Sitting of 28 April 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Broadcasting (Regional Coverage)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
9.34 am
Dr. George Turner: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate on an issue of such importance to my constituents. My good fortune in securing the debate enables the House to discuss one of the major issues addressed by the Digital Television Broadcasting Bill, which I introduced last week under the ten-minute rule.
I shall briefly remind the House of the specific nature of the problem, which concerns terrestrial television. The services of each regional television broadcaster are transmitted from specific locations. However, in some areas, the lie of the land and the physical characteristics of UHF electromagnetic waves prevent some communities from receiving signals from the transmitters assigned to their appropriate regional broadcaster. Instead, the signal from a transmitter targeted at a different region may be the only one that they are able to receive. Those viewers can watch only regional programming services intended for others. That is the problem.
For many years, solutions that used additional transmitters or relays have been constrained by the number of channels possible when using analogue broadcasting, and by the severe interference problems when adjacent transmitters are not well separated in frequency. That also explains why analogue broadcasting has had genuine difficulty in providing more than four universal channels. Not surprisingly, many of my constituents cannot receive Channel 5.
Many thousands in west Norfolk are affected: the borough council has estimated the figure to be as many as 20,000 households, which represents an audience of up to 51,000 people. My constituents are angry about this situation. More than 5,000 of them were sufficiently motivated to write to the King's Lynn Citizen to say so. All of them want something to be done so that they are able to watch their own regional television programmes.
In preparing for this debate, I have taken the time to check whether my constituents are alone in the importance that they attach to receiving the correct regional television programmes. The facts are interesting. Since 1970, the Independent Television Authority, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and, most recently, the Independent Television Commission have monitored public attitudes towards a number of broadcasting issues, in particular viewers' preferences for a range of programme types.
258
Over the past decade, news items have come right at the top of the list of programmes that viewers say they are most interested in seeing on television. Of crucial relevance to this debate is the fact that, since 1995, regional news has overtaken national news as the most popular of all programme types. Indeed, in the most recently available survey, 90 per cent. of the British public said that they wanted to see regional news: that is 30 per cent. more than those wanting to watch soap operas. It is not surprising that my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members are up in arms, because the programmes that they most want to see are the very programmes denied to them.
We should also bear in mind the growing importance of community and regional identities in our everyday life. My constituents are served by a health authority, social services, education services, library services, police and fire services, all of which are administered on a county basis within Norfolk. The Government have, through the establishment of regional development agencies, made it clear that local identity within regions is increasingly important. Ministers are currently encouraging communities to become involved in the development of community safety strategies and local transport strategies, and they see a strong role for the community in developing policies on access to the countryside. Is there not a serious democratic deficit if people do not have access to news and information about their own communities via the most popular and effective medium?
Heacham, in my Norfolk constituency, provides a clear example. Heacham is a particularly large village which, in television terms, is cut off from its own region. Residents can receive only Yorkshire Television. It is common that local events, even those filmed in the village, cannot be seen on television by residents. Although Yorkshire Television, to its credit, includes some items from Norfolk, residents are understandably dissatisfied that the bulk of its regional news programmes focuses on issues in Yorkshire.
Last week, I gave the House a specific example of a reconstruction of a serious crime that took place in Heacham. It was broadcast on Anglia Television, but could not be seen by Heacham residents, who were the most likely witnesses. People in Heacham do not shop in Bradford, they are rarely in Leeds, and they are not particularly interested in the local goings-on in Grimsby. Like the majority of viewers around the country, they want to know what is going on under their noses in their own communities.
Mr. Brian Cotter: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that people in my constituency, especially in an area called Bleadon Hill, cannot get the correct regional programmes, and can only get programmes in the Welsh language, which is difficult for them.
Dr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman's constituents must be even more cross than mine if they cannot even understand what they are hearing. As that intervention has shown, west Norfolk is far from alone in suffering from these problems. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport informs me that other affected communities are to be found in many parts of the country: in the Scottish borders, Fort William, all the border areas between Wales and England, parts of Yorkshire, such as Harrogate,

259
Richmond and Leeds, parts of Lincolnshire, Lancashire, the Wirral, Barnoldswick, Nottinghamshire, Wiltshire, the Swindon area, north-west Bristol, Devon, North Somerset and even some locations in London. The Library estimates that some 40 or 50 Members have constituents with cause for complaint.
Shortly after becoming a Member myself, I secured a short Adjournment debate dealing with the problems in North-West Norfolk. As a former engineer, I could sympathise with the real difficulties explained to me by the technical experts. There are myriad interference problems—as well as the need for our part of the country to be good neighbours with broadcasters in Europe. I am pleased to say that, following that debate, work commissioned by the Independent Television Commission and the BBC has identified scope for the addition of one more analogue relay in Heacham. I hope that that soon becomes a reality. I was glad to note that Heacham parish council had offered land for it. Nevertheless, although the relay will help everyone in Heacham, it appears that others elsewhere can be offered little help if solutions are limited to analogue broadcasting.
British television is now in the most significant period of change in its history following the arrival of digital broadcasting techniques. The new technology allows full use of modern computing techniques; it is also far more efficient than the analogue system with which we have grown up. Many more channels can be included in the same frequency space, and good reception can be achieved with transmitters working with anything from 10 per cent. down to 1 per cent. of the power levels used by analogue. The modulation techniques used are far less susceptible to interference problems between transmitters.
Digital television offers the possibility not only of introducing a range of new public and commercial services, but of eliminating anomalies in regional television coverage. This is a golden opportunity, and we must seize it.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Twenty-five per cent. of all relay stations in the United Kingdom are in Wales. Unless the ITC has a programme for the diversion of those stations, digital terrestrial television will not reach millions of viewers, not only in Wales, but in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that our objective can be achieved through the use of the larger number of channels available to digital terrestrial television to make simulcasting possible.
Mr. John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case for the potential of digital television to solve some of the problems of regional broadcasting. Does he agree that digital television is the medium through which Government will be able to deliver a range of public services? Should not Government be considering questions relating to regulation and incentives for the securing of that public service access, while the ground rules for the new medium and its technologies are being established?
Dr. Turner: That is an excellent point, to which I shall refer later.
260
Simulcasting involves a transmitter delivering more than one regional variation. If the transmitter broadcasting Yorkshire Television to my constituents also broadcast Anglia Television, viewers could choose which to watch. Alternatively, solutions in some areas might involve a different deployment of transmitters and power levels. Engineers in the industry have confirmed that those possible solutions are entirely feasible. The options will be made immensely easier as and when analogue switch-off frees the spectrum.
Last month, the ITC reported the results of research showing that, even ahead of analogue switch-off, additional relay sites in the midlands and East Anglia alone would allow up to 1.3 million more people to receive digital services. It also reported that, through the use of a network of relays all operating at the same frequency, up to 400,000 people could receive digital broadcasts in the south Wales valleys. The ability to use single-frequency relay networks is a major advantage of digital broadcasting, and will offer even greater efficiency in the use of available frequencies.
In the past, genuine technical problems were the cause of our frustration. It is clear that, in the digital era, the fundamental issues are political and commercial rather than technical. If there is the will, there will be a way.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problems, but may I caution him? He should not believe that there is an unlimited spectrum, especially in relation to digital terrestrial broadcasting.
Dr. Turner: The fact is that, through the use of modern compression techniques, we already have access to some five digital channels for every analogue channel. At present—without the release of the frequencies currently allocated to analogue television—we are looking at up to 30 channels. It will be for the people to decide, through Parliament, what use they want to make of those frequencies when they are freed up. I do not envisage all of them being used for our purpose, but I trust that some will be, for our problems are serious.
Parliament must be determined to insist on the highest possible levels of access, and on the right of people to receive their own regional broadcasts. We must also look after the interests of important minority groups. As a result of press coverage of this debate, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People approached me. It is campaigning for the Government to look again at the targets relating to the availability of subtitles for those with impaired hearing. I support its campaign; I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) that we shall need to consider other public service issues. We need to clarify public policy and, if necessary, legislate. Under the current arrangements, we face the horrifying prospect that, even with up to 30 digital channels fully rolled out, many people in rural areas such as mine will still not be able to watch the very programmes that they most want to see.
During my campaign, I have spoken to a number of key players in the industry. Many would welcome early clarification of the way forward for digital television: clarification of the public interest constraints to be imposed and, in particular, clarification of the conditions for analogue switch-off—or, as some in the industry

261
prefer to call it, the switch from analogue to digital. Substantial investment is involved, and I think that the Government should face up to the issues as soon as possible to maximise the benefit that we can all obtain from the new technology. The industry, too, while defending its legitimate commercial interests, must become constructively involved.
The ITC tells me that it now aims to identify the criteria for the next phase of digital television expansion. It has also awarded a contract for a preliminary study of a digital-only terrestrial television frequency plan. In recent correspondence, it tells me:
"We are taking very seriously the needs of different communities to be able to receive the appropriate regional service".
More ominously, however, it adds:
"But we also have to understand and take into account the wide range of competing claims on limited spectrum."
What, then, are the priorities to be? How should they balance the need of our constituents to gain access to the programmes that they want to watch with the interest of commercial broadcasters to sell their programmes to as many of us as possible? I want Parliament to be fully involved in the early stages of the debate, helping to shape the ground rules rather than leaving Back Benchers to moan and whinge on behalf of their constituents when proposals have been finalised. My predecessor was fobbed off by statements that digital television did not provide a solution—not, I suggest, because of technical difficulties, but because the carve-up of the frequency spectrum had taken place without due regard for the needs of his constituents. I believe that my Digital Television Broadcasting Bill offers one way forward. In a recent survey in my constituency newsletter, 80 per cent. of respondents supported it, although it is clear that they are interested in the ends rather than the means.
The Minister has already shown considerable sympathy for the problems of my constituents, and has been generous with her time in discussing them with me; but can she promise that proper priority will be given to finding solutions rather than excuses, and will she now publicly confirm that the Government recognise the importance of addressing the issues early rather than later? Does she acknowledge that we have already waited too long?
9.50 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on his debate, which is on an important and interesting subject. I was glad to hear him say that he had an engineering background, so that he could probably understand some of the complicated science surrounding the issue.
I speak in the debate because I have some constituents who cannot receive any television. As we move into the next millennium, some people do not have a television set. Although some of them have a video machine, they have to pay a BBC licence fee for it. Therefore, the first thing that I should like to achieve is a proper, complete build-out of relay stations, so that those who cannot receive even analogue stations may receive them.
262
I should like, secondly, to deal with the very real problem of digital television services. A large chunk of my constituency—like that of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk—will not be able to receive any digital broadcasts until the analogue switch-off date.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee pressed the Secretary of State for a date for analogue switch-off, but that he was unwilling to give one? It was thought that, by setting a date, there would be more rapid expansion of digital technology, to achieve the aims that my hon. Friend has set himself.
Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend has a point. However, an analogue switch-off will not occur for 10 or, probably, 15 years. Therefore, many of my constituents will not be able to receive digital television until then; and that would be quite wrong.
I was very pleased to note that the transmitting authorities have now agreed to increase the digital relay build-out to 81 transmitters. Nevertheless, considering the many hundreds of transmitters in the United Kingdom, that is very slow progress. If we are to reach 95 per cent. digital television coverage, a further 120 transmitters will require conversion or re-engineering. Therefore, it will cost vastly more to cover that 5 per cent. of the population than it did to cover the initial 90 per cent. Moreover, 5 per cent. of people—mostly in Scotland; some in my constituency and in other areas of the north Pennines; many in Wales and in Northern Ireland; bizarrely, some in Norfolk and Suffolk; and even some in Hove, in Sussex—will not be able to receive digital broadcasts until the Government do something about it.
The solution lies in making all services available on satellite. Clearly, it would be totally uneconomic to cover 100 per cent. of the country with relay transmitters to reach that final 5 per cent. of those who do not receive the transmissions. Satellite television is the only way of reaching them.
Mr. Phil Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his point on satellite, and does he agree that satellite broadcasters currently have absolutely no intention of broadcasting any regional programmes? Have they not, because of cost, totally ruled out broadcasting ITV regional programmes? Will he comment on that?
Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated entirely what I shall say, but I entirely agree with him on the point. We shall get to a rump of people—5 per cent. of the population, but they number several million people—who will not be able to receive terrestrial digital television, which they will be able to receive only by satellite.
A well-known misunderstanding of the situation is that one must subscribe to Sky Digital to receive satellite television. One does not have to do that. I was rather grateful to the BBC for issuing recently a handy little leaflet that makes it absolutely clear that one can receive digital satellite broadcasts without subscribing to Sky. One may receive from satellite, free of charge, BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC Choice, BBC News 24, Channel 4, S4C, Channel 5, and even the Parliamentary Channel.

263
As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, one cannot receive ITV and ITV 2, because the ITV companies refuse to make their programmes available on the digital satellite platform. However, the BBC and others have set them an example, and I believe that, ultimately, they should follow it.
The difficulty is the competitive nature of commercial television, and the fact that ONdigital—the new digital terrestrial channel—is owned jointly by Carlton and Granada, which together own a vast chunk of the ITV network. They think that giving their programmes to satellite will give Sky a commercial advantage over them. I believe that the Government should intervene in that competitive battle, and I know that the Director General of Fair Trading is examining the matter. However, if that finding is not satisfactory, the ITV companies, in new regulations, should be made to make their programmes available to everyone, as Sky has to make its programmes available on terrestrial channels.
Mr. Rowlands: I understand, appreciate and support the burden of the hon. Gentleman's case. However, I think that most people still hope that relay stations will be converted to deliver digital terrestrial services to our constituents. I hope that he will support that, too.
Mr. Atkinson: I support it and, indeed, should like more relay stations to be built. However, economic reality dictates that that will not happen. It would cost enormous sums to get the next 120 transmitters operating, and entails the need to re-engineer hundreds more small relay stations serving a few people—which, because of spectrum problems, may not even be physically possible. I do not understand the nature of those problems, but have been told that they exist. I agree that there should be more conversions, but, for 5 per cent., they will not happen.
The problem has become more acute since the launch of ITV 2, and since ITV has done a deal for exclusive pay-per-view coverage of the Champions league football matches. For the first time ever, in some cases, those games will be shown on ITV 2. Therefore, even if viewers are prepared to pay to watch the matches, they will not be able to do so unless they are able to receive ITV 2 terrestrial transmissions. I think that that is wrong, and that, in denying people the opportunity of watching what they want, we are crossing a rubicon.
I await with interest the Minister's comments on the matter. It is very strange when one's children still do not know about "Neighbours" or "Home and Away": they live almost in a different—some might say better—world from the rest of us. Nevertheless, as we approach the 21st century, those of my constituents in Hexham who still cannot see any television should have the opportunity of seeing some of it. The majority of my constituents should have the opportunity of seeing digital television before the analogue switch-off.
9.57 am
Mr. Andrew Miller: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on initiating the debate, and on pursuing the interests of his constituents with such vigour. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), too, has been working extremely hard in addressing the issue in the Wirral area.
264
The Wirral peninsula has a steep escarpment dipping down to the Dee valley. Consequently, many households are able to receive only television signals from Wales and from Wolverhampton. The accents in both those areas are somewhat foreign to the good folk of the Wirral peninsula. I therefore found myself agreeing with the intervention made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Although I perfectly respect and welcome the right to Welsh language broadcasting, it is a problem when it is being broadcast—under broadcasters' supposed public service obligations—to those who speak only English.
Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. However, as an ex-head boy of Wirral grammar school, I think that the two cultures should be able to get together.
Mr. Miller: I very much take that point. I certainly do not criticise spreading the Welsh culture—I welcome it; and there is a great deal of cross-fertilisation—but there is a huge language barrier. Broadcasting in another language is not an adequate response to broadcasters' public service obligations.
Moreover, it is inadequate to say that my constituents' regional needs are being met because they are able to receive regional television from Wolverhampton. There are plenty of examples—including the very good one of the village in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk—demonstrating that regional broadcasting is an important public service that cannot be provided either in another language or from a great distance.
The digital revolution gives us the opportunity to address those issues. However, if it is to do so, great flexibility, which broadcasters have not demonstrated in the analogue phase, will be required. They have always argued that there are problems with spectrum and difficulties with costs, but, technically, it is not an insoluble problem.
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to get together with her ministerial colleagues in other Departments to try to find a solution. It is absurd that spectrum allocation is not the responsibility of one authority, and that it reflects historical rather than future requirements. For example, the Ministry of Defence could give up some of the allocation that was relevant to its needs 20 or 30 years ago, but is no longer necessary.
There should be a structured debate involving the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry in the reallocation of spectrum. It would then be possible to say to companies that broadcast by satellite, digital terrestrial, cable or whatever, that if they wanted to bid for a slice of the action in a particular geographical area, they would have to provide a technical solution—possibly by buying in link services such as simulcasting—to make sure that everyone in the area could receive the service.
It is not asking a great deal and it will force broadcasters to work more closely with their counterparts, helping to overcome some of the issues concerning spectrum allocation. There are practical ways forward, but they require careful collaboration between the public and private sectors. If that happens, the digital revolution will present the opportunity that many of our constituents desire.
10.2 am
Mr. Phil Willis: I also congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing this morning's debate. I have nearly forgiven him for the nursery voucher issue. He has certainly done some sterling work on the issue that he raises today and he is to be congratulated on bringing it to the attention of the House so forcefully. My constituents are grateful to him and to the Government for the way in which they are responding. I am sure that in her reply to the debate, the Minister will support my glowing comments about the Government and say that they have addressed many of the issues, giving my constituents cause for hope in future.
The problems in Harrogate and Knaresborough are similar to those that have been mentioned by other hon. Members. They are not quite as bad as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), where programmes are beamed in in Welsh. However, we do get them in Geordie, which has the same effect on many of my constituents—with apologies to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who I am sure is quite fluent in that language.
We have two transmitters beaming into Harrogate and Knaresborough. One is in Bilsdale near Darlington, which is used by Tyne Tees Television and BBC Newcastle. The other is at Emley Moor near Huddersfield, which is used by Yorkshire Television and BBC Leeds. The quality of both those transmitters, which will be upgraded to digital early in the process, is absolutely excellent. Both signals can be picked up in my constituency, but there is a rub: unfortunately, people who want to watch Yorkshire Television and BBC Leeds cannot get the signal that they want; nor can those who want to watch Tyne Tees Television and BBC Newcastle. People living in the same street find it difficult to watch the station that they want.
In one block of flats in the centre of Harrogate, the bottom two floors can get BBC Newcastle and Tyne Tees Television, and the top two floors can get Yorkshire Television and BBC Leeds. The residents argue constantly and, of course, feel that their local Member of Parliament should resolve the problem by building them a transmitter. Half my constituency cannot receive signals from Emley Moor in Yorkshire and that causes a bigger problem.
Another issue that has not been raised this morning has become more prevalent lately. When people upgrade their televisions and videos they now have automatic tuning. I do not know whether other hon. Members have the same problem as I do, but since my son went to university, we are unable to change the tuning. Automatic television and video tuning picks up the best signal, but overriding it sometimes requires an engineer. Our new television apparently needs a new piece of circuitry to do that.
The question is whether all this actually matters. Harrogate and Knaresborough are synonymous with Yorkshire, as are the flowerbeds of Harrogate at Harlow Carr. It is a pity that Madam Speaker is not in the chair as only last year, she had a rose named after her in Harrogate. I commend it to hon. Members who do not have one in their gardens. Betty's Tea Rooms is also synonymous with Harrogate, as are the conference centre, the spa baths and the pump room. Knaresborough castle,
266
Mother Shipton's well, where hon. Members may wish to go and be petrified, and Nid gorge are all well-known Yorkshire landmarks.
Local people regard themselves as Yorkshire first and British second, and they aspire to being born and living in Yorkshire. Indeed, when my wife and I lived in Middlesbrough, we were expecting our second child and my wife rang up Yorkshire cricket club to find out whether the old boundaries of Yorkshire still applied and whether, if the baby was a boy, he would be able to play for Yorkshire. That is how strongly people feel about being from Yorkshire, about the Yorkshire region and, of course, about Yorkshire Television.
Mr. Miller: It has not helped their cricket club.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman refers to the finest cricket club in Great Britain, which is unbeaten this season. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to praise our excellent side—I should add that I do so as a Lancastrian.
Many of my constituents agree that there is some excellent regional broadcasting and they want more of it. I found the statistics mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk extremely interesting. I doubt whether people want more news, but they certainly want more regional programmes. They want to identify with their region and to know what is happening there. My constituents want to know what is happening in Yorkshire, not in Newcastle and Northumberland. They want to hear Yorkshire voices, not north-eastern ones. They want to see Yorkshire settings. They want Ceefax to provide Yorkshire regional information, not north-east regional information—another problem when they receive the wrong signal. They want to see advertisements for local Yorkshire products and companies with which they can identify.
Reference has been made to the regional development agency and the greater regional identity that is now developing. I totally agree. We want to see what the local RDA is doing, not the one in the north-east, which, of course, I am not decrying. That is not to say that Tyne Tees Television and BBC Newcastle do not make excellent programmes. In fact, the BBC in Leeds and Newcastle and the two ITV companies try to cover news in my constituency. They bend over backwards to do that. They co-operate and send each other's programmes down the line. Indeed, I am sure that the complaint from the constituents of the hon. Member for Hexham is that there is far too much regional news involving Harrogate, Knaresborough and North Yorkshire in the Newcastle broadcasts. The reverse is also true.
Some of the finest regional broadcasting in Britain is in my region. In fact, the Tyne Tees regional news programme "North East Tonight" has been shortlisted for the prestigious Royal Television Society national award for the third year running. That is quite an achievement for a regional news programme. "Calendar" is another programme with exceptional viewing figures, and the BBC's regional news programmes under the "Look North" title have larger viewing figures than the national news, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk noted.
What can we look forward to? Frankly, very little. Analogue broadcasting has 44 broadcast frequencies in use, and all are at their limits. There is simply insufficient

267
room for programme duplication without causing problems for viewers in other areas. There are 11,000 relay stations assisting with signals to overcome difficult topography. Harrogate in particular suffers from the fact that large hills obscure the signals from Bilsdale to the north and from Emley Moor to the south.
New transmitters could be installed, but the cost makes that unlikely, and the ITC refuses permission for new transmitters to be built, even when companies want to do so. Yorkshire Television offered to build a repeater transmitter in the Harrogate district to receive the signal from Emley Moor and pass it on. However, the ITC rejected the idea because the problem of overload would affect reception from the Bilsdale transmitter further north.
Despite the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, it is unlikely that digital, provided through satellite and cable, will resolve all the problems. Far too many people—including, with respect, the hon. Gentleman—believe that digital will solve all the problems of regional broadcasting.
As I mentioned in my intervention in the contribution from the hon. Member for Hexham earlier, Sky Digital has no plans to broadcast any regional programme variations, yet the pictures available to many people in the country will come from satellite broadcasting. That is a really big issue. Sky Digital has no plans to duplicate ITV programmes because of the cost factor. At present, there are 27 regional and sub-regional services—Yorkshire alone has three sub-regional services—which would require 27 responders on the satellite. Neither Rupert Murdoch nor ITV sees much hope of recovering the costs involved through advertising. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will say what the Government plan with regard to satellite broadcasting, which is crucial for all our constituents.
Digital broadcasts from the existing masts at Emley Moor and Bilsdale will certainly improve the technical quality, but there is no guarantee that all problems caused by topography will be eliminated, and it is a misapprehension to believe otherwise. Some people will still not be able to receive the programmes that they want.
Digital through cable offers perhaps the best solution. It should be possible for viewers in Harrogate and Knaresborough to have a choice of at least two regional programmes, and for quality to be guaranteed. The challenge to the Minister and to the independent broadcasting commissions is to achieve that, so that people, especially those with cable, can select their preferred regional programme. Technically, through cable, it is possible for people in my area to pick up the south-west regional programme, but it is doubtful that companies will be obliged to offer such a range of programming.
The cable network will not reach every home within a reasonable time scale—if at all. I cannot get cable where I live. I am pretty sure that many hon. Members, especially those representing large rural areas, will discover that they were never going to get cable, as it was never going to be economically feasible for the companies to roll it out to those areas, and the companies are not required to do so. When the Government respond to the problem, it is, therefore, important that the needs of
268
everyone throughout the United Kingdom are taken into account. People should be offered a choice of service that guarantees them good-quality regional broadcasting.
It will be some years before every viewer has access to digital. There is a real concern that the analogue service will be downgraded in the period while digital takes over. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will assure the House that until analogue is switched off, the quality available on that service is maintained at the highest possible standard.
10.15 am
Mr. Ben Chapman: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing this important debate, and on his comprehensive and distinguished presentation of his case. His speech enables other hon. Members to speak more briefly than we might otherwise have done, as he covered so many of the relevant angles. Therefore, I shall not touch on the technical issues—they are not my strong point anyway—as my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) have dealt with them skilfully and eloquently. I shall concentrate on the way in which the problem affects the day-to-day lives of my constituents.
I came to the Wirral in 1990. I began campaigning on this matter as a private citizen before I entered Parliament, and have continued to campaign ever since. When I wrote to the television companies at the beginning of the decade about the problem, broadly speaking I was told that the companies' charter required them to cover about 95 per cent. of the population, and that my area belonged to the remaining 5 per cent. That was the end of that, as far as the companies were concerned.
That will not do. As has been explained, in the Wirral, we get our television from Wales and from the midlands. No matter how fond we are of those areas—and notwithstanding the distinguished connections with Wirral grammar school mentioned earlier—such programming is not relevant to people living in the peninsula. The problem is not new, and it gives rise to a heavy postbag. People in pubs and clubs constantly ask me about it. It may seem a frivolous matter, but it is far from that: it is important both to the community, and in terms of professional life.
Other hon. Members have described their areas' regional identities. The Wirral perceives itself, traditionally, as part of Cheshire, although formally it belongs to Merseyside. What it is not is part of the midlands or Wales.
It is not a question merely of wanting appropriate regional television coverage, but of needing it. There is the question of safety, for example. My constituency has many chemical plants—GATX and Lubrizol, for example, which handle chlorine and dioxins, and another chlorine plant at ICI Runcorn. There is also a nuclear facility at Capenhurst, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
As an example, the Health and Safety Executive's guidance on the radiation emergency regulations requires news of emergencies to be relayed by television. People in my constituency—more than 2,000 could be affected—would not receive such warnings if they went out on

269
television covering the north-west. For example, many learned about the danger of polluted water only after the problem had been solved. That is not good enough.
The inability to receive appropriate television has other consequences, and regional news is an obvious case in point. People in my area want to hear the news as it affects their families and localities. We are interested in Cardiff and Wolverhampton, but not keenly. We want to know about the weather in our areas, not in someone else's: with great respect, it is not important to us that it is raining in Swansea or West Bromwich. When we watch football, we want to see Tranmere Rovers, Liverpool or Everton. Good though they are, Cardiff City and Birmingham City are not so important to us.
When my constituents travel to work through the Mersey tunnel, they want to know what weather will affect their journeys, and they are not particularly concerned about Machynlleth or Dudley. People want local traffic information, and local television programmes are a lifeline—a vital source of local information.
It is disorienting not to have regional services, and it may affect people professionally. Obviously, for example, it affects journalists if they cannot know what is going on around them. It affects politicians, too. I cannot see local political coverage—that is particularly distressing when I am on it! I could not see my own by-election on television, and that is ludicrous.
The lack of services may also affect builders. Watching television in the morning, they may not know whether they need to go to an indoor or outdoor working site because they are not seeing the right news and weather. One builder had a warehouse that burned down during the night, but he still turned up the morning because it had not been on the news.
The point is that this situation is ludicrous. To put it simplistically, people cannot understand how we can remotely repair a space probe on Mars, but not have appropriate regional television. I have raised the situation with the BBC, ITV and the Independent Television Commission at levels high and low, technical and policy. But I have made little progress, and less than my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for North-West Norfolk.
Many issues surround any long-term solution. We may be able to consider coverage in the digital age when next we consider broadcasting legislation. However, there is a short-term problem, too. I receive many letters and complaints from people who feel that these problems have gone on far too long. Some constituents are considering withholding part of their licence fees. The idea of direct action does not sit comfortably with the burghers of Heswall and Gayton, and that is a measure of their frustration about a democratic deficit that disfranchises them. A television transmitter is clearly visible across the Dee, and people cannot understand why it cannot bring television coverage to them.
We must reconsider the priorities for the roll-out of television, whether for digital or for any future system. My constituents have tried all sorts of things—aerials 100 yd high, boosters and technical advice of all descriptions. None of it works. I make a simple cri de coeur on behalf of the people of the Wirral who think it is not too much to ask that they should receive appropriate regional television.
10.23 am
Mr. Christopher Fraser: I do not understand too much of the technical side of these issues, but I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which has deliberated at length on broadcasting issues. Last year, we published a wide-ranging report on the multi-media revolution, many aspects of which the Government should carefully consider.
Many parts of my constituency cannot receive Channel 5, which is a great pity. Many parts of London also receive a poor range of services, and there is a major problem in terms of coverage across the country. The current digital revolution will have a profound effect on our society in many ways. The Government's intention, stated many times, is that, we should have an information-rich and socially inclusive society. However, I have enormous concern that, if the coverage of channels across the country remains as patchy as at present, the delivery of a full range of public services will not be received by all. That is a great pity.
As has been adequately articulated across the Chamber, regional broadcasting is vitally important to many communities, both urban and rural. Many people gain the information that they need every day of their lives to go about their business and undertake their social interests and tasks.
We live in a technological age—a digital age. We must first address the social implications of the issues of inclusion and exclusion that the debate begins to unfold. Chris Smith recently announced that he is to set up a regulators forum—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention that we refer to, right hon. and hon. Members by their constituency titles, not by name.
Mr. Fraser: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has recently announced that he will set up a regulators forum to improve co-operation between the regulatory bodies involved in broadcasting. It will include the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, the Office of Telecommunications and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. Will that body be responsible for addressing the need for further transmitters to ensure that digital coverage is universally received, as against the current situation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has pointed out that we await the Government's announcement of a date for analogue switch-off so that the industry can better plan coverage. I mean not only industry organisations that deliver services, but those that produce sets and equipment. An awful lot of television sets are not compatible. My own is many years old, and I will take a lot of persuasion before changing it so that I know that I will receive a proper delivery of service.
Analogue switch-off has the potential for greater geographical coverage, but that potential can be fulfilled only with analogue switch-off, as the available power of the multiplexes is in danger of interfering with analogue television. The Select Committee report stated:
"We consider that the issue of analogue switch-off should be taken forward not in isolation but in the wider context of the future of universal access."

271
I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that point.
The Government must allow the digital industry to improve coverage so that in future, the 0.6 per cent. of homes that have never received any television can receive some at the quality and standard that should be received by all.
Finally, I want to make a plea for minority viewers, a subject referred to briefly by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). Their situation illustrates the issues relating to delivery of public services. Specifically, 1 plead for the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, with which I have communicated, and which has put its case extremely well.
The RNID is frustrated about Government action over subtitling and services from which those whom it represents may benefit. It suggests the implementation of a voluntary charter in consultation with broadcasters. The new digital programmers must subtitle only 5 per cent. of programmes in year one, rising to approximately 50 per cent. in year 10. Only 11 per cent. of programmes will be subtitled in 1999 on digital terrestrial television.
If our society is to be socially inclusive, allowing everyone equal access to the information that they need to go about their daily lives, in whatever circumstances, the current situation is inconsistent with that objective. Groups such as the deaf become more socially excluded rather than included.
10.29 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief as many of the points that I intended to make have been adequately covered by hon. Members on both sides. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on the way in which he presented this matter, with which many of us have wrestled for years. Ever since I came to the House, I have battled with broadcasters to have regional anomalies between Lancashire and Yorkshire addressed. My pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Left to themselves, the broadcasters will not act. It is, therefore, proper for us to address the matter in Parliament and to design rules and procedures that will force broadcasters to address the issues.
Why do anomalies in regional broadcasting matter? Ninety-nine per cent. of people watch television. Even in 1999, 300,000 people cannot receive terrestrial transmissions, but the overwhelming majority of the population watch television. Eighty-seven per cent. of people watch television at least once a day, and the most astonishing statistic of the lot is that the average person watches 25 hours of television a week. I do not believe that. The television may be on in the corner of the room, but the idea that most people are plonked there like gigantic couch potatoes watching television for the equivalent of more than one day a week beggars belief. I challenge that statistic.
What cannot be gainsaid is the fact that most people get their news and information from the broadcast media. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman).
272
We are still dependent on analogue; the audience is not yet fragmented, as it will be in 10, 15 or 20 years' time. However, not everyone will have access to the digital age. The Government must address that problem, and they are doing so.
The West Craven part of my constituency used to be in Yorkshire, until the Conservatives wrenched it out in the local government reorganisation of 1974. Many people there still feel an affinity with Yorkshire, which is reinforced when they pay their water bills to Yorkshire Water or their electricity bills to Yorkshire Electricity. Thanks to what the Conservatives did, Yorkshire Electricity may now be owned by Americans, but that identity and that sense of place is still important.
When my West Craven constituents switch on their televisions, they see Yorkshire Television. About 25 per cent. of my constituents never see me on regional television—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am sure that that is a blessing in disguise. None the less, it implies a democratic deficit. Never mind about me; what about Liberal Democrat-controlled Pendle borough council, which is constantly vying with Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, and which smothers the area in "Focus" leaflets denouncing the county council for cutting back on winter gritting, for its education policies or for supposed cuts in the fire service? When people turn on their televisions, those concerns are not reflected. There is no comment about them and no analysis of the issues. That means a serious democratic deficit.
On 6 May, when I slump down in my armchair in the middle of the night after the local elections and switch on my television, 1 shall see the results from Scunthorpe and the rest of Lincolnshire, and from Leeds and North Yorkshire. I will not be able to see the results for the council that is coterminous with my parliamentary constituency.
The problem is about more than politics. There are, or could be, other serious consequences. In December 1996, there was an E. coli outbreak in West Craven, which struck down eight people. Fortunately, none of them died, but some were seriously ill. Granada and the BBC north-west region covered the story, but those programmes cannot be picked up in West Craven, the very area that the outbreak struck. Yorkshire Television did not cover the story because it considered that the outbreak was out of area. That is an extreme example of how regional anomalies can have a serious impact on a place.
What about the future for West Craven? We are not cabled. The way in which the previous Government drew up the licences, and the way in which companies were allowed to bid for the franchises, meant that they did not have to take into account rural or semi-rural areas. They did not have to take account of towns such as Barnoldswick, where I, along with 10,000 other people, live, or Skipton, over the border in Yorkshire—so cable is no solution.
We cannot get Channel 5 either. That is supposed to reach 70 per cent. of the population, but in Pendle, we shall be in the other 30 per cent. The digital revolution is now unfolding—the first digital transmission was in November last year—but we are not in that digital age. We are told that the 81 transmitters will reach 90 per cent. of the population. Last night, the Library staff helpfully dug out for me the Independent Television Commission's CD-ROM that prints out maps of the areas that will be

273
reached by digital broadcasts from the transmitters. There is Winter hill, the main transmitter in the north-west, and Pendle forest, a relay transmitter. The map makes it clear that on 17 May, when the switch is turned on, large areas of my constituency will not be able to pick up digital transmissions.
ONdigital is plastering the country with purple advertisements, but in large parts of my constituency, we cannot receive it, and there is nothing that ONdigital can do about that. I refer the Minister to her Department's document "Television: The Digital Future—A consultation document", which was published in February 1998. I do not think that the Government have yet made their proposals based on the consultation, but page 4 says about the reach of digital terrestrial:
"The Government will be discussing with the Independent Television Commission and the BBC the spectrum planning of digital terrestrial television transmissions beyond the initial 81 sites to extend coverage into those areas unserved by the first stages of the terrestrial transmission network."
That is the key. I do not want my constituents, any more than people elsewhere in the country, to have to wait for the benefits of the new information age until analogue is switched off in another 10 or 15 years. There must be an early programme to ensure that areas such as mine, outside the big urban areas and forgotten by the broadcasters, get the benefits of the new technology just as people living in the big conurbations do.
10.38 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing the debate and on so comprehensively and directly addressing the important issues. I hope that the broadcasters will have listened carefully to the debate and will respond to the existing anomalies that the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members mentioned.
Given the power and influence of television, broadcasting is an important subject. In addition to its entertainment value, it is a source of information, bringing into the home vital up-to-the-minute news, current affairs, politics and weather forecasts—even if, as we have heard, some people get weather forecasts from other parts of the country.
Teletext services are also valuable, providing up-to-date information on an impressive array of subjects such as jobs, travel, accommodation, business news and share prices. They even provide lonely hearts columns.
Television has a role to play in increasing awareness of the arts, such as ballet and opera. It provides visual access to many sports, and performs an educative role in the form of the Open university and the BBC's "Learning Zone" broadcasts. It is especially important to the elderly, the infirm and the housebound. It now dominates all other media.
That said, we are undergoing a broadcasting revolution that may soon make existing technology appear crude and old-fashioned. That revolution means that broadcasting is one of the biggest growth sectors of the age, creating many opportunities and jobs. The most exciting thing about the revolution, which was started by the previous Government, is that the United Kingdom is leading the world. We are the first country to have digital terrestrial television. Industry sources have noted the number of
274
visitors coming from abroad to seek advice. Sky and ONdigital have impressive initial subscriber numbers, and it is fitting that the nation that gave the world television should be in the driving seat, leading the way in television's digital revolution. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for bringing in the Broadcasting Act 1996, which created the environment in which the digital revolution has expanded and become such an enormous success story. As a consequence of the Act, which reflected so much foresight, Britain leads the way.
Digital television is available in two formats, terrestrial and satellite, with a third—cable—to be launched early in the next millennium. That diversity will not only bring genuine choice to consumers but create healthy competition, which can force prices down. It is certainly in the interests of all to ensure that competition continues to extend throughout the industry. The fact that we are only at the beginning of this new technological era leads one to consider whether we are better advised to intervene now and risk unintended consequences or to allow things to sort themselves out naturally, perhaps taking action on analogue switch-off once things have become clearer. To echo my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), will the Minister announce a firm date for switch-off, or will it be subject to the take-up of the new technology? Independent analysts predict about 24 million subscribers by 2008, a number many think too low to warrant the shut-down of analogue services.
The regional anomalies in television broadcasting were ably highlighted by many hon. Members. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) shares many of the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about coverage in her constituency. The present analogue system boasts 99.4 per cent. coverage of United Kingdom households. That means that fewer than 1 per cent. of households cannot receive a television signal. Some communities in remote areas are deprived of the benefits of television, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) noted. It is desirable that digital television should provide at least that level of coverage, or, at best, universal coverage. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view on that.
I welcome the Minister's recent comments outside the House that digital needs to be inclusive of all members of society and that we should ensure that we maximise the potential for digital to increase its accessibility. If we are serious about embracing digital technology, it must be accessible to all. Digital broadcasting is in its infancy. We have heard about the considerable difficulties in extending the desired coverage in mid-Wales, northern England, Scotland and elsewhere. For various reasons, fully 30 per cent. of households cannot have a satellite dish. Cable television is available to only 43 per cent. of households, and digital will not be available on that platform until after 2000. More encouragingly, it is estimated that digital terrestrial television will be available to 93 per cent. of households by February 2000. That growth was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) last week in the House. Those matters must be considered to ensure that no long-term problems arise on the coverage front.

275
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk noted an anomaly in his constituency and referred to a serious assault in Heacham. It was extraordinary that the television reconstruction was seen by 750,000 people but not by those who live in and around the area of the crime.
The switch from analogue to digital has potential problems of its own. If it is decided that the switch should be phased in region by region, it may lead to disputes about boundaries, possibly creating a disincentive for take-up in areas known to be down the line. As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, the introduction of digital television presents a theoretically golden opportunity to iron out regional anomalies. However, given the huge technological changes envisaged in the next few years, people are concerned about several aspects, such as transmission to difficult locations.
What will be done to ensure that coverage reaches at least the 99.4 per cent. achieved by analogue transmission? Will the market be enough for that, or is Government intervention necessary? If so, when should such action be taken? Should digital be phased in regionally, or is the big-bang approach best? Are regulations to bring about standardised, inter-operable equipment advisable or necessary? Those are only some of the many questions that need to be addressed.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned the anomaly that affects the deaf. As the Royal National Institute for Deaf People has told us, the low subtitling targets required of digital terrestrial broadcasters mean that people who are deaf or hard of hearing are effectively excluded from the digital revolution and all its benefits. New digital programme providers must subtitle only 5 per cent. of their programmes in year 1, rising to 50 per cent. in year 10. When averaged with the analogue simulcast targets, that brings the overall accessible output for hearing-impaired people to only 11 per cent. this year. With many more digital channels expected, that number is unlikely to improve. I shall write to the Minister to express my concerns in more detail. I feel sure that she will want to reflect on the problems of people with hearing difficulties.
The potential benefits of digitisation are immense. We should do all in our power to ensure that we have the most competitive possible marketplace to drive standards up and prices down and, we hope, to alleviate the regional anomalies described in this debate. However, I believe that it would not be correct to intervene in the digital marketplace now. Irrespective of how well meaning and admirable the desired outcomes of an intervention might be, there is a distinct possibility that the actual outcomes would be different. The Opposition believe that it would be better to allow expansion to take place as naturally as possible. It would be a great shame to act now and risk unduly hindering this complex technological revolution and the huge benefits that it can undoubtedly deliver.
In this process, I hope that coverage anomalies will be tackled. I urge the Independent Television Commission and the broadcasters to keep the issue firmly in their sights as a major concern, and the Government to hear what has been said this morning and to remind the broadcasters of what is at stake.
10.49 am
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing the debate and on introducing his ten-minute Bill the other day. The debate and the Bill address what is an important issue for many of our constituents. I thank him particularly because the subject is one that people often avoid; they feel that its technicalities are difficult. They are indeed complex, but, at the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: a better service for our constituents. We hope that a service can be extended to those who are unfortunate enough to be unable to receive it at present.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have pointed out how much people like to watch their own regional news. It is rather ironic that, at a time when we are seeing the growth of community television channels and when we are doing everything possible, through the regional development agencies and so on, to encourage people to develop regional identity, too many people are still unable to receive their regional television news.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out that some of his constituents could not receive television signals at all. I did not realise that that was still the case, even though I know Hexham well—I was born in Newcastle, just down the road. I welcome his reference to the helpful BBC leaflet that explains that it is possible to receive satellite television without subscribing to Sky. That is a welcome development from the BBC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said that his constituents could receive only Welsh news from Wales and Wolverhampton. That problem is not technically insoluble. As he helpfully suggests, I shall talk to some of my colleagues in other Departments to find out what can be done to release spectrum.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) complained that some of his constituents could receive only Geordie news. if he wants a translation, perhaps I could provide one. The hon. Gentleman referred to cricket in Lancashire and Yorkshire; I shall not dwell on that matter for too long, but I do not know whether he has noticed that Mr. Deputy Speaker is wearing a Yorkshire county cricket club tie—that is most appropriate for this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) told us that he had been campaigning on this issue ever since he became a Member of Parliament. We know that, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has never lost an opportunity to present the concerns of his constituents. I very much agree with him that the subject of this debate is not a frivolous one. I was especially interested in what he said about the safety aspects: he pointed out that there are chemical plants and a nuclear facility in his area but that, often, people could not receive news about emergencies at those plants. That is extremely worrying. He also pointed out that he could not even watch coverage of his own by-election.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) made an important point about social exclusion. Television can contribute towards including people throughout society. We are considering that matter. He also mentioned fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted to bring together a regulators

277
forum. We are considering that matter in the Department. The hon. Gentleman made the helpful suggestion that such a forum could investigate regional anomalies. He referred to the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport; we always take particular notice of what is said by his and my colleagues on that Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) probably summed up the matter when he said that the broadcasters will not act if they are left to themselves. I hope that that will not be the case, but I suspect that it might be true. Any pressure that can be exerted by Parliament will certainly be most welcome. The issue is important and we should not allow it to go away.
It is most welcome that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) so often agrees with us on these issues. I am delighted to hear that he and his colleagues agree with our evolutionary approach to what is happening in broadcasting. We believe that it is wise to allow the expansion to take place before the Government take action. It would be a huge error to do something only to find, six months later, that we had done the wrong thing.
The delivery of the correct regional services was an important issue in the planning of the analogue transmitter network. Nevertheless, we recognise that there are still a number of areas in the UK where consumers do not have access to television transmissions that carry programmes from the correct region. To date, the priority of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Government has been to ensure that as many people in the UK as possible can receive a service. Sadly, it has not been a priority to improve coverage of the correct regional variations.
Many hon. Members have referred to the problems of the hard of hearing and those with sensory disabilities. I reassure the House that we have held discussions with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People about that, and I am today writing to the broadcasters to ask them what they are doing to encourage the development of digital services. In particular, we shall point out the need for more subtitling on television. We shall also refer to the problem of regional anomalies.
I understand the argument that digital technology, which increases the number of television services that can be broadcast, should enable regional anomalies to be corrected. Certainly, digital compression techniques do enable a number of services to be carried on a single multiplex, transmitted on one frequency channel. In the future, those techniques may be refined further so that the number of services transmitted at any one time can be increased.
278
The Government recognise the importance of providing the correct regional services, wherever possible. While analogue transmissions continue, it is unlikely that additional frequency channels could be found to use digital television transmission to rectify regional anomalies. However, we have asked the broadcasters to take into account the possibility of resolving such anomalies in future planning exercises and we shall continue to do so.
The Government want to encourage early and widespread access to the benefits offered by new digital technology. An announcement of a date for the switch-over from analogue to digital transmission will be an important driver in the take-up and success of digital television. The Government want to announce a switch-over date as soon as possible; that will be done as soon as is practicable. However, we are keen to ensure that the date we give is announced with sufficient certainty to give industry and consumers confidence in making their investment and purchasing decisions. That can be done only on the basis of a properly considered strategy, set against the background of actual digital services that are winning public acceptance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle referred to a consultation paper, which we published in February 1998, entitled "Television: The Digital Future". That document dealt with the ways in which digital television and its benefits could best be introduced throughout the UK and how the switch from analogue to digital services could take place. We are now considering the responses to that consultation paper. A significant number were in favour of a Government announcement, within two years, of either a firm date or a target date. A significant body of opinion also favoured the timing of the announcement being based on criteria being met—for example, that of 50 per cent. penetration of digital services, or of near-universal penetration of digital services. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk for introducing his ten-minute Bill, which made such a valuable contribution in encouraging the debate.
A co-ordinated planning exercise will be needed to assess the various issues that the switch-over to digital transmission will raise. One of those issues will be the priority to be given to resolving regional reception anomalies. Work on that is already in hand, and I can tell the House that we expect to say more on that matter before the summer recess.
I conclude by thanking everyone who has contributed to this important debate. For far too long, people have been reluctant to address this issue. The debate is a most welcome contribution and, like the hon. Member for West Suffolk, I hope that the broadcasters are listening.

Early Years Education
11 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to be granted the opportunity to introduce this debate on early years education; the subject is very close to my heart, as I have three children who fall into that category.
We need to define what we mean by early years education—there is some confusion as to the age group that is covered by that phrase. I asked the headmistress of my children's local school, whose authority on such matters I always respect. She told me that it was internationally accepted that early years education covered children up to the age of eight. I was rather pleased to hear that because, although I am not a professionally trained teacher, that is the age group of which I have direct experience. That experience has been accumulated in several different locations: the nature of political work is such that one moves around a lot, first as a candidate and then as a Member of Parliament to one's constituency; and because early years education provision varies around the country, I have had a chance to experience several different systems.
Above all, I am anxious that today's debate should focus on the quality of early years education and that the needs of the child should be paramount in our discussion. By the end of the debate, we should have a better idea of what we mean by "quality" and be working on ways to achieve that quality for all children. Key to the provision of early years education are the people who look after the children. Children need to attach themselves to someone—the jargon refers to such people as "key workers"—but the parent's understanding of their role is rather different from the child's. The first time a mother takes her young child to a place providing early years education, it is a wrench to leave that child for two and a half hours; usually a few tears are shed, and not only by the child.
It is essential that both parent and child trust the worker who is to take care of the child. Trust develops over time, and the authority, ideas and values conveyed by that other adult become important to the child's family and then to the community in which the early years provision is located. I am sure that other parents will be able to identify with what authority their child comes home and says, "But Mummy, Mrs. McKay said today that we must do such and such." That shows the influence that that key person can exert.
If there is turnover in staff, or if staff are of inadequate quality, that can be extremely unsettling for a child, so the quality of personnel is an essential consideration. We have to decide what should be the minimum qualifications for those working in early years education. What sort of training should they receive, and who will manage and monitor that? We must also consider the issue of child protection. Unfortunately, we have become more aware of how vulnerable children are in all sorts of educational settings, so adequate thought must be given to protecting them.
The second key element of quality is the environment. That extends beyond the basic requirements of the environment being clean, safe and warm; it must be appropriate to the age group of children. I was concerned by the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools which identified several early years environments that
280
were inadequate: for example, 14 per cent. had no outdoor play area. As all parents know, as well as learning, children of the ages covered by early years provision need to let off steam. If there is no outdoor facility, that environment is not appropriate to the age group.
Another key element in quality is close examination of our real objectives in providing early years education. Is it primarily for the benefit of the child, or are our objectives mixed? If we have the child's interest most at heart, we need to be realistic about the amount of time that children spend in early years education. Pre-schoolers often cannot cope with more than two or three hours per day, and they are very tired at the end of that educational experience. A child of statutory school age typically copes with a six and a half hour school day. However, if our hidden agenda is to provide more early years education so as to help more women back into work, the child's day easily becomes extended to nine hours or more, and children have difficulty coping with long periods spent outside the home.
The working day conforms to typical shop or office hours, and so extends beyond the school day. That presents us with a dilemma. I fear that there is a real danger of young children becoming institutionalised when they are in supervised educational environments for up to 12 hours each day, often throughout school holidays, because working parents are typically allowed four weeks annual leave, whereas school holidays extend well beyond that period.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Lady recognise that it is important to give parents the opportunity to work part-time, if that is their preference? Does she agree that a great step in that direction will be achieved by the introduction of the working families tax credit and child care tax credit, which the Government intend to introduce in the autumn? Those are policies which the Conservatives are opposing; how can the hon. Lady oppose them when it is of such advantage to parents to be able to work part-time?
Mrs. Spelman: I shall come to the WFTC later. Part-time working is more compatible with school provision, but part-time workers often find that their leave is not concordant with school holidays, which leaves us with the problem of children tending to become institutionalised. Children need to learn at home as well.
Mr. Graham Brady: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the real growth in part-time working happened during the 1980s and early 1990s? At that time, Labour Members did not consider part-time jobs to be proper jobs, but now they are in government, and part-time work is the only form of employment that is growing, they think it is most important to encourage that sort of employment.
Mrs. Spelman: I agree and 1 thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because it gives me an opportunity to nail a myth. The growth in early years education is not the invention of any one political party; it reflects changing practice in the workplace, not only in this country, but throughout the western world. Twenty years ago, far fewer women wanted to go out to work when their children were in the early years category, but with wider educational and employment opportunities for women has

281
come a greater desire to do so. I should not like the debate, which should focus on the needs of the child, to be diverted by false claims of victory in matters of employment.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the damage that is being done to existing nursery school provision by additional regulations? I have received a letter from a playgroup in Wivenhoe in my constituency; it is a charitable institution which receives voluntary help. Its pupils are being siphoned off—in some cases unnecessarily—into the new early years education provision in state schools; and the Government's minimum wage legislation is having a damaging effect on its financial viability, as is the requirement for three weeks paid leave, rising to four, and the need to pay higher national insurance contributions on wages in excess of £105 a week. Those damaging measures have forced the playgroup to move to cheaper premises and to cut staff—is it Government policy to do that?
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; he will find that later parts of my speech deal with those issues, but he has provided another example of the problem. The phenomenon he describes is not confined to one part of the country, but is widespread.
I am concerned that increasing the number of hours of early years provision should not be detrimental to the needs of young children. The needs of many young, often single, parents may also be properly catered for by stability and security of provision throughout the early years. Whether they are young, old, single or married, all parents of young children need support, advice and encouragement. Parent evenings offer invaluable opportunities to get an angle on how to handle one's own child, but, sadly, not all parents take that opportunity. I am worried about the Government undermining parental and family support through the child care tax credit, because it can only be used for paid, registered child care, which means that there is little practical support when other family members and much-loved informal carers care for young children.
There is a debate about what quality means and what children are being taught at this stage in their education. Adults often think of easily quantifiable goals such as the age at which a child learns to read, write or count. We have forgotten how much we learned informally as young children through creative play, experiments and games. I draw the Minister's attention to an article that appeared in Nursery World on 8 April this year which compares and contrasts the Scottish system with the English early years curriculum. Approaching the issue from the child's angle, it asks: would a child prefer an adult who creates opportunity for play, improves communication and stimulates his or her interest in a happy environment, or would a child rather be with adults who have goals that will establish expectations for him or her based on what most children can do by the end of the reception year? I was horrified to read that, according to the Government's consultation document about early learning goals, my four-year-old might be expected to:
"form sentences sometimes using punctuation."
What if he cannot do that? Does it mean that he will be labelled a failure at age four? It is extraordinary that that should be considered a "desirable outcome".
282
Those goals do not cater for children who are disadvantaged by the fact that English is not their first language or who have a learning difficulty. Boys and girls make different developmental progress. I have children of both sexes and I have seen how four-year-old boys take a different approach to learning. It is interesting to watch the way in which girls settle into a nursery setting, interact with each other, take out their books and get on with it while the chaps tumble around on the floor.
There is also the question of the range of early years education, to which some hon. Members have alluded already. There is no doubt that parents have demanded more early years provision. I am astonished by the range and quality of early years education in this country. When I moved to my constituency of Meriden, I was surprised by the level of nursery provision available throughout the Solihull borough. I freely admit that the nursery vouchers scheme proposed by the previous Conservative Government was wholly inappropriate for that borough—but I do not want to be distracted into a discussion about how successful that was not.
The fact is that there is a high level of state provision in my borough, which aims to ensure total provision for all three-year-olds by 2000. However, I also observe that private provision is struggling to compete and that parental choice is diminishing. Two nurseries in my constituency that will have to close this year have approached me. Both nurseries predate the establishment of the state nursery that is attached to the local primary school, and one of them has been around for about 40 years. In that case, mothers got together and provided playgroup-nursery support in order to meet local demand in the community. The nursery is situated in the local church hall and is an important economic link for that church.
Two things have happened to nurseries in my area. First, the creation of the state nursery has encouraged parents to take up places there because they are afraid that they may otherwise not secure reception places. There is no better place than this House to speak the truth about what is happening in the community and the subtle constraints being placed upon choice.
Mr. John Hayes: The other side of that coin is that the space allocated to nurseries within primary schools is preventing expansion and development for older children. That is happening in my constituency. The spin-off is that popular schools have less room to expand their facilities for older children because they are offering nursery provision that is already locally established in the private sector.
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The schools in my area that have expanded to provide state nursery education are stretched for space for other ages.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, the Government's new employment legislation has compounded the strangulation of private provision. The people who run the two nurseries in my constituency that are to close have cited specifically the effect of the introduction of the minimum wage upon the economics of their operations. When they approached me, they were unaware that, under minimum wage legislation, they would be required to pay maternity and annual leave.

283
They were horrified that their small establishments—which grew out of ad hoc arrangements and are supported in the community—would be knocked sideways by that heavy-handed employment legislation.
That pattern is replicated up and down the country. The Pre-School Learning Alliance calculates that about 1,700 pre-schools are threatened with closure this year in addition to the 1,500 that closed in 1997 and 1998. The Department for Education and Employment disputes those figures, but its claim of a net loss of 100 playgroups is definitely flawed as it is based on social services statistics, which include changes of name, ownership and address. We must approach closure statistics with caution.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Many mums who help with playgroups are volunteers and are pleased to receive about £8 for a 4-hour session to help with their own costs. Is it not ridiculous to rule that those mothers must be paid £3.60 an hour or work for nothing when the old arrangements worked sensibly? That must be an unintended consequence of the Government's minimum wage legislation.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes my point precisely: it is wholly inappropriate to talk in ideological language about poverty pay in nurseries when, in reality, there is often a high level of volunteer and parental involvement in those operations. Parents have been happy to be involved in that way to date and they are greatly disappointed to see that heavy-handed legislation eroding their achievements over the years in providing a service to the local community.
Real partnerships can be achieved without that sort of heavy-handedness and strangulation by state nurseries. My children attend Knowle Church of England primary school whose site also comprises a private day nursery, Early Birds, which offers nursery provision and a wrap-around service. Continuity for children is provided on the same site. I urge the Government to recognise that it is possible for private and state provision to co-exist happily in a real partnership. It is a symbiotic relationship that allows parents a real choice.
So that the Minister's response is not distracted by a sterile ideological debate about employment law and its application in this area, let us return to the key question: what is quality in early years education? What should the minimum standard be and what target should we set for premium provision in early years? How can we ensure that the poorest areas do not suffer from the poorest provision? How do we deliver quality early years education across the board? Above all, how can we ensure that we get it right for our children? To fail them in this endeavour would be to deprive them of the full glory of childhood—and our generation would have an awful lot to answer for if that happened. That is why I have initiated this debate.
11.19 am
Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for securing the debate on an issue that we all agree is important and I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to it. The Government have already made significant commitments to, and progress in, the provision of early years education, and I shall refer to that later in my speech.
284
I agree with the hon. Member for Meriden that the quality of educational provision for young children is important and that one factor that determines that quality is the stability of the staff and the key workers with whom they come into contact. There is a conflict between aiming to achieve that objective, and refusing to accept that it might be necessary for staff to receive decent levels of pay and training. The minimum wage is a way of ensuring a reduction in labour turnover not only in child care provision but in all small businesses. It ensures precisely the stability that is necessary to provide high-quality child care.
Mr. Hayes: Surely the logic of the hon. Lady's argument would write off a whole range of community initiatives and voluntary and charitable work. If, as she is saying, quality and continuity can be provided only by professional staff, that would put an end to a range of activities, not only in education but many other areas of life, which are provided in my constituency and, I am sure, in hers.
Jacqui Smith: I certainly was not arguing that quality depends only on a professional input. Of course, it depends on good volunteers, but there is a slight irony in saying that we need to maintain stability and continuity of employment, but that we are not willing to underpin that aim with a minimum wage, which, as experience in other countries has revealed, helps to reduce labour turnover.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that to pay a professionally qualified teacher £3.60 an hour would be an insult. Conservative Members are not suggesting that it is right to take on professional people at that rate, but surely the minimum wage is not aimed at such people. It is suitable for people who are willing to volunteer to work in organisations that have money to help with the expenses that such volunteers incur by driving to the place of work and, perhaps, putting their own children into child care. What is wrong with those people being paid an £8 allowance for working in such places or being able to volunteer their services for free? Surely the hon. Lady can determine the difference between what we are asking for and the Government's rigid minimum wage legislation.
Jacqui Smith: As a member of the National Union of Teachers, I do not think that £3.60 an hour is an appropriate rate for a teacher. However, pay of less than £3.60 an hour is not appropriate for people whom we trust to care for and develop our children. That is the significant point.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Jacqui Smith: No, I want to move on.
As the hon. Member for Meriden said, the issues connected with early years education range much wider than the minimum wage and employment legislation, although they have an important contribution to make. I declare an interest as the mother of a five-year-old and a child of 10 months. Two years ago, my family was lucky in that my son was able to attend the nursery class in a local primary school. Like many parents, we sent him there because we wanted him to have the opportunities

285
offered by high-quality early years education. Those include the chance to meet and play with other children; the opportunity to experience a range of stimulating, fun play and learning activities; the opportunity to learn how to work in a group; the chance to talk, listen and develop concentration, and the chance to learn how to share, or not, as the case may be. That high-quality early years education provides not only a social introduction to school but the early foundations for literacy and numeracy that are so important for raising standards later in children's school life and beyond.
Like the hon. Member for Meriden, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my child's progress with qualified staff. Anyone who has experienced a parents' evening knows the slight trepidation that one feels when one arrives at the school to talk about the child's progress, but it is crucial to have an early analysis of children's strengths or special needs because that can provide an early indicator of support that is needed or even just ideas for talking to and playing with them. I agreed with the hon. Lady when she stressed the importance of the parents' role. I am not an expert in colouring with pencils, cutting out and other activities that are important for children. I welcome the expertise offered by the nursery class that my son attended and in his present primary school which gave me ideas about what to do with my children.
The other day, I was particularly pleased to visit Hollyoakes Field first school in my constituency. That runs a good project, according to which parents are invited into the classroom to work with teachers and benefit from those ideas for developing play and learning opportunities outside the classroom. We want to develop more of those initiatives that involve parents.
I recognise, from my experience, the advantages of early years education, but for my child such provision was piecemeal. What children received was determined by luck, one's ability to travel and often, most significantly, by one's ability to pay for quality nursery care. I recognise the important role played by private providers, but we should have learned from the past the lesson that parental choice cannot be delivered simply by allowing a free market to exist without planning and coherence in provision.
That was particularly the case under the former Hereford and Worcester county council when it had a Conservative administration. The council provided itself a low-cost education service and viewed nursery and early years education as a frill which could be dispensed with to keep costs down. My family benefited from the Labour and Liberal Democrat administration that took over the council, which succeeded in increasing the number of nursery classes and realised the importance of that provision for children's long-term success. Despite the improvements made by that administration during the 1990s, the authority continued to be hampered by a lack of political and financial support from national Government and, most significantly, a lack of a coherent strategy across the range of providers of nursery and early years education. That lack of co-ordination was, of course, exacerbated by the introduction of the nursery vouchers scheme.
It might be worth while reminding ourselves, as a contrast to the present situation, what happened under the nursery vouchers scheme. It managed to combine the worst disadvantages of a completely free market—lack of
286
planning, no entitlement to, or equality of access and no certainty of supply—with a bureaucracy that left parents gasping and taxpayers footing the bill. I welcome the Government's quick action to establish early years development partnerships and plans. It is clear from experience that we can achieve a coherent system only if we involve all providers, public and private; local authority social services, as well as education services, and employers, training and enterprise councils and parents.
Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Lady accept that one of the main criticisms of the nursery vouchers scheme was that it encouraged schools to take children into reception classes, which was inappropriate? Does she accept also that it is unfortunate that that trend has not stopped following the ending of the vouchers scheme? Would she care to comment on that?
Jacqui Smith: There is a slight irony in the Opposition arguing for parental choice while suggesting that there are press gangs of reception class teachers wandering around towns, grabbing unsuspecting children into their classes. Conservative Members cannot argue both for parental choice and that there should not be broad provision. I accept the—
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Jacqui Smith: No; I shall make progress.
I accept that there needs to be a choice—which the nursery voucher scheme certainly did not deliver. To deliver that choice, all the providers—public and private—must work together.
The Government undoubtedly set a tough task in the preparation of early years development plans. I accept that providers that had become used to competing have not always found it easy to work together. Before planning, one needs to know what provision already exists. The new system introduced tight time scales. The Government—in my view, rightly—put the responsibility on the early years development partnerships to consider not just provision but special educational needs, equal opportunities, training and quality assurance.
Locally, at the start of the process, people expressed some concerns to me, but they took on the challenge. In Worcestershire, they have already delivered a free place for every four-year-old and they are working to fulfil the Government's target of providing free, good-quality early education places to 66 per cent. of three-year-olds by April 2002.
The development partnership and the local education authority have appointed an early years development officer. They have formed mentor-teacher teams to support good practice in a full range of settings, in recognition of the need for quality provision and the challenges of developing learning opportunities for younger children.
There has been some concern about the learning experiences of young children, especially in reception classes. The very fact that we are holding this debate recognises the huge expansion in early years provision that has already taken place and the proposed even bigger expansion in it. It is a luxury that we did not have under the previous Government, because at the time not many

287
children benefited from that type of education, so we did not need to discuss it. Nevertheless, it is important, and I know from first-hand experience that some excellent work has gone on in reception classes with young four-year-olds.
Much of the debate has centred on a false distinction drawn between formal education and other nursery education. Being in a primary school does not necessarily or automatically imply a style of learning, just as being in a nursery or playgroup does not. What matters is what teachers and other staff actually do with the children.
Now that the system is developing, there is an important job to do. Unlike the hon. Member for Meriden, I believe that it is important to clarify desirable learning outcomes, not because we want to regiment children or stipulate that all children must have achieved a certain standard, or because we want to declare them to be failures, but because it is increasingly important, in such a developing area, that we consider good practice, not just for four and five-year-olds but for three-year-olds. is the hon. Member arguing that we should have no clarity about what we are trying to achieve with children of those ages in primary or nursery education? I believe that that is precisely the provision which we should be developing. I also recognise, as mentioned by the hon. Member, that there are important new training needs for staff working in early years. The Government also accept that. In the longer term, we must ensure that there is evaluation of, and research on, what works for younger children.
I would welcome the formation of a distinct phase of early education, with different approaches to the way in which we teach children and with an emphasis on training teachers and other staff about those approaches. The Government's development of early years education provides us with a very good opportunity for doing so.
The process in Worcestershire continues. Targets must be met, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the county's progress, especially bearing in mind the very low point from which it started, following the experience of the 1980s.
I am pleased that we are starting to consider child care, too, and I am sure that other hon. Members will discuss that issue. Services for young children and their families obviously need to be developed holistically. I welcome the fact that Worcestershire has a multi-disciplinary audit team, which is studying current provision in order to develop it. In a county such as Worcestershire, where there are urban and rural communities, there is a range of questions to be asked about access to child care and early years education.
The development partnership has already been extended in Worcestershire, and it is working with local groups such as the Redditch Playcare Partnership—a group of providers, users and agencies involved in providing playcare. I know that that local group has welcomed the opportunity to make an input to the consultation undertaken by the early years development partnership and the local education authority.
Just as it is necessary to develop a coherent approach to the provision of early years education, we now need to link education, child care, play and other services dealing with young children. I was slightly concerned by what the hon. Member for Meriden said about institutionalising
288
children. I agree that education and child care are governed by some different objectives, but it does not help us to develop a coherent approach to all a child's needs if we condemn some of the good work in child care provision as institutionalising children. We need to monitor quality, but that is not helped by condemning existing provision.
On that basis, I especially welcome the Government's commitment to the sure start programme, and to early excellence centres. Clearly, in its widest sense, education does not start at school or nursery or playgroup, and it is affected by more than educational provision. That is why it is so important that we provide parents with support, and that we bring together agencies to work holistically.
Mr. David Drew: One of the key issues is not the choice between providers but the choice within the week, so that children can go to different providers to get a rich variety of different provision.
Jacqui Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I know that the Redditch Playcare Partnership is especially keen to contribute to developing initiatives on sure start and early excellence centres, and I hope that the Minister will consider Redditch in future programmes.
The Government have set tough targets. They are expecting a lot, but they have given a commitment to deliver, which is already reflected in local provision. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to hold the debate, and I look forward to the Government's future work in early years education.
11.38 am
Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate. I also congratulate her on devoting much of her contribution to the vital importance of ensuring that all provision is of high quality. I am especially delighted to be able to contribute to the debate because I am president of the National Campaign for Nursery Education—many of whose members will visit the palace today. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will take the opportunity to speak to members of that organisation from their constituencies.
One of the very welcome aspects of the debate has been the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have shown a clear recognition of the strong emphasis that needs to be placed on high-quality early years education. I believe that all hon. Members in the Chamber recognise the real educational and social benefit to children that will result from such provision. We know from research that children who benefit from such provision are likely to obtain better jobs in later life, are less likely to make demands on social security systems and are much less likely to be involved in juvenile crime. We also know that such provision provides the opportunity for the early identification of special educational needs and the opportunity to start tackling them as quickly as possible.
As has been said, perhaps equally important is the way in which early years education provides an early opportunity for the vital involvement of parents in the educative process. Evidence suggests that if we can involve them early in the process, they are likely to remain involved at all stages of schooling.

