that we would like to see; as for other kinds—surely not at the present time.

I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The most disappointing thing about it is that there is a great deal in the presidency's conclusions that the Statement does not reflect. I shall touch on two or three issues raised in the presidency conclusions, enquire whether the Leader of the House has any comment to make, and ask why they have not been touched on in the Statement, as they are of great importance.

The first issue concerns the stability pact. It is time for governments, including strongly pro-European ones, to say clearly that the rules of the EU must apply to everybody, not just some and not others depending on the size of the country concerned.

Secondly, the presidency conclusions make rather charming reference to Russia and congratulate President Putin,

"on his stated commitment to the freedom of the media".

What does that mean? Is it not right and proper that an EU profoundly committed to democratic practice and human rights should say clearly that Russia must address the issue of the increasingly narrow approach to freedom of the media, if she is to be considered a future partner of the European Union—I do not say a future member, but even a future partner?

Thirdly, I am sorry that the Statement does not reflect the reference in the presidency conclusions to the singular importance of the Kyoto agreement. There is half a sentence in the Statement; there are several paragraphs in the presidency conclusions. Again, in the interests of clarity and courage, should we not say that one reason that the Kyoto settlement is in such difficulty is the opposition, including the lobbying for further opposition, of the United States? Europeans should surely have the guts to say that to their closest ally.

Lastly, it would have been helpful if the Statement had mentioned whether there is a real chance of uniting Cyprus, with only three days left before the Secretary-General's deadline becomes real. I ask the Leader of the House to comment on that.

Let us say from these Benches loud and clear that we have been waiting for years now to campaign on the true facts of the European Union. We have campaigned for this House and this country to take rather more pride in the remarkable achievements of that Union, not least in uniting Europe for the first time in a century or more. I hope that the Government will now start campaigning firmly on the truth, the real facts about the European Union and not be endlessly put off by some of the extraordinary propaganda that passes for information in some sections of our press.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their opening comments. I shall seek to address the specific issues raised.

I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his support for the very strong stand that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken on terrorism. That is reflected in EU leaders' discussions on the counter-terrorism agenda. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that they agreed a declaration that demonstrates a robust response by the whole EU to the Madrid attacks. The noble Lord may have read the declaration; it gives tight deadlines for the implementation of existing EU measures; identifies periods for further cooperation, for example, transport and border security; moves the European Union towards identifying and addressing those third countries failing to combat terrorism sufficiently; and agrees the appointment of a counterterrorism co-ordinator in the Council secretariat.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned, in particular, Spain and the announcement by the new Spanish Prime Minister. The noble Lord will be aware that it was made absolutely clear that that withdrawal depends on the position of the United Nations. It would therefore be wrong for us to pre-empt Spain's decision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, welcomed my right honourable friend's visit to Libya. Zimbabwe was discussed. It was made clear that Libya and the UK should stay in touch on the issue. My right honourable friend was very firm about the differences that we had with Zimbabwe and the need for the Libyans and Colonel Gaddafi to understand that. There has been continuing dialogue with the Libyans on the wider issue of west Africa. For example, while I was the Minister responsible for Africa, I engaged in dialogue with the then Libyan Minister for Africa, looking specifically at Libyan involvement in the continent as a whole.

On the question of a constitution, and why now, we have made absolutely clear that the treaty is an important step forward. It spells out that the EU is a body of nation states that has only those powers that governments choose to confer on it. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is well aware that one of the reasons that it is so important is that, if we are to have an effective Union of 25, we must look at ways of streamlining the measures within the European Union so that 25 can operate effectively.

Two different House of Lords committees have reported on the issue. One committee makes absolutely clear its view that the Union's powers are not being increased, but greater powers are going to member states and their parliaments. The Government will respond to the more recent report in due course.

On the question of when another draft will be published, the noble Lord will know that the commitment made at the European Council meeting was that there should be agreement by the Council in June. The Irish have gone back to look at a timetable to achieve that.

On the question of a referendum, members of the Conservative party have voted consistently against referenda on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said in a Radio 4 interview on Saturday morning,

"this is what Parliaments exist for. Why did Mrs Thatcher not have a referendum on the single European Act,"—

the noble Baroness is not in her place; she was here earlier—

"far and away more significant in the surrender of British sovereignty than anything involved in the present constitution? It never occurred to her to have a referendum".

That is because, under our constitutional arrangements, Parliament makes the law. It is interesting that suddenly the Conservative party wants that to change.

In certain circumstances, Parliament has decided that particular laws should come into operation only after a referendum has been held. In practice—I repeat, in practice—they have been held where there is a wholly new constitutional structure proposed. That is not the case in this instance, and we have made that absolutely clear time and again.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me why we would not trust the British people. We have trusted them, and they have delivered two major election victories for this Government. The noble Lord may well ask himself why he does not trust Parliament, given that it has a strong role to play in the process.

I shall now respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. On Kyoto the noble Baroness is quite right: the opposition of the United States has a big role to play. We, and others, have sought to talk to our US colleagues about the importance of the Kyoto Protocol. The noble Baroness will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that, in our presidency of the G8 next year, climate change and Africa will be the two issues at the top of our agenda. We have a commitment to raise the awareness of the British people and to campaign on these issues. My right honourable friend has made that clear. He again made it clear in the way that he responded to questions on the Statement this afternoon.

As regards the prospects for a Cyprus settlement by 1 May, the noble Baroness is right. There is not a huge amount of time. However, as the European Council has concluded, this is an historic opportunity to bring about a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem. Kofi Annan is in Switzerland leading the talks. The Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey are closely involved. The results of these negotiations will be put to referenda in late April. So there is a chance for all the people of Cyprus to decide the future of their island and for a united Cyprus to join the European Union.

On the noble Baroness's final point on the stability pact, it was made clear in the conclusions of the European Council that the economic reform agenda remains a key plank. We need to inject a greater momentum into that process. But European leaders and countries remain committed to that economic reform agenda.

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

Perhaps I may begin by welcoming the appointment of Mr Gijs de Vries as the counter-terrorist co-ordinator. He has done splendid jobs as the Dutch Minister for European Affairs in the European Parliament and a representative of the Dutch Government in the convention. His appointment is widely to be welcomed, as well as the role.

On a referendum, looking closely at the words that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister used, I believe that the only circumstance in which a referendum would be justified would be if any of the areas of tax and social security systems, the future of the UK rebate, our own criminal justice system or defence and foreign policy were to be subjects over which we no longer had control. They would be significant changes. However, as the Prime Minister said, provided we safeguard those the treaty is right for Europe and right for Britain. Will my noble friend accept from me that the combined forces of herself and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, are vastly preferable to the somewhat siren voice of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde?

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I wish to refer to what is in the presidency conclusions but not the Statement. One matter which concerns me seriously is that this Council meeting was meant to be taking stock of the Lisbon process. The first item is the Lisbon process priorities. The language of the presidency communiqué is ambiguous. On the one hand it refers to the picture being mixed and states that,

"the pace of reform needs to be significantly stepped up if the 2010 targets are to be achieved".

