---

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, inertia certainly does not prevail. We have enjoyed the presidency greatly, and I am very sorry that the noble Lord has not. On the constitution, as noble Lords have said on many occasions, it is right that discussions do not take place until the Austrian presidency, under which we shall have pause for reflection. On concrete tangible matters, apart from the better regulation programme that I mentioned earlier, there are issues such as the European security and defence policy policing missions, which are very important for ensuring the security not only of our continent but of the world. For example, the first EU mission to Aceh is extremely important.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the follow-up to Hampton Court, we should not limit future discussions to that agenda? An important part of the future diplomatic agenda must be the pursuit of budgetary rigour and discipline. In relation to the recently produced report of the Court of Auditors, will Her Majesty's Government give serious thought to supporting the demand of the European Parliament's budgetary control committee that each member state should give a statement of assurance on its part of the 80 per cent of the budget that is spent in member states? Then we could aggregate and see how well member states are doing spending Community money.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I agree that budgetary rigour is of the greatest importance. I cannot commit the UK Government to provide a statement of accounts, but it would seem to be a good idea.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the whole House knows the noble Baroness to be entirely
 
23 Nov 2005 : Column 1619
 
honourable, and so I hope that she will not advance the usual untruthful justifications of peace, trade and environmental collaboration when, in view of the obvious failure and pointlessness of the Hampton Court conference, I ask her what is the point of the European Union?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for not questioning my integrity. The European Union provides peace, security and prosperity. The citizens of this country, and of the European Union as a whole, have better living standards and are more secure, thanks to the European Union. That is thanks to the past 50 years, and we look forward to the next 50 years as an integrated member of the European Union.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the attitude of the Benches opposite—being so sneeringly dismissive about what has been achieved with the accession of Turkey—is misplaced? Does she further agree that the accession of Turkey will be remembered from this presidency and that it is a shame that the House cannot acknowledge that an Islamic state joining the EU is something to be celebrated?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the accession of Turkey—which has been welcomed on so many occasions by the Benches opposite—is an enormous step forward. I also believe that the on-going discussions with the Balkan countries are of the utmost importance. The European Union has recently decided that Moldavia will ultimately be able to become a member of the European Union. That is a tangible achievement of the European Union.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, while trying to be as neutral as I should be in my position here, may I ask this slightly cynical question? Does the Minister not agree that the point of the European Union is that if it did not exist we would be deprived of the wonderful statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I would greatly miss the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. But I would also say that, as we move towards greater globalisation, if the European Union did not exist, we would have to invent something like it because we have to work closely together with other countries to secure the competitiveness and security of our country.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, if I may return to humdrum reality, can the Minister give an assurance that, however anxious the British Government may be to secure a budgetary agreement during their presidency—which would be desirable, but is certainly not necessary—there will be no question of any sacrifice or abrogation of the United Kingdom budgetary rebate? I should like an assurance on that
 
23 Nov 2005 : Column 1620
 
because, as many people have pointed out—not least the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who had an important part in negotiating it on behalf of the Government—the resolution provides that the rebate diminishes automatically as agricultural support diminishes, so there is no need for any separate action.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be absolutely no ceding of the abatement unless and until the distortions of the CAP are properly addressed.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, as we draw to the end of another successful British presidency, will my noble friend nevertheless redouble efforts to implement the Lisbon agenda and to complete the single European market, because that is the way that prosperity is brought to the European Union and jobs to its people?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Lisbon agenda is of the utmost importance, and that was the basis of the discussions at Hampton Court. The title of the meeting at Hampton Court was "European Values in a Globalised World". To pursue our values in a globalised world, we have to work on the Lisbon agenda and we have to achieve a properly integrated single market.

Toxic Chemicals: REACH Agreement

2.51 pm

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether progress on addressing the issue of bio-accumulative, toxic and persistent chemicals in the environment will be adequately addressed by the proposed Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals agreement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Bach): My Lords, once agreed, REACH will put in place a comprehensive system for identifying and dealing with substances of very high concern. Uses of these substances, including those that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic, will be covered by an authorisation process. The object of the authorisation process is to ensure that the risks from substances are properly controlled and that these substances are eventually replaced by suitable substances or technologies, with the aim of reducing risks to human health and environment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply because it perhaps gives your Lordships an example of what Europe has achieved. I am sure that the Minister would agree that, for the first time in generations, we have a chance to drive down the number of hazardous chemicals in our children's bloodstreams. Will the UK therefore use its presidency to broker an agreement at the Council of
 
23 Nov 2005 : Column 1621
 
Ministers on mandatory substitution, so that if a safer alternative chemical is available, hazardous chemicals will not be authorised?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has asked this question because if we succeed at a special meeting of the council on 19 December in getting the REACH proposals accepted by the member states, that will be a considerable achievement. The current regime for chemicals is flawed, bureaucratic and slow. In too many circumstances, it is ineffective. More than 40 laws, more than 100,000 substances and almost 40 years after the EU started to address the issue of chemicals, we still have not got there. We must get there by 19 December—

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords—

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that, as far as authorisation is concerned, there are some minor differences between the views of the European Parliament which were expressed at First Reading last week and those of the council as we can ascertain them. We are determined to see a settlement reached by the end of our presidency.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister; I thought that he was about to sit down. Does he agree that while it is clearly unacceptable to have in the environment more than 100,000 untested chemicals that pre date 1981, which is the case at the moment, it would be equally unacceptable for much more testing than would be required to take place simply to deal with chemicals of high concern? If there is to be more testing, there are clearly implications for animal testing and competitive issues. Increased testing should apply only to those chemicals which he mentioned as being of high concern, as rated by the European Standards Authority.

---