289
Given the importance that we all place on high-quality early years education, I welcome the progress that is being made. I welcome also, of course, the abolition of the bureaucratic nightmare of nursery vouchers. I have never heard a better condemnation of it than that of the hon. Member for Meriden, who said:
"how successful that was not."
The hon. Lady was right: it was not a successful system.
Like the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), 1 welcome the increased emphasis that is now placed on early years development plans and the linking of early years education with child care. I hope that the Minister will consider in more detail the qualification framework for child care providers and the registration of child carers.
I welcome the fact that we have almost universal provision of early years education for all four-year-olds whose parents want it for their children. I also very much welcome the Government's introduction of sure start, which is a scheme to provide education support to the parents of very young children. Incidentally, the idea was contained in the Liberal Democrats' manifesto at the last election. It was not in the Labour party's manifesto, but we are delighted that Labour picked it up and is running with it.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman always speaks with great honesty and knowledge on these matters. However, he is welcoming a great deal; that will ring pretty hollow in many parts of the country, because people know very well that there is a pre-school playgroup or nursery closing every other day. There is a crisis in the playgroup sector, particularly for the care and education of two, three and four-year-olds, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I hope that he will deal with that and attack the Government on that basis. I know what a decent and honourable chap he is.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has always been so generous to me in his contributions. He will know that I try to be fair to both sides in such a debate and, as he knows only too well, he has anticipated the next part of my contribution.
I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened how much I welcome the sure start scheme. I say in, I hope, a somewhat friendly way to the Minister that, although I welcome sure start, I do not think it has been necessary for the Government continually to launch it. One launch would seem to be enough. The Government have now launched the scheme on five separate occasions, which seems to be going over the top. I suppose, to borrow a John Lewis slogan, that Labour is the party that is never knowingly underlaunched.
I recognise that not all is well, and, although I welcome some of the developments that have taken place, I wish to share some concerns with the House. The hon. Member for Meriden, who is now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—I congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion—rightly expressed concern about space provision in early years settings. She will recall that it was a Conservative Government who abolished the requirement for space provision. I am delighted to see that the Minister is so supportive of that comment, but I remind her that, despite my repeated attempts, I have not yet persuaded the Government to reinstate the requirement. Perhaps she will make a promise later in the debate to do that.
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of sure start, will he
290
join me in calling on the Government to extend the scheme to Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the United Kingdom that does not have the benefit of the scheme? It is the part of the UK which has the lowest provision of nursery school places.
Mr. Foster: I am more than happy to support the hon. Gentleman in his call. He has raised the interesting point of the variation in levels of provision throughout the UK. In Scotland, for example, the Labour party is committing itself in its manifesto to the provision of high-quality early years education for all three and four-year-olds in that part of the UK. It is a great pity that such a promise to provide sure start in Northern Ireland, for example, or a guarantee of the provision of education for three-year-olds in England has not yet been made, not least given that, at the last election, the Labour party's manifesto stated:
"We will set targets for universal provision for three-year-olds whose parents want it."
To date, no target has been set for universal provision by the Labour Government, although I acknowledge that there has been some improvement in the level of provision.
Ms Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Liberal Democrat councils have a woeful record of provision of nursery places? I think that I am right in saying that the Isle of Wight is one of the least good providers. Certainly it is Labour councils that have provided universal nursery education, not Liberal Democrat councils.
Mr. Foster: No. I categorically do not accept that from the hon. Lady. She can trade individual local education authorities with me until the cows come home. I assure her that I can match LEA for LEA with her in terms of the inadequate provision of a number of aspects of education. Perhaps she will reflect on the fact that, over the past two years, under a Labour Government of whom many people expected a great deal, many LEAs have had to cut provision further, be they Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but, in reality, the amount available in real terms per pupil under a Labour Government has been cut in each of the past two years. That, of course, makes it difficult to make provision.
It is important that we have quality provision. The Government have acknowledged that there is a link between quality of provision and class size; yet, under the Government, average nursery class sizes have increased. That makes it difficult for local education authorities to provide high-quality education. It must be difficult to provide high-quality early years education for the 90,000 children in England alone who are in reception classes of more than 30 children.
We have all accepted that it is important that high-quality early years provision should be made by a variety of different providers, including the voluntary, the state and the private sectors. It must be of real concern, therefore, that there have been many closures of, for example, pre-school playgroups. There is increasing concern about the closure of nursery schools. The National Campaign for Nursery Education is increasingly concerned about reports of

291
closures and about the sacking of some nursery nurses, who have been reappointed as lower grade staff so as to cut costs. I welcome the Government's announcement that there will be an independent review of the cause for the closure of some playgroups.
The hon. Member for Redditch was right, as was the hon. Member for Meriden, when she said that, if we are to talk about quality, we must be clear what provision we are talking about and what we expect those who are providing high-quality early years education to provide.
Two and a bit years ago, my party advocated the establishment of a foundation key stage. We argued that if we have key stages for all other parts of our education process, there should be one for early years education. We advocated that it should specify the appropriate qualifications for staff, the appropriate setting in which learning would take place and the appropriate set of learning activities. I am delighted, therefore, that the Government seem to be accepting that Liberal Democrat proposal as well, but we must debate what learning activities should be contained within it. I worry that the proposals in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority review suggest that perhaps—and it may only be perhaps—the Government are going in the wrong direction in respect of the kind of learning experience that they want three and four-year-olds to have.
The review seems to emphasise getting children to read and write early, but all serious research suggests that that is harmful, rather than helpful, to young children. For example, Hungary, Switzerland and Belgium all recognise the importance of delaying the start of formal education and using the early years to set the scene and to prepare children appropriately. The Hungarian kindergarten handbook, the Swiss Rahmenplan and the Flemish core curriculum all emphasise dealing with the concrete and representational, rather than moving to the purely abstract that reading and writing entail.
The Flemish core curriculum states:
"Too large and particularly too early an emphasis on the abstract may lead to a method of hearing and blandly repeating: of blindly applying learned procedures and reasoning at the cost of real understanding. When we give children time to gain understanding … they will automatically have fun doing Maths later on."
The research is clear: although Hungarian and Flemish-speaking Belgian children enter primary school at the beginning of what is our year 2 having received no teaching at all in reading and writing, within only one term almost every ordinary Hungarian and Flemish-Belgian child can read and write. That is compelling evidence indeed. It is vital to protect the youngest children in our schools and in nursery settings from inappropriate pressures, which lead to premature and counter-productive instruction. That protection should be guaranteed in the foundation key stage.
I am not alone in expressing concerns about the QCA review. I said at the beginning of my contribution that I was delighted to be the president of the National Campaign for Nursery Education. It has welcomed the
292
idea of establishing a foundation key stage, but cannot support the current review. It feels that the review is a travesty, saying:
"The narrow emphasis on literacy and numeracy and the notion that the 'majority' of children should achieve these goals will inevitably mean that many children are set up for failure; those particularly vulnerable will include summer-born children, bilingual learners, boys and those with Special Educational Needs."
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: I will not, because other Members want to contribute.
The foundation stage should protect children from counter-productive pressures and open, rather than close, avenues for learning.
We have made much progress in early years education, which I welcome, but I believe that, in this area at least, the Government may be going down the wrong road. As everyone is making special pleading, I hope that the Minister will make an visit to the Bath Opportunities playgroup, which provides excellent support to children with severe learning and physical difficulties. It has serious financial problems and anything that she can do to help will be gratefully welcomed.
11.54 am
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing it. It is particularly appropriate that she has done so, because it was Margaret Thatcher who remarked in the 1970s that her Government would provide nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. A Conservative Government never came anywhere near meeting that aspiration. Nursery provision in Cambridgeshire, which is my local authority area, never reached higher than about 34 per cent. in the whole period of Conservative government. It is fitting that a Labour Government will achieve nursery education and appropriate child care for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want them to have it.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: I have only just started my speech and I will not give way at this stage.
It is appropriate to provide for parents a wide choice of nurseries, playgroups, child minders or even reception classes for their children to take advantage of. A good number of parents with mature four-year-olds would like their children to be in reception classes rather than in nursery classes, but that gives rise to a particular issue in my constituency. Cambridgeshire has a policy of allowing schools to admit children in the September after their fourth birthday, which means that children born in July or August may start in reception classes shortly after their fourth birthday.
A body of parents have formed a group called Action for Fours, which is led by Catherine Hurley and Kate Polack—two young mothers in my constituency who feel that they should not be forced to send their children to school. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister about this issue and she rightly said that parents should choose whether their child should start school before the statutory age. However, there is a problem for schools: if a child is

293
not in full-time education when the census is conducted in February, but a place has been kept vacant, they do not receive funding for that child. An over-subscribed school will not want to keep places vacant for children who may arrive halfway through the year. I hope that the Government will be able to address that dilemma.
I am particularly pleased that the recently published policy guidance on school admissions says:
"Some admissions authorities for primary schools offer places in reception classes to parents before their children are of compulsory school age, in accordance with their published admission arrangements. If a parent is offered and accepts a place during the normal admission round but asks to defer their child's entry to school until he or she is of compulsory school age, the admission authority may agree to the parent's request provided the place is taken up within the same academic year."
That is a most welcome statement, and I hope that the Government will find ways to compensate schools if a child is admitted, but not in place in February when the census is conducted.
Cambridgeshire has been fortunate in benefiting from the money from the reduction in infant class sizes, and the £1.7 million allocated to it this year will provide 69 additional teachers and 11 extra classrooms. Primary schools in Cambridgeshire are among the lowest funded in the country, so that money is particularly welcome. It will virtually eliminate classes of more than 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds in my constituency and throughout Cambridgeshire.
Mr. Hayes: 1 hear what the hon. Lady says about five, six and seven-year-olds, but she must be aware that classes for older primary, secondary and nursery children have increased in size since the Labour party came to power. The Smart Start pre-school in Market Deeping in my constituency, which has been providing small class sizes for children in the area for 25 years, is facing closure as a result of Government policy, and people are very angry about that.
Mrs. Campbell: Cambridgeshire county council, which is Tory controlled, is one of the problems that my constituency faces. In 1995–96, when there was a Labour-Liberal administration in Cambridgeshire and a Conservative Government, the authority spent £15 million above the education standard spending assessment; last year, the authority spent £6 million above it; and, this year, it is spending £5 million above it. The leader of the Tory county council in Cambridgeshire said on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire this morning that he would like, over the years, to see the council reducing the gap between what it spends on education and what the SSA says it should spend. The implication for my constituency is £4.8 million-worth of cuts. Schools in my constituency will be devastated by that, because it means that, as the Government increase expenditure on education, Cambridgeshire county council is determined to reduce its contribution, and schools will see no benefit from the extra money that the Government are putting into education.
I refer briefly to the national child care information systems, which my hon. Friend the Minister is pioneering. I am pleased that she is basing that work on some of the work that has been done in my constituency. The scheme that I started, called "Opportunity Links", to provide education for parents who wish to return to work has been
294
an outstanding success in Cambridgeshire. It is an internet-based information system, which provides information not only on child care, but on jobs, training and benefits advice. I am pleased to say that there are some 1,300 accesses to that website every week. It is proving to be extremely popular and a useful tool for parents who wish to get back into the workplace.
However, there is still a problem, as perceived by Cambridgeshire county council, about the data protection issues connected with making child minder information available on the internet. The local authority quotes the Children Act guidance, which states:
"whilst local authorities have a duty to provide information on childcare provision, the register should not be left on 'open shelves'… This implies that the public need to request access to it through contact with a local authority officer. This guidance was an attempt to prevent people from having access to the register who were not genuinely seeking childcare."
We all recognise the difficulties with paedophile rings and the sensitivity of some child care information. We have got around that problem very well in Cambridgeshire by writing to every child minder and getting a signed agreement from everyone who wishes to have her information published on the internet. I believe that that is the way to proceed. I do not know whether other counties have come across the same problem or interpreted the legislation in the same way, but the issue needs to be addressed.
I welcome wholeheartedly the Government's efforts to improve early years education, which is vital in terms both of raising educational standards and of the health and livelihood of future generations.
12.3 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. Like other hon. Members, I shall start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on initiating the debate and on her comprehensive and thoughtful speech.
I want to lay my emphasis on the earlier years and take this opportunity to express my strong support for the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the many pre-school groups in my constituency. Pre-school playgroups play a vital role in the education of young children and are of benefit, as I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) acknowledge, not only to children but to parents, in assisting them to teach and encourage learning through play, both in the playschool and at home.
Not long ago, as many as 8,000 children in Bedfordshire attended pre-school playgroups, but it must be recognised that playgroups are under pressure, numbers are dropping and playgroups are closing, because of the combination of factors with which they are challenged. Both sides of the House, particularly the Government, need to rally to help them.
The pressures come from a combination of changes in the funding system, and increased costs and regulation through the working time directive and the minimum wage, and the consequential national insurance requirements. Because schools can now receive funding for four-year-olds —one quite understands that schools wish to maximise their revenue—they are putting pressure on parents to send children in order, it is said, to secure a

295
place at five. I have had too much anecdotal feedback from visiting pre-school groups in my constituency to be in any doubt about that. The effect is not only to put pre-school groups under financial pressure, but to cream off the four-year-olds, who are an important part of three-to-five provision because they provide, in a sense, role models for the younger children in the integrated type of education that pre-school groups provide so effectively. Numbers are therefore falling just at the time when costs and pressures are rising.
The Pre-School Learning Alliance is responding by boldly facing up to the challenge. It does not want to get itself into a political wedge; it wants to rally and increase its numbers. I believe that it will. A great many children throughout the country still do not attend pre-school playgroups and do not get those benefits. We need to reach out to them. In doing so, it will be possible to rebuild pre-school numbers and thus help to solve the problem, provided that we get assistance from local education authorities and the Government recognise that problem.
The point to emphasise about pre-school playgroups is the sheer standard and professionalism of what they provide. I have been interested in this subject since before I entered the House more than 20 years ago. My wife was a professionally trained teacher who taught in Lambeth and Camberwell, and when we had small children she ran a playgroup at our home. I saw the value then, and have seen it ever since. I have attended annual conferences of the Pre-school Playgroups Association in Bedfordshire.
Recently, I visited two pre-school groups in Dunton and Stotfold in north-east Bedfordshire, and I shall visit Potton this Friday. I should emphasise that those pre-schools are inspected by the Office for Standards in Education and have received excellent reports. Their teaching through play is admirably adapted for children between rising three and rising five, and their staff-pupil ratio is only 1:6, which is much better than the average of 1:10, which lower schools and nursery schools can hope to achieve.
In addition to achieving that very low staff-pupil ratio, those pre-schools are attracting mothers and other helpers, who learn and carry the knowledge back home. They are extremely well equipped. I was deeply impressed at the variety of books that they had. Last week was National Book Week and I opened a new book corner in the Poppies playgroup in Stotfold. The pre-schools are equipped not only with books, but with simple computers, which introduce children to computers at such a young age that they come naturally to those essential parts of modern life.
Therefore, let the message go out: pre-school learning has a vital part to play in the education of our children. Both the Government and local education authorities should work closely with the independent pre-school groups. Charitable, voluntary and private provision work together to provide a degree of provision, which no amount of aspiration is likely rapidly to achieve through the state sector, and it is available here and now. They are a vital resource and a wonderful example of how local charitable and private sector initiatives can meet local needs, raise standards and enhance the future for our children.
296
I wish to use the last few seconds available to me to make a suggestion through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the House authorities. Having been able to take part in this debate and knowing that the winding-up speeches are about to begin, I believe that we should seriously consider having a time limit in well-attended debates of this nature.
12.10 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on having secured this debate. I commend her on the excellence of her speech in opening the debate on this important topic. It is notable that this is the third debate that we have had in the House in the past two years on pre-school or early years education. It is also notable that all three have been Adjournment debates initiated by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) initiated a debate on pre-schools in June 1997 and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) initiated a debate on nursery education in May 1998.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made the point that this has been a well-attended debate, although I am interested to note the gender imbalance on the Labour Benches, which suggests a slightly outdated approach to this issue. Some hon. Members hoped that they would be able to contribute to the debate and to raise their concerns. I sincerely hope that the Government will now consider giving Government time to a debate on this important topic to enable all hon. Members to express their concerns about what is happening in pre-schools, and to contribute to the real debate about what should be the intention of pre-school and early years education and what is right for children.
Children's needs must be paramount in our consideration of this issue. What matters is that we provide high-quality early years education for children, and that it is appropriate for those children. We must recognise that pre-school and nursery education are distinctly different from compulsory education at statutory age. We require appropriate provision for children at different ages.
The danger is that young children are increasingly being taken into the primary school framework. Children are being given too formal an education at too early an age. That issue was dealt with in an article in The Times Educational Supplement on 9 April. It referred to nursery children being victims of a "too much, too young" culture and that four-year-olds were at risk of burn-out because of the stresses of formal education. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made the valid point that boys were particularly likely to be turned off school by this too early formal education.
Mr. Ian Bruce: It is important for the Government to understand that we are not suggesting that we solved this problem when we were in government. We had the problem when vouchers and the passporting of funding were introduced. Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister should carefully study counties such as Dorset, where children who are four in August are taken on for

297
the next year, with full funding? If they are not four, they do not get funding for pre-school in the next term and have to wait until after the new year.
Mrs. May: My hon. Friend has expressed a valid concern about the point at which funding cuts in and about four-year-olds who are taken into primary schools. Primary schools are increasingly encouraging four-year-olds to go to their schools by bringing pressures to bear on parents. Labour Members may deny it, but that is happening in the real world.
We should recognise that the provision must be appropriate, that children develop differently and that they have different needs. That is why we want a diversity of provision, so that parents can have a real choice. As a direct result of Government policy, we are faced with two dangers. First, children are being taken into the school framework of formal education at too early an age. Secondly, parental choice is being reduced.
Problems occurred with the nursery voucher scheme, but, far from changing it, the Government abolished it and introduced a grant scheme and early years education partnerships, compounding the problems that had begun to occur. Government figures for January 1998 show that, of four-year-olds in local authority or private and voluntary sector provision, 60 per cent. were in infant classes in maintained primary schools. That is not even 60 per cent. in reception classes: it is 60 per cent. of four-year-olds in reception and other infant classes in maintained primary schools.
Those figures also show that diversity and choice are being reduced. In January 1998, 86 per cent. of four-year-olds were in local authority provision, be it maintained nursery schools, nursery classes or infant classes, with the vast majority being in infant classes rather than in appropriate nursery provision. Only 14 per cent. were in private and voluntary sector pre-schools.
The Department for Education and Employment figures show that, by September 1998, the balance was worse. More than 89 per cent. of four-year-olds were in local authority provision, and less than 10 per cent. were in private and voluntary sector provision. The reality is that pre-schools are closing. In the past two years, 1,500 pre-schools have closed, and there is a danger of a further 1,700 pre-schools closing this year.
I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire in recognising the contribution made by pre-schools that are members of the Pre-School Learning Alliance. In its booklet about the importance of pre-schools, "No Chance to Play: No Chance to Learn", the alliance describes children in pre-schools as having
"the chance to play and learn with other children, to discover new experiences and to have the opportunity of a good educational start in life."
It says:
"Pre-schools provide a warm and caring environment and vital learning opportunities for young children. Parents benefit too".
That aspect has been touched on by hon. Members, but not in any detail, and I want to refer to the advantages for parents.
A study undertaken by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education shows that parental involvement in pre-schools leads to more assured parenting, increased confidence and widened horizons in terms of further
298
education and training. It also encourages learning at home through reading and imaginative play. It has an important impact in enabling many parents, predominantly women, who may not otherwise have done so, to go on to further education.
The Pre-School Learning Alliance provides for 40,000 adults—predominantly women and 93 per cent. of them over the age of 25—to enrol each year on courses developed by the alliance. There are progression routes to other qualifications, such as national vocational qualifications in early years care and education.
Pre-schools offer a gateway for parents who may otherwise not consider returning to study. In the sample of parents studied by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, almost half the participants had left school at the age of 16. Their involvement in a pre-school was giving them real opportunities for education that they otherwise would not have had.
Those opportunities are beginning to be denied to parents because the Government's policy is leading to the closure of pre-schools. Children at the age of four are being encouraged to go into reception classes in primary schools. The impact of employment legislation, particularly the loss of income for pre-schools caused by the loss of numbers, is exacerbated in a variety of ways by the increased costs of the minimum wage and the working time directive, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said.
Pre-schools are faced with the decision either to put up charges or to close. What is the Government's answer? The answer from the Minister is that there should be differential charging on the basis of income. A means-tested nursery tax is the Government's answer. They force pre-schools to close, and when they are desperately trying not to close by putting up charges the Government's answer is the equivalent of a means-tested nursery tax. That proves that the Government do not understand what is happening in the real world.
I hope that the Minister will tell us where the money that the Government have promised for pre-school education is going. In the last Education and Employment Question Time, the Minister announced investment of
"£8 billion in early education and child care",
which has subsequently been identified, and
"£8 billion in providing high-quality and affordable pre-school education".—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1257.]
That is £16 billion. That is what the record shows: that is in Hansard. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the money is going, because it certainly is not reaching pre-schools.
Pre-schools matter. They provide an important learning environment for children through play, and they provide important benefits for parents. Government policy is closing them down, and Government should stop it.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate. Nothing is more important to ensuring that young children can develop their full potential than the early years of their lives, and their first experiences in education. I agree with all who

299
have spoken that we do not have enough time to debate this vital issue in the House, but I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Lady.
I am particularly delighted by another opportunity—the opportunity to remember the hon. Lady's predecessor, the late lain Mills. He stoutly defended his constituents' interests in the House by publicly opposing, in their dying days, the Conservative Government's policies on early education, although he himself was a Conservative Member of Parliament. Solihull, through the disastrous voucher scheme, lost more money than any other local education authority, and was punished for being more successful. lain Mills could not stomach that: he supported his authority, opposed the Tory Government and denounced the ill-conceived and damaging voucher scheme.
It was the voucher scheme that dealt the most severe blow to the private and voluntary sectors as schools competed for four-year-olds. Having been conceived with the intention of stimulating growth in those sectors, it harmed them and forced closures. Any latter-day sanctimonious defence by Opposition Members of the role of the private and voluntary sectors in early years education should be judged against their record in government. Through ideological stubbornness, they forced the closure of many early education places provided by those sectors.
Mr. Brady rose—
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Ms Hodge: I will not give way. I have only a few minutes left, and I want to deal with the issues that have been raised.
When this Government took office, we replaced competition with a planned partnership approach that now covers both early education and child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) said, we need to plan our services for young children.
I am happy to defend our record in government. In our manifesto, we promised that every four-year-old whose parents wanted a free part-time early education place would be entitled to one, and we fulfilled our commitment. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is wrong about that. We also said—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was slightly wrong about this—that we would set a target for three-year-olds. We have done that: we are committed to doubling the number of free places for three-year-olds to 66 per cent. by 2002, and we will achieve that target. We are bringing together early education and child care to provide a seamless and coherent service for families, built around children's needs.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hodge: No. I will complete my speech.
Let me say this to the hon. Member for Meriden. Of course the interests of the child are central to our concerns; it is because we are putting those interests at the centre of our policy that we are building a proper infrastructure for both early education and child care.
300
Even pre-schools in church halls, which the hon. Lady mentioned, should not be there to support church finances. They should be there to support young children.
Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
Ms Hodge: May I deal with the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
We value the contribution of pre-schools, particularly because of the unique quality that they bring to the early education sector: parental involvement, with all that it means to the development of young children. I agree with the hon. Member for Maidenhead about that. We know that pre-schools are concerned about closures; we know that they blame closures for the loss of four-year-olds to maintained nurseries; we know that they are worried about the minimum wage. We do not agree with them about the figures relating to closures, but my officials are holding discussions with the Pre-School Learning Alliance to see how we can reconcile our two views. We are taking steps to ensure that both sectors can contribute to the expansion of early years education and child care.
We instruct partnerships to ensure that their plans provide for help for the voluntary and private sectors. Last year, we gave £500,000 to ensure that pre-schools were able to sustain their provision, and we are giving a further £500,000 this year. We have introduced the working families tax credit, which will help individuals with the cost of school care and enable schools to raise their fees. I think it is inappropriate for anyone working with children to be paid less than the minimum wage: our children are too precious. We shall be conducting a review, which will show not what is closing pre-schools, but how the Pre-School Learning Alliance can contribute to the expansion of early years education.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hodge: No.
Let me deal with some of the issues relating to quality. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that some four-year-olds are going to school too early. In my view, it does not matter where children are; what is important is the experience that they undergo, the qualifications of those who work with them and the adult-child ratios involved. That is why we are addressing all the issues of quality that have been raised today.
We are looking at the curriculum, and we have presented proposals for the reform of desirable learning outcomes. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bath welcomed the foundation stage. Our emphasis is on pre-learning schools, and on the importance of children learning to speak, to listen, to concentrate and to work in a group; but we must also recognise that, in the foundation stage, there is a difference between a three-year-old and a rising six. The curriculum must reflect children's development.
As the hon. Member for Meriden said, people are crucial. That is why we have established a national training organisation. It is why we are creating a qualification framework, and putting a large amount of money into training. We are also enhancing the status and importance of early years work, not least through the introduction of the minimum wage and early years

301
education degrees. We are reviewing regulation and inspection, as well as the child protection and data protection issues raised today. We are supporting parents in raising quality, through the sure start programme, excellence centres and other initiatives mentioned in the debate. Quality is essential to early years education. I am glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House accepted that today, and I assure them that we are acting accordingly.
I am delighted that we have had this short, but important, debate on crucial issues. I am grateful to those who have taken part, and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Meriden. We have a good story to tell. This Government recognise the importance of early years education. They have firmly put their money where their mouth is, providing a massive expansion of resources: as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, we are investing £8 billion over the next four years.
The Government have already fulfilled their pledge to provide a free nursery place for every four-year-old whose parents want one. They have embarked on an ambitious increase in the number of places for three-year-olds. They have not merely talked about a national child care strategy; they are creating one. Over the first 20 months of the Government's life, they have created more new child care places than the last Government managed to create during their long 18 years in office.
Investing in the early years of a child's life makes sense. It makes sense for the child, ensuring that we give all children the opportunity to develop their full potential. It makes sense for society, helping us to build an inclusive society by promoting success and preventing alienation and failure. It makes sense for the taxpayer, in that for every pound that we invest in a child's early years we shall save many pounds later on everything from support for a child with special educational needs to the payment of income support.
We will pursue our policies on early years education. They are right, important and necessary. We shall be happy to be judged on our record, and our achievements, in this crucial area of public policy.

Road Deaths (Charging Policy)
12.30 pm
Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I am very glad to have been able to secure this debate on the role of Scotland's legal system in implementing charging policy in road deaths involving vehicles. This may very well be the final opportunity to debate a matter that, after 1 July, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it is appropriate that the debate should be on such an important issue. Although the Road Traffic Act 1991 is a United Kingdom responsibility, prosecution of the law in Scotland, under the separate Scottish legal system, is a devolved matter.
Many of my colleagues have sent messages of support for the debate, although—for a variety of reasons, which hon. Members will appreciate—they have not able to attend it. Nevertheless, I am pleased that so many hon. Members are able to be here.
On 18 September 1998, Steven Dekker, my constituent and near neighbour, celebrated his 24th birthday with his family and his girl friend of six years, Gail. On Saturday, 19 September, Gail and Steven spent the day in Glasgow, shopping, enjoying being together and planning their future together.
As they drove home to Cumbernauld, at 6 pm, on a bright, clear evening, a van being driven the wrong way on a single carriageway hit them head on, killing Steven and injuring Gail. The collision occurred as Steven came round a bend, on a one-way single carriageway, with no chance of his taking any avoiding action.
I am pleased that Steven's parents, his sister Vivien, Gail and other members of the family are here for today's debate. I should like to express their and my appreciation to the Minister for sparing time to meet them earlier today.
In the past two years, the issue has been debated in the House on several occasions, and in two notable Adjournment debates. One of those was initiated by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
As parliamentarians, we are faced with a significant problem that we have the power to deal with. The House, after investigation and debate, passed a law—the 1991 Act—that established the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. The charge is simple and clear, and it should be a powerful weapon in deterring very bad driving. However, Steven Dekker's death has taught me—and, so far, more than 2,000 constituents who have signed a petition—that the Crown Office is failing properly to charge the very people for whom the charge was designed.
The Crown Office decided to prosecute Andrew Wilson, the man who killed Steven Dekker, not with death by dangerous driving, but with the lesser charge of careless driving. The proceedings in court lasted 15 minutes.
In June 1997, Steven Dekker graduated with a BA (Hons.) degree from Stirling university. He was ambitious. He had been employed for a year with British Airports Authority as a graduate trainee manager. He was one of eight people selected, from 1,300 applicants, for

303
the position. He was a people person, and was liked well by all who knew him. He loved all sport. He played golf, football and ran in half-marathons. In short, he loved life.
Andrew Wilson was returning home from a planned trip. He ignored the safety of his own children from the very moment that he left his home, transporting a six-year-old child in the front of his van, and nine and six-year-old children in the rear of his van, none of whom were seated or restrained by seat belts. In the rear of the van were also motor-cross bikes, unrestrained.
Andrew Wilson ignored eight directional road signs, to turn across chevron markings and road arrows and travel the wrong way down a main road. In court, his defence agent made it clear that he did not make a spur of the moment decision. He stopped his van, which he drove for a living, and consulted with his fellow passenger, who was a lorry driver by trade. Then, after a few moments, he made a U-turn, across solid-line chevron markings and against road arrows, to travel the wrong way on the main road into Cumbernauld. My constituents, and those who have seen the evidence and photographs, are incredulous. The question is: Where on earth did he think he was going?
In court, the procurator fiscal revealed that Andrew Wilson was found by police at the scene,
"wandering around in a dazed state saying it was my fault I was going the wrong way".
In court, his defence agent said that Andrew Wilson was lost. Had the Crown Office levelled a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, all the facts and arguments would have been heard.
The facts are that, on the day that Steven was killed, the main road to Cumbernauld was closed, and that anyone who travelled on the A80 would have known that. That morning, Andrew Wilson travelled along the A80. What he did not know was that the main road into Cumbernauld could be accessed by another slip road. Perhaps that lack of knowledge explained his bizarre manoeuvre. However, since the Crown Office charged Andrew Wilson with merely careless driving, to which he pleaded guilty, those facts and that argument could not be aired in court. Therefore, there is absolutely no way of knowing.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and congratulate her on obtaining this debate—which, given the demands on parliamentary time, is not an easy thing to do. As she will know, some of my constituents— particularly Mr. and Mrs. Dekker, whose nephew Steven was, and who both live in my constituency, in Chryston—want very much to support the tremendous work that she has done. One of the points that should be made is that the accident, and other accidents, occurred despite substantial investment in road works in the area. That should have made things easier, rather than more difficult and leading to this terrible loss.
Mrs. McKenna: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is absolutely no problem of road investment in the area. One of the reasons why people find it so difficult to understand the issue is that the roads are good, safe and secure. People should be able to drive on them safely, and to feel safe as they drive about their town.
304
All the facts point to the Crown Office not being prepared to prosecute on the basis of the law. Evidence shows that, since 1991, of charges brought by police of death by dangerous driving, only 47 per cent. of people so charged will be proceeded against, and that the remaining 53 per cent. of charges are downgraded or plea-bargained to the lesser charge of dangerous driving, which ignores the fact that a death has occurred.
Mr. Andrew Miller: As my hon. Friend knows, I chair the all-party group for justice for road traffic victims and their families. The research shows that the figures that she quoted can be extended right across the British Isles. I do not know—1 should be grateful if she can tell me—whether, in Scotland, police conduct their investigations of road deaths with the same emphasis that they investigate any other violent death. The statistics that I have seen suggest that police do not treat that type of violent death as the scene of a crime, as they do in investigating any other violent death.
Mrs. McKenna: My hon. Friend is right. Moreover, because the Crown Prosecution Service is not prosecuting cases as dangerous driving, police are tending to reduce the number of charges of death by dangerous driving. Therefore—although the 1991 Act was an attempt to ensure that people are protected properly, and that death by dangerous driving is recognised as a criminal act—there has been a downwards, rather than an upwards spiral in dealing with the matter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is a serious problem that has been highlighted today and in previous debates.
Mr. Alan Clark: I apologise to the hon. Lady for arriving a couple of minutes late for her important debate. Regarding the point raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and others, as I have said before in the House, part of the problem with such horrendous tragedies relates to the language with which they are described. All too often, the police and the press describe such deaths as having occurred in a road accident. The implication of the word "accident" is that it is the result of ill fortune and cannot be avoided. It downplays the culpable criminal element that all too often is involved in such incidents.
Mrs. McKenna: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that excellent point. The family has lost a son, a nephew and a brother, yet the language of the law does not recognise that. That adds to their despair and they feel that their grief has been intensified by the way in which the case has been treated by the law.
Another difficulty is that many of the decisions are taken out of court. Decisions are made by the prosecution service to plea bargain or reduce the charge which should be properly applied. The family is not involved and they feel excluded. They feel that there is no transparency in the decision-making process and that is a serious concern.
Ms Margaret Moran: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The purpose of the Adjournment debate is to allow the hon. Member to put her case to the Minister and for the Minister to reply. The hon. Lady has taken several interventions and should leave it at that.
Mrs. McKenna: The fact that so many hon. Members are here and wish to intervene shows how important they consider the issue. The Minister must understand that and realise that it will be raised regularly.
Following the North report, the Road Traffic Act 1991 replaced an earlier offence of reckless driving with the new offence of dangerous driving. The new offence is based more on the standard of driving—for example, on the driving being far below the standard of a reasonable and competent driver—and less on the driver's state of mind. It was designed to make the offence easier to prove in court. The intention was to enable more prosecutions to be pursued for the more serious dangerous driving offence.
The report decided that a new offence of causing death by careless driving should not be introduced as "a crime based on consequences" might be justified where the level of culpability was high, but not in the case of carelessness. The committee's definition of carelessness was as follows:
"Carelessness might amount to no more than a minor error of judgment or a moment's inattention."
We must focus on the distinction between a minor error of judgment or a moment's inattention and a higher level of culpability.
The North report stated:
"Death should be singled out for special treatment because it is the most serious consequence of a criminal act, and in doing so would exemplify the concern of the law for the sanctity of life."
In Steven's case, the police prepared the charge of death by dangerous driving, or alternatively careless driving—as is the procedure. The charge of death by dangerous driving is not brought lightly by the police, who spent resources of time and money to substantiate the charge.
The Crown Office, which acts in the public interest, looked at the culpability of Andrew Wilson and prosecuted him with one charge of careless driving. In their words, the
"investigation revealed the required degree of very bad driving to be absent".
We find that incredible.
In court, the sheriff checked with the fiscal that a charge did not take Steven's death into account. The fiscal confirmed that that was true. The sheriff stated that his "hands were tied", fined the defendant £750 and banned him from driving for one year.
Steven's family feel that the concern of the law for the sanctity of life has been ignored in the charge of careless driving. International human rights law is based on the inherent dignity of the individual and the Crown Office appears to respect neither Steven's dignity nor that of his family.
At the 15-minute hearing no evidence was presented and no witnesses heard as the accused pleaded guilty to the reduced charge. There are many questions to be answered. The Dekker family is considering the possibility of a fatal accident inquiry to ventilate in public
306
the facts, to establish how Steven died and possibly to launch a civil action for damages in order to get legal recognition that Andrew Wilson killed Steven Dekker.
I support the words of Mary Williams, executive director of Brake, an independent road safety organisation. She said:
"It is our carefully considered opinion that the charge of careless driving, which carries a maximum sentence of a very low fine, should be dropped, and drivers who break the law should be charged with dangerous driving, death by dangerous driving or manslaughter if their actions have killed. There can be no carelessness behind the wheel of a vehicle—spilling a bottle of milk is careless, failing to drive safely can only be considered dangerous. A wide sentencing structure would accommodate the wide variety of illegalities which could be encompassed under these charges."
The public sense of justice requires that the distinction between careless and dangerous —a higher level of culpability—should be determined in court, with all evidence presented and statements from witnesses heard. It is a gross injustice to innocent victims such as Steven that their life and death can be denied that recognition by the state. Like many other families, the Dekker family has found that the non-implementation of the law adds additional grief to families who are already bereft, and to society, an undermining of the expectation of justice.
Mr. and Mrs. Dekker lost a son, Vivien lost a brother and Gail lost her best friend and her future with Steven. I totally support the family and Gail in their attempt to bring the matter to the attention of Parliament and the wider public. Nothing can bring Steven back, but if the law can be changed as a result of his death and the deaths of others on the roads, some good may come of it.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): First may I record my appreciation to the House? The fact that this is a short debate in no way detracts from the serious concerns that have been raised by several hon. Members who would have wished to debate them for longer. I recognise that and acknowledge their deep concern.
The death of Steven Dekker last September was a tragedy. Any sudden death is tragic and none more so than the death of a young man as promising as Steven Dekker, who was a graduate trainee at the British Airports Authority. This morning, I had the benefit of meeting Steven's family. I understand something of the depth of feeling and my heart goes out to them for their loss. Since his death, many questions have been asked about road safety and the proper way to deal with road traffic cases that arise under criminal law. It is only right that such a tragedy should make us ask such questions and I pay tribute to the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) in raising the matter on behalf of her constituents.
Let me first turn to the role of the criminal law in dealing with road traffic accidents and make it quite clear that there is no lack of serious charges to bring, depending on the evidence in the case. However—and this is a point that the relatives of the victim may naturally and understandably find hard to accept—the fact that an accident has had fatal consequences does not necessarily mean that the other driver involved is guilty of dangerous driving. We all take a risk every time we drive and a simple misjudgment can have consequences as terrible as those of any deliberate crime.

307
The law has to cover a wide variety of circumstances. At the upper end of the spectrum there are, fortunately, very rare cases when the vehicle is used deliberately as a weapon. In such cases, it might be appropriate to bring charges under the common law, and if the victim was killed, the prosecution would not hesitate to consider indicting the person on a charge of murder or culpable homicide.
Next in gravity is the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, for which the maximum sentence under the road traffic legislation is 10 years. This offence cannot be dealt with under summary procedure.
Next again is the offence of dangerous driving, which has a maximum prison penalty of two years under solemn procedure, and of six months under summary procedure. Finally, there is the offence of careless and inconsiderate driving, which cannot give rise to a custodial sentence and which cannot be dealt with under solemn procedure.
In his role as head of the prosecution service, the Lord Advocate is independent of the Government of the day. The House will recognise that it is important that he should be so. It is for the prosecution to select the appropriate charge and the mode of trial, taking into account any statutory restrictions that may apply, what the evidence suggests about the relative culpability of the driver who will face the charges, and, of course, the need to prove any charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Ministers are not in a position to comment on what charges should be brought in any individual case. That is why I cannot comment on the charges brought in this case. The Crown Office has made it clear that the most careful consideration was given to what charges were justified on the available evidence and under the existing law.
There is a lot of publicity about the downgrading of charges. The charge brought was one of those made by the police soon after the event, but, as often happens, the police—who were not in full possession of the facts at the time—charged the accused with a number of alternative offences. However, it is for the procurator fiscal to select the appropriate charge after full investigation in the light of the evidence.
At the request of the family, the charge selected by the prosecutor was reviewed, but, in this case, was confirmed as being appropriate. The Crown Office has stated that the question of costs played no part in the decision about what charge was appropriate. As we have heard, the sheriff who heard all the evidence on the circumstances decided that the appropriate sentence was a fine of £750 and a ban from driving for one year. The sentence imposed is entirely a matter for the court, but clearly it reflects the culpability of the accused and not the terrible consequences of the accident.
There remains the question of a fatal accident inquiry. I understand that the procurator fiscal has received a letter from the solicitors acting for the Dekker family, confirming that the family wish such an inquiry to be held. That is a matter for the Lord Advocate to decide.
The Government rightly stand clear of such decisions and of decisions on prosecution. However, we need to consider whether such cases suggest any need for a change in the law. I should therefore like to say a little about what we are doing to keep the law under review.
308
This matter was last reviewed fully in the North report, published in 1988. Detailed consideration was given to the possibility of creating a new offence of causing death by careless driving. However, the report recognised that any road accident has the potential to have serious consequences, whether the accident occurred as a result of deliberate bad driving or of a lapse in concentration.
The North committee therefore took the view that, as a general rule, sentences for road traffic offences should be based on the standard of driving, rather than on the consequences of that driving. That issue has threaded its way through this afternoon's debate.
Where the death is due to carelessness and there is no question of drink or drugs, the committee did not consider that it was appropriate to have a "causing death" offence. That is the philosophy underlying the current formulation of the offences in the road traffic legislation, and it has been supported by successive Governments. There is a view—which I understand—that it would be desirable to have an offence of causing death by careless driving, even when there is no question of drugs or drink being involved. The Government are currently reviewing that possibility.
The Government are also undertaking comprehensive research into the way in which bad driving offences are dealt with by the criminal justice systems, both north and south of the border. This is the key issue being addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. The research, undertaken on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will examine the effect on convictions before and after the changes in the law made by the Road Traffic Act 1991. It is using current cases to examine the whole process, from charging to sentencing. The results of the research should be available by the end of next year.
Finally, I should mention the likely impact of the Scottish Parliament in this matter. Although the criminal law, with certain specific exceptions, will be mainly devolved to the new Scottish Parliament, road traffic law has largely been made on a Great Britain basis. I therefore expect that the new Scottish Ministers will be closely in touch with colleagues in Whitehall Departments in considering the way forward in an area of law in which it is so difficult yet so important to get the balance right.
I shall touch briefly on some of the other aspects of road safety that we are currently pursuing. The criminal law in this respect is vitally important, and that has been the focus of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, but it goes much wider in relation to road safety matters.
In 1997, 377 people were killed on Scottish roads. That is 377 people too many. Each of those deaths represents a tragedy for all concerned, especially for the family and friends of the person killed. To put that figure in perspective, I point out that it is higher than the total of 263 drug-related deaths in Scotland in that year.
Nothing can put matters right after a fatal accident. That is why our first and overriding aim has to be, as far as possible, to prevent such accidents occurring in the first place. The Government are therefore committed to reducing the number of road accident casualties in Scotland, and some considerable progress has been made.
In 1987, the target was to reduce casualties by a third by the year 2000, compared with the average for 1981–85. By 1997, the number of deaths in Scotland had

309
fallen by 41 per cent., and the number of serious injuries had fallen by 51 per cent., despite substantial growth in road traffic. In fact, Scotland's road fatality rate is about 40 per cent. below the European Union average.
Our record is therefore good by international standards, but it is not good enough and we intend to do better. We must continue to drive down the number of casualties and we have already announced that we shall publish later this year demanding new casualty reduction targets for the period up to 2010, together with a strategy for achieving them.
Obviously, the behaviour of drivers is a major factor in road accidents. For example, speed is thought to be a factor in about one third of all road accidents, but research has shown that it is the norm among many drivers to exceed the speed limit by up to 10 mph. We believe that it is necessary to change drivers' attitudes to speeding. The long-term aim must be to ensure that speeding is stigmatised, in the same way that drinking and driving is now considered to be socially unacceptable. There is no doubt in my mind that the culture has to change, and reasonably quickly.
Measures to reduce further the number of drink-related road casualties, on which we consulted last year, will be announced in the context of the forthcoming road safety strategy. That strategy will also take into account the findings of the Great Britain review of speed policy, which is currently under way.
A driver behaviour strategy has been developed to modify drivers' attitudes, with the ultimate aim of reducing casualties. Tackling the problem of speeding will be a major component of the strategy, and a publicity campaign called "Full Speed" was launched in November last year. Because it is a long-term initiative, it will be some time before its effectiveness can be assessed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for transport has also launched the first of 75 pilot 20 mph projects throughout Scotland. In residential areas used mainly by the people who live in them, the projects will test the effectiveness of schemes that do not include the use of relatively expensive engineering measures.
We are also making special efforts with driver training to cut accidents and casualties involving newly qualified drivers. Drivers in the 17 to 21 age group represent less than 10 per cent. of licence holders, but sadly are involved in about 20 per cent. of all road accidents in which injuries are sustained.
We are also taking various action on driving tests. In addition, we shall continue our hard-hitting television publicity campaigns to drive home the message that speed kills and that motorists should not drink and drive. Moreover, we are setting challenging targets for reduction in many areas of road activity.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth for raising these matters today. I assure her that the Government will keep this area of law under constant review. Above all, we need to take practical steps such as I have described to reduce the incidence of deaths on our roads. Everything that has been said today underlines our commitment to further improve safety.
Finally, I hope that the tragic death of Steven Dekker will lead us to renew once more our efforts to make Britain's roads safer and to minimise future loss of life on them.

House Building (Avon)
1 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I have been asking myself what the worst ministerial job in Government must be. Until recently, I assumed it was the job of junior transport Minister, someone who must spend his or her time, often in the early hours of the morning, responding to hon. Members who either want a ring road or bypass or desperately do not want one. However, it strikes me that even worse is probably the job of the Minister—who will shortly join us, I hope—who has to respond to housing debates. In a series of debates, hon. Members of all parties have recognised the need for additional house building, but said that none of it should happen in their constituencies.
Having said which, I make no apology for raising the subject of house building in the former county of Avon. It is probably one of the biggest issues impacting on the quality of life of the people represented by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), who is present for this debate, and by me. While the scope of the debate is the whole of Avon, I shall be parochial for a moment in outlining three development threats in Northavon that illustrate why I sought the debate.
First, it is possible that ICI land on Severnside, for which planning permission for industrial development dating back to the 1950s exists, might be turned over to residential development. That could double the size of the adjoining village, Pilning. Pilning and Easter Compton are distinct villages with distinct characters, but they could become one sprawling housing estate, and that would be highly unwelcome.
Secondly, there is a threat of further development north of Yate, which would add to already extensive house building, taking up scarce green-field sites. Finally, there is a new threat to the area north of Thornbury, where developers are believed to be eyeing up farmland even as we speak, not least because of the weakness of agriculture. Few farmers, given the opportunity to sell their land for mass house building and a substantial profit, would be able to resist when the alternative is the very meagre income that many of them earn.
I congratulate the Government on ending the numbers-driven predict and provide approach that has characterised housing development in recent years. Let me give an example of the absurdity of that strategy. Projecting populations over 20 years is difficult. Projecting regional populations is even more difficult. When it comes to sub-regions such as the former county of Avon, it is frankly absurd, and it produces bizarre results.
The joint strategic planning and transportation committee of the former Avon authorities produced a document after receiving projections from the Office of Population, Census and Statistics, based in 1993, for the sort of people who would move into Avon. The OPCS said:
"The projections for the Avon area say that out of the net migration into Avon, 0.4 per cent. would be female and 99.6 per cent. would be male."
I shall not remark on whether all the football teams in the area are a reason why all those men should flood in, but it is clear that those figures are absolutely absurd.

311
The figures were produced by a process of iteration. Statisticians know that the total migration around the country must add up to zero, and they have certain views about what determines flows from one area to another. They try to tweak the numbers until all totals add up to zero and all prior assumptions are satisfied. That produces frankly barmy statistics.
If the problem were merely a statistical nicety, we could ignore it and move on. However, the gender balance of those who move into an area affects house building projections. It is assumed that men have a faster rate of forming households, or form more households, than women. Were we still driven by numbers, those figures could mean real houses in real fields in my constituency. I am pleased that the Government have dropped predict and provide.
South Gloucestershire has borne the brunt of additional house building in the Avon area in the past. Since the late 1980s, out of the four unitary authorities in the former county of Avon, South Gloucestershire has taken the largest share of new house building in every single year. It would be a travesty if the area that had rapid growth in the past was therefore deemed able to cope with rapid growth in future. The houses have come, but the infrastructure has not come with them. Huge development has come, first at Yate, then at Bradley Stoke, now at Emersons Green. Some time, a limit must come. The infrastructure must be given time to catch up.
On the face of it, one would assume that the disused Hortham hospital site would be a natural for housing development. It might be assumed to be just the sort of site on which people like me would want new houses to be built. However, the site illustrates our infrastructure problems. The 250 houses planned for the site, to which the local authority may give the go-ahead, will mean yet more congestion on the A38. It is already overcrowded, and local residents will tell anyone it is more like a car park than a road. Unless infrastructure is given time to catch up, areas such as south Gloucestershire will have great difficulty in coping with planned additional house building.
What can be done? Government action is already under way in three areas, but I would like to see more being done to reduce the pressure for new house building on green-field sites, particularly in south Gloucestershire. First, let me touch on the use of empty properties. The Bristol Evening Post recently highlighted the 5.500 empty properties in Bristol alone. A Friends of the Earth spokeswoman said:
"Empty homes are neighbours from hell—because they bring down an area."
That is true.
The Minister for London and Construction kindly ensured that I was provided with a written answer in time for this debate, which identified no fewer than 13,000 empty properties in the former Avon area. Compare that number with the 3,000 or 4,000 new houses that are built in Avon each year. If only one third of the empty properties could be returned to use, we might have a year without new house building. Matters are not that simple, of course, but that is the scale of the problem.
312
Reducing void rates and empty rates is feasible In Holland, the empty property rates are closer to 2.5 per cent. than to our 4 per cent. That 1.5 per cent. of difference would make a substantial impact in my area.
First, let me make a radical suggestion. I propose that house builders be told that they can build no new houses in the next 12 months, but must devote all their attention to setting about some of the 13,000 empty properties in Avon. They will be told that they can have permission to build in certain areas subsequently, but that, for 12 months, all their refurbishment and building skills must be put into doing up existing properties. If that proposal were on the table, it would concentrate minds wonderfully. I am sure that empty properties are a national problem, but the numbers in Avon are clearly substantial.
Secondly, can the Minister reassure me on the sequential development test, a Government measure that I welcome, but which I would like to have more teeth? As I understand it, go-aheads will not be given for development on green-field sites unless developers show that they have first considered alternative brown-field sites.
I am not sure precisely how that will work. My constituency has few brown-field sites. Does a developer who wants to build thousands of houses on the outskirts of, say, Thornbury merely have to say that he has exhausted brown-field sites in Northavon? Would the relevant area be south Gloucestershire, or the former county of Avon, or the south-west? What is the test, and how high is the hurdle?
Would developers be able to say that they had considered a site, but that it would cost too much to clean up? That would not be good enough. If sites can be developed appropriately for new housing, but with, perhaps, a smaller profit margin, I do not believe developers should be able to get away with not using them. I should be grateful for some assurance that real teeth are being put behind the test.
Thirdly, there is the tax anomaly. As the Minister knows, someone who wants to do up a rundown or empty property has to pay VAT at 17.5 per cent., whereas someone who wants to build a new house on a green-field site faces no similar tax burden. That cannot be right; it gives all the wrong incentives. Why not have a tax on green-field sites? I believe that one is under consideration, but my constituents say, "House building is going on now. How long will we have to wait for the tax incentives?"
The tax revenues from such sources should not be used as a milch cow for the Treasury, but should be recycled into urban development. We make a serious mistake if we view the issue as one of town against country. One of the merits of examining the problem on an Avon-wide basis is that the result can be a win-win situation. The proceeds from development in rural areas could be used, partly for infrastructure to support those developments, but also for the rejuvenation—I believe that the word now being used is "renaissance"—of urban areas.
Although many people want to live in the country, in villages and in suburban areas, many people, especially students and other young people, want to live in towns, where the life is and where things are going on. They do not mind living in flats above shops in the city. If we could make life more palatable for such people, and revive the urban areas, we would do the whole community a favour and avoid setting the countryside against the town.

313
As for the way in which green-belt policy affects the south Gloucestershire area, it has been pointed out to me that the green belt that surrounds our area is very thin—more of a loop than a broad band. Although it prevents some of the immediate sprawl, it intensifies the pressure for development on the other side of it, because that area is within easy travel-to-work distance of the towns.
There tends to be substantial economic and residential development at the centre, a thin green band and then yet more houses on the other side of the green fields. The bizarre result is that mass car journeys are made across the green belt. I am not clear what the straightforward answer to that problem is, but green-belt policies in other areas have avoided that loop problem, which leads to the leaping of the green belt. I would be interested in the Minister's reflections on that subject.
Unless measures such as those that I have described, on which the Government are beginning to take action, are put in place, the issue will not be simply that tens of thousands of homes will be built in Avon over the next few years. What will happen after 2016, or after 2021? Will the numbers continue to rise inexorably, and, if so, will there be anything left of the green spaces that make south Gloucestershire such a special place?
This week, a resident of Thornbury wrote to me to register her objections to the plans to build hundreds of homes on the outskirts of the town, in the following terms:
"This sort of development would not only destroy the character of Thornbury, but would stretch local resources to breaking point. As you know, the schools are already full, parking is difficult and traffic congestion in the rush hour is atrocious. In the morning rush hour I can walk from Morton Way roundabout to the A38 faster than you can drive that distance in a car, and the exhaust pollution is horrendous. An increase of local housing on this scale would also have serious consequences for the already badly congested A38 towards Bristol."
My constituent identified the infrastructure problems that I have described. She continued:
"It is vital that the boundary of the town as set out in the various Plans is not altered and that such development is not allowed. I hope you will do everything in your power to ensure this."
As the Minister knows, my powers on such matters are rather limited—but I have had the opportunity and the privilege of raising the issue before him and before the House today. That is one thing that I can do.
I ask the Minister for two assurances. The first is that when decisions are made about where houses are to be built—we recognise that houses have to go somewhere—local people's views will be respected as far as is reasonably possible, and will not be overridden, as too often happens, by central Government. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that he and his colleagues will build on—if that is the right expression—and accelerate the work that they have already done to reduce the growing pressures for house building? Even as we speak, developers are eyeing up the green fields of my constituency, and if we delay, it may be too late.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I start by offering a most sincere apology to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and to the whole House for not having been present for the start of the debate. Unfortunately, I thought that it was due to start at
314
1.30 rather than 1 o'clock. That was an error for which I accept full responsibility, and I would like to make clear to the House my regret that I was not here earlier.
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. It is on an important subject, which has been raised before by many other hon. Members. I spoke on the subject of house building requirements only two weeks ago, during a debate secured by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the hon. Gentleman's relatively near parliamentary neighbour.
Household growth is a major issue facing society today. Some people may like to believe that it can be wished away, so that no new houses will need to be built, but that is not realistic. Society is continuing to change and evolve whether we like it or not, and new requirements for housing are part of that process. The Government have to accept that, and to respond appropriately.
As the hon. Gentleman was not present for that most recent debate on house building, it may be helpful if I start by explaining how the household projections are arrived at, and how they are translated into development plans.
Mr. Webb: The Minister is right to say that I was not present for the discussion about Gloucestershire, but I have read the Hansard report of it, so I do not want the Minister to duplicate what he said then.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling me that, and I shall make a brief reference to the subject, rather than going into all the details.
The number of new households projected to form in England over the 25 years between 1996 and 2021 is about 3.8 million, compared to the 4.4 million projected for the 25-year period ending in 2016. The figure of 3.8 million is principally derived by projecting previous patterns of population change and household formation, and should not be seen as a forecast or estimate. It is based entirely on what might be expected to occur if previous trends continued, and is heavily dependent on the assumptions involved.
Such trends can and do change. The current suggestion is that the pace of household growth may be slowing down. Part of the underlying reason for that is that recent evidence has shown that cohabitation is increasing faster than expected, and a smaller proportion of women are widows or divorcees.
However, we must not think in terms of numbers alone. We are keen to focus the debate on how we should plan for future homes in a sustainable way. Our consultation paper, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", which we published last year, sets out the results of our analysis of the system for calculating and providing for the country's housing needs that we inherited from the previous Administration. It also explains our strategy for promoting more sustainable patterns of development and encouraging urban renewal.
We seek to ensure that where development is needed outside or adjacent to urban areas, it must be sustainable and must be combined with an active approach towards the protection of the countryside. Those proposals represent a comprehensive approach to meeting housing needs well into the new millennium. They differ from the previous system, which has been seen as essentially top down, inflexible and wedded too rigidly to the principle of predict and provide.

315
We have also changed our approach to establishing housing numbers by region. The new draft PPG11 on regional planning, which sets out our proposals for improving the preparation and content of regional planning guidance, represents an important step in modernising the system, and reflects our commitment to decentralised decision taking and integrated policy making designed to achieve sustainable solutions.
The new arrangements give greater responsibility to local authorities, through regional planning conferences, in preparing regional planning strategies. They should result in increased regional ownership of both the figures and the policies and in increased commitment to their delivery. Instead of Government, the regional planning authority will be responsible for preparing the draft regional strategy, including proposing the amount of additional housing needed in the planned period.
We recently announced household projections for each of the Government office regions. They should be treated not as forecasts or predictions, but as indications based on recent trends. Other factors should equally be taken into account so that regional planning bodies should, against the background of need and capacity, take a realistic, responsible approach to planning housing provision. We realise that similar information at sub-regional level, for example in the hon. Gentleman's region, could also be useful. The preparation of relevant figures will proceed so that we can make them available as soon as possible in a form consistent with that published as part of the last set of household projections in 1995.
One of the key tasks of the new regional planning guidance will be to provide guidance on the overall level of housing and its distribution within the region, making full use of previously developed land. In assessing the housing provision required for the 15 or 20 years covered by the strategy, we expect the regional planning body to work with other regional stakeholders to establish the level of housing required to meet the region's housing needs. In making that assessment, the Government's latest published household projections should be considered. Urban capacity studies should be undertaken to explore the implications of changing policies and standards that would reduce the land-take of new development while securing attractive residential environments.
Against that background of need and capacity, the regional planning body should be able to take a realistic and responsible approach to future housing provision. It must be prepared to justify its views fully in public at the examination of the draft regional planning guidance. The structure plan and unitary plan authorities will, of course, be party to that process. Once the housing requirements have been established and confirmed by the Secretary of State following the public examination, the presumption is that structure plans and unitary development plans should focus on the broad distribution and location of growth. It is the essence of the plan, monitor and manage approach that we now advocate that both the assessment of housing requirements and distribution within the region should be kept under review. If there are signs of under or over-provision, we expect both RPG and development plans to be reviewed accordingly.
On the position in the former county of Avon, RPG figures were agreed by the authorities in the region in 1994. They stated that 59,000 extra homes would be
316
required in the county between 1991 and 2011, based on the 1989 household projections. After allowing for dwellings completed between 1991 and 1996, 44,100 additional dwellings remained to be provided between 1996 and 2011. The replacement structure plan proposes 43,000 new dwellings over that period. The plan was subject to public scrutiny at an examination in public last month under an independent panel. Officials from the Government office of the south-west attended, and emphasised that greater account should be taken of the need to focus new housing and other development on urban areas to achieve higher densities and maximise opportunities for reusing previously developed land and buildings. I know that those instincts are in line with those of the hon. Gentleman. The panel's report is being prepared, and I am sure that he therefore appreciates that I cannot comment further on the issues or speculate on the outcome.
The consultation draft of the south Gloucestershire local plan was published in 1997. My officials in the Government office of the south-west made several comments on it on behalf of the Secretary of State. Many of them raised questions about the plan's overall strategy and the extent to which sustainable development will be secured under it. Those concerns included the amount of development proposed on green-field sites and the relatively low density of new housing proposals. South Gloucestershire council is considering its response to those and other comments, as well as awaiting the outcome of the public examination of the structure plan before publishing the deposit version of the plan.
The way forward lies in building on the positive options for meeting housing requirements and protecting the countryside. There is more common ground than is often acknowledged. We all want as much land recycling as possible and more sustainable patterns of development. We all want to protect the countryside, regenerate our urban areas and ensure that people are properly housed. We are trying to develop that agenda as proactively as possible, and much more work needs to be done to help local authorities to achieve that.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific issues that I wish to address. He is particularly concerned about the number of empty properties. He knows that the Government attach great importance to bringing such properties into use. I am pleased that Bristol city council has developed an empty homes strategy that has won awards and attaches considerable importance to action to bring empty properties back into use. We want that taken forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned sequential development and the importance of emphasising the opportunities for developing brown-field sites before green-field sites. He knows that our recently published revised PPG3 stressed the importance of a sequential approach. It is not always possible to apply a strict sequential test because there will be circumstances where the needs of rural communities require development that could be satisfied only by the use of a green-field site. In that situation, provision in a distant town would not help to meet the needs of a particular rural community. The sequential approach puts strong emphasis on developing brown-field sites and recycling urban sites before considering green-field alternatives. Where the two can be treated as alternatives,

317
that is very much part of the thinking of PPG3, which I believe will help to concentrate minds, as it should, on the recycling of urban brown-field land.
Mr. Webb: Will the Minister clarify whether that measure has teeth? How hard will a developer have to demonstrate that he has seriously considered brown-field sites, especially if there is only borderline commercial viability, such as with sites that are hard to clean up? Could the relevant authority insist on him using such a site or can he say that it would not be worth his while?
Mr. Raynsford: That is a pertinent question. The way in which the sequential test has been applied to commercial development, particularly out-of-town shopping, shows that there has been a significant change. There will always be a tail, because planning consents are often not taken up for some years. Having said that, it is clear that developers are now focusing on urban and town centre sites rather than out-of-town sites for commercial developments because of the greater teeth available to planning authorities, and to the Secretary of State on appeal, to enforce the sequential test.
We believe that a similar principle should apply in respect of housing. Authorities should consider closely the availability of opportunities for development on recycled, brown-field land before agreeing to permission for green-field development. Similarly, the Secretary of State will adopt that approach in considering cases that are subject to call in or appeal. Without raising unrealistic hopes about turning the oil tanker round in a shorter time scale than is possible, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House accept that we are moving in the right direct and that this sends strong signals to developers about the importance of concentrating attention in brown-field areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned VAT, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman will know that discussions have been continuing on the importance of measures that will encourage the regeneration of urban sites rather than allowing green-field land to be developed.
We have a full programme of revisions to existing planning policy guidance notes to pursue the matters that I have described. I mentioned the new PPG3 on housing, which is another major step in our commitment to revitalising towns and cities and protecting our countryside from unnecessary development. We are encouraging authorities to make more effective use of existing housing in all sectors by bringing empty homes back into use and tackling under-occupation.
I think that I have covered the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I hope that he recognises the importance of the work that is being undertaken by the Government to ensure a better, more effective approach to these vital matters.

Council Tax Benefit
1.29 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman: The subject of this debate—which should have been titled on the Order Paper "Council tax benefit regulations" rather than "Council tax benefit regulation"—may appear rather dry and obscure to those unfamiliar with the issues, even by the standards of Back-Bench Adjournment debates. However, I am acutely conscious of the concerns and the financial problems caused to some of the poorest and most vulnerable of my constituents as a consequence of the introduction of these regulations. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity today to highlight those matters and bring them to the Government's attention.
The nub of the problem lies in a Budget measure, originally proposed by the previous Conservative Government, which limits council tax benefit for properties in bands F, G and H to the maximum available for band E properties. In effect, the measure works as a cap on council tax benefit to householders living in properties that have been given a notional high market price. I acknowledge the significant concession made by the Labour Government in March 1998, in the announcement that, although the new regulations would be introduced from 1 April 1998, all existing council tax recipients were to be protected so that, in practice, there were no losers at the point of change as a consequence of the introduction of the new measures.
That was a source of very considerable relief to many of my poorest constituents, and the calculation made by the Department of Social Security at the time was that 65,000 people, who were then recipients of council tax benefit and would have been affected, were not affected at the point of change because of the Government's concession. In my judgment, that was a good example of our Labour Government listening to, and taking on board, the concerns of Members of Parliament and others who made representations to the Minister on our fears about the implications for those who were to be affected by the introduction of those measures. As a result of the concession, 2,159 council tax benefit recipients in Hammersmith and Fulham were, in effect, protected.
Council tax benefit is, of course, a means-tested benefit and is paid only if applicants meet a range of strict criteria. In practice, therefore, it is paid only to poor people living on low incomes with very few savings. The House will probably know the details of council tax band figures, but I remind hon. Members that the figures are as follows: to be in band F, a property must be valued at more than £120,000; to be in band G, a property must be valued at more than £160,000; and to be in band H, a property must be valued at more than £320,000. Hon. Members will, therefore, understand that, in reality, the new regulations will affect only poor people living in an area where property values are high.
In spring 1998, the local government information unit produced a report that showed that not a single property in Liverpool or the city of Birmingham would be affected by these measures, but I have already informed the House that, in one small London borough, more than 2,000 households were potentially affected by their introduction.
I am aware that the Government have recently commissioned an independent research agency —PS Martin Hamblin—to undertake a study of the effects of

319
the introduction of the changes. I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed that that research was not carried out sooner, but I strongly welcome the fact that the contract for the new study has now been awarded.
Today, I am able to advise my hon. Friend the Minister that in Hammersmith and Fulham, since the introduction of the new regulations on 1 April 1998, 140 households have had their benefit capped at band E. In band F, 95 households were affected and, as a consequence, face an annual bill of £183.78, or £3.75 a week. In band G, 44 households were affected and face an annual bill of £367.57, or £7.06 a week. In band H, only one household was affected and now faces an annual bill of £623.24, or £11.98 per week. Those may not seem to be large amounts of money to some hon. Members, but they represent a serious financial crisis to households already struggling to live on highly restricted means-tested benefit.
I will give the House a flavour of real-life case studies that are only too real in my constituency today as a consequence of the introduction of the regulations. There is the case of a single disabled pensioner aged 77, living in Fulham in a band G property, who receives an occupational pension of £42 a week, disability living allowance and state retirement pension. Her total weekly income is £134.00. Because her council tax benefit is capped at band E, she faces a shortfall of over £7 a week that she must find from somewhere.
There is the case of a pensioner couple who recently moved into a new housing association property in Fulham because their previous private sector rented flat had been condemned as unfit for habitation and had been demolished. The property is in band G and the couple face a bill of an extra £7 a week. They told me that they have never been in debt in their 50 years of married life. They have no idea how they will find the extra money and told me that, during the winter months, they kept the heating off in all but one room to make up the difference that they are obliged to pay. Their tiny life savings have been almost entirely whittled away. They were advised—correctly—by the local citizens advice bureau that there are no other benefits available to them to meet the difference. The reality is that if they had accepted an offer of a similar property in an outer London borough, away from their children, their grandchildren and their other local support mechanisms, they would not face that extra bill. They cannot understand why they should be penalised simply because they have lived in Fulham all their lives.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: In my constituency, I have come across another anomaly in the case of two asylum seekers who shared a flat. One was entitled to 90 per cent. income support and that was passported to 50 per cent. council tax rebate; the other was receiving national assistance and, therefore, entitled neither to money nor council tax benefit. Under council tax rules, the asylum seeker on income support has now found that he is required to pay the share of council tax due from the person on national assistance. He now has a liability order for the deduction of £2.50 a week from his 90 per cent. income support. That amount is to pay for the tax due
320
from the person on national assistance, who never had the money to pay the council tax in the first place. Is not that a further anomaly resulting from the regulations?
Mr. Coleman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is true that the introduction of the new measures has revealed a range of bizarre and peculiar anomalies, which I hope will be dealt with by the consultants in their review.
My local authority has a record that is second to none in London for developing new affordable housing in conjunction with housing association partners and other agencies and organisations. During the past six years, more than 1,000 new homes at affordable rents have been developed for local people who could never afford the astronomical cost of private property in Hammersmith and Fulham. I am looking forward to opening next month one such development of 35 new homes in Ackmar road near Parsons Green in my constituency. Earlier this week, I spoke to the chief executive of Shepherds Bush housing association, which was responsible for the development of that site. In that new development, 75.per cent. of the nomination rights will go to local authority nominations.
However, Parsons Green is one of the most expensive areas in which to purchase property in the borough—if not the whole of London. As a consequence, Shepherds Bush housing association's chief executive advises me that all 35 of the properties will almost certainly be placed in band H. Therefore, anyone eligible for council tax benefit, who moves into one of those properties, will immediately be faced with an extra weekly bill of £11.98. Even before anyone has moved into that new development, the housing association has received two refusals of offers because of the introduction of the regulations.
Local families whose members have dreamed of being given the opportunity to start a new life in a new home have had that dream dashed; they are frightened of the inevitable debt that they will face because their benefit has been capped at band E. I point out that that could not happen in Newcastle, Leeds or Cardiff. It could not happen in Barking or Hillingdon.
The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is currently involved in detailed negotiations with the country's largest urban property developer over the Imperial wharf site in Fulham, where it is hoped that the council will eventually, in partnership with housing associations, be able to develop well in excess of 500 new affordable homes for local people. That site is also located in an area of high property prices and we are again likely to face the same problems with refusals. In effect, therefore, the new council tax benefit regulations are paving the way for the development of areas in inner London, where the poorest and most vulnerable in our society will not be able to afford to live, despite the fact that major developments of affordable housing are being built—encouraged by the Government —in those areas.
On 11 March 1999, I received a written answer to a parliamentary question in which the Minister was kind enough to advise me that no information on savings as a consequence of the introduction of the regulations last year was yet available. However, I understand that the estimate of savings in the current financial year is £4 million, to the nearest million. I respectfully suggest that saving such a relatively small sum cannot be justified when measured against the misery that the regulations have already caused.

321
I continue to receive letters and telephone calls from constituents who cannot understand why they have, in their view, been singled out for unfair treatment because they live in an area where their family has lived for generations. It has been pointed out to me that no one in the general election campaign mentioned that such a measure would be introduced. I am unable adequately to explain to my constituents why the Government decided to protect existing recipients of council tax benefit, but introduce such a regressive measure for new applicants.
I have a case of one constituent who, as a council tax benefit recipient prior to the introduction of the new regulations on 1 April 1998, was protected, but who was desperate to return to work after being made redundant by a local engineering company after 30 years of loyal service. He was unable to find a job as a skilled worker, but took a job as a labourer in a local building company. After four months, he injured his back and had to give up that job. Now, he finds himself trapped by the regulations in a band G property with an additional bill of almost £400 per year. He points out that if he had not returned to work he would not be in that position. He believes that the regulations act as a disincentive to those who have been protected from the regulations and who are now worried about what will happen if they become unemployed again in future.
It has been suggested that housing association or local authority tenants caught in bands higher than E should, in effect, trade down to lower-banded properties. That suggestion reveals a complete lack of understanding of the way in which social landlords now work in inner London. Almost all housing associations and local authorities operate a strict one-offer policy. Even if it were possible—which it is not—for families to move from one geographical location to another, the implications in terms of disruption to their children's education and to family support mechanisms are horrendous.
In recent weeks, we have heard a lot of nonsense and whingeing from the Opposition Treasury team about the introduction of so-called new stealth taxes. In practice, in my judgment, these regulations represent the only real stealth tax and, regrettably, they punish some of the poorest of my constituents. I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have honoured their commitment, made last year, to commission independent research into the effects of the changes to council tax benefit. I urge the Government to ensure that the review is conducted swiftly.
I am convinced by the evidence that I have gathered locally that the review will demonstrate beyond doubt that the new regulations should be abolished and that we should return to the previous practice, whereby claimants are able to receive their full benefit, whatever band their property is allocated to. At the end of the day, the regulations are iniquitous and offensive. They are clearly contrary to the Government's overall social policy objective of social inclusion, and I look forward eagerly and with anticipation to their removal, as soon as possible.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) for raising this subject. I welcome the opportunity to put the record straight on a very important issue and to bring the House up to date on the current position.
322
Our debate today is about a change to the council tax benefit regulations that resulted from a measure announced by the previous Administration. It involved restricting council tax benefit for claimants in the most expensive properties to that of band E from April 1998. As the previous Administration gave no indication that any claimants would be protected, I can conclude only that the change was intended to affect all council tax benefit claimants in bands F, G and H properties. Therefore, people in receipt of council tax benefit on 1 April 1998—an elderly widow or a jobseeker supporting a large family on benefits—found themselves faced with a drop in income if their home was in one of the higher council tax bands. I welcome my hon. Friend's acknowledgement of the beneficial effects of the transitional arrangements that were introduced alongside the change.
Whether to implement such a change was one of many hard choices that we had to face when we came to power. Council tax benefit costs were rising: the benefit currently costs £2.3 billion a year and there are 5.3 million recipients. There was an obvious inconsistency in the way in which assistance with housing costs was provided via the council tax benefit system, compared with other benefits such as mortgage interest relief, as there were restrictions on help with high rents through housing benefit and on help with mortgage interest payments through income support.
We need to get the issue in proportion, as I believe my hon. Friend has. We knew that the vast majority of council tax benefit recipients lived in lower-banded properties and would not be affected by the change, but we had been made aware by representatives of local government and other interested organisations of the likely effects of the change that would disadvantage several groups, including pensioners, large families and those living in relatively modest properties in London and the south-east, where property values are higher than those in the rest of the country.
The concerns expressed focused on the ability of people to meet any shortfall from their own resources and the ability of large families to stay together. Those were specific examples of a more general concern that the measure unfairly penalised those in London and south-east England, where property values are comparatively high and where higher-banded properties can be quite modest. We listened carefully to those concerns, and acted on them by introducing the transitional arrangements.
Before the changes took effect, we reassured all existing council tax benefit recipients by providing transitional protection so that not a single council tax benefit recipient lost out at the point of change. We also introduced a set of amending regulations that ensured that all existing claimants on 31 March 1998, who would have been affected by the change, were protected from day one. In fact, those regulations went further than simply protecting existing claimants. In cases where the main claimant leaves home, or dies, we have allowed the remaining partner to continue to receive council tax benefit without restriction, as long as he or she was also living in the home on 31 March 1998. We have also allowed transitional protection to continue if there is a break in a claim.