However, it then states:

"The message from the European Council is one of determination and confidence".

If there is so much determination and confidence, can my noble friend tell the House why it has been necessary also to appoint Mr Wim Kok to carry out a study on progress? As we reach half time in the Lisbon process agenda, we do not seem to be anywhere near half way as regards the results.

My Lords, I share my noble friend's welcome of the appointment of the counter-terrorist co-ordinator. Because concerns have been expressed, it is important to say that at the European Council the economic reform agenda was overshadowed by the issue of terrorism and discussions on the IGC. Because of the common goals and good co-operation which already exist between member states on these issues, we had already nearly agreed final conclusions on this matter before Friday's discussions. It would be wrong for noble Lords to go away with the idea that this was not an important part of the agenda.

Heads of state and government of the 25 current and acceding member states made a commitment to take concrete steps to boost Europe's competitiveness in line with the Lisbon strategy for employment and economic reform. It was agreed to intensify measures to raise employment and growth across Europe; to deliver commitments to tackle red tape and boost enterprise and innovation; to hold a hard-hitting review of progress in meeting our strategic goal of making Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world—on my noble friend's point about meeting the half-way point next year, that review will be critical—and to call on the next president of the Commission to make the competitiveness and economic reform agenda a top priority for action.

There is a recognition that we need to step up the pace. I think that the agreements made at the European Council will help that to happen.

My Lords, will the Minister recognise that the description of the proposed constitutional treaty by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as "ill conceived" could scarcely be worse chosen: that the treaty in draft has emanated from the deliberations of a convention set up by the existing and future members of the Union at a time of very great international danger; that the essential need for Europe is not only to be able to speak with one voice but also to be able to act with firm determination to curb terrorism; and that we strongly welcome the outcome of this conference which has demonstrated a willingness to reach agreement on the rules of the game and to take action in setting up Mr Gijs de Vries in his role as counter-terrorist co-ordinator?

While the views expressed about referenda differ widely, will the process not be described as more characteristic of the constitution of the Swiss confederation than of the United Kingdom's way of reaching decisions? Although there may be occasions when it is important to have referenda when considerable transfers of sovereign powers are at stake, either from Westminster to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom or from Westminster to some international organisation, this treaty in its current draft form scarcely conforms to those precedents.

My Lords, I agree strongly with the noble Lord's comments about the draft treaty, the existing and future members of the convention, and the conclusions of member states with regard to acting with firm determination on issues relating to counter-terrorism.

On his second point on referenda, the noble Lord is right. Only one UK-wide referendum has ever been held. That was in 1975 on whether the UK should stay in or withdraw from the European Union. Noble Lords are aware that the present Government are committed to holding a referendum on the euro. Referenda have never been held to approve changes to the existing institutions of which we are members. That is the situation that we confront today.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept my congratulations to the Prime Minister on his visit to Tripoli in the same terms as those offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams? Does she not agree that one of the most interesting and encouraging aspects of the visit was the way in which it responded to Colonel Gaddafi's surrender of his nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities? In anyone's book, surely that is a step in the right direction of reinforcing collective security. It is extraordinarily unusual.

A few years ago, we could have imagined Colonel Gaddafi surrendering the two men who were indicted to stand trial, but could we seriously have supposed that he would be shipping large quantities of weapons material out to the United States? I rather doubt it. Rather than concentrating on the trivia, such as the colour of the tent and the number of camels that were galloping around, it would be useful if we, and the press, could focus on things that really matter.

On Cyprus, I, too, should like to applaud the line taken by the European Council, its support for Kofi Annan's efforts and its determination to accommodate any settlement that Kofi Annan puts forward. That is crucially important. Does the noble Baroness not agree that if, alas, it becomes necessary to move to the third stage where Kofi Annan bridges the gaps because it has not been possible to reach agreement between the two parties and Greece and Turkey, and takes them up on their commitment to put that to a referendum, it would be incomprehensible if anyone concerned, particularly the leaders of a future member state of the European Union—that applies to Turkey and Cyprus—were to do other than to campaign for a "yes" vote in the referendum?

On the constitutional agreement, since the 1970s every British Government have questioned whether to take more decisions in Brussels and whether they should be taken by a qualified majority vote, which should be decided on the criterion of whether it was in Britain's interests to do so. Despite that, is it not strange that it appears that there is a new doctrine which says that the taking of decisions in Brussels, the taking of new decisions by a qualified majority, is ipso facto a bad thing just because that change is being made, irrespective of whether it is in this country's interest or not?

I should like to echo the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The Government should now step up their explanatory statements on what is in the constitutional agreement and why it is in Britain's interests to go ahead with it as long as our vital interests are protected in the negotiations. It is rather sad to see people claiming that there has not been such a change in Britain since the 17th century. I fear that that is a commentary on the teaching of history in British schools: in this case, I assume it is the private schools rather than the public sector. It is bizarre that quite a lot that happened in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and any understanding of the relative importance of the various treaties on which the European Union is based should be ignored.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right in his statement about Libya and the importance of concentrating on the things that matter. The result of UK and US engagement is that Libya, within a few weeks, has dismantled its nuclear programme, begun destroying its chemical weapons and is now working in full co-operation with the international community.

We all know that we cannot make the world a less dangerous place by engaging only with friends. We have to engage with countries where there are differences. Sometimes that is difficult. But it was absolutely right for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to visit. We still have a long way to go on certain issues, but we are moving in the right direction.

Having been the special representative, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, knows a great deal more about Cyprus than I do. On the back of the work that is being done by Kofi Annan, it is absolutely right that both sides will need to work with their citizens to campaign for a positive outcome to these negotiations. We all hope to see that, although the timescale is somewhat short.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made a plea echoing that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for us to continue to campaign on this issue with respect to the EU constitution and stressed the importance to Britain's interests of doing so. I entirely agree with the noble Lord. We shall continue to do that.

My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Baroness's reply to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and from a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, earlier today that Ministers have not yet read the very good and important report from our European Union Committee, entitled, The Future Role of the European Court of Justice? The report states:

"In a number of respects the powers of the Union would be increased".

That is about the draft constitution. It also pointed out that a new legal order would be created and that the ECJ would become the supreme arbiter of this country's powers.

Those are fundamental changes that totally refute what Ministers have been asserting. Indeed, they call in question what Ministers have been inaccurately quoting from a previous very good EU Committee report. If there is to be a serious debate, it is very important that accurate and not misleading statements are made by Ministers. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister to read the report carefully before she or her ministerial friends repeat the utterly misleading quotations that we heard today, which were taken inaccurately from previous House of Lords European Union Committee reports. They bring into disrepute our hard work and excellent reports, which should be treated with more seriousness than appears to be the case.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is wrong. I made it absolutely clear that there were two reports. In my response to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I made it clear that the Government would respond in due course to the report, which I have in front of me and which I have seen, on the ECJ. We have seen the report, which raises issues of primacy, the CFSP, the ECJ jurisdiction and access to justice. The report does not come down definitively on some of those issues.

On primacy, the report asks for more clarity on the impact of Article 10(1).

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that not only does the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party want a referendum on the very important matter of the constitution but a growing number of Labour Members of Parliament are also in favour of a referendum, as are more than 80 per cent of the people of this country, according to various opinion polls?

At Question Time today, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, stated that ratification of the European constitution would be the same as for all previous treaties. In other words, Parliament will not be able to make any amendments to the constitution. Does the Minister not agree that in this case that would be a constitutional outrage? Parliament will not be able to amend the provisions of a new constitution that the noble Baroness has just outlined as having serious implications for this country. Parliament—the House of Commons and this House—will not be able to amend the provisions as they would any other Bill that came before this House.

I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to deny that that is the way the Government will behave over this very important constitutional change to the way in which this country will be governed.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will not be surprised to know that I do not agree with him. This is not a constitutional outrage. We have made it clear that a treaty that increases the EU's accountability, strengthens the role of parliaments in European business, while preserving unanimity in key areas of policy, would be in this country's interests. The ratification process will be the same as for all previous treaties, as my noble friend Lady Symons set out this afternoon.

My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has introduced the teaching of history, I draw the noble Baroness's attention to the fact that this is the 400th anniversary of the union of England and Scotland. That, like the EU, was a union of two sovereign states under a common authority. The King believed, I quote the Lord Privy Seal, that, "this meant that decision-making could not continue as it had been".

That view did not find favour in the English House of Commons, where one particularly prominent Member said that this called for a special consultation of the people. That does not necessarily mean a referendum, but it means something remarkably like it. 'The result was that nothing was decided. If we look at the case of McCormick v Lord Advocate in 1953, a lot of the key questions were not decided in 1707 either. The relations between England and Scotland were not put on a settled legal basis until the parliamentary Session 1998–99. That caused a great deal of grief to all parties. Let us not make the same mistake twice.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Earl and to receive a lesson in history, as we have this afternoon. We are absolutely clear that if a Union of 25 is to operate effectively, we need to bring about some change. That is what this process is about. It is an important process, which will make the European Union more efficient and effective working as a Union of 25 rather than 15.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on our strategy to tackle organised crime. Although crime has fallen, there remains a very substantial challenge to turn round those aspects of criminality that threaten the very fabric of our society. The success of the police and other law enforcement agencies should not lead to complacency. We know that there is a great deal that now needs to be done to tackle specific areas of criminality, including organised crime.

"Organised crime is big business. It costs us up to £40 billion a year. Its effects are corrosive. It corrupts society and spreads fear and intimidation. Organised crime operates across frontiers and reaches into every neighbourhood, especially some of the most deprived parts of our country. Lives are destroyed by drugs, smuggling and prostitution. It is a major contributor to low-level crime, abuse and exploitation.

"Organised crime exploits every technique of modern technology, It uses identity theft, Internet and modern security communications. Such criminals employ many of the same methods as those who run terrorist networks. Indeed, the evidence is clear that many terrorists seek to finance their activities through organised crime.

"This means that now more than ever we need to make a step change in our response. So we are setting a clear objective: year on year reduction in the harm organised crime causes the United Kingdom and its citizens. We will make the UK one of the most difficult environments in the world for organised crime. We will work closely with our partners to undermine its international effects. Today's White Paper sets out our strategy to achieve these goals. We will create a powerful new agency—the Serious Organised Crime Agency. We will take new powers to disrupt activity and convict those responsible, and we will enhance our capability to stay one step ahead. Let me deal with each of these in turn.

"I announced to the House our intention to create the agency last month. Since then, we have consulted on how this should operate. The agency will bring together the responsibilities that currently fall to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, parts of the Immigration Service dealing with organised immigration, and Customs and Excise on drug and people trafficking and related financial investigation. I wish to make clear our tribute to the professionalism and dedication of these agencies and the staff working in them.

"The new agency will build on their success. It will bring together resources into a single organisation with a clear focus on drugs, people trafficking and financial crime. It will enable us to make more effective use of intelligence and to work more closely with specialist prosecutors. The new agency will enable us to bring more criminals to justice and reduce the harm that they cause.

"The White Paper sets out how the new agency will operate. It will be a non-departmental public body, with operational independence, overseen by a small, strategic board accountable to Ministers for the delivery of priorities set out by them. The agency will be chaired by a part-time non-executive. It will be led operationally by a full-time director general. We will advertise for both posts shortly.

"We will legislate to bring the new agency into being as soon as parliamentary time allows, but in the mean time, the existing agencies will work increasingly together to share objectives and a common strategy. In this way, we will begin to see the practical benefits of change during the transitional period. The creation of the agency gives us the opportunity to look at how best to improve performance and co-ordination, especially in the security of our borders.

"We will ensure, therefore, that Customs, Special Branch and the Immigration Service work together effectively. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will be directing the heads of each of these services to develop more closely aligned objectives and priorities through their individual business plans. This will ensure co-ordinated, strategically driven operational activity. These arrangements will not interfere with any existing structures of accountability.

"Nowhere is this co-ordinated approach more important than in the battle against terrorism. At present, each of our 43 police forces maintains a separate Special Branch. Terrorists respect no such boundaries. I believe, therefore, that through greater co-ordination of their activity we can significantly enhance effectiveness. I am therefore creating a new national system to pool intelligence and co-ordinate operations. My announcement on 19 March of an extra £15 million, as well as strengthening the counter-terrorism branch of the Metropolitan Police, will enable us to achieve this goal more readily.

"Defeating organised crime is not just about structures and effective operations. The powers available to our agencies to deter, disrupt and protect, are also critical. We need to make best possible use of our existing powers, whether probation licence conditions, asset recovery, immigration, or tax powers. On the latter, it was, after all, Elliot Ness from the Revenue who was crucial in leading to the conviction of Al Capone.

"The Proceeds of Crime Act is significant in our efforts to deprive criminals of their assets. The new cash seizure powers are netting £1 million a week, and we are on track to meet this year's overall target of recovering £45 million. But there is much more we can do.

"We will ensure better use of intelligence, management of information and that prosecutors are involved at an early stage.

"Recent changes to the law have provided a more effective framework. But no group of defendants is more adept at manipulating legal safeguards. They make corruption and intimidation part of their system of defence.

"As organised crime becomes more complex and organised criminals more sophisticated, so the need grows for new powers to gather evidence and for effective incentives for defendants to testify against their criminal associates. We will therefore build on the powers in the Criminal Justice and Sentencing Act.