323
By introducing that protection, we have been able to help the most vulnerable groups. Elderly people are far less likely to experience changes in income and so tend to remain on council tax benefit throughout. They are also likely to be more settled than people of working age and therefore less likely to move home, so they will have been considerably helped by the change. The introduction of transitional protection also ensures that large families are able to remain in accommodation of a suitable size, and that those with a short break in their claim are not unfairly penalised.
We have been consistent with our overall plans for welfare reform in respect of those seeking and moving into work. Overall, the restrictions have provoked little complaint, although I recognise that my hon. Friend has a strong interest in the matter. He has given the House evidence of how the regulations have affected some of his constituents. I have noted all of his points and will pass them on as part of the review. We have, by bringing in these regulations, ensured that vulnerable groups such as the elderly are protected. The scheme has provoked little actual complaint, although I recognise that my hon. Friend has retained a strong interest in the matter.
At the time we introduced protection for existing council tax benefit recipients, we accepted that we should monitor the effects of the policy on those affected by the restrictions, for example, people claiming council tax benefit for the first time and those returning to benefit to whom transitional protection no longer applies. In a way, today's debate is part of that monitoring process. Our decision to conduct research was supported by the representative bodies of local government in Great Britain.
Following a competitive tender, which is one of the reasons why the process has taken so long, we commissioned PS Martin Hamblin to carry out a research project that will monitor the effects of the restriction by reference to the types of person affected, the effect on claimants payment of council tax and comparisons with the cases affected by transitional protection. Another reason for the delay has been finding people and cases to compare. Such studies cannot be set up quickly, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are getting on with the job.
In order to protect the integrity and independence of the research, I cannot say which authorities are involved in the study. However, I can tell the House that a
324
carefully selected sample of authorities has been invited to take part in the research to ensure that we get a proper picture of what is happening. The research will cover the first year of the restriction, and we expect it to be completed by the end of the year. That should give us an idea of what is happening nationally. As usual, a report of the study will be published by the Department, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will examine its findings very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raised a complex technical issue to do with the interaction of asylum seekers and council tax benefits. I think the best way of dealing with that issue is to ask my hon. Friend to write to me and I will get back to him about it.
Our record in this area—including the study and the transitional protection that we have introduced—is a good example of how this Government listen to local government, Members of Parliament and others and work in partnership with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham expressed specific concerns about the effect of the restriction on the choices that his constituents can make if they are given the chance of being rehoused in the new or higher-quality properties that the local authority offers to larger families. We must also consider the impact of the restriction on housing for homeless families in the borough.
I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's concerns and I do not make light of any difficulties relating to the fact that property values are generally higher in London and the south-east. We shall take that factor on board in our research. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it is sensible to wait for the results of the research that we have commissioned and to gauge the impact of the restriction nationally before proceeding further.
I assure my hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members who have raised this matter that I do not take their concerns lightly. As soon as the results of the research are known, we will consider carefully the effects of the regulations. I welcome any other evidence that hon. Members may wish to include as part of our deliberations so that we can take account of it in our work.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Good Friday Agreement
    Mr. Tony McNulty: If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [81279]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): A great deal of progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. The Government have already made all the practical preparations necessary for devolution and for all the institutions set up under the agreement to go live. Talks between the two Governments and the parties continue to try to overcome the remaining obstacles. No one is hiding the fact that this is a difficult period, but it is clear that the people of Northern Ireland want to make progress and want their agreement to be put into practice.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Will she join me in welcoming the opinion poll in the Irish Times yesterday which revealed that support for the Good Friday agreement among the people of Northern Ireland is still strong and, if anything, getting stronger? Does she agree that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want their politicians to compromise, make the Good Friday agreement work and bring a lasting peace and normal politics to Northern Ireland?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. The poll revealed that 73 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland—a higher number than in the referendum — support the agreement and would vote for it. It revealed also that a phenomenal 70 per cent. of people understand that the only way forward is to compromise. I always like to have the results of more than one poll, and the good point about this poll is that the guts of it, on the major issues, support previous polls by other newspapers and institutions. There is a continuity of view on those issues.
    The poll also demonstrates—we should not ignore this fact—that half the population have confidence and believe that the Good Friday agreement will be implemented, and half have their doubts, are fearful and distrusting and do not have the confidence to believe that progress will be made. It is important that we continue our work with the Irish to build that confidence to find a way forward.
    Mr. David Trimble: I refer the Secretary of State to the security section in the Belfast agreement, in which the Government undertook to make progress towards normal security arrangements in accordance with a published strategy, and to consult with the parties about that strategy. When will the Government publish that strategy? Are they engaged in any consultation or negotiation on that strategy, or elements of it, with any parties? Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to
    326
    the House that any published strategy will eschew gimmicks and make sure that the safety of society is the overriding consideration?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I shall start with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. Clearly, the safety of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount in our minds, and that will be the overriding issue. The safety of the people is the job of any Government, and it will remain a strong priority and central to anything that this Government do.
    The right hon. Gentleman asks whether there has been any consultation. We have consulted the Irish, as I am sure he and others would expect. Our close working relationship with the Irish is consistent with that consultation, and it would be surprising if we had not consulted.
    The right hon. Gentleman also asks whether we shall consult other parties. We shall certainly consult him, as the First Minister, and the Deputy First Minister before any strategy is published. He asks whether there is a date for publication. We are still working on that strategy, so I cannot yet give him a date, but we shall publish it as soon as we have finished.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Irish Times poll yesterday reveals that 69 per cent. of Ulster Unionist voters and 77 per cent. of Sinn Fein voters demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise. Given that fact and the fact that the interminable talks are getting nowhere, is it not time for the two Governments to stop playing nanny to the two parties that are holding up the agreement and to define clearly the compromises that must be made, the process through which the international body on decommissioning can progress and advance decommissioning and a date on which the Executive Committee and the institutions will come into being, without being vetoed by any political party?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's frustration with the speed at which the process is moving, but he knows as well as I do that it will not work unless we get all parties acting collectively to find an accommodation and a way forward. Therefore, as he suggests, the two Governments are working closely together to do what we can to move the process forward, but we need to do so with the parties on side, because the Good Friday agreement cannot work—decisions cannot be taken—without cross-community support. We are working on that now, and we shall continue to do so in the days and weeks ahead. I believe that there is not a party around that table that does not want to make progress and, as the poll suggests that the people want progress, it is incumbent on all of us to take a risk and keep going.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Irish Times poll represents very good information indeed and that, although we do not always take such polls seriously, its findings seem to fit the general mood in Northern Ireland? In that context, does she agree that although it is perfectly legitimate for politicians in Northern Ireland to represent

    327
    the 27 per cent. who oppose the Good Friday agreement, they should not use their position to obstruct the progress that has been made so far?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The 27 per cent. who did not support the agreement obviously have a democratic right to continue to voice their views, but I hope that they will acknowledge the wishes of the majority that we do everything we can to help rather than hinder. We have come a long way. A lot of progress has been made. It is a difficult time, and people are getting frustrated, but if we stick in there, keep talking and do not walk, we have a chance to make it.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Most of us hesitate to intervene in these discussions from the mainland because we are reluctant to be back-seat drivers, but I believe that an increasing number of British MPs have realised that we have allowed the opponents of the agreement to hitch its success to a single aspect—the decommissioning of selected weapons — whereas, for most people, the essence is that the agreement delivers peace: the absence of hostile action by all sides. That is something which the surrender of weapons will not guarantee, and which requires further commitment from all sides. Might it not be possible to move the process forward by emphasising other aspects of the achievement of peace, which we all want?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. I think it is clear from both sides of the House and from everyone around the table that agreement needs the support of all the parties — which is what we are working towards—and that, in addition, the whole of the Good Friday agreement must be implemented. As George Mitchell said, reaching agreement was tough; implementing it is tougher, because many people wanted one bit and not another. That is the stage that we have reached. People are looking at a host of options and ways forward.
    My hon. Friend suggests that we look at other aspects and see whether that helps. What helps—an aspect that, as he suggests, might make a difference—is the building of trust and confidence, because what is needed is for all parties to realise how far we have come, for all parties to realise that people in Northern Ireland want to make progress and for all parties to ask themselves, "What can we do with the lack of trust and lack of confidence of others around the table?" I believe that if everyone did that, progress would be made.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that the two Governments have jumped every hurdle and fulfilled all their obligations under the agreement? Does she also accept that the constitutional parties, Unionist and nationalist, have also jumped all hurdles and fulfilled all their obligations, and that the stumbling block that stops an Executive being set up is the fact that the paramilitaries, republican and loyalist, are not starting their decommissioning?
    Marjorie Mowlam: What the right hon. Gentleman has to do in understanding the Good Friday agreement is accept that all parts of the agreement have to be implemented. There is not a stumbling block for one side or the other because decommissioning, as we have said in the House on many occasions, is an essential part of the agreement. It is not a precondition but it is clearly an
    328
    obligation, so that has to be part of what moves forward. As I said in my answer to the main question, we are almost there in implementing other parts of the agreement. By introducing preconditions of any sort, progress will not be made. The parties must come together, with all the help that the rest of us can give them, to find a way forward.
    Mr. MacKay: Surely the Secretary of State accepts that everybody else has fulfilled all their obligations, including herself. The only stumbling block is now the paramilitaries. I do not believe that it can be right in a democracy that the democratic process is vetoed by the men of violence. Will the right hon. Lady seriously consider setting up a devolved Executive without Sinn Fein-IRA, and allow them to join as and when they start to fulfil their obligations by decommissioning?
    Marjorie Mowlam: If I do what the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to do, I will lose the one bit of leverage that I have, which is to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. I would succeed in destroying that agreement. I have no intention of doing that.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What action is being taken to encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland. [81280]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The continuing attraction of inward investment to Northern Ireland is vital to the growth of the Northern Ireland economy, and the responsibility for this rests with the Industrial Development Board. As an example of recent initiatives, last October, I, along with the Secretary of State, supported by the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate), undertook an intensive 11-city inward investment tour of north America. The IDB is actively building on the benefits of that investment drive.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Northern Ireland team on its understanding and tenacity in encouraging the Belfast agreement along.
    My right hon. Friend will be aware that inward investment is extremely important in creating the jobs, opportunities and prosperity that will help to bridge the sectarian divide. He will be aware also that new industry has a priority to ensure the health and safety of its work force. Will he ensure that the new Health and Safety Executive, which was set up and launched at Stormont earlier this year, is equipped to provide the best of standards for all workers in all occupations? As many of the new industries will be moving into established premises, will my right hon. Friend ensure that some of the inspectors are trained in the health and safety aspects of asbestos removal?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words with reference to what we have been able to achieve to date. I hope that his view is shared on both sides of the House because much has been achieved. My hon. Friend is right in that the more progress that is made in establishing peace, the greater will be the economic development.

    329
    My hon. Friend referred to the establishment of the new Health and Safety Executive, which took up its mantle of responsibilities from 1 April. I take note of what he says about the training of inspectors. It is right that inspectors should be trained to deal with everything that they are likely to face in carrying out their duties. I shall ensure that that message is taken on board by the executive. Of course, if we have implementation of the Good Friday agreement, it will become a devolved issue for the new Assembly.
    Mr. John Bercow: What research is being conducted by the Minister's Department to establish the relative importance of labour market flexibility and the use of the English language in the attraction of inward investment to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether we have undertaken any specific research. I shall certainly engage in some research to ascertain whether we have done any research and to see whether there is anything to be gained from such research. I think that it is well known that one of the specific areas of potential inward investment is the English-speaking world, primarily north America. That is why we targeted that market. I am not so sure that research would prove that we need to do more in that context because we have expended a great deal of effort in seeking to encourage inward investment.
    As for the flexibility of the labour market, we market Northern Ireland on the basis of its human resources and its commitment, in all sections of the community, to the work ethic. The people of Northern Ireland want peace but they also want jobs.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his earlier encouraging remarks on inward investment and draw his attention to the completion of a new business park in Downpatrick, in the north of the South Down constituency. According to the strategic plan for the next 10 years, the population of the area, which already has high unemployment, is destined to double. What specific and special action does he anticipate the Government taking to attract inward investment to the area, and to publicise and market the new business park? The area's visitation ratio over the past 10 years has been low.
    Mr. Ingram: We seek to encourage among companies coming into Northern Ireland maximum interest in considering areas such as Downpatrick, which undoubtedly has major potential in a variety of ways—not only for industrial growth, but for tourism. I compliment my hon. Friend on all his efforts on behalf of his constituency and to ensure that people are aware of the importance of inward investment for that area. We do our best in marketing and encourage as many companies as possible to consider coming to Northern Ireland, but it is for them to make their investment decisions, although we may put attractive packages in front of them to attract them to areas such as Downpatrick.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister will be aware that spiralling fuel costs in Northern Ireland are a major deterrent to inward investment. We welcome the announcement that I understand the Government have made about considering compensation to petrol retailers
    330
    who are suffering as a result of smuggling. Will he meet the Northern Ireland regional representatives of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association to discuss the impact of increasing fuel costs on the industry's ability to provide an effective transport service to businesses in Northern Ireland and to potential inward investors?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the Government's announcement; it is always nice to hear such a welcome from him. The Government's approach has been to listen and to try to find the best way forward. I have agreed to meet the Petrol Retailers Association, and I would not be averse to meeting other interested lobby groups so that I can articulate their views to the appropriate Department. However, these matters do not rest with the Northern Ireland Office, but with the Treasury.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent representations she has received on when the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives will begin. [81283]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government continue to meet representatives of all the political parties to discuss all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. The Independent Commission on Decommissioning continues its discussions with the representatives of the various groups. All sides must honour all the commitments they made in the Good Friday agreement, and the Government are determined that all aspects should move forward in parallel.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Minister accept that Senator Mitchell, whom the Secretary of State mentioned in an earlier answer, said nearly three years ago that all paramilitary groups were committed to decommissioning and to peace? Does the Secretary of State accept that confidence in the peace process will not be encouraged if there is any question of Sinn Fein-IRA joining the Executive in Northern Ireland before there is credible and verifiable decommissioning? Does she further accept that many people believe that she will throw away all her negotiating cards if she continues to release convicted terrorist murderers from prison?
    Mr. Ingram: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong views on this issue, but he should have listened to some of the previous questions, which concerned what is deemed to be the current mood of people in Northern Ireland and what they want in respect of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We would not rest on one poll, but we have assessed the support for the agreement and the determination of the people of Northern Ireland for all aspects of it to be implemented. We have put in place many of the mechanisms to assist decommissioning. The independent commission will take forward any submissions or proposals from those who hold illegal weapons for disposing of them for the better and greater good of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not one option, which is not in front of us, parking the setting-up

    331
    of the Executive until autumn or even 12 months' time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that moves need to be made, we should establish the Executive even when decommissioning has not taken place, excluding Sinn Fein until it comes on board, because the IRA is engaged in that project?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the possible implications of parking the agreement. That is why the Government seek to do all that they can to continue the discussions and to keep momentum in the process. The talks in which the Government are involved are all about seeking to implement all aspects of the agreement. That is what the talks between the individual parties—bilateral, trilateral and multilateral talks—are all about. It is for the parties themselves to address the issues that continue to divide them. That is how we can begin to move this whole process forward. We must continue to talk, rather than encourage people to walk.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: A recent opinion poll showed that the bulk of the people wanted decommissioning. Is there evidence of any democratic country having in government parties supported by armed terrorism? Is it not a fallacious road to travel to discuss normalisation, equating the weapons of terror with the weapons of the state?
    Mr. Ingram: We have to make sufficient progress on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. No one in the House would disagree that illegally held weapons should be decommissioned. The normalisation process, as the hon. Gentleman defined it, is not about equivalence of weapons. We must look at how we can move the process forward, which means that everyone must look at fresh ideas to see how we can bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to start to talk the language of success and peace, rather than looking at the dark side and the downside of what is happening.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend might recall that at the last Question Time, I asked him about the purchase of decommissioned weaponry from the paramilitary groups, and the Secretary of State said that she would refer the matter to the decommissioning commission in Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend report any progress on that matter?
    Mr. Ingram: The progress of which I would advise the House is that that matter has been referred to the independent commission. It is considering it, and it is a matter for the commission.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Given that Sinn Fein-IRA and some of the loyalist paramilitaries have said on more than one occasion that they have no intention of decommissioning their arms, is not a halt to the release of prisoners long overdue, as we have been saying since the end of last year, until the paramilitaries honour the obligation to begin the decommissioning process?
    Mr. Ingram: The Secretary of State is empowered to make judgments about the quality of the ceasefire and whether the IRA and other groups associated with the talks are still on ceasefire. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on whether he wants the Good Friday agreement to work or to fail. By being so stark in his choices, he would lead us down the road of failure. The Government are determined to succeed and will build on what the previous Administration sought to do by talking to those parties as well.

    Pensioners
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What measures she is taking to assist pensioners in Northern Ireland. [81284]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): In line with the long-standing policy of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in social security matters, pensioners in Northern Ireland benefit fully from the Government's strategy to provide effective help for today's pensioners, including the introduction of the minimum income guarantee and winter fuel payments. They will also share in the Chancellor's £1 billion pensioner package.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it possible to estimate the number of pensioner households in Northern Ireland that will benefit from the Chancellor's recent Budget package?
    Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There are 250,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland, and each and every one of them will benefit from the Chancellor's package. With the changes in income tax, 200,000 out of 250,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland will not pay income tax. That is good news for the country, and good news for the pensioners in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Does the Minister know that one in four pensioners in Northern Ireland are on income support? Although there is parity of benefits in Northern Ireland, unfortunately the price of food and fuel for everyone, including pensioners, is much dearer. In addition, there is no concessionary travel in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please take notice of the report of the Transport Sub-Committee, which was published today? It suggests a national concessionary fare across the whole of the United Kingdom perhaps helped by local authorities.
    Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I take his point about the number of pensioners in Northern Ireland on income support. The Government introduced the minimum income guarantee. The minimum income is £75 a week for single pensioners and £116 a week for couples.
    The Department of the Environment, in conjunction with a number of district councils, is examining pilot schemes for free concessionary travel.

    New Deal
    Mr. John Grogan: How many people have started the new deal programme in Northern Ireland. [81285]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): By the end of March 1999, 12,788 people had started the new deal programme in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Grogan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What role is the voluntary sector playing in the new deal in Northern Ireland, particularly given the widespread anxiety in that sector about the reduction in the extremely important action for community employment programme? Can the new deal help to plug that gap?
    Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. That has been a matter of concern to me from my first day in office in Northern Ireland. As a result, I have established a cross-departmental dedicated team to write to and contact all the 188 ACE groups in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that, only this week, I have sent letters saying that the Secretary of State has approved an extra £10 million this year for voluntary and other groups for the transfer from ACE to new deal.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the Minister's statement that most ACE groups have been assimilated into the new deal. Will he assure us that ACE groups that have not been so will be contacted by those implementing the new deal to ensure that no one misses out? Is not the most successful achievement of the new deal the fact that those who have been doing the double have been flushed out, and we have managed to reduce the numbers registering unemployed?
    Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Only a few months ago, 60 ACE programmes signed up with the new deal. After intensive efforts by the dedicated team, there are now almost 160. Only 18 ACE groups have not been transferred. My officials across Departments are daily involved in negotiating with ACE groups. They provide me with a weekly report on progress. The permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland Departments intend to provide the Secretary of State with a progress report every fortnight. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that we are taking this matter seriously. ACE groups are being contacted, and we have met their concerns with the extra finance and resources that the new deal will provide.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Julia Drown: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms Drown: In the light of the recent bombings in Brixton and the east end, will my right hon. Friend send
    334
    a clear message from the House that this country is proud of its multicultural communities, and values the huge contribution made by members of ethnic minorities to business, culture, and much more? Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House, first, that the Government will do all that they can to protect the communities that are threatened by these vicious right-wing groups, and, secondly, that they are determined to fight the racism from which the violence flows?
    The Prime Minister: The attacks have been attacks not just on the Afro-Caribbean and Bangladeshi communities; we regard them as attacks on the whole of British society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are resolved, and I believe that the British people are resolved, to show utter determination in defeating the scourge of racism.
    Let me say two more things. First, I congratulate the police on pursuing their investigations with the utmost vigour. Secondly, we can be proud of the way in which the communities in Brixton and Tower Hamlets—whatever their background—have come together to condemn these outrages, and to give the police every assistance.
    Mr. William Hague: I entirely agree with what has been said by the Prime Minister and by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). I went to Brick lane on Monday, and what the Prime Minister said is absolutely correct.
    May I reiterate the Opposition's support for the NATO action in Kosovo? Does the Prime Minister agree that, although it is deeply distressing when civilians are hurt and killed—as has happened again—President Milosevic must not think that those tragic consequences will weaken our resolve in the House of Commons to ensure that the NATO action succeeds? Will he comment on this morning's reports that there are difficulties over the implementation of an oil embargo, particularly the legal basis for it? Does he agree that the rules of engagement, and their basis, must be absolutely clear?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with the latter point. Of course the rules of engagement must be legally clear: that is why NATO is currently studying the best way in which to implement the embargo. Let me point out, however, that the European Union has agreed an oil embargo, and that the European Union associates—which include Serbia's neighbours, and countries such as Cyprus—are already associating themselves with it. The United States, contrary to some reports, is implementing a comprehensive trade ban that includes oil. We in this country will do all that we can to ensure that the economic sanctions imposed on Serbia are effective, and that no oil gets through to the Serbian military.
    As for the events that occurred overnight, we take every single precaution that we possibly and reasonably can to prevent civilian casualties. We deeply regret them when they occur; but they are not the only tale of casualties overnight. There are also the 200 Kosovar Albanian men who were massacred in a village near Djakovica, adding to earlier reports of the previous killing of some 470 men in the same place.
    The difference, quite simply, is this. Whenever there are civilian casualties as a result of allied bombs, they are by error. We regret them, and we take precautions to

    335
    avoid them. The people whom the Serb paramilitaries are killing are killed deliberately. That is the difference between us and them.
    We must carry on with this action, utterly united, utterly resolved to see it through to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Hague: While I agree with the Prime Minister's last point, some concerns have been expressed that an oil embargo would be legal under international law only if it were introduced on an essentially voluntary basis, and that, if it is only voluntary, it will not be effective. There are reports that many countries have agreed to an embargo—the Prime Minister has just reiterated that—but that Russia has not agreed to it, and that it may be easy to get round it. How effective will it be if it is not a complete embargo?
    The Prime Minister: The simple answer is that it will be as effective as we can possibly make it, consistent with proper rules of engagement and international law. I should point out to those who raise Russia specifically that the sea is not the only route for oil into Serbia, and that Russia is not the only or even the main supplier. Therefore, there is a very great deal more that we can do. We have some experience of enforcing these types of embargoes in different parts of the world, and I believe that that experience will be well used in this case.
    Mr. Hague: Finally on Kosovo, on the question of ground troops, last week, Government sources said that NATO would not consider the option of a ground operation for another four to five weeks. Yet is it not the case that the length of time required to assemble and deploy troops, and then to allow the refugees to return before the winter, means that any decision on the use of ground troops would have to be made in the very near future—in the next couple of weeks? Therefore, is it not true that, if we want to take up that option, time is running out?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly right that time is a factor; but it is for precisely that reason that NATO charged the Secretary-General of NATO and NATO planners with reviewing and updating all assessments and all options. That is what we agreed at the NATO summit, and that is what is now being done.
    Charlotte Atkins: Will the Prime Minister congratulate our young United Kingdom chess players, who have won so many world titles and records recently? Does he agree that the best way of making the United Kingdom the top chess nation in the world is to recognise chess as a sport, and to end the discrimination of United Kingdom chess players, who suffer from lack of training facilities, lack of finance and very little organisation of chess games in schools? Is it not time that we joined the 100-plus nations of the world that already recognise chess as a sport and fund it accordingly?
    The Prime Minister: It is at a moment like this that I look along the Front Bench in search of inspiration, but do not find any. [Interruption.] Yes, I have just located the inspiration, but, unfortunately, she is rather far away
    336
    from me. My hon. Friend's comments sound thoroughly persuasive. Perhaps the safest thing for me to say is that I shall make further inquiries and write to her.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Given that, for the first half of this Parliament, Labour adopted the Conservatives' spending plans, and that, for the second half of this Parliament, the Conservatives intend to adopt Labour's spending plans, would not voters in next week's elections be justified in concluding that, when it comes to delivery of public services, there ain't much difference between them?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the Liberal Democrats have certainly been consistent throughout: they have consistently said that they will spend more money, and more money, and more money. What they have not ever done consistently is say how all those bills are to be paid. The idea that they will all be paid with that 1 p on income tax—which, as I understand it, is not even Liberal policy any more—is nonsense. I suggest that people should vote for the party that has managed to get mortgage rates to their lowest level for more than 30 years, that has sorted out public finances, and that is now making the biggest ever investment into schools and hospitals.
    Mr. Ashdown: The record actually shows that we were the only party at the general election to publish a fully costed manifesto. [Interruption.] That is absolutely correct; and, unlike Labour in opposition, we have always done so. Let us come now to the delivery — because the Prime Minister often tells us that it is not about inputs, but about outputs. Does not the record show that the right hon. Gentleman promised to make class sizes smaller, but that, for the majority of children, class sizes have become larger? He promised to bring down waiting lists, but waiting times are now at record levels. He promised to put more police on the beat, but the Government have cut the number of police in Britain. Does the Prime Minister really think that two years ago Britain voted to kick out the Tories in order to make our public services worse?
    The Prime Minister: If I can just correct the right hon. Gentleman: first, we have reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. There now are 130,000 pupils in classes of under 30 who would not have been otherwise and, for the first time, class sizes in primary schools are actually falling. We have reduced waiting lists and the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about waiting times, which we have also reduced.
    As for the Liberal Democrats' costed spending plans, first, they can cost them in the certain knowledge that they will never have to carry them out. Secondly, they advocated spending less money than we are spending under our comprehensive spending review, so I suggest that people stick with their first instincts and vote Labour.
    Mr. Harold Best: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Home Office staff and the staff of Leeds city council on organising the smooth transfer and accommodation of Kosovan refugees in my constituency? Is it not an example that might be followed elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in making the arrangements work and thank the people of Leeds-Bradford and the surrounding area for the magnificent way in which they have welcomed the refugees from Kosovo. That is in the very best British tradition. We will certainly be taking further refugees from Kosovo. We also are probably doing as much if not more than any other nation out there in Macedonia and Albania to make sure that the refugees are looked after properly.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Prime Minister recall my letter of 18 March concerning the proposed closure of the Thorn Lighting plant in Hereford with the loss of some 348 jobs and the transfer of some of the production to the Spennymoor plant in his constituency? Given that the local authority, the chamber of commerce and the trade unions are in talks with management trying to save the Hereford plant, and given that Spennymoor gets some Government grants that the Hereford plant does not receive, will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a level playing field for both factories?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do recall the hon. Gentleman's letter of 18 March. Of course, any proposed closure is distressing, but it is of course a decision for the company. I understand that members of the local task force are due to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in the next few weeks. The chambers of commerce, the training and enterprise council and the Employment Service are ready to help, so I hope that they can be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Although I recognise that it is no consolation to those whose jobs are under threat, it is worth acknowledging that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by some 14 per cent. in the past year. We very much hope that we can help those who face redundancy and do everything that we can to assist them over the coming weeks.
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: Further to the earlier exchange on Serbia, does the Prime Minister agree that the welcome signs of division within the Serbian regime are indeed a direct result of the solidarity shown at the recent NATO summit? Will he assure me and the House that he will do everything possible to ensure that the strength of NATO is maintained with the simple humanitarian objective of allowing the refugees to return and rebuild their lives?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the divisions now appearing in the Belgrade regime. It was Mr. Draskovic who said to his own people, only a couple of days ago, that his fellow leaders were simply lying:
    "Lying to the people that any day now we are going to prevail over NATO, that NATO is about to collapse, and that Russia is on the verge of starting World War 3. But NATO has never been stronger and more homogenous".
    I believe that that is a result of the NATO summit. What is important is that we demonstrate complete determination and resolve that we shall not rest until
    338
    NATO's objectives are met, and until an international military force goes into Kosovo and allows those people to return to their homes in peace.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that before he holds another referendum he will implement the recommendations of the Neill Committee on the fair conduct of referendums?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is due to publish a draft Bill on this matter shortly, but I point out to him that it was the Labour party that asked the Neill Committee specifically to look at these issues, after the previous Conservative Government refused to allow that. It will be our particular pride to introduce those recommendations.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although the House and the whole world is united in horror at and opposition to the ethnic cleansing and brutality by Milosevic in Kosovo, the indiscriminate destruction of the infrastructure of Yugoslavia and the killing of innocent citizens—many of whom have been long opposed to President Milosevic—does nothing in the short run to help the refugees, and that in the view of many people, including me, that destruction and killing amount to a war crime in themselves?
    The Prime Minister: I simply disagree with my right hon. Friend, for the reasons that I gave earlier. However, he prefaced his remarks by saying that whole world condemned the ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo. I simply ask my right hon. Friend what, in those circumstances, does NATO do? Do we stand by and let it happen, or do we act?
    Mr. Benn: Use the United Nations.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend shouts to me that we should use the United Nations. We know the reasons why the United Nations would not have given us the ability to act. Either we acted, or we stood aside and let the horror continue.
    I received a letter today from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). It concerned a meeting that he attended with two women—Dr. Dobruna and Professor Kelmendi—just a few days ago. I shall read a section of that letter to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman said that the women told the meeting that although
    "immediate events are obviously paramount, they mentioned that even by February of this year, 45 per cent. of Kosovan villages had been destroyed, and that documentary evidence exists to support this."
    I ask my right hon. Friend also to look at the statements that were made on behalf of NATO and the allied forces today, which list just some of the appalling atrocities that have been carried out by the Serb forces. My right hon. Friend should read some of the accounts from the refugees, who include young women who have been raped and abused so badly that they will never now be able to have children. Is my right hon. Friend saying that we should stand aside and let that happen, in Europe? That would be the ultimate moral outrage.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is it not true that, even though Scotland will have its own Parliament,

    339
    English taxpayers' money will continue to go north of the border, that Scottish Members of Parliament will continue to come to Westminster to vote on English matters, and that one third of the Cabinet will be Scots? Can the Prime Minister sympathise with English people who want independence from Scotland? Can he support our slogan, "No representation without taxation"?
    The Prime Minister: I had not thought that that was the policy of the Conservative party—although one can never be sure nowadays, as it tends to change quite quickly. However, I say to English nationalists what I say to Scottish nationalists: England and Scotland are stronger and better off together.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: In bombing Yugoslavia, what distinction is made between bombing acceptable military targets and unacceptable civilian targets, and why are factories, bridges and televisions stations included in the first category rather than the second? Surely some distinction must be made between the two.
    The Prime Minister: First, and by way of example, the bridges are used to transport Serb militia and troops, and they are a vital part of keeping Milosevic's war machine going. Secondly, as I have said already, the difference is that we do all that we can to avoid civilian casualties. The casualties inflicted by Milosevic are deliberate.
    We cannot yet know how many people Milosevic has butchered in Kosovo, but I warn the House that the number will be very considerable. Day after day after day we hear from refugees tales of the residents of whole villages being rounded up and shot and of hundreds of young men being taken away never to be seen again. We must recognise that the only chance the refugees who have managed to escape will ever have will come if NATO continues its action and is successful. The best and most eloquent advocates for NATO action are the refugees themselves.
    Mr. William Hague: In the light of accumulating evidence about the environmental risks of genetically modified crops, mounting public anxiety and statements during the past 24 hours by Tesco and Unilever, does the Prime Minister still reject the idea that it would be sensible to ban those crops until research into them has been completed?
    The Prime Minister: We are making sure that no crops or foods are available until they have been properly and rigorously tested. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is concern about the subject. However, a representative of Tesco, which he mentioned and which has said that it will withdraw GM foods, said on the radio this morning:
    "It has absolutely nothing to do with safety or concerns about safety at all. We're well satisfied that the products we market have been exhaustively tested with regard to their human and environmental safety."
    It is absolutely right that Tesco should take its own commercial decision. I have made clear the Government's position on GM foods, and we do not intend to change it.
    Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a day after the last time we discussed this matter on the Floor
    340
    of the House, when he said that it was necessary to proceed on the basis of the best scientific evidence, English Nature, the Government body that advises him on these matters, wrote to him? The letter said:
    "It is important that English Nature can be in a position to reassure the public that the technology is environmentally safe, with decisions being made on the basis of good … science. We cannot assure the public about this currently."
    This month, new evidence has emerged from scientists that pollen from GM crops could spread more quickly than was previously thought. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not see common sense? Is the case not overwhelming for a ban on these crops until we have completed research?
    The Prime Minister: Until research is completed, none of these crops can be made available. What the right hon. Gentleman asks for is already Government policy. He is trying to elide English Nature's concerns about biodiversity with food safety scares, and that is wrong. I am well aware that there will be a ready market for what he says in some parts of the media, but it is wrong.
    Mr. Hague: It is precisely English Nature's concerns about biodiversity about which 1 am asking, and about which the Prime Minister has totally failed to answer. On his point about food retailers, does he accept that nearly all major food retailers have announced that they want to be able to sell GM-free products, for whatever reasons or motives? Is there not an opportunity there? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see the case for reassuring the public about the crops, can he not at least see the commercial sense in ensuring that the United Kingdom preserves a GM-free source of supply, at least until the effect on other crops is known? That is what a lot of people in this country want.
    The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman said that I had not answered his question. I have answered him specifically and plainly: no crops are available and no foods are available unless properly tested. Secondly, are he and his Front-Bench team really raising the issue of tougher labelling for GM foods? When in Government, he blocked labelling of GM foods. We introduced it.
    We all know what the game is, so let me say to the country that I entirely know about, understand and sympathise with people's concerns about GM foods. However, if people study properly the scientific evidence, they will have to conclude three things: first, that there is no evidence that GM foods are unsafe; secondly, that there is evidence about biodiversity and its effects; and, thirdly, that that is why we should proceed with the greatest caution and the toughest regulation, which is precisely what we are doing. It would also be sensible if, before sending a signal to the whole biotechnology industry that we shall proceed on the basis not of science but of scares, we reflected on the fact that the argument should be presented in a more balanced way.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Assembly for Wales must work in the interests of all the people of Wales? Does he also agree that the only way to guarantee the

    341
    implementation of the Government's programme to build a strong economy in Wales, to invest £1 billion extra in the national health service, to raise school standards and to give all pensioners free travel within three years, is to ensure a Labour majority in next week's Welsh election?
    Mr. Bob Russell: Go on, disagree.
    The Prime Minister: I shall not disagree with that; I agree with it wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is additional money for the national health service and for schools, a better deal for pensioners and a 20 per cent. increase in child benefit—and you only get that under Labour.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing crisis in nursery education, with at least two pre-school playgroups or nursery schools closing every week? Will he confirm that it is his Government's policy both to restrict parental choice in nursery education and to throw many dedicated professional nursery school teachers and ancillary workers on the scrap heap?
    The Prime Minister: That is nonsense. The Government are expanding nursery education. We have got rid of the discredited nursery voucher system introduced by the previous Government, and we are expanding child care and other provision for children at a rate matched by no other Government this century.
    Dr. David Clark: May I revert to the issue of public service output and delivery, and ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the report that, for the second year running, Labour-controlled South Tyneside council, which he knows is in one of the most deprived areas in the country, has been adjudged the best performing local authority in England? Will he join me in congratulating its councillors, officers and other employees, and
    342
    encouraging them to continue their good work and show that a Labour local authority produces the goods, and produces the best?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate South Tyneside on its work, especially in helping young people and in education. On both counts, it stands among the best in the country.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On 10 April, the Chilean Government issued decree No. 209, which suspended all flights between Chile and the Falkland Islands. Will the Prime Minister now ask his Foreign Secretary to apologise for wrongly claiming that the suspension of that air link was a purely commercial decision by the airline, and will he tell the House, and the Falkland islanders, what formal protest he has made to the Chilean Government on behalf of the islanders, who are suffering greatly because of the Government's incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we disagree with the decision, and we have made representations to the Chilean Government about it. The Pinochet decision is a matter for the law, and the law must take its course. I would hope that even the Conservative party would recognise that.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: On the subject of education funding, is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks made today by the Tory leader of Cambridgeshire county council, who said that as the Government increase the standard spending assessment for education, he will reduce the county council's contribution, so the schools in my constituency will see no benefit from education spending? Can there be any reason why anyone who cares about education would ever vote Tory again?
    The Prime Minister: That is the reality of Conservative education policy. They cut spending on education that is vital for children. It is all very well for Conservative Front Benchers to say that they are in favour of more education spending—or at least some of them, I am not sure how many—but the reality on the ground is the Conservative party moving further and further to the right.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your help in sorting out some confusion that has arisen over the Government of Wales Act 1998? Last year, in the other place, Lord Willoughby asked whether
"the Welsh assembly will not have the power to revoke the beef bones legislation because it will be subject to joint consultation with the Minister of Agriculture?"
The Minister replied:
"Because the powers remain joint, the assembly alone will not be able to revoke them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 226.]
However, last week, the Secretary of State for Wales was asked whether
"the National Assembly for Wales will have the power to (a) modify and (b) lift the ban on beef sold on the bone; and if he will make a statement."
The Minister replied:
"Yes. The power under which the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 were made will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales."—[0fficial Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 599.]
May we have a statement so that, a week ahead of the Welsh elections, the Government can explain the confusion arising from their Welsh devolution legislation?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot be called upon to assess the accuracy or otherwise of statements made by Ministers. 1 am sure that he knows how to pursue this. He may call for a statement himself.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 22 February 1999, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked the Minister for the Armed Forces an oral question on Gulf war syndrome and claims for war pensions. He said:
"The Minister will know that, according to convention, after six or seven years, the onus of proof switches against the claimant—that is, the veterans. Will he assure the House today that that will not occur in the case of Gulf war veterans?"
The Minister answered:
"I am pleased to confirm that his interpretation is correct on this question."—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 12.]
In evidence to the Select Committee on Defence this morning, the Minister was unable to confirm that that statement was correct. To some extent, he withdrew from it. He assured the Committee that he would, at some unspecified date, make the policy on compensation clear to the House. I did not believe that that was adequate. He should give a fuller explanation to the House. I told him that I would raise the matter as a point of order this afternoon. Can you advise me and the Minister of the correct procedure for correcting an incorrect answer to the House?
Madam Speaker: As the House is aware, I do not comment on the proceedings of Select Committees. I certainly do not intervene in matters of political controversy or the interpretation of ministerial statements. I have not, as yet, received a request from the Minister to make a statement today, but I feel certain that, if any inadvertent error has been made, it will be corrected at
344
the earliest opportunity. I am sure that Ministers will have noted my remarks and will ensure that a correction is made, if necessary.
Mr. Andrew George: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will know that the marine accidents investigation branch's confidential draft report into the loss of the Margaretha Maria 18 months ago with the loss of four of my constituent's lives was leaked to the press yesterday. Leaving aside concerns about that tragic loss, the report appears to raise serious questions about the stability of all similar beam trawlers. Given the obvious anxiety in fishing communities, has the Minister responsible said whether he will make a statement?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed of any Minister seeking to make a statement on that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of the bombing of Surdulica, have you had a request from any Minister to clarify whether there was personal agreement by a senior British Minister about the targeting of that cotton town, or whether a system is still in operation whereby, before any NATO targeting is agreed, a senior British Minister has to be consulted?
Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received no request from a Minister to make a statement on such a matter. However, he barely needs reminding—nor does the House—that the Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box for half an hour today. It was open to many hon. Members—Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers—to put questions to the Prime Minister on that issue.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Despite your previous requests for short questions during Northern Ireland questions, that did not happen today. We were in fact treated to a whole series of mini-speeches, with the consequence that we managed to reach only Question 5. Do you agree that that is quite inadequate, Madam Speaker? Is there anything that you can do to ensure that there are shorter questions and, preferably, much shorter answers front Ministers?
Madam Speaker: I am delighted with that point of order. I always urge the House to put short and brisk questions to Ministers. That is especially the case during Northern Ireland questions. I notice that we deal with very few questions on Northern Ireland issues. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we reached only Question 5 today.
However, Northern Ireland questions are especially difficult to handle, for the simple reason that I want to call Members from all parties in the House to put a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That means that not only Government Back Benchers but members of the Opposition Front-Bench team must be called, as well as Members from the hon. Gentleman's party and those of other parties representing Northern Ireland. I always insist on calling as many people as possible on those questions. We are always slow with Northern Ireland questions, but I do urge Back Benchers to be rather more brisk than they have been in the past. I am sure that I shall also receive the co-operation of the Northern Ireland team on the Treasury Bench.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND (LOCATION OF VICTIMS' REMAINS)
  Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Michael and Mr. Adam Ingram, presented a Bill to make provision connected with Northern Ireland about locating the remains of persons killed before 10th April 1998 as a result of unlawful acts of violence committed on behalf of, or in connection with, proscribed organisations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 92].

Restraining and Protection Orders
3.37 pm
Ms Bridget Prentice: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the courts to make orders which restrain the conduct or movements of a person convicted of certain criminal offences, for the purpose of protecting the victim of the offence; to make similar provision with respect to orders which require statutory agencies to provide services to certain persons; and for connected purposes.
When I first considered the introduction of a ten-minute rule Bill, I wanted to revisit the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to see whether a definition of stalking is now needed. The Act does not define stalking and, having discussed the matter with a number of interested groups— including the Suzy Lamplugh Trust—it seemed that the Act itself is better for that.
I believe that part of the Act's success is due to the introduction of restraining orders that prevent the perpetrator from contacting his victim after sentence is served. Restraining orders had not originally been part of my Bill, but were added after advice from Tim Lawson Cruttenden and Neil Addison—two lawyers who also advised my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) now the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, when she introduced the original Stalking Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill in 1996. I am grateful to them for the support that they have given me with my Bill. They, too, had the support of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
It seems to me and to the supporters of the Bill that, if such orders were successful in stopping stalkers from harassing their victims again, it may well be appropriate to extend them to others who might return on their release from prison to victimise their original target. It is for that reason that I want to give the courts—it must be the courts —the opportunity and flexibility to impose restraining orders on people convicted of other serious crimes.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is rightly keen to redress the balance in favour of the victim. For example, that is why the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill has been so warmly welcomed. Protecting witnesses and victims while they are giving evidence is essential to ensuring that people who commit serious crimes are brought to book. However, it is equally important that they are also protected after the criminal has served his sentence.
The criminal courts have been able to impose bail conditions for many years, and typical conditions include staying away from the victim or from specific areas. However, the fact that such conditions end once the defendant has been sentenced often produces results that the victim finds difficult to understand. It seems odd that a defendant who claims to be innocent—and who may indeed be innocent—can be forbidden from contacting someone whom he is alleged to have assaulted, but that, once he has been convicted, he is free to return to, to speak to, and therefore to cause fear and concern to, the person whom he has been convicted of assaulting.
Restraining orders are currently restricted to convictions under sections 2 and 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act—in other words, a defendant who merely causes another to fear that violence will be used against

347
him or her can be ordered not to contact the victim again, but someone who actually uses violence cannot be made subject to a similar order. An example of that might be the recent case of Burstow, the stalker who was released having served a three-year sentence for causing psychological bodily harm to Tracey Morgan. He immediately began contacting her again, but the police were powerless to do anything until he had done enough to breach the Protection from Harassment Act.
Burstow's contacting his victim again was not enough to cause a breach, as there was no order specifically prohibiting him from doing so. My Bill would rectify that, and cover many other incidents of the sort that victims experience all too often. It is simply not true that victims who express alarm that, "The man who raped me now lives around the corner," are automatically calling for him to be returned to prison. What they want is for him to be prevented from having any contact with them again, so enabling them to rebuild their lives in peace.
Let me give a couple of examples of the sort of people whom I hope would be affected by the Bill. Currently, the only way a victim of domestic violence can ensure safety is through a civil injunction. Unless the woman qualifies for legal aid, that has to be obtained at her own expense, and she certainly has to endure two court appearances in respect of the same incident. A burglar who returns to the estate that he robbed or a drug dealer who returns to his favourite corner cannot be prevented from doing so. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 addressed some of those issues, but it can be applied only through a court other than the one in which the criminal was originally convicted. In addition, it appears that that Act applies only to offences affecting a community, rather than a single individual.
Extending restraining orders to other serious offences would mean that, at the same time as a prison sentence was imposed, a burglar could be prevented from revisiting the estate on release, or a rapist could be prevented from contacting the person he has raped or returning to the area in which the rape occurred. My Bill would cover any offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more—in other words, a serious arrestable offence. It would also cover certain other offences relating to the use or threat of violence, racial hatred and personal harassment.
Where a crime of common assault or domestic violence occurs, the victim would benefit from a court order being attached to the prison sentence. Such an order would be quicker, it would reduce the need for legal aid because it
348
would be dealt with by the sentencing court, and it would be processed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The order would also be of considerable help to victims of domestic violence because a civil injunction does not carry with it the powers of arrest.
The second part of the Bill relates to what I have called protection orders. The two orders are thematically linked. If a person believes himself to be a danger to others, or if a statutory agency such as a health authority can provide evidence to a court that a person is likely to be a danger to others, a protection order may be made which would mean that the person concerned was taken into protective custody. A breach of the order would not, in itself, be a criminal offence, but the police could detain the person in police custody and return him or her to a place stipulated by the health authority. The order would have to be made by a circuit judge in a county court, and he would have to give written reasons for his judgment. The police or the local authority could be asked to provide information if the request were reasonable. The case of Michael Stone, who was convicted of the brutal murder of Mrs. Russell and her daughter Megan, might have fallen into that category.
The measure would affect only a small number of people, but it would provide an opportunity to protect both the individual and the potential victim of a serious violent offence. That protection to the individual and to his potential victim is very much in line with the European convention on human rights. For that reason, I hope that the House will be able to support this Bill. It will give further assurances to the general public—and to victims in particular—that we are serious about protecting our citizens from violence, from the fear of violence and from intrusion into their lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Bridget Prentice, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Phil Hope, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Kali Mountford, Mr. Ian Pearson and Joan Ruddock.

RESTRAINING AND PROTECTION ORDERS
Bridget Prentice accordingly presented a Bill to empower the courts to make orders which restrain the conduct or movements of a person convicted of certain criminal offences, for the purpose of protecting the victim of the offence; to make similar provision with respect to orders which require statutory agencies to provide services to certain persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 May, and to be printed [Bill 93].
Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill

    (Clauses 2, 28 and 99)
    Considered in Committee [Progress, 27 April].
    [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

    Clause 28

      RESTRICTION OF MCA TO THOSE REACHING 65 BEFORE 2000–01
      3.47 pm
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 14, leave out lines 21 and 22.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 14, leave out lines 25 to 27.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I ask the Committee to consider these amendments, which make changes to the Government's provisions regarding the married couples allowance. As I think the Committee knows, the Finance Bill will abolish the married couples allowance and replace it in due course with a children's tax credit.
      When the Chancellor announced that change in his Budget speech, he rather typically failed to make it clear that the children's tax credit will not come into effect until April 2001. So the Government have the use of about £2 billion in public money for that year. In addition, the children's tax credit will cost the Government about £650 million less than the married couples allowance, which they are abolishing. The Government are removing an allowance that is familiar and upon which many people rely and replacing it a year later with a cheaper allowance.
      Moreover, the Treasury Select Committee report describes the new arrangement as "complex". Much of the evidence that the Committee received about this section of the Bill points to problems in administering the children's tax credit, the fact that it will create a high marginal tax rate as it is withdrawn up the income scale, and that it generally represents a further complication in an already over-burdened tax system.
      We shall undoubtedly debate the tax credit in greater detail at another time, but it is relevant to discuss it now because of the Government's switch. They are abolishing an allowance that has been a familiar and valued part of the tax system and upon which many people have relied and are replacing it with an untried, complex arrangement that will be less generous and will go to different people.
      Mr. John Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the observations of Mr. David Brodie, the director of the charity TaxAid, who, after the Budget, said:
      "The children's tax credit is a generous arrangement, reducing most taxpayers' liabilities by £416 a year or £8 a week, which is double the value of the married couple's allowance"?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman had told us a little more about what the charity sector is saying,
      350
      he could have referred to its critical remarks about the withdrawal of dividend tax credits, something that will hit charities extremely hard when the transitional arrangements end.
      Although people may welcome additional money for children and families, that does not excuse this measure, whereby the Government are taking away money from childless couples and, as I shall now outline, hitting particularly hard people who are coming up to retirement age. That is the subject of the amendments.
      In his Budget speech, the Chancellor asserted:
      "Today's pensioner couples will retain the married couples allowance."—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 183.]
      He hoped to convey the impression that, although married couples allowance is being abolished for most taxpayers, it is being retained for pensioner couples, but that is not the case. If people become 65 after 5 April next year, they will not receive the married couples allowance. That date is entirely arbitrary. If people were born on 5 April 1935, they will receive the allowance in old age; if they were born a day later, on 6 April 1935, they will not receive the allowance. Being born a day later makes a difference of £500.
      The Red Book, which fleshes out the details of the Budget, contains a section on pensioners and an entire chapter called, "Building a Fairer Society". Nowhere does it explain the unfairness and say why pensioners will not receive the married couples allowance if they reach retirement age after next April. It does not explain also why a one-day difference in birth dates can determine whether one receives a £500 tax credit. That measure is not fair or equitable; it is a good illustration of stealth taxation. The apparent extension of married couples allowance to pensioners will, in fact, apply to a smaller and smaller number of people as they die off or get divorced.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people in their late 50s and early 60s, especially those on low incomes, who were born after that magical date, are being particularly discriminated against because there is virtually no likelihood that they will be able to have children if they have not already got them, so they will not be eligible for the child tax allowance, and nor will they be eligible for the older married couples allowance?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many of those people who are coming up to retirement will have looked forward to relying on the married couples allowance. Almost by definition, they cannot now alter their working arrangements, work overtime or get a different job to make up for the income that they will lose. That is the extent of their vulnerability, and yet, out of the blue, comes a Budget that will remove an important and valued tax allowance which they were looking forward to, when it is already too late for them to make alternative arrangements.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will when I have completed the point.

      351
      That blow is the latest in a series of blows that the pensioner and saving communities have suffered at the hands of the Government. In the Government's first Budget, there was a £5 billion a year raid on pension funds as a result of the withdrawal of dividend tax credits. Therefore, the same people who are now coming up to retirement have already seen the value of those pension funds reduced.
      Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to intervene?
      Mr. Geraint Davies: My simple argument is that every change in tax interferes with people's tax planning and confounds their plans. That aspect is not limited to the change that the right hon. Gentleman was criticising, or to people over 65. Anyone, such as myself, who might have benefited from the married couples allowance now cannot plan towards that, but that is the nature of changing tax.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The point that I was making was that pensioners are especially vulnerable. If the hon. Gentleman were to have his tax allowances removed suddenly, he might be able to get a different day job to make up that reduction, but that option is not open to the people who are hit by clause 28.
      As I was in the middle of saying, this is not the first blow that those people have suffered. Not only is the withdrawal of dividend tax credits from their pension funds draining £5 billion a year into the Treasury, but many of those people made regular savings into personal equity plans, and all that was stopped from April 1999. PEPs have been replaced by individual savings accounts, which are more expensive, more complicated and less advantageous. Therefore, a series of hammer blows has landed on the very people who are hit by the clause.
      Everywhere, the Government have hit pensions and savings, and the next generation of pensioners will now have their personal allowances reduced or abolished as well.
      Mr. Christopher Leslie: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about future planning, will he explain the rationale behind his Administration's halving of the value of the married couples allowance over the period when he was a Minister?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is one thing to reduce an allowance and quite another to abolish it. Moreover, it is a clearly different thing to reduce an allowance in the context of a tax-reducing strategy. We brought the level of personal and direct taxation down in successive Budgets. Against that background, it is fully justified to reduce some allowances and increase others. However, the Government are relentlessly increasing the burden of direct taxes on, and reducing the allowances of, the most vulnerable people in the tax-paying community.
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee the value to that same pensioner group of the cut in the married couples allowance made by the Conservative Government, and will he explain why he thinks that that was worth less?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have a proud record of reducing personal and direct allowances and, by the end
      352
      of our term of office, all sections of the tax-paying population were better off. We are now witnessing an assault, not only on the general tax-paying public, but especially on people who are less able to order their affairs to compensate for what the Government are doing. There is no better illustration of that than clause 28.
      Dawn Primarolo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      4 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. I have given the hon. Lady her chance. She may well have an opportunity to make a speech if she catches your eye, Sir Alan.
      It is not only the married couples allowance that is being abolished. There is also the widows bereavement allowance. The Committee may need reminding that, attached to the married couples allowance, is the separate but linked widows bereavement allowance, which is paid to widows for up to two years after suffering that bereavement. A Government press release on Budget day made the following erroneous claim:
      "Widows will be more than compensated for the loss of this allowance by the proposed Bereavement Payment in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill."
      The Chancellor has now admitted that that was incorrect. There is an opportunity for the Government to apologise to the House of Commons through the Committee rather than relying on a letter that was written to the Select Committee on the Treasury, in which it was admitted that the press release was incorrect.
      The Government made quite a seriously misleading statement. It is now clear that widows in retirement will be suffering from more than the withdrawal of the married couples allowance, because they will not be in receipt of either the widows bereavement allowance or the replacement bereavement payment. I quote from the relevant section in the Select Committee's report, which states:
      "The Chancellor agreed to write to us, and in their note the Treasury stated that the bereavement payment 'will not generally be available to people over pension age'."
      That contradicts the statement that was made on Budget day. I hope that the Minister has made a note of that. It would be at least a courtesy if she could correct the misleading and untruthful statement that was made on 9 March.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Talking of correcting misleading statements, I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue, a Freudian slip or a confession. He said a few minutes ago that the Conservatives had a proud record of reducing allowances. That is certainly what they did, and many people are worse off because of that.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I made that slip, I can correct it. We reduced the burden of taxation by reducing rates and preserving, and in some cases increasing, allowances. The effective burden of taxation borne by the groups that we are discussing was reduced during our period in office. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify that point.
      The widows bereavement allowance is an important issue. It was not mentioned anywhere in either the Chancellor's statement or in the section in the Budget

      353
      report to which I have referred. Again, we have an example of stealth taxation. With this Government, we have always to peal away the obfuscation, and, in this instance, the downright untruth, to get at the reality of what is happening to taxpayers.
      On the very date that I have been talking about, 6 April 2000, the value of state earnings-related pensions will be halved for spouses. That is to say that a widow, for example, will be able to inherit only 50 per cent. of the SERPS entitlement built up by her husband. That is a pre-existing decision; it was taken many years ago. However, I am grateful for an early-day motion, which has been signed by a number of Labour Members, which points out that the Government, until this year, were sending out, again, misleading information to those making inquiries about the value of the SERPS entitlement for spouses. It is yet another blow that, on the very day that a widow's SERPS entitlement is halved, the Government are removing the entitlement to the widows bereavement allowance. That will be the subject of other amendments when the Bill reaches another Committee. Those amendments will ensure that pensioner couples continue to receive married couples allowance, as I believe that they are entitled to do. Many of them rely on it, and Conservative Members believe that they should have it.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Clause 28 is the worst clause in the Bill and I am delighted to speak to this pair of Opposition amendments relating to future pensioners. I must say, Sir Alan—if you will forgive me this anecdote—that I remember clause 28 of another Bill from some years ago causing huge demonstrations and attracting a vast amount of media attention for those who claimed to be defending an alternative life style. This clause 28 has attracted little media attention. There is little public interest, and certainly no demonstration to defend the interests of many millions of married people who will lose a benefit that has existed, in one form or another, since the end of the first world war.
      Nobody in the Chamber could have failed to notice the certain amount of mischievous reporting, which has been filling some of the media, on an alleged debate in my party on the question of welfare and the balance between the free market and the state. The debate on these amendments offers me a particularly good opportunity to state my position, which is that welfare should never lie principally with either the state or the free market. By far the most important element of welfare is the family—historically and even today.
      I look forward to the next debate, in which we shall discuss how the clause relates to people who are rearing children. I do not want to make the same points twice—you would rightly call me to order, Sir Alan—but the statistics I shall offer then concern the stability of the relationships of married and unmarried people. They point strongly to the efficacy of marriage as an institution in terms of keeping a man and a woman together.
      Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brazier: In a moment.
      There are a range of reasons for believing in the importance of marriage. In the context of a Finance Bill, the state, as well as the people concerned, has an interest in that stability.
      354
      Before the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) makes the point that was bound to be made—someone always leaps up to make it—I am obviously not suggesting that people will rush off to get divorced because of a change in legislation. However, before I reply to the point that I suspect she is about to make, we should hear her make it.
      Kali Mountford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I had not thought of making a point about divorce, so I thank him for raising the issue in the Committee. I was going to ask him what evidence the Conservative Government gathered during their period in office that family stability had been affected by tax decisions. Are not there all sorts of demands on families? People do not base decisions about family stability on tax allowances.
      Mr. Brazier: I suggested that the hon. Lady might make exactly that point, and she has done so.
      Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on the front row—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was the hooker."] My right hon. Friend was a sportsman, but I will not make a point about that. I do not defend the cuts that we made in the married couples allowance, but the evidence on stability falls into two halves. For the second half, the hon. Lady will have to wait for a couple of hours because I shall deal with it under the next amendment as it relates to couples with children. It is very detailed and comes from statistics provided to me by the House of Commons Library.
      Overwhelming evidence shows that marriage is the critical factor in stability of relationships between men and women. The second half of the hon. Lady's question lies—
      The Chairman: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to preface the introduction to his remarks, and he has done so in a fairly wide-ranging manner. I am duty bound to the Committee to nudge him back into the narrow area covered by the amendment, which deals with the age-related married couples allowance. We cannot have a general debate about the married couples allowance.
      Mr. Brazier: I well understand that, Sir Alan. I was responding to the generalised question that the hon. Member for Colne Valley asked me, which was what evidence I had that the tax system influences people's behaviour. I must reply briefly to that, if I may—
      The Chairman: Order. As a result of my generosity in the first place, the hon. Gentleman made remarks which attracted the attention of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). He must not go further down that track. I have now decided that he has gone far enough, so I suggest that he returns to the narrow terms of the amendment.
      Mr. Brazier: In that case, the hon. Lady will have to wait for the next debate.
      Is it fair that a married couple who are only four or five years from retirement, who have gone through their working lives without drawing benefits, having never been out of work, should be told that they are to lose

      355
      the married couples allowance? They may both have contributed all the way through, or the husband may have done so while the wife had a gap for child rearing—or the other way round, as is increasingly common. That benefit is worth several hundred pounds a year and the couple may have been relying on it as part of their retirement income.
      At the risk of arousing your ire again, Sir Alan, may I say that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, that comes as part of the framework of changes in provision for those approaching retirement—a framework that has challenged the contributory principle. Why should those approaching retirement not think that, having paid into the system all throughout their working lives, it is only fair that the Government should not move the goal posts, as clause 28 would do? Why should they not say, "We have paid our taxes. We are approaching retirement. Why should only those who are already retired on the date shown in the clause benefit from the allowance?"
      Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman and I share a belief in the institution of marriage. However, he makes a point about the stability of marriage in a debate on a group of amendments which deals specifically with allowances for pensioners. Is there any evidence to suggest that there is instability in pensioners' marriages?
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman allows me a second bite at the question. I congratulate him on his clever phrasing, which I think, Sir Alan, allows me to reply. The short answer is that I have seen no clear statistical evidence of that. Most of us come to this House because we believe that the signals that Members of Parliament send matter. It seems extraordinary that we should tear up a signal which, since 1918, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer — two were from the Liberal party and others were from the Labour and Conservative parties —have believed to be very important. That signal is that the House believes that marriage matters and that, in this context, people approaching retirement deserve some recognition through the tax system of the fact that they are married.
      4.15 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee why the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and announced a further reduction under the Conservative Government of the married couples allowance, described it as an anomaly in the system that we did not need?
      Mr. Brazier: Bluntly, I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman voted for it.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me that I voted for it. At the time, I was in the middle of a rebellion on another family issue, as some hon. Members may remember. The married couples allowance is not an anomaly. I believe that that was the wrong
      356
      decision, and a wrong justification for the reduction. The allowance has existed since 1918, and I am delighted that the Conservative party as a whole—Conservative Members on the Front Bench and on the Back Benches—will shortly be able to vote against this measure. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will join us in the Lobby.
      This issue is not just about signals or the importance of marriage: there is a practical point. I said at the beginning of my speech that the most effective form of welfare is that provided within the family. We all know of couples—many of us have examples in our own families—one of whom looks after the other. It is more often the wife who looks after the husband, but sometimes it is the other way round.
      The Chairman: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is taking on board my signals. The debate is about the age-related married couples allowance. He is making a speech that would fit more naturally into the clause stand part debate. I ask him for the final time to keep within the terms of the amendment.
      Mr. Brazier: I was about to mention nursing care for the elderly. The key point is that if the husband looks after the wife or the wife looks after the husband, the little bit of extra income that is currently provided by the married couples allowance may assist in ensuring that that unpaid, unrecognised, undervalued carer feels able to go on. Any reasonable person would accept that several hundred pounds a year might, at the margin, make the difference, and enable a wife or a husband, who, for a number of years has looked after an elderly or less fit spouse, to go on.
      Mr. John Hayes: Specifically within the terms of the amendment, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the majority of registered disabled people are over retirement age? The Government want to drive them into work as part of their reforms, but that is neither here nor there. Many of the people to whom my hon. Friend refers have severe disabilities and will be particularly hard hit by this measure.
      Mr. Brazier: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend will remember the touching testimony of the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, our hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). For many years, his mother nursed his elderly father, who was suffering partly as a result of the wounds he acquired during the war. She was unpaid and unrecognised by the benefit system, but she nursed him through it. Such couples will lose the married couples allowance.
      It is extraordinary that, after all these years, we should remove this cover. It is particularly sad and arbitrary for the Government to say that people who have already retired are different from those who are about to retire. The aim of my right hon. Friend's excellent amendment is to ensure that married couples who retire in the future get the same benefit as people who are currently retired, the value of which the Government have recognised by leaving it in place for people who reach 65 before 2000–01.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: We should consider the financial impact of what I consider to be an unfortunate wrecking amendment. The Government propose to scrap an

      357
      allowance that has already been discredited by the Opposition, who have continually reduced it and who accept that it should go. The question is, what is the best strategy for phasing it out? The Government propose to retain the allowance for those who are currently pensioners, but if the amendment were passed, it would never be phased out: all new pensioners would continue to enjoy the benefit. Given that Britain has an ageing population, the Exchequer would be spending money that could otherwise be spent on families, and on children in particular. The point of the clause is to transfer expenditure to families in need.
      Mr. Nick Gibb: Did not the hon. Gentleman stand for election on the platform that his party was committed to not raising taxes? During the general election campaign, the leader of his party said that there would be no tax rises at all. Is not the abolition of the married couples allowance, particularly for pensioners, simply an increase in income tax? How does the hon. Gentleman justify that?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman refers to a myth that is being peddled continually. The commitment was for income tax not to be increased. I was not going to mention this, but we have reduced income tax rates to 23p and l0p, which is a remarkable achievement.
      Mr. Gibb: How can the hon. Gentleman say that his Government have reduced income tax? The abolition of the married couples allowance will mean that an ordinary married couple will pay an extra £197 in income tax. How does the hon. Gentleman square the two statements?
      Mr. Davies: The commitment was to reduce the rate of income tax, and that is what we have done—as well as reducing the rate of corporation tax, and other taxes. It would be bizarre for any Government to say that they would never increase any taxes. Apart from anything else, what would they ever do? It is unbelievable that any sensible person could interpret anything that the Prime Minister has ever said as meaning that we, as a new Government, would never raise taxes. That is a farcical idea.
      I have been distracted. Let me return to the narrow arena of the amendment. We have spent about £2 billion a year on the married couples allowance, an increasing proportion of which is used by people over 65 as they grow older. The question is whether that should continue—as it would if the amendment were passed—or whether the money should be targeted on families who are in greater need, as our general strategy suggests. I hope that the Opposition will answer this question at some point today: where would they find the money to fund that increasing share of the £2 billion? Would they take it from impoverished families with children, or would they tax it? Do they entirely dismiss the Government's overall strategy of directing money towards families to enable them to work and to care for their children?
      The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned family values. He also referred to "child rearing", as though he was talking about chicken farming. The Government's strategy is intended to help families: that is the whole point of it. As for "signals", does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the signal that the Opposition are sending the community in the amendment
      358
      is "Do not get married until you are 65"? The amendment poses the danger of a sudden surge of people marrying at 65.
      Mr. Brazier rose—
      Mr. Howard Flight rose—
      Mr. Davies: Here they come! They are surging ahead! They are surging everywhere!
      Mr. Flight: Surely, according to the hon. Gentleman's logic, the tax incentive that the Government have given to 65-year-olds will lead them to contract serial marriages and start families again.
      Mr. Davies: That is obviously the signal that the hon. Gentleman has received. No doubt he intends to go off and do that, but I do not think that such a move would be rational. I think that he should reconsider his personal position.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I shall not try now to enter into subject matter that will be dealt with in later debates, on amendment No. 8, on clause 28 stand part, and on the principle behind the married couples allowance, except to say that the comment of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—that one must support the married couples allowance if one is in favour of the family and marriage—simply does not stand up. The idea that the tax system must support marriage and the family is a complete fallacy. There are 101 other policies that would be more effective in supporting marriage and the family, and I shall describe some of them in our later debates. However, I felt that I should make those preliminary remarks, so that my subsequent remarks flow logically.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury, there is no evidence that the married couples allowance has increased the stability of marriage among elderly people. I have figures, which the hon. Member for Canterbury did not have with him, from "Social Trends 1999", suggesting that, over the years—as the previous Conservative Government phased out the married couples allowance—the stability of marriage among elderly groups has, if anything, increased. In 1971, the divorce rate among those who had been married for 30 years or more was 9 per cent. In 1996, the percentage had gone down to 5 per cent.
      Therefore, if anything, the stability of marriage among the elderly has increased.
      Mr. Hayes: Although I know that this may test the hon. Gentleman's intellectual capacity, is not the logic of his statement—given the figures that he presumably has at his disposal, showing an increasing number of marriage break-ups among people in their 20s and 30s—that reducing the allowance encourages marriage break-ups among younger and middle-aged people?
      Mr. Davey: I was going to deal with exactly that point, and to say that, because of that very point, one has to interpret the figures with some care. I therefore take on board the hon. Gentleman's first point. However, the

      359
      figures do not support the second point that he was trying to make—that reduction and phasing-out of the married couples allowance has increased the divorce rate.
      Mr. Gibb: Is it not the case that, although the value of the married couples allowance under the previous Government was reduced for people under 65, its value was maintained throughout that period—as it was in the current Government's first year—for people over 65? Do the figures therefore prove the case one way or the other?
      Mr. Davey: I had planned to deal with the relevant point behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks—the need to ensure that we protect that group of elderly pensioners. We have to ensure that people in that group have some offsetting allowances, to ensure that they are not hit by the proposed measure. It is an important point, and the most germane argument in relation to this group of amendments.
      There is a case for keeping the married couples allowance for new pensioners, to protect them from taxation increases. However, if we can protect that group within the Government's overall package, it would be satisfactory to phase out the married couples allowance for everyone, so that the tax system might be simplified. So far, although the Government have probably not gone far enough to compensate pensioners, they have included in the Finance Bill the right types of measures, on which we should hope to build in Committee.
      The children's tax credit does not apply to this group of amendments—although, judging from his comments, the hon. Member for Canterbury might like them to.
      Mr. Brazier: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that people would try to exploit the children's tax credit by having large families, and that the Government were trying to create such an incentive.
      Mr. Brazier: You have the wrong Member.
      Mr. Davey: I apologise; I was referring to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight).
      I want to highlight the Bill's measures that will protect that group of pensioners. Clause 21 provides an over-indexation of personal allowances for the elderly. It does not completely compensate them; it is a partial offset, but it is the right measure.
      4.30 pm
      The Liberal Democrat alternative Budget, which was produced before the Chancellor's statement, proposed a simpler tax system that got rid of allowances such as the married couples allowance and increased the basic personal allowances. So, in this regard, the Government are taking our ideas on board, or at least sharing the same ground and acknowledging that we need higher personal allowances that protect pensioners and other low-income groups from a higher tax burden.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that raising allowances as prescribed in the Liberal Democrat
      360
      manifesto would cost some £15 billion? Can the hon. Gentleman say briefly where the money would come from? Would he raise income tax or what?
      Mr. Davey: I shall not try your patience too much, Sir Alan, but the document that we published prior to the Budget set out all the details and costings. Those costings included the abolition of the married couples allowance.
      Our position today is totally consistent with what we said before the Budget. We shall vote against the amendments and support the Government tonight because they are going in our direction and increasing personal allowances to protect vulnerable groups. They could go further, and I am sure that we shall debate that later.
      For example, clause 19 could have provided even more protection for elderly people. The Government introduced a lop starting rate of income tax, but they have not applied it to savings. Is that not introducing an anomaly? They could have taken the opportunity to provide further protection for current and future pensioners who will be hit by parts of clause 28.
      We call on the Government to ensure that pensioners are not only protected from the abolition of the married couples allowance, but targeted as a group that need more resources. In previous Finance Bills, the Government penalised pensioners through, for example, the abolition of dividend tax credit. I hope that the Committee will return to that point as we certainly intend to put the Government on the spot. More than 300,000 pensioners have lost an average of £75 a year as a result of that policy.
      The Government could go further. In previous debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon spoke about our policy to increase the basic state pension by £3 a week for those aged over 75 and by £5 a week for those aged over 80. That would target resources on those most in need, as poverty among elderly people is highly correlated with age. It would ensure that those groups were protected from the abolition of the married couples allowance, and more than compensated. They would be far better off with that package of policies.
      We shall table amendments to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill when it is considered on Report, proposing that policy package. I believe that we already have the support of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), a former Social Security Minister. I shall be interested to see whether Conservative Members sign up to those amendments and vote with us on welfare policy. If they really are interested in protecting pensioners, they will back our policy, which is the best way of using taxpayers' money to alleviate poverty among the elderly. We look forward to them supporting us as that would be in line with their arguments this afternoon.
      The Liberal Democrats reject the amendments because they would prevent an overdue reform of the tax system. They would prevent a reform that would simplify the tax system and free up resources that could be used elsewhere properly to promote the family, targeting resources on children, and giving the Chancellor the resources to tackle pensioner poverty.
      Mr. Flight: I listened carefully to the Chancellor's presentation of his Budget. He did not say that the married couples allowance would be retained for current pensioners, but abolished for future pensioners. He used

      361
      the general word "pensioner". As was reported in the media at the time, he gave the distinct impression that the intention was to retain the married couples allowance as a tax measure to help support pensioners in their retirement.
      I spoke at a large meeting in my constituency the week after the Budget, at which I made clear the reality of the Chancellor's proposals. Not surprisingly, there was considerable annoyance in my audience at the Chancellor's Orwellian use of language to secure misleading headlines. I call on the Government to make their intentions and proposals clear, if nothing else. The Budget speech is too important for half truths.
      The Chancellor also argued that there was a trade-off. He said that, although it was a good thing to abolish the married couples allowance—because it had got so untidy when it came to deciding who qualified for it, with many contorted questions about whether people were married or divorced, and so on—the trade-off was to be the new child credit.
      More Orwellian language was used when it was stated that the proposal was all about the Government's pro-family policy. However, the word "family" does not now mean mother, father and children, as it used to. It now refers to children with perhaps one parent: if there are two parents, it does not matter whether they live together.
      It is axiomatic that retired people do not have families. What I said in my intervention in the contribution from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) was mainly in jest, but I was trying to illustrate the very real point that an argument can be made for changing the married couples allowance tax benefit to the new child credit. Such a change would have a redistributive element—the less well-off would be better off and the better off less well-off—but, overall, the benefit to families would be about the same.
      There is a fairness to that argument that echoes the Chancellor's favourite phrase about fair tax policies, but there is no fairness in simply removing a substantial tax benefit for elderly people that is not to be made up elsewhere. The figures show that, for people over 75, the married couples allowance is worth more than £5,000. That is quite substantial, and the value of the allowance after tax is quite significant.
      I want to expand on the point that has been made already about planning. People plan for their old age. Perhaps many hon. Members have not yet reached the age when they start such planning, but I certainly have. People work out their pensions and savings in building societies so that they can plan their financial arrangements for old age. With the introduction of stakeholder arrangements, the Government are exhorting more and more people to make such provision, but it is too late for people aged 65 to make changes, to begin new careers and take out new insurance policies, and so on.
      I submit that a change such as is proposed requires much longer notice than a year. People retiring in the next 10 years, say, will not be able to make up for the tax loss that this change will inflict.
      The reduction in the SERPS widows benefit has already been cited. That was announced some 13 years ago, but hon. Members will be aware that hardly anyone knew about it. The Department of Social Security often gives incorrect advice, but the real problem is that people were not aware, even after 13 years, of the changes to that benefit.
      362
      A principle of the tax system is that it should not change all the time. The Government made no mention in their election manifesto that they were going to abolish the married couples allowance for retired people. That abolition is part of a considerable and growing attack on the great rump of pensioners in the middle of society. When I listened to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, I could not help feeling that he was saying that ageism is now politically correct among Labour Members. He seemed to feel that there was something virtuous in deriving pleasure from taxing older people more. Their pension funds are being taxed. They are being stopped from having tax credit on dividends if they pay no tax. The Government are removing tax benefits on insurance policies. Is all that some sadistic attack on elderly people? It seems to be thought that it is politically proper.
      My main criticism is that the provision is devious and misleading. It was not made clear, and pensioners are not being compensated for it. The top-up to pensions guarantee applies only to people who have minimal savings or none. The measures will simply make the great mass of older people less well off in their retirement.
      Pensioners are not stupid. In New Zealand, Ministers are frightened even to address public meetings because pensioners have been physically assaulting them. The Government seem to think that pensioners are soft prey and that the media are not interested. However, in my experience, the senior part of British society has rumbled the sum total of the fiscal attacks that the Government are mounting. The matters covered by the two amendments are, in the Chancellor's language, unfair and unjust, and the way in which they were announced was downright misleading.
      Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) was quite right to say that the amendment is a wrecking amendment. If the official Opposition were serious about amending the clause, they would have suggested some reasonable future date. If they disagree with our date, why not suggest another proper date two or three years hence? The Tories are simply opposed to the resolution. They simply do not like the abolition of the married couples allowance. Rather than be straightforward, they have produced a wrecking amendment without talking about the age group that would be affected by it.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Kali Mountford: No, I shall make my point.
      A couple who had had no married couples allowance would suddenly receive it on their retirement date. That makes no logical sense. In his considered speech, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rightly noted that, if we are to find resources to fund measures that I think are the right ones, money must be found sensibly and logically in a way that fits with the Government's overall strategy. The age group is critical in that sense.
      If we are to support children, we must be consistent. Opposition Members really want to talk about families, but they must consider the effects of their nonsensical amendment. It makes no sense to encourage marriage in retirement, but not the rest of the time. Tory Members

      363
      will surely vote against the clause at the stand part stage. So why spend the Committee's time on discussing this amendment? I find it all very confusing.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Brazier rose—
      Mr. Alan Johnson: Give way to the good-looking one.
      Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend must not try to guide me. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked first.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady is very kind and I am extremely flattered.
      I do not support the abolition of the married couples allowance for anyone, but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the nub of the amendment is that younger married people will at least be able to make alternative provision in their many years together? Elderly married people simply do not have that opportunity. Someone of 61 or 62 who is looking forward to retirement simply does not have enough years left to make the kind of alternative private provision that will make up for what the Government are taking away. That is the salient point.
      4.45 pm
      Kali Mountford: The logic of what the hon. Gentleman says is the same as that behind what I have been saying. If he believes that people need an adjustment time in which to make their financial arrangements, why does he support the amendment? It would not achieve that end; it would simply wipe out our attempts to get rid of the married couples allowance. I do not believe in a married couples allowance.
      Mr. Hayes: I do.
      Kali Mountford: People get married—and divorced—for all sorts of reasons, but not for tax incentives. That argument is irrelevant.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Kali Mountford: I think that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked me first, but I wanted to complete my point first.
      Mr. Brazier indicated dissent.
      Kali Mountford: In that case, I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee when and where she informed the voters in her constituency that she opposed the married couples allowance, and would take every opportunity to try to get rid of it?
      Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman knows that the proposal was made clear in the Chancellor's fine speech.
      364
      We also had a green Budget, which Conservative Governments never even tried to achieve. Under Conservative Administrations, people were never given a six-month opportunity to consider the direction that the Government should take. That argument is nonsense. [Interruption.] I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Buckingham did not read the green Budget.
      I have always made it clear that we should support children, but the amendment goes down the wrong line. It would affect pensioners. It was right for the Government not to remove allowances from people who have already had the allowance and made their retirement arrangements on that basis. To remove their allowances would have been harsh and wrong, this year, when people have not had a chance to consider their arrangements.
      If Opposition Members were serious about what they say that they are trying to achieve, they would have specified a date in the future—but their amendment is nonsense, and I cannot possibly agree with it.
      A few other spurious measures have been discussed in the debate. The one that horrified me most was the idea of a 14-year timetable for the changes in the state earnings-related pension scheme. Why did not the Conservative Government make proper arrangements when they made the changes in 1986? It is a disgrace that they did not do so, and people could not make proper arrangements for their retirement.
      It is a bit rich for Opposition Members to complain to the Committee today about SERPS, and to say that people need time to make proper, considered arrangements for their retirement. People were never given any information in the first place, and now the Labour Government are having to pick up the pieces and put things right.
      The issue was debated at length in the Standing Committee on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and the arguments remain the same. The Opposition Members on the Committee at least had the decency to apologise for their Government's mistake in not administering the change in SERPS properly.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady and I served together on that Committee. Will she follow her logic through and think for a moment? She is berating us for publicising something insufficiently 14 years ago, yet the interval until the change comes through is less than the interval associated with the clause. Even if the changes were published to the heavens, it is far too late for people to make provision.
      Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman's comments might make sense if his party had ever done anything about the change in the first place. In some cases, we now have only a matter of months in which to deal with the change that people are facing. We are having to go back and think about ways of compensating people who made decisions based on the SERPS arrangement in 1986, and were not made aware of the change. Given that they left us with such a fiasco, it is a bit rich for the Tories to start arguing about proper time being allowed for changes in people's tax arrangements so that they can make proper provision for the future.
      Surely, as we have made the decision, it is better to be clear about it. We are being clear about it today, and people can make their decisions for the future.