"With my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and other colleagues, I have fundamentally reviewed the powers of our law enforcement agencies. As a result we propose to create Serious Fraud Office powers to compel the production of documents and information and to put Queen's evidence on a statutory footing in order to encourage defendants to plead guilty and to testify against co-defendants. We are taking forward the idea of a national witness protection programme; we will create new licence conditions. These would ensure that the finances of serious criminals are kept under close scrutiny after release.

"Other reviews are also relevant to this work: the use of intercept material in court—we will provide a definitive proposal shortly; the law on conspiracy and secondary participation; and, of course, Sir Michael Bichard's review of data retention and information sharing between police forces.

"With my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, I am also asking the Sentencing Guidelines Council to review the existing sentencing regime to produce sentences which match more clearly the gravity of the underlying offences and the harm they cause.

"Finally, we will need to ensure a clear focus on our protection of areas of organised crime where most damage is done. This means transforming the quality of our intelligence-driven effort. We must increase the risks and reduce the benefits of operating in this field.

"The United Kingdom has never before produced a comprehensive strategy to tackle organised crime. With a new ministerial committee under my chairmanship and a better understanding of the harm caused, we have the building blocks to adopt a more focused approach.

"The proposals I am publishing today will define a new approach for the 21st century which will match the threat and the sophistication we face. Defeating organised criminals is an objective I know we all share. I commend the White Paper to the House".

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a short while ago in the other place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

The Home Secretary said this morning during his BBC Radio 4 interview on the White Paper that he does not want any knee-jerk reactions to the proposals. I certainly undertake to reflect very carefully on the White Paper proposals in the coming months. Of course everyone wants those involved in serious organised crime to be brought to book, but the ink is barely dry on the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that took so much time in the House. That Act made substantial changes to the rules of evidence, including hearsay, bad character, prosecution appeals and re-trials for serious offences, and we do not yet know how those changes have affected our capability to do what we all want—that is, to ensure that serious organised crime feels the draught. So we will, of course, consider these proposals against the background of existing legislation.

But let me make it clear that I support entirely the principles of the announcement made by the Home Secretary today to create a serious and organised crime agency. Indeed, how could I not when my own party has advocated the creation of such an agency for quite a long time?

However, we still will need to have a rigorous scrutiny of the proposals. As noble Lords will know, I always hear in mind the Judge Bassingthwaighte principle: the more the Government and the Opposition agree on any matters, the more it is a duty for the Opposition carefully to check that they have got things right, otherwise policy may go astray and we may disproportionately damage our civil liberties.

I read with great interest this morning the March edition of Police—the Police Federation's magazine—and its remarks on the creation of the new agency. I certainly agree with it that there is nothing wrong with the thinking behind the proposed new force. But the question marks concern the extent of the resources that will be allocated for its work and whether these will be entirely additional to the current funding of the police service. Is the £15 million referred to in the Statement intended to cover the creation and running of the new agency, as well as the strengthening of the counter-terrorism branch of the Metropolitan Police? I certainly hope not.

There are also queries from the police about accountability. To what extent will the new body operate independently, regardless of the present statutory responsibilities of chief officers? For example, what impact will the new agency have on the autonomy of Chief Constables, which is so vital to the independence of our police forces? Who will decide what is a matter for the "super force" and what should be left to conventional forces?

I join with the Minister in the proper tribute she has paid to the work of our police forces across the board. They will now find some of their work transferred to the new agency.

Turning to some of the other issues within the Statement, I support the Home Secretary's announcement in regard to plea bargaining. We know that plea bargaining has worked well in countries such as Australia and America. However, I am aware that there have been problems in Northern Ireland, where it can create a situation whereby it is to the advantage of a criminal to, in the jargon, "fit somebody up". There can of course be no greater miscarriage of justice than that an innocent person should be gaoled so that a criminal can go free. How will the Home Secretary ensure that that does not happen?

Does the Minister accept that it will be imperative for the Government to ensure that the victim is given a proper explanation of why an offender may be given a much reduced sentence in recognition of his or her co-operation; or, indeed, as I understand it, may be offered full immunity, not merely a reduced sentence? If the Government fail to get the balance right between giving super-grasses a quid pro quo and putting the victims' interests at the heart of the criminal justice system, then the work that we have done in the House so far this year on the victims Bill would be as nought.

As regards intercepts, again a welcome from these Benches. But, again, an acknowledgement that there are dangers. We must ensure that we do not compromise intelligence sources. We know that intelligence information is, by its very nature, difficult to verify. It is surely imperative that we take steps to ensure that innocent people are not convicted on intelligence which turns out to be wrong. Above all, we need to protect the intelligence sources themselves and the way in which they operate so that we do not undermine their future viability.

I was interested by the reference in the Statement to the fact that a statement will be made shortly in regard to this issue. I heard the Home Secretary say this morning that a review is underway. When she responds, will the Minister confirm that it will be as a result of the ongoing review that the Home Secretary will give further thought as to how intercepts may be dealt with?

As regards sentencing, I am rather intrigued by the reference at the end of the Statement to the request being made by the Government to the Sentencing Guidelines Council to review the existing sentencing regime to produce sentences which match more clearly the gravity of the underlying offences and the harm they cause. What do the Government mean by "underlying offences"? What are those underlying offences exactly? What evidence do the Government have that they are not being properly addressed by the courts at the moment?

In summary, we support the general thrust of the Statement but we are mindful of the fact that, for all of us, the devil is in detail. We look forward to proper scrutiny of it.

My Lords, on my way here to speak to the Statement, I thought in a rather frivolous moment that I could refer to Elliot Ness. I then thought, "No, this is too serious a subject to bring that in"—but there is good old Elliot on page 3 of the Statement. That confirms my view that, in his more Walter Mitty moments, the Home Secretary does indeed see himself as a kind of Elliot Ness figure, kicking down doors and cutting corners in the battle against crime. That is why I endorse the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. No one on these Benches disputes our determination to combat organised crime. Like the noble Baroness, we give a warm welcome to the general thrust of the Statement. But, in doing so, we will not take one step back from our duty as an opposition to scrutinise very carefully how these objectives are put into place and how they affect the rules of evidence and the balance of guilt in our criminal law practices.

I hope that it goes without saying that we share the objective of making the UK one of the most difficult environments in the world for organised crime to operate in. However, there are worries for Parliament. Throughout history, and in other countries—the FBI under Hoover comes to mind—we have seen that if there is a massive concentration of power in powerful state bodies, whether they be police or security bodies, there is a need for a counterbalancing democratic and parliamentary accountability. I wonder whether this new super-agency will have parliamentary accountability built in.

As the noble Baroness also mentioned, there is some murkiness about how it will relate to existing police authorities. I wonder whether the Home Secretary's thinking goes further. Does he see amalgamations of existing authorities, particularly some of the smaller ones, or even the concept of regional police authorities responsible to the new regional governments? Clearly, he is thinking big at one end, but one of the fundamental parts of our policing has been its local and democratic control.