      365
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made some valid points about how to deal with compensation for people's changed arrangements and ensuring that they can make proper arrangements for the future. We can debate at length later in the Bill's passage how to make such provisions but this amendment would not achieve any of them. Conservative Members are being disingenuous in their remarks.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Sir Alan, I assume that we will not get a clause stand part debate and that you will therefore allow us to range a little wider than normal on the amendment.
      The Chairman: I hope that I am always generous in allowing Members to speak to amendments, but I cannot be over-generous. We must not go outside the rules of order. This is about age-related married couples allowance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not provoke me too much. I cannot say whether there will be a later debate.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you for that advice, Sir Alan.
      Clause 28 abolishes the non-age-related married couples allowance from April 2000. Unfortunately, the Chancellor has seen fit to compensate some people by a child tax allowance to be introduced one year later. People who would have been eligible for married couples allowance, whether elderly pensioners or not, will have to suffer for a whole year without any form of compensation. That enables the Chancellor to retain about £1 billion that he would otherwise have had to pay out in allowances.
      In his Budget speech, the Chancellor deliberately duped the public when he set out his reasons for abolishing married couples allowance. He claimed:
      "It is in fact a tax credit paid at the same flat rate to married couples, single parents and unmarried parents living together."— [Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 182.]
      We know that that is not true because it is the additional personal allowance that is available to unmarried and single people, and that is being abolished as well.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, not only is the additional personal allowance being abolished, but the reliefs that go with it. Widows bereavement allowance and relief for maintenance payments, which are both available to elderly pensioners and others, are being abolished. It is an especially mean abolition because widows should particularly be helped a little by the tax system.
      The elderly married couples allowance will still be available for people aged over 65 until 5 April 2000, but there is an anomaly in that provision. The Government's Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and all their other social security legislation, provides that women can retire at 60. If they wish to retain the married couples allowance for retired people why should not the allowance be retained at least for women aged over 60? Will the
      366
      Paymaster General consider amending the Finance Bill so that women aged over 60 can claim the additional allowance? I am pleased to see her nodding assent.
      Dawn Primarolo indicated dissent.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the Minister is not nodding assent, she is going against the tenor of all the social security legislation.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman should check the qualification criteria for the married couples allowance. He will find that the statement that he has just made to the Committee is incorrect. I strongly advise him not to pursue that line of argument because he has made an error about who qualifies for it.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that clarification, but I have here the Bill, as published, and refer the Paymaster General to clause 28(2), which states:
      "Subsection (1) (reduction where neither spouse is aged 65 or over)—shall cease to have effect."
      Subsection (3) of the clause continues:
      "In subsection (2) (reduction where either spouse is aged 65 or over)—"
      Paragraph (a) in that subsection states:
      "for 'is at any time within that year of the age of 65 or upwards' there shall be substituted 'was born before 6th April 1935'."
      According to my calculations, that applies only to people aged over 65, but I am willing to have the matter clarified.
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will focus on the two lines in between that he did not quote; they are the ones that are relevant to the amendment.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hesitate to disagree with you, Sir Alan, but, as I understand it, the amendment applies to lines 21 and 22—I am reading from the amendment. The lines that I quoted are lines 21 and 22 of clause 28(3)(a), which state:
      "for 'is at any time within that year of the age of 65 or upwards' there shall be substituted 'was born before 6th April 1935'."
      The Chairman: I do not want to enter into a dispute with the hon. Gentleman, but as I heard it, he read out clause 28(2) and then went on to refer to subsection (4). I do not dispute that what he has just read is the text of subsection (3)—that is the subsection that we are discussing.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Sir Alan. I do not want to dwell on the matter and I thank you for your advice. It seems to me that the wording of the Bill is clear, but, if I am wrong, no doubt the Paymaster General will correct me when she winds up the debate.
      Kali Mountford: Is the hon. Gentleman now advocating same-sex marriage? I understood that it took two people—a man and a woman. Given that fact, what he has said seems nonsensical. Is he not simply saying that we will move the whole date forward by five years for everyone?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: As the entire social security system—and every other similar system in this country—

      367
      is predicated on the basis that women can retire at the age of 60 and men can retire at the age of 65, if one wants to deal with retired people by giving them a special, additional married persons allowance, it would make eminently good sense to allow women who retire at 60 to be able to claim that allowance. Obviously, the hon. Lady and I have different opinions on that matter and we shall not agree.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to negotiate the details of the issue with Labour Members, but does not the absence of any logical basis in the Government's treatment of the issue prove what we know? The issue is not about consistency with other Government policies, or about ethics; it is simply a grubby bid to save a little bit of money for the Exchequer. That is the rationale. Why does not the Paymaster General give up the unequal struggle and admit it?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is too generous to the Government. The measure is not merely a grubby deal to save some money; at the same time, it claims to benefit pensioners—something that could be done much more effectively.
      There is no doubt that elderly people approaching retirement have been severely disadvantaged by the measure; they will have no time whatever to build up their finances to compensate for the loss of the allowance. That is so typical of the Labour Government; they tend to hit people at the bottom of the income scale. We have seen that time and again. It is grossly unfair because those people—of all members of society—do not have the time to work overtime to make up their pensions to provide for themselves when they eventually reach retirement age. It now seems that women will be encouraged to work an additional five years—from the age of 60 to 65—because they will be denied the allowance and that, too, is grossly unfair.
      Others among my colleagues have said that the measure is anti-family. Indeed it is. The married couples allowance was introduced in the first place to compensate for the fact that married couples could not claim the additional single persons allowance. Under these provisions, we are saying, in effect, that it is fine for people to live together because they will be able to claim the additional single persons allowance, but a married couple—who are not both earning—will not be entitled to claim those two personal allowances.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the Committee accepted the amendment, it would be unfair to two friends or colleagues, one of whom was married and the other not, approaching the age of 65, because the unmarried person would point to the married one and say, "My friend has the allowance and I haven't—what have I done wrong?"? Would that not be grossly unfair?
      5 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has conclusively proved that Labour Members have not understood the reason for giving married couples an allowance, which is precisely to benefit people who are
      368
      married. We all want people being married to be the normal state, because they cost the state less, live more happily and derive all sorts of other benefits from being married. However, it is quite clear that the Government have absolutely no regard for that.
      Mr. Davies: Is not the history of the allowance that it was designed to help married people with the costs of marriage and of children? It would be absurd to reward someone who is 65 simply because that person is married or because he or she opportunistically gets married aged 65 so as to get the allowance.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: With that second intervention, the hon. Gentleman gets himself into even deeper water. The married couples allowance is not given only to those who have children. There are thousands of married couples in this country who, for many different reasons, choose not to have or do not have children. Why should they not be given a little help by the tax system?
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, but I cannot resist the temptation to point out yet another inconsistency between the views of Labour Members. Does he not think it extraordinary that, on the one hand, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) says that it is absurd to suppose that people get married to attract the allowance, whereas on the other hand, and only a matter of metres away from her, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) pillories older people, impugns their motives and implies that, at an advanced age, they would rush to the altar simply to get the allowance? Government Members should get the line right.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is exactly right—no one would rush to the altar to get the married couples allowance. Successive Governments of both colours have decided that it is right to encourage the state of marriage and that there should be an additional allowance to compensate for that.
      Mr. Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I give way.
      The Chairman: Order. When more than one hon. Member has risen, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) should state to whom he is giving way.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I give way to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey).
      Mr. Healey: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that other parts of the tax system benefit married couples? MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—can be claimed by both partners if they are married, but not if they are unmarried—[Interruption.] Transfers between married couples are exempt from capital gains tax, whereas transfers between unmarried couples are not.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted by that intervention. It is the Labour Government who are

      369
      abolishing MIRAS, which is another allowance that is transferable between husband and wife. I am all in favour of allowances that are transferable between husband and wife and I strongly supported independent taxation. I urge the hon. Gentleman to make vigorous representations to Treasury Ministers that capital gains tax allowances should remain transferable between husband and wife, because it seems to me that that might well be next on their list for abolition.
      The measure is a mean one, and the Government are mean to take a whole year before implementing the replacement allowance in respect of children. It is anti-family, anti-women and ageist. I urge the Government to consider allowing women to claim the allowance when they are 60 and not make them wait until they are 65. Why should women have to work all that extra time to make up their pension so that it provides them with a reasonable living in their retirement?
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: In so far as the institution of marriage is under threat, few people outside this Chamber and with no political axe to grind would claim that that is due to the Government's decision to abolish the married couples allowance.
      Clause 28 deals specifically with couples over the ages of 65 and 75. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said that the allowance could be worth £5,000 a year for couples over the age of 75. I am more concerned about those pensioners over the ages of 65 and 75 who come to my surgeries to thank the Government for providing the minimum pension guarantee, which guarantees approximately £4,000 a year.
      Mr. Gibb: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman finds in his surgeries, but 40 per cent. of the population in my constituency are retired and people come to my surgeries and ask, "What is this minimum income guarantee? I thought it applied to all pensioners, but I now find that it applies only to those on income support." Is that not a betrayal on the part of the Government? Pensioners are led to believe one thing, but the reality is quite different.
      Mr. Gardiner: This Government have introduced the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. In 1983, the previous Conservative Government abolished the link between pensions and earnings, but this Government have restored at least for the minimum guarantee.
      My point—which is germane to the discussion of these amendments—is that Opposition Members here are not exercised by a guaranteed income of £5,000. That is a tax relief for those pensioners whose income is so large that they can take advantage of that £5,000 allowance. The question is clear: where do those Members' priorities lie? The priorities of this Budget, as expressed in this clause, are quite clear: we seek to benefit pensioners not through this measure but through other measures set out in the Budget.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his remarks? I am sure he will agree that the odd £100 or £200 is worth considerably more to someone on a very low rate of tax than the odd £1,000 or £2,000 is worth to someone who claims the older married couples allowance at the full rate of tax. I cannot square the hon.
      370
      Gentleman's remarks that the Opposition are interested only in those couples on high incomes. In fact, we are much more interested in the meanness of this change as it affects those on very low incomes.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not understand me; I shall try to explain my point more fully. It is very simple. We are talking about tax allowances for pensioners whose savings are so substantial that they have steady incomes. They can take advantage of the tax allowances on the income that they generate up to £5,000. But, by abolishing the married couples allowance, the Government have introduced a £1 billion package for poorer pensioners.
      The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spent considerable time talking about widows.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I was talking about married women who have reached the age of 60, rather than 65, and are officially able to retire and claim the state pension, but who, under these provisions, would be unable to claim the older person's married couples allowance. That seems wrong.
      Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman did talk about that, but he also talked about widows. When he was referring to whether women between 60 and 65 can claim the married couples allowance, Labour Members tried to make the point that women cannot claim that allowance because it is men who claim. If the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to listen to my response to his intervention, he might be enlightened as to that fact, but clearly he is oblivious because he is engaged in conversation on the Back Benches, so he is unable to take advantage of that information.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that nobody is about to rush to the altar to get the married couples allowance, and many of my hon. Friends and I entirely agree with him. However, in the very same breath, he said that the Government should give the married couples allowance to encourage marriage. If he accepts that no one gets married on account of the allowance, how can it be deemed to be responsible for more marriages taking place than would otherwise occur, or for maintaining marriages that would otherwise break up? The hon. Gentleman supplied no evidence that the allowance causes or maintains marriages, because there is none whatsoever.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs spoke of the family, and his commitment to that institution is well known in the Committee and elsewhere. What sort of family is he committed to? I grew up in a single parent family because my father died when I was eight. I was later part of a family of siblings because my mother died shortly thereafter. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that families should receive state benefits only if they happen to have the good fortune of having two parents who are still alive to maintain the unit?
      Mr. Brazier: If the hon. Gentleman had sat through the weeks of debate in Committee considering the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and myself, he would have heard what many of us have to say about the position of widows.
      Mr. Gardiner: With the greatest respect, that does not answer my question. The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's

      371
      speech was to ask, "Why does marriage matter?" Presumably, we share a consensus that marriage does matter, and the institution of the family matters, because it is the vehicle for raising children. We believe that it is good for two parents to raise children, but we should not penalise families simply because they do not have two parents to raise children. That would be absolutely abhorrent. If we accept that marriage is so important because it is the vehicle for raising children, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that we would take away the allowance on the basis of a partner being widowed.
      I am grateful, Sir Alan, for the latitude that you have given me to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to me on a matter relating to the next debate. Can I, through you, say to the hon. Gentleman that I shall respond to his point in the next debate?
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) heard what he said.
      Mr. Gardiner: The Government seek to ensure, through the changes made in the Budget, that adequate resources go to the poorest pensioners. That policy includes abolishing the married couples allowance for future pensioners, while maintaining it for those who have reached 65 or 75 by the dates specified in the Bill. If that means that Government money is being targeted and better used through the package of £1 billion for pensioners—and particularly, when we consider the married couples allowance, for the children's tax credit—I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome the measures.
      Dawn Primarolo: Sir Alan, you told the Committee that you would prefer the wider debate on the changes to the married couples allowance and the creation of the children's tax credit to be dealt with in the debate on the next amendment, so I shall respond then to some of the issues that have been raised in this debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) made an excellent contribution about the importance of supporting families with children and of understanding that, when so many millions of children live in poverty in this country, that must be the Government's priority. We can, if hon. Members wish, return to that subject in more detail in the next debate.
      I look forward to hearing, later in the year, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) apologising at a dinner somewhere for his party's opposition to the abolition of the married couples allowance and the creation of the children's tax credit. The remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Daily Mail on 29 January 1998 sum up precisely the Government's intentions, which were supported by the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The Leader of the Opposition said
      "Previous conservative governments made a mistake in phasing out the married couple's allowance. We wanted to stop well off couples without children getting a tax allowance they did not need. But in doing so we hit families raising children on tight budgets. It is those fami8lies that need our help most."
      372
      That is precisely what we propose in the Bill.
      The Leader of the Opposition, in his response to the Budget, generously went on to support the Government's proposal to introduce the children's tax credit.
      The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has apologised to me for the fact that he is unable to be present for my response—he probably mentioned that fact to you as well, Sir Alan—referred to the previous Government's commitment. He made a mistake when he said that they were proud of their record of cutting personal allowances. When pressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, he did not get his answer right, but we look forward to hearing a correction. However, he failed to explain why, in his Budget speech in 1992, the then Chancellor, Norman Lamont—now Lord Lamont—described the married man's allowance, the predecessor of this allowance, as "the male chauvinist allowance", and why the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described it as an anomaly in the tax system. That was the previous Government's justification for reducing married couples allowance substantially—leaving us a chaotic system surrounding it—while they presided over a massive growth in child poverty.
      The right hon. Member for Wells and several Conservative Members sought to confuse the debate—some of them obviously do not understand the current qualifications for claiming married couples allowance—by making it sound as though the Government are attacking pensioners and have broken their promises. If the right hon. Gentleman takes an unclouded look at the Bill, he will see that clause 28 protects pensioners who are currently receiving the married couples allowance. It is quite right that we should protect those senior members of our community—senior citizens who are already in receipt of the married couples allowance—by maintaining their position.
      Mr. Brazier: Will the Paymaster General explain the difference between those people and people who are only a year or two from retirement? What possible changes does she think that people coming up to retirement can make to their retirement provision at that late stage?
      Dawn Primarolo: First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the overall Budget package provided £ 1 billion to pensioners through the minimum income guarantee, the £100 heating allowance and by ensuring that we keep the married couples allowance for those who are already retired. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—I hope that I am not embarrassing him by drawing too much on his speech—an earlier clause of the Bill provides protection in terms of indexation and allowances.
      I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) feels strongly about the issues surrounding marriage, which we shall discuss when we debate amendment No. 8, but it is cruel for Conservative Members to frighten those who are already retired by making it sound as though something is being taken from them when it is not.
      I believe that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will realise that it is bizarre for the Conservative party to table an amendment that accepts abolition of the married couples allowance for under-65s

      373
      but provides that the couple may claim it when they reach the age of 65. The hon. Gentleman spoke about signals sent from the Committee. If the amendment were passed, the signals that it would send would create misunderstandings on an unimaginable scale.
      Despite the hon. Gentleman's very strong views on marriage—which I respect, although I disagree with them—when the Conservative party was in government, he voted year on year for a policy that reduced the importance of the married couples allowance and the contribution that it made.
      I remind the Committee that the married couples allowance has its origins in 1918, when men received an allowance because their wives did not work, in recognition of the extra costs in such cases. Seventy per cent. of married women now work. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has pointed out, since then, a chaotic system has developed, in which a two-earner family with children is better off than a one-earner family with children. That cannot be right, even on the basis of what the hon. Member for Canterbury believes.
      Mr. Flight: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I want to deal with his point about whether men over 65 will now marry younger women in order to claim both allowances. I do not know what his life is like, but I have not come across any constituents who have those bizarre determinations.
      Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General said that we had the bizarre position—of which she implied that she disapproved—where a two-earner couple enjoyed a much better tax position than did a couple with a single earner. If that is the case, why on earth have the Government framed the new child tax credits in such a way as to be extremely harsh on the single-earner couple and generous to the double-earner couple, who can still qualify for those credits although their combined income may be nearly twice that of a single earner couple?
      Dawn Primarolo: When we debate those clauses, I shall be happy to explain to the hon. Gentleman why his proposition is incorrect. However, if he studies the Bill—especially clause 28—he will find that, in the extremely unlikely event that a man over 65, entitled to claim the married couples allowance, is married to a younger woman with children, who is therefore entitled to receive the children's tax credit, the Bill requires them to choose which one of the allowances they receive.
      One point that came up repeatedly needs answering now. Conservative Members argued that there was a entitlement gap—that we took away the married couples allowance and that no one benefited as a result. I remind them again that, from October, the working families tax credit payments will be increased to compensate particularly the low-paid, especially families that are under pressure because their budgets are so low; that the child premium in income support has been increased this year, also specifically targeted on helping those families in most difficulty, with low budgets; and that the child benefit increases—those announced for this April and the additional one for next April—will help families with children, especially families under pressure.
      374
      Clause 28 abolishes married couples allowance for couples under 65 but preserves it for couples where the husband or wife has reached the age of 65 before the year 2000-01. That is quite clear in the Bill, and it is just. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) misquoted the Chancellor. The Opposition are trying to build up a bandwagon, saying that the Government, or the Chancellor, said things that they did not say. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that the Chancellor rightly said that today's pensioner couples would keep their married couples allowance. That is very clear and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty in understanding that sentence or which word is giving him particular problems.
      5.30 pm
      Abolishing the under-65s allowance for married couples means that we must have a new way of defining the basic married couples allowance so that we can use it for those who are over 65. Clause 28 provides for that minimum level and guarantees that there will be no effect on anyone's tax liability who is now in receipt of the allowance.
      It would be a great error if the Opposition insisted on putting into our legislation an amendment that rewarded marriage from the age of 65 onwards but did not address the real stresses and strains in families with children and how families are forced apart because of the poverty that they experience.
      When the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) reads the record of our proceedings, he will realise that the confusion that he was so agitated about, believing that it existed on the Labour Benches, arose from Conservative Members. It was the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs who suggested that men over 65 would make new arrangements in their life so as to have two allowances. Other Conservative Members suggested that our proposal is a tax on pensioners, when it is not.
      I look forward to the next amendments and the next debate, when we can discuss—
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister answer my question?
      Dawn Primarolo:—in detail the children's tax credit and why the married couples allowance should be abolished. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
      Dawn Primarolo: The point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise is one for the next debate. I shall be happy to deal with it then.
      Mr. Gibb: The debate has highlighted one of the worst stealth tax increases in the Finance Bill. The abolition of the married couples allowance will cost about 10 million married couples an extra £197 a year in income tax. When that is combined with the reduction in its value to 10 per cent. in the Government's previous Budget, the cost will be an extra £285 a year in income tax. That is from a Government who covenanted solemnly with the British people that they had no plans to raise taxes, particularly income tax. The measure that we are discussing is a straightforward hike that will affect 10 million couples.

      375
      Increased income tax bills are being introduced by stealth. This hike will raise £1.6 billion next year and £2 billion the year after that.
      The sleight of hand is worse. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer implied that pensioners would be protected from these measures. [Interruption.] I will quote the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
      "Today's pensioner couples will retain the married couple's allowance."—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 183.]
      The hon. Lady the Paymaster General quoted "would" and skipped over the word "Today's", implying that the measure would apply to all pensioners. The key word is today, as the hon. Lady said. Tomorrow's pensioners will not retain the married couples allowance despite having made their financial arrangements on the basis that the allowance would remain. Throughout all the reductions in the value of the married couples allowance under the Conservative Government and under the present Government until now, its value had always been retained for pensioners. That is no longer the position. Its value has not been retained for new pensioners. [Interruption.]
      Labour Members should read what Age Concern has said. It states:
      "We are already receiving complaints"—
      Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gibb: I shall finish this point first. Age Concern states:
      "We are already receiving complaints from people who will reach 65 just after that date."
      That is 5 April 2000. Age Concern continues:
      "From April 2000 there will be the anomalous situation whereby people will miss out on an allowance currently worth some £500, simply because their birthday is just after the specified date."
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice when he seeks constantly to mislead the House of Commons and peddles his misrepresentations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke of "Today's" pensioners, people who are pensioners now, and that is our position. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned, perhaps he could—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must not accuse other hon. Members of misleading the House of Commons. She must choose her words very carefully.
      Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to withdraw my statement about misleading the House of Commons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was doing it unintentionally. He just manages to do it in every debate, using the same words. He should now acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said "Today's" pensioners.
      Mr. Gibb: That is not what the hon. Lady said.
      Dawn Primarolo: The record will show that that is what I said. That means what it says and there has been no betrayal, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
      Mr. Gibb: All that is rich from a party in government that is introducing stealth tax after stealth tax. The
      376
      impression is given—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady should read her correspondence. Instead of getting her civil servants to write and sign her letters, she should read some of it, including the correspondence that she receives. She should read what Age Concern is saying.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I sign my correspondence, and he should withdraw that remark. I sign my ministerial correspondence that goes out in answer to points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark.
      Mr. Gibb: I have letters in my file from the hon. Lady which she has not signed. Many Members received letters from her when she was the Financial Secretary which she had not signed. If I am wrong, I shall withdraw my remarks. [Interruption.] I withdraw. I accept her comments but I know very well that there are letters that Members have received, and constituents, that have not been signed by the hon. Lady.
      After April next year, married people turning 65 will have to pay an extra £500 a year in income tax. There will be no compensatory children's tax credit for the vast majority. In addition, 300,000 pensioners will lose £75 in dividend tax refunds. Almost 1 million pensioners will find themselves paying higher income tax on their savings income than their marginal rate of income tax. All that the Paymaster General can say in return is that there is a £100 winter fuel allowance. The Government take £500 with one hand and give £100 with the other. The message is clear: do not grow old under this new Labour Government.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was right when he said that a married couple approaching retirement will suffer doubly. First, they will have little chance of qualifying for children's tax credit, although last weekend I found that I had a retired constituent over 65 who had a young child from a second marriage. Secondly, the married couple will have no entitlement to the higher rate of the married couples allowance to which they thought they would be entitled.
      Other hon. Members have made some valuable points. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who said that people make careful plans for their retirement. He is right. The Government should not give just one year's notice for the reduction in value of the allowance. It is right also that the elderly population have—
      Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gibb: No, I will not give way. There is no time to do so.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was also right to say that the elderly population has rumbled the Government. It has done so on the minimum income guarantee and on the dividend tax credit. It is rumbling the Government on the savings tax and it will rumble them on the abolition of the married couples allowance for pensioners.
      The Government's decision to abolish the married couples allowance has gone down badly with the public. It is yet another Labour stealth tax, and it is being seen as such. Their decision has also gone down especially

      377
      badly with those approaching retirement. The Chancellor has no doubt received, as the Paymaster General is also receiving, no doubt, many letters of complaint. I shall quote just one from Mr. J. R. Brett of Bromley, who writes:
      "As I shall be 65 on 9th May next year this will mean that for the rest of my life, on today's figures, I shall, in retirement, pay £512.50 more in tax than other pensioners of equal age albeit five weeks older. This is not social justice … It is one thing to juggle with Allowances for those in work, but quite another to penalise pensioners who are unable to make any provision for the loss of such a large part of their income in retirement."
      The clause creates social injustice and I urge the Committee to mitigate that injustice by voting for the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 127, Noes 306.

      Division No. 153]

      [5.39 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heald, Oliver

      Amess, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Horam, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bercow, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brady, Graham

      Johnson Smith,

      Brazier, Julian

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Key, Robert

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burns, Simon

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cash, William

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Chope, Christopher

      Lansley, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lidington, David

      Collins, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cran, James

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      & Howden)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan

      Madel, Sir David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Maples, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Flight, Howard

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Forsythe, Clifford

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Norman, Archie

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prior, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gray, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Green, Damian

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Greenway, John

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hammond, Philip

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hayes, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      378

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Spring, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Streeter, Gary

      Wilkinson, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Willetts, David

      Syms, Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Yeo, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walter, Robert

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Wardle, Charles

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clelland, David

      Allan, Richard

      Cohen, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Coleman, Iain

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Ashton, Joe

      Cotter, Brian

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cousins, Jim

      Austin, John

      Crausby, David

      Ballard, Jackie

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Battle, John

      (Copeland)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Darvill, Keith

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benton, Joe

      Davidson, Ian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Denham, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dismore, Andrew

      Borrow, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Doran, Frank

      Brake, Tom

      Dowd, Jim

      Breed, Colin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)

      Burnett, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Efford, Clive

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      (NE Fife)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Galloway, George

      Cann, Jamie

      Gapes, Mike

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gardiner, Barry

      Casale, Roger

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chaytor, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chidgey, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Grocott, Bruce

      379

      Gunnell, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacShane, Denis

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McWalter, Tony

      Healey, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith

      Maxton, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mudie, George

      Hurst, Alan

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Illsley, Eric

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pearson, Ian

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pope, Greg

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pound, Stephen

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Keetch, Paul

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Raynsford, Nick

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rendel, David

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      (Hamilton S)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lepper, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leslie, Christopher

      Roy, Frank

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Salter, Martin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lock, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McDonnell, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McFall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      380

      Soley, Clive

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Spellar, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Vaz, Keith

      Stevenson, George

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stott, Roger

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stringer, Graham

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Webb, Steve

      Stunell, Andrew

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      (Dewsbury)

      (Swansea W)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Willis, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wills, Michael

      Timms, Stephen

      Winnick, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wise, Audrey

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Wood, Mike

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Jane Kennedy.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 15, line 20, leave out '2000–01' and insert '2001–02'.
      The amendment enables us to have what I trust will be an interesting debate on the married couples allowance, what it seeks to do, how it is to be phased out and the timing of that phasing out. I hope that it will also give us an opportunity to discuss whether the tax system should be neutral in determining people's behaviour. That view is commonly held on both sides of the House, but it is not my view. I believe that the tax system has a real role to play in determining people's behaviour and encouraging behaviour and a way of life that is useful to society. That is not to cast a judgment on other sorts of behaviour but to say that, generally, as every research study shows, marriage is a good thing. Apparently, the whole House believes that.
      Whether we should take the next step and say that, having determined that marriage is a good thing, we should use the tax system to encourage it is a different question. It happens to be a question to which I would answer a strong yes, because I believe that the tax system has a useful role to play. It can be used in many other areas to encourage share ownership, private health insurance or pensions provision. That happens to be my personal view. I hope that we can discuss that matter in the context of the amendment, because it is very important.
      I welcome the belated recognition by the Treasury that, over the years, the tax system has moved against families in favour of single people without dependants, and that move needs to be reversed. I also welcome the attack that the Treasury seeks to lead on child poverty. However, we should use this debate to question the Government more closely on the figures in the Red Book. Abolishing the married couples allowance in the year that is proposed sends out the wrong message. It seems to devalue marriage, and to take money away from families and give it to other taxpayers.

      381
      In certain circumstances, the effect of all those complex changes appears to take money away from families who are poorer and give it to families who are better off.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is only just starting his remarks, but I remind him and the Committee that the amendment is specifically about the date of implementation, not the wider issues.
      Mr. Leigh: I can deal in a moment with the introduction of the children's tax credit because that is particularly relevant to this amendment. The married couples allowance will be repealed in April 2000 and the children's tax credit will be introduced a year later. In the previous debate, the Minister made it clear that she was hoping to use this debate to discuss the children's tax credit. Let us see how much effect the children's tax credit will have. I do not believe that much will be achieved by having a year's delay between the repeal of the married couples allowance and the introduction of the children's tax credit.
      The children's tax credit is a recognition, for the first time since the mid-1970s, of the lower taxable capacity of taxpayers with families. That is a welcome step. However, if we look at it in greater detail, we see not only that it is being introduced a year too late but that it does not solve all the problems that the Treasury would have us believe that it will solve. The children's tax credit will give families £416 a year, which, I agree, compares favourably with the cash value of the married couples allowance. In 1999–2000, the married couples allowance will be £197, but if one looks back to what the value of the married couples allowance was when it was introduced in 1990, one can calculate that it would be worth, in today's money, about £522.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: It is not £522 because the previous Conservative Government cut it. It is ridiculous to make those suggestions when the Conservative party made the cuts that bring us to the position that we are in now.
      Mr. Leigh: First, we are entitled to look at what is being proposed. Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between cutting something and abolishing it entirely. That is what we are faced with today. It does not help us, when we are dealing with serious matters, if hon. Members trade petty party political points across the Chamber. We are entitled to debate the married couples allowance and to advocate it as a benefit that helps married couples. We should not get too fixed on who reduced it when. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks, he would have known that I was trying to be fair to the Government. I was not attacking them from the word go, but was congratulating them on what they were trying to achieve by the introduction of the children's tax credit. We do not advance our arguments much by dwelling on the past.
      Mr. Brazier: Was not that intervention characteristic of attacks made by Labour Members? Is it not possible that some of the people who voted for them, including traditional Conservative voters, might have wished to see
      382
      changes in this matter because they were disappointed that the previous Conservative Government did not speak up for marriage?
      Mr. Leigh: Exactly. Hon. Members are entitled to put their point of view. We all know that, in the real world in which we operate, there are party disciplines and sometimes one has to vote not necessarily according to one's conscience, but that still allows one to speak up for what one believes in the Chamber. If we cannot speak up in this Chamber, where else can we do so?
      I was pursuing the question of the children's tax credit, which is vital to this debate because of the year's delay in its introduction. Many families will not get the credit because it will be gradually withdrawn where one parent is a higher-rate taxpayer. That will not be done in a fair way and, in practice, the proposals will discriminate against married couples. As the proposals stand—the Minister can correct me when she winds up the debate if I am wrong—the CTC will be withdrawn from some families, whereas other families on much larger incomes will get the credit in full. For example, if one spouse is a higher rate taxpayer with an income of £33,000 and the other has nil income, the children's tax credit will be cut. It will be removed completely once the income has reached £38,000. A family with two incomes totalling £64,000—so neither of them is a higher rate taxpayer—may receive the CTC in full. That is profoundly unfair.
      6 pm
      The Minister must explain the delay between the abolition of one tax benefit and the introduction of another. I hope that she will not regale the Committee with comments about how marvellous the CTC is without explaining that fundamental unfairness. The proposal is grossly unfair and shows no regard for the needs of children. It will also discriminate against marriage, as couples who are co-habiting in a loose arrangement could, through ignorance, misunderstanding or fraud, fail to recognise when liability arises.
      In the Budget, the Chancellor is not only ignoring marriage, but is structuring his proposals in a way that disadvantages married couples, especially those who sacrifice income to care for their children or elderly dependants. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that the proposals will encourage fraud. Surely a fairer solution would be to provide for the credit to go to the caring spouse or to allow married couples to pool their allowances and reliefs. This measure does not permit that.
      Why is this issue important? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
      "The tax system sends critical signals about … activities that a society wishes to promote or deter."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol.297,c.311.]
      As the Chancellor has said that, the Government must explain to the Committee why there is a year's delay. I can conclude only that, by their decision to end the married couples allowance in the year that it is being ended, the Government are sending a clear signal that there is no value in marriage—certainly in the tax system—for children or for anyone else. That is completely contrary to what other people in the Government are saying.
      The Home Secretary's consultation document "Supporting Families" recognises that marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children. In the Budget, the

      383
      Chancellor highlighted the fact that £4 billion of new money was being made available to families. Much of that new money is tied up in the children's tax credit and the working families tax credit, which no doubt the Minister will make a great deal of when she replies to the debate. I do not pretend to know what is in her briefing documents, but I am sure that that will be the nature of her defence against this attack.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman will know that the creation of the children's tax credit is dealt with in clause 27, which we are not discussing. We are discussing the abolition of the married couples allowance. Although I shall do my best to respond to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that Mr. Lord will keep me in order. I plead with the hon. Gentleman not to give me an impossible task. If he stays in order, I can deal with everything.
      Mr. Leigh: I assure the hon. Lady that I certainly do not want to place so courteous a Minister in an impossible situation.
      Whatever is said in defence of the figures in the Budget, the reality is that families, particularly married couples, will receive much less than we were led to believe on 9 March. The Red Book reveals that there is only £400 million of new money for families in 1999–2000, and that there will be a cut of £125 million in 2000–01 and £940 million in 2001–02. That is why the date when the married couples allowance is to be phased out is important.
      The Government are shuffling money around. They are taking more from some families and giving it to others. The Government will say that they are taking money from better-off families and giving it to poorer families. That is the nature of their defence. However, research has shown that many families who will lose out as a result of these Budget measures will be worse off than families who will benefit. It is difficult to make one's way through the complexities of the proposals to phase out the married couples allowance and to introduce the children's tax credit and the working families tax credit, but that will be the result.
      We were told that the saving in a full year from the withdrawal of the married couples allowances would be sufficient to fund a children's tax credit of £10 a week—not £8 a week as proposed in the Red Book. So families lose out again. Where is that missing £2, and what is being done with it?
      The Chancellor and the Paymaster General are claiming that, as a result of the Budget policies, including the scrapping of the married couples allowance, all families will have a minimum income of £200 a week, and that no net income tax will be paid until earnings exceed £235 a week. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
      "Every working family will be guaranteed a minimum income. It will be introduced in October … at £200 a week—more than £10,000 a year. No income tax will be paid until earnings reach £235 a week."—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol.327,c.187.]
      That statement was repeated in the Red Book, which said that
      "no family earning less than £235 a week (over £12,000 a year) will pay any income tax from October 1999."
      It was also repeated in the Treasury's Budget press release on Budget day, which spoke about
      384
      "a minimum income guarantee of £200 a week for every family with a full-time earner."
      It was repeated by the Paymaster General in her speech on Third Reading of the Tax Credits Bill.
      Although those statements are correct for the majority of families, they are not correct for all families. The Government must deal with that point. They assume that the family will get the working families tax credit. Families do not receive any working families tax credit if they have savings—for instance, following redundancy—of £8,000. Why are we discriminating against families who happen to have modest savings?
      I agree with the Government that it is right for the tax benefits system to look after lone parents. Many of them are lone parents through no fault of their own, and there is no reason why the tax system should not look after them, but the Chancellor is doing so at the expense of couples. That is the point that we are making, and that is what is unfair. In particular, it is at the expense of married couples who provide greater security for children. That is not an attack on lone parents. If we want to help lone parents, the right way is not to discriminate against married couples.
      In the Budget, married couples are disadvantaged at every turn. That is not a fair way of proceeding. Although the Chancellor claims to be introducing a fair tax system, it is one that takes no account of the costs of a second adult. The Government defend their proposals by saying that they can afford to get rid of married couples allowance on that date because of the new and improved working families tax credit. That takes no account of the additional costs of the second adult.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend will have received the same complaints in his Lincolnshire constituency as I have had in my Lincolnshire constituency from married couples who are childless but poor. The problem is exacerbated for elderly or disabled married couples. For those people, there is not simply a gap, but a gulf.
      Mr. Leigh: Yes, for people on good incomes there is a gap, but for poorer families there may be a devastating gulf that can put them in real poverty. The other point that we are trying to put across in this debate is that, if one works one's way through the complexity of these proposals, one finds that insufficient account is taken of the costs of children.
      The main point that we want to make is that single earner couples are particularly disadvantaged. One partner sacrifices his or her prospects—it is usually her prospects—to stay at home to look after children. Those people will continue to be singularly disadvantaged. The national child care strategy is designed to give parents a genuine choice but, in practice, all the resources will go towards supporting professional child care, and none will be explicitly directed towards carers at home. That is what worries us.
      Dawn Primarolo: This Government have substantially increased child benefit, something that the hon. Gentleman's Government failed to do. We have been responsible for the largest increases since the introduction of the benefit. Moreover, the benefit goes directly to the carer, regardless of his or her employment status.
      Mr. Leigh: Of course I welcome the increase in child benefit—indeed, I would have to declare an interest if I

      385
      did not—but the Paymaster General's intervention does not address the point that we are making. It is a red herring, because child benefit goes to families of all kinds. My point, with which the hon. Lady will probably find it difficult to deal, is that the Budget proposals are directed entirely towards families on relatively low incomes, in which one parent—normally the mother—stays at home. It is not a question of the Budget's being tax neutral, although in my view that is bad enough.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must tell the Committee why the date of implementation is important.
      Mr. Leigh: You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Lord, that, having explained the broad philosophy on which my view is based, I am about to deal with the specific question of why the date is important. It is important because the Government have deliberately structured all their proposed changes to ensure that they are introduced—dare I say it—by stealth. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is true. The Government know that the phasing out of the married couples allowance is deeply unpopular, and are trying to convince the nation, and the Committee, that we need not be over-concerned about it because of the increase in child benefit—which will be introduced in 2000—and the introduction of children's tax credit. Children's tax credit, however, will not be introduced until a year after the abolition of the married couples allowance.
      I want to know the reason for that gap year. No doubt the Paymaster General will be able to deal with my question very easily. What argument can possibly be adduced to justify a gap that could make things very difficult for couples?
      The children's tax credit will disadvantage single-earner couples. The fairness that the Chancellor seeks will not be conferred by a system that withdraws credit from single-earner couples with an income of £38,000. That point, surely, is unanswerable.
      The Government face an important task. Those who look at the figures will end up with the unalterable conviction that married couples are being attacked, and that married couples in which one partner stays at home are being attacked particularly viciously. Why are the Government, in order to save a little money—
      Mr. Flight rose—
      Mr. Leigh: I am about to finish my speech, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Flight: In the case of a married couple with six children, the wife may well stay at home to look after those children. It is not just married couples who are likely to suffer; married couples with large families are likely to suffer, and it is they who need support most.
      Mr. Leigh: I do not know why my hon. Friend gives the example of a married couple with six children, but that is a situation that I know quite intimately. Therefore, I can only agree with my hon. Friend.
      I hope that the Paymaster General will give us some information about the gap year. I also hope that—subject to your strictures, Mr. Lord—she will explain why the
      386
      married couples allowance, which has figured so prominently in our public life for the best part of the century, should now be abolished.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Geraint Davies: What is a "stealth tax"? Is it a stealth tax to abolish a tax, as we intend to do, or is it a stealth tax to eat away gradually at an allowance, as the Tories did? That was stealth. We are being very open about what we are doing: the allowance is being abolished. Let us get that out of the way, and go straight to the nuts and bolts of the amendment rather than meandering. Let us analyse the amendment, and what its impact would be.
      The amendment assumes that the introduction of children's tax credit represents a direct substitution for the married couples allowance. That is a false assumption. I do not know whether it is based on mischief, or has been cobbled together on the basis of misunderstanding and ignorance.
      Mr. Gibb rose—
      Mr. Davies: I want to know from the hon. Gentleman whether it was ignorance or mischief.
      Mr. Gibb: It was the hon. Gentleman's Chancellor of the Exchequer who said in his Budget statement that he would replace the married couples allowance with the children's tax credit.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen carefully enough. It seems that it is a mixture of ignorance and mischief. In fact, the children's tax credit is not a direct substitute for the married couples allowance, and was never intended to be. As the Chancellor said himself, this is a broader strategy, in which we abolish the married couples allowance as part of a policy to support families.
      As important as the children's tax credit is the working families tax credit, which kicks in in October 1999. It is part of the same strategy. What about that—and what about the fact that child benefit has already risen by £2.50? Any fool can see that those are not simultaneous, equal substitutions. By virtue of the working families tax credit, the children's tax credit starts in October 1999.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman says that those developments are unrelated, but is not the net effect less money for families, including needy families, and more for the Chancellor? Presumably the hon. Gentleman believes in the redistribution of wealth; this, surely, does not represent that in any sense.
      Mr. Davies: Families will receive much more money. In the case of the hon. Gentleman, it is ignorance; in the case of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), it is mischief.
      As part of our strategy, we are introducing the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. The working families tax credit kicks in in October 1999, and, a year or so later, there will be even more good news for families in the form of the children's tax credit. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who moved the amendment, asked why we had delayed. That suggests that the amendment was, in fact, prompted by ignorance.

      387
      If they think about it, hon. Members will realise that the working families tax credit is quite a complicated system. Do we really want to introduce the children's tax credit at the same time, in view of the practicalities of its administration by the Inland Revenue, and families' ability to understand it enough to claim it? The answer, of course, is no. That is why we are introducing the working families tax credit before the children's tax credit. It makes a great deal of sense.
      The amendment implies that a substitution is involved, and accordingly makes assumptions about costs and values. In fact, as has already been said, the children's tax credit is much more valuable than the married couples allowance in the case of married couples with children, and the Government are targeting their resources accordingly. The married couples allowance is worth £197; the children's tax credit will be worth a massive £416. We are giving benefits where they are needed. There have been no substitutions or replacements. Therefore, amendment No. 8 is entirely fallacious.
      Delaying abolition by one year would cost the Exchequer £2 billion. Once again, I ask the Opposition from where they would find that money—from stealth taxes, or by cuts to family benefits? The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—"the Rumbler", as he is now known—will have to explain which it will be. Moreover, if we add that £2 billion to the long-term costs—the discounted value of providing the married couples allowance to all future pensioners—that would have been created by passing amendment No. 1, we should have to know what other stealth taxes and cuts the Opposition are considering.
      Thank goodness—for the taxpayer and for families—that the Government are moving ahead with our agenda.
      Mr. Brazier: I support amendment No. 8, which is an excellent amendment, for two reasons. The first—my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has already very strongly made this case—is that the Government plan a one-year gap between abolishing the married couples allowance and introducing the children's tax credit.
      The second is that deferring abolition of the married couples allowance for one year would allow a proper period in which to reconsider the tax system's role in properly recognising marriage. Such a period would also allow time for examination of some of the technical arguments made by Labour Members, and for consideration of some of the imaginative ideas of Opposition Members on how the system might better recognise marriage.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, in describing the one-year gap between abolition of the married couples allowance and introduction of the children's tax credit, not only touched on an argument made in the previous debate, but anticipated the Minister's argument that the working families tax credit, for example, will provide extra money for families.
      Liz Blackman: When the previous Government significantly reduced the married couples allowance, was not their "gap" strategy to freeze child benefit?
      Mr. Brazier: As 1 made clear in an earlier debate, I shall not defend the previous Government's record on
      388
      the matter. As someone who has written much stating that the issue lost us a lot of support, I tell the hon. Lady that if she or any other Labour Member went to the polls saying that developing that strand of Conservative policy was the best way forward, full marks to her—but I should like to see the evidence.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What does that mean?
      Mr. Brazier: It means that cutting the married couples allowance was a mistaken policy, and that it would be an even greater mistake to abolish it.
      Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brazier: No, I shall not. I have only just started my speech, and I should like to develop my point.
      One year after abolition of the married couples allowance, the children's tax credit will be introduced. The CTC and the working families tax credit—which will already be in place—are both means-tested benefits. I know that you, Mr. Lord, would stop me if I were to develop that point at length. However, Labour Members addressed the issue in the previous debate, and I should like to make the point that we are debating not only the issue of putting money into people's pockets, but the signals that we are sending in doing so.
      The WFTC will cause vast numbers of families to face huge marginal tax rates and benefits withdrawal. The married couples allowance is a universal measure, and it creates no such traps. Moreover, as has already been said, the married couples allowance benefits most those who are the lowest paid. The wealthy do not notice an extra pound or two. Those who most notice that money are those who are close—but not quite close enough—to the benefits entitlement level.
      Mr. Gardiner: If it is true that those who do need the allowance appreciate it, and that the wealthy do not notice it, should not the Government be targeting resources on those who need the allowance and will appreciate it, and not continuing to provide it to those who—in the hon. Gentleman's own words—do not notice it?
      Mr. Brazier: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard an earlier point that I made—which I shall repeat briefly. By practising such targeting, one causes the exact problem identified by many hon. Members—including the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and, famously, the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, a distinguished Conservative colleague—and recognised by a huge spectrum of opinion outside the House: tapers that cause all the problems that I mentioned earlier. However, I must now speak to the narrow terms of the amendment.
      The one-year gap is the first reason that I oppose the measure. Those who will most keenly feel the gap's effect are not those on income support or those at the very bottom of the benefits eligibility scale, but those who are a little above eligibility. They will lose a universal benefit, but, for a full year, will not receive CTC. Consequently, they will be less well off. Although I accept that we have to consider the overall cocktail, the working families tax credit will not make up for the problem of tax changes

      389
      and benefits withdrawal, especially—as I said in the earlier debate—for couples receiving housing benefit. The one-year gap is of the Government' own making, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibbs) said, the Chancellor was less than clear in describing it in his Budget speech.
      As I said, my second reason for supporting the amendment is to give the Government a year to think again about the structure of any type of marriage allowance. Incidentally, the rather patronisingly termed "married man's allowance" was only comparatively recently renamed the married couples allowance.
      Some Labour Members expressed technical objections to the current structure of the married couples allowance, and I have absolutely no doubt that we shall revisit those objections when the Minister replies to the debate. Labour Members described how some non-married people benefit from the allowance. Some Opposition Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made the point that the allowance would be better if it were transferable.
      If we deferred the measure's implementation for a year, we could consider how we might better arrange structures for marriage support. It would be totally wrong for the House to send the signal that it does not think that marriage should be recognised in the tax system.
      It is worth reiterating the point made by the Home Secretary, who is strongly committed to addressing the issues of family breakdown and its effect on young people. He said:
      "marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children."
      If the Home Secretary believes that, why, oh why, do the Government want to abolish the married couples allowance? Why not allow an extra year to think about a better structure for recognising marriage?
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise to my hon. Friend, as I shall shortly have to leave the Chamber to attend a meeting with our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Red Book mentions only "families". There is an aversion among Labour Members, and particularly in the Prime Minister's own mind, to mentioning the M-word—marriage. The Red Book makes no reference to marriage. The Government's measures are directed at children, but specifically avoid trying to promote marriage—although the Home Secretary says the Government are intent upon doing so.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating my point. I should like to make two observations, the first of which stems clearly and directly from his words. He is absolutely right to say that it is extraordinary, especially given that the Home Secretary has bravely spoken of the importance of marriage to the system, that we should phase out the married couples allowance instead of delaying at least for a year and trying to replace it with a better structure.
      Let me share with the Committee a single statistic, which can be presented in two interesting ways, which illustrate just how critical marriage is to child raising and why it would be worth taking an extra year to reconsider abolishing the married couples allowance.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) quoted from "Social Trends 1999". My information comes from the Library's analysis of two
      390
      documents, one of which is "Social Trends 1999". I asked the following question: if a child was born 10 years ago to a married couple and if a child was born 10 years ago to an unmarried couple living in an allegedly stable relationship, what chance would there be that the parents would still be together today? The answer was 81 per cent. in respect of the former case, and a mere 15 per cent. in the latter case, unless the couple had got married during that 10 years.
      If one turns the statistic the other way round—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have casual conversations across the Chamber. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing specific dates and I would be grateful if he returned to the amendment.
      Mr. Brazier: I would be grateful for one extra sentence on this, Mr. Lord.
      If one turns the statistics around, they reveal that there is a 91 per cent. chance that the unmarried parents will either get married or split up within 10 years. That is why we need an extra year to think about the proposal.
      Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brazier: In a moment.
      The statistics were provided to me by the Library—
      Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Brazier: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me finish my point. I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I have been generous in giving way and have already given way three times in seven or eight minutes.
      As I said, the second case for delaying for a year is that it would provide breathing space to allow the House to consider again whether or not it wants to cast aside the best method of raising children.
      Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have some difficulty in understanding the relevance of his argument to the married couples allowance. Can he give the Committee any evidence of the role of the married couples allowance in maintaining marriages in this country?
      Mr. Brazier: If I reply to that point, I shall risk being out of order. It has been a feature of both of this afternoon's debates that Conservative Members trying to make the case for particular amendments have been challenged by interventions from Labour Members that go well beyond the amendments, so that we are bound to go beyond the amendment in replying to them. However, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman. Given the overwhelming evidence that there is more likely to be a stable family when parents are married and that married parents are much more likely to stay together, it is at least a desirable objective that we should encourage marriage.
      I would turn the hon. Gentleman's point around and ask him the following question: does he or any other hon. Member present in the Chamber really believe that the measures in a Budget have no effect at all on behaviour? If he does, I am not sure why we bother to provide tax

      391
      reliefs of one sort or another if we do not think that they affect behaviour. I am certain that many of my constituents, not all of whom support the Conservative party, see the decision to abolish the married couples allowance that is embodied in the clause—and which the amendment would defer for a year—as a severe blow against the single most important institution in the country.
      Mr. Healey: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has tabled a narrow amendment, but introduced a rather broader debate. To that extent, he has done the House and this Committee a service.
      Ultimately, one's assessment of the married couples allowance and the amendment proposing a year's delay before it is abolished depends on the view one takes of the fiscal and social purposes of the tax system in general and the married couples allowance in particular. It raises two questions. The first is whether one agrees with using the tax system to pursue particular policy aims, and the second is whether a particular tax break or allowance meets those objectives.
      I believe that the tax system should support family life and not just marriage and that our first concern in providing that support must be the children, particularly the 4 million children who are growing up in poverty. The abolition of the married couples allowance, the introduction of the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit and a range of other measures have precisely that aim.
      Of course, the married couples allowance is a tax credit and the same flat rate linked allowances are also payable to married couples, single parents and unmarried parents living together. In particular, as the married couples allowance can be paid out at twice the rate, individually, to separating or divorcing couples during the year of their separation, it cannot be said that it encourages or reinforces marriage. This afternoon, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have recognised that people marry for reasons other than tax. Therefore, delaying the proposal is not the answer.
      The abolition of the married couples allowance is overdue and should not he delayed as amendment No. 8 proposes. The original rationale for its predecessor, the married man's allowance, was that, in 1918, when it was introduced, marriage imposed additional burdens that needed to be recognised by the tax system. In those days, when two people got married, they became dependent on one salary. Women almost invariably gave up work when they married. That is no longer the case, as the Paymaster General pointed out during our debate on amendments Nos.1 and 2—70 per cent. of married women now work. Therefore, marriage no longer results in a fall in couples' joint income or an increase in costs or financial penalties. Indeed, one could argue that married couples without children are often better off than when they lived separately.
      However, marriage has a bearing on the tax system when it has a bearing on earnings capacity. Very often—although not exclusively—marriage results in children, and women often take a career break to have, and care for, their children. At that point, there is greater dependency and increased costs and there is a case for
      392
      more support from the tax system. It is precisely where my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has stepped up support and proposes to do so further with large increases in child benefit and the introduction of the children's tax credit and the working families tax credit.
      The clause, if it remains unamended, will implement the decision to end the basic married couples allowance. It also specifies the relevant dates for that implementation. Essentially, it takes to their logical conclusion the changes to the MCA introduced by successive Tory Chancellors, who, by progressively reducing the allowance from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent., were well on the way to the step proposed in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 8 would simply delay the logical action that the Government propose, which is based on the November 1993 observation by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer and who said, quite candidly and characteristically, that the married couples tax allowance was a "bit of an anomaly". The amendment would frustrate the Government's intention with clause 28, which is part of a wider move to redefine the nature and purposes of tax breaks for families and to redirect resources better to support those families and children who have extra costs and real needs.
      The Government's plans are clear. There is no case for delaying the date of implementation, and I urge the Committee to oppose amendment No. 8.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with many of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) against the amendment and against delay. He is right to say that the married couples allowance is now outdated, and he was right to recall that the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), termed it an anomaly. The money currently paid out in the married couples allowance is compounded by the tax revenue that the Exchequer thereby forgoes. The Government's proposals go some way towards using that money more effectively to support families and their children.
      The faults in the stance of Conservative Members on this matter were exposed when the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) compared the tax incentive for marriage—which is what he considers the married couples allowance to be—with the tax incentives given for taking out pensions, or for employee share ownership. I suggest that marriage is not a financial undertaking. It happens for many reasons, the least of which is financial rationale.
      It is sensible to have financial incentives for financial transactions such as pensions or share ownership, but not for something that is completely different. That is why the abolition of the married couples allowance should not be delayed.
      Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the tax system has been used to encourage home ownership for years. That is much more than just a financial transaction: it is the most important element in people's lives, after their personal family life. The tax system can be used to encourage behaviour that society considers useful, as society considered it useful to encourage home ownership.
      Mr. Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman only emphasises my point. The problem with mortgage tax

      393
      relief is that it hurts people on low incomes. Such people often cannot get the benefit of it, and it has distorted the housing market so that social and rented housing has been less affordable. Therefore, the relief ran counter to the aim of helping families on low incomes.
      One of my key arguments in this debate is that the married couples allowance did not assist marriage or families. Like the hon. Member for Gainsborough, I believe that we need a set of policies to promote marriage and to keep families together, but we should not look to the tax system to achieve them.
      In this debate, Conservative Members have put forward four fallacies about family policy. First, they are considering only one aspect of public policy and ignoring a range of matters that are much more germane to the promotion of the family. For example, they have forgotten the benefits system—family credit, child benefit and housing benefit, and so on. Many of those aspects of public policy are far more relevant to the aim of sustaining families and the institution of marriage.
      6.45 pm
      Other elements that seem to have been ignored include education policies governing school hours, the national curriculum and our attitude to sex education. Also important are employment policies with respect to child care, parental leave and working hours. Those areas of public policy would be far more fruitful for the promotion of the family. Often, families are torn apart because their members rarely meet, with parents hardly ever seeing their children or each other because they work such long hours outside the home.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can now relate his remarks to the date of implementation.
      Mr. Davey: I take your direction in this matter, Mr. Lord, but I make these points because I believe that the married couples allowance is outdated and should be got rid of as soon as possible. We should pursue other policies to promote the family and marriage. The sooner that the MCA is abolished—and the sooner that the resources spent on it are used elsewhere—the better. I know that my initial remarks were some way off the topic, Mr. Lord, but they were germane.
      Far more important than the retention of the married couples allowance is the support that the Government give to relationship counselling, especially to Relate, the former Marriage Guidance Council. Government support for such counselling would go much further towards achieving the objectives of the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
      The second fallacy trotted out in the debate is that people marry for tax reasons. If that were true, the divorce rate would not have risen and people would not marry increasingly later in life. As the section on household and families in "Social Trends 1999" states:
      "Between 1971 and 1996 the average age in Great Britain at first marriage rose from 25 years to 29 years for men and from 23 years to 27 years for women."
      394
      If the married couples allowance had given people an incentive to get married, and thus supported the institution of marriage, the trend would have been in the opposite direction.
      Mr. Brazier: The married couples allowance fell in that period, so if the direct linkage that the hon. Gentleman seeks does in fact exist, the argument is exactly the other way around.
      Mr. Davey: For most of that period, the allowance did not fall, and in some Budgets it was increased above indexation. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's point is therefore not valid.
      Mr. Brazier: Except for one year, at no time did the allowance go up by more than the combined rate of prices and economic growth. As a proportion of income, it did not rise, and in several of the years it fell. If anything, the argument is slightly against the hon. Gentleman, whose point could stand only if the married couples allowance had risen consistently in each year of the period that he has quoted. For my sins, I used to be a professional statistician and I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about what he is suggesting.
      Mr. Davey: We could bandy about our recollections of when Budgets put the married couples allowance above indexation and when they did not, but the truth is that, in the period to which I referred, the average age at marriage rose. The supposed tax incentive in the allowance had no contrary effect.
      It is symptomatic of many of the attitudes to social policy among Conservative Members that they are very atomistic in their approach. Conservative Members look at such matters in the same way as they look at balance sheet calculations. People's lives are not like that. People do not take decisions in that narrow, financially driven way. Decisions are taken for many other reasons.
      The third fallacy, and another reason why married couples allowance should be abolished this year, is the apparent belief of the Conservatives that it has been a good way to support marriage and the family. The record does not show that to be so. Indeed, Conservative Chancellors did not think so. It is a mystery why Conservative Members are not more shamefaced about all this. When their Chancellors reduced the value of the married couples allowance, they did not often redeploy the saved resources into family friendly policies such as increased child benefit or child care support.
      Mr. Brazier indicated assent.
      Mr. Davey: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has the honesty to nod in affirmation. The Conservatives must at least admit that the Government are putting resources into support for children and families.
      The hon. Gentleman said that one reason for Conservative opposition to the delay was that the children's tax credit was not being introduced until next year. However, the Conservatives seem conveniently to have forgotten that child benefit has been increased, and will be increased further. The working families tax credit is also coming in, as is the child care tax credit. A back-of-an-envelope calculation would show that families

      395
      with children are far better off as a result of that package of measures than they would be if we had simply retained the married couples allowance.
      That is not to say that the Liberal Democrats have no criticism of the Government's family policy and the collection of tax benefits that they are giving to families with children. As I said on Second Reading, they are producing a complex system of support for families with children, including child benefit, the children's tax credit, working families tax credit and the child care tax credit. People are confused about this complex system of support. However, the Government are giving support, and we welcome the changes to that extent.
      The Liberal Democrats will vote against amendment No. 8 because the Government are following the logic of their predecessors by saying, as Conservative Chancellors admitted, that the married couples allowance does not achieve the ends that people seek. There are far better ways to support marriage and the family. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
      Mr. Gibb: I support the amendment and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on his excellent introductory speech. One of the most glaring sleights of hand, pocketing £1.4 billion for the Chancellor, was the putting into effect of the children's tax credit a full year after abolition of the married couples allowance. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Chancellor to claim, as he did in his Budget speech, that the married couples allowance is being replaced by the children's tax credit.
      The amendment brings the dates together. The abolition of married couples allowance is just another stealth tax that will increase income tax bills. The delay of a year before introduction of the children's tax credit is a further revenue-raising ruse that will be widely recognised for what it is.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made several suggestions about resources being provided for families. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget speech that family life is the foundation of our society. Our first principle is support for the family, and the interests of children must be paramount.
      Many points made in both debates this evening have been about the married couples allowance. It was originally provided for married men, from 1918, in recognition of the fact that their wives were not in paid employment after marriage. That lasted until just before the second world war when the Government of the day advanced tax policy to encourage married women to stay in the labour market or return to it.
      After years of amendment and change, the present Government inherited a married couples allowance that is, in fact, restricted neither to marriage nor to couples. Nor, indeed, is it strictly an allowance, as it is a tax credit paid at the same flat rate to married couples, single parents and unmarried parents who live together. Far from recognising marriage, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough suggested, the allowance is so confused that it can even be paid twice—at the full rate to both partners in the year of separation or divorce. A married
      396
      couples allowance that can pay more for separation or divorce surely cannot be said to uphold the institution of marriage.
      Mr. Brazier: The point made several times by Conservative Members is that anomalies of that sort could be ruled out by having a year's delay. There is a serious underlying issue to the amendment, not just a technical objection.
      Dawn Primarolo: I shall come shortly to the points made by the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb)—whose incorrect understanding of the Budget we heard, once again, from the Dispatch Box—for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Gainsborough. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was quite correct in what he said about what is being provided to families.
      First, however, I shall outline some facts. Child poverty has increased dramatically since 1979. The bottom 10 to 20 per cent. of children have lower real incomes now than in 1979. The United Kingdom has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the industrialised world. The Chancellor is seeking specifically to help families with children whose budgets are under enormous pressure. Many of them are trapped in poverty.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that the proposals for the children's tax credit were less generous than the married couples allowance would have been if it was indexed. He mentioned £552, but he did not say that the base year for that was 1990. He was referring to the value of the married couples allowance before the Conservative Government made substantial cuts—what we would now, I think, call a stealth tax.
      Had the hon. Gentleman made his comparison with the value of married couples allowance inherited by the Labour Government, he would have been talking about something like £274.50 a year. The children's tax credit provides £416 a year, and one need not be a mathematical genius to work out that that is far more generous.
      The second Opposition proposition was that there was a gap year—that we were taking £197 a year away from the families with children upon whom Conservative Members have concentrated, and made no other policy changes. The hon. Gentleman said that, as a parent, he was in receipt of child benefit, so I remind him that child benefit was increased by £2.95 this month, and that next April there will be another increase, with the premium for the second child also going up. For families with more than one child, those increases in child benefit alone are worth more than the loss of the married couples allowance—and the Government have done more than that.
      The idea that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton advanced—that there is a gap year, and that we are stealing funds from families—ignores the fact that the working families tax credit will be increased by £4.70 a week from October, before the married couples allowance is taken away. There is no gap year. Resources greater than the married couples allowance, which has yet to be taken away, are being given to families with children. The additions will be paid before the allowance disappears, and they will also receive the children's tax credit.
      After all the discussion about marriage, and all the importance that Conservative Members have attributed to the married couples allowance, what is their proposition?

      397
      They suggest not that the allowance should be saved, but that its abolition should be delayed for a year—that we should allow the present chaos surrounding the allowance to continue.
      7 pm
      Presumably, the Conservatives want to vote against the increase in child benefit and the working families tax credit, and the increase in the income support premium, which have all been provided for this year, before the married couples allowance is abolished. That fact does not fit in with their simplistic argument that the Chancellor is taking money away and hiding it in the Treasury rather than paying it out.
      It is clear from the information in the Red Book, and from what I have said this evening, that families with children in the greatest need will receive payments from the Government to help them. The best way to help married couples and families is to ensure that they and their children can be lifted out of poverty. What drives families apart is a lack of resources and the grind of poverty, and that is where the Government are trying to help. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 131, Noes 296.

      Division No. 154]

      [7.3 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gill, Christopher

      Amess, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gray, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Green, Damian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Greenway, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beggs, Roy

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Boswell, Tim

      Hammond, Philip

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brady, Graham

      Hayes, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Heald, Oliver

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Horam, John

      Burns, Simon

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Clappison, James

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Johnson Smith,

      Collins, Tim

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Key, Robert

      Cran, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      & Howden)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Day, Stephen

      Lansley, Andrew

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan, Alan

      Letwin, Oliver

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Flight, Howard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forsythe, Clifford

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fraser, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Mates, Michael

      Gibb, Nick

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      398

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Streeter, Gary

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Swayne, Desmond

      Moss, Malcolm

      Syms, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Norman, Archie

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Paice, James

      Thompson, William

      Paterson, Owen

      Tredinnick, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Trend, Michael

      Prior, David

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Randall, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Walter, Robert

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wardle, Charles

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Ruffley, David

      Whittingdale, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Willetts, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Sir David Madel and

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Allan, Richard

      Chidgey, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Ballard, Jackie

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Beard, Nigel

      Connarty, Michael

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benton, Joe

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cotter, Brian

      Best, Harold

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Crausby, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cummings, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Boateng, Paul

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Borrow, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Darvill, Keith

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Breed, Colin

      Davidson, Ian

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burgon, Colin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burnett, John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dismore, Andrew

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Dobbin, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Dowd, Jim

      (NE Fife)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Cann, Jamie

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Edwards, Huw

      Casale, Roger

      Efford, Clive

      Caton, Martin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fearn, Ronnie

      399

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gapes, Mike

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lock, David

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McDonnell, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Grocott, Bruce

      McWalter, Tony

      Gunnell, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Harvey, Nick

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Healey, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Maxton, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hope, Phil

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mudie, George

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hurst, Alan

      Oaten, Mark

      Hutton, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Neill, Martin

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pendry, Tom

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pickthall, Colin

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keetch, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purchase, Ken

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Radice, Giles

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rendel, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Roy, Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lepper, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      400

      Salter, Martin

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Trickett, Jon

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Soley, Clive

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, John

      Webb, Steve

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stott, Roger

      (Swansea W)

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Willis, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Winnick, David

      (Dewsbury)

      Wise, Audrey

      Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 300, Noes 132.

      Division No. 155]

      [7.18 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      (NE Fife)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cann, Jamie

      Austin, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ballard, Jackie

      Casale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      Caton, Martin

      Battle, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beard, Nigel

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Chaytor, David

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Chidgey, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clelland, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cohen, Harry

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coleman, Iain

      Boateng, Paul

      Connarty, Michael

      Borrow, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Breed, Colin

      Cotter, Brian

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cousins, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Crausby, David

      Burgon, Colin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Burnett, John

      Cummings, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      401

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Darvill, Keith

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keetch, Paul

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kidney, David

      Doran, Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dowd, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Efford, Clive

      Laxton, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lepper, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gapes, Mike

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lock, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Love, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonnell, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McFall, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      MacShane, Denis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gunnell, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Harvey, Nick

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Maxton, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heppell, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hesford, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hill, Keith

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hope, Phil

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mountford, Kali

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mudie, George

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hurst, Alan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hutton, John

      Oaten, Mark

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pearson, Ian

      402

      Pendry, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stringer, Graham

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pike, Peter L

      Stunell, Andrew

      Plaskitt, James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Pound, Stephen

      (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Radice, Giles

      Trickett, Jon

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tyler, Paul

      Roy, Frank

      Vaz, Keith

      Ruddock, Joan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Salter, Martin

      Webb, Steve

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Shaw, Jonathan

      (Swansea W)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Willis, Phil

      Singh, Marsha

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wise, Audrey

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wood, Mike

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Flight, Howard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Beggs, Roy

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bercow, John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gibb, Nick

      Brady, Graham

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gray, James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Green, Damian

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Greenway, John

      Burns, Simon

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cash, William

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Hammond, Philip

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hayes, John

      Collins, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cran, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Horam, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      & Howden)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Day, Stephen

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Duncan, Alan

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      403

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Johnson Smith,

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Key, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Spring, Richard

      Letwin, Oliver

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Streeter, Gary

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Syms, Robert

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Thompson, William

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Mates, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Walter, Robert

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Wardle, Charles

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Waterson, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Norman, Archie

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Pickles, Eric

      Woodward, Shaun

      Prior, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Randall, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Sir David Madel and

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 99

      STAMP DUTY ON CONVEYANCE OR TRANSFER ON SALE
      7.30 pm
      Mr. John Whittingdale: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 99, page 71, line 5, at end insert—
      '(4A) This section shall not apply to properties which are subject to uniform business rate'.
      The context of the amendment is the increase in the rate of stamp duty from 2 to 2.5 per cent. on transactions valued at between £250,000 and £500,000, and from 3 to 3.5 per cent. on transactions valued at more than £500,000. Since the Labour Government came to power, there have been three tax-raising Budgets, and in each of those Budgets one of the taxes that has been increased is stamp duty.
      In his first Budget, the Chancellor raised stamp duty by 50 per cent., from 1 to 1.5 per cent., on property sales valued at more than £250,000, and by 100 per cent., to 2 per cent., on property sales valued at more than £500,000. On that occasion, he tried to justify the increases by claiming that the measure was necessary to reduce volatility in the housing market. The reason he gave in his Budget speech was:
      "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery. I have therefore decided that it is right to take…. measures aimed at stability in the housing market."— [Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 313.]
      404
      In fact, the increases had far less to do with stability in the housing market than with increasing tax revenue.
      That became clearer when the Chancellor put up stamp duty again in his second Budget. That time, it went up to 2 per cent. on transactions over £250,000 and to 3 per cent. on sales of more than £500,000. There was no mention in his Budget speech of the importance of stability in the housing market; the right hon. Gentleman said only that 98 per cent. of house transactions would be unaffected by the increases. In this year's Budget, the Chancellor has raised the rates for a third time, to 2.5 per cent. on sales over £250,000 and to 3.5 per cent. on sales over £500,000. However, his only attempt to justify the increase in his Budget speech was to say that 96 per cent., rather than the previous 98 per cent., of home sales would be unaffected. The effect of those three Labour Budgets taken together is clear: on transactions of more than £250,000, there has been a tax increase of 150 per cent. and on transactions of more than £500,000, there has been a tax increase of 250 per cent. So much for the Government saying that they have no intention of putting up taxes.
      There is a strong suspicion that this year's will not be the last increase, for in the rest of Europe stamp duty or its equivalent is payable at much higher rates.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Quite right.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that. I understand that the average rate that now applies in Europe is now about 7 per cent., whereas in France, on certain classes of property, it is as high as 18 per cent. Many people believe that the Chancellor is trying to harmonise by stealth. There have been reports that he wanted to put up the rate of stamp duty in this year's Budget by a full 1 per cent., instead of only 0.5 per cent., but that he was dissuaded at the last minute by those who said that it would be too great a blow at one time. There is now a widespread belief that each future Budget will introduce further increases and that the Chancellor has now indicated to our European partners that he intends to increase the rates steadily until they reach the rates of our competitors.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that France recently cut its transaction costs from 18.5 per cent. to 4.5 per cent., because it felt that it was so out of line with the rest of its European partners? Would it not be folly if the UK Government were to increase stamp duty any further, given that we already have the highest property taxation of any country in the European Union?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I had not known that. It may indeed confirm that there is a general movement throughout Europe to bring rates closer together, and that there is in operation an agenda to harmonise rates of stamp duty. It is even possible that that commitment has already been given by the Chancellor to the Paymaster General, in her capacity as the chairman of the committee on the code of conduct on business taxation.
      I am sorry that the Paymaster General is not in her place, but I ask the Financial Secretary to make it clear in her reply that such speculation—which is considerable—is without foundation. Despite the fact that the hon.

      405
      Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would like that harmonisation to happen, I suspect that few people in this country share his view and that there would be considerable alarm if the Government did intend to continue to increase stamp duty in each future Budget.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it seems to him so wrong that someone who purchases a property for £500,000 should pay £15,000 to the state, when that tax is the lowest in Europe?
      Mr. Whittingdale: That very point is the crux of the amendment, because, overwhelmingly, transactions over £500,000 are not conducted by people buying large houses, but by businesses, so the tax is a tax on business. The Chancellor does not like to admit that.
      Mr. Derek Twigg: Can we take it from that remark that the Conservatives are not opposed to the increase in stamp duty on domestic property sales?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am sorry to disappointment the hon. Gentleman, but the Opposition are completely opposed to that tax increase, because it is a stealth tax increase which is especially damaging to business. Our amendment is designed to highlight that damage.
      Mr. Twigg: I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I apologise if I am doing so, but I want to be clear. Will Conservative Members be voting against the measure?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am happy to confirm that we shall vote in favour of our amendment and against clause stand part.
      As I said, when the Chancellor ever mentions the increases, he speaks of them in terms of house sales. Like the hon. Member for Workington, the right hon. Gentleman has tried to give the impression that the tax affects only those who can afford to buy expensive houses. It is worth pointing out that, in many parts of the south-east, £250,000 will not buy an especially large house. Many of those who will have to pay the increases are not fat cats, but, in the main, families who aspire to move to a larger house. Indeed, I am hoping to move house in the near future—
      Mr. Love: Declare an interest!
      Mr. Whittingdale: That is exactly what I was just doing. If I do move, it is possible that, like a large number of my constituents, I shall be affected by the increases.
      Mr. Leslie: Half a million?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the clause increases the rate of stamp duty on all transactions of more than £250,000. In my constituency, £250,000 does not buy a mansion; it buys a reasonably sized property of the sort in which I suspect the majority of my constituents aspire to live one day.
      Mr. Love: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the majority of his constituents would fall within the category of those buying houses valued in excess of £250,000,
      406
      despite the fact that, earlier in his speech, he confirmed that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that between 4 and 6 per cent. of house purchases are affected by the increases?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I said that the majority of my constituents would aspire to live in such houses. In the area that I represent—and certainly in the areas represented by several of my hon. Friends—the proportion of transactions over that threshold would be considerably in excess of 4 per cent.
      There is another equally important point about the way in which the increases will affect people involved in home purchases. Many house sales involve the purchase of new houses—
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Butterfill): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the amendment. I am sure that he will wish to address those issues in the clause stand part debate, but I hope that, for the time being, he will confine his attention to the amendment under discussion.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Butterfill. I will certainly concentrate on the amendment before us. I was tempted to divert slightly.
      However much the Chancellor may pretend otherwise, stamp duty is not payable only on house purchases; it is payable on all transactions that require the transfer of a document. That includes sales and leases of commercial property, goodwill, book debts and intellectual property, such as patents and trademarks. When we debated the Budget initially, I was grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for highlighting the effect of the increases on the high-technology firms in her constituency that will be severely affected by the rising cost of the transfer of intellectual property in which they specialise.
      According to the Government's figures, of all transactions over £250,000, 65 per cent. of the receipts from stamp duty come from commercial property and land transactions. For transactions over £500,000, 80 per cent. of receipts come from commercial property and land transactions. As I said earlier, this is overwhelmingly a business tax and businesses will have to pay the majority of the extra £270 million that the increases will raise.
      In his Budget speech, the Chancellor made much of the fact that our future depends on enterprise. However, in practice, he is clobbering enterprise through increased taxation. Last year, several organisations representing the commercial property industry commissioned independent research by Arthur Andersen and the London business school on the impact of increased stamp duty rates on the commercial property sector. That research showed that commercial property is a hugely important component of our economy and contributes about 10 per cent. of our gross domestic product. It is valued at about £500 billion in the private sector and a further £110 billion in the public sector.
      Moreover, the analysis also revealed that there is a multiplier effect and that changes in the level of stamp duty have a disproportionate impact on commercial property prices. As a result, it is estimated that a 1 per cent. increase in stamp duty will wipe £25.6 billion from

      407
      the capital value of commercial property. If a real rate of growth in rents of 2.5 per cent. is assumed, the figure increases to a —43 billion decline in the total value.
      That is particularly serious as many industrial and commercial companies use the value of their commercial property assets as collateral for debt finance. It is difficult to estimate the precise value of the total amount of loans secured on commercial property assets, but research suggests that it is something like 50 per cent. Therefore, a significant drop in commercial property values is likely to have a measurable effect on the ability of firms to raise loan finance. That may be particularly significant for small and medium-sized enterprises.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does it not mean also that the tax will cut into the spiralling commercial rents that are the subject of many protests to Members of Parliament from small shopkeepers throughout the country who simply cannot afford to pay rents in the commercial sector? Therefore, the tax is extremely helpful in that sense.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am interested to see the hon. Gentleman defending these increases—but perhaps it fits in with his earlier suggestion that the rates should continue to increase in future Budgets. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether she also believes that it is desirable to tax the commercial property sector even more. However, the Government have not offered that justification so far.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would like to see lower property rents, but the measure will have completely the opposite effect. The cost will force rents up because, effectively, it is an additional tax on those rents.
      Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right: stamp duty is payable on leases as well as on sales, and therefore it will have the effect of increasing costs. There will also be a corresponding effect, to which I have referred, on the overall value of commercial property. I fear that it would take a great deal of economic research by experts considerably more knowledgeable than me to work out the overall impact of the changes. However, I am sure that it could be modelled, and it would be interesting to conduct such an analysis.
      In talking about the research by professional economists into the impact of these changes, it is worth drawing the Committee's attention to the Arthur Andersen report's conclusion that the public sector will be a net financial loser from a stamp duty increase. The public sector holds a large property portfolio—I said earlier that the total value of commercial property owned by the public sector is £110 billion—and it is estimated that it will suffer a capital loss of between £5 billion and £11 billion as a result of a 1 per cent. rise in stamp duty. That capital loss vastly exceeds the additional revenue. If one applies a reasonable discount rate to the future stream of revenue that will result from increasing stamp duty and
      408
      compares that with the reduction in the overall value, one can see that there is a substantial net loss to the public sector.
      Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has surely calculated the effect on Exchequer yields if his amendment were to be carried. What would the cost be?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am not sure of the exact revenue implications because there was some dispute about that figure when we debated a similar amendment to last year's Finance Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view. However, for the reasons that I have given, I suspect that the cost might be rather less than some would suggest.
      Other important aspects of this tax show why it is so damaging. We have raised these matters in previous debates about stamp duty. Stamp duty operates according to what is known colloquially as a "slab" system rather than a "slice" system. That means that, if a transaction is valued at just £1 over the threshold of £250,000 or £500,000, the higher rate of stamp duty will apply not just to the amount above the threshold but to the entire value of the transaction.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is good.
      Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman said that that is good, but it creates potential marginal rates of taxation of 3,750 per cent., which is patently absurd. The consequence of operating the system in that way is that many purchasers will seek to avoid incurring the higher rate by paying a reduced amount on the value of the property while agreeing an artificial price for items such as fixtures and fittings, thereby ensuring that the headline price that is paid is below the threshold, whereas the total amount that they are handing over is above it. That applies equally to businesses and to residential sales. There is considerable incentive to make such arrangements to avoid extra cost. By creating the differential, the Government are encouraging the continuation of that practice.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, to overcome that problem we should include fixtures and fittings in the price of properties?
      Mr. Whittingdale: No, I am not suggesting that at all. We should not have introduced those thresholds and we should not be increasing the rates, but one method of dealing with that problem would be to change the way in which stamp duty is levied from a slab system to a slice system. We made that suggestion in the debates on last year's Finance Bill, and in his reply, the then Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), said that he could see the attractions of slicing rather than slabbing and that he was happy to consider our suggestion. Although we do not regret his passing from the Government, it would be a pity if his acceptance of that point was also lost. I am disappointed that the Government have made no attempt to correct the distortion that the system creates.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I first qualified as a solicitor in 1967—I declare

      409
      an interest as an ex-solicitor—and became a barrister in 1985. When I ran a large firm of solicitors, it was common practice in property sales to avoid the stamp duty margin simply by valuing fixtures and fittings that went with the sale. In the domestic system, that applied to curtains and carpets, and in the commercial system, it was power lines and fixtures for shop processes. The hon. Gentleman's point is a nonsense. No one has ever thought of having a slice system; we have always agreed on a slab system, but we have always been careful to advise our clients how to achieve the correct slab. Why did not the Conservative Government do anything about the system in all their years in power?
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long.
      Mr. Whittingdale: As I was explaining at the beginning of my remarks—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present—this Government have made the problem far worse by introducing three successive, huge increases in stamp duty in three Labour Budgets. That has increased the incentive for people to seek to avoid the tax in the ways that I have described.
      Furthermore, it would be sensible to consider levying the duty by a different method not only because of the point about fixtures and fittings but because it is a very strange tax. One has to pay a huge amount extra just because the price of the transaction goes over the threshold. As I said earlier, that produces ridiculous marginal rates of taxation.
      Mr. Derek Twigg: If, as you say, there is a problem for householders and not only for purchasers of commercial property, and if, by some miracle, your amendment were accepted, would you vote for clause 99—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is not my amendment.
      Mr. Twigg: I apologise, Mr. Butterfill. Would the hon. Gentleman then vote for clause 99?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members totally oppose the increases because they will affect householders and businesses. We realise that they will be particularly damaging to businesses, and that is the subject of our amendment, but, even if our amendment were carried, and my powers of persuasion caused the Financial Secretary to accept it, I regret that we would still vote against the clause.
      As I said earlier, I welcomed the fact that our arguments for changing the way in which the tax was levied had been recognised, at least in part, by the former Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West. I am sorry that our case has not been recognised in the Finance Bill. Does the Financial Secretary accept that the issue at least needs to be addressed, and will she examine the possibility of making a change? That change need cost nothing. It would be possible to devise a more progressive tax, levied according to a slice system, which was also revenue neutral.
      Most transactions affected by the increase are VAT exempt, but that is not true of them all. In some cases, commercial property owners may exercise what is known
      410
      as the option to tax, whereby they choose to waive their VAT exemption and charge VAT on rents or sales. That may seem a rather curious course, but it has advantages because they are then able to recover VAT on, for example, their input costs for construction. If a company pursues that course, it may well find that, in the event of a sale, it pays stamp duty not only on the sale value but on the VAT charge as well. In such cases, stamp duty is a straightforward tax on a tax. In the case of a building that costs £1 million, the VAT charge would be £175,000. The total stamp duty paid on that transaction would be over £41,000, of which over £6,000 would be double taxation.
      The same problem could well arise in the transfer of going concerns. If a business is transferred as a going concern, it is an exempt supply and no VAT is payable. However, Customs and Excise no longer gives advance clearance on the application of relief, and it is left to the parties to take a view on the VAT status of any transaction. It is not always easy to define a going concern, and there are cases where VAT is not charged, but it is subsequently demonstrated that it should have been charged. In those circumstances, the purchaser not has to pay not only VAT but the extra amount of stamp duty on the VAT charge.
      Given the steeply progressive nature of the stamp duty regime and the slab system that I have described, it is not impossible that the additional VAT charge could take the value of the transaction over a threshold, so that a higher rate of stamp duty becomes payable on the entire value of the transaction. In the particular cases that I have described, the additional amount of stamp duty may be greater than the duty that was originally payable. I fully accept that such an outcome is not likely to be a common occurrence, but it is certainly possible and accentuates the point that stamp duty can be extremely unfair, as it is double taxation.
      Stamp duty increases are distorting the operation of the market. Under the previous Government, stamp duty was charged at a flat rate of 1 per cent., with the duty on shares set at 0.5 per cent. That 0.5 per cent. differential between the level of duty for shares and that for all other transactions was not then regarded as particularly significant, and it had little effect on behaviour.
      8 pm
      However, as a result of the three Budgets, the difference in the duty rates between that applicable on assets and that applicable on shares has been increased to 3 per cent. That is a significant cost, and it is likely to distort market decisions when companies choose whether to raise finance from asset sales or from the issue of shares.
      That distortion will be increased even further if the Government decide to abolish stamp duty on shares. Although, as far as 1 am aware, there has been no hint that that will happen, the Minister will be very much aware of the huge concern about the effect of stamp duty on the competitiveness of the City of London.
      The alliance between the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges is just the first step towards the creation of a pan-European stock exchange. The Minister knows that, in Germany, no stamp duty is payable on share transfers.

      411
      There is a real danger that business will be lost if the differential between the rate applicable in this country and that applicable abroad continues.
      The issue is very serious. Those in the City regard the increase as a considerable threat. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what help might be given to ensure that the City of London remains the greatest financial centre in the world.
      The cumulative effect of all those increases will be to encourage the avoidance of duty altogether. A rate of 2.5 or 3.5 per cent. obviously makes it far more worth while to execute documents offshore, so that no duty is payable. I am aware that clause 97 attempts to address that, by increasing the penalties and interest payable if documents are stamped late. However, for most transactions, there will never be cause to bring documents back to the United Kingdom. The one time when it might be necessary would be if one of the parties wished to take legal action under the terms of the contract. However, the £300 penalty that the Bill introduces seems a relatively small price to pay, given the likelihood of that happening.
      Two senior managers at KPMG, the Government's favourite accountancy firm, writing in The Tax Journal, say:
      "Provided that the interest rate charged on late paid stamp duty is not considered penal, it may still be attractive to leave documents off-shore and unstamped. Provided the document doesn't subsequently need to be brought onshore, the stamp duty charge is deferred permanently"—
      so, by increasing duty rates to such a level, the Government are encouraging tax avoidance, and it seems to me inevitable that that practice will increase.
      I have stated many reasons why I feel that the increases will be especially damaging to business. They are, of course, punitive on numerous people and I certainly would not wish them to be introduced to affect those involved in residential property transactions either. That is why I told the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) that we would vote against clause stand part. However, I believe that the increases impact especially heavily on businesses. It is for that reason that we have tabled the amendment, the aim of which is to exempt business properties from the increase.
      Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am just about to finish—well, all right.
      Mr. Leslie: The amendment would exempt commercial businesses from stamp duty. Does the hon. Gentleman want to exempt just the increase? If he could, would he exempt businesses from all stamp duty, or perhaps just the increases above 1 per cent?
      Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman will recall, because I believe that he was present, that, last year, we moved an amendment to the Finance Bill which would have prevented the increases imposed in that Budget from affecting businesses. I can assure him that if, as we fear, the Government continue to introduce further increases in stamp duty in future Budgets, we shall oppose those, too.
      412
      I tell the Minister that, if the Government's rhetoric about wanting to help business means anything at all, they should accept the amendment.
      Mr. Derek Twigg: I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I pursued the line of intervention questioning that I did because I thought that the Conservative party's approach tonight was interesting. Conservative Members have decided that they want to exempt business and commercial properties from the operation of the clause, and that such properties are more important than domestic properties. They have made it all too clear that they do not really care about the domestic side of this tax.
      The Conservatives say, "We want to do this because it is very important and we want to ensure that something happens," and they try to identify themselves as friends of business and commercial property; but, when they are asked what they would do if the amendment were passed, they say that they would vote against the clause anyway. That means that they would vote against the clause as amended by their amendment.
      Mr. Whittingdale: Given the size of the Government's majority, I suspect that we shall not succeed in carrying the amendment or in persuading the Government that they should not proceed with the clause. If, by some chance, we had persuaded the Government to accept our amendment, exempting business, then, for the reasons that I have explained, we would still have objections to the clause. However, given the size of the Government's majority, I think that we may assume that the clause will probably be passed, and we might at least have distinctly improved it by removing from businesses the obligation to pay the increase.
      Mr. Twigg: I simply gained the impression that perhaps the Conservatives had not thought this one through enough, and that, instead, they were going to waste our time by speaking and voting against clause stand part. Perhaps they were a bit stung by previous accusations that they were not going to table amendments because there might be a difference of opinion among them, given the latest state of affairs.
      The debate went from the sublime to the ridiculous. I am happy to be corrected if I misheard, but I thought that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that the stamp duty increases were a threat to the future of the City of London as the premier financial place in the world.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to correct him on that point. On the issue of the future of the City of London, I was highlighting the danger—which the City believes is extremely real—that arises from the fact that, in this country, we charge 0.5 per cent. on share transactions, whereas in Germany there is no stamp duty on share transactions. Because of the technological developments that are leading to the integration of stock exchanges across Europe, there is a significant danger that business will move to where costs are lowest; in that case, it would

      413
      mean Frankfurt, not London. Therefore, to protect the City of London's position, the City believes that it is important that this issue should be addressed.
      Mr. Twigg: That reply is very interesting in the context of the amendment.
      There is some suggestion that the stamp duty increases will cause bankruptcies throughout the country, that businesses will collapse and that stamp duty is the single most important factor in people's considerations when setting up businesses, continuing them or buying larger premises. That is nonsense. There is no evidence to support that contention. I cannot recall from any discussions that I have had with business men in my area that they have seen stamp duty as a major problem. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford may quote any figures that he wants, but 1 am talking about my conversations with business men and women in my constituency, and I have never found stamp duty to be a major issue. It is interesting that the Conservatives are trying to make an issue of it tonight.
      Mr. Michael Jack: In the hon. Gentleman's extensive preparation on the amendment, has he had time to read the report produced by Arthur Andersen and written on its behalf by David Currie and Andrew Scott of the London business school?
      Mr. Twigg: I will be open and honest: I have not—but just because Arthur Andersen says something does not mean that it is right. In fact, given some of the work that Arthur Andersen has done on information technology systems around the country, I wonder about its competence and success.
      Mr. Woodward rose—
      Mr. Twigg: Let me continue. I am pleased that people find my contribution interesting.
      Obviously, one may quote whatever example or avenue one wants and use it for whatever purpose one wants, but I am saying that, in my constituency, the issue has never been raised with me as a concern. Among the issues that were continually raised were the policies by which the previous Government clobbered small business, and the various policies that created a difficult economic environment. We cannot separate the issue of stamp duty from that of the general economic climate and economic stability. However, it seems to be suggested that this issue is out on a limb and is the main cause of problems.
      Mr. Woodward: Even though the hon. Gentleman has not read the Arthur Andersen report, can he tell the Committee what value to a company its loans represent in terms of its borrowing money against the value of its property? I think that this information is generally known. What percentage of the outstanding loans of an average company is based on commercial property?
      Mr. Twigg: I expected better than that from the hon. Gentleman. Companies have to make commercial and business decisions. The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not take us any further than the contribution of the
      414
      hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman made a nonsensical point.
      Mr. Woodward: It is crucial.
      Mr. Twigg: I have talked to business men in my locality and they appear not to rate this issue as one of the greatest importance. It could be that Halton is somewhat different from other areas. I do not know. However, I have talked to many small business men and it seems that the general thrust of policies—
      Mr. Woodward: They do not understand.
      Mr. Twigg: That is interesting. The hon. Gentleman says that business men in my constituency do not understand.
      Mr. Bermingham: First, does my hon. Friend agree that there have been major suits of negligence against major accountancy firms over the past few years, thus leading most of us to accept that they do not always get things right? Secondly, as someone who, on behalf of clients or others, has bought and sold shares for the past 30 years or so, I have always paid stamp duty personally or for clients. I have never experienced an objection to stamp duty and I have not seen all the City of London business transferred to Zurich or anywhere else. My hon. Friend may just agree with me.
      Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and telling point. It is clear that the Opposition decided not to deal with it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      We have not been told how, if the amendment were carried, the gap in the Budget would be filled. That is normally the position. The Opposition like to oppose, but they have nothing to put in the place of Government policies. Basically, they are playing games. That was made clear when the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford talked about what would happen if the amendment were agreed to. Opposition Members are in an almost incredible situation.
      Mr. Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Twigg: I shall give way for the last time, because I am sure that the Committee would like me to make progress.
      Mr. Gibb: At the general election, did the hon. Gentleman stand on a platform of no increases in taxation? Is the Government proposal not an increase in taxation?
      Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is becoming rather robotic on this issue. He is not getting an answer to his question because its basis is incorrect. I am sorry that he cannot think more widely on this issue. He seems to be transfixed.
      A wide range of measures are set out in the Budget, which the Government put forward to help and promote business. We have heard nothing this evening about many of them. Many measures have been welcomed by business and the Opposition have taken up the issue of stamp duty

      415
      because they think that they can have some fun with it. The fact is that, generally, business welcomes the Budget. I am confident that what the Government have set out in the Bill will be in the country's best interests.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I fully support the amendment. I suggest to the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) that there may be revenue-neutral effects from reducing the rate of duty on commercial property. The report cited by my right hon. and hon. Friends makes it clear that, such is the devastating effect of rises in stamp duty, they damage the value of commercial property owned by pension funds and other forms of saving for people throughout the country, and the value of the Government's property holdings. Based on their figures, a 0.5 per cent. increase in stamp duty reduces the value of the Government's holdings of commercial property by £2.5 billion, whereas the revenue to be raised from the increment in stamp duty will be not more than £100 million a year. In plain language, it will take the Government 25 years to recover the loss in the capital value of their stock of commercial property if they go ahead with the proposed measures.
      This is not merely a mathematical exercise. We know that account has been taken of all the property holdings of Government Departments and that there is an on-going programme to rationalise Government property holdings. Properties are being sold by the Government year after year. Because of savage increases in stamp duty, there will be far less money coming in.
      Through the amendment, we are protecting public finances. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Halton to the code for fiscal stability. One of its purposes is to improve the public financial balance sheet. However, we are seeing an attack on the strength and probity of that balance sheet. At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) has already mentioned, increases in stamp duty, far from creating a more stable environment, create a more volatile one. That is in direct conflict with the code for fiscal stability.
      According to the research that has been carried out, there is a 50 per cent. increase in the volatility of property prices as a result of the increases in stamp duty. That is a major increase. Why does it happen? If the transaction costs of buying and selling property increase, the incidence of such transactions will decrease. Where there are property transactions, there will be much greater increases in prices. That is shown clearly by research, and it stands to reason. As we have found in so many markets—securities and elsewhere—if transaction costs are reduced, the volume of transactions increases, and vice versa.
      There is another reason why there may be revenue-neutral consequences that relate to tax avoidance and the use of offshore vehicles. We should not be surprised if, as a result of this latest rise in stamp duty, and if there are further rises in the pipeline, commercial property is dealt with increasingly through derivative instruments. If that route is taken, there will be no stamp duty take for the Government. Again, their revenue will decrease.
      416
      There will be an impact on business. When we talk about the cost of buying and selling property, we are always talking about a business cost. I know that we are focusing deliberately on commercial property, but business will feel the effect of the increases in stamp duty on homes. Whenever a senior and important executive in a company has moved home, the cost of that move has been radically increased by the rises in stamp duty over the past few years.
      In Guildford, 7,000 of my constituents and I—I am happy to declare an interest—are directly affected by the proposed increase in stamp duty. Many of the 7,000 are senior executives. They are important people working in local firms. It is a highly competitive world and many of the businesses in my constituency are competing in Europe, the far east and America. Their local costs are a critical factor in their ability to win more business. The effect of these rises in stamp duty will be to harm their competitiveness and reduce the amount of revenue going to the Exchequer from the profits of their trade. This is, yet again, a self-defeating exercise by the Government.
      We should remind ourselves that the Labour party came to power promising an end to boom and bust, but the increase in stamp duty will accentuate the danger of boom and bust. The research carried out by Scott and Currie says that
      "in 1996 the value of loans that could be secured against the industrial and commercial sectors' holdings of property was below their actual borrowing."
      In other words, even before the Government came to power, companies, in aggregate, were borrowing to the very limit of their borrowing powers against the value of their commercial property holdings.
      If greater volatility in the value of commercial property results from these changes, there will be a greater chance that those values will fall below the level acceptable to the banks that are lending to those companies and a greater chance of some of those companies being forced into receivership or bankruptcy.
      Mr. Bermingham: Is that not economic madness? Investment in property is tax deductible and allowable in a business sense and interest rates have fallen considerably since the Labour party came to power. If one is offset against the other in accountancy terms, the rise in stamp duty is a minor matter compared with the benefits of interest rate reduction and other tax reliefs since granted.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I entirely agree that economic madness is at work here. The economic madness is that every 1 per cent. increase in stamp duty leads to a loss of between 3 and 5 per cent. in the capital value of all commercial property. All other things being equal, that is its effect. If the commercial sector has borrowed against property, in aggregate, as far as is prudent, the measure will push borrowing to imprudent levels. A greater danger of boom and bust is being created.
      Mr. Bermingham: If its value is pushed down, commercial property is made more readily available to more investors. That is not a loss to the investing world at large. Interest rates have tumbled and people can borrow at cheaper rates, which seems to me to be an economic gain for the long term.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, if his Government create a busting

      417
      economy with lots of people going under, there will be a lot of cheap properties around for others to pick up on the off-chance. That is not the sort of economy that the Government inherited or that they promised to create, but they will create such an economy if they carry on down this blind alley in which tax increases are more than offset by the damage to wealth across the country and, more importantly, by the damage to wealth creation.
      We have touched on other issues. Stamp duty has an effect on goodwill and on patents, and the measure is a wholesale attack on many things that the Government say that they are in favour of. They want to create an enterprise economy and say that they support innovation, but brand names and new inventions will be taxed at a higher rate as a result of the increase in stamp duty. I cannot see how that fits in with any serious wish to achieve a more vibrant economy.
      Many of the companies that will be hardest hit by the increase in stamp duty turn over between £500,000 and £5 million a year. Under the previous Conservative Government, the most significant growth in the number of companies took place in that part of the economy, which is also where the most significant increase in the vitality and job-creating power of our economy occurred.
      Interestingly, it has been estimated that even a 0.5 per cent. increase in stamp duty will lead, over a few years, to the loss of more than 5,000 jobs throughout the economy; more significantly, it has an opportunity cost for the firms that have created the most jobs in recent years. The firms trading between those turnover levels are most typically dependent on bank borrowing set against their property holdings. Across the board, property can typically amount to about half the net book value of such businesses and it is an important asset that will be considered by the banks.
      We all know that, in an ideal world, banks should look at the business plan, cash flow and prospects of the companies to which they lend money, but the reality is that, although banks check that the figures add up, they do not have the time or the expertise to assess how realistic those plans are. As well as trusting the judgment of the businesses and the business managers to whom they lend, they very much trust to the security of the assets against which they lend.
      Taxation that damages the value of those assets way beyond the amount of tax revenue yielded damages the ability of those businesses to expand. Yet again, the economy is being led up a blind alley. Comments from Labour Members have shown that old Labour is rearing its head in an avaricious attack on wealth in this country. That is what the measure is really about. I tell Labour Members that 10 per cent. of my constituents are directly affected by it—we might as well go back to the days of surtax. They promised in the election campaign that they would not raise taxes, but they are indeed doing so, and targeting taxes in a way that will certainly affect the incentives in our economy.
      It is also worth bearing it in mind that the cost of stamp duty will be spread across all businesses and all levels of society. If people who are buying large properties have to pay more in stamp duty, they will have less to spend on improvements and other work on their properties that they might want to undertake. Therefore, they will be less able to carry out those improvements and one of the ways in which there is synergy between different sectors of the economy will be lost.
      418
      There will clearly be a knock-on effect. [Interruption.] That seems to be a matter of amusement for Labour Members, but I have calculated that, for my constituents, the increase in stamp duty is equivalent to a tax of £100 per household per year. That is the extent of the damage that will be caused by what the Government are doing.
      We have already heard that property taxes in this country are the highest in Europe, but, in fact, they are among the highest in the world. Only in the economic area of north America does the level of property taxes, in aggregate, begin to match that which we now have in this country. Far from an increase in stamp duty achieving harmonisation with the rest of Europe, it will put us way out of line.
      In this country, the proportion of taxation on property as a percentage of national income is twice the European average. The total amount taken in property taxes in this country is 10 per cent. of all taxes, which is higher than the proportion taken in property taxes in any other EU country.
      The implications are serious. We had a thriving commercial property market, but we may end up with a dead market. We had a commercial property market that attracted a significant amount of inward investment in Europe—building bridges between our economy and the economies of our European partners, something that I thought that Labour Members favoured—but we are putting up a sign saying, "Not for sale; do not come here—the taxes are far too high."
      There is an even greater concern. If we are already at the peak of the taxation, in aggregate, that property can bear—that is the message we are getting from around the world—what will be the effect of the measure on local property taxes? A significant part of property taxes are raised through rates. The increase in stamp duty will mean that it will simply not be possible to increase rates as well. There will therefore be an effect on local government. The measure is a tax grab by central Government—the Treasury—at the long-term expense of local government revenue. That is where we are heading by going down this route. Whatever the pros and cons of taxing property through rates, it is better to have a known and, since the previous Government, stable level of taxation year in, year out, than a level of taxation that is affected by the incidence of businesses moving.
      8.30 pm
      There are many reasons why businesses move, but one of the most significant is that they outgrow their premises and want to move to more modern premises. That is a very important part of the process by which we protect the green belt, as brown-field sites become available. If businesses find that the cost of moving has become prohibitive, they will stay put and give up the opportunity for extra growth and employment, and the Government will lose the extra revenue that would have resulted from that. As a direct consequence, there will be an increasing shortage of brown-field sites. If it is a Government priority—it is one that we feel they have not pushed far enough—to have more brown-field sites developed, they will find that that is simply not possible, or the cost of brown-field sites will get out of kilter.
      All those reasons show why stamp duties are wrong. I leave the Committee with one final thought, which I hope that the Financial Secretary will bear in mind.

      419
      She and her colleagues may think that stamp duty is some kind of economic regulator and that, because they inherited such a strong economy, increasing it will be a crude means of restraining increases in property prices. That may work well, but, when it comes to a slowdown or a recession—no economy is immune from recessions—the correct thing to do is to reduce stamp duty. However, to do that at that stage would be entirely counter-intuitive for the Government because, in a recession, all Government revenues are under pressure. A Labour Cabinet would simply not agree to cut stamp duty when budgets for schools and hospitals were under pressure.
      In other words, this is a one-way street. Stamp duty is going up—we need to know how far—but it will not come down. Far from being an economic regulator, it is a mechanism for creating boom and bust in the economy. That is a fundamental reason why the measure should be opposed tonight.
      Mr. Colin Breed: I understand that we shall debate the clause stand part a little later, so I shall confine my remarks purely to the uniform business rate. First, I declare an interest, which is in the Register of Members' Interests. The business concerned is under offer and may therefore incur stamp duty.
      I have always wondered why trading businesses have had such a desire to buy property. Whether they are manufacturing or commercial businesses, so many of them want to lock up a considerable amount of resources in the almost dead asset of the building from which they operate. As a former bank manager, I have always suspected that that practice has been driven by the banks, which promote loans to companies and businesses for the bricks and mortar over which they can then obtain a mortgage and security.
      Many businesses in the past, and some even today, have undertaken long, fixed-term borrowing on rates well in excess of the current rate and cannot extricate themselves from that borrowing agreement. They find their cash flow locked up in significant interest and capital repayments to pay for the very premises from which they operate, rather than having that cash flow available to expand their businesses and to invest in equipment.
      Mr. Jack: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm, given his position as a former bank manager, whether he would advise his customers that the proposals that we are considering tonight apply also to leases?
      Mr. Breed: Yes, they apply to most property leases.
      An enormous amount of productive capacity is locked up in the dead asset of property and buildings. The Government and the business community have not recognised sufficiently the fact that an enormous number of successful businesses, particularly in America, own virtually nothing and lease virtually everything. They use their profit streams to expand at a greater rate.
      It has been estimated that some 50 per cent. of all the borrowing currently undertaken by businesses is somehow connected with property purchases. That shows what an enormous amount of money is tied up in buildings. It may make some people think twice about what they should be doing.
      420
      On interest rates, the money that is locked up is often considered as fixed-term borrowing. When rates are volatile, that can sometimes be advantageous, but, at present, there is no doubt that it is very disadvantageous. I could not quite follow the argument about the Government's property portfolio. I had hoped that the Government would dispose of some of their property by putting the money to productive use and releasing the capital in some way. Although it may theoretically have a reduced book value, while it is still on the books it is not necessarily doing anything. We should like to see the funds from such property assets released and put into other areas. I therefore do not quite follow the logic of reducing the book value, although there may be less revenue coming from it. We want a real release of property, which would then provide the means by which the Government could improve public services without increasing taxes.
      Most business men would like to get rid of the uniform business rate. They do not want it used as a measure of whether they pay stamp duty or not. The businesses that I know do not sell their property voluntarily; regretfully, the property is sold beneath them. They are worried not about expanding their business but about retaining it. It can be argued that, if stamp duty goes much higher, it will affect the commercial property market. However, the rises proposed by the Government will not cause such a scenario.
      There is a long way to go yet. Most of the small businesses that I come across in Cornwall would love to have potential assets of £250,000 or £500,000. We are essentially talking about relatively small businesses, which do not tend to change their premises regularly. Indeed, they often struggle to retain them.
      I broadly support the measures. The suggested rates and thresholds in the current proposals do not signal the dire events that have been predicted by the official Opposition, who want to exempt properties subject to the uniform business rate. The Liberal Democrats are prepared to follow the Government on this, and we shall not support the amendment.
      Mr. Leslie: I was interested to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and I agree with his acceptance of the need to increase stamp duty. Listening to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), one would have thought that the end of the world was nigh. My violin was ready to play a sad song. The tears were streaming down my face at the thought of the terribly poor people who would be affected by this wicked, nasty tax. It was nostalgic to hear again the trickle down theory of economics from the hon. Member for Guildford. He said that this imposition of a half percentage point increase in the rate of stamp duty on properties costing £250,000 or more would make every household in Britain £100 worse off. To hear him talking, it was as though the whole economy hinged on the increase.
      The amendment is a typical example of the Conservative party representing the privileged few and not the many, as it has always done and will continue to do, despite the statements of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
      Mr. Gibb: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when a new housing development is built, the house builder purchases a large slab of land that costs more than £500,000? He will

      421
      pay 3.5 per cent. stamp duty on that purchase, which he will then pass on to the purchasers of the houses on that development. Those houses may be very small.
      Mr. Leslie: The trickle down theory continues to expand. It is amazing to watch that happen. The hon. Gentleman's intervention enables us to talk about the impact on residential areas. He argues that, at some level, there will be a charge on commercial transactions. That opens up a gamut of possibilities for us to underline the fact that 96 per cent. of residential properties are completely unaffected by this change in the Budget.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, after the increase in stamp duty last year, the property sector of the quoted sector of the market fell by 20 per cent? Does he realise that most commercial property is owned by savings institutions, such as insurance companies and pension funds, which represent the interests of the very people for whom he claims to speak, but whom we are speaking for tonight.
      Mr. Leslie: Commerce is a wonderful thing but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) said, if this were such a dreadful imposition, businesses in our constituencies would be queueing at our surgery doors to complain about it. I certainly have not had any correspondence about the issue. I notice that Arthur Andersen has sent a briefing to Conservative Members: I have not received it, but it would be nice to see it.
      Mr. Bermingham: I have just done a little calculation to test Conservative Members' lack of knowledge. A developer would probably pay about £1 million for five acres. He would pay about £33,500 in stamp duty and build 28 houses to an acre, which is about 140 houses. That is around £200 per house.
      Mr. Leslie: That is an interesting calculation, and there are plenty more to be made. I was interested in getting some information from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen about the effect of passing the amendment on Exchequer revenue yields. They had not even bothered to think that through. They were not particularly concerned about how much would be lost to the Exchequer should their amendment be passed. By the sounds of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halton said, they were not concerned about whether their amendment was passed because they intended to vote against the clause in any case, whatever happened.
      There are varying views about how much money would be lost if the amendment were passed. The hon. Member for Guildford came up with the interesting wheeze that no money would be lost to the Exchequer, because if we increase stamp duty, the revenue for the Exchequer would be increased. Thank goodness he is not in charge of the economy, although who knows what is happening in the Conservative party these days. He could well be shadow Chancellor before too long. What a day that would be. We look forward to such changes as they emerge in the coming hours.
      422
      8.45 pm
      An interesting aspect of the amendment is the relationship that it would create by linking any exemption to the uniform business rate. I am rather curious about that. Would certification be necessary to prove that a person was liable for the uniform business rate? How much would it cost to administer the system, who would administer it, and how would it be paid for? The Conservatives have not explained how the system would be administered, and they did not implement it when they were in office.
      I am interested to note that the Conservatives have stuck to at least one principle in opposing any change in stamp duty from the present 1 per cent. level. As a result, the revenue to be gained from all the income generated by such a change would be lost to vital public services. There are a number of views about how much would be raised by the application of the clause, but I understand that it is around £370 million. That would pay for about 100 schools, 15 hospitals or seven bypasses, the Bingley relief road being an example. The Red Book mentions a figure of about £220 million in relation to the upgrade of child benefit to £15—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Leslie: Thank you for the prompt, Mr. Butterfill. I was merely trying to prove that, if the amendment is carried, the revenue that would be lost would make it impossible to pay for the increase in child benefit, for example. We know from experience that, when the Conservatives oppose revenue yield measures, they want to cut welfare.
      Mr. Jack: Why does the hon. Gentleman favour raising—particularly from business—additional revenue by raising stamp duty?
      Mr. Leslie: I think that stamp duty is a very progressive way of raising revenue. It is a fair tax, in that those with significant assets pay proportionately more. A strong principle underlies that philosophy of progressive taxation.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Unfortunately, I had to leave the Chamber briefly, so I may have missed something. Have the Opposition given us any idea how much the amendment would cost when combined with the earlier amendments, which would have cost billions of pounds, and the abolition of the fuel duty escalator, which we discussed yesterday? How much would it cost in terms of value added tax on domestic fuel, cutting services and so on?
      Mr. Leslie: An Adjournment debate may well be called for. The country will be clamouring to know just how the Conservatives intend to fill the black hole that would result from the passing of amendment No. 3. Where will the money come from to pay for vital public services?
      Mr. Gibb: Are not Labour Members merely reciting a list of stealth tax rises implemented by their Government? Are they not doing our job for us?
      Mr. Leslie: It is possible to view the situation from the perspective of a responsible Government who are seeking

      423
      to pay for vital public services. If we could not raise revenue, we would not be able to spend it on schools and hospitals. I thought that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was saying that the Conservatives wanted an extra £40 billion for schools and hospitals, but they clearly do not. Amendment No. 3 would chip away at the money that they would have to spend on those vital public services.
      I know that the Conservatives are in turmoil this evening, and I realise that the Leader of the Opposition is making a very important speech that is essential to the future of the Conservative party, but I think that we should sort out how the Conservatives are to secure the revenue base of the nation's finances before we can ever expect the return of a Conservative Administration.
      There are other reasons why I think that the stamp duty changes are worth not only considering but supporting, not least because of the current state of the property market across the United Kingdom, and the increased property values that have been reported in recent weeks in very many studies and newspapers. We should focus on the stamp duty's regulating effect in preventing a return to boom and bust in the property market, in attaining market stability and in capping the large speculative exchanges that were symptomatic of the 1980s. The Chancellor, in proposing the measure, has taken early action to prevent a worse fate later. The stamp duty changes will help to prevent that fate.
      The hon. Member for Guildford also made the interesting point that stamp duty rates are so much lower across Europe, and that the United Kingdom Government are imposing a very heavy burden.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I know that this is a very difficult subject for the hon. Gentleman, but I was referring to the total of taxes on property, of which stamp duty is a part. The total tax take on property is much higher in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe.
      Mr. Leslie: I am grateful for that implicit recognition of the fact that the United Kingdom stamp duty rate is very competitive. Compared with stamp duty rates of 9 per cent. in Ireland, 8 per cent. in Italy and 6 per cent. in Spain, we have a very competitive rate, of which we have much to be proud. We have a prudent Chancellor who proposed in his Budget only a minor change—a mere 0.5 per cent. increase—in the stamp duty rate. The context in which the decision was made included the factors that I have described, and the need to keep an eye on the United Kingdom's economic stability and to be prudent with its finances.
      The debate has highlighted the contrast between the Government, who are concerned with achieving stability in the property market and securing the tax base, and Conservative Members, who clearly stand only for the few and not the many. I believe that the measure should be supported, and that amendment No. 3 should be thrown out.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: It is very interesting to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). However, I should correct him on one or two of the assumptions that he made about Conservative
      424
      Members' motives. We are criticising the Government's proposed tax not because of the effect that it will have on rich people, as he describes them, but because we believe that it will detrimentally affect growth and jobs. The hon. Gentleman laughs. I am surprised at that, as I should have thought that he would at least know that one may increase economic activity by reducing taxes, so that the take from the lower taxes is higher than it was before they were reduced.
      Mr. Leslie rose—
      Sir Peter Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will tell me that he knows that, I shall happily give way.
      Mr. Leslie: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the reduction in the corporation tax rate and the imposition of a new, lower l Op starting rate of corporation tax.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I certainly applaud reduction in corporation tax, but am not so impressed with the lop rate, which I should have preferred to be wrapped up in the lower standard tax rate—so that the tax threshold started later, and some more small companies would not have to pay any tax. I think that that would be a much better use of the time of the Inland Revenue and of Customs and Excise and much better for small businesses. The rate that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is really rather gimmicky, as is so much of the Budget. However, I should return to the amendment, to which I know that the Chairman would like me to speak.
      Today will be the third time that the Government have raised stamp duty. It went up in 1997, again in 1998, and will undoubtedly go up again today, when the Government's large majority moves through the Lobby. I can appreciate why the Government have followed this course—they want the money, and there are plenty of good things on which Governments spend money. Although I do not always agree with the Government's spending choices, I do understand why they try to maximise the revenue that they take.
      Increasing stamp duty is a way of raising extra money that the general public do not notice. It does not affect most people directly and they will not connect it with the malign impact that it may have further down the line. They certainly do not make the connection in the constituency of the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) and I doubt whether many people do in my constituency. They have other more immediate worries. Nevertheless, it will have an effect that should concern us on behalf of our constituents.
      Stamp duty on commercial property is such a soft option in respect of the average voter—and some hon. Members—that, no doubt, the Government will find it impossible to resist the temptation to raise it still higher in future years, not just because it is easy, but because the Government intend to join the economic and monetary union. One way of hastening harmonisation would be to increase stamp duty to the higher average of continental countries with the minimum fuss. If that is their objective, the Government should remember, as some of my hon. Friends have reminded us this evening, that, although stamp duty or its equivalent is generally higher in Europe than it is here, that is not the case in all EU countries.

      425
      So, unless the Government accept that tax harmonisation must be at the highest rates, they should be careful about imposing increases.
      Even more to the point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out a couple of times and again in an intervention, taxes on property are much higher in the UK than they are in the rest of the EU. If the Government seek a level playing field with Europe, they should cut total taxes on property instead of raising them.
      I hope that, in her reply to the debate, the Minister will confirm that she recognises that property taxes are higher in the UK and let us know whether the Government intend to call a halt to increases in future years. I do not expect her to do so as a personal favour or in the cause of cross-party co-operation. Of course I realise that Governments can save themselves a great deal of trouble if they keep open as many options as possible. However, I am allowing myself a little hope because I assume that the Minister will want to observe the requirements of the Government's code of fiscal stability, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford.
      The code commits the Government to operating fiscal policy in a way that is predictable and consistent with high and stable levels of growth and employment. I know that the Minister can talk and listen at the same time, although not all her colleagues can do that. Will she make clear, in the spirit of the code, what the Government's medium-term intentions are in respect of stamp duty? Whether or not she tells us, I fear that the effect of increasing stamp duty will distort that part of the economy.
      I am talking particularly about commercial property and the analysis of Arthur Andersen and the London business school. I was not sent a copy directly; I acquired it from one of my hon. Friends, so I am very happy to pass my copy over to the hon. Member for Shipley, who badly needs to read it. I hope that, in another debate, he will tell us why he has converted or his real reasons for disagreeing with it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned the study, as have several of my hon. Friends. The analysis makes it clear that increases in stamp duty have a surprisingly strong negative effect which is then multiplied through the economy. The Government have already increased stamp duty on commercial property worth more than £500,000 from 1 to 3 per cent.
      9 pm
      If the Government have their way, the level will rise to 3.5 per cent. Arthur Andersen calculated that an increase of 1 per cent. in stamp duty will lead to a fall in property values of 4.5 per cent. or more, compared with what they would have been. So the effect of stamp duty increases is to reduce the value of the Government's stock of property—worth about £100 billion or £110 billion—by about £5 billion, or more.
      That will produce a negative impact on the national balance sheet, but it will have a broader effect on the rest of the economy. The borrowing of the industrial and commercial sector totals about £200 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the value of the property that it holds. Therefore, on the same basis, a 1 per cent. increase
      426
      in stamp duty reduces the value of property in the commercial sector by £10 billion or more from what it would have been.
      That will make it difficult for some commercial organisations to borrow. At best, it ensures that their capacity for borrowing does not expand as it could have done, and that they are unable to make the investments or take on the extra staff that they otherwise would. The main effect of increased stamp duty is to reduce growth and employment levels below what they would have been.
      That is true especially of small and medium-sized businesses, which generally do not have access to independent finance and so must rely on the banks for loans. As we have heard—from a former bank manager—the bank's aim is to secure loans on property. In addition, an increase in stamp duty has an effect on the readiness of proprietors and managers to make property purchases and move to better and more suitable premises. Acquisitions are therefore postponed, and the Government get less tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford explained.
      When some such firms are obliged to make a move, they are bunched together, which compounds the cyclical character of the commercial property market, and thus of the economy as a whole. That is surely the last effect that a Government who constantly claim to want to put an end to boom and bust should want to achieve.
      The Minister may have a view of the analysis by Arthur Andersen and the London business school. If so, Conservative Members will listen with interest. However, if the analysis is only half or a quarter right—or if it applies only for one tenth of a per cent., in Halton—the Government should still accept the amendment.
      If they do not, it will be clear that their vaunted code for fiscal stability is infinitely elastic, and that they prefer a politically easy tax that will reduce growth and jobs to levels lower than they might have been to the political pain of raising the money by another means or of holding down rises in public expenditure. Despite all the concern expressed for small and medium-sized enterprises, it will be clear, too, that the Government are prepared to allow that sector once again to bear a disproportionate share of the burden.
      Finally, although the Government claim to be putting an end to boom and bust, it will be clear, if they reject the amendment, that that claim is more of a slogan than a serious objective.
      Mr. Bermingham: When I came into the Chamber during the opening speech by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), I thought that we were talking about window taxes, so archaic were the arguments and so ancient the principles involved. It gradually dawned on me, thanks to a few probing questions, that the Opposition had reached the beginning of the 20th century, although not the latter part. Opposition Members seem signally to have failed to understand what stamp duty is all about. I declared my interest as a former solicitor a long time ago, Mr. Martin.
      We may divide the problem into two sections, private and commercial, and I shall deal first with the private section. Stamp duty in the private section is singularly low. If, as has been claimed, we seek to harmonise with Europe, we have an awful long way to go to reach Ireland's rate of 8 per cent. And Ireland is certainly not

      427
      in harmony with Germany, France or Denmark, although all but the last are part of EMU. That argument faces a small hurdle.
      Who is affected by high rates of stamp duty? Clearly, it is those who buy posh houses. My constituency is not very rich and there are not many houses that cost more than £200,000. A little area, Eccleston, has some such houses, but £28,000 is nearer the mark for most of the constituency.
      Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. The amendment deals with the effect of stamp duty on business. I have listened for some moments to a discourse on estate agency and big houses. Is the hon. Gentleman in order?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We are discussing business duties. However, a little leeway is sometimes given so that hon. Members may lead in to their case.
      Mr. Bermingham: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I have listened to so much about the private housing sector and the 7,000 people who will be affected in Guildford that I thought that I was quite in order in making a few preliminary remarks.
      I pointed out in an earlier intervention that, if one bought £1 million worth of commercial land for redevelopment, the total duty would be roughly £35,500, assuming that the purchase price was around £200,000 an acre, giving £200 per house on a five-acre purchase. In my part of the world, ordinary building land costs about £30,000 an acre, and the figure drops to about £20 for each property. That shows the fallacious stupidity of the Opposition's arguments.
      Let me turn to commercial matters. I missed a golden opportunity tonight and I shall be kicking myself into next week. We heard a bank manager speak, and I was desperate to ask whether he considers the banks' 4 per cent. over base to be profit. That question falls outwith the remit of the debate, but I almost succumbed to the temptation, and I shall ask again in future.
      What will be the effect on commercial property of increasing stamp duty? People who build commercial property do so for one of two purposes—to sell, or to let. If they build to let, there is, of course, stamp duty on the lease. Everyone knows that. The total cost at which they will lease in a competitive market depends, however, on the amount of property available and the number of lessees.
      If property is built for sale, the costs of stamp duty on the purchase of the land will naturally be incorporated. Just as with private homes, the amount involved is pretty insignificant and does not affect the market. However, it begins to drive prices down in both the private and commercial sectors.
      What has been wrong with British industry for the past 30 years is that it has looked on commercial properties as capital assets that exist for gain or—by lease back or other means—disposal and retention. That creates an artificial profit that in turn drives up prices in both the commercial and private housing sectors, and that disadvantages everyone.
      428
      We need to regulate the commercial sector and educate banks. In particular, we need to educate accountants—the destroyers of British industry over the years—to realise that items on the balance sheet should work for the business, as in the American economy, and not act as a bulk, a safety net or a caution point. What is the use of owning £1 million worth of factory floor space if throughput of £10,000 a month is needed to create a viable business? Renting property rather than buying leaves capital available to be used. If we could only educate the banks and accountants—the death knell of British industry—we might achieve something.
      The measure will be cost effective. It will not create a great deal of wealth, but it may drive down private sector housing prices and commercial property costs, both for buying and leasing, a little. If it does that, the economy will benefit.
      If ever there were an example of investing to accumulate, it is here. One does not invest in buying, one invests in renting, to give one the space to manufacture. In the end, it is manufacturing, not property, that makes money. Property represents an illusory gain—an illusion that has cost this country dear.
      The Opposition have already said that, even if they win the vote on their amendment, they will vote against the clause, which is totally illogical. I ask them to justify the insanity of the position that they have adopted.
      Mr. Jack: One is always deeply suspicious about the motives of the Treasury when the Government make a tax change but do not justify it. We are talking about the impact of the changes in stamp duty on business which would result from the amendment that we have tabled suggesting that those who pay the unified business rate should be exempt from the increases in stamp duty.
      If the Government had a positive story to tell about why businesses should be subject to higher rates of stamp duty, one would have thought that some mention would have been made of it in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" before page 99. One has to wait until then to find the simple announcement of the changes in stamp duty rates.
      One can conclude by a sort of reverse logic that, as the section of the report that deals with raising productivity and improving the prospects of business does not contain any mention of the changes in stamp duty, they must be bad—QED. Therefore the Government's explanation in their own publication is that the changes do not represent a business-friendly tax. If they did, the Government would have said so.
      I shall talk about the impact of the tax shortly, but first I refer the Financial Secretary to paragraph 3.19, on page 37 of the "Budget 99" document—the Red Book. She might find it interesting, because it is the paragraph that eulogises the effect on businesses of the reduction in corporation tax to 10 per cent. on the first £10,000 of profit.
      Intriguingly, if the same business that was looking forward to the reduction in corporation tax sold a building worth £250,000 as part of its expansion programme, the increase in stamp duty would negate the additional profits that the Government had allowed it by virtue of the changes in corporation tax.
      That simple example illustrates clearly what many hon. Members who have spoken so far seem to have missed: this is not, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South

      429
      (Mr. Bermingham) seems to think, a discussion about big houses. It is about the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises.
      The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) seemed to say that, because we were dealing with the sale of property in business terms and there were big numbers involved, in some magical way that made the tax affordable. The hon. Gentleman missed the fact that the assets and capital value of a company, if it has decided to purchase a building—or its major operating costs, if it has decided to lease a building—may be tied up in that building. If the firm moves to expand its premises by sale, or by ending one lease and buying a new one, it will not be able to afford to lose out of its balance sheet the money represented by the increase in stamp duty. That money has to come from somewhere. If the Government increase their take at the point of sale or change of lease under the circumstances that I have described, it will effectively come off the company's bottom line.
      Mr. Breed: When a company or business moves, it is an enormous event in its lifetime. A great range of costs is incurred—not only removal, but stationery and so on. What percentage of the total costs does the stamp duty represent?
      Mr. Jack: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misses the point. The percentage that it represents is irrelevant. It represents an additional expense, and there would no need for it to be incurred if our amendment was accepted.
      I would appreciate it if the Financial Secretary were to respond to my next point. It is instructive briefly to consider the history of stamp duty because it is important that the Government should justify why they change rates and increase the taxes that they impose on business. Interestingly, stamp duty arose in the Netherlands in 1624 as a result of a competition to find a new form of tax. It strikes me that there has been a competition in the Treasury to find novel ways of raising money. When the tax first came to this country in 1694, it was levied on the materials of business of the day—vellum, parchment and paper. Not much has changed in the past 300 years.
      I embarked on that historic voyage to make the point that stamp duty's original purpose was to extract tax revenue from company income when there was no corporation tax, uniform business rate or other business tax by taxing capital transactions. The hon. Member for Shipley asked why we should deny ourselves the extra revenue. Given that there are now other means of taxation, can the Financial Secretary say why the Government have chosen to raise additional money from business via stamp duty? I accept the criticism that we did not tackle the question of whether stamp duty was a valid tax but, as the Government have embarked on what I would call exploiting a nice little earner, they should publicly justify why this tax and not others has been chosen.
      Labour Members have played down the impact of the changes on the burden on business. I asked the Library to produce a table examining the impact of the stamp duty increase and a commentary on its effect on business. In the financial year that we have just entered, the effect of the changes is £1.3 billion. That rises, in cumulative terms, in the next financial year-taking into account the previous stamp duty changes-to £1.4 billion, with £1.4 billion estimated for the year 2001–02. The total
      430
      effect of the Government's changes to stamp duty rates will be a cumulative extra tax take of £5.2 billion. It would have been interesting had the Chancellor had the courage when he came into office to say that he proposed to increase business taxes over the next four years by £5.2 billion. He did not have the nerve.
      9.15 pm
      However, we can see what the effect would have been had the Chancellor done that. I should point out that the amount would be £5.2 billion overall. According to the Library, it is estimated that 60 per cent.—that is £3 billion—will fall on business. That is in addition to the extra taxes that business is already having to bear through the corporation tax changes introduced by the Government. That shows why my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench described that operation as a stealth tax. It may not occur often in individual businesses, but the cumulative effect shows that the tax has turned into a nice little earner for the Treasury.
      It is evidently an uneven tax in its impacts on different parts of the country. In areas where property and land values are higher—London and the south-east—there will be a disproportionate tax burden to bear. However, if we consider the problems of east London and business development there, we find that that area is in almost as much in need as some of the so-called derelict parts of regions such as the north-east and the north-west, which are traditionally seen as difficult. This measure comes from a Government who are supposed to be business friendly.
      When we look across the net receipts of Inland Revenue taxes, an interesting pattern emerges, which explains why business is now being asked to pick up the tab for this extra stamp duty. At the beginning of this century, stamp duty was hardly noticeable—it raised only £8 million. However, the total effect of the Government's proposals for the current financial year is that £5.7 billion is written into the Government's estimates. If, as a starting point, we compare the levels of stamp duty that will be raised in the current financial year with the levels in the financial year in which the Labour Government took office, it is clear that stamp duty has risen by plus 65 per cent. in their estimated receipts. If we bear in mind the finding that 60 per cent. of the burden will fall on industry, business and commerce, we begin to see what the Government are about.
      I suspect that the Financial Secretary will have received analyses from the Inland Revenue showing that receipts from another business-based tax—petroleum revenue tax—were rapidly dropping and that capital gains tax and inheritance tax were of limited value. She would have been told that stamp duty had magically become the No. 3 earner among Inland Revenue taxes. She would have been told: "What a good idea it would be, Financial Secretary, if you visited this rather neglected area, because it is a nice easy tax. You will not get too many queues of complaining people at your door. Let's have a go". My God, she took the bait in full measure.
      However, we must not lose sight of another stealthy bit of Government activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) will recall tabling a parliamentary question in which he attempted to elicit the facts about how the tax burden between residential and commercial property would change over

      431
      time as a result of the changes in stamp duty. Interestingly enough, in the financial year 1997–98, 60 per cent. of stamp duty was raised from residential property and 40 per cent. from commercial property. However, the Treasury's own estimate for the year 1999–2000 is that that burden will be evenly shared between business and residential property. There is an element of politics creeping into this issue; it is clear that the Government think that business is a soft touch, and that no one will complain too much, so there is an element of burden shifting.
      The burden of stamp duty is rising for business—hence the earlier remarks of my hon. Friends who drew the attention of the Committee to the problems that would arise in the property market. The Financial Secretary should give the Committee some economic analysis—or lay the information in the Library, if she does not have it with her—if it is necessary to repudiate the arguments made by Conservative Members this evening.
      The British Federation, whose report by the London business school has been quoted, has spent a lot of money justifying its point of view. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would like to produce her own analysis to reassure, if she feels it necessary, the business community that it will not be adversely affected, as my hon. Friends have predicted.
      Without doubt, there are long-term implications. It has been reported that the Government's measures will reduce liquidity in the business sector and inhibit the ability of industry to take on new space. Mr. Angus McIntosh, a director of commercial property consultants Richard Ellis, and therefore someone who is in the front line of business lettings and activities, says that the higher duty could threaten more marginal office and industrial schemes, but adds that the retail market might well find a way around the problems. I thought that the Government wanted to encourage the sort of office and industrial schemes that typify many areas of industrial renaissance. Can the Financial Secretary really be promoting a policy that appears to act against the objectives expressed in other parts of the Budget statement?
      One of the Trojan horse arguments that has been advanced in respect of the Government's aims is that their proposals on stamp duty on business are a staging post on the way to higher business taxes, on a par with those of Europe. I join my hon. Friends in asking the Financial Secretary to give us some indication of the Government's policy in that specific area of tax. I know that she cannot stand up and say, "There will be no change in tax rates", because, even though the Government said that, they did not mean it. Instead, I should like her to concentrate on words that she does mean.
      The Government find it easy to spend a great deal of time justifying and explaining their actions—for example, in respect of environmental taxes, they explained at length why some of the changes in vehicle excise duty and fuel tax had occurred; and they gave lengthy explanations of what they think are the likely effects on business of some of their changes to corporation tax. The Government clearly know the effect of what they want to do and they can plot the development of that effect in future. Therefore, if the burden on industry of stamp duty is to increase, we can be sure that the Financial Secretary received from the Inland Revenue and the Treasury an
      432
      analysis of the economic effects of that. She will be doing industry, business, commerce and the Committee a service if she shares those projections with us.
      In the interests of stability and forward planning, the Government have been happy to offer their prognostications on the level of certain taxes at the end of this Parliament. If they can do that in respect of income tax or business tax, it is logical to assume that they can do the same in respect of stamp duty. If the Financial Secretary is unable to supply that information, she should tell us why not. A lack of figures would appear to reveal a degree of inconsistency in the Government's approach to projecting the effects of taxes, and the Government should be consistent in their approach to such matters.
      9.30 pm
      We are not talking about sums of money that are insignificant to the businesses concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) spoke of the slab-slice dilemma, and it is interesting to convert slab-slice into money. The new proposals leave stamp duty on £249,000 deals at £2,490, whereas paying £2,000 more puts another £3,785 on the stamp duty bill. The Financial Secretary should explain why that sort of cliff-edge philosophy still finds a place in the Treasury.
      It is sad that the contributions from the Government Benches have lacked any imagination. If the Government propose to use stamp duty as a creative tool, they should offer some imaginative suggestions as to its application. For example, why have the Government not considered relieving businesses in objective 1 or 2 areas of the stamp duty changes? That would be a positive way of encouraging new business development. By contrast, the Government have adopted a uniform approach. Why is there no regional differentiation? Why is the Treasury not using some imagination? As was mentioned earlier, why do the Government not encourage developments on brown-field sites by relieving them of stamp duty increases as a way of encouraging the use of such sites?
      It seems that the Government are using stamp duty as a blunt instrument. They have not thought about it creatively—and it is time that they did. As a result of the Government's proposals, stamp duty on a £500,000 deal will rise to £17,500 per transaction. Stamp duty on a £3 million deal—which is modest by industrial standards—will increase from £90,000 to £105,000. An increase of £15,000 is not insubstantial.
      Will the Financial Secretary comment on the findings that these proposals will reduce property values? A 1 per cent. increase in stamp duty will reduce property values by £25.6 billion. Several of my hon. Friends have said that Government stock will be reduced by £5 billion. Does the Financial Secretary agree with that figure? Has the resource accounting mechanism—which will be introduced shortly—made any allowances for that loss in value to business?
      Does the Financial Secretary agree that the changes will amplify the fact that tax rates are rising in this country? Taxes on property in the United Kingdom are already twice the European Union average when expressed in gross domestic product terms. Tax equals 3.7 per cent. of GDP. Why is it necessary to raise business taxes further as a result of these proposals?

      433
      Has the Financial Secretary given any thought to introducing into this country the types of stamp duty exemptions that exist in other European regimes? For example, in Portugal, public bodies, social housing and business reorganisations are exempt from stamp duty, full stop—never mind any increases. I dwell on this point because, if the Government are anxious to develop stamp duty as a tax, it would be useful to know whether they will apply it creatively. If they do not, they will have to contend with a large avoidance industry.
      It is unusual for tax avoidance practitioners to declare their hand. However, the Financial Secretary will find that, as businesses seek ways around the tax increases, the avoidance industry will limber up, ready to turn property and land into companies with share capital—bearing in mind that there is only 0.5 per cent. stamp duty on share transfers—that can be bought and sold. The higher rate will be 3 per cent. under the Government's proposals. Is that not a sure-fire way of relinquishing income in terms of business tax?
      Mr. Bermingham: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell the Committee that if Jack Investments Ltd.—I use the right hon. Gentleman's name as an example—has among its assets a factory and a green-field site, it will create a new company to take those two items from Jack Investments Ltd. so that the new company can be sold, and the factory and the green-field site can therefore be sold as shares in that company rather than as assets? That is totally ridiculous.
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman says that it is totally ridiculous, but perhaps he would like to explain that degree of ridicule to the authors of the London business school report, who advance the view that I have just explained. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I am certain that, in transactions of sufficient size, that type of avoidance mechanism will be used, particularly if the Government continue to increase the rate of stamp duty. Why should people pay tax unnecessarily if, to put it bluntly, there is a cheap way round it?
      Mr. Bermingham: In such a mechanism, property would be assets bought by a company. If they were then sold on to a new company, there would be a capital gains tax liability, which would be a cost on the company, so to save a few pounds companies might create a tax loss of many thousands of pounds. To respond to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I shall willingly take on the authors of that report—they do not seem to know what they are talking about.
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman did not consider the roll-over mechanisms in capital gains tax. I am absolutely certain that people would take those into account.
      Conservative Members have performed sufficiently well in the debate to demonstrate that the Government must clearly answer many questions to justify their proposal. The amendment would try to relieve business from that unnecessary tax.
      Before I end my remarks, may I apologise to you, Mr. Martin, and the Committee for not at the outset declaring my registrable business interests, which are in
      434
      the Register of Members' Interests, in case anybody is concerned that they might have influenced what I had to say.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Many points have already been made, so, in view of the hour, I shall keep my remarks brief. Before I begin, I should declare that I have property interests that could possibly be affected by the amendment and the clause. They are declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
      Clause 99 increases stamp duty on the transfer of property valued at over £250,000 but less than £500,000 from 2 to 2.5 per cent., and on property valued at over £500,000 from 3 to 3.5 per cent. It is worth noting that this is the third time in two years that the Government have increased stamp duty. It is worth noting also that, for the bulk of the 18 years of Conservative government, stamp duty was fixed at 1 per cent. All objections to the tax have been multiplied many times because of its increase from 1 per cent. to a top rate of 3 per cent. I point that out in reply to the repeated interventions from the hon. Member sitting below the Gangway, who, I think represents Birmingham—
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I am sitting below the Gangway, but the hon. Gentleman is confusing the name of the Member to whom he refers with that Member's constituency. I am a Member who represents Birmingham, but the hon. Gentleman who spoke is my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady has made a stupid, cheap point. She knows perfectly well to whom I was referring.
      Mr. McKee of the British Property Federation has said that we shall hear a wide variety of debate in industry about whether a 3 per cent. stamp duty is too much or whether it is not yet too much, but the real question is, "What are the Chancellor's plans for stamp duty?" That is the real question in this debate. The property industry and all the institutions connected with that industry are entitled to ask the Government what their long-term strategy is for stamp duty. Unless they have some answers to those questions, they will draw their own conclusions.
      Like my hon. Friends, I shall quote a few facts and statistics from the Arthur Andersen report, compiled jointly with the London business school. One of its most startling predictions was that, in the short term, a 1 per cent. increase in stamp duty would lead to a decline in gross domestic product of 0.02 per cent. in year 1 and a 0.06 per cent. in year 3, and that this would be accompanied by a reduction of 11,300 people in work by year 4. In the longer term, additional factors would increase the reduction in GDP to some 0.05 to 0.1 per cent. I am pretty certain that not even the Government can tell the Committee tonight that the increase in stamp duty will have anything other than a deleterious economic effect.
      It is worth noting how important the commercial property sector, which will he affected by this tax, is to the economy. It is worth approximately twice the entire gilt market. Although, in the mid-1980s, the value of United Kingdom equities was about 50 per cent. greater than that of commercial property, it is now three times

      435
      that of the commercial property sector. That illustrates the relative decline in commercial property as an investment medium. There is no doubt about it: in an increasingly international world, our investing institutions that invest in properties will carefully monitor transaction costs and, if they find that transaction costs on property are significantly higher in the UK than those not just in the rest of Europe but in the rest of the world—as is the case even now, when total property transaction costs amount to about 10 per cent.—they will vote with their feet and invest elsewhere, and that inward investment and our own domestic investment will be invested elsewhere.
      It may be worth considering how we compare with some other European countries. As I pointed out in an intervention, the UK has the highest property transaction costs in the European Union, amounting to some 10.5 per cent.—higher than those in Luxembourg, our nearest rival, whose costs are about 8 per cent. In Austria, such costs are about 1.5 per cent., so UK costs are significantly higher.
      As I also said in my intervention, France has become so worried about the effect of high property transaction costs that it has cut its transaction tax drastically, from a huge 18.5 per cent. to 4.5 per cent. The rate in Germany—perhaps our nearest major rival—is only 3.5 per cent.
      Therefore, I would severely caution the Government, if they have it in mind to increase stamp duty significantly in future years. Although, on the surface, it might appear to be a cheap tax to collect and a soft option—indeed, a very good candidate for Labour's stealth tax—the longer-term effect on business activity in the UK is likely to be significant.
      There are other aspects in which stamp duty is significant. As hon. Friends have mentioned, it has a big effect on company liquidity, reflected in balance sheets. It has been argued tonight that it is wrong for companies to own their commercial property, but I believe that that is pretty dangerous advice coming from a bank manager who is talking and not even listening to my speech, because he knows that many companies—including some of our best companies, such as Marks and Spencer—own virtually all their shops, and they have found that, in the longer term, that benefited them greatly.
      Mr. Breed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: As I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I give way.
      Mr. Breed: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that will continue to happen in the next two or three years?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: It all depends on whether the Government take us into the euro, on long-term and short-term interest rates, and on how rents respond to competition. There are so many unknown factors that it is impossible to predict. I will not give any company generalised advice; I simply caution companies not to assume automatically that it will be cheaper to rent than to own property. That conclusion cannot necessarily be drawn.
      I recall that, last year, commercial property shares took a real hammering after the Government increased stamp duty, and I would expect the same thing to happen this
      436
      year. I would also expect the value of commercial property immediately to be written down in the balance sheets of most firms' property portfolios. Any investing company will require a high yield, and that will have to he reflected in either commercial property transaction prices or higher rents for trading companies. We cannot necessarily draw any particular conclusions.
      9.45 pm
      Arthur Andersen has estimated that, even on conservative assumptions, an increase in stamp duty from 3 to 4 per cent. would decrease the value of commercial properties by 4 to 7 per cent. That would imply that the total value of commercial property would decline at a stroke, through the imposition of the clause, by between £25 billion and £42 billion. That shows that the clause will have a significant effect on business activity.
      The three increases in stamp duty have already had an effect. Commercial property is now valued at about £193 billion, whereas, at the end of the 1980s, it was valued at about £280 billion. That has an effect on liquidity and on the ability of companies to borrow on the basis of the value of the commercial property held in their portfolio.
      We should be looking to lower taxes for business. We want to stimulate business activity. We should not allow the cosy assumption that we shall harmonise taxes in Europe to lead us automatically to assume that taxes will be increased. This country should be a beacon in Europe—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, is listening to this, because I am sure that it will be of interest to him—for lowering taxes, not increasing them.
      As I said yesterday, if we continue increasing taxes, as we are doing in this instance by raising stamp duty, we shall make more and more people unemployed. Total unemployment in Europe is now 18.5 million; with increased business taxes, it will become even worse. We shall make Europe even more uncompetitive compared with the rest of the world.
      I have recently returned from Hong Kong—this is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. It is enshrined in the Basic Law that the maximum level of taxation in Hong Kong is 15 per cent. Every politician and every civil servant should be required to visit Hong Kong to see what a proper deregulated economy could do.
      We should examine carefully what an increase in stamp duty will do. By far the largest amount of stamp duty is paid by the commercial sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford is right to try to exempt commercial property. If we do not recognise the property investment sector as an important international investment medium, we shall suddenly find that inward investment will decline. The previous Conservative Government were successful in bringing investment into the country. At one point, over a 10-year period, we managed to attract a quarter of all the inward investment into the EU; that probably created 1 million jobs. It would be a tragedy if this Government, with their tax-raising ideas, started to reverse that trend and increased unemployment. I do not want that to happen, and nor do my constituents.
      When the Financial Secretary sums up, I hope that she will give us an idea of the effect of the burden on industry of the increase in stamp duty. Much more importantly—

      437
      I return to where I started—I ask her to give the property industry an indication of her long-term strategy for stamp duty so that it can plan its investments, which, by their very nature, are long term, and so that investors can plan with certainty on the basis of a degree of known facts.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We have had a long, but thorough, debate on the amendment, which would exclude from the increases in the higher rates of duty any transfers of property to which the uniform business rate applies. Clearly, the amendment's purpose is to introduce a stamp duty relief for commercial property. Let me say at the outset that I do not believe that such a relief is called for, and I shall explain why.
      The commercial sector of the property market is in sound condition and should be well able to absorb these small increases without serious difficulties. My hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Mr. Twigg) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed that out.
      According to the Investment Property Databank, the commercial property market has been strengthening in 1999. Returns from investment in property over the past three years—at 9.4 per cent. a year, adjusted for inflation—have been considerably better than the long-term average of 5.9 per cent. since 1986. Stamp duty is only one of the considerations involved in buying or leasing property; other economic factors, such as long-term interest rates and increases in capital values, are much more important.
      The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) raised a number of issues and I shall deal with them in turn. He asked whether there was a secret agenda to harmonise stamp duty with Europe. The Conservative party knows a great deal about secret agendas, but this evening I shall not dwell—not at length, at any rate—on its misery. United Kingdom rates are moderate; there is no European proposal to harmonise stamp duty, and there is certainly no secret agenda.
      The hon. Gentleman then said that rises will wound ordinary home owners in the south-east. May I point out to him that ordinary home owners—on whom we have concentrated this evening—are enjoying the lowest mortgage rates for 33 years? I know that that is very popular in the country. He also spoke about something that is known as the slice system; I say that for the benefit of those Members who have just joined us in the Chamber. This is an example of the Opposition not fully costing their proposals.
      Such a proposal would be incredibly expensive—it would cost £890 million—and lead to higher rates and a much more complex system. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman protests, but he is one of the people who have argued for simplicity. During our exchanges last week, I told him how much I admired his stance on deregulation. He has criticised Governments for not deregulating enough, but—as I had to point out to him last week, and have to point out to him again—the only problem is that he has been criticising the previous Conservative Government.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
      Mrs. Roche: Let me make some progress, because I want to deal with what the hon. Gentleman said.
      438
      The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford also said that we were weakening the competitiveness of the City of London; that is certainly not its view. The Government are absolutely committed to maintaining a competitive environment in which the City can prosper.
      The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) raised a number of issues and, again, I shall deal with them in turn. He argued that a stamp duty increase would prevent local government from increasing taxes and asked whether the Government were carrying out a smash-and-grab raid. I note his enthusiasm for higher local taxes and I am sure that his proposal will be disseminated widely in his constituency. His argument is absolute nonsense.
      The hon. Member for Guildford also said that the increase in duty on commercial property reduced the value of the Government's assets, outweighing the increase in tax revenue. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) rightly said that he could not see the point in that, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Guildford is taking an interest in the public finances. How unlike the record of the Government whom he would have supported, had he been a Member of the House at the time. Under that Government, borrowing reached £50 billion and the national debt doubled. It needed this Government to—
      Mr. Jack: The Financial Secretary has just played back the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and by me about the estimated drop in the Government property portfolio as a result of these proposals. She went on to make a party political point. May I bring her back to that figure and ask whether she agrees with it? If so, has any adjustment been made for that fact in the resource accounting procedures?
      Mrs. Roche: No, I do not agree with it. I shall go on to discuss some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, because the Committee wants to hear about them.
      The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and various others mentioned some of the points that were made in the report sponsored by the British Property Federation. It was a technical report and there is always great scope for different opinions, forecasts and analyses. I do not agree with all the conclusions reached in it.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I think that I heard the Financial Secretary say that the cost of our amendment would be a staggering £800 million. Will she explain where she gets that figure, given that the Red Book shows that implementing the entire clause will raise only £270 million this year, £310 million next year and £340 million in 2001–02?
      Mrs. Roche: Certainly. It is getting rather late for some hon. Members, but I say with the greatest respect—as I used to say ins another capacity—that the hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say. I was talking about his proposals for slab and slice, not the proposals in the amendment. I shall come a little later to the costs of that.
      The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that, in his view, the Government had shifted the burden on to business. Both residential and commercial property deals will face exactly the same tax rate, which is why it is fair.