As someone who sat, sometimes slightly bemused, through the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, I am also slightly bemused about why it has taken so long to use some of the powers under that Act. I wonder whether inter-agency disputes are holding up implementation, as reported in the press, or whether some of the concerns about security, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred, have not yet been settled. Ministers must push to make it clear that they will not tolerate turf wars or the squirreling away of information—I have mentioned this in the House before. They must make the system work.

We also welcome the recognition of the overlap between terrorism and organised crime. The application of the Data Protection Act and clearance for sharing information are mentioned in this document. They are clearly still obscure—if that is not too Irish. This White Paper repeats the worry, which we raised with the Minister during proceedings on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, that information is still not being exchanged between agencies because of fears of, or misinterpretations of, the Data Protection Act. During debates on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill the Minister referred to an inter-ministerial committee and the Statement refers to Sir Michael Bichard's work. We should like to know when this matter will be resolved in a way that will allow exchanges to take place.

I have two other brief points. There is still concern about whether our action on money laundering is biting. It is the oil that lubricates organised crime. We need the City of London, professionals, such as accountants and lawyers, and Crown dependencies, which are often seen as black holes in this matter, to co-operate fully to make a reality of cutting into money laundering.

I should like a quiet report on how the Home Secretary is doing in his battle in Cabinet on ID cards. Is he winning or losing? We read so many leaks these days.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a point about sentencing. If there is a review that works out how the bad guys will get longer sentences, what will that do to our already over-crowded prisons? Will the Government show real determination to find alternatives to prison for less serious crimes, for young people or for women, as Cherie Booth was arguing over the weekend?

Defeating organised crime is a shared objective. That is a given. So too are the defence of civil liberties, parliamentary accountability and the rule of law.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the warmth of their welcomes. We too wish these issues to be scrutinised with the greatest care. That is why we ask in the White Paper for comments and constructive criticism. I make no bones about it: the Government want to get the balance right. Noble Lords have rightly identified the need to tackle organised crime. Criminals are becoming more sophisticated and adept at using the system. They see no local or national boundaries. We must become more skilled at co-operating internally in order to meet the challenge that they pose.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the additional £15 million. It was for Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism. The resources for SOCA have yet to be determined. We shall listen very carefully to what is said by the new director-general, who will be responsible for operational activities, and to the non-executive chairperson.

We want to build on the existing constitutional path. The details of the interaction between SOCA and the chief constables are to be determined. We listened very carefully to what the chief constables said and will take their views into account. I reassure noble Lords that the national policing plan makes organised crime one of the four key priorities for all forces. HMIC is already reviewing force performance in this area. SOCA will work closely in support of local forces through advice, intelligence and operational support. Local forces will have to deal with the criminals in their area. SOCA will focus on the higher level national and international players. Noble Lords will immediately notice that the interaction between those two levels is likely to be very significant. It is absolutely clear that co-ordination will be necessary to get it right.

We too wish to balance the protection of the accused and society's interest in seeing the guilty convicted. We think that the powers that we are suggesting in the White Paper get it right. But we are very anxious to listen to noble Lords, and to those who reply to the White Paper, before we come to any definitive view.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to Elliot Ness. I assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not see himself in that light. Perhaps a degree of mild levity is sometimes necessary to hone people's senses. I am delighted that my honourable friend the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, were, at one stage in their ruminations, thinking along the same lines. There are difficulties about the application of sharing information. This is an issue which has been given very anxious consideration and we await the outcome.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we await the outcome of the review on intercept information. We made it clear in paragraph 6.2.2 of the White Paper that the Home Office-led review is expected to conclude by June this year. If the Government are satisfied that adequate safeguards can be designed to prevent the disclosure of sensitive capabilities, and if the review concludes that the benefits of this move would clearly outweigh the costs, then we will bring forward legislation to allow the evidential use of intercept material.

Your Lordships will note the caveats. We have not seen the report; we do not yet know what is in it; but we are being clear and open about what that report may contain. We do not know what is in it and we shall have to reflect on it more carefully.

We also accept that the interests of the victims are of absolutely critical importance. The noble Baroness asks about the need for explanation. That goes very much to the way in which we are seeking to deal and to engage with victims in the system: first, to gain their confidence so that they will be prepared to be witnesses; secondly, to keep them informed right the way through the process, so that they better understand the decisions we are making and have an opportunity to have input into the information before an informed decision is taken. I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness, therefore, that that is also very much in line with our thinking.

The noble Baroness will know that almost the raison d'étre of the Sentencing Guidelines Council is to give us continuity and parity of treatment across the country. We know that, historically, different approaches have been taken in different areas in relation to a number of different crimes. It will be very important that, particularly when we are dealing with serious organised crimes, the guidance given to all our sentencers reflects the proper benchmark, so that they take into consideration that which the Sentencing Guidelines Council believes to be appropriate. We are absolutely confident that, under the chairmanship of the Lord Chief Justice, together with the other very able members of that council, they will be able to give the guidance to the sentencers which is needed to achieve parity of treatment and continuity across the board.

My Lords, I very much welcome the broad thrust of the Government's proposals. The Minister is absolutely right to say that there should be a period of reflection in order to get the matter absolutely right, or as right as can be.

May I ask a specific question, however? Is the Minister aware that there has been considerable concern over some years regarding the combination of the investigating and prosecuting responsibilities of HM Customs? The matter has been judicially investigated and reported upon. Is the situation now satisfactory?

Lastly, what will be the practical effect of putting Queen's evidence on a statutory basis?

My Lords, I am aware that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have in the past been subject to a certain amount of inquiry. I can assure my noble and learned friend that we are being very rigorous in the way in which we are approaching these matters, to make sure that the rules put in place are appropriate and robust enough to do that which we would wish them to do, in a way that is fair. Fairness, as my noble and learned friend will know, has to be the benchmark in relation to the content of those rules.

My noble and learned friend also asked whether we thought it satisfactory. I have nothing to indicate that it is not satisfactory. As for why we are putting the Queen's evidence on a statutory basis, your Lordships will know that, even though the Queen's evidence is allowed under case law, we lag behind in this. For example, 1 per cent of Customs defendants gave evidence in exchange for leniency last year. We hope that placing this on a statutory footing will make clearer what are the incentives for those who cooperate, and will make it available where it is appropriate.

The current proposal is that a defendant who wanted to co-operate would come to an agreement with the prosecutor. The defendant would offer full cooperation in the investigation, testify if necessary, and plead guilty of the offences he or she had committed. The prosecution would make an application to the judge, setting out the level of co-operation, and the judge would be able to impose a split sentence, setting out what the defendant would have received but for the co-operation and what he will actually receive. In the event that the testimony turned out to be false or misleading, it would be open to the prosecution to go back to court and to seek to have the original, higher sentence imposed. We aim to give clarity and transparency on how the matter will be dealt with, in a way that will be accessible, open and, we hope, clearly demonstrable as being fair and just.

My Lords, to continue with the question of the Queen's evidence, is it not the case that courts and juries look with considerable suspicion on evidence which is given by a witness who has a clear personal incentive for giving that evidence? As is well known, there are witnesses who disclose in court that they have been paid by a newspaper, on terms which mean that they will get more money if the defendant is convicted than if he or she is not.

Is that not doubly a problem when there is somebody who, for the co-operation and for giving evidence, has been offered a reduction in sentence, particularly where—as is not now the case—either the sentence is deferred until after the evidence has been given or the prosecution has a right to appeal against the sentence if the evidence turns out to be useless or misleading? In those circumstances are the Government satisfied that the Queen's evidence provisions will be effective in the battle against serious crime?

My Lords, we have looked at the situation not just here, but in Australia, the United States and elsewhere where these provisions have been applied. Other national responses will not necessarily equate with us.

I can understand the noble Lord's anxiety about the way in which jurors may view this evidence. We very much take that on board, but, particularly when there is other supporting evidence confirming the evidence given on a Queen's evidence basis, this evidence can potentially be very useful and important.

In order to make what is being done clear and open, we think it better that it should be on a statutory basis. Everyone is then able to understand its precise nature and there can be clarity—when the evidence is given and when the jury comes to determine whether to believe the evidence—about precisely what has happened to that particular individual.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Glentoran who is in Committee at the moment, may I briefly refer to the position of organised crime in Northern Ireland?

Your Lordships will be well aware that, just as progress was being made with community relations both before and after the Belfast agreement, the problem of drugs escalated and with it the impact of organised crime, feeding on the fertile ground of polarised communities. In Northern Ireland these are to a considerable extent openly controlled from within the prisons. I hope that that experience will be noted when it comes to legislation and practice on the mainland.

May I also briefly refer to the treatment of supergrasses in Northern Ireland? I hope that both the Minister and the Lord President will pay careful attention to the Northern Ireland experience in the use and treatment of supergrasses. The proposed legislation to place Queen's evidence on a statutory basis for the protection of witnesses is likely to have a considerable effect on the use of supergrasses. I should hope that any proposed legislation as it affects Northern Ireland will pay attention to the totally ruthless treatment of these key witnesses and informants if their cover is blown; and, in addition, that any retrospective inquiries will protect them and prevent their being made more vulnerable.

My Lords, I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the experiences in Northern Ireland will be taken into account. Your Lordships will have seen in the White Paper that we are considering what steps need to be taken for a national witness programme. One of the most distressing elements of the change in how organised crime is operating is the level of witness and victim intimidation in certain spheres, particularly in relation to the higher level of organised crime, with which we are dealing. I can therefore reassure the noble Viscount that the Government will carefully scrutinise these issues.

I should add that the number of cases in which such provision is used in our country, at 1 per cent, compares unfavourably with places such as the United States of America, where it is 26 per cent. Our conviction rate in such cases is similarly not as advantageous as that for America, Australia and some of the other countries which have made better use of both Queen's evidence and the opportunity to plea bargain openly and frankly. We will take those issues very much into account.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I welcome very greatly any progress on the use of intercept evidence in court. I hope that she will do all in her power to ensure, so far as she can, that the review is complete by the end of June.

On the other issue that has been mentioned, I welcome very much the suggestion that plea bargaining should be put on to a statutory basis for the purpose of eradicating organised crime and, in particular, terrorism. There are dangers, of course, but such a procedure has been found very successful—if my memory is correct—in Italy in dealing with the Mafia. It was for that reason that I recommended very strongly in the report that I wrote many years ago that something of this kind should be done.

One question occurs to me. We are told that £1 million a week is being recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Can the Minister say to what extent that relates to crimes committed before the Act came into force, or whether it relates solely to crimes committed since the Act came into force?

On the last issue, my Lords, I am not absolutely clear whether it is post or prior to the Act coming into force, but I shall certainly check. However, I can tell noble Lords that, as a result of the Act coming into force, we have been able to recover a huge amount of money that we would never have been able to recover before. We hope to reach the £45 million target. As your Lordships will anticipate through the mathematics, at the rate of £1 million per week, we are hopeful of far exceeding that figure. If we have that information, I certainly undertake to make it available.

I very much welcome everything that the noble and learned Lord said in welcoming the Queen's evidence and about putting it on to a statutory basis as regards plea bargaining. He is absolutely right that very significant advances were made against the Mafia in Italy using exactly these sorts of strategies. We have to take that into account when we decide how to respond to a very similar scourge.

My Lords, I should declare an interest as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. In welcoming my noble friend's Statement, I seek further clarity on the issue of additional resources that may be made available to the new agency. In particular, there is concern both that these are financial resources that might be diverted from other policing activities and that expertise might be diverted from local police forces. I should be grateful for an explanation of whether it is envisaged that the resources will be additional, and, if so, how the protection of expertise can be maintained.

I should also welcome some reassurance from my noble friend on the extent to which there will be close working between the new agency and local police services. There is a danger, I am sure, that the new agency might be seen as being parachuted into local areas to carry out particular operations, while it is the local police who will have to deal with any community consequences after such an operation. Local police may also have much more community intelligence which could inform the actions of the agency. So I would very much welcome some clarity about the relationship with local police services.

My Lords, I can add little to what I have already said. The noble Lord will know from the Statement that my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary will be looking very closely at these issues. When those two look closely, one can anticipate that the issue of resources will be close to their hearts and their deliberations.

The partnership working between the new agency and the local police forces will be critical because local intelligence and international intelligence merge when we are considering issues of serious crime. Organised crime is just that, because the organisers have to be both international and local. So I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that it is not being contemplated that the new agency will simply parachute in without fully engaging local forces. It just would not work in that way. Partnership is going to be key to ensuring that this new agency takes off.

Your Lordships will know that the agency will include staff from Customs, NCIS and NCS—approaching, I think, about 5,000 members of staff. The agencies planning to move to the new agency currently have a budget of about £375 million. New legislation will set out the constitutional and governance arrangements of the new agency; provide it and its staff with necessary powers; ensure that it remains accountable to Ministers, Parliament and the public; and make provision for a range of legacy issues. All those issues will have to be resolved before the agency is finally up and running and comes into being. I hope that that is of some help to my noble friend.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement made by the noble Baroness. Will she bear in mind that in the past 40 years organised crime has varied from time to time in different parts of the United Kingdom? Can she assure us that the proposals that the Government have in mind will enable greater concentration on prevention and dealing with crime in places where it appears to be worst?

My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this service is being created to give us a more comprehensive understanding of organised crime across the country and to collate intelligence across the board. It is not just about drugs; it feeds into people trafficking, money laundering and all the other aspects of the most serious end of crime. We will have to use much more creatively and in a much more targeted way the intelligence about what is happening on the ground. We are by no means saying that what we do now is not of excellent quality. However, if we can organise that in a more structured way, we will get even greater benefits from the reorganisation.