      439
      He also mentioned exemptions. The Conservative party has been going on for weeks and weeks about the Government introducing complexity in the tax system; yet Conservatives seek to introduce further complexity. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an interesting history lesson on how stamp duty was introduced. His speech amounted to an attack on stamp duty, but I note that, when he was a Treasury Minister—he held my post—he did nothing to abolish it. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman telling the Chamber, "It was nothing to do with me, guy; I was only the Financial Secretary."
      Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Roche: No, I have already given way and I must make progress. [Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we could have less noise from the Treasury Bench. The only sound that I want to hear is from the Minister.
      10 pm
      Mrs. Roche: Thank you, Mr. Martin. That is the nicest thing that anyone has said to me all evening.
      What would the amendment do? As I said, it would introduce considerable complexity into the administration of what is essentially a straightforward tax, the efficiency of which depends on a rapid turnover by the stamp office of a large number of documents. That was well pointed out in an excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).
      Once again, the Opposition have proposed a measure that would lead to greater complexity, and has not been costed. In answer to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I say that the amendment would have a revenue cost of about £175 million. During the debate, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was asked whether he had costed the amendment, and he could not give an answer. The Opposition owe a duty to the Committee to say from where the money would come. No wonder they completely mismanaged the public finances.
      Why should the voters listen to a party that no longer seems to know what it believes in on finance? Last summer, the shadow Chancellor denounced as "reckless" my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's £40 billion spending plans for health and education. This week, the shadow Chancellor promised that a Conservative Government "would adopt them". Those are not my words: I was quoting from the Daily Mail, so the Conservatives seem to have lost the confidence of another section of the press.
      The amendment is neither desirable nor necessary. For the reasons I have given, I ask the Committee to reject it.
      Mr. Gibb: Clause 99 introduces yet another rise in stamp duty rates in what the Prime Minister pretends is a tax-cutting Budget. It will raise £270 million this year, £310 million next year and £340 million the year after. That follows two previous Labour Budgets which increased stamp duty rates. The March 1998 Budget increases raised some £500 million a year in extra stamp duty revenues, and Labour's first Budget in July 1997 also
      440
      raised £500 million a year in extra stamp duty revenues. That is £1.3 billion of yearly extra stamp duty to be paid by the British people and British business as a result of electing a Labour Government to power in May 1997. The Government were elected on a clear pledge not to raise taxes. [Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Committee should come to order. It is bad manners. The hon. Gentleman should be heard.
      Mr. Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
      When the Chancellor first introduced his stamp duty escalator in July 1997, he gave house price stability as his reason for doing so. He said:
      "I will not allow house prices to get out of control".—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 313.]
      However, house prices in the residential sector are rising, and the stamp duty increases are having little or no effect on prices. That is the view of residential property estate agents. Simon Tyler of Chase de Vere was quoted in The Sunday Times on 14 March. [Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members at the Bar should be quiet.
      Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. Simon Tyler of Chase de Vere said:
      "Most people will add the cost to their mortgages so I shouldn't think it will affect the property market too much."
      When the Chancellor introduced this latest tax hike, he said that 96 per cent. of home sales would be unaffected, implying that only richer households will be affected. However, it will affect a much wider section of society, because it will affect business—small business in particular. As the Association of British Insurers has said, the recent stamp duty increase
      "has been presented as affecting those in more expensive housing. It also applies to commercial and industrial property where it bites at a low level.
      The effect is to increase costs for many start-up businesses discouraging would-be entrepreneurs and investors backing them."
      The Institute of Directors has also criticised the rise. It says:
      "We deplore the increase in stamp duty on property transactions of over £250,000. It will affect only a small proportion of domestic properties, but a much larger proportion of business properties."
      The institute goes on to make the important point that transfers of goodwill and patents will also be affected. Moreover, a written answer from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not good that the Chair should have to keep bringing the Committee to order; it is not fair on the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb).
      Mr. Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
      The answer from the Financial Secretary's colleague, the Economic Secretary, reveals that three quarters of the tax revenue from the 3.5 per cent. rate of stamp duty comes from commercial properties, while only a quarter comes from residential properties—a point that was

      441
      omitted from the Chancellor's speech and, incidentally, from this year's notes on clauses, although it was clearly set out in last year's. The candle burns late into the night at the Treasury so that people can excise such unhelpful paragraphs.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) was right to point out that the 0.5 per cent. increase in stamp duty will knock billions of pounds off the value of Government property, while raising only a few hundred million pounds. That will be crucial when the Government introduced resource accounting. It will not just mean a paper transaction; it will determine tax and spending plans. My hon. Friend was also right to point out that the increase in stamp duty is a tax on mobility.
      The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) made a marvellous attack on the competence of Arthur Andersen, in connection with a report that he has not even read. Perhaps Arthur Andersen should consult the hon. Gentleman and take advantage of his expertise when it next produces a report. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), a former bank manager, expressed concern about the amount of secured borrowing: he thinks that business should reduce it. Well, he would, wouldn't he, being a former bank manager.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) is right to demand clarity on the Government's medium-term intentions on the rate of stamp duty, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde is right to be suspicious of Governments who change taxes without saying why. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that must mean that the Government themselves believe the tax rise involved to be bad, and to be particularly bad for small businesses.
      Firms are genuinely concerned about the extra cost that the clause will impose on dynamic business. It is yet another burden to add to the catalogue of additional burdens on business introduced by the Government since May 1997. What worries businesses particularly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and others have said—is where the future lies. What future stamp duty increases can we expect? Will McKee, director-general of the British Property Federation, said last year:
      "the real question is: where is the Chancellor going with stamp duty."
      Steve Mallen, head of research at Knight Frank, said:
      "the shrewd investor"—
      and there are shrewd investors sitting opposite me—
      "should assume stamp duty will continue to rise towards continental levels."
      So what are the Government's intentions? The Minister should have given business some certainty and stability. She should have spelt out the Government's policy with regard to future stamp duty rates. Will the rates continue to rise, and, if so, to what level? Will they rise to the 12.5 per cent. to which they have risen in Belgium, to the 6 or 4.5 per cent. to which they have risen in France, to the 9 per cent. level reached in Greece, to the 6 per cent. level reached in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain or to the 10 per cent. level reached in Portugal? If stamp duty rates are not to continue to rise, why has not the Minister given the same guarantee that the Chancellor has given regarding corporation tax rates—that there will be no further increases for the remainder of this Parliament?
      442
      In Labour's first three Budgets, we have seen three stamp duty rises. We have seen the rate increased from 1 to 2.5 and 3.5 per cent. As with all stealth tax rises, the effects of this are capricious and unplanned. The impact on residential properties is more severe—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Again, I appeal to the Committee to come to order.
      Mr. Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
      Like all stealth taxes, the increase's effects will be capricious and unplanned. It will have a more severe impact on residential property in the south-east than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and will hurt small businesses disproportionately more than large ones. If the Government are true to their rhetoric that the stamp duty increase is only about "cooling" the housing market, they should feel perfectly happy about accepting amendment No. 3, which would disapply the increase to business property. If they cannot accept the amendment, I urge the Committee to demonstrate its opposition to just another stealth tax by voting for the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 308.

      Division No. 156]

      [10.10 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gray, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Green, Damian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Greenway, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beggs, Roy

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bercow, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hammond, Philip

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brady, Graham

      Hayes, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Heald, Oliver

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cash, William

      Horam, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clappison, James

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      (Rushcliffe)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Key, Robert

      Collins, Tim

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cran, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

      Leigh, Edward

      & Howden)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Evans, Nigel

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Fabricant, Michael

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Flight, Howard

      Maples, John

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Mates, Michael

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fraser, Christopher

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Gale, Roger

      Moss, Malcolm

      Garnier, Edward

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gibb, Nick

      Norman, Archie

      Gill, Christopher

      Ottaway, Richard

      443

      Paice, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Paterson, Owen

      Taylor, John M(Solihull)

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Prior, David

      Thompson, William

      Randall, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trend, Michael

      Roberston, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Viggers, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion Broxbourne)

      Walter, Robert

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Wardle, Charles

      Ruffley, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Willetts, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Woodward, Shaun

      Spring, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Steen, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

      Syms, Robert

      Sir David Madel.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Chaytor, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chidgey, David

      Allan, Richard

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothain)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbrige)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clelland, David

      Austin, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Baker, Norman

      Coleman, Iain

      Ballard, Jackie

      Connarty, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Corbett, Robin

      Battle, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beard, Nigel

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cotter, Brain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Staurt (Middlesbrough)

      Crausby, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cummings, John

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Bermingham, Gerald

      (Copeland)

      Best, Harold

      Cunnigham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Betts, Clive

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blizzard, Bob

      Darvill, Keith

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Boateng, Paul

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Borrow, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dawson, Hilton

      Breed, Colin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Burnett, John

      Donohoe, Brain H

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Doran, Frank

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      (Ne Fife)

      Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Efford, Clive

      Cann, Jamie

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caplin, Ivor

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Casale, Roger

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      444

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Levitt, Tom

      Galloway, George

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      George, Bruce(Walsall S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lock, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Love, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      (Makerfield)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McFall, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gunnell, John

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacShane, Denis

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Harris, Dr Evan

      McWalter, Tony

      Harvey, Nick

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Health, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hesford, Stephen

      Maxton, John

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mountford, Kali

      Hurst, Alan

      Mudie, George

      Hutton, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brain

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brein, Bill (Normanton)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brain

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pearson, Ian

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pertham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pope, Greg

      Keetch, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Radice, Giles

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Laxton, Bob

      Rendel, David

      Lepper, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      445

      Rowlands, Ted

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Roy, Frank

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Timms, Stephen

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Salter, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tyler, Paul

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Singh, Marsha

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Webb, Steve

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Spellar, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      (Swansea W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Convey)

      Stott, Roger

      Willis, Phil

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wills, Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wise, Audrey

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wood, Mike

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

      Mr. Keith Hill and

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 305, Noes 127.

      Division No.157]

      [10.26 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Burgon, Colin

      Ainsworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)

      Burnett, John

      Allan, Richard

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Allen, Graham

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      (NE Fife)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Austin, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Ballard, Jackie

      Caplin, Ivor

      Barnes, Harry

      Casale, Roger

      Battle, John

      Caton, Martin

      Beard, Nigel

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Chaytor, David

      Bell, Stuart(Middlesbrough)

      Chidgey, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothain)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clelland, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cohen, Harry

      Boateng, Paul

      Coleman, Iain

      Borrow, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Breed, Colin

      Cotter, Brain

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cousins, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Crausby, David

      446

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brain

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Illsley, Eric

      (Copeland)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jamieson, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Davidson, Ian

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Donohoe, Brain H

      Keetch, Paul

      Doran, Frank

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Dowd, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria(L'Pool Garston)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Efford, Clive

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Levitt, Tom

      Galloway, George

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lock, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Love, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      (Makerfield)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McFall, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gunnell, John

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacShane, Denis

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Harris, Dr Evan

      McWalter, Tony

      Harvey, Nick

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hesford, Stephen

      Maxton, John

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mountford, Kali

      Hurst, Alan

      Mudie, George

      447

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Spellar, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Oaten, Mark

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stevenson, George

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stott, Roger

      Öpik, Lembit

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stringer, Graham

      Pearson, Ian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pendry, Tom

      Stunell, Andrew

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Pike, Peter L

      (Dewsbury)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pond, Chris

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Radice, Giles

      Tyler, Paul

      Reed, Andrew(Loughborough)

      Vaz, Keith

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rendel, David

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Ruddock, Joan

      (Swansea W)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Salter, Martin

      Willis, Phil

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wills, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wise, Audrey

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wood, Mike

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Keith Hill and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Clark, Dr Michael(Rayleigh)

      Baldry, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Beggs, Roy

      (Rushcliffe)

      Bercow, John

      Clifton-Brown,Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Brady, Graham

      Cran, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      & Howden)

      Burns, Simon

      Donaldson, Jeffery

      448

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan, Alan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon sir Brian

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fraser, Christopher

      Prior, David

      Gale, Roger

      Randall, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gibb, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gill, Christopher

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gray, James

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Greenway, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grieve, Dominic

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John

      Spring, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Steen, Anthony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Swayne, Desmond

      Horam, John

      Syms, Robert

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Thompson, William

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Trend, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Walter, Robert

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Wardle, Charles

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lansley, Andrew

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Leigh, Edward

      Whittingdale, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Wilkinson, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Willetts, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Woodward, Shaun

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Maples, John

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

      Mates, Michael

      Sir David Madel.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill (Clauses 2, 28 and 99) reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.
      Ordered,
      That, during the proceedings on the Finance Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    EDUCATION
    Ordered,
    That the Education (Budget Statements and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    That the Education (Education Standards Etc. Grants) (England) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    That the Education (School Organisation Committees) (England) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    That the Education (School Organisation Plans) (England) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    That the Education (Transition to New Framework) (School Organisation Proposals) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  Rail Freight Noise
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable importance to many of my constituents and to many other people throughout the country. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), in the Chamber at this hour. I have always found her to be courteous and helpful in previous exchanges in the House. In her previous profession, the B-movie probably preceded the main business in the cinema but, on this occasion, the B-movie is coming after the main business considered by the House. None the less, although it may be a B-movie for those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber, it is a matter of the greatest concern to many people.
  My interest in raising this matter lies in the fact that I am strongly in favour of the movement of freight by rail. It is of great environmental benefit. I have a non-pecuniary interest in that I am co-chairman of the all-party rail freight group. I hope that that demonstrates my credentials as someone who is pleased to see the success of the rail freight industry. I am pleased about the enormous growth in rail freight that has taken place since the privatisation of the railways. That is most welcome.
  In the short time available for the debate, I shall concentrate on some slightly more negative points connected with rail freight, but I hope that, in doing so, I shall address them constructively. Only if proper attention is paid to the environmental difficulties that can be caused by rail freight for those who live closest to rail freight facilities can the necessary expansion of rail freight take place in a way that will benefit our country and bring overall benefits to the environment. There can be enormous environmental dividends, but only if the industry is fair to its neighbours.
  I have stated my own broad support for the expansion of rail freight, but, in raising the real and reasonable concerns of hundreds of families in my constituency who are affected by problems of noise and vibration from such freight movements, I am especially keen to acquit them of the charge of nimbyism. I allude to the particular problem caused by the transport, daily, of large quantities of limestone from quarries in Buxton to the Brunner Mond chemical plant in Northwich. I note that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) is in the Chamber, although I am not sure in which capacity. I presume that he is here because of his constituency interest in the matter.
  Freight from Buxton flows, by a slightly odd circuitous route, through the constituencies of Hazel Grove; Altrincham and Sale, West; Tatton; and Weaver Vale. I have had cause to be grateful to my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for his support and assistance.
  This evening, I am pleased to have the coincidental support of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee, which today published its report on the integrated transport White Paper. I am sure

  451
  that the Minister will have been reading the report all day and that she will be familiar with its contents. She will have noted that paragraph 164 states:
  "Despite the wider environmental benefits of an increase in rail freight, there are likely to be disadvantages, in some cases severe, for people living close to railway lines. It will be necessary, therefore, for improvements in rolling stock and track technology to be exploited to the full in order to minimise the noise and other environmental impacts generated by freight trains."
  It is a coincidence that that report has been published on the same day as my Adjournment debate takes place, but I am pleased to have the Committee's clear support. We need to accept that a balance must be struck between the overall environmental benefits of carrying freight by rail and the severe difficulties that can be suffered by those who live closest to rail freight facilities.
  As I said, I am keen to acquit my constituents of any charge of nimbyism because the flow of freight has gone on for decades. The railway line in question runs adjacent to the playing field of my old school, and I remember watching the wagons of long trains pass during the day. However, the flow of trains laden with limestone continues at night, and that became a significant problem towards the end of 1997, when the wagons were replaced.
  On 10 February 1998, the freight operator, English, Welsh and Scottish Railways, sent a constituent of mine a letter which stated:
  "The way the wagon is made and its running characteristics does induce more noise and vibration".
  It is clear and it is accepted by all the parties involved—by Brunner Mond, the customer, EWS, the carrier, and Railtrack, the operator of the track infrastructure—that the problem is a relatively new one. Although everyone accepts that the provision of limestone to the Brunner Mond plant is essential to the conduct of its business, all the parties to the affair recognise that there has been an increase in the noise and vibration nuisance generated by that necessary flow of freight.
  It is important to recognise that, in densely populated residential areas—such as Timperley and Hale in my constituency, where the railway lines runs very near to some residential properties—it is only acceptable for freight flows to continue if maximum efforts are made to mitigate the environmental nuisance that they cause. Although I accept that none of the companies involved has acted deliberately, in the case that I describe, far from being mitigated, the environmental nuisance has been increased unnecessarily by a change in the technology employed.
  As I said, the problem affects hundreds of families in my constituency, and I shall allude to a few of them. Mr. Wilson wrote to me to say that he is
  "woken at 5 in the morning to vibrations which make my whole house shake".
  He adds that the vibrations must register five on the Richter scale, which might be a slight exaggeration, but I am sure that, in the small hours, the vibrations feel all too real to sufferers. Mr. Carr, who has lived in the area for three and a half years, wrote to me saying that, although the 4 am train used to pass virtually unnoticed,
  "Last night four trains came by between 4 and 6.30 am."
  These people have been woken repeatedly, night after night, in the small hours. They are suffering a real loss in their standard of living and are very concerned about potential damage to their properties.
  452
  I should note at this point that Railtrack has attempted to help by commissioning some studies of the vibration levels involved. Preliminary reports suggest that the level of vibration, although clearly noticeable to those who live near the railway line, is not sufficient to cause structural damage to properties. That may be so, but it is definitely sufficient to cause major disruption to the lives of many of my constituents. They are losing sleep and remain concerned about structural damage to their houses. The problem must be tackled even if their properties are not in immediate danger.
  Steps are being taken to improve the situation. The Minister will be aware that this is the third time that I have raised the matter in the House. I previously asked questions of Ministers at the relevant times and this is my first Adjournment debate on the subject. I have also written to Ministers outlining my concerns and those of my constituents. The responses have always been helpful, but ministerial replies have improved in recent months as there is increasing recognition that this is a real problem that must be addressed. In her letter to me of 8 April 1998, the Minister wrote:
  "Such is the demand for railfreight wagons, due to the increased carriage of goods by rail, that in this case the customer was not able to hire quieter wagons. EWS can only run trains to meet the requirements of their customers and at times when Railtrack can allocate train paths so, as in this case, freight trains tend to operate through the night, leaving the tracks free during the day for passenger traffic."
  The Minister makes a perfectly reasonable observation, but the tone of her letter fails to acknowledge the real difficulties that people face in their daily lives. I am pleased to see appreciation of this problem increasing. A representative of EWS also wrote to me on 8 April 1998 and that letter contains the simple statement:
  "At present I don't believe there are any further steps we can take to improve the situation".
  However, there have been a considerable number of suggestions about the way to proceed.
  My purpose in initiating this debate is to try to focus on what can be done practically to help my constituents and those of neighbouring Members of Parliament who are suffering as a result of this problem. The tone of the responses from Railtrack, Brunner Mond and EWS is always helpful. They make it clear that they are exploring ways of ameliorating the problem—for example, they are considering altering the speed of the trains, which may improve the situation. I am told that they are investigating the possibility of improving the track with continually welded sections, which may reduce the noise and vibration. I also understand that Brunner Mond, with the support of EWS, has applied to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for a freight facilities grant in the hope that the design of its wagons can be improved and the company can introduce a "track friendly" wagon—to use its phrase.
  I know that the DETR is considering this matter, and I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer about the freight facilities grant tonight. I would like to impress on her, however, that, although this problem is of immediate concern only to a few hundred families in my constituency—more widely, perhaps, it concerns a few thousand families—it has a much wider impact because rail freight is rapidly expanding. As I have said, I welcome that and I believe that it can bring environmental benefits, but Ministers should now understand and accept

  453
  that that expansion should continue only where it mitigates environmental problems for neighbouring residents.
  The Department must help my constituents not only because it is right to help those who are suffering an unnecessary burden of nuisance and distress that has, for no good reason, increased in the past couple of years, but because this is a matter of public policy. If we are to achieve the ends that both the Minister and I desire, the problem must be tackled now, and it is only by recognising its wider implications that the future of the rail freight industry can be secured.
  I ask the Minister and her colleagues to continue to work with the parties, as the Department has done at various times in the past few months, towards early mitigation of the problem. It has been suggested that, if we get a freight facilities grant, there might be improvements in rolling stock on that line early in 2000. That would be welcome, but my constituents cannot tolerate a deadline that constantly shifts backwards. It is essential that the Minister investigates the problem immediately and continues to be involved in pressing the parties to find a solution as quickly as possible.
  I am not alone in having expressed these concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who is present, secured his own Adjournment debate on the problems of his constituents a few months ago. Only by dealing with those problems can we achieve the environmental outcomes that we all desire.
  I am sure that the Minister understands the importance of improving the quality of life of my constituents, and that she will want to achieve that improvement. I hope that she will also recognise the wider public policy consideration that the problem must be solved in the interests of striking a fair balance between the rail freight industry and those who live next to it, so that we can make progress towards a sound environmental outcome. I look forward to hearing what I hope will be words of comfort from the Minister.
  10.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing this debate. Not only are the issues important to his constituents but, as he rightly said, they have a much wider importance. Constituency concerns, however, are always the main feature of these debates, whatever the hour of showing. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) has been active on behalf of his constituents in attempting to secure a solution to this problem.
  I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman shares the Government's wish to encourage the movement of more freight by rail. It is a key part of our integrated transport strategy, and we have taken a number of initiatives in support of this policy. Indeed, after coming into office, we took immediate steps by improving the freight facilities grants scheme: cutting the red tape and doubling the grant spent in our first year.
  Over the past two years, grants totalling £60 million have been awarded, and we have made it clear in our White Paper that more funds will be available over the next three years, if the demand is there.
  454
  At the national level, we shall also look to the Strategic Rail Authority to promote transport of freight by rail, establish rail freight targets and ensure that the network has sufficient capacity for freight as well as for the growth in passenger movements.
  To establish the local context, we are in the process of revising our planning guidance to promote rail freight options, by introducing the expectation that local authorities will consider and protect opportunities for rail connections to industrial sites.
  All that provides evidence of our long-term commitment to rail freight. We are delighted—as is the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West—by the 12 per cent. growth in freight tonne kilometres on the railways during 1997-98, and by the continuation of that growth into the last financial year. We welcome its contribution to easing congestion on our roads, and the overall environmental benefits of less air pollution. Yet I appreciate that, for those who live close to a railway line, the noise from trains can affect the quality of everyday life. We may become accustomed to trains rumbling in the background during the day, but train movements during the night can be especially disruptive. Moreover, freight trains tend to operate during night hours, when the lines are not in use by passenger trains.
  The statutory position is that householders affected by noise from new railway lines or where an existing railway is widened by laying additional track are entitled to noise compensation and amelioration measures. The same provision applies. However, there is no provision for compensation or abatement measures when use of a railway line intensifies.
  Train operators and Railtrack are subject to the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which are in enforced by district councils. Under section 79 of that Act, it is the duty of district councils upon an occasion to inspect their areas to detect any statutory nuisances, and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate any complaint made by a local resident.
  Section 80 of the 1990 Act provides for the serving of abatement notices where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur. Section 122 of the Railways Act 1993 provides the railway companies with some defence where they are working as a statutory authority, but it is not an open-ended defence. It would be up to the local authority to convince a court that the noise generated was greater than might be reasonably thought necessary in order for the companies to carry out their statutory functions.
  Having set out the policy and legal framework, I turn to some of the specifics of the case to which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has referred, which are particular to his constituency. I am advised that, in January 1998, for safety reasons, Brunner Mond had to replace the rail wagons that it was using to transport limestone from Buxton to Northwich. The company changed from four-axle to two-axle wagons. At the same time, the rail freight operator, English, Welsh and Scottish Railway, introduced a single class 60 locomotive in place of the two class 37 locomotives previously used on that service—thus reducing the locomotive weight by 85 tonnes.
  As the hon. Gentleman has said tonight, since those rolling stock changes, complaints regarding noise and vibration have increased. Those complaints centre on the

  455
  early morning full train and the apparent increase in noise from the two-axle wagons, which are more prone to vibration than the four-axle version. I understand that there have been discussions about the problems between Brunner Mond, EWS and Railtrack since early last year. The first solutions discussed were those of re-routing or re-timing the trains. However, the lack of an alternative route and the heavy use of the route by passenger services during daytime hours meant that those were not practicable solutions.
  I understand that another possible solution, to replace the wagons, is now the favoured option. New wagons are part of a wider strategy of investment in the Brunner Mond rail operation, which will also involve improvement of the loading and unloading facilities at either end of the route.
  The upgrading proposal is the subject of an application for freight facilities grant, which I know is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and which is currently being considered by officials in my Department's freight grant unit. I shall endeavour to keep both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend advised of progress.
  I understand that EWS and Railtrack have acted earnestly throughout: playing their part in assessing the size of the problem, engaging constructively in discussions about long-term solutions; and suggesting the short-term measures to improve the situation.
  I also understand that Railtrack, following discussion with local authorities along the route, engaged an independent contractor to undertake a vibration survey inside a residential property in Hale, another point referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The property was selected on the basis of it being 10m from a section of jointed track, near a crossover and level crossing, in an area where trains accelerate and decelerate.
  456
  Although the incidences of freight trains passing during the 24-hour test period were said by residents to be typical, they indicated that there had been previous instances of greater vibration from the worst trains. However, Railtrack and its consultants concluded that the measured vibration levels were so low that even the worst trains were unlikely to have given rise to cosmetic building damage, although vibration, even at this low level, would be perceptible to residents. The local authorities have also undertaken such vibration monitoring and their conclusions were in line with those of Railtrack.
  I understand that EWS has agreed to the placing of a four-axle wagon in the middle of the existing two-axle wagon formation to ascertain whether this might decrease the vibration between wagons and therefore reduce the noise and vibration overall. I am also advised that EWS has agreed to consider running a test service composed of wagons comparable to those which it is proposed to introduce next year. If the company proceeds with this service, vibration will be monitored along the route.
  In conclusion, perhaps I should refer to the final option for the Brunner Mond traffic: that is to transport the limestone by road. I have no doubt that we can all agree that such a move, which would add 72,000 lorry movements each year to the already congested roads of the area and cause considerable more air and noise pollution, would be entirely undesirable. I hope, instead, that Brunner Mond, EWS and Railtrack can between them bring about interim measures and long-term solutions to reduce the nuisance caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. I have little doubt that they will both continue to ensure that my Department addresses these issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Arms Ban (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on UK participation in the enforcement of the arms ban on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1160. [82294]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom fully supports the UN arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was imposed by UNSCR 1160. The embargo is implemented in the UK by means of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1998 and is rigorously enforced.

  In addition, the UK participates in international monitoring of the arms embargo through the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM).

  Al Shifa Factory
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his answer to the letter from Mr. Tim Pendry of 29 March concerning the Al Shifa factory. [81906]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: I have asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reply on my behalf. A copy of Mr. Fatchett's reply will be placed in the Library in due course.

  European Council (Accountability)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his(a) policy towards and (b) definition of full accountability and absolute transparency in the European Commission, as set out as future Commission policy by President-nominate Prodi; and what representations he has made on the subject. [82478]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government agree with Mr. Prodi that the European Commission should be made more accountable, more transparent and more efficient. Achieving this will require a fundamental overhaul of the commission's financial control systems, as well as reform of its personnel policies and its management structures.

  We have already shared specific reform ideas with partners. Heads of State and Government discussed plans for reform with Mr. Prodi on 14 April. They will continue their discussions on the basis of proposals put forward by Mr. Prodi at the Cologne European Council in June.

  Europe Day
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what activities are planned by(a) the Government and (b) the European Commission in the United Kingdom to mark Europe Day. [82476]
  138
  The Prime Minister
  On Europe Day, 9 May, the European flag will fly alongside the Union Jack from Government buildings and in Parliament Square.

  As on Europe Day every year, the European Commission Representation in the United Kingdom will be holding a reception.

  NATO
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement of 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 21–36, what are the elements of the new membership action plan for aspiring members of NATO. [82627]

  The Prime Minister
  The elements of the Membership Action Plan are set out in NATO Press Communique NAC-S(99)66, which was deposited in the Library of the House on 26 April.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 April. [82048]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Department Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81763]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Privy Council Office rarely, if ever, institutes legal proceedings, but is from time to time required to respond to proceedings initiated by third parties. In such cases the Department would be advised by the Treasury Solicitor's Department on the need to instruct counsel. However, there have been no recent instances (and none within the last three years) when it has been necessary to instruct counsel on behalf of my Department.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of when digital terrestrial television will reach(a) 70 per cent., (b) 80 per cent. and (c) 90 per cent. of the population. [82150]

  Janet Anderson
  Responsibility for the delivery of digital terrestrial television (DTT) services in the UK rests with the BBC and ITC. The Launch phase for DTT, which
  139
  comprises 81 transmitters, is expected to be rolled out by the year 2000. The table gives the existing and final predicted coverage for each multiplex.

  Percentage

  Multiplex

  Existing coverage

  Final predicted coverage

  BBC Multiplex

  75·6

  90

  Digital Channels 3 and 4

  75·5

  89

  SDN and Channel 5

  75·0

  88

  ONdigital (Mux B)

  74·2

  86

  ONdigital (Mux C)

  65·7

  77

  ONdigital (Mux D)

  62·2

  73

  Cable Television
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the land area of urban England is cabled. [82151]

  Janet Anderson
  I understand from the Independent Television Commission that over 53 per cent. of all homes in England now have cable available to them. This represents 57 per cent. of homes in urban England.

  Millennium Company (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total amount of cash receipts in sponsorship received by the Millennium Company up to 31 March[81744]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 21 April 1999, Official Report, columns 577–78.

  BBC (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to set targets for the BBC in relation to the employment of Black and Asian people. [82325]

  Janet Anderson
  We have no such plans. The BBC is required to comply with employment and equal opportunities law and to report annually, in its Annual Report and Accounts, on compliance with the legal requirements. The Annual Report also provides details of progress towards meeting the ethnic targets set by the BBC's Board of Governors and on the proportion of ethnic minorities in management.

  Chelsea Football Club
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what meetings the Minister for Sport has had since May 1997 with officials of Chelsea Football Club in his official capacity; and if he will list them. [81802]

  Mr. Banks
  As Minister for Sport, I have attended a number of events where Chelsea officials were present, and I have met officials from the club on the following occasions.140
  8 July 1997:
  Meeting with David Blunkett to discuss a Study Centre linked to the Premier League (also in attendance was the President of Brazil and the then Brazilian Sports Minister, Pele). Representatives from many of the Premiership Clubs were in attendance, including Ken Bates, Chairman of Chelsea Football Club.
  8 September 1997:
  Meeting with Steve Keen, Lee Deegan, Leslie Smith and Colin Moore to discuss Chelsea Disabled Football Club.

  I have very good relations with Mr. Bates and frequent discussions with him. In his role as an FA representative, he was involved in the discussions this Department had about the development of Wembley Stadium.

  As part of the FA's Campaign to secure the 2006 World Cup, I have met with a number of FIFA Executive Committee members in this country and have accompanied some of them to Chelsea Football Club to tour the ground and view the impressive facilities there and at Chelsea Village.

  World Cup
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with FIFA about the suitability of English stadiums for the World Cup 2006 bid. [81804]

  Mr. Banks
  None. FIFA has well-established criteria for World Cup host venues.

  As the hon. Member may be aware, the Football Association is required to nominate between eight and 12 stadiums as host venues in the bid document, which it will be submitting to FIFA in July. These stadiums will be subject to inspection by a FIFA Inspection Committee at the end of this year.

  I understand that, following a detailed survey of potential venues, the Football Association has identified 15 stadiums which fulfil the FIFA criteria for World Cup venues and a further five that have the potential to be redeveloped in the run-up to the staging of the 2006 World Cup to meet the criteria.

  The FA are, therefore, well placed to meet FIFA's stadium requirements. This bears testimony to the £3565 million which football clubs in this country have spent on the redevelopment of their grounds over the past ten years, helped by £160 million from the Football Trust as a result of the reduction in Pool Betting Duty concession.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Herbicide-resistant Crops
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effects of the introduction of herbicide-resistant crops on vulnerable species of birds. [80792]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am aware that many species of farmland bird are in decline in Britain and so I take very seriously the potential effect that the introduction of herbicide-resistant crops might have on these vulnerable species.
  141
  The Government have undertaken to fund a four year research programme into the effect of the management of genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops on farmland wildlife as announced in my answer on 15 April 1999, Official Report, columns 301–02. These farm-scale evaluations will begin in spring 1999 and will consider spring and winter-sown oil seed rape and maize. The research programme will concentrate on monitoring the diversity and abundance of plants and invertebrates in GM herbicide-resistant crops compared with conventionally managed non-GM equivalents. It is not planned that birds will be included in the monitoring programme. However, existing research has been able to demonstrate connections between some bird populations and, for example, weed and insect abundance in crops. In this way, the results of the plant and invertebrate monitoring will be used to predict whether an adverse affect on bird populations is likely to occur.

  Charities (Postal Costs)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will pay the postal costs of voluntary bodies and registered charities requested to respond to Government consultation documents; and if he will make a statement. [80920]

  Mr. Meale
  Numerous responses have been received to my Department's consultation documents and we are grateful to the many organisations and individuals who have taken the time to let us have their views. My Department has no plans to pay postal costs incurred by organisations that responded.

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81770]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions predominately uses junior counsel when it is necessary to instruct counsel to provide legal advice, as does the Treasury Solicitor when instructing counsel in court' proceedings involving the Department.

  The two First Treasury Counsel are both junior counsel and they will advise and represent the government without a Queen's Counsel in many of its important civil cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains four panels of junior Counsel whom departments are expected to use for the majority of the government's civil litigation. The approval of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General is required before a Queen's Counsel can be instructed to appear for any government department in civil litigation.

  In determining the level of counsel to use (whether in connection with civil or criminal proceedings, or the provision of legal advice), the department will consider the individual circumstances of each case. It will take into account, amongst other things, the importance and sensitivity of the case, the complexity of the law, the
  142
  weight and complexity of the evidence, and the degree of experience and expertise required before deciding whether to instruct Queen's Counsel or junior counsel.

  The information as to cost is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  M4 (A38 Bridge)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the quality of repairs undertaken by the Highways Agency to the A38 Bridge over the M4 at Almondsbury in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [81956]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The repairs carried out in 1998 to the A38 bridge over the M4 at Almondsbury included road resurfacing and strengthening works necessary to ensure that the structure remained safe for future use.

  The Highways Agency was not satisfied with the surfacing laid by the contractor and negotiations have led to that surface being replaced at no expense to the taxpayer. The repair work began on 19 April and subject to weather conditions should be completed within 2 weeks.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of the RAC to discuss congestion charging. [82255]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers from the Department meet representatives of the Royal Automobile Club from time to time to discuss matters arising out of the Integrated Transport White Paper. The last such meeting, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, was on 19 January 1999.

  Road Stress Maps
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Highways Agency has to update the existing motorway and trunk road stress map. [82258]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency intends to publish in its 1998–99 Annual Report a map derived from Trafficmaster data showing congested sections of its network.

  New stress maps for the motorway and trunk road network based upon a calculation of traffic flow and capacity will be published when the data for 1998 are available later this year.

  A13
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring of air quality has been conducted, and what were the results thereof, in relation to the A13 and abutting residential areas, from the vicinity of Dagenham Dock to Central London; and if he will make a statement. [82034]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: Local air quality studies of the existing levels of pollutants were undertaken by the Highways Agency in 1992 and in

  143
  1998 in order to assess the potential effect of the proposed junction improvement schemes for this section of the A13. The most recent monitoring data were gathered in the vicinity of the A13/A112 Prince Regent Lane junction for the period January to May 1998. The pollutants monitored were Carbon Monoxide, PM10, Nitrogen Dioxide, Benzene and 1–3 Butadiene.

  When compared with National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) objectives, to be achieved in 2005, the monitoring data indicate that the objective for PM10 (50 microgrammes per cubic metre as a running 24 hour mean) is currently exceeded. However, as a non-standard measuring method was used, the scale of this likely exceedence cannot be certain. The 99 percentile of a running 24 hour mean over the monitoring period was 113 microgrammes per cubic metre at the roadside. Mean Nitrogen Dioxide measurements exceeded the value of the NAQS annual mean objective (21 ppb) and were made using the standard method. The mean roadside concentration was 38 ppb. It is therefore possible that the 2005 objective is currently exceeded but a longer period of monitoring would be needed to confirm this. Monitoring of the other pollutants indicated current levels below the 2005 objectives.

  Local authorities are currently monitoring air quality more generally in their areas as part of the local air quality management process, with the aim of achieving the objectives of the NAQS by the year 2005. Where a local authority's review and assessment of local air quality indicates that air quality objectives are not likely to be met, then local authorities must declare Air Quality Management Areas. For each Air Quality Management Area, the local authority must draw up an action plan, setting out measures through which the objectives may be achieved.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what information he has obtained about the speed of traffic movements, congestion and impediments to mobility at peak times on the A13 from the vicinity of Dagenham Dock to Central London; and if he will make a statement; [82033]

  (2) if he will convene a meeting of representatives of the Highways Agency, the London boroughs and the Traffic Section of the Metropolitan Police to examine what interim measures could be introduced to minimise traffic congestion and to maximise mobility in the westbound section of the A13 from the vicinity of Dagenham Dock to Central London; and if he will make a statement; [82031]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the frequency and scale of congestion on the westbound A 13 section from the vicinity of Dagenham Dock to Central London; and if he will make a statement. [82032]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: As these questions relate to operational matters, I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.
  144
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Mackinley, dated April 1999:
  Thank you for the Parliamentary Questions that you have tabled on the subjects of congestion, traffic speeds, and mobility on the A13 from Dagenham Dock to Central London. As these are operational matters they have been passed to the Highways Agency for me to reply.
  Traffic congestion on the A13, particularly during peak periods, is undoubtedly a problem. The Highways Agency employs a number of methods to monitor congestion on trunk roads such as the A13. These include the formulation of traffic stress maps (Narnas) which were reproduced in the Roads Review report "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". A copy of this document has been placed in the House of Commons library and I enclose copies of the London maps for your information. We are developing various ways of monitoring congestion from day to day including analysing data from traffic loops installed in the road and data supplied by Trafficmaster. However, none of these newer systems is yet in operation on the A13.
  Traffic speed on the A13 is also an issue. Traffic speeds are monitored by DETR in a programme of speed surveys. Surveys of traffic speeds on the A13 were last carried out in 1995 and 1998. Although the 1998 survey results have not yet been published, provisional indications are that there has been a substantial fall in average speeds during peak times on the A13 between these two dates. This suggests that journey times are getting worse and congestion is increasing on the A13.
  We hold regular meetings with representatives of the relevant London Boroughs to discuss the operation, maintenance and management of the A13 with the aim of making the best use of the available road space, to minimise congestion and maximise mobility. This is achieved by implementing a number of policies including ensuring that maintenance is carried out at off-peak times, undertaking small improvement schemes at junctions and optimising traffic signal timings. Acting as our maintaining agents the Boroughs also regularly meet officers from the Metropolitan Police to discuss these issues.
  Demand for road space on the A13 does exceed capacity, particularly at peak times. We have nearly completed the construction of a major new route for the A13 extending from Dagenham Dock out to the M25 which will be fully open to traffic later this year. In addition tenders are being assessed for the A13 Thames Gateway Design, Build, Finance, and Operate (DBFO) project as part of the Government's roads programme. This project includes major junction reconstruction schemes at Movers Lane, the A117 near Beckton Alps and Ironbridge to Canning Town, which have been designed to ease congestion and reduce accidents on the A 13 between Dagenham Dock and Central London. Subject to a satisfactory tender being accepted they are likely to be completed within five years of the letting of the DBFO contract, due to incentives provided to the DBFO company to programme the schemes early in their contract.
  I hope that I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

  Landing Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on bilateral discussions on landing rights between India and the UK; [82285]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning landing rights for British airlines in India. [82284]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Representations have been received from UK scheduled and charter airlines and passengers concerning the restrictive nature of the air services arrangements between the United Kingdom and India. British Airways wishes to operate additional services to India and Virgin Atlantic also wishes to enter the UK-India market but neither can do so because there is insufficient capacity under the UK/India air services
  145
  arrangements. In addition, we have received reports that there has been overbooking on UK-India services and a significant number of passengers are having to travel by indirect routes.

  We have been seeking to liberalise the arrangements. The last round of bilateral discussions took place in December 1996. Talks scheduled for September 1997 were postponed at the request of the Indian authorities. Despite repeated representations from the UK Government, no dates have been agreed for the next round of bilateral discussions.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Region if he will list the sites of special scientific interest that have been subject to inappropriate development since May 1997. [82495]

  Mr. Meale
  The English Nature Annual Report includes lists of all SSSIs damaged by development. Copies are available in the Library of the House covering the period up to 31 March 1998. Full information for the last financial year is not yet available.

  Not all development on a site should be classed as inappropriate. English Nature will provide advice to local authorities on moving harmful development away from sensitive locations or imposing conditions on planning applications to remove or reduce adverse effects on SSSIs, in order to safeguard the special interest.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to local authorities on their powers in relation to the holding of major sports events in areas of special scientific interest. [82354]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Once a Site of Special Scientific Interest is notified, the land manager must consult English Nature on any activity likely to damage the features of special interest. For those activities requiring planning permission, guidance is provided for local planning authorities in Planning Policy Guidance Note 9, in relation to SSSIs and to other locally important wildlife sites.

  Great Western Trains
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many passengers travelled on the lines currently run by Great Western Trains in each of the last 10 years. [82499]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The figures for passenger miles and passenger journeys for each of the last five years are shown in the table. Figures for the five years before that are not available.

  million

  Year

  Passenger miles

  Passenger journeys

  1993–94

  1,218

  14

  1994–95

  1,139

  14

  1995–96

  1,211·4

  14·4

  1996–97

  1,270

  15

  1997–98

  1,383·1

  16·4

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many trains operated by Great Western Trains were cancelled in each 146
  of the last two years; and if he will estimate the number of passengers affected by these cancellations. [82493]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Figures in the Franchising Director's Quarterly Bulletin (December 1998)—copies in the House Library—show that for the year ending December 1997 0·6 per cent. of trains were cancelled by Great Western Trains and that for the year ending December 1998 the figure was 1 per cent. It is not possible to estimate the number of passengers affected by these cancellations as these are walk-on services.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the timetable for the Government's negotiations with Great Western Trains for the extension, or termination, of their franchise. [82497]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Great Western Trains Limited franchise agreement is for a period of 10 years from 4 February 1996. We made it clear at the Rail Summit in February that we are prepared to renegotiate existing franchises if operators come forward with proposals which offer substantial benefits for passengers and value for money for the taxpayer. There is no timetable for this either generally or in respect of Great Western Trains specifically.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff were employed on the lines currently operated by Great Western Trains in each of the last 10 years. [82494]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not available. Under the present franchise agreements, Train Operating Companies' (TOCs) performance is measured on prescribed outputs such as service levels. Inputs such as numbers of staff employed are matters for the TOCs.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of trains operated by Great Western Trains have been more than five minutes late in each of the last two years; and what was the average total delay on those trains. [82496]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Franchising Director was requested to base his assessment of lateness on those applied under British Rail immediately before privatisation. For InterCity trains, such as those operated by Great Western Trains, the definition of lateness was a train that arrived at its destination more than 9 minutes and 59 seconds late.

  The figures in the latest issue of the Franchising Director's Quarterly Bulletin (December 1998)—copies in the House Library—show that the proportion of trains recorded as late (against the above definition) for the year ending December 1997 was 13·3 per cent. and for the year ending December 1998 was 15·5 per cent. Figures for average total delay are not recorded.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the rates of investment in the infrastructure, rolling stock and passenger services on the lines currently run by Great Western Trains in each of the last 10 years and (b) the planned investment for each of the next 10 years. [82498]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available.

  Motor Events
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to require environmental impact assessments to be undertaken before motorised sporting events and rallies may take place in the countryside. [82353]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no provisions in the regulations implementing Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment to carry out an assessment of these events and rallies, and there are no plans to introduce such regulations.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the report leaked from his Department on the impact of genetically modified crops on wildlife and the environment; and if he will make a statement. [72759]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: The discussion paper "The Commercial use of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom: the Potential Wider Impact on Farmland Wildlife" prepared by the Secretariat for the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) was published on 18 February 1999. The paper may be found on ACRE' s website (www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/wildlife/index.htm) or in ACRE' s latest Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The leaked report was an early draft of the one published. This early draft had served as a basis for a meeting I chaired in June last year to advise me on the possible wider indirect effects of the use of GM crops on wildlife. I invited a number of experts, including English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the chairman of ACRE, to inform me of the issues to enable us to get an initiative started to address concerns about wider impacts on biodiversity from the use of genetically modified crops.

  My officials then developed the paper with ACRE. The key conclusion of the paper is that there have been serious declines in farmland wildlife, and we need to ensure that the widespread introduction of GM crops does not prejudice Government objectives to halt and where possible reverse these wildlife declines. To this end, it is important to have the capability to identify whether and how GM crops are likely to change agricultural practices which could result in indirect, delayed and long term adverse effects on farmland wildlife. I have already taken steps to address this.

  Before this paper was published, I requested that the remit of ACRE be extended to consider the potential wider implications of the use of GMOs, especially when the committee is requested to give advice on applications to place GM crops on the market. ACRE has set up a Sub-group on Wider Biodiversity Issues to consider the issues raised the paper in more detail. The first meeting of this Sub-group was held on 15 March. The farm-scale evaluations into the ecological effects of genetically modified crops being set up by my Department, MAFF and Scottish Office will also assist in providing baseline
  148
  data on farmland wildlife in order to underpin the consideration of wider biodiversity issues on a more detailed level.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovar Refugees
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information she has obtained regarding the numbers of refugees from Kosovo who are to be offered protection in other EU countries. [81996]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The latest figures we have received from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on offers of temporary protection by other EU countries are as follows:

  Austria: up to 5,000

  Belgium: up to 1,200

  Denmark: initially 1,500

  Finland: 1,000

  France: no figure stated (so far over 770 accepted)

  Germany: 10,000 Greece: 5,000

  Ireland: initially 1,000

  Netherlands: 2,000

  Portugal: 1,500

  Spain: some thousands

  Sweden: 5,600.

TREASURY

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish estimates of the total amounts of(a) income tax, (b) VAT, (c) national insurance contributions, (d) other indirect taxes and (e) local taxes currently paid by typical families at varying multiples of average earnings in the format used on 3 December 1981, Official Report, column 188; and if he will make a statement. [78055]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 16 April 1999, Official Report, columns 387–90.

  Tax Avoidance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) annual tax loss as a result of tax avoidance in the area of personnel services covered by IR 35 and (b) the value in 1998 of Government contracts with IT and other companies providing personnel services which will be affected by IR 35. [81329]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is always difficult to measure the extent of tax and national insurance contributions (NICs) avoidance. The measures covered by IR 35 are forecast to raise £475 million in 2000–01 and £375 million in 2001–02.
  149
  No information is collected from contractors which allows an assessment to be made of the number or value of Government contracts awarded to companies involved in tax and NICs avoidance.

  Finance Acts (Human Rights)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to review the compatibility of the provisions of the Finance Acts passed since May 1997 with the Human Rights Act 1998. [81701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In line with other Government Departments, the Chancellor's Departments are reviewing their legislation and procedures in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the powers under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 of permanent health insurance companies to deduct state benefits from payments to claimants. [82168]

  Ms Hewitt
  No. It is for insurers to decide on what terms to offer insurance policies to customers.

  Marginal Income Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people with a marginal income tax rate on their earnings and pension income of 10 per cent. who also have savings income. [82192]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: In 1999–2000 there are estimated to be around 1·4 million taxpayers with a marginal rate of 10 per cent. on their earnings and pension income and some taxable savings income.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pattern of military low flying activity in the United Kingdom during 1998. [82470]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK Low Flying System during 1998 was some 16 per cent less than for 1997. This reduction was due, in part, to the number of aircraft and aircrew deployed on activities overseas. The distribution of low flying training across the UK has not changed significantly. I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper giving a detailed account of low flying training in the UK Low Flying System for 1998. Further copies can be obtained from the following address:

  Secretariat (Air Staff) 2

  Ministry of Defence

  Room 8247

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London SW IA 2HB.

  Service Personnel (Suspensions)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel in(a) the Army, (b) the RAF and (c) the Royal Navy have been suspended from duty due to allegations as to their conduct for (i) up to three months, (ii) up to six months, (iii) up to nine months, (iv) up to 12 months, (v) up to 15 months and (vi) over 15 months at the latest date for which figures are available. [69384]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Services do not, at present, collate statistics which relate to suspensions as a result of unproven allegations. This information is held on personal records and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but will in future be recorded centrally.

  The position on suspensions in each Service is as follows:
  Naval Service
  The Royal Navy and Royal Marines do not use suspension from duty when personnel are subject to investigations of alleged misconduct. If appropriate, Officers are re-appointed and Ratings are drafted to another job.
  Army
  Army officers may be suspended from duty due to allegations of misconduct in accordance with Queen's Regulations (Army) 6·015. There is no similar mechanism for suspending soldiers from duty. In such circumstances, soldiers are dealt with by their chain of command and should there be a pressing Service need administrative action may be taken to move them to another unit while investigations take place.
  RAF
  The RAF may suspend officers from duty due to misconduct in accordance with Queen's Regulations (RAF) 1009. There is no formal system in place by which an airman or woman can be suspended. It is extremely rare for an officer to be suspended, or for an airman or airwoman to be removed from all Air Force duties. In such cases, it is likely that the individual would be taken from specific duties and employed on other duties until the allegation of misconduct had been resolved. If an individual is facing charges of such severity that their continued presence on a unit would prejudice good order and discipline, or where welfare considerations dictate, an individual may be moved to another unit.

  Military Training
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries from which military officers(a) have visited the United Kingdom and (b) have been visited by United Kingdom military personnel to receive training or other military assistance under the Defence Military Assistance Fund since 1 April 1997. [81379]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  (a) The countries from which military officers have visited the United Kingdom to receive training or other military assistance under the Defence Military Assistance Fund (DMAF) since 1 April 1997 are:

  Albania

  Argentina

  Austria

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Belize

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  Brazil

  151

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Chile

  Czech Republic

  Egypt

  Estonia

  Ethiopia

  Finland

  Georgia

  Greece

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  Macedonia

  Malaysia

  Morocco

  Moldova

  Nepal

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Republic of Ireland

  Romania

  Russia

  Saudi Arabia

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  South Africa

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sweden

  Thailand

  Turkey

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Yemen.

  (b) The countries which have been visited by United Kingdom military personnel to receive training or other military assistance under the Defence Military Assistance Fund (DMAF) since 1 April 1997 are:

  Albania

  Argentina

  Austria

  Australia

  Bahrain

  152

  Bangladesh

  Belize

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Chile

  China

  Czech Republic

  Estonia

  Finland

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Greece

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Korea

  Kuwait

  Malaysia

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  Macedonia

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Poland

  Qatar

  Republic of Ireland

  Romania

  Russia

  Saudi Arabia

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  South Africa

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Turkey

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  USA

  Venezuela

  Zimbabwe.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel have assisted United States military personnel in providing military training to, or in conducting joint training exercises with, members of the Colombian(a) armed forces and (b) police in (i) the United States and (ii) Colombia in each of the last eight years. [81374]
  153
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have no records of British military personnel having assisted US military personnel with the provision of military training to, or the conduct of joint training exercises with, the Colombian armed forces or police during the last eight years.

  Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the pay and conditions of service of service men and women serving in Macedonia are comparable with those service men and women of other NATO countries. [82228]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The pay and conditions of service of personnel serving in the armed forces of NATO are governed by the needs and circumstances of individual member states and reflect the composition and role of their armed services. In the case of the UK, the pay and conditions of service package, which is recommended by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, reflects the fully professional status of our armed forces and their expectation of unlimited liability for world-wide deployment throughout a career.

  Basic pay includes a component known as the X Factor, currently 12 per cent. for regulars, which recognises, among other things, the need to serve sometimes in difficult and dangerous situations. Unlike special operational allowances which may be paid to other countries' armed forces when on deployment, the X Factor is paid through a whole UK Service career and is pensionable. Other career benefits include, subsidised food and accommodation, assisted house purchase schemes and—while away on

  1 Para

  2 Para

  3 Para

  Estb

  Str

  Estb

  Str

  Estb

  Str

  Infantry:

  576

  —

  574

  —

  550

  —

  Parachute Regiment

  —

  457

  —

  536

  —

  443

  Gurkha Reinforcement Company1

  —

  —

  —

  106

  —

  —

  Other Infantry Cap Badges2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  3

  Royal Armoured Corpse2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Royal Logistics Corps

  23

  19

  23

  26

  23

  22

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  2

  5

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  14

  13

  14

  14

  11

  23

  Adjutant General's Corps (Staff and Personnel Support)

  21

  23

  21

  22

  21

  23

  Army Physical Training Corps

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  637

  520

  635

  710

  608

  518

  1The strength figures for 2 Para include 106 Gurkhas in the Gurkha Reinforcement Company: these Officers and Soldiers are not counted in United Kingdom Trained Army Personnel figures

  2Officers and Other Ranks on attachment to Parachute Regiment

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date are 10 and 4 (TA) parachute battalions are due to be merged and reduced; what was their old manpower establishment; and what is their planned amalgamated manpower establishment. [82346]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: The TA parachute battalions, 4 Para (V) and 10 Para (V), are to be merged and reduced in size with effect from 1 July 1999. 4 Para (V) was established for 531 all ranks and 10 Para (V) was established for 530 all ranks. After 1 July 1999 the new battalion, to be called 4 Para (V), will be established for 324 all ranks.
  154
  operations—a special allowance to compensate for longer periods of separation known as Longer Separated Service Allowance which is payable after three years' total service. In addition, special arrangements have been made to provide our Service men and women with a wide range of supportive and welfare measures while they are deployed to the Balkans. These include the availability of 10 minutes of free telephone calls per week, return flights for rest and recreation in UK for those deployed in excess of 4 months and some free mail facilities.

  Overall, it is difficult and misleading to attempt to draw precise comparisons between the different nations' armed forces serving in Macedonia based on a single aspect such as pay. A full comparison of terms and conditions of service, or the spectrum of welfare provision and facilities, is necessary.

  Parachute Battalions
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) manpower establishments and (b) actual manning levels for each of the three regular parachute battalions. [82344]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: The establishments and actual staffing levels for each of the three regular parachute battalions, as at 1 March 1999, are shown in the table. The figures are for UK Trained Army Personnel only, and exclude Locally Employed personnel, Royal Irish (Home Service) personnel, Reservists mobilised for duties associated with Bosnia, Full Time Reserve Service personnel, and Gurkhas (excepting the Gurkha Reinforcement Company presently attached to 2 Para).

  Dunkirk Anniversary
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Dunkirk and to mark the final pilgrimage of the Dunkirk Veterans Association. [75912]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I understand that the Dunkirk Veterans Association is planning to hold its final pilgrimage to Dunkirk in June 2000, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk.

  Armed Forces (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown by ethnic origin and grade of members of the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force. [79051]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will publish the figures for the end of the year 1998–99 shortly.

  Non-statutory Liabilities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the basis on which some non-statutory liabilities are described as unquantifiable at page 23 of his Department's expenditure plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Cm 4208. [81576]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Because of the nature of the liabilities involved, it is not always possible to quantify accurately the potential contingent liability or to provide a realistic estimate of the likely charge that would result if the liabilities were to mature. In these cases, the term "unquantifiable" is used to describe the liabilities in question. If the indemnities were to be called upon, provision for any payment would be sought through the Supply procedure.

  Small Arms Trainer Systems
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many small arms trainer ranges were available for armed forces use in 1997; and how many are currently available. [81777]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As at 31 December 1997, there were 158 small arms trainer (SAT) systems available to the Armed Forces. Since then, three further systems have been procured, two of which are now fully operational.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) condition, (b) availability and (c) future use of the small arms trainer range at Chelsea Barracks. [81778]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The small arms trainer at Chelsea Barracks has been moved to Cavalry Barracks, Hounslow. Units that previously used the small arms trainer at Chelsea Barracks are now able to use the alternative facility at Wellington Barracks.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on the Falkland Island garrison of the withdrawal of diversion rights for RAF Tristars by Uruguay and Brazil; and if he will make a statement. [81868]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There has been no withdrawal of diversion rights for RAF aircraft by Uruguay or Brazil.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's time scale in the delivery of a 20mm calibre gun to the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department for the arming of a fishery protection vessel. [82059]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following Government approval in January 1999 to procure a 20mm Oerlikon cannon, a formal order was received from the Falkland Islands Government on 2 February. Considerable work 156
  was subsequently necessary to clarify the requirements for spares, fittings and ammunition, and the order for this support material was not received until 15 April. The cannon and associated support stores have now been prepared for dispatch and, on current plans, will be sent out at the next practical opportunity in early May.

  RAF Pensions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the provision of RAF pensions to surviving spouses of service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [82042]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: Surviving spouses of members of the RAF, like those of other Service personnel, are generally entitled to receive a widow's pension. There are two exceptions: pensions are not paid to widows or widowers who married their partner before 1978 but after their partner had left the armed forces; and pensions are withdrawn from widows and widowers who remarry (although they may be restored if their second spouse subsequently dies). From time to time we receive representations to extend entitlements to these groups, and we shall examine them again as part of the current review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme.

  Air Brigades
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date 16 Air Assault Brigade will become operationally effective. [82342]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: 24 Airmobile Brigade is due to be re-named 16 Air Assault Brigade on 1 September 1999 when it will take over command of the very high readiness Airborne Battle Group from 5 Airborne Brigade. 16 Air Assault Brigade will remain operationally effective in the Airmobile role and the Airborne Battle Group will continue to be operationally effective throughout. 16 Air Assault Brigade will not be fully operationally effective in the Air Assault role until the new Westland Attack Helicopter is brought into service. The Brigade's Attack Helicopter Regiments should all be operationally effective by mid-2004.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date 5 Airborne Brigade Headquarters will cease to be an airborne headquarters. [82341]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: It is currently planned that 5 Airborne Brigade Headquarters will cease to be an airborne headquarters on 1 September 1999 and it will be re-named Headquarters 12 Mechanised Brigade and start training in this new role.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Paralogistic Battalion is due to disband; and what logistic unit will replace it. [82343]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: 5 Airborne Brigade's Paralogistic Battalion is due to disband on 1 September 1999. Some parachute trained personnel will transfer on this date to 16 Air Assault Brigade's Logistic Regiment and Field Workshop to support 16 Air Assault Brigade's very high readiness Airborne Battle Group. The remainder will form the nucleus of the new 12 Mechanised Brigade's Logistic Squadrons and Equipment Support Companies.

  Armed Forces (Balkans)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the units of the armed forces deployed to the South-East Balkans are under strength; and by what means it is intended to bring these units up to full strength. [82049]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None of the units of the armed forces deployed to the South-East Balkans is under strength.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to draw on Territorial Army units to make up shortfalls in manning levels of the armed forces in the South-East Balkans. [82050]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are currently no plans to deploy formed Territorial Army (TA) units to the Balkans. Individual members of the TA are already serving in the Balkans with regular units on a volunteer basis, and this will continue for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units of the armed services have been deployed to the South-East Balkans. [82074]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 10–11.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Indonesian military officers are currently training in the UK. [82464]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are currently eight Indonesian military personnel attending training courses in the UK.

  List of health authority and national health service trust appointments which expired in 1998 and for which no appointment had been made by 1 April 1999

  Region

  Body

  Number of Chairs

  Number of Non-Executives

  Eastern

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  North West

  Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  1

  0

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Manchester Health Authority

  0

  1

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority

  0

  1

  London

  BHB Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Croydon Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Trent

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Grantham and District Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  South East

  East Surrey Health Authority

  0

  2

  South West

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull (Teaching) Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Walsall Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Total

  1

  17

  Hercules Fleet
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) proportion and (b) number of the Hercules fleet is currently airworthy. [82348]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: The Royal Air Force operates a fleet of fifty-five Hercules aircraft. Currently, all aircraft in the fleet are airworthy.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he received concerning the efficacy of air strikes alone in achieving the objectives of the United Kingdom and its NATO allies in Serbia and Kosovo. [82165]

  Mr. George Robertson
  NATO's military objectives, in support of the political aims of the international community, are to disrupt Milosevic's repressive operations and weaken his forces. A phased air campaign was chosen, on the basis of full and comprehensive military advice, as the best way of achieving those objectives.

HEALTH

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trust and health authority appointments which were not made by the due date and which remained outstanding on 1 April. [81391]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 April 1999]: All health authority appointments due on 1 April 1999 were completed on time. A small number of appointments (18) to National Health Service trusts and health authorities which expired in 1998 remain vacant. These vacancies are listed in the table.

  Eastbourne District General Hospital
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate an urgent inquiry into the levels of nursing staff at the Eastbourne District General Hospital and their effect on standards of patient care; and if he will make a statement. [81657]

  Mr. Hutton
  The East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority has a duty to ensure that the quality of care for those living in Eastbourne is satisfactory. The health authority and Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust are conducting a joint analysis of current needs regarding nursing staff levels at the hospital, and expect to conclude this work by June for consideration by the local Primary Care Group.

  We have also asked officials of the National Health Service Executive to discuss nursing levels at the trust with the Chief Executive and Director of Nursing of the NHS trust.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cash increase represented by the expenditure of an additional 3 per cent. of GDP on the NHS in 1999–2000. [81985]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available data on the Gross Domestic Product in cash terms are for the year 1997–98 and the amount is £811,849 million. Three per cent. of this is £24,355 million. Planned total expenditure for the National Health Service in England in 1999–2000 is £39,703 million.

  Investing in Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority the numbers of successful applications under the Investing in Dentistry initiative. [82186]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of investing in dentistry applications which have been approved up to 26 April 1999 are shown by health authority in the table.

  Investing in dentistry requests approved by health authority as at 26 April 1999

  Health authority

  Number of applications approved

  Avon

  5

  Barnsley

  4

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Berkshire

  6

  Birmingham

  1

  Bradford

  1

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  4

  Camden and Islington

  1

  City and East London

  5

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  10

  County Durham

  3

  Doncaster

  2

  Dorset

  3

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  6

  East Kent

  3

  East Lancashire

  3

  East Norfolk

  3

  East Riding

  6

  Gloucestershire

  11

  Herefordshire

  2

  160

  Investing in dentistry requests approved by health authority as at 26 April 1999

  Health authority

  Number of applications approved

  Isle of Wight

  3

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  4

  Leicestershire

  2

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Liverpool

  2

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  2

  Morecambe Bay

  7

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  2

  Northamptonshire

  4

  North Cheshire

  1

  North Cumbria

  6

  North Derbyshire

  1

  North and East Devon

  8

  North Essex

  2

  North and Mid Hampshire

  7

  North Staffordshire

  8

  North West Lancashire

  5

  North Yorkshire

  8

  North West Anglia

  2

  Nottingham

  2

  Oxfordshire

  6

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  8

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  4

  Rotherham

  6

  Salford and Trafford

  2

  Sefton

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3

  Shropshire

  8

  Somerset

  6

  Southern Derbyshire

  1

  South Cheshire

  10

  South Essex

  1

  South Humber

  2

  South Lancashire

  2

  South Staffordshire

  2

  South West Devon

  8

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  12

  Suffolk

  6

  Tees

  1

  West Hertfordshire

  1

  West Kent

  3

  West Surrey

  5

  West Sussex

  5

  Wigan and Bolton

  1

  Wiltshire

  14

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Worcestershire

  3

  Insulin Pen Needles
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on Government proposals on pen needles and insulin injection pens; and if he will make a statement. [82012]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received representations from most of the organisations consulted. We are considering them, and are seeking clarification on certain points before we make our final decisions.

  Operating Department Practitioners
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice his Department has given to NHS trusts on the procedures they should adopt for checking the qualifications of those who apply for posts as operating department practitioners; [82078]
  161
  (2) how many cases of misconduct by operating department practitioners have been reported to his Department in each of the past five years; [82080]

  (3) what research his Department has undertaken into the ability of operating department practitioners to provide care in areas other than the operating theatre, with particular reference to (a) accident and emergency, (b) cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and (c) intensive care units; [82075]

  (4) what advice his Department has given to NHS trusts on whom they should notify if an operating department practitioner is dismissed for misconduct or incapability. [82079]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not undertaken any research on the ability of operating department practitioners to provide care in other areas. Guidance has been issued on good recruitment practice which applies to all National Health Service staff. All NHS employers have a "duty of care" to ensure that all their employees are qualified and competent to perform the duties for which they are employed. This duty includes ensuring that high standards of patient care are maintained at all times.

  Responsibility for dealing with issues of misconduct and incapability are a matter for NHS trusts. The Department does not collect information on the numbers of cases of misconduct by operating department practitioners.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the establishment of a statutory regulation scheme for operating department practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [82076]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 1 May 1997, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received eight representations about regulation of operating department practitioners.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of operating department practitioners in the NHS who work in areas other than operating theatres. [82077]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. Planning the number of operating department practitioners is a matter for local employers to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders convicted of(a) sexual offences and (b) violent offences have been released on home detention curfew on or since 28 January. [81947]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No prisoner has been placed on home detention curfew who has been convicted of an offence to which part I of the Sexual Offenders Act 1997 applies. One offender has been placed on home detention curfew whose current sentence is for bigamy but this is not an offence to which part I of the Sexual Offences Act 1997 applies.
  162
  Of the 3,730 offenders who have been placed on home detention curfew up to Monday 19 April, 617 offenders have a current conviction for an offence of violence.

  Only prisoners serving less than four years are eligible for consideration for home detention curfew. All eligible prisoners must pass a risk assessment before they can be placed on home detention curfew. Prisoners who either pose a risk to the public or a risk of re-offending during the home detention curfew period, or are unlikely to comply with terms of curfew, will not be granted home detention curfew.

  Racial Assaults
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially-motivated assaults have been recorded in each of the last three years at(a) Tooting and (b) Wandsworth police stations. [81890]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that Wandsworth and Tooting police stations are part of Wandsworth Division and it is not possible to break down the figures below divisional level. He has provided the following information:

  Financial year

  Racial assaults

  1997–98

  30

  1998–99

  66

  It is not possible to provide figures for the financial year 1996–97 as the Metropolitan police's system did not then separate racial assaults from all other assaults.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of incitement to racial hatred were(a) reported, (b) investigated and (c) the subject of arrest, in (i) Tooting and (ii) Wandsworth police stations in the last three years. [81888]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that Wandsworth and Tooting police stations are part of Wandsworth Division and it is not possible to break down the figures below divisional level. He has provided the following information for incidents reported under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 in Wandsworth Division:

  Financial year

  Reported

  Investigated

  Arrested

  1996–97

  1

  1

  1

  1997–98

  4

  4

  0

  1998–99

  2

  2

  0

  Refugees (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has given to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of the number of refugees from Kosovo who will be offered protection in the United Kingdom. [81998]

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from the Kosovan conflict the Government have agreed to accept into the United Kingdom. [82226]
  163
  Mr. Straw
  I refer to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 6–9, to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to his European Union counterparts to coordinate the emergency admission of refugees from the Kosovo conflict. [82225]

  Kate Hoey
  An emergency meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council was held on 7 April. The Council agreed that the first priority was to seek to protect refugees in the region. It was also agreed that the emergency relocation of refugees from the region should be co-ordinated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he has made to accept refugees from the conflict in former Yugoslavia to the United Kingdom. [82224]

  Mr. Straw
  We have always made it clear that the United Kingdom stands ready to receive some thousands of refugees from that region on criteria agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) who gives priority to relieving pressure on the camps by giving priority to the most vulnerable and those with family links in the United Kingdom.