My Lords, the Statement points out that,

"each of our 43 police forces maintains a separate Special Branch. Terrorists respect no such boundaries".

Does that mean that there will be a national Special Branch? If not, why not? And would not "the National Special Branch" be a better name than the rather woolly name already coined for the agency? Perhaps in the consultation the Government will be open to considering better names.

Secondly, do the Government recognise that an essential prerequisite for achieving the objectives in the Statement is to have a central record of individuals, with biometric means of linking those individuals to their activities? Finally, on Al Capone: I know it was probably intended as a joke, but it refers to something 60 years ago that represented a major failure of the American justice system, which is why Al Capone was the only person convicted of tax evasion who ended up in Alcatraz.

My Lords, we want a number of his kind to go in the same direction and we hope that our British agency will be more effective than any others. I know that the House will be confident about that.

I cannot give any indication as to whether the name SOCA will change. I should share with noble Lords that many people of Afro-Caribbean extraction might like the name SOCA because it describes rhythmic and successful Caribbean dancing, so it may have a nice connotation for some. But I am sure that these are issues which we will look at in due course.

My Lords, biometrics?

My Lords, as regards biometrics, I cannot tell your Lordships exactly what the central records will contain. Your Lordships will know that biometric data are the most useful data for us to have in relation to tracking; the intelligence services have been able to—but I should not say that, should I? I shall simply say that biometric data are an issue that has certainly excited a lot of proper attention in the detection of crime.

My Lords, could the noble Baroness clear up whether what she described extends over the United Kingdom or is merely a plan for England and Wales? I ask that because I live in Scotland.

My Lords, the agency will cover England and Wales. I will write to noble Lords about how the agency may co-operate with agencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

My Lords, the Statement did not say a word either about the trafficking of arms or about those people who hold illegal weapons in this country. Can the noble Baroness throw light on that subject, which is pretty urgent?

My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to talk about arms in terms of guns and how that would be dealt with? Any form of trafficking will be covered by the new agency. However, I should address and correct what I just said when answering the noble Earl in relation to UK-wide. The new agency will have a UK-wide remit. However, in Scotland and Northern Ireland the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the Police Service of Northern Ireland will continue to exercise those functions they currently undertake in partnership with the existing UK agencies. I was wrong to say that it would not be UK-wide; it is UK-wide, but it preserves two different distinctions and that is what confused me.

I believe that arms are covered. I will write to noble Lords. It depends whether arms fall into the organised crime bracket.

moved Amendments Nos. 191A to 191C:

Page 89, line 14, leave out "Authority for Energy Regulation" and insert "authority"

Page 89, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

Page 89, line 23, at end insert—

"(4) In Article 56(1) of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/419 (N.I. 6)) (power to amend Part 7 of that Order to take account of amendments of corresponding Great Britain provisions), the reference to amendments made to sections 32 to 32C of the 1989 Act includes a reference to subsection (1) of this section.

(5) Subsection (4) extends to Northern Ireland only."

moved Amendment No. 191D:

Page 89, line 29, leave out from "are" to end of line 31 and insert "Northern Ireland suppliers.""

moved Amendment No. 191E:

After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 191F:

After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendments Nos. 191G and 191H:

Page 89, line 37, after "GEMA" insert "and the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation ("the Northern Ireland Authority")"

Page 89, line 38, leave out from "arrangements" to second "for" in line 39 and insert "for GEMA to act on behalf of the Northern Ireland Authority"

moved Amendment No. 191J:

Page 89, line 40, leave out "OFREG's" and insert "the 2003"

moved Amendment No. 191K:

Page 90, line 1, leave out "OFREG's" and insert "the 2003"

moved Amendment No. 191L:

Page 90, line 2, leave out "OFREG" and insert "the Northern Ireland Authority"

My Lords, it stands on its own.

My Lords, I apologise. It is also a textual amendment that inserts "the Northern Ireland Authority" to replace "OFREG". Whether or not it stands on its own, it has exactly the same impact as previous amendments. I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 191M:

After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 191N:

After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, the fourth and fifth lines from the bottom of page 8 in the Marshalled List make up proposed new paragraph (2) in the amendment, which reads:

"The power to make modifications under this Article includes power to make incidental, consequential or transitional modifications".

Are those modifications limited in any way? When Parliament legislates in such a way, it is usual to make quite sure that such modifications are limited to the matter under consideration in the relevant part of the Bill.

My Lords, the geographical limitation is quite clear; it is self-evidently to Northern Ireland. The energy licence conditions in general are modifications simply intended to ensure that the proceeds of the sale of NFFO NIROCs in Northern Ireland are used to offset costs to Northern Ireland consumers. I do not think that there is a limitation placed on the extent to which that may be achieved; it will probably he conditioned in large measure by the sums realised.

moved Amendment No. 192:

After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I was intrigued by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the traditional support given by the Labour Party to the coal industry and I thought of the enormous burden that now rests on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, because of his position as sole occupant of the Labour Back Benches. I beg the House's pardon, because the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just appeared. That makes two.

The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, makes an important point. Very little is being done in this country to advance the cause of clean coal technology. Indeed, it is not many months since one of the effects of NETA—the electricity trading arrangements—drove DRAX almost out of business, operating for only four hours out of 24. That was not a clever move, because DRAX power station has the greatest amount of flue gas desulphurisation in this country. The noble Lord is correct to say that there is a huge amount of work being carried out in other countries and that should be the case here.

I remember a visit I made some years ago, as a shadow energy spokesman, to the Coal Industry Research Establishment, just outside Cheltenham. There I encountered a technologist who appeared to be working on his own on the underground gasification of coal as a much better way of exploiting our coal resources than by sending men down the pits. I put my arm around his shoulder and said, "My friend, I don't know whether you realise it, but you may have the entire future of the coal industry on your shoulders". I do not know what became of that research, but it is one of the ways in which—through underground gasification—one can produce a product that can be treated effectively with a variety of refining techniques and produce what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seeks: the ability to take heat from coal without generating carbon dioxide and other noxious gaseous emissions. We ought to be doing that.

After consulting briefly with several people in the electricity industry, I found that they had not heard of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and they felt that to introduce it at this stage might be premature. But I hope that the Government will take seriously the comments of the noble Lord about the need to step up research on clean coal technology. It is essential because, as the noble Lord said, we have hundreds of years of reserves and it would be foolish if a technology were devised that we could not use. Although we may not feel able to support this particular amendment, the thought behind it is extremely important.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows a great deal about this matter. It would appear that we need the widest possible range of energy sources and we need to use our own coal in the best possible way. I can see the problems of timing, but the main point is that the Government must bear in mind the tremendous advantage that there has been to this country by exploring for oil in the deep sea. That technology has been sold to our enormous advantage across the world—to China and many other countries—because the oil industry had sufficient vision to see that, as the oil in the North Sea reduced, the industry's skill and technology could be sold. Surely we need to do that in the case of clean coal—and that is the noble Lord's most important point.

I hope that the Government will not just dismiss the amendment as a pipe dream—the matter should be attended to now regarding the export of expertise. We must ensure that we have that expertise to export.

My Lords, the role of clean coal technology is likely to be important in our energy policy and the sustainable use of our coal resources. Coal-fired power generation is likely to be with us for many years and if we are to meet our energy targets we need to use it significantly more cleanly than at the moment. I somewhat refute the suggestions that the Government have been doing nothing about this matter. We have recognised for some years that clean coal technology has a role to play and we have been investing in R&D in this area. In fact we have committed some £9 million of support for this programme, including 39 projects and another £4 million for cleaner coal technology over the next two years. That includes not just the cleaner use of technology and the mitigation of negative carbon effect; the DTI also has a programme under way looking at the feasibility of underground gasification of coal, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, which could also make a contribution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, it could help not only us but elsewhere in the world.

In addition we are starting to develop, in collaboration with the energy industries, a new carbon abatement technology strategy and coal will be a key element. Some of that will be published next year. So I do not believe that the Government's commitment to clean coal technology should questioned. We have our own R&D and we learn from international R&D.

However, the amendments before us would effectively create a clean coal obligation. A mechanism for clean coal similar to the renewables obligation would be hugely more complicated. We know that renewable technologies do not create any emissions, but for fossil fuels there are not only carbon emissions but a number of other gases which can damage the environment, particularly sulphur and NOx, for which developments are also taking place. The measurement of how far the clean coal technology was contributing to carbon saving also needs to take account of what we are doing in relation to other gases. Also, it is not easily offset against the renewables obligation and other more straightforward measures that are required of industry in that regard.

We will implement some other measures that will encourage the control of emissions. The Large Combustion Plant Directive, which will primarily focus on sulphur and nitrous oxides when it is implemented in 2008, will also have an effect on coal burning. The emissions trading scheme that is due to start next year will encourage the control of carbon dioxide emissions from coal and other fuels. Both measures will help to drive the markets to more sustainable and more novel uses of coal within the technologies available—and will help us to develop better technologies. To express that in terms of an obligation would be difficult and complicated. It would divert from the renewables obligation and it would not be clear how much of a contribution it could make compared with other measures to support and deliver clean coal technologies that are either in place or will be in place in a few years' time, which will make some contribution to our carbon reduction objectives.

I support clean coal technology and want to see measures to speed up its adoption, but I do not think that an obligation is the way to do it.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his supportive remarks and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I thank the Minister for his encouraging remarks. What worries me is how we move from supportive remarks and from limited expenditure on research and development to having a plant or two in this country. I cannot see how that will happen. The way we are going, we could go on dribbling a few million pounds more here and there into research and development, which is minute compared with what is being done in the United States, for example, from which experience we should be learning.

When do we reach the point at which we can have a plant to demonstrate, to potential customers not only in the UK but in China, India and elsewhere? That is the problem that worries me, which I shall continue to explore and tackle. I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the Government will give it further consideration. The White Paper referred specifically to a demonstration plant. It states on page 92, which I quoted earlier: "With this in mind—namely, to have a plant which can be used as a demonstration for other countries—

"we have already put in place a programme of support for advanced traditional cleaner coal technologies which is intended to bring forward demonstrator projects that may help to showcase the relevant technology more widely".

When is that going to be done? When will we see the hardware? When will we move from talk and limited amounts of R&D to having a bit of plant in place? It was stated in the White Paper, but lacking in the Minister's remarks. He did not indicate when we might see the plant in operation. That was the purpose of my amendment.

However, I would like to reflect on all that was said and consider whether to return to the issue at the next stage or in some other way. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 195A:

After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment because I believe that we have the opportunity to make a major step forward in achieving our national aims of cutting CO₂, improving local air quality, increasing the sources of supply of road fuels and boosting the productivity of our farming sector at an affordable cost. I remind your Lordships that I am the unpaid president of the British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils, more commonly known as BABFO. I know how disappointed the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, is not to be able to speak to the amendment.

The United Kingdom is moving towards a position of net imports of road fuels. World prices are also rising. Brent crude has been close to 30 dollars per barrel for some time. Political uncertainty in areas where we have to buy oil makes it sensible to build a domestic industry from our own sustainable resources. I cannot think how many times in this Chamber I have mentioned that North Sea oil will not last for ever.

In today's climate with world terrorism, a degree of self-sufficiency must be welcome. We still import 18 per cent of our petrol products. That figure is due to rise by 2 per cent this year.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned in Grand Committee, at present about half a million hectares of land lie idle under set aside—a scandalous waste of a natural resource. A similar area of land has been arable and could be brought back into cultivation for fuel. Such a move would be a major national gain in productivity, as the agricultural overhead costs relating to that land are effectively already being met by existing businesses. Such a productivity gain should be attractive to the Chancellor.

The Treasury has already provided a 20p per litre rebate for biodiesel and the same is promised for bioethanol by 2005. However, that is simply not enough to provide the kick-start to the industry that we need as biofuels cost twice as much as fossil fuels before VAT and duty.

I find that one of the most depressing things is how, once again, this country is being left behind by our European partners. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned what is happening in Brazil. Other countries are far and away advanced in technology, in usage and with a more relaxed tax regime than we are in this country.

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about this is, as a farmer in Scotland, I discovered by chance that my oilseed rape was being exported to Austria and Germany and made into fuel. If they can do it, why cannot we?

Everybody I meet is lost as to why the Government will not embrace this with open arms; every countryside body supports it; every farming body supports it; every environmental body supports it; and all the farming press support it. Only last week, two well respected magazines mentioned this very amendment. One even had a half-page form for farmers to fill out and send to their MP.

All this leads one to believe that biofuels should no longer be left in the wilderness and just to confirm that, on 11 March the other place debated biofuels. It is one of the most interesting and informative debates I have ever read in the other place. I wish I had time to quote all 36 columns from Hansard. Every speaker, from all sides of the House, argued the case for biofuels in a most constructive manner. All speakers, without exception, were pro-biofuels. Indeed, the amendment we moved in Committee was even mentioned.

In the words of the honourable lady, Mrs Spelman,

"no one has dissented on the matter under discussion. This is quite extraordinary".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/04; col. 1741.]

Indeed it is and I so wonder why. Yet it was sad to read at col. 1746 that the Minister said that the "case was persuasive" and yet the Government felt unable to support the amendment.

The amendment would ensure that all the benefits I have described would accrue to the nation as a matter of certainty. I commend it to the House and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will accept it. After all the years of fighting for this cause, we are so nearly there.

I leave your Lordships with one final but perhaps vital thought. A tonne of fossil fuel not burned today is available for future use, but every tonne of biofuel not produced today is lost for ever.