  Under these arrangements, the first arrivals—161 refugees, mainly women and children—came to the United Kingdom on Sunday and are being looked after in Leeds. Reception centres are being staffed by the Refugee Council which is taking the lead in establishing a special reception service for Kosovan refugees arriving in the United Kingdom.

  On arrival, the refugees were given a basic health check to determine if anyone needed immediate medical attention; none of the refugees needed immediate hospital treatment. At the reception centres, each refugee will be given a more thorough health check and be assigned a General Practitioner; children of school age will be assigned to a local school and refugees will be put in touch with any known relatives or friends.

  People arriving under the UNHCR programme will be granted permission to enter in line with close family members already settled in the United Kingdom or 12 months' exceptional leave to enter to provide for their protection as requested by UNHCR. They will have

  Payment reductions to private contractors managing prisons

  Prison

  Date

  Amount(£)

  Reason

  Altcourse

  May 1998

  28,089

  Failure to meet performance standards

  Blakenhurst

  February 1994

  41,167

  Temporary reduction in cell availability

  November 1998

  25,000

  Escape from escort

  Buckley Hall

  February 1997

  526

  Failure to meet performance standards

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  Lowdham Grange

  July 1998

  702

  1 unavailable place

  October 1998

  45,080

  Failure to meet performance standards

  January 1999

  31,231

  Failure to meet performance standards

  February 1999

  6,334

  Failure to meet performance standards

  Parc

  March 1998

  54,782

  Failure to meet to standard requirements

  May 1998

  1,309

  Failure to meet performance standards

  July 1998

  298

  Doubling cell occupation beyond permitted level

  October 1998

  306,747

  Failure to meet performance standards

  Wolds

  September 1998

  23,855

  Reduction in service

  164
  access to the benefits system, NHS medical treatment and will be entitled to work. Other refugees arriving independently will be eligible to apply for asylum in the usual way.

  Televisions (Prisons)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last five years the number of television sets with stand-by units in prisons in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales. [81983]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested on the numbers of television sets with stand-by units for prisoners' use in England and Wales is not available in the form requested. The number of television sets with stand-by units in prisons in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  My hon. Friend, the then Minister for Prisons and Probation (Ms Quin), announced our intention to extend the availability of in-cell television as part of the incentives and earned privileges scheme in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) on 1 June 1998, Official Report, columns 50–51. Figures for television sets with stand-by facilities installed since then in 1998 and 1999 to the end of April, are as follows:

  Year

  England

  Wales

  1998

  9,828

  560

  1999

  4,526

  412

  These figures do not include television sets used in association and communal rooms for which information is not kept centrally.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of(a) fines and (b) contract payments which have been reduced to reflect the performance against the contract at (1) HMP Parc, (2) HMP Lowdham Grange, (3) HMP Altcourse, (4) HMP Wolds, (5) HMP Buckley Hall and (6) HMP Doncaster; and if he will state the reasons for each fine and reduced payment. [82446]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As shown in the table, there have been thirteen occasions on which a payment to a contractor managing a prison has been reduced. The table includes Blakenhurst prison which is also managed by a contractor. There is no distinction between a fine and a reduction in payment because a fine is made by being deducted from a due payment.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in prisons in England and Wales have a record of illegal drug taking. [82289]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1998, 88,304 mandatory drug tests were conducted on prisoners, of which 20,152 tested positive for drugs. The figures include some prisoners who will have been tested more than once. Implementation of the Prison Service drug strategy over the next three years will include provision of information about new prisoners' histories of drug misuse prior to arrival in prison.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales have drug treatment facilities; and how many prisoners were undertaking such treatment on 1 April. [82290]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Systematic data about existing programmes and the number of participating prisoners is not yet collected centrally. The table gives the best available information about the current situation and the proposed outcome of implementation of the Prison Service's drug strategy.

  Prison drug treatment and programmes

  Service provision

  Current situation

  After drug strategy implementation

  CARATs1

  43

  all establishments

  Detoxification2

  10

  35

  Rehabilitation programmes

  24

  60

  Therapeutic communities

  4

  8

  Voluntary testing

  46

  all establishments

  1Low threshold Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare service which will meet the needs of the great majority of prisoners

  2Enhanced detoxification facilities in local prisons and remand centres

  Prisoners (MPs' Visits)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance is given by his

  Numbers of police officers retiring, England and Wales, 1993–94—1997–98

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  132

  147

  102

  166

  123

  Bedfordshire

  22

  40

  36

  38

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  40

  54

  50

  48

  Cheshire

  67

  75

  55

  50

  81

  City of London

  25

  23

  35

  26

  38

  Cleveland

  65

  58

  44

  38

  25

  Cumbria

  46

  48

  39

  46

  45

  Derbyshire

  68

  56

  82

  67

  78

  Devon & Cornwall

  113

  94

  125

  114

  110

  Dorset

  36

  41

  27

  51

  50

  Durham

  64

  64

  41

  43

  49

  Dyfed-Powys

  44

  38

  36

  25

  24

  Essex

  82

  81

  115

  90

  117

  Gloucestershire

  44

  35

  33

  45

  56

  Greater Manchester

  271

  285

  346

  319

  327

  Gwent

  35

  43

  33

  50

  32

  Hampshire

  95

  104

  134

  100

  100

  Hertfordshire

  42

  35

  38

  54

  52

  Humberside

  92

  68

  78

  52

  80

  Kent

  126

  91

  93

  91

  90

  166
  Department to Her Majesty's prisons on the arrangements to be made to respond to requests by hon. Members to visit a prisoner; [82323]

  (2) what arrangements there are for visits to prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons by hon. Members. [82324]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The arrangements are set out in Prison Standing Order 5D. Prisoners can request or consent to a visit from a Member of Parliament, upon which the Governor will produce a valid special visiting order. The Governor will also ensure that the visit does not take place within the hearing of prison staff, unless either party or security considerations demand otherwise. The Governor can also permit the Member to tape record any conversation which takes place during the visit. This, along with other special visits, including those from legal advisers and priests or ministers, does not normally count against the prisoner's allowance for visits.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons held on remand were found guilty when brought to trial in the last year for which figures are available. [82459]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Seventy-two per cent. of persons held on remand in England and Wales in 1997 were found guilty when brought to trial.

  Police Officers (Retirement)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police authority(a) the number of officers who have retired and (b) the estimated cost of paying the pensions of retired officers in each of the last five years. [82492]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the number of officers retiring is set out in the table. For information on the cost of police pensions I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 23 March 1999, Official Report, columns 164–72.
  167

  Numbers of police officers retiring, England and Wales, 1993–94—1997–98

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Lancashire

  150

  108

  134

  87

  110

  Leicestershire

  71

  73

  72

  52

  59

  Lincolnshire

  47

  49

  63

  47

  58

  Merseyside

  185

  232

  256

  217

  151

  Metropolitan

  721

  1,302

  864

  904

  1,027

  Norfolk

  55

  55

  75

  64

  68

  Northamptonshire

  38

  65

  27

  24

  44

  Northumbria

  162

  153

  178

  136

  151

  North Wales

  55

  50

  50

  60

  40

  North Yorkshire

  106

  57

  43

  51

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  83

  79

  78

  67

  94

  South Wales

  87

  98

  154

  119

  140

  South Yorkshire

  124

  87

  94

  74

  93

  Staffordshire

  106

  70

  50

  85

  133

  Suffolk

  43

  41

  53

  56

  51

  Surrey

  36

  67

  53

  58

  73

  Sussex

  100

  78

  155

  145

  126

  Thames Valley

  86

  114

  133

  125

  123

  Warwickshire

  50

  44

  29

  26

  54

  West Mercia

  58

  87

  59

  82

  72

  West Midlands

  228

  306

  285

  256

  314

  West Yorkshire

  211

  152

  151

  161

  164

  Wiltshire

  29

  37

  30

  67

  47

  Provincial Total

  3,618

  3,568

  3,768

  3,574

  3,781

  England and Wales Total

  4,339

  4,870

  4,632

  4,478

  4,808

  Surrey Constabulary
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the negotiations between the Metropolitan Police and the Surrey Constabulary to effect the transfer of responsibility for policing parts of Surrey. [81624]

  Kate Hoey
  I understand that the negotiations between the Metropolitan police and Surrey police have made good progress on the wide range of detailed issues which need to be resolved in order to ensure a smooth transfer of responsibility on 1 April 2000. These negotiations take place bilaterally or, where appropriate, in a wider forum involving Essex police and Hertfordshire Constabulary, the other two forces affected by the change to the Metropolitan police district boundary. All four forces are represented on the central consultative group which the Home Office has set up to bring together all interested parties. There has been an excellent spirit of co-operation throughout.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are(a) the total income of a single man aged 65 years who has no savings or resources, taking account of guaranteed minimum pension, housing benefit and council tax benefit, (b) the retirement pension payable to a single man aged 65 years who has savings above the means-testing limits, (c) the difference per annum between (a) and (b), and (d) the amount of money which would be required to purchase an annuity to fund (c). [81913]

  Mr. Timms
  The amounts of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit that a person receives depends on local factors as well as personal circumstances. This individual is assumed to have no pension above the basic 168
  pension and no savings and so is eligible for £75 Minimum Income Guarantee. This hypothetical individual with the average amount of Housing Benefit and the average amount of Council Tax Benefit received by those on Income Support aged 60 or over would receive £127 a week in Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Retirement Pension consists of two main components, the basic State pension and additional pension, also known as SERPS. This individual is assumed to be a recently retired man who has at least £16,000 capital and who receives no income from his capital. This hypothetical individual with the average basic State pension and the average gross SERPS would receive £108 a week.

  The difference in income is £19 a week.

  At March 1999 annuity rates, a lump sum of £14,000 would be required for a single 65 year old man to purchase an annuity that provides this level of weekly income. This is less than the £16,000 capital limit for income related benefits.

  Note:
  1. Weekly income figures are rounded to the nearest pound and the lump sum figure is rounded to the nearest thousand pounds.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) of 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 465, on occupational pensions, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the reported rise in occupational pension coverage. [82061]

  Mr. Timms
  A number of factors are likely to have contributed to the rise in take up. Increased awareness of pensions generally in the light of the public debate generated by the pensions review, launched in July 1997;
  169
  improvements in the quality of information about pensions; and increased awareness of the value of occupational pensions in the light of mis-selling problems associated with personal pensions.

  State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the categories of people who can be credited entitlement to(a) the basic state pension, (b) SERPS and (c) the proposed second state pension; and if he will make a statement on the reason for the differences in the crediting arrangements for each. [81991]

  Mr. Timms
  The categories of people who can be credited with National Insurance contributions to assist them to satisfy the second contribution condition for basic State pension are:Young people for the tax years containing their 16th, 17th and 18th birthdays;
  Men for the tax years containing their 60th birthday and the four succeeding years, provided they have no liability for Class 1 or 2 National Insurance contributions;
  Persons undergoing courses of full time approved training;
  Invalid Care Allowance recipients;
  Family Credit recipients;
  Disability Working Allowance recipients;
  Persons who are either in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance or unemployed and satisfy specified conditions which include that they are available for and actively seeking paid employment;
  Persons incapable of work through illness or disability;
  Statutory Maternity Pay recipients.

  There are no arrangements for crediting people with entitlement to SERPS.

  It is proposed that carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records will be credited with entitlement to the State Second Pension. In addition, those earning between the Lower Earnings Level and £9,000 will receive a boost to their State Second Pension by being treated as if they had had earnings at that level.

  The main reason for crediting entitlement to the basic pension is the recognition that it would be unreasonable to allow the future entitlement of people who are involuntarily out of work through unemployment or sickness or whose earning power in work is seriously depleted by these contingencies, to be jeopardised by deficiencies in their contribution records.

  SERPS is purely a contributory earnings-related second pension scheme which does not attract any form of credits. It gives insufficient help to those who need it most. This is why we are proposing the new State Second Pension to replace SERPS.

  Income Support
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) numbers and (b) percentages of single parents on income support, who have mortgages, for each of the past 10 years. [82164]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.170

  Single parents in receipt of income support who have a mortgage or loan for the accommodation they are living in since 1994

  Year

  Number of claimants

  Percentage of all Single parents on Income Support

  1994–95

  130,000

  14

  1995–96

  130,000

  13

  1996–97

  150,000

  14

  1997–98

  110,000

  11

  Notes:

  1. Figures are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, percentages to the nearest integer.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  4. Benefit receipt is based on self-assessment and therefore may be subject to mis-reporting.

  5. Income-based Jobseekers' Allowance (introduced in October 1996) has been included in the analysis for the 1997–98 financial year, but not for the 1996–97 year, since it could not be separately identified from Unemployment Benefit.

  Source:
  Family Resources Survey (Great Britain).

  All Work Test
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what medical conditions permanently exempt a person in receipt of benefits from the all work test. [82152]

  Mr. Bayley
  Regulations list a number of medical conditions and other circumstances which will result in a person being treated as incapable of work without the need for an assessment under the All Work Test. The relevant conditions, which are not all expressed in terms of specific diseases or disablements, are set out. Many, but not all, of these conditions will be permanent: If there is a possibility of improvement in an individual case the exemption will be reviewed periodically and in some circumstances it may become appropriate to carry out an All Work Test assessment.

  Medical conditions qualifying for exemption from the All Work Test (Regulation 10 of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995):

  (i) tetraplegia;

  (ii) persistent vegative state;

  (iii) dementia;

  (iv) paraplegia or uncontrollable involuntary movements or ataxia which effectively renders the sufferer functionally paraplegic;

  (v) a severe learning disability;

  (vi) a severe and progressive neurological or muscle wasting disease;

  (vii) an active and progressive form of inflammatory polyarthritis;

  (viii) a progressive impairment of cardio-respiratory function which severely and persistently limits effort tolerance;

  (ix) dense paralysis of the upper limb, trunk and lower limb on one side of the body;

  (x) multiple effects of impairment of function of the brain or nervous system causing severe and irreversible motor, sensory and intellectual deficits;

  (xi) manifestations of severe and progressive immune deficiency states characterised by the occurrence of severe constitutional disease or opportunistic infections or tumour formation;

  (xii) a severe mental illness.

  171
  In addition, people will be treated as incapable of work if they
  are registered blind;
  are terminally ill;
  have an 80 per cent. disablement assessment;
  are receiving the highest rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, or certain allowances payable under the Industrial Injuries and War Pensions schemes for attendance needs.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 April 1999,Official Report, column 592, on winter fuel payments, what is the additional cost of paying the winter fuel payment separately from the basic state pension. [82190]

  Angela Eagle
  To include the full amount of the Winter Fuel Payment with the Retirement Pension of every eligible pensioner would involve using a qualifying week at the end of the previous winter. This is because Retirement Pension order books last for up to 20 weeks and are printed and issued well in advance. As a result, large numbers of people who retire after the qualifying week would not be eligible for a payment the following winter. In addition, allowing such a substantial interval to elapse would mean changes of household circumstances amongst many of those in the eligible population.

  It would be possible to make a payment of £50 to every eligible pensioner at the beginning of each winter by including that amount along with their qualifying benefit. However, an exercise would then be necessary, after the qualifying week, to identify those who live alone or those who are the only eligible pensioner in their household, and make an additional £50 payment. This method would correctly deliver £50 payments to about 4·5 million pensioners but require two separate payments to about 5·5 million pensioners every winter.

  The administration cost of this option is estimated at around £12·5 million in the first year and £10 million in subsequent years. The cost of the present delivery mechanism is estimated at £11 million each year. Therefore, including the payment along with the qualifying benefit is estimated to cost an additional £1·5 million in the first year, followed by a saving of around £1 million in subsequent years. The method of payment for this winter is designed to give all eligible pensioners a single, well timed payment before Christmas.

  Methods of payment for future years will be kept under review.

  Miss H. McNulty
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the outcome of the home visit made by the Benefits Agency to Miss H. McNulty ref. JP/4L/JKM. [82274]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Winnick, dated 27 April 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the outcome of the visit by an officer of the Benefits Agency to Miss H. McNulty.
  172
  The purpose of the visit on 22 March was to obtain the fullest possible details of the need for a mobility scooter before undertaking a review of the decision to refuse a Community Care Grant or Budgeting Loan for the scooter.
  On 25 March the reviewing officer, taking full account of the details obtained at the visit, decided that Miss McNulty's application should be treated as having medium priority for either a Community Care Grant or a Budgeting Loan, but because the District budget could only sustain applications with high priority, a payment was again refused.
  A request that the application should be looked at by a Social Fund Inspector (SFI) was received from Miss McNulty on 30 March. On 6 April the relevant papers were copied to Miss McNulty to give her the opportunity to comment. Her reply was sent to the SFI dated 8 April. The outcome of the decision of the SFI, issued on 21 April 1999, was that the decision of the reviewing officer to refuse a payment from the Social Fund was correct.
  I am sorry I have to give what must be a disappointing reply for Miss McNulty.

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people faced marginal tax rates, including social security of over(a) 40 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 60 per cent., (d) 70 per cent., (e) 80 per cent., (f) 90 per cent. and (g) 100 per cent. in each year since 1996–97; [82237]

  (2) how many people will face marginal tax rates including social security of over (a) 40 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 60 per cent., (d) 70 per cent., (e) 80 per cent., (f) 90 per cent. and (g) 100 per cent. taking account of the introduction of the working family tax credit and the children's tax credit. [82236]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The data requested are contained in the table. The table illustrates the combined effect of the 1999 Budget and the Government's reforms since the election which will see the numbers of those facing marginal rates of over 70 per cent. reduced by two thirds, significantly relieving the poverty trap.

  The increased generosity of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) compared with Family Credit will see an extension of in work support for families with children. Even those whose marginal rate increases as a result of this change will be better off in cash terms and see an increased return to working compared to being on benefit. On average, WFTC will give low earning families an extra £24 per week compared with Family Credit.

  Impact of the 1998 and 1999 budgets on the number of families with marginal deduction rates of 40 per cent. or more1

  Thousand

  Before

  After

  100 per cent. or more

  5

  0

  90 per cent. or more

  115

  15

  80 per cent. or more

  255

  175

  70 per cent. or more

  715

  230

  60 per cent. or more

  730

  950

  50 per cent. or more

  730

  1,110

  40 per cent. or more

  775

  1,150

  1Figures are for families in receipt of income-related benefits or the WFTC where at least one partner works 16 hours or more, and are based on 1998–99 caseload and take-up rates.

  173
  Available historical estimates of marginal deduction rates are published in the DSS's annual departmental report, on page 16 of the 1998 report and page 57 of the 1997 report.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Parliament Building
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the conversion of the Church of Scotland assembly hall and nearby City of Edinburgh Council office buildings, for use as a temporary home of the Scottish Parliament, broken down in to costs in respect of (i) VAT, (ii) fees, (iii) furnishings and fittings, (iv) information technology and TV facilities, (v) returning the Assembly Hall to its original state and (vi) compensating the Church of Scotland for disruption and the hire of the Edinburgh International Conference Centre as its meeting place. [77799]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: The cost of converting the Church of Scotland Assembly Hall and refurbishing the nearby former City of Edinburgh Council buildings to house the Scottish Parliament is estimated to be around £7·62 million in total. Of that figure, some £4·5 million is being spent on the principal works programme, and can be broken down as follows:

  Conversion/refurbishment works £3·3 million

  Fees £0·5 million

  VAT £0·7 million.

  The cost of the works carried out to install the infrastructure to support the IT and telecoms networks and the TV production facilities are not separately identifiable, but are included in the conversion/refurbishment figure of £3·3 million given.

  Fitting out the accommodation is an additional £3·1 million including VAT. The cost of furniture (£0·75 million) and IT equipment (£1·5 million) are included in that figure, and the remainder covers mainly the costs of the provision of telecoms, security systems and office equipment.

  The Church of Scotland wishes to retain the new layout prepared for the Debating Chamber. Some readjustment works will be necessary, but it is too early to provide an estimate of the likely costs involved.

  The Church of Scotland has neither sought nor been paid any form of compensation for disruption. The cost of hiring the EICC and related expenditure totals just over £140,000 including VAT.

  Social Inclusion
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total of resources to be made available to social inclusion projects under(a) the New Deal and New Futures Fund, (b) new community schools, (c) early intervention schemes, (d) alternatives to exclusion (schools), (e) pre-school education initiatives, (f) new housing partnerships, (g) Rough Sleepers Initiative, (h) Empty Homes Initiative and (i) social inclusion partnerships (1) in Glasgow and (2) in Scotland. [78346]
  174
  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 31 March 1999]: The Government have already allocated significant resources to these and other initiatives as part of their commitment to promote social inclusion in Scotland. The figures given relate to funding committed or estimated to be spent over the financial years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  For most of these programmes, some of the committed funds have yet to be allocated to specific areas of Scotland. Where this is the case, the figures given include the total already allocated; the amount already allocated to Glasgow; and the amount which remains to be allocated. Furthermore, some of the figures given are estimated rather than formal allocations.

  It is estimated that £290 million will be spent on the New Deals in Scotland in the next three years (1999–2000 to 2001–02). Of this, it is estimated that at least £54 million will be spent in Glasgow (no decision has yet been made on resources available for Glasgow under the New Deal for the Disabled). These figures make no provision for underspends in the period until March 1999.

  Of the £2·0 million that has been committed from the New Futures Fund (NFF) for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 a total of £1·1 million has already been allocated to projects in Glasgow. A number of other projects are still under consideration and may receive financial support during this period. Over the next three years it is estimated that a total of £12·4 million will be spent in Scotland on NFF projects.

  We plan to invest £26 million to pilot New Community Schools in every education authority over the next 3 years. On this basis, it is estimated that £1 million of the funds will be spent in Glasgow.

  Of the £42 million committed to early intervention schemes over the next three years, Glasgow will receive £4·5 million in total.

  Of the £24 million committed to alternatives to exclusion from school schemes over the next 3 years, £2·34 million has been allocated to Glasgow.

  Of the £111 million committed to pre-school education initiatives in the first of the next three years (1999–2000), Glasgow's provisional allocation is over £12 million. A further £269 million has been committed to Scotland for the 2 subsequent years (£131 million in 2000–01 and £138 million in 2001–02) but estimates of allocations are not available at this stage.

  Of the £208 million which has been earmarked to councils to support New Housing Partnerships (NHPs), £32 million has been earmarked for Glasgow. A total of £333 million has been committed to support NHPs in Scotland over the next 3 years. £125 million of that total has been set aside for assistance with debt in connection with whole stock transfers.

  Of the £7 million to be spent under the Rough Sleepers Initiative in 1999–2000, £2·4 million has been allocated to Glasgow. A further £14 million has been committed to the initiative in the following 2 years.

  £15 million has been committed to the Empty House Initiative over the next 3 years, of which £2·77 million has been allocated to Glasgow.
  175
  £137 million has been committed to Social Inclusion Partnerships over the next 3 years, including £48 million for the new Social Inclusion Partnerships designated in Spring 1999. Of the total, £51 million will be spent in Glasgow, of which over £24 million relates to the new Social Inclusion Partnerships.

  From 1 July 1999 these programmes, apart from the New Deal, will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.

  Statistical Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what qualifications and experience will be required of the successful candidate for the position of Head of the Statistical Service in his Department. [81175]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 23 April 1999]: The basic educational qualification required is an Honours degree with a substantial element of statistics and/or an equivalent post-graduate qualification. In addition, since this is a post in the Senior Civil Service, management experience at a senior level is necessary, including experience in the use and/or production of statistical information.

  Professional Statisticians
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff by grade are employed as professional statisticians in his Department; how many of these staff have been accepted as fast stream by the Civil Service Selection Board; and how many have been granted chartered statistician status by the Royal Statistical Society. [81208]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 23 April 1999]: Statistical work is undertaken by a range of specialists, including Research Officers, Economists and Statisticians. Since 1996, The Scottish Office has employed statisticians through its own departmental recruitment as well as through the Civil Service Selection Board. This resulted from a rapid growth in statistics posts coupled with a shortfall of recruits from the Civil Service Selection Board source.

  Withe my Department there are 36 statisticians recruited through the Civil Service Selection Board: 25 at Band C and 11 at Band B. There are also 13 statisticians at Band B who were directly recruited by the Department. All are managed by a chief professional officer at Senior Civil Service level: at the present time this post is vacant.

  Affiliation to the Royal Statistical Society is not mandatory and some members of staff may not have reported acquisition of Chartered Statistician status. There are four statisticians at Band C who are known to hold Chartered Statistician status./

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff who have worked as professional statisticians in his Department have left on early retirement in each of the past 10 years. [81188]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 23 April 1999]: Statistical work is undertaken by a range of specialists, including Research Officers, Economists and Statisticians. Since 1996, The Scottish Office has employed statisticians through its own departmental recruitment as well as through the Civil Service Selection Board. This resulted
  176
  from a rapid growth in statistics posts coupled with a shortfall of recruits from the Civil Service Selection Board source.

  The number of professional statisticians who have left on early retirement in the last 10 years is seven. Four of these had transferred into administration at an earlier stage in their career. Details by year are shown in the table.

  Early retirement of staff who have worked as professional statisticians

  Year

  Number

  1998–1999

  1

  1997–1998

  1

  1996–1997

  2

  1995–1996

  —

  1994–1995

  2

  1993–1994

  1

  1992–1993

  —

  1991–1992

  —

  1990–1991

  —

  1989–1990

  —

  Job Creation
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in date order since 2 May 1997 each occasion on which Scottish Office ministers have made announcements about the creation or safeguarding of jobs in Scotland indicating(a) the business and the economic sector to which it belongs, (b) its address in Scotland, (c) the number of jobs to be (i) created and (ii) safeguarded, (d) the nature of the assistance offered by the Scottish Office and other Government agencies, (e) the reference number of Scottish Office press notices issued in association with the announcement and (f) the Minister who made the announcement. [82184]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: News Releases issued where Ministers have made announcements about creation or safeguarding jobs are available on:
  1. The Scottish office website at www.scotland.gov.uk/news/ archive.asp for all news releases issued from October 1997.
  All Scottish Office news releases are also available in the House of Commons Library.
  2. The Locate in Scotland website www.lis.org.uk/lisnws.cfm for news releases relating to inward investment announcements from September 1997.
  Further information on announcements up to March 1998 is available in the Locate in Scotland Annual Review for 1997–98.

  Pollution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will list the worst repeat offenders against pollution legislation in a form similar to that published for England and Wales. [81277]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has no plans to publish a league table of offenders in a similar way to that recently published by the Environment Agency. Information on offences against environmental legislation is published in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's Annual Reports, copies
  177
  of which are in the Library. Information on offences in 1998–99 will be included in the report due to be published later this year.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the enforcement regime and level of fines imposed in Scotland against those who transgress pollution standards. [81278]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is the statutory regulator for environmental standards in Scotland. I am satisfied that the Agency is both a firm and fair regulator and is prepared to take enforcement action against those who breach standards or illegally pollute the environment.

  In addition to referring cases to the Procurator Fiscal, there are various forms of enforcement action available to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. These include the issue of improvement and prohibition notices. Enforcement action can lead to adverse publicity and loss of accreditation for those companies which have independent environmental management systems. These factors are often stronger deterrents than fines.

  It is for the Procurator Fiscal to decide whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute a case referred to him by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The level of fines for pollution offences is entirely a matter for the Sheriff to consider in each case.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mussel Farming
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will include mussel farming as an approved measure under the agricultural business improvement scheme. [82533]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The legislation governing the Agricultural Business Improvement Scheme was recently amended following suggestions from industry representatives and detailed negotiations with the European Commission. Mussel farming was not raised in those discussions and there are no plans to include it as an approved measure. The Scheme closes to grant applications on 31 October 1999.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nurse Shortages
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the shortage of nurses in the United Kingdom. [77837]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have received no recent representations; however, at the Commonwealth Health Ministers meeting in Barbados in November 1998, the Minister of Health for Jamaica made representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health 178
  about concerns in the region that there was a drain of trained nurses to the UK. It was agreed that a collaborative approach should be developed.

  British Council Libraries
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance is in place for the choice of books that are acquired by the British Council for its overseas libraries; what restrictions are imposed by(a) the UK and (b) other Governments regarding what texts can be supplied in any particular country. [79942]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 14 April 1999]: The Government do not give the Council guidance on books for its libraries, which is an operational matter for the Council's management.

  European Commission Staff (Security Clearance)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Commission staff will receive clearance, in accordance with 1999/218/EC (Official Journal L80, 25.3.99), for access to(a) confidential, (b) secret and (c) top secret material; what categories of information are covered; what is his policy thereto; what contribution to screening Government agencies will make, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [81043]

  Ms Quin
  Commission Decision 1999/218/EC extends Decision C(94)3282 of 30 November 1994 on the security vetting of European Commission staff to cover documents relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It does not affect the security clearance of staff already working for the Commission.

  There have been no applications to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (which is responsible for the security vetting of all UK nationals directly recruited to work at the Commission) by the European Commission for the security clearance of UK nationals since the publication of Commission Decision 1999/218/EC. It is expected that the numbers of Commission staff cleared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office each year will remain the same (ie six or seven a year). Similarly, the Commission do not expect the overall number of their staff requiring security clearance to rise significantly.

  The vetting procedures set out in Commission Decision 1999/218/EC are applicable to classified information held by the Commission, including that relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are usually asked to clear Commission staff to see up to and including Secret material. The cost of security vetting is approximately £11 for Confidential clearance and £149 for Secret clearance.

  Entry Clearance
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in(a) Islamabad, (b) Karachi, (c) Bombay, (d) New Delhi, (e) Calcutta, (f) Madras, (g) Colombo, (h) Jamaica, (i) Barbados, (j) Russia, (k) Poland, (l) Zimbabwe, (m) Ghana, (n) Bangladesh, (o) Lagos and (p) Abuja

  179
  (i) applied for, (ii) were granted and (iii) were refused entry clearance as visitors in (a) 1998 and (b) 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available. [81686]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Visit visa applications 1998

  Post

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Islamabad

  38,250

  26,737

  5,615

  Karachi

  27,536

  22,270

  3,116

  Bombay

  61,450

  55,957

  4,528

  Calcutta1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Madras

  23,544

  23,065

  837

  Colombo

  13,999

  12,714

  510

  Kingston

  3,203

  2,957

  161

  Bridgetown

  688

  615

  57

  Moscow

  76,976

  73,172

  2,077

  St. Petersburg

  14,279

  13,621

  636

  Ekaterinburg

  2,921

  2,837

  64

  Warsaw

  1,139

  980

  109

  Harare

  1,511

  1,258

  258

  Accra

  22,159

  16,130

  4,826

  Dhaka

  12,822

  9,823

  2,776

  Lagos

  42,913

  29,840

  8,351

  Abuja

  11,331

  9,962

  1,421

  New Delhi

  57,804

  50,538

  7,742

  1 The figures for Calcutta are not yet available

  1999 figures will not be available until posts complete their 1999 Annual Statistical Return early in the year 2000. Figures are collated in this way on an annual basis only and could be obtained in the interim only at disproportionate cost.

  Falkland Islands (Fisheries)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if it is his policy to assist the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department to prevent illegal fishing within the Falkland Islands Fisheries Protection Zone; and if he will make a statement; [81879]

  (2) if approval has been given for the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department to (a) arm and (b) use a 0·50 inch calibre gun, on one of its fisheries protection vessels. [81876]

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to prevent illegal fishing in Falkland Islands waters; [81963]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent of illegal fishing in Falkland Islands waters; and if he will make a statement; [81961]

  (3) what representations he has received about illegal fishing in Falkland Islands waters; and if he will make a statement. [81962]

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will approve the application of the Falkland Islands Government to utilise a 0·50 inch calibre gun for fisheries protection purposes. [82217]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the timescale in granting permission for the arming of a Falkland Islands fishery protection vessel with a 0·50 inch calibre gun; [82058]
  180
  (2) if he will make a statement on the timescale in the arming of a Falkland Islands fishery protection vessel; [82060]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the level of illegal fishing being carried out in the water around the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [82057]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We take the matter of illegal fishing in the Falkland Islands seriously and it is our shared objective with the Falkland Islands Government to combat the problem. Illegal fishing has the potential to undermine the Falklands economy and attempts to conserve fish stocks. Recently, there have been up to an estimated 50 unlicensed vessels in Falklands waters and we assume that all were engaged in illegal fishing activities. The number of vessels now appears to be declining.

  In January this year, we authorised the arming of a Fisheries Protection Vessel (FPV) with a 20mm Oerlikon cannon, which is the best weapon for the task of deterring illegal fishing and dealing with it, if necessary. The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) are responsible for the procurement and shipment of the cannon. This process has taken longer than anticipated. We have tried to help FIG speed up the shipment of the consignment but it cannot be carried on a passenger aircraft together with the ammunition needed. Accordingly, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to fly the cannon out on the next freight flight on 6 May.

  FIG requested approval for temporary use of a smaller, 0·50 inch, machine gun on an FPV, as an interim measure. This request was carefully considered and a decision was made not to give approval. The machine gun is not a good visible deterrent and there are concerns that warning shots, which the FPV would be required to fire to alert a suspected unlicensed vessel, would not be seen or heard.

  As a temporary measure, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to our request for one of the Royal Navy vessels stationed in the Falklands to accompany an FPV on its patrols. We have also made representations to the Taiwanese authorities in London and Taipei, as the majority of unlicensed vessels in Falklands waters are theirs. We shall continue to urge the Taiwanese authorities to bring their fleet under control.

  We have received representations on this issue from FIG and its Fisheries Department, several MPs and from members of the public. Commercial operators who are licence-holders have made indirect representations.

  We shall continue to support FIG in its attempts to combat illegal fishing.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of the provisions of the White Paper, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity, concerning environmental protection to the waters within the Falkland Islands Fisheries Protection Zone; and what plans he has to ensure that the Falkland Fisheries Department is equipped to implement that policy. [81878]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our stated objective in the White Paper: Partnership for Progress and Prosperity is to use the environment of Overseas Territories to provide benefits to the people in them, and to conserve our global heritage by managing sustainably all the Overseas Territories' natural resources. The Falkland Islands
  181
  Government administer the fisheries within their waters and the revenue from fishing licences is the mainstay of the Falklands economy. Effective management of the fishery helps in efforts to conserve fish stocks. Enforcement of the licensing regime is the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department which have two Fisheries Protection Vessels at their disposal. Ministers have authorised the Falkland Islands Government to purchase a 20mm Oerlikon Mk7A cannon for installation on one of the vessels to help deter unlicensed vessels from fishing in Falklands waters. There are no further plans at present.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to assist the Falklands Islands Government to meet its international obligations in terms of conserving living resources around its coastline, as set out in the White Paper, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity; and if he will make a statement. [81877]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As stated in the White Paper: Partnership for Progress and Prosperity, British accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was extended to the Overseas Territories including the Falkland Islands. Article 61 of UNCLOS requires States to take measures to conserve living marine resources in their exclusive economic zones (EEZs). In the Falkland Islands, the requirement is met through the administration of its fishery. The Falkland Islands has no EEZ, nor does it have to declare one.

  Article 61 also requires the Falkland Islands to co-operate within regional fisheries organisations to meet conservation and management aims. To promote such co-operation, Falkland Islands Government officials form part of the British delegation which attends regular meetings of the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission (SAFC) with the Argentines. SAFC is a forum for the exchange of information which assists with the management of fish stocks and in which ways of conserving of commercially important fish stocks in the South Atlantic are discussed. We continue to support the European Union in its efforts to encourage Argentina to help establish a South West Atlantic Multilateral Fisheries Agreement.

  Child Soldiers
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on the use of child soldiers; and if he will make a statement. [82329]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government are committed to bringing to an end the use of child soldiers in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We urge all Governments and armed groups to adhere to the international humanitarian and human rights standards that protect the rights of children in conflict situations. We support the work of the United Nations to protect those children affected, particularly the work of the UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict. The UK played a leading role in the establishment of the use of child soldiers as a war crime in the statute of the International Criminal Court.

  On 2 March 1999, Official Report, column 895, we announced a new UK commitment of £10 million to promote stability in Sierra Leone. A condition of this
  182
  assistance is that children under 16 must not be used by the Sierra Leone Armed Forces or the Civil Defence Force. We believe that this may be the first time that any Government have made non-use of child soldiers an explicit condition of such assistance.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who in his Department had access to the Foreign Office report written in Madrid on 16 October 1998 pertaining to Senator Pinochet and passed to his Department; at what time of day; and what action was taken as a result. [82408]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 10 February 1999,Official Report, columns 293–94, and 16 March 1999, Official Report, column 620.

  Victims' Remains (Independent Commission)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the agreement with the Irish Government establishing an independent commission for the location of victims' remains to be signed. [82713]

  Ms Quin
  The Agreement was signed on 27 April. Copies of the Agreement are available from the Vote Office, have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament, and will be published later in the usual way.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Treaty of Amsterdam to come into force. [82714]

  Ms Quin
  The process of ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam was completed on 30 March, when France deposited its instrument of ratification with the Italian Government.

  In accordance with Article 248 of the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty of Amsterdam will come into force on Saturday 1 May 1999.

  Falkland Islands
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what exchanges he has had with the Government of Chile over the cancellation of Lan Chile flights to the Falkland Islands. [82659]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he plans to make to the Government of Chile regarding their decree which prohibits Chilean carriers flying to the Falklands. [82055]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Lan Chile have not flown to the Falklands since 31 March, when their contract with the Falkland Islands Development Corporation expired. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), made clear in his answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 25 February 1999,Official Report, columns 451—53, the continuation of that contract after that date was a commercial matter for discussion between

  183
  Lan Chile and the Falkland Islands Development Corporation. On 19 April my hon. Friend reported that the Government of Chile had issued a Decree prohibiting Chilean carriers from flying to the Falklands with effect from 10 April.

  I have now spoken to the Chilean Foreign Minister. I told him that we strongly disagree with his Government's Decree. I underlined that there was no justification for the Chilean Government taking such a measure and have urged Senor Insulza to reconsider it. I reminded him of the commercial and social benefits for remote communities, both in the Falklands and in southern Chile, of Lan Chile being allowed to continue flights to the Falklands.

  We are in close touch with the Falkland Islands Government on alternative air links.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the recent violence in East Timor. [82465]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 31.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the killing of refugees at a church in Liquica, East Timor, on 6 April. [82500]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received reports that on 6 April a number of civilians, who had sought refuge in a church in Liquica, East Timor, were killed during a violent clash with a pro-Indonesia militia group. The number of casualties remains unclear, as does the role of the Indonesian security forces in the incident.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the expenditure per pupil at 1998–99 prices from aggregate schools budgets in(a) maintained primary schools and (b) maintained secondary schools in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99, giving the average percentage change from (1) 1996–97 to 1997–98 and (2) from 1997–98 to 1998–99. [81648]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have placed a table in the Library showing, for each local education authority in England for the financial years 1996–97 to 1998–99, the aggregated schools budget for primary and secondary schools giving(a) the aggregated schools budget per pupil, (b) the real terms figure per pupil adjusted for 1998 real terms figures and (c) the percentage change on the previous year.

  School Budgets
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of each shire county's education department budget was allocated to school budgets in 1998–99. [82187]
  184
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the proportion of each shire county's education General Schools Budget which was allocated to schools through the Aggregated Schools Budget in 1998–99. Information on local authority education department budgets is not allocated centrally.

  1998–99

  ASB as percentage of GSB

  Bedfordshire

  75·6

  Buckinghamshire

  69·8

  Cambridgeshire

  64·9

  Cheshire

  75·6

  Cornwall

  70·2

  Cumbria

  73·6

  Derbyshire

  69·6

  Devon

  72·2

  Dorset

  74·4

  Durham

  71·9

  East Sussex

  75·0

  Essex

  72·1

  Gloucestershire

  74·6

  Hampshire

  78·7

  Hertfordshire

  76·9

  Kent

  76·7

  Lancashire

  73·1

  Leicestershire

  76·0

  Lincolnshire

  78·3

  Norfolk

  74·2

  North Yorkshire

  77·2

  Northamptonshire

  74·4

  Northumberland

  75·8

  Nottinghamshire

  79·3

  Oxfordshire

  75·0

  Shropshire

  73·3

  Somerset

  75·0

  Staffordshire

  74·3

  Suffolk

  79·4

  Surrey

  74·3

  Warwickshire

  74·1

  West Sussex

  77·3

  Wiltshire

  69·6

  Worcestershire

  76·4

  School Attendance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for changing the age at which it is compulsory for children to attend school. [81990]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None.

  SSAs
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities, which at the latest date for which information is available, were not fully passing on to schools any increases in their standard spending assessment in respect of education. [82335]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: Budget information for 1999–2000 is currently being collected and checked by the Department. We will publish authoritative data showing the plans of the authorities, including the amounts to be held back centrally, in June.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the(a) number and (b) percentage of total school hours that is spent on physical education in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in the last year for which figures are available. [81806]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of school hours spent on physical education varies from school to school. Evidence from Ofsted inspections during 1998 of the average number of hours per week primary and secondary schools currently spend teaching National Curriculum PE is given.

  Average hours of PE per week (approximately)

  Key Stage 1 (ages 5-7)

  1 hour 20 minutes

  Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11)

  1 hour 35 minutes

  Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14)

  2 hours

  Key Stage 4 (ages 14-16)

  1 hour 15 minutes

  As a percentage of teaching time, these times are approximately: Key Stage 1—6·3 per cent.; Key Stage 2—6·8 per cent.; Key Stage 3—8·3 per cent. and Key Stage 4—5·2 per cent. These figures do not account for travelling and changing time incurred in the provision of swimming tuition. At Key Stage 4, the figure relates to the time allowed for the National Curriculum compulsory component of PE. Pupils studying for GCSE normally have between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. extra time for the examination course.

  Laboratories (Schools)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the standards of science laboratory furbishment in schools. [82491]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Decisions on how best to refurbish science laboratories in schools rest with individual local education authorities and governing bodies. Since the Election, we have provided an additional £680 million for specific improvements to school buildings through the New Deal for Schools programme. £9·5 million of the £340 million allocated through the New Deal for Schools in March 1999 was for improvements to science laboratories. The Department provides guidance in its 1995 publication, 'Science Accommodation in Secondary Schools: A Design Guide'. This is currently being updated.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of those invited to join the New Deal for Young People in January 1998 had found unsubsidised employment lasting for more than 13 weeks by the end of January 1999. [82163]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Of the 6,826 young people who were invited to join New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds in January 1998, 2,065 had found sustained unsubsidised 186
  employment without returning to JSA within 13 weeks by January 1999. A further 2,366 of the invitees are still taking part in the New Deal.

  New Deal (Schools)
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of schools which will benefit from the New Deal for Schools. [81861]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since the introduction of the New Deal for Schools programme, we have approved funding of £680 million for work at some 11,000 schools in England.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contribution to the Government's Kyoto commitments she expects Northern Ireland to make. [81286]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I expect the new Northern Ireland Assembly to play its full part in contributing to the United Kingdom's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

  May I take this opportunity to tell the House that, in Belfast, 23 schools and colleges have with help from Phoenix Gas, been converted to natural gas which will save 12,000 tons of CO2 over 3 years. This will help children's health and reduce costs.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the progress of inter-party negotiations to establish the Northern Ireland Executive. [81287]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The parties, supported by both Governments, have worked intensively over the last few weeks but have yet to reach a consensus on how to overcome the remaining difficulties preventing the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement. Discussions are continuing to try to achieve the cross-community support necessary for the successful establishment of the Executive.

  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations she has had with the Northern Ireland parties on implementing the Good Friday Agreement in the last six weeks. [81290]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I and my Ministerial colleagues continue to have regular meetings with the Northern Ireland parties concerning the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [81294]

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [81300]
  187
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on developments in the Northern Ireland peace process. [81303]

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [81304]

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards establishing an Executive for the Northern Ireland Assembly. [81305]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friends to the replies I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on 28 April 1999,Official Report, columns 325 and 184.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she has held with the Irish Government on ways to advance the peace process in the past six months.[81297]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings she has had with the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [81306]

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings she has held with representatives of the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. [81289]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I continue to have regular contact with representatives of the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Both Governments remain united in their determination to make progress and to ensure that all parties live up to all their commitments under the Agreement.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted of murder have been released under the Good Friday agreement to date. [81291]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been 82 prisoners, released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, who were convicted of murder. This is drawn from information current at 16 April 1999.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have been released under the accelerated release scheme set up by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to date. [81295]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been 259 prisoners released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. This is drawn from information current at 16 April 1999.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the numbers of public appointments she has made since 1 January. [81292]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There have been 474 public appointments since 1 January.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about progress towards the decommissioning of illegally held weapons. [81293]

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arms and explosives have been decommissioned; by which groups; and under what circumstances. [81301]

  Mr. Ingram
  The LVF decommissioning event which took place on 18 December last year was a positive and significant act. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning verified and destroyed sub-machine guns, rifles, handguns, ammunition, explosive devices and detonators. I urge the LVF to continue and other paramilitary groups to start decommissioning now.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress towards the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [81302]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 330.

  Security Measures
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the steps being taken towards normalising security procedures. [81296]

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on recent steps taken towards scaling down security measures. [81288]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since July 1997, the Chief Constable has announced a progressive reduction in security measures in the province.

  Specific measures include a reduction in troop levels, which now stand at under 15,000, fewer than at any time since 1970, a two-thirds reduction in military patrolling, up to a third reduction in helicopter activity and the closure of 25 military bases and installations.

  The security situation continues to be kept under close scrutiny and further progress will depend on the assessment of the terrorist threat.

  New Deal
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many companies have signed up to the New Deal initiative in Northern Ireland. [81298]

  Mr. McFall
  At the end of March 1999, 2,370 Northern Ireland companies had confirmed their support for New Deal by signing an Employer Agreement.

  School Links
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to encourage links between schools in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [81299]
  189
  Mr. McFall
  Seventy six schools from Great Britain are involved with schools from Northern Ireland and other parts of Europe in a curriculum based European Studies project. These schools form cluster groups and work together on common projects to explore relationships within the United Kingdom and also both the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Europe.

  The Department of Education Northern Ireland also funds the Warrington Project which has established a series of Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Warrington links at primary school level and which aims to promote a 'whole school' approach to cross community activity through the curriculum.

  The development of the National Grid for Learning will also enable all schools to have easier access to one another, through information technology.

  Murders
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in bringing to justice the murderers of the Reverend Robert Bradford and Mr. Edgar Graham.[81307]

  Mr. Ingram
  Two persons were arrested for the murders of the Reverend Bradford and Mr. Kenneth Campbell, interviewed and released without charge. Despite an extensive police investigation no persons have to date been made amenable for these crimes.

  In respect of Mr. Graham's murder, one person, convicted of making property available and withholding information was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended for three years. Another was convicted of withholding information and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment suspended for two years. A number of other persons were arrested and interviewed in relation to this murder.

  The RUC review all murder investigations. New or further evidence will be acted upon with diligence.

  Tourism
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the impact of the tourism industry on the economy of Northern Ireland. [81308]

  Mr. Ingram
  During 1998, staying visitors in Northern Ireland contributed £217 million to the Northern Ireland economy, with an additional estimated £57 million from domestic tourism (totalling £274 million). This accounts for approximately 2 per cent. of Northern Ireland's GDP and sustains the equivalent of 14,750 full-time jobs in the industry.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to make Canadian driving licences exchangeable for Northern Ireland driving licences. [81494]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The ability to exchange a Canadian driving licence for a Northern Ireland licence would require new Northern Ireland primary legislation. This 190
  will be a matter for the new Assembly to consider, taking account of similar legislation introduced in Great Britain last August.

  Parks and Play Areas
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the condition of public parks and play areas in Northern Ireland and the impact of social and policing problems related to the conflict of the past 30 years on such facilities. [81626]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Any assessment of the condition of public parks and play areas in Northern Ireland would be a matter for individual district councils. I am not aware that a general survey of these facilities has been carried out. The impact of social and policing problems over the years has not, therefore, been considered by central government.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government plan to take to improve parks and play areas in Northern Ireland. [81625]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The establishment and upkeep of parks and play areas in Northern Ireland are functions of district councils. The Government have no plans to provide financial assistance or to make improvements in these areas.

  Political Activity (Staff)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the policy of her Department in respect of members of staff engaged in political activity. [81860]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  All civil servants are required to observe rules on engagement in political activities liable to give public expression to political views. The rules are intended to protect the political impartiality of the Civil Service whilst giving individuals the greatest possible freedom to participate in public affairs.

  The extent to which a member of staff is permitted to engage in political activity, and whether they are required to seek permission from their department, is determined by reference to the grade of the individual and the nature of their official duties. Even where permission has been granted, the individual is required to observe fully the general rules on conduct and the code of discretion which governs the extent to which a civil servant may express political views.

  All staff are barred from any form of political activity whilst on duty or in uniform or on official premises.

  The rules on political activity are contained in the Northern Ireland Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code which is available to all staff. Similar rules applying to Home Civil Servants are contained in their Staff Handbook.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action was taken following the investigations into a member of staff from the Department of the Environment-Planning Service who appeared on a public platform at a rally in support of the Spirit of Drumcree Group in November 1995; and if she will place the report of the inquiry in the Library. [81885]
  191
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following an internal investigation, and having considered representations made by him, the Department of the Environment (NI) concluded that the officer concerned had, by his comments and actions in November 1995, breached the Conduct section of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code. The officer consequently received, in December 1998, a formal written reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.

  As disciplinary action involving a civil servant is an internal matter which is dealt with by his/her employing Department in confidence, and in strict accordance with established procedures, it is not appropriate for any papers relating to this internal investigation to be placed in the Library. The officer concerned has, in any case, indicated his intention to appeal against the disciplinary penalty imposed.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures she is taking to assist pensioners in Northern Ireland. [81282]

  Mr. McFall
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) on 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 332.

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions her Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81766]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  I answer this question on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office because as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland I have statutory superintendence of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and appoint the Crown Solicitor and Senior and Junior Crown Counsel in Northern Ireland. Senior Crown Counsel is a Queen's Counsel. Both Counsels are retained by the Crown to undertake work on behalf of the Government and Northern Ireland Departments.

  In civil cases, in conducting Government work, the most important work would be undertaken by Senior Crown Counsel. In other cases where a Queen's Counsel is required and it is not possible to instruct Crown Counsel, either because of his workload or because of the need for specialist skills, a Queens Counsel is instructed from amongst the Bar of Northern Ireland.

  The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland nominates three counsels, one of whom is a Queen's Counsel, to whom he would first have recourse to prosecute the most serious of prosecutions. Thereafter, in any case requiring a Queen's Counsel he would instruct counsel from the Bar of Northern Ireland.

  In determining whether a Queen's Counsel is to be instructed, the Crown Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland will consider the
  192
  individual circumstances in each case. They will take into account, inter alia, the weight and complexity of the evidence and the degree of experience and expertise required before deciding whether Queen's Counsel should be instructed.

  It should be understood that Northern Ireland is a separate jurisdiction with its own laws, courts and independent Bar. The role of counsel also differs from that of counsel in England and Wales: in particular, in criminal cases, in relation to the contact counsel in Northern Ireland has with witnesses and victims. The consideration given to the instruction of counsel by the Crown Solicitor and Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland will be made in the light of the particular circumstances of the separate jurisdiction of Northern Ireland.

  Records are not maintained in a form which would enable the number of occasions on which the Crown Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland have instructed Queen's Counsel in the last three years, and the cost of doing so, to be given without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The Compensation Agency for Northern Ireland and the Departmental Solicitor's Office will both, on occasions, instruct Queen's Counsel on the same basis as the Crown Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions of Northern Ireland.

WALES

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph 4·85 of his Department's Annual Report, Cm 4216, what are(a) the cost of the environmental research programme and (b) the names of each of the studies completed or in progress; and if he will place copies of each of these studies in the Library. [81941]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Welsh Office expenditure on the programme in 1998–99 was £320,000.Projects in progress in 1998–99 were:
  Air Quality Monitoring Database for Wales
  Rural Sulphur Dioxide Monitoring in Wales
  Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Monitoring
  Welsh Acid Waters Survey Database
  Nitrogen Deposition—Impacts on Upland Acid Grassland
  Biogeochemical Consequences of Climate Change on Upland Acid Grassland
  Environmental Change Network—Snowdonia
  UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Inventory for Wales
  Rapid On-Site Analysis of Radioactivity in Wales
  Countryside Survey 2000—Land Cover Mapping
  Monitoring of Stranded Cetaceans
  Macrobenthic Survey in Milford Haven
  Monitoring of Sheep Dip Compounds in Private Water Supplies
  Effects of Sewage Sludge Applications on Soil Microbial Activity
  and Fertility.
  193
  Completed project reports in 1998–99 were:
  The Application of Mineral Processing Technology to the Decontamination of Metalliferous Mine Spoil
  River Rhymney Minewater Study—Review of Remedial Options
  Scoping Study for an INTERREG Marine Information System for the Southern Irish Sea
  All-Wales Environmental Health Surveillance Project
  Air Quality Monitoring Database—Second Annual Report
  DETR Report—Rural Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations in the UK: 1996.

  I am arranging for copies of the completed reports to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times ministers in his Department held meetings with members and officials in the US Administration since 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the ministers involved at each meeting and the US Department involved in each meeting. [82253]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

  Housing (Newport)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Newport County Borough's plans to demolish its prefabricated housing stock and its impact on housing funding for Newport. [82423]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The council's stock of pre-fabricated bungalows is in very poor structural condition and the authority has engaged in intensive consultation with residents regarding the future of these properties. Any resources it allocates towards their replacement or repair will depend on its local priorities as set out in its Housing Strategy and Operational Plan. The funding of any major redevelopment programme will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. I have, however, been able to allocate additional credit approval of £550,000 to support the development of the council's proposals in 1999–2000.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds are currently blocked in each of the district hospitals in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [80841]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The latest available information relating to delayed discharges from hospital is shown by NHS Trust in the following table. Information relates to a chosen day in January 1999 (usually 31 January 1999), as reported in local authority responses to the Survey of Delayed Discharges from Hospital. The survey requested information on the numbers of hospital patients known to local authority social services departments, who were medically fit to be discharged, but were still occupying a hospital bed. All patients medically fit to be discharged are counted; this may include patients whose delay came within agreed timescales for the discharge process.194

  NHS Trust

  Number of delayed discharges, January 1999

  Bridgend and District

  5

  Cardiff Community Healthcare

  8

  Carmarthen and District

  12

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  4

  Clwydian Community Care

  17

  East Glamorgan

  1

  Glan Clwyd General Hospital

  16

  Glan Hafren

  111

  Glan-y-Mör

  31

  Gwent Health Care1

  27

  Gwynedd Community2

  26

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  7

  Llandough Hospital

  12

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  20

  Morriston Hospital

  69

  Nevill Hall and District

  31

  North Glamorgan

  28

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen

  5

  Powys Health Care

  12

  Rhondda Health Care

  32

  Swansea

  38

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare

  68

  Velindre

  1

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  9

  Total

  590

  1As reported by Caerphilly County Borough Council on post April 1999 Trust basis.

  2 Includes 6 patients with delayed discharges at February 1999.

  Following the transfer of functions this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Drug Treatment (Young Adults)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young adults started drug treatment in each local authority area in Wales in each of the past 10 years. [81334]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Reliable information on the number of young adults starting drug treatment in Wales is not currently available. Some data are obtained on a voluntary basis by the Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit although coverage is incomplete. The arrangements for collecting data in this area are currently under review.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Low Birthweight Babies
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of low birthweight babies were born in each (i) local and (ii) health authority area in Wales in each of the past 10 years. [81330]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information readily available on a comparable basis for the 22 unitary authorities and 5 health authorities in Wales, provided by the Office for National Statistics, is for 1990 to 1997 and is given in the table.
  195

  Distribution of low birthweight babies by authority

  Health authority/Unitary authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  North Wales

  22

  20

  19

  19

  21

  20

  20

  22

  Isle Of Anglesey

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Gwynedd

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Conwy

  4

  3

  3

  2

  4

  3

  3

  4

  Denbighshire

  3

  3

  2

  3

  4

  3

  2

  4

  Flintshire

  5

  5

  4

  5

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Wrexham

  4

  3

  5

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Dyfed Powys

  13

  13

  13

  14

  14

  13

  14

  13

  Powys

  3

  3

  3

  4

  3

  3

  4

  3

  Ceredigion

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Carmarthenshire

  5

  4

  4

  5

  5

  4

  5

  4

  Morgannwg

  16

  17

  17

  15

  15

  17

  16

  16

  Swansea

  6

  7

  7

  6

  6

  8

  6

  6

  Neath Port Talbot

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  6

  5

  Bridgend

  5

  5

  5

  4

  5

  5

  4

  5

  Bro Taf

  26

  27

  29

  29

  28

  28

  29

  27

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Cardiff

  11

  11

  13

  13

  14

  12

  13

  12

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  9

  9

  10

  10

  8

  9

  9

  9

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Gwent

  22

  23

  22

  23

  21

  22

  21

  22

  Caerphilly

  7

  6

  7

  7

  7

  6

  7

  6

  Blaenau Gwent

  3

  4

  4

  3

  3

  4

  3

  3

  Torfaen

  4

  4

  3

  4

  3

  4

  3

  4

  Monmouthshire

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  Newport

  5

  6

  6

  7

  6

  5

  6

  6

  Note:

  Figures may not add-up exactly due to rounding

  The figures are based on birthweights below 2,500 grammes for all births, excluding cases where no birthweight was stated.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Owain Glyndwr Pennal Letter and Seal
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will request the return of the Pennal Letter and Seal of Dwain Glyndwr to Wales from France for the opening of the National Assembly for Wales. [82451]

  Mr. Michael
  The National Library of Wales is already planning a major exhibition about the life of Dwain Glyndwr for the year 2000. I have asked the National Library and the National Museums and Galleries of Wales, in co-operation, to explore urgently the practicalities of acquiring the Seal and the Letter on loan. The nature of the artefacts is such that they could be displayed only in the strictly controlled environment that can be provided by the Library and the Museum. I have asked to be informed of the outcome, and will keep my hon. Friend informed.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what upper age limits apply to the membership of public bodies; and what plans he has to review this. [82054]
  196
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  All public appointments are made on merit. There are no upper age limits which apply to public appointments. I have no plans to review the current position.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Raw Cows' Milk
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1999,Official Report, column 469, if he will list the names of the hon. Members who wrote to him in (a) January, (b) February and (c) March regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry into the supply of raw cows' milk. [82053]

  Dr. Howells
  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of the hon. Members who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in January, February and March regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place the minutes of the Insolvency Review Working Party in the Library. [82008]

  Dr. Howells
  No. The Insolvency Regulation Working Party was established by the seven insolvency Recognised Professional Bodies and my Department's Insolvency Service. Its members were the representatives of these
  197
  bodies. The Working Party was charged with reporting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Presidents of the professional bodies. The Working Party has completed its task and copies of its report are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will require those licensed under the Insolvency Act 1986 to publish information about their affairs and the impact of their actions on stakeholders. [82011]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the insolvency practitioners licensed by his Department. [82141]

  Dr. Howells
  The following practitioners are authorised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:

  Christopher Robert Ashurst

  Duncan Robert Beat

  John Samuel Francis Bennett

  Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj

  Peter Andrew Blair

  Douglas Norman Bowden Brian Bower

  Matthew Colin Bowker

  Peter John Bridger

  Stephen Briscoe

  Colin Thomas Burke

  Phillip John Burrows

  Philip Gerard Byrne

  Peter Geoffrey Cann

  Dawn Lesley Chadwick

  Trevor Irving Clark

  Lawrence Cooper

  John Wynn Davies

  Sara Elizabeth Dayman

  Andrew David Dick

  Brendan Eric Doyle

  Colin Duckworth

  John Francis Dumble

  Peter William Engel

  Stephen John Evans

  Clive Everitt

  Evelyn Gabrielle Exley

  Peter Adrian Finn

  Andrew Charles Fozzard

  Nola Garside

  Neil Hammond Geddes

  James Campbell Gibson

  Roger William Gillett

  Stephen Gilmore

  Stephen Simon Goderski

  Simon Matthew Gwinnutt

  Patricia Ann Haddon

  Colin Michael Trevethyn Haig

  Ronald Stanley Harding

  Paul William Harding

  Stephen Lawrence Harfitt

  Guy Charles David Harrison

  Frank Anthony Hatch

  198

  Trixie Jean Haviland

  Trevor Rex Hemmings

  Neil Francis Hickling

  John Roger Hill

  Peter James Hughes-Holland

  Christakis Michael Icaovides

  Gethyn Islwyn Morris James

  Ruth Muir James

  Diane Johnston

  Rowan Fergus Jones

  Robert William Keating

  David Crew Knight

  Janice Vivienne Leigh

  Philip Alan Lightfoot

  Walter Lismore

  Hilary Lesley Felicity Ann Lofthouse

  Stephen Lord

  Philip Michael Lyon

  James MacLachlan

  John Harvey Madden

  Sandra Marshall

  Paul David Meakiin

  Malcolm John Mears

  Stephen Charles Mileman

  Daniel Britten Miller

  Nicholas John Miller

  Manubhai Govindbhai Mistry

  Rupert Graham Mullins

  John Michael Munn

  Eric Nisbet

  David Nisbet

  Christopher John Nutting

  Michael O'Connor

  Rodney Gavin Owen

  Christine Lesley Peak

  Nigel Paul Pincott

  Philip Daniel Pink

  David Graham Platt

  John William Powell

  John Prenderville

  Alan Redvers Price

  Norma Rosetta Prosser

  Michael Leslie Reeves

  Kenneth Brian Ribgy

  David John Roberts

  Pamela Mary Roe

  Stanley Rose

  Eileen Teresa Frances Sale

  John Christopher Sallabank

  Rashpal Singh Sandhu

  Michael Stanley Sargeant

  Peter Sargent

  Richard Albert Brock Saville

  Richard Andrew Segal

  Wendy Mary Sharpe

  Christopher James Shaw

  Gordon Allan Mart Simmonds

  Alan Simon

  Robert Soanes

  David Solomons

  199

  Diana Spencer

  Caroline Rose Stark

  Keith Aleric Stevens

  Susan Jane Stockley

  John Paul Sugden

  Michael Sutcliffe

  William Clive Swindell

  David William Tann

  Steven George Taylor

  David Thomas

  Alan Keith Thornton

  Neil Tombs

  Brian Tomlinson

  John David Travers

  Stephen James Wainwright

  Roderick John Watson

  Peter George Weil

  Francis F. A. Wessely

  Andrew Richard Williams

  Steven John Williams

  David Frederick Wilson

  Vernon Charles Wright

  Michael William Young.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to replace the present regulators of the insolvency business with a single independent regulator.[82144]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no such proposals.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the meetings held by the Insolvency Review Working Party have been open to the public. [82009]

  Dr. Howells
  None. The Insolvency Regulation Working Party met in private but also carried out a wide ranging consultation exercise so that all those with an interest in this field had an opportunity to make their views known.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints relating to insolvency practitioners have been referred to his Department since May 1997. [82010]

  Dr. Howells
  Sixty-eight complaints about insolvency practitioners authorised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been referred to my Department since May 1997.

  Cashmere Wool Industry
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he has issued to companies operating in the United Kingdom cashmere wool industry regarding the guaranteeing of the bond imposed upon them by the United States of America. [77900]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 27 April 1999,Official Report, column 83.

  Wealth Warnings (Radio)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 28, if he is now in a position to make an announcement about the removal of wealth warnings from radio advertisements. [81572]

  Dr. Howells
  Since my reply of 25 January 1999, I have been undertaking further consultations with representatives of the credit industry and consumer bodies. Once these have been concluded, and I have considered their responses, I will make a further announcement.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the delivery(a) targets and (b) performance of the Royal Mail letter service for (i) first and (ii) second class mail in each of the last 12 months in the Stoke-on-Trent postal area. [82145]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for mail delivery performance rests with Post Office management from whom I understand that Royal Mail's delivery performance for first and second class mail for the Stoke-on-Trent postcode over the last four quarters has been as follows:

  First class (percentage)

  Second class (percentage)

  Target

  94·0

  96·9

  Actual:

  June 1998

  92·3

  98·4

  September 1998

  92·4

  98·8

  December 1998

  92·5

  99·8

  March 1999

  90·0

  97·7

  These figures relate to the percentages of first class mail delivered the next working day after posting and of second class mail delivered within three working days of posting.

  Product Liability
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 270, on product liability, what plans he has to collate and publish details of cases concerning product safety; and if he will make a statement. [81681]

  Dr. Howells
  Records of cases kept by the courts do not provide sufficient information to enable a search to be made by reference to the particular legislation under which the actions have been brought. However, when product liability cases brought under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 raise significant points of law, judgments given in them would be reported in published law reports, and these are monitored by the Department. The Secretary of State made a report to Parliament under section 42 of the 1987 Act on action taken under Part II of the Act (product safety) on 25 November 1998 (ISBN 0 10 252299 5).

  Auditors
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will require those licensed to act as
  201
  auditors under the Companies Act 1989 to publish information about their affairs and the impact of their actions on stakeholders. [82007]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have no plans to do so. Requiring registered auditors to publish information about their affairs would need primary legislation. The five bodies recognised to register and supervise auditors already submit reports to my Department every six months, covering the monitoring, inspection, supervision and disciplining of company auditors. Their annual reports, which are published by the bodies, are placed in the Library of the House.

  Heritage plc
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations he had conducted into the receivership of Heritage plc. [82143]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has made no investigations into the receivership of Heritage plc but officials are in touch with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales concerning a complaint made to the Institute about the conduct of the administrative receivers.

  Accountants
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to prevent accountants acting as reporting accountants from acting as receivers.[82142]

  Dr. Howells
  This issue has been referred to the joint DTI/Treasury review of corporate rescue procedures. Their final report is expected by the end of 1999 and we will give careful consideration to their recommendations.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of holders of current consumer credit licences are also authorised under the Financial Services Act 1986.[81596]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: This information is not available in the form requested and to collate such information would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consumer credit licences have been revoked by the Office of Fair Trading, and for what reasons, in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 to date. [81595]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: The Director General of Fair Trading revoked 35 licences in 1997 and 17 licences in 1998. 10 licences were revoked during the period 1 January to 19 April 1999.

  Generally, a licence is revoked as a result of complaints and/or criminal convictions against the licensee which show that the licensee is no longer a fit person to engage in the activities covered by the licence. The exact reasons for the revocation of a particular licence are placed on the public register which the Director General has a duty to maintain under section 35 of the Consumer Credit Act.
  202
  This information is available to the general public from:

  The Office of Fair Trading

  Consumer Credit Licensing Bureau

  Craven House

  40 Uxbridge Road

  Ealing

  London W5 2BS

  Telephone: 0171 269 8608/8616.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed by the Office of Fair Trading to carry out its consumer credit, licensing and related regulatory functions during(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [81592]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: The number of staff units employed by the Office of Fair Trading to carry out these functions were as follows:

  Period

  Number of staff units

  1997–98

  85·6

  1998–99

  83·2

  1999–2000

  89·2

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirements have to be met to obtain a consumer credit licence from the Office of Fair Trading. [81594]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: The Director General of Fair Trading has to be satisfied that an applicant is fit to engage in all the business activities covered by a licence and that the applicant's name is not misleading or undesirable. In considering whether or not an applicant is a fit person he will have regard to evidence tending to show that an applicant has:

  (a) committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty, or violence;

  (b) contravened any provision made by or under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or by or under any other enactment regulating the provision of credit or other transactions with individuals;

  (c) practised discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, race or ethnic or national origins in, or in connection with, the carrying on of any business; or

  (d) engaged in business practices appearing to the Director General to be deceitful or oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not).

  These criteria are set out in full in section 25 of the Consumer Credit Act.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many current consumer credit licensees are operating(a) in the consumer credit market, (b) in the secured credit market for loans of up to £25,000 and (c) in the secured credit market for loans above £25,000. [81593]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: The Director General of Fair Trading collects information to help him assess the fitness of licence holders but does not collate information about their business activity. To collate such information would require disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consumer credit licences issued by the Office of Fair Trading under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are still current.[81598]
  203
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: There were 261,075 current licences on 1 April 1999.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what monitoring the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards officers undertake of individuals granted consumer credit licences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [81597]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: The Office of Fair Trading generally relies upon local authority trading standards services to monitor licensees. Consumers who have problems with licence holders can complain to their local trading standards services, and details of these complaints are passed to the Office of Fair Trading. Trading standards services also have powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 that allow them to enter premises, inspect documents, and to make test purchases. They also prosecute offences under the Act.

  The Office of Fair Trading maintains a register of convictions that result from action by trading standards services. The register is used in both assessing the fitness of applicants for licences and monitoring the continuing fitness of licensees.

  Export Licences
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those countries for which an export licence for goods with a possible military application is not permitted. [82438]

  Dr. Howells
  All applications for an individual licence to export arms and other goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (the so-called Military List) are assessed on a case by case basis using the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26—29, and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. Both sets of criteria are also used to assess applications for a licence to export dual-use goods where there are grounds for believing that the end-user would be the armed forces or internal security forces of the recipient country.

  As noted in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), on 28 January 1998, Official Report, columns 273–74, a list of all UK policy commitments, including embargoes, has been placed in the Library of the House and an updated version will be laid annually (or more frequently if policy changes require a revision).

  Consultations (Postal Costs)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will pay the postal costs of voluntary bodies and registered charities requested to respond to Government consultation documents; and if he will make a statement. [80918]

  Dr. Howells
  We will consider paying these costs where circumstances merit.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Telecommunications Council held in Luxembourg on 22 April; and if he will make a statement. [82396]

  Mr. Wills
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council on 22 April. The Council reached political agreement on a common position in respect of a Directive on a Common Framework for Electronic Signatures. A Council Resolution on the Year 2000 Computer Problem was agreed in principle.

  The Council also held a debate on the state of the EU telecommunications market. The Commission presented a Communication on the results of public consultation on the Green Paper on the Convergence of Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors, on which Council Conclusions were agreed in principle. The Commission also presented its Green Paper on Access to Public Sector Information, and provided an oral update regarding developments on Globalisation and the Information Society, Internet Domain Names, and on the public consultation on the Commission Green Paper on Radio Spectrum Policy.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much in total he estimates his Department will pay in compensation as result of miners'(a) vibration white finger injuries and (b) chronic bronchitis and emphysema diseases. [82530]

  Mr. Battle
  The gross level of provision for the British Coal health liabilities assumed by the Department is:

  £million

  1999–2000

  228·2

  2000–01

  490·3

  2001–02

  507·5

  Due to a number of uncertainties—not least the number of claims likely to be received and the actual levels of compensation payable in individual cases—it is not possible to say how much will be required to meet the specific cost of miners' health claims for vibration white finger, and chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

  The Government have however made it clear that they will provide the funds necessary to meet the cost of legitimate claims.

  Right-hand Drive Vehicles
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to prevent car manufacturers from refusing to supply right-hand drive vehicles to continental dealers for sale to United Kingdom customers. [81223]

  Mr. Byers
  EC competition law provides that manufacturers must not restrict the freedom of their dealers to supply right-hand drive motor vehicles to UK customers.

  Enforcement of these provisions is a matter for the European Commission. The seriousness with which the Commission views breaches of EC law was

  205
  demonstrated by its decision to fine Volkswagen £67 million in January 1998 for prohibiting its dealers in Italy from selling cars to foreign buyers.

  Forest Products (Trade Liberalisation)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the United Kingdom's policy is on the proposal from the US and other Governments to negotiate a forest products sectoral trade liberalisation agreement before the 1999 WTO ministerial conference in Seattle. [82262]

  Mr. Wilson
  The possibility of a sectoral liberalisation agreement reducing tariffs on forest products and other limited sectors is being proposed by the US and other members of APEC for agreement at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle. The primary objective of the Conference is to launch a new comprehensive round of trade negotiations, including industrial tariffs, agriculture, services and technical standards and a range of other issues. The UK's priority issues were set out in my previous answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 548. The UK and the EU are concerned not to lose momentum for launching the wider negotiations at Seattle by focusing only on limited sectors. We do not rule out early agreements on tariffs including the forest product sector during the course of the new round as part of a comprehensive package of negotiations.

  Professional Statisticians
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff who have worked as professional statisticians in his Department have left on early retirement in each of the past 10 years. [81179]

  Mr. Byers
  Three "professional" Statisticians have left the Department on early retirement, including retirement on medical grounds, in the last ten years.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what considerations are delaying publication of the MMC report on Milk Marque. [82273]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the report as soon as is practicable.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has provided information about the publication arrangements for monopoly reports at paragraphs 8.1—8.3 of its publication "Guidance on DTI procedures for handling Monopoly references and reports", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Professional Statisticians
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff who have worked as professional statisticians in his Department have left on early retirement in each of the past 10 years. [81178]
  206
  Mr. Morley
  The number of professional statisticians who left on early retirement (including on medical grounds) from my Department in each of the past 10 years was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  0

  1990

  0

  1991

  0

  1992

  0

  1993

  1

  1994

  0

  1995

  2

  1996

  0

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  I have asked Chief Executives to reply separately.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 28 April 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about how many staff who have worked as professional statisticians at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate have left on early retirement terms in each of the past 10 years. This is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  There were no such retirements for these staff in each of the past 10 years.

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 28 April 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question on professional statisticians who have left on early retirement in each of the last ten years. I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), which, prior to April 1997, was the MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research (DFR).
  I can advise you that no professional statisticians have left DFR/CEFAS on early retirement during the period 1989 to 1998.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 28 April 1999:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food requesting information on the number of staff who have worked as professional statisticians who have left on early retirement in each of the past ten years, has been passed to me to reply as regards this Executive Agency.
  The MHS is responsible for enforcing meat hygiene, inspection, animal welfare and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) legislation in licensed fresh meat premises in Great Britain. The majority of MHS staff are veterinary surgeons or Meat Hygiene Inspectors. The MHS does not have any professional statisticians in its employment.

  Letter from T W. A. Little to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 28 April 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to respond to your question about staff who have worked as professional statisticians in MAFF and have left on early retirement in each of the past ten years.
  No professional statisticians have worked at the VLA and took early retirement in the past ten years.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 28 April 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your questions concerning professional statisticians.

  207
  CSL was established as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in April 1992. Since that time there have been no professional statisticians who have left the Agency on early retirement grounds.
  CSL presently employs one member of staff as a professional statistician, graded at CSL Level 3 (SEO equivalent). This person has not been granted chartered statistician status by the Royal Statistical Society and has not been accepted as fast stream by the Civil Service Selection Board.

  Letter from Sarah Nason to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 28 April 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to respond, in respect of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA), to your question about the number of staff who have worked as professional statisticians in his Department who have left on early retirement in the past ten years.
  FRCA was created as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1997: to date no professional statisticians have been employed by the Agency.

  Letter from J. A. Bainton to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 28 April 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning the employment of professional statisticians.
  Since PSD was formed in 1993, no professional statisticians have been employed in the Agency.

  Rats
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of the rat population of(a) the UK, (b) London, (c) Manchester, (d) Liverpool, (e) Newcastle, (f) Bristol and (g) Plymouth. [82460]

  Mr. Morley
  Data on the incidence of rodents in England were collected in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' 1996 English House Condition Survey on behalf of MAFF. The results should be published later this year. The sample size of the survey does not permit figures for individual local authorities to be produced.

  Information for the other parts of the UK is the responsibility of the respective Secretaries of State.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require the labelling of food products to contain information on the age of each ingredient. [82002]

  Mr. Rooker
  Consumers need information on the minimum durability of food products, so that food can be consumed within its recommended period and while it retains its specific properties. This need is met by the legal requirement to provide 'use by' or 'best before' dates for most prepacked foods. Information on the varying ages of the individual ingredients would not enable consumers to use food within the appropriate timescale.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many existing MAFF staff will be transferred to the Food Standards Agency. [82272]
  208
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 23 March 1999, Official Report, column 219.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) discussions he has had and (b) proposals his Department has put forward at Council of Ministers' meetings in respect of EU fraud; and if he will make a statement. [77777]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 19 March 1999, Official Report, column 858.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times officials from his Department have met their opposite numbers in the US Government and US Embassy to discuss genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry since 1 June 1998; and if he will list for each meeting the dates and locations; and the US department whose officials they met. [81082]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ministers and officials in this Department are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in biotechnology—including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies. We are also following practice and trials in a number of countries overseas, including the United States.

  Rabies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if countries with land borders with countries outside the European Union will be eligible for the pet passport system recommended by Professor Kennedy if they comply with the Office International des Epizooties definition of being free from rabies. [81928]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: The Kennedy Group recommended that pet cats and dogs resident in all EU and EEA countries should be eligible for alternative arrangements to quarantine, regardless of whether those countries had land borders with countries outside the European Union. In addition, the Government plan to include Switzerland, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican in the new arrangements.

  The Kennedy Group recommended that, in addition, islands elsewhere in the world meeting the OIE definition of being free from rabies should be included. Other countries which are rabies free but are not islands would not be included. The Government are following the approach of Professor Kennedy's Group here.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries which will be contacted to confirm whether they can comply with the OIE definition of being free from rabies; and when he expects to publish the list of qualifying countries. [81929]
  209
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: We have
  already written to the following islands which appear to meet the OIE definition of being rabies free to seek confirmation that this is the case:

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Australia

  Bahrain

  Barbados

  Cape Verde

  China (Taiwan)

  Cook Islands

  Falkland Islands

  Fiji

  French Polynesia

  Japan

  Jamaica

  Malta

  Mauritius

  New Caledonia

  New Zealand

  Réunion

  St. Kitts

  St. Lucia

  Seychelles

  Singapore

  Vanuatu.

  The Government are accepting representations from other islands not on the list.

  Pork and Bacon
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken recently to urge consumers to purchase pork and bacon that has been reared to high welfare standards. [82443]

  Mr. Rooker
  In recent months we have encouraged consumers, retailers, caterers and public procurement bodies to take account of quality and welfare factors when purchasing pigmeat. This encouragement has taken place at industry events, seminars and meetings and in letters. We have also written to all MPs and UK MEPs urging them to support the pig industry in its efforts to meet consumer demands.

  Abattoirs (Inspections)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 574, what separate items have to be inspected by the EU Commission before the export ban can

  Date

  Title of meeting

  EU member states

  European Commission

  World Trade Organisation

  Meetings attended since 1 January 1999

  7 January 1999

  EU group of seed experts

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  8 January 1999

  EU Standing Committee on Seeds

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  14-15 January 1999

  EU group of experts on the vegetable common catalogue

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  19 January 1999

  EU group of experts on hybrids of cereals

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  19 January 1999

  EU group of seeds experts

  Yes

  —

  —

  20 January 1999

  EU Standing Committee on Seeds

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  9 February 1999

  Community Plant Variety Office Fees Working Party

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  210
  be lifted; if the abattoirs which apply then will require a second inspection; when he will invite the Commission to carry out the inspections already required; and what remaining issues need to be resolved before that invitation is issued. [72252]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The
  European Commission inspected our procedures for operating the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) from 12 to 16 April. During their visit, the inspectors were given demonstrations of the practical operation of the DBES in three slaughterhouses—one in England, one Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. They also visited two farms, an incinerator, an Animal Health Divisional Office and the new Unit in Gloucester which will run the Scheme.

  The Commission are now writing a report of their inspection for presentation to the Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC). After the SVC have seen the inspection report, the Commission should set a date from which exports of UK beef produced under the DBES can start.

  There is no requirement for the individual abattoirs which decide to participate in the DBES to be inspected by the Commission. The approval of such abattoirs will be dealt with on a national basis.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received on cross-pollination between genetically modified oil seed rape in field trials and the wild weed variety; and if he will make a statement on the latter' s resistance to weedkiller. [81781]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no evidence, from MAFF-funded research, of cross hybridisation between oilseed rape and weeds in field trials. However, the research is still at an early stage and it is not possible to exclude the possibility that hybrids may be found. There have been reports of herbicide-resistant wild turnip in oilseed rape fields in some part of the UK. It is likely that the wild turnip, a close relative of oilseed rape, is naturally resistant to the same herbicides as is unmodified oilseed rape.

  Plant Variety and Seeds Office
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings which officials from the Plant Variety and Seeds Office have attended with officials from(a) EU member states, (b) the European Commission and (c) the World Trade Organisation since 1 January 1999; and if he will list such meetings planned up to 1 June 1999. [81880]

  Mr. Rooker
  The lists requested are set out.
  211

  Date

  Title of meeting

  EU member states

  European Commission

  World Trade Organisation

  10 February 1999

  Meeting on testing of hybrids and parent lines for distinctness, uniformity and stability

  Yes

  —

  —

  15 February 1999

  Joint Symposium by UPOV (International convention for the protection of new varieties of plants), WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) and WTO (World Trade Organisation) on the protection of plant varieties under Article 27·3(b) of the TRIPS (Trade related aspects of international property rights) Agreement

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  18 February 1999

  Community Plant Variety Office meeting on sugar beet variety testing

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  4 March 1999

  EU group of experts on variety denominations

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  22-25 March 1999

  UPOV Technical Committee

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  25 March 1999

  Bi-lateral meeting with Commission

  —

  Yes

  —

  25 March 1999

  UPOV Administrative and Legal Committee

  Yes

  —

  —

  26 March 1999

  UPOV Council

  Yes

  —

  —

  26 March 1999

  UPOV Consultative Committee

  Yes

  —

  —

  6 April 1999

  Community Plant Variety Office Fees Working Party

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  7-8 April 1999

  Community Plant Variety Office Administrative Council

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  8 April 1999

  EU ad hoc group on vegetable seed marketing

  Yes

  —

  —

  12-13 April 1999

  EU agricultural common catalogue

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  23 April 1999

  EU Standing Committee on Seeds

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Meetings planned up 1 June 1999

  29-30 April 1999

  EU comparative trial on oilseed rape

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  3-4 May 1999

  EU Seed Certification Agencies Association

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  10-11 May 1999

  UPOV editorial sub-group meeting

  Yes

  —

  —

  14 May 1999

  EU comparative trial on electrophoresis

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  28 May 1999

  EU Standing Committee on Seeds

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  18-21 May 1999

  OECD seeds meetings

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81759]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food predominantly uses junior counsel when it is necessary to instruct counsel to provide legal advice or to conduct legal proceedings.

  In civil cases, the two First Treasury Counsel are both junior counsel and they will advise and represent the government without a Queen's Counsel in many of its important cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains four panels of junior Counsel who departments
  212
  are expected to use for the majority of the government's civil litigation. The Attorney-General or Solicitor-General's approval is required before a Queen's Counsel can be instructed to appear in civil litigation.

  A panel of Counsel, maintained by the Attorney-General, exists to provide advice in more significant criminal case work. His consent is sought to the nomination of such Counsel.

  In determining the level of counsel to use, the department will consider the individual circumstances of each case. It will take into account, inter alia, the importance and sensitivity of the case, the complexity of the law, the weight and complexity of the evidence, and the degree of experience and expertise required before deciding whether to instruct Queen's Counsel or junior counsel.

  The number of occasions on which the Ministry instructed Queen's Counsel in the last three years, and the cost of doing so, cannot be given without incurring disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
Viscount Combermere—Took the Oath.

Airline Traffic Rights: United States
Lord Montague of Oxford Lord Montague of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are still committed to the principle of reciprocity in their consideration of the allocation of airline traffic rights to the United States.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government always seek to get the best terms for UK interests as a whole. We shall push very hard for true reciprocity of traffic rights.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I was prompted to ask the Question because of the request by American Airlines Federal Express for permission to fly from Prestwick and; Stansted. The consultation period expires at the end of this week. Is it still the position that we stand firm by our policy of granting rights only on a reciprocal basis? That is of the greatest importance to this young industry with 75 aircraft and 4,000 employees. It needs reciprocal rights for continued growth.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have always taken the view that, wherever possible, we should achieve reciprocal rights in our dealings with the United States. As noble Lords will be aware, that has been a difficult task in many of our negotiations with the United States. In relation to the FedEx application, we are pressing hard for reciprocity. There are a number of other issues involved, including employment issues. We are aware of the UK cargo carriers' concerns in particular. Those will be taken fully into account. As my noble friend indicated, we are undertaking wide consultation, the full results of which will be known at the end of this month. We shall make a decision shortly thereafter.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—of the report of the European Select Committee of your Lordships' House of November last year on airline competition policy in which strong recommendations were made for reciprocity, particularly
302
with regard to the United States? In that context, will he comment on the present restrictions whereby no more than 49 per cent ownership of a US airline is allowed by non-US citizens relative to 25 per cent in Europe?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that in this context the attitude of the United States Administration does not indicate clearly their commitment to free trade and liberalisation. Not only is there a more or less blanket restriction on cabotage, there are also greater restrictions than pertain in Europe on ownership, wet leasing and various other aspects. We are attempting to get the US Administration to change their view on this. It will require some heavy negotiations to get some movement, but it is our intention to do so. We believe that in the long run that will be in the interests of the United States and aviation as a whole.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, this disagreement has been going on for years, even longer than the disagreement over bananas—and that is saying something. Can my noble friend say what point has now been reached and whether some breakthrough is in prospect? It has gone on long enough on both sides of the Atlantic.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. The last time I was employed in the aviation industry was nearly 30 years ago and these issues were more or less present then. We are continuing to negotiate. We are attempting to do so at the highest level. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister met the US Transportation Secretary last week. Both sides agreed that we should get the talks back on track. The UK now intends to have a round of informal talks with the Americans in May and the formal talks will resume in June. I cannot pretend that this is an easy negotiation, but we believe that we can make some progress on liberalisation within the US. It is very important to the future of British aviation that we reach an understanding on UK-US services. We are the market leaders, but we also recognise the importance of the US market.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do these rights include the rights to popular slots at Heathrow which are very much sought after? If so, and if more become available to the United Kingdom as a result of these negotiations, will the Government ensure that domestic flights within the United Kingdom are not frozen out but are given some priority?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the question of slots is extremely complex and there is no clear consensus of the way in which we should proceed. The Government are clear that the slots are not the property of individual airlines, but the current system gives the airlines a fair amount of scope over how they use them and the swops in which they are prepared, for

303
one reason or another, to engage. It is not the intention of the Government that any alteration of the slot situation should disadvantage domestic airlines.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in seeking the views of interested parties on the matter of the Federal Express application, the DETR seems to be opening the possibility of conceding rights unilaterally. Is that wise at a time when we are marshalling all our arguments for the forthcoming bilateral negotiations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, every case has to be taken on its merits and full agreement on the broad issue is unlikely in the same time-scale as a decision on FedEx. Nevertheless, I repeat that we are negotiating hard to ensure reciprocity in the FedEx case.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Minister said that every case has to be taken on its own merits. However, at the same time, he said that negotiations on the existing Bermuda 2 agreement might take place as soon as June. But why should this application be taken separately from a full negotiation on Bermuda?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said that the further round of formal talks would take place in June. No doubt the prospects for that will become apparent before a final decision is taken on FedEx. However, I would be misleading the House if I were to give the impression that June would be a likely date for a final conclusion of all outstanding issues between the United States and the UK. It is a much more complex and long-term process than that.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is it not true that in negotiations between the UK and the United States the main card in the hands of the latter is cabotage for our airlines within the states and that our main card is the availability of slots at Heathrow? Can the Minister tell the House what effect the delay in negotiations for putting forward the association between British Airways and American Airlines, caused by the direction from the EU that BA should give up some of its important slots, will have on any other negotiations between the UK and the US?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think it would be wrong to suggest, as the noble Baroness does, that there is a direct trade-off between cabotage rights within the US and developments on slots at Heathrow. Obviously cabotage rights in the US represent, in total, a massive access to a new market, which we believe we should be pursuing. As I have indicated, the issue of slots at Heathrow is a more constrained area of flexibility, given the pressure that is put on those slots in any case.
As far as concerns the BA/American Airlines position, the House will recognise that, although that may have implications for future UK/US relations in such areas, the whole situation is under review by the competition authorities in at least three places. In those circumstances, I could not possibly comment further.

Disadvantaged Young People: Sports Facilities
2.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to expand opportunities for boys and young men, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to engage in sport and other outdoor leisure activities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government demonstrate their commitment to young people's support through lottery funding and funding from the New Opportunities Fund, Sport England's Active Schools programme and the Sportsmatch sponsorship incentive scheme among many other initiatives. Recommendations on sport's role in promoting social inclusion will appear in a forthcoming report by the Policy Action Team on Arts and Sport. A new strategy for sport, which will be published later this year, will set the framework for the expansion of sporting opportunities for both boys and girls.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that immensely encouraging reply. Indeed, I should confirm my commitment to young women having comparable rights to young men, but I dare say that the noble Lord would agree that young men have certain special problems. However, is the Minister aware that the recent report of a survey published by Young Voice and Oxford University, which inquired into the views of 1,400 young men, found that boys with low self-esteem were much more likely to develop depression, to be involved in truanting from school and to be in trouble with the police? Is he further aware that the report found that sport was an important contributor towards the building of self-esteem? Can the Minister give an assurance that schools are not now free to sell off their playing fields as has happened in the past?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this most interesting report, entitled Leading Lads. He is right in saying that boys and young men with low self-esteem—about 12 per cent, I believe—would be particularly helped by an expansion of opportunities in sport, in drama and in clubs. Without doing more than give a trailer for the report of the policy action team, I can say that it comes to very much the same conclusion.
As to selling off playing fields, I believe the noble Lord will know that we have put a stop to a practice which became far too prevalent under the previous government. Indeed, any application to sell off playing fields, other than for sporting purposes, has to be referred directly to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Deputy Chief Whip keep on reminding his right

305
honourable and honourable friends about the importance of out-of-hours use of school playing fields? Indeed, is there not scope for reintegrating pupils who are at risk of suspension or expulsion from school by using some of the very valuable extra funds recently provided by the Government for their continued education?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I happen to live opposite a school playing field and my road is never so busy as it is on Saturdays and Sundays. There is much more out-of-school use than there is in-school use. That is very welcome. We certainly encourage schools to make their playing fields available for community use as well as for school use during out-of-school hours.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister feel, as I do, that for some of us—a minority—deliverance from sport was the saviour of our school careers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that he tempts me. I used to go to the cinema on sports afternoons. However, I have already made that confession in the House.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, are the Government aware of the immense possibilities that sports present to promote good relations and understanding between young people of different races, backgrounds and faiths, such as the extraordinary new scheme in which the Arsenal Football Club and the Maimonides Foundation have joined together to bring Moslem and Jewish youngsters together to coach them and enable them to compete against each other in mixed teams?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not aware of the scheme to which my noble friend refers but I am glad to hear about it. If he cares to visit the sports field that is opposite my house on Saturdays and Sundays he will see that the teams are racially mixed.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the importance of sail training for both boys and girls whether from disadvantaged or public school backgrounds? In a force 8 gale, when the sails have to come down from the yards, the one thing they all know is that they are all in the same boat.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's question seriously despite her joke on the subject. Of course she is right that sail training is character forming.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of the most disadvantaged young people are those who are in trouble with the police and who may even be on probation? Is he aware that in Northern Ireland the Duke of Edinburgh Award and the Outward Bound Scheme have extremely close links with the police who run a rambling scheme especially for these disadvantaged people? Will the
306
Minister give an assurance that as well as considering playing fields he will consider the needs of those people who are already partially under supervision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that sounds like a sensible suggestion which could usefully be extended beyond Northern Ireland.

Yugoslavia: Non-combatant Casualties
2.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the number of casualties to non-combatants so far resulting from NATO air attacks on Yugoslavia.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, recent reports have indicated that, very regrettably, some non-combatants may have been killed as a result of NATO air activity. I am unable to give a figure for the number of casualties.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, T am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. However, if he consults the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995 he will find that much of the bombing—not only the bombing of Belgrade television station—is illegal under an Act of this country. Under these circumstances does he recognise that an offence has been committed which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment? Will he advise his senior colleagues in his department to consider their position carefully to see whether they should not bring this business to an end forthwith?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain the selection of targets. Ultimate responsibility for the selection of targets attacked by British air assets lies, and will always lie, with the Secretary of State. He has delegated some of that discretion to junior commanders. In his absence I, too. am responsible for choosing targets, again subject to his authority. Every single target that has been attacked by British aircraft has been cleared with the British Attorney-General.
Lord Moyne: My Lords. do Her Majesty's Government accept that the chief result of the NATO bombing has been to accelerate the ethnic cleansing it was supposed to prevent?
Lord Gilbert: No, my Lords.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, does my noble friend acknowledge that for every regrettable Serbian casualty as a result of NATO bombing, hundreds and possibly thousands of Kosovar Albanians have been brutally murdered by Serbian paramilitaries and military?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, further to my noble friend's extremely important point it might be of use if I were

307
to point out that I do not think I have ever known a military campaign in which one side has been so fastidious about the use of weapons or its choice of targets. We have flown some 10,000 missions. There have unfortunately been two or three instances of the kind that have been mentioned. We have lost one plane and brought the pilot back. I think that is a quite remarkable tribute to the professionalism of all NATO forces.
Lord Monson: My Lords, given that much of the Serbian Orthodox hierarchy opposes Milosevic's policy in Kosovo, does the noble Lord agree that it was a great mistake, apart from other considerations, to bomb Serbia on the Orthodox Easter Sunday, particularly as the allies rightly took great care not to bomb Iraq during Ramadan?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, we did bomb Iraq during Ramadan.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there have been about 200 casualties in Serbia and probably a good deal more elsewhere, particularly in Kosovo, as a result of this war? Does my noble friend also agree that nothing has been achieved of any use, either to the Kosovar people, nor indeed to the Serbian people, and that if this campaign continues in its present form all that will result will be more refugees and more casualties, both in Kosovo and in Serbia itself? Has not the time now come to reassess NATO's view of the situation, to negotiate and to reach a settlement which is acceptable to both sides?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, of course my noble friend would not expect me to agree with the premise underlying his question. We are happy to bring the bombing to an end just as soon as Mr. Milosevic agrees to withdraw his troops who are harassing Kosovar civilians, and to the return of civilians under the protection of an international force which will be NATO led, and that there will be no harassment in the future. I should have thought that any civilised person on this planet would accept those objectives.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the NATO objective of removing the Serbian forces and allowing the Kosovar people to return to their homes must be achieved by next winter if appalling loss of life and suffering are to be avoided in the camps? Will the Minister give an assurance that any military forces which are necessary to achieve that objective will be deployed?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would agree that the resolution of NATO—all 19 countries—to achieve these objectives is absolutely unanimous and the determination is total. I would be surprised indeed if I were standing at this Dispatch Box next winter discussing these matters.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating our forces on minimising casualties while
308
at the same time destroying Serb oil refinery and transport capacity. Is he confident that the right balance is being struck between minimising casualties on the one hand and shortening the conflict on the other?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, you always pay a price if you fight a war to minimise the casualties on both sides. That is a price that we are prepared to pay.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that those who cast doubt on the rightness of carrying on are suggesting to Milosevic that there is a division in opinion which is likely to prolong the conflict?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, that is the price one always pays in a free society.

London Underground
2.57 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in improving the finances and the operations of the London Underground.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, London Underground's financial performance has improved steadily over the past seven years. Service levels increased by 6 per cent during 1997–98 and a further 8 per cent increase is planned for 1999–2000. Nevertheless there remains a great deal to be done. Reliability and punctuality are still not good enough and that is why the Government are developing our plans for a public/private partnership to create a modern underground for London.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he not agree that there has unfortunately been a delay in the setting up of the public/private partnership which could extend for a year or more beyond the original objective of May 2000? The question then arises of what happens to the financing of the London Underground in that interim period. Would it still have—as it has had to do in past years—to adopt a policy of stop-go in its financing in order to accommodate those developments? That would be particularly unfortunate in view of the increased use of the underground.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise the increased use of the Underground to which the noble Lord refers. It plays an important part in the improvement of services. As to the situation of the PPP. clearly it is a very complex negotiation. It is intended to raise £7 billion-worth of investment, which involves serious negotiations that we are not prepared to rush. In terms of current investment, the Government have already made available an extra £365 million to London Underground over the next two years which will mobilise up to £1 billion of investment to take the tube system into the

309
new millennium. I do not think that taking care in getting the PPP into place will be detrimental to London Underground's investment programme.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, has the Minister received any information from Railtrack about integrating underground sub-surface routes with Railtrack's network? Can he comment on that? Will he ensure that if such a scheme goes ahead, it will not be to the detriment of Railtrack's expenditure and the commitment of management to its existing network?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Railtrack has put forward some proposals for integrating the London Underground sub-surface lines into the mainline network, for which infrastructure it is responsible. We are looking at those proposals, but no decisions have been made. Railtrack has not submitted a bid and we are not negotiating indirectly with Railtrack. To imply that that could divert Railtrack from the much-needed investment on the existing mainline rail network is therefore wrong. We would not wish to end up with such a situation. Nevertheless, we are assessing Railtrack's proposals.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, for one, am amazed at the complacency of his original Answer? When did he last meet travellers on, for example, the Northern line? When did he last travel on the Underground?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I last travelled on the Underground a couple of days ago. As noble Lords will know, I quite frequently use the Underground. As I said in my original Answer, I find that reliability and punctuality are still not good enough. That is one of the reasons why we need to mobilise this new investment and this new approach to the management of the assets of London Underground to take us into the next century. We have already mobilised some PFI money; a £1 billion deal will introduce the Smart card, which will be of great benefit to passengers, and we also have a PFI deal relating to the power distribution network, which again should have the effect of improving service and reliability. I do not think it is appropriate to talk of complacency. Clearly, the Government and London Underground recognise that a lot more needs to be done. The users of London Underground recognise that fact every day.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report produced by three distinguished transport experts which was commissioned by the London School of Economics? The report urges the Government to change their plans for the Tube "before it is too late". Will the Government take that report into consideration? The noble Lord has said that the PPP is likely to be delayed. When can we expect it to happen?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of that report and of other comments intended to divert the Government from their intention. However, we are determined to deliver the PPP. We believe it is the best
310
way forward. It will mobilise the resources that we are seeking. Other alternatives, including those put forward by the Opposition, would not meet our objectives.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, is the Minister confident that he will be able to travel from Westminster by Underground to the Millennium Dome when it is opened?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. As noble Lords will know, the Jubilee line extension is due to open in three stages. We are confident that the final stage will be open well in time for the opening of the dome.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a very conspicuous notice in Westminster station which states that the new station will be finished by 1998?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at one point that matter was drawn to my attention. I had hoped that London Underground would have removed that notice by now. Westminster station is open; the issue is when the Jubilee line extension will be open. We are confident that it will be open by the late autumn, in plenty of time for the millennium celebrations.

Beef on the Bone: Powers of Welsh Assembly
3.5 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
Whether the Welsh Assembly has the power to revoke or amend the beef on the bone regulations?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the National Assembly for Wales will have the power to revoke or amend the controls on the sale, use and disposal of beef bones in Wales, including the ban on beef on the bone. The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 are made under the Food Safety Act 1990, which is included in the transfer order made by both Houses. But in considering whether to take such a step no doubt the National Assembly for Wales will take into account the advice of the relevant Chief Medical Officer.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House warmly for allowing me to ask the Question and the Minister for his reply.
With some sadness and temerity I must ask the noble Lord why, in Hansard on 2nd June 1998 (in columns 214,215, 226 and 229) the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, assured the House that the beef on the bone order would not be devolved. The Government opposed an amendment that I and my fellow Back-Benchers supported and won a Division so that it would not he devolved. This was followed on 21st April of this year

311
by a Statement in the Commons that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was wrong and that, as we have heard from the noble Lord, the order will be devolved. I am greatly confused. The Minister may or may not know that, as the matter has become a political football in Wales, the Welsh electorate wants to know exactly what Westminster has decreed.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I apologise for the absence of my noble friend; he is unavoidably abroad. Perhaps I may explain the matter. At the time my noble friend made his Statement to this House in June last year it was indeed the Government's position that this issue would be a joint responsibility between the National Assembly and MAFF. That position was subsequently changed and it was decided that it would be devolved to Wales. That fact was stated to the House of Commons by Alun Michael on 24th February of this year. It was decided that that responsibility would be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. The matter is explained by the passing of nine months and the evolution of policy. When my noble friend made the Statement, that was the Government's position and their advice to him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what he has just told us is quite amazing? Anyone can make a mistake in making a Statement, I appreciate that, but he is telling us that the National Assembly of Wales will be able to allow Welsh people to eat beef on the bone—presumably it will be the case in Scotland—and yet Welsh and Scottish MPs can come to England and vote to prevent English people from eating beef on the bone. That surely cannot be right. Is it not about time that Ministers took hold of themselves, had some guts and told the medical officers that in their view—I know it is the view of my noble friend—the ban on beef on the bone is absurd and ridiculous? Beef on the bone is of no danger to anyone and the ban should be removed. Why do they not do that?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that before taking any decision on this matter the National Assembly for Wales will take advice from its relevant medical officer and will act accordingly. I should point out to the House that the then Chief Medical Officer for Wales at the time of the decision to ban beef on the bone supported that decision. I am sure that in both areas the evidence will be considered again. We have already stated that the evidence will be considered again in a few months. The risk had declined when it was last assessed but was still considered by the Chief Medical Officer to be such as to justify the ban. That will be considered again in a few months. That advice will influence the decisions we take and I am certain will influence the decisions taken by the National Assembly. I cannot conceive that it will take decisions other than on the best medical advice.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does not the noble Lord understand that the answer he has given raises serious issues, for four reasons? The first is the one
312
given by his noble friend Lord Stoddart a moment ago; secondly, because by its decision the Welsh Office seems to have totally undermined the position of his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is a man of the utmost integrity, and indeed of all those Ministers who voted down my noble friend's amendment which would have transferred these powers to the Welsh Assembly; thirdly, because candidates are campaigning in Wales at the moment on the basis that they will use powers that this House was categorically assured they would not be given; and, fourthly, because the Lord Chancellor yesterday asked us to accept that the House of Lords Bill meant what he said it meant. Is it now the Government's position that they can change their mind every 10 months about what they want a Bill to mean?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord with regard to the complete integrity of my noble friend Lord Williams. That is not in question. Policies evolve, as indeed they evolved under previous governments. But we know what the policy is now. This position has been the public position since February. Candidates in the Welsh elections are or could be aware of that. It is certainly being discussed now. Though I have taken my noble friend's advice and have tried to take hold of myself, I do not see the matter in the same light as the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister realise that he has my sympathy in having to come to the Dispatch Box to undo the words used by his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn when the noble Lord himself should have come to undo the words he used? Those of us who were present for that debate remember that it went on for some time. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was very, very clear in what he said. Should not the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, have made arrangements to come to the House when this decision was changed in order to inform the House, which was totally misled on that evening? Furthermore, does this Welsh U-turn not open up the interesting position that in Wales beef on the bone will be allowed, in Scotland it will be allowed—I can assure the noble Lord that it will most assuredly be allowed—whereas in England it will not be allowed? Is this a subtle plot to help Welsh and Scottish beef farmers and disadvantage English ones? Should I get a larger suitcase so that I can bring down beef on the bone every Monday morning for noble Lords here?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that all decision-makers will approach that decision responsibly and will take on board the best scientific advice available. As I said, my noble friend Lord Williams is abroad. I have made a Statement on behalf of the Government. My noble friend did not mislead the House. That was the position at the time and that was his advice at the time he made the statement.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I had no intention of rising to speak on this issue. That was the last thing on my mind. But is it not the case that one of the misconceptions is that science is about certainty? The

313
problem of course is that science is largely about uncertainty and government have to do the best they can with the uncertainty that science may present.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. We were dealing with uncertainty. We have scientific advice that there is risk. The Government's first priority is public health. Forty people have now died in the most horrendous circumstances from the related disease. The Government act, as my noble friend said, in a situation in which there is no certainty but there is risk. We were not prepared to take that risk with public health.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we have had 10 minutes on this Question which, as noble Lords will realise, is the normal practice when taking Starred Questions in an oral form. I think my noble friend has replied to the points which have been substantially made.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have obviously looked up the Companion and taken advice from the Clerks. There is no time limit on this matter.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with respect, I am advised that, except in a case where a Private Notice Question in another place is repeated as a Statement in this House, the normal practice is to follow the conventions which apply to Starred Questions and Oral Questions.

Financial Services and Markets
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the Commons in the order set out in their Message of yesterday that it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets that it report by 27th May 1999 on Parts V (employment in regulated activities), VI (civil fines for market abuse) and XII (disciplinary measures) of the draft Bill in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington)
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 35.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Barnett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Alli. L.

Blease, L.

Amos, B.

Borrie. L.

Annan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L

Avebury, L.

Brookman, L.

Bach, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

314

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burns, L.

Longford, E.

Carrick, E.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L

Carter, L. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dixon, L.

Molloy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Castle Morris L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Northfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Patel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Grantchester, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L

Hampton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardy of Wath. L.

Roll of Ipsden, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sandberg, L

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hayman, B.

Shaughnessy, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hives, L.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stallard, L.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Strafford, E.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Walliswood. B.

Ilchester, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Chancellor.]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Islwyn, L.

Warnock, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Whaddon, L.

Seal.]

Whitty, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Lockwood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Monson, L.

Ashboumc, L.

Montrose, D.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Moyne, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Newall, L.

Chesham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Palmer, L.

Dundee, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gisborough, L.

[Teller.]

Glentoran, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Holderness, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Ironside, L.

Sharples, B.

Layton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tebbit, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Teynham, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Vinson, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 105 names. The Clerks recorded 104 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in order for us to consider what has happened in the past few minutes, it would be appropriate for there to be a Motion before the House. I therefore beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 10 minutes. I have no intention of asking the House to consider that.
A very unusual procedure has just taken place. The House has voted on a purely procedural Motion. I understand from those who opposed the Motion that it was done because of the advice given a few moments ago by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the Private Notice Question. It must be right for there to be an opportunity to put this matter entirely straight, and for the noble Baroness to explain the position more fully.
The House will know that I have maintained on many occasions that on purely House matters I support the Leader of the House. That was one of the reasons why I did not intervene when she said what she did. However, given the generosity that the noble Baroness had shown in agreeing that the PNQ could take place, I wonder whether she might have been rather hasty in her judgment, considering the tremendous interest on all sides of the House in this issue.
There was a substantial feeling that the House had been misled and that the Minister, for wholly understandable reasons, could not himself be here. There is an election in a few days and the issue has become enormously politicised. One wonders whether the situation could have been better handled either through the usual channels or by the noble Baroness showing the generosity that she had displayed earlier. I move the Motion to give the noble Baroness an opportunity to explain to the House why she reached the decision that she did.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 10 minutes. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely surprised and disappointed by the observations of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. As I understood the matter on which we voted, it was a procedural business Motion which had very little to do with the Private Notice Question, except as interpreted by several of his own Back-Benchers.
I have always understood that when the Leader of the House offers to the House advice that he or she is given on procedural matters the courtesies of the House are that the Leader of the Opposition supports the Leader of the House. I regret to say that during this Session there have been occasions when that has not occurred and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I have then engaged in private conversation and personal exchange of correspondence about situations that have arisen.
I am surprised that in this instance he should take the view that he has. The advice I was given was that the PNQ would follow the normal procedure for Oral Questions, not that for PNQs in another place repeated as Statements in this House. If this is a matter of dispute among noble Lords, obviously it is
316
a subject for the Procedure Committee. My advice to the House is that this kind of procedure should be immediately reported to, and discussed by, the Procedure Committee at an early opportunity. But I do not withdraw my disappointment at the position taken by the noble Lord on the matter.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. The Leader of the House is quite right. Those of us who have had the honour and privilege of being Leader of your Lordships' House have always had the right to expect that the advice we give to your Lordships, with the assistance of the learned Clerks, on matters of procedure should be supported. That is the way in which noble Lords are able to proceed without the intervention of a Speaker as happens in another place.
However, it was clear to me as an observer that there was immense interest on all side of the House in the Private Notice Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley. One wonders whether it might have been possible for the noble Baroness to suggest that the House could have stretched a point in order to accommodate that very obvious interest, noted by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
The noble Baroness will be aware, perhaps to a greater extent than anyone else in the Chamber, of the particularly sensitive period through which we are passing where nerves are perhaps nearer the surface than is usual in your Lordships' House. I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that it is at moments like these that a little elasticity is welcome. It may be sensible for the House to adjourn for 10 minutes to allow tempers to cool and for us then to proceed to the business of the House.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we are in danger of making a meal of this on the eve of a number of very important debates. There may have been a misunderstanding. I do not detect one. I believe, however, that the Leader of the House has made a perfectly sensible and widely acceptable suggestion that the matter be sent at an early date to the Procedure Committee which will report back. If the House does not like the report of the Procedure Committee it will reject it. But that is the proper course that the House should take without further delay.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, having been the instigator of this fracas—if I may call it that—it is eminently sensible that the rules of procedure should be reviewed as suggested by the noble Baroness. After all, the procedures are designed to serve the House; it is not the House that should serve its procedures. It is perhaps a pity that for want of a little judicial elasticity, which would have held up the business of the House for five minutes or so, we have now delayed business for a considerable time. I have no

317
wish to delay it any longer. The noble Baroness and others will be aware of the strength of feeling on the issue.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not intend to keep the debate going any longer. I believe that I have given the noble Baroness the opportunity to explain further what was on her mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Embryos and Cloning
3.36 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning the use of human embryos in cloning procedures; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if at the outset of my remarks I indicate that I intend to split my comments into three parts. First, I shall speak about the context in which this debate takes place today; secondly, I shall say something about the principles involved; and, thirdly, I shall discuss the process by which we reach a decision on this crucially important: question. I am extremely indebted to those Members of your Lordships' House who have put down their names and indicated their intention to take part in the debate today.
There was a time when human cloning was regarded as being in the realms of science fiction. It made good reading in books like Boys from Brazil or Brave New World, but it is probable that until the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997 many of us did not regard this issue as something that we would have to deal with as a matter of public policy.
Dolly was cloned after 277 attempts, involving nine embryos in the course of the procedures. Yesterday we learnt from the newspapers that in the United States goats had been cloned. The race is very much under way to achieve the cloning of human beings. In a recent "Panorama" programme a Korean scientist, Dr. Lee Bo Yeon, was asked when we might see a cloned baby. His reply was, "Much sooner than you think". That was after his claim—disputed by other scientists—that he had already created and then killed the first human clone. Just before Christmas a document was submitted to the Government by the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. A lot of the preparatory work for that document was carried out by a working party of four people, to which issue I shall return later.
Crucial to our understanding of this debate is the distinction that is made between reproductive cloning, which the two authorities considering this issue recommended against, and therapeutic cloning, which the, said should be authorised. We are awaiting the response of the Government, and it is for that reason that the debate today is so timely.
Putting the issue into context in one other respect, as we consider our own position it is worth referring to
318
what other countries are doing at this time. Only a week ago the 19 members of the Council of Europe ruled out any question of human cloning and said that it should not be permitted under any exceptions whatsoever. They have incorporated that protocol into the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Two countries were absent from signing that protocol. Germany said that in the light of its eugenics history, its own laws, which completely proscribe any experimentation on human embryos, meant that it had already had sufficient provision not to need this protocol. Her Majesty's Government also declined to sign the protocol. Perhaps we may hear from the Minister when she replies why the Government decided not to sign the protocol and where that will lead us as regards the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
The Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Daniel Tarchys, said:
"At a time when occasional voices are being raised to assert the acceptability of human cloning and even to put it more rapidly into practice, it is important for Europe solemnly to declare its determination to defend human dignity against the abuse of scientific techniques".
Your Lordships will also wish to know that President Chirac, who opened the conference debating this question, added his denunciation of countries which provide a safe haven for those scientists who wish to act outside internationally agreed norms. He said:
"Nothing will be resolved by banning certain practices in one country if scientists and doctors can simply work on them elsewhere".
It is not only in Europe that this issue is a controversial question. In the United States Senate there was a recent debate. Two conflicting Bills were introduced by Senators Bond and Frist, on one side, and Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, on the other. At the end of the stand-off and a filibuster, their Motion to prohibit human cloning was defeated. But I draw to the attention of your Lordships' House a leader from the Washington Pos. It said:
"The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable. Viewed from one angle this issue can be made to yield endless complexities. What about the suffering of individuals and infertile couples who might he helped by embryo research? What about the status of the brand new embryo? But before you get to these questions there is a simpler one: 'Is there a line that should not be crossed even for scientific, or other gain, and, if so, what is it?".
That is the context of today's debate. Is there a bright line which we simply should not cross?
Let us consider our deliberations in the context of the 1967 abortion legislation which we said would be only for difficult cases and that it would not lead to abortion on demand. There have been 5 million abortions since then. Think back to the legislation in 1991, when your Lordships debated the issue of experimentation on human embryos. We were then told that this would only be to help scientists to make progress for what they said would be perfectly legitimate reasons to try to rid the world of terrible degenerative disease or to help infertile couples. I should have thought that even the most enthusiastic supporters of that measure would pause to reflect on the half a million human embryos who have been destroyed or experimented upon since then.

319
It is perhaps worth considering in this context that every day 600 unborn babies are aborted in Britain but in the whole of the past year only 300 new-born babies were available for adoption. It seems extraordinary that we spend so much energy talking about procedures which often fail. No doubt we shall hear later from one eminent Member of this House about infertility treatments. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, will know, in up to 70 per cent of cases the infertility treatments still do not work.
I recommend to your Lordships' House an article in the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday last, written by Dominic Lawson, entitled The death of medicine.
The HFEA has permitted scientists in our own country, in Bristol, to inject human sperm to penetrate hamster eggs, and that in Japan, at Tottori University, scientists have grown human sperm in testicles of rats. Is it not again worth asking the question: where is the bright line which we should not cross? In the United Kingdom there have been reports of scientists saying it would be possible to implant a human embryo in a man.
In the Sunday Times on Sunday last, Dr. Paul Rainsbury said he was seeking a licence to split an embryo to create two children, one of whom could then be frozen. Dr. Rainsbury said that the second baby would be an insurance policy. All of that demonstrates how far we have moved from an authentic view of human life—of life as a precious gift from God—to a commodified view in which the language of the market place comes to dominate human procreation.
There are dissenting voices. It would be wrong to suggest that all religious views, or for that matter all scientific views, are the same. They are not. Let me draw to your Lordships' attention the words of Dr. John Wyatt, Professor of Neonatal Paediatrics at the Royal Free and University College Medical School in London. He said in a note to me:
"I and many of my fellow health professionals share a profound disquiet about the introduction of therapeutic cloning. Many of us are actively involved in research to find novel therapies for life threatening and disabling conditions. However, the creation and manipulation of living human embryos for the sole purpose of generating therapeutic tissue seems incompatible with respect for vulnerable human life. The redefinition of human embryos as mere biological material or 'totipotent stem cells' in order to allay public concerns smacks of semantic trickery rather than responsible debate".
I cite these words from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Basil Hume. He says:
"Every human embryo is a new human life with the potential to develop into an adult human being. From the moment an embryo is created, we are dealing with a human subject which should always he treated with reverence and respect. It would be morally abhorrent for new human lives to be created simply for harvesting human tissue. Today's development highlights the urgent need for Parliament to amend and restrict the 1990 Act.
It is said that, in the long term, scientific advances in treating disease could be accelerated by the use of this technique. Even if this were true, it cannot justify doing what is wrong: We are dealing with human lives.
This is surely another example of a line which should never be crossed. We may be being clever but are we being wise?".
I repeat: we may be being clever but are we being wise?
320
Later in the debate we shall hear from my noble friend Lord Jakobovits and from other noble Lords who represent religious and scientific traditions. I was extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—he cannot be here today—for the letter of support he sent me in the context of our debate.
That is the context in which contributions will be made today. I turn to some of the principles involved. Human cloning is the production of a genetic copy of another human organism. Cloning would be achieved by embryo splitting or by nuclear transfer. Reproductive cloning would allow the human embryo to develop into a full copy of the donor. But therapeutic cloning would also require the creation of a human embryo. Cell differentiation, leading to continued foetal development, would not be permitted. The purpose would be to grow tissue or perhaps organs for transplant therapies. Both techniques require the manufacture of a human embryo. Growing a human clone for its limbs and organs is technological cannibalism.
Alternatives exist. President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Committee has stated that,
"because of ethical and moral concerns raised by the use of embryos for research purposes it would be far more desirable to explore the direct use of human cells of adult origin to produce specialised cells or tissue for transplantation into patients".
I turn to the process by which we take these decisions. It is extraordinary that this is the first parliamentary debate that we have had in either House about this question. Where has been a committee of the stature of that chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock? Where has been a committee such as that chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, before arriving at these conclusions? Instead we have had four people, all of whom are scientists, and all of whom had expressed previously at some point or another support for human cloning, deliberating on these questions. Just 200 submissions were made as part of their low key consultation and they declined even to place a copy of the responses in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Earlier this year Sir Cohn Campbell resigned as chairman of the Human Genetics Advisory Committee because he said that his commercial interests in an insurance company might lead to a conflict of interest. But if that were right, and it was, how could a man like Dr. George Poste, with his huge interests in Smithkline Beecham, Cerebrus Limited and Dia Dexos, avoid a similar conflict of interest? Other members, too, had interests, and I passionately believe that we need to remove this debate from those who are too close to the industries and who could gain from the procedures in which they are involved. Your Lordships' House is perhaps the one remaining place where these awesome questions may be debated impartially and thoughtfully.
This then is the context, these are the principles and that is the process which led to my tabling today's Motion. Let us be clear what is at stake here. We are witnessing the creation of nightmare kingdoms, populated by a sub-species of human clones. This debate is about nothing less than what it means to be human. We may be on the verge of committing species suicide. A whole range of sociological, psychological and scientific questions arise from this, apart from the

321
ethical questions which I have raised already. Questions arise about the familial relationships between the cloned individual and the other members of his or her family should reproductive cloning be permitted. There are questions of inheritance, questions of status and so on. We may be committing ourselves to permit something which could have vast consequences, not just for ourselves but for all future generations.
Your Lordships will be told in this debate that if we should just permit a little cloning, therapeutic cloning, it could lead to many advances. But this is the bridge across which unethical scientists and pharmaceutical companies will march towards full pregnancy cloning. Our IVF clinics will be awash with cloned human embryos and, sooner rather than later, someone will start implanting them in surrogate mothers.
To legalise therapeutic cloning is to render inevitable the onset of human pregnancy cloning. For the Government to give a green light to the former will amount to complicity in the latter. We are hopelessly ill-prepared to answer the complex scientific and sociological questions which are raised by human cloning. Our destiny as a species is the high theme which must engage us today. We will not survive the 21st century with 20th century bio-ethics. We need a moratorium to give us space to think. We need to hear the profoundly important arguments on both sides. Dissenting voices should not be driven out of the committees that consider these matters. One thing is clear: to act in haste will cause us to repent at leisure.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the whole House, myself included, will be deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this interesting debate. It is on what is undoubtedly an issue of importance and one that I agree completely concerns human dignity. I shall return to that a little later.
I fear. though, that the noble Lord is confusing a number of different arguments. I was not certain whether he was talking about cloning or about embryo research. They are different issues. He reminds me a little of the noble Lord who points his blunderbuss at a hare and a high pheasant at the same time—and misses both.
The issue is important. The first thing to say very clearly is that it is absolutely certain that British law as it stands prevents, and has prevented, human cloning, and that there is no intention to perform human cloning. Secondly, none of the human cloning experiments to which the noble Lord refers is taking place in this country. This House cannot legislate for what happens in Korea, but I suspect that the statements made by the soi-disant scientist from Korea are not quite as far forward as he might imagine. Certainly, that group has published nothing of scientific merit of which I am aware. The scientific background mast be established first.
Perhaps I may knock on the head one theory, the theory that human cloning may be immediately possible. I believe that that is completely untrue. It took a good
322
deal more than nine embryos to produce Dolly. In fact, producing one sheep took about 400 embryo experiments. Sheep embryos have an 80 per cent likelihood of implantation in the uterus. Therefore. i f one manages to get a clone embryo, one is very likely eventually to get an implantation. With a human it is very different. The best implantation rate that can be expected is well under 20 per cent, so the chances are that to produce one cloned human one would have to do a hundred cloning experiments on women. I do not think there will be many women lining up to have a Saddam Hussein, an Adolf Hitler or indeed a politician in their uterus. I do not see this as a feasible technology.
Moreover, in every experiment involving cloning there have been serious abnormalities in some of the foetuses. It is simply unthinkable that any doctor or scientist would be responsible for an outcome of an animal or human being that was damaged in that sort of way. It is very important that we as doctors and scientists recognise ourselves as the servants of society, not its masters. In this country we are paid through the public sector. We respect the public sector. The scientists here, whom the noble Lord, I fear, tends to impugn with some of his remarks, are deeply conscious of their responsibilities and obey the law absolutely, in every respect.
Somebody has talked about splitting embryos and making twins. But that is not reproductive or experimental cloning, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alton; it is simply splitting an embryo, which is actually forbidden by law in this country. Anyway, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has refused permission to do that.
In the United Kingdom over the past five years there have probably been some 20,000 clones walking around—all, of course, naturally born twins, identical twins, who as twins are more closely related to each other than would be clones who do not have identical DNA, because the DNA from the egg is different from the DNA of the nucleus.
What is the benefit of this technology, it being agreed that it would be unthinkable to use it in humans? The benefits are very considerable. First—this has never been mentioned—cloning research is capable of producing very important information about the process of ageing, because we do not know at present whether ageing is due to a nuclear change or due to the DNA change in the egg cell. Over time this will help us to study what is of crucial importance to the whole of human medicine. Ageing will be an increasing problem. It is already a major focus of research and development in the NHS.
Secondly, we now know that we can reprogramme the nucleus in a cell. This is of colossal importance. I am not making any exaggerated claim when I say that it is of importance in looking, for example, at the mechanisms of cell division, which affect diseases like cancer, and the cell cycle. It is absolutely germane to such researches.
I would add that it is very wrong to confuse the real issue of abortion, about which I know that the noble Lord feels very deeply, with the issue of cloning. They

323
are not the same issue at all. It may well be possible, using techniques that we are developing, to take tissue from a human embryo without in any way damaging or destroying it, or creating an embryo purposely for the making of tissue. In fact, there are now techniques at our disposal for taking single cells off the inner cell mass of the embryo, and in time they may be grown.
The noble Lord said that there was confusion between human dignity and scientific defects. I would argue that it would be completely unethical not to do this research, given the tools of creation that God has given us. We should be using our God-given intelligence to protect and promote human life. It is absolutely wrong, and counter to human dignity, not to use scientific knowledge for those very reasons.
In the near future, we shall be able to generate from embryonic stem cells, without the destruction of an embryo, skin for burns victims, for children who would otherwise die. We shall be able to grow nervous tissue for people who have neurological deficits. We shall undoubtedly be able to treat leukaemia, from which children and young people are currently dying. We shall be able to treat liver disease, which kills a large number of people each year. We may well be able to replace defective heart muscle by growing it. Already at Hammersmith Hospital my colleagues are growing bone cells from mouse embryos, as I speak. This will be used, I have no doubt, to look at human degenerative disorders. The importance of that work cannot be over-stated.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one final question. When he sums up the debate, will he assure the House that his reasons for introducing the Motion relate purely to cloning and not to the fact that he has a fundamental objection to all in vitro fertilisation techniques which have engendered many tens of thousands of healthy human beings on the surface of this planet?
4 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston, because in this House we all know of his expertise in this area. But it is a subject on which I feel strongly and I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this debate. It is much needed and, like him, I am sorry that there has not been more debate.
Cellular molecular biology advances at such a rate that it is not only the right but the duty of Parliament to be vigilant, even though the responsibility is onerous and daunting. What is disturbing, especially against the background of the constitutional changes for this House, with the possibility of a much weakened interim Chamber, is the singular lack of discussion of those matters by the House of Commons. Will the Minister tell us whether it is the case that the Government will respond to the recommendations of the working group without a full debate of the issues by the elected Chamber?
Perhaps I may put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. He made the technology sound so futuristic that we are all worrying about nothing. I have
324
read this document and it does not speak of the technology as being very futuristic. This is not a purely scientific matter. There are psychological, sociological and theological dimensions which must be given serious consideration.
I found what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about the working group of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority extremely disturbing. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right to question the scientific bias and credibility of the consultation process.
Equal prominence should be given to ethical principles in the field of science which is impacting psychologically, sociologically and spiritually on the very fabric of society. I look with hope to the right reverend Prelate to add the voice of the established Church in support of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the issue of cloning technology.
Those of us who are concerned about unfettered technical scientific advances are often intimidated by the scientists and technocrats. But those who are interested in that area, who understand the wider ramifications and consequences of the new technologies as they unfold, welcome this kind of debate, albeit short, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has initiated today.
My concern is the slippery slope which was warned of many years ago and which fell on so many deaf ears: the incredible number of abortions which are carried out each year; the massive increase in the number of embryos both created and destroyed; and now, cloning, coupled with genetic engineering, is taking place, which is the manipulation of human life on an altogether different plane. It is imperative that much greater and wider consideration should be given to its consequences.
When given the facts about genetic engineering and cloning technological advances, the public display great anxiety and look to the Government to provide a protective legislative framework. I am not impressed by the references to the consultation process in the document. That leaves a great deal to be desired.
In America, scientists have discovered a way of producing completely fatherless children. Some time ago in the county from which I come, a lesbian couple made the media headlines by producing a baby by self-insemination. Their plan was for each of them to have a baby without any physical contact with a man. One child was born to one of the couple and before they could manipulate a second child, the couple split up. Apart from the horror of that so-called "scientific development", what are the social and perhaps even psychological consequences for that child? Some of us believe that playing God in that way is wholly unacceptable.
The Government must stand firm against such developments in this country. Social instability, breakdown of the family and a high level of insecure children are great issues of our day. But what is the point of wringing our hands about such issues when there appears to be daily incremental acceptance of scientific processes which contribute quite directly to

325
social and psychological disorder? This debate should be widened and politicians in authority should give the lead.
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. He is quite right that it is a subject of great consequence and the swift pace of scientific research presents us with some awesome possibilities for the future. Due to the delayed start of the debate, I shall now have to leave before the end as I am due to conduct a confirmation in Oxford.
The Church of England's Board for Social Responsibility, which I chair, is totally opposed to the cloning of embryos for reproductive purposes. That view is shared widely and is reiterated in the report from the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority of December last year. The Government therefore have very strong support for their continuing ban.
On research using nuclear replacement technology for therapeutic purposes, there is greater division of opinion. Some are opposed to all research on embryos on the grounds that,
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of existence, the human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life".
That is a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it is a view shared by a fair number of other Christian people. It is a view I respect deeply but it is not one I share.
I take a developmental view of the human person and believe that the recommendation of the Warnock Report, now enshrined in law, that the formation of the primitive streak 14 days after conception is that clear point beyond which all research should be banned. The noble Lord. Lord Alton, called for a clear line. I believe that that does provide a clear line. Before that point, in the very early cluster of cells, it is not yet clear which will develop into a distinct individual. Furthermore, while the noble Lord emphasises the numbers of embryos which have been kept and then destroyed over recent years, it is a fact that in nature itself as many as three-quarters of the eggs which are fertilised are lost anyway in the normal course of events, most before they implant in their mother's womb about a week after conception.
Although it has been known for centuries that some embryos miscarry spontaneously, the magnitude of very early embryonic loss has been recognised only recently. Nature is amazingly prodigal, not only in the number of acorns produced by each oak and the millions of sperms that are produced but also in the number of fertilised eggs which, in nature, do not come to term.
Reflecting on that prodigality of nature, Professor Gordon Dunstan has written:
"Upon this waste, medical intervention imposes an economy. If successful it provides a baby where otherwise there would be none. The genetic information stored in the cells can be read; what is thus learned can be ordered into knowledge; knowledge can be put to beneficial life-saving use. The argument is not that because nature
326
is prodigal we may he prodigal; because so much life or potential life is lost, one more does not matter. It is the reverse. R is that nature's prodigality is turned to creative use: natural loss is lessened, albeit to a minute degree".
In the response of the Board for Social Responsibility to the consultation document on Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine, we reflected the fact that the majority opposed the deliberate creation of embryos for experimental purposes but were willing to accept research on spare embryos created as a result of existing infertility treatment. Furthermore, the board believes that nuclear replacement technology should only be used when there are no other ways of doing that particular piece of research.
There are a number of factors that need to be balanced on this issue. First, I believe that we should welcome and celebrate what modern scientific research can achieve. Sometimes, a begrudging spirit can enter into these debates as though the only job of ethicists is to act as policemen and say no. But the capacity to understand the workings of nature and interact with them for human well-being is an aspect of our God-given creativity. It is something to be rejoiced in.
Secondly, it is right to be cautious. There is an accumulated wisdom in the billions of years of evolution. We can rarely predict the full consequences of research. Not everything that can be done should be done. It is the nature of the scientific enterprise always to press on, to think that because it can be done it should be done. It is therefore important that we should have widespread public debate and a proper legal framework for all front-line research. I believe that we can be thankful that we have the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, with its clear mandate and authority for licensing or not licensing particular pieces of research.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, drew our attention to the many ways in which this research could be beneficial for human well-being and welfare. The report to which reference has been made contains two particular recommendations. One is that in regulations two further purposes should be added to the list of purposes for which the HFEA could authorise a research project. I look forward to hearing anything the Minister is able to say today which might indicate the Government's attitude to the recommendations in the report.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords. I speak in this debate with some diffidence; I am neither a specialist in human reproduction, nor long a Member of your Lordships' House. However, as a member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, and since recently its acting chairman, I have had some concern during the past year with the topics we debate today and was involved in the report published by the commission jointly with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I speak, however, today in my personal capacity and neither for the commission nor as its chairman. I also speak with gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this important set of subjects to debate.

327
The frisson which everyone feels at the possibility of the cloning of human beings is understandable. We are only beginning to understand what such reproductive cloning would mean. We have all read of the tremendous scientific difficulties and wastage involved in cloning Dolly. We know that cloning, as at present possible, is not a safe procedure. However, some people think that should reproductive cloning become safe, or at least much safer, then there might be a case for permitting it. I believe that this is doubtful.
However, this is not because cloned persons would lack a unique identity. Having a unique identity is, as has already been said, not a matter of having a unique genetic identity. To have a unique identity is to have a separate body and mind and a life of one's own. That is fundamental to human identity, otherwise we would be speaking of those of us who are monozygotic twins as lacking a unique identity.
Reproductive cloning would, I believe, remain a dubious infertility treatment for other reasons, and mainly because if it were adopted it would be intended as a treatment for those for whom other forms of treatment do not work, by which they could have a genetically related child. But, in doing so, they would be taking it upon themselves to bring into the world a child with a genetically ambiguous or confused heritage. For example, if the child is to be a clone of either parent, it will thereby be not only the genetic twin of that parent, but the genetic sibling of its aunts and uncles and the genetic child of its grandparents. We have some knowledge of the additional burdens that ambiguous and confused family relationships may create for children; as, for example, in the case of adoption and step-parents. In this case, however, parents do not plan to put their children into this situation. Would it be right deliberately to plan for children to face quite exceptional levels of ambiguous and confused heritage?
Of course, it may be said that cloning does not have to be of a related person and that if it were of an unrelated person those difficulties would be less. In that case, surely it would be safer, more feasible and ethically more acceptable to have a child by way of adoption—granted that there are great difficulties in that at present. I do not believe that there are any reasons at present to reconsider the ban on reproductive cloning which the 1990 Act sought to impose.
Ethically more difficult concerns raised by cloning technologies do not relate to their use in fertility treatment but to their use in cell nuclear replacement technologies—that is the method by which Dolly was cloned—and the application of those technologies to human eggs. I believe that the considerations which are ethically important for us in this context are those which should govern any use of human tissues, including human reproductive tissues, by which we seek to ensure that human beings are never used as mere means.
Our practice in this area has not been to ban all use of human tissues, but to insist broadly on two ethical conditions. The first is that human tissues be used only for morally valuable and serious purposes, such as curing disease, medical education and research,
328
including help for the infertile. The second is that the consent of individuals whose tissue is used should be freely given. These two standards have been used to regulate uses of human tissues from blood transfusion to organ transplantation and in the daily medical practices of retaining pathological specimens for medical follow-up, education and research, as well as in the recent development of IVF.
When we use human tissues as a means to these ends, we do not, I believe, treat the human beings who donate tissues as mere means; we do not instrumentalise them, provided we adhere rigorously to these standards, which are crucial to medical practice that respects human rights and human dignity. These standards will be equally important in regulating any use of cell nuclear replacement technologies in human medicine.
The 1990 Act permits research on human embryos only for 14 days; that is, until the emergence of the primitive streak. Until that stage, the cluster of cells comprising the embryo cannot yet be identified with an individual human being: it is still indeterminate, for example, whether these cells will grow into a single human being or into more than one. While I have the greatest respect for the thought that we become human beings long before we are born, I do not believe that human rights or human dignity can be at issue before there are human individuals.
At present, research on human embryos during the permitted 14-day period is restricted to five specific purposes in Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. All of those purposes centre on the better understanding of human reproduction. They include advancing the treatment of infertility; increasing knowledge of causes of congenital disease and miscarriage; advancing the techniques of contraception: and developing methods of detecting gene and chromosome abnormality.
The joint report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetic Advisory Commission proposed that two additional purposes might be added to the list by regulation. I shall say nothing about the use of embryonic stem cells. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke about that and I believe that the scientific demands in that area are great.
I wish to comment briefly on therapy for mitochondrial genetic disease because it fits very well into the group of purposes listed in Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. A woman with mitochondria! genetic disease carries it in all her eggs and will transmit it to all her children. But the mitochondrial DNA is not in the nucleus of the egg. The nucleus of an egg from a woman with such disease might therefore be transferable to a healthy egg donated by another woman and subsequently fertilised in vitro. A healthy child could then be born to a couple, despite the mother's mitochondrial disease. The fertility treatment leading to its birth would involve cell nuclear replacement, but not reproductive cloning, and there would be no ambiguity about the child's heritage.
It may be said that to permit additional purposes for embryo research such as this one and possibly embryonic stem cell research would be to slide down a

329
slippery slope. I do not believe that the fear is well founded. Adding these two purposes to the regulations restricting embryo research would not extend the period of permitted research. It would not alter the fundamental ethical standards which would govern research on human beings and human tissues. There is no ethical innovation proposed. There is simply a matter of taking cognisance of scientific developments.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is my very great honour to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, on her superb maiden speech. Her distinguished background as a philosopher and her role as chairman of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission have equipped her perfectly for this afternoon's subject. We are very much in her debt for her wise words. I am sure her mind will be brought to bear on numerous other subjects in your Lordships' House. In my speech at Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill, I hoped that Members of any future House would be uncommonly able rather than uncommonly privileged. The noble Baroness fits the bill precisely and will greatly strengthen the interim House.
I turn to the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for which I thank him. First, to consider human reproductive cloning rather than "therapeutic" cloning, the HFEA report suggests that the Government
"may … wish to consider the possibility of introducing primary or secondary legislation explicitly banning reproductive cloning".
I hope very much that the Government will not go down that road despite the strong public opinion which at present is expressed against human reproductive cloning. The report also states:
"The Government has explicitly ruled out reproductive cloning and the I-IF'EA has stated its policy that it will not license the use of nuclear replacement for this purpose".
In other words, it is highly unlikely that reproductive cloning could be allowed under present rules. That is a proper decision because, as other noble Lords have already pointed out, the technique is still imperfectly developed. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the 277 attempts before Dolly the sheep was successfully implanted and delivered.
However. there may well be a time in a decade or so when these difficulties will largely be overcome and a strong case for allowing a very small number of cloned individuals may be made. The current reaction to this is one of shock-horror, with visions of regimented identical individuals of servile rank, as in Brave New World, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or of evil nature as in The Boys from Brazil. Current regulations would virtually rule that out. The mad scientist who, having learned the techniques, uses them for malevolent purposes is most unlikely to appear. In any case, if he wanted to do this so strongly, he would disobey any prohibition, however draconian.
The current popular rejection of human reproductive cloning was examined critically by Professor Raanan Gillon, head of the medical ethics unit of the Imperial College School of Medicine in his Stevens Lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine last June. He divides the
330
opposition to this process into four categories: first, moral repugnance, including gut reactions of "yuk", horror, offence, playing God and so on: secondly, issues of autonomy, dignity and identity; thirdly, issues of psychological harm or benefit to the parent or the individual concerned; and, finally, issues of justice.
In every one of those categories Professor Gillon finds that, cutting through and eliminating purely emotional responses, there is a very plausible case for reproductive cloning as well as one against it. I cannot take the House through his reasoning. The lecture contains 10,000 words which I suggest all concerned with making decisions in this area should read. However, I shall quote one illustrative paragraph which. will, perhaps, introduce a slightly lighter note into what is otherwise a rather sombre debate. He said:
"An analogy which I like to use concerns medical practice. Doctors, especially surgeons, cut people up quite a lot; they also stick their fingers in people's bottoms. Most of us, I imagine, would feel quite deeply that both of those activities are rather disgusting and not to be done; yet we know, through thought and reflection in our medical studies, that we had better overcome these deep feelings because in some circumstances it is right to cut people and in some circumstances it is right to put our fingers in people's bottoms. Both are extraordinary and counter-intuitive things to do, but on analysis we find that they are sometimes the right thing to do".
Having said that, he does, however, agree with the HFEA that at present we should prohibit human reproductive cloning because it has so many dangers in its present state of development; but, we should not close it off completely for the future. I hope that the Government will accept that the current state of regulations for human reproductive cloning is sufficient.
I intended to say a little about so-called "therapeutic" cloning. However, I see that my time is up. That issue has already been covered by a number of noble Lords so at this point, I shall sit down.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, perhaps I may break with convention and congratulate my noble friend—truly my friend—Lady O'Neill of Bengarve on an outstanding maiden speech. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for the opportunity to have the debate.
I am an obstetrician but I do not treat patients with infertility; nor have I been involved in research on embryos or gametes. In my capacity as president of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. I have responded on behalf of the college to the consultation document, and I draw now upon those comments.
Application of cloning techniques is divided into those which may provide therapeutic benefit—therapeutic cloning—and those which are designed to create a human being by asexual reproduction—reproductive cloning. In balancing risks and benefits, the potential positive benefits from therapeutic cloning outweigh the foreseeable risks. We should therefore consider taking those risks after the appropriate research has been carried out.
The benefits from human reproductive cloning, however, are not so apparent and the risks are at present unknown. The purpose and intention of cloning for

331
purposes of human reproduction are less clear and the advantages cannot be seen to outweigh the disadvantages.
The present Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act allows for restricted research on human embryos of up to 14 days' development provided the embryos are not replaced into a woman's womb. As long as those conditions are met and there is no attempt to continue to grow experimental embryos artificially in vitro beyond 14 days, there are no obvious new ethical issues raised by embryo splitting or nuclear replacement in relation to the special status of the human embryo or what may be done to it within the 14-day period.
The Act allows research of embryos up to 14 days within certain specified areas directly related to reproduction. As has been mentioned by several noble Lords and the noble Baroness, if research into therapeutic cloning is to take place these areas of research may need to be broadened. There is a basic need to discover how embryological cells differentiate, which may be easier using adult nuclei in embryos created by nuclear replacement rather than naturally fertilised embryos alone. Such research, and its potential therapeutic applications, would not raise any new ethical concerns. The use of a cell line developed from an individual's own cell poses less of an ethical and medical dilemma than using tissue from another individual or foetus.
What about issues related to genetics? A right can be defined as a justifiable claim. It is difficult to know how this can be applied to an individual's genetic identity. There is certainly no legal right to one's genetic identity, and it is difficult to argue that there is a moral right. Genetic identity is a gift. It is no more a right than characteristics such as colour of hair or eyes. All humans should be treated as individuals in their own right and not used to gratify another's wishes.
However, reproductive cloning is unlikely to produce identical individuals because of differing effects of the environment, as already mentioned. Embryo splitting is more likely to result in similar individuals but nuclear replacement with adult nuclei would create a person of a different age, subject to different environmental pressures, from that of the individual who has donated the nucleus. The creation of a clone of a human person at present is unethical because the reasons in favour of it are limited and too little is known of the consequences; not simply because cloning is unethical per se.
The lack of knowledge of the risks involved in human reproductive cloning makes it unethical at present. The high risk of failure is no reason for not attempting a new technique as long as the subject understands and accepts those risks. Nuclear replacement could involve super-ovulation induction, with the risk of ovarian hyper-stimulation to the egg donor, but risks to the clone are largely unknown.
In concluding, there is a general concern that any form of reproductive cloning in humans should be permitted. Thus any use of cloning and related techniques for reproductive purposes, persuasive
332
examples of which are also given in the document mentioned, must stop short of implantation: that is, the replacement of the cloned embryo into the uterus. Embryo research and therapeutic cloning for the purpose of developing methods of treatment for mitochondrial diseases and for repairing damaged or diseased cells, tissues and organs are different. Research to provide better understanding of cell differentiation is important before we can develop methods of treatment.
I recognise that to many, a clone is a potential human being and the arguments in this respect are similar to those in respect of abortion. But there are many in the population who want us to develop the knowledge to help to treat diseases such as cancer, blood diseases, degenerative diseases and so on. Research into stem cells may lead us to this. Of course, if and when it becomes possible to harvest stem cells from adults and transform them into tissue types, this debate will not be necessary.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to me from this side of the House to offer our warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, on her maiden speech, which we welcome for its clarity, its knowledge, and if I may so, its charm. We look forward to hearing a great many more speeches from the noble Baroness.
Today, thanks to my noble friend Lord Alton, we are debating a subject which could not be more fundamental to the whole of the human race. On this matter there is a wide difference between the views of the scientist and the views of the public. The scientist believes that any and every procedure is justified if it advances treatment or aids knowledge of a disease or a condition, or even if he thinks it might—which is not always so by any manner of means. The public see an ethical and a moral side to this. Broadly they believe that it is wrong to create human beings for the sole purpose of using various parts, either to transplant the material or as a means of experimentation.
Scientists justifying cloning seek to blind the public with science. They claim that using the embryo in its early stages is nothing to fuss about: it is only a blob. It is merely a little collection of cells and it fits very nicely into a test tube. All of us in this House listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, had to say. In the first part of his speech he seemed to be telling us that we need not worry because it is not going to happen. He then went on to tell us of the advantages when, or if, it did happen. I must admit there have been times when what the noble Lord has written has rather puzzled me, because in the BMJ in March 1997 he wrote:
"In human reproduction, cloning techniques could offer prospects to sufferers from intractable infertility."
He was clearly in favour of it. In January 1998 he was rather angry with President Clinton, who had made remarks that were clearly against cloning. The noble Lord said that this was a "knee-jerk" reaction and that cloning technology offered hope to many infertile

333
couples. Only four days later, in the Independent he wrote:
"I don't know [if cloning human beings could bring benefits] but I think probably yes."
So it is a little difficult to understand quite where we are going sometimes with this highly technical advice. For instance, the noble Lord said today that one cell could be taken from an embryo without killing it. Surely he should then have gone on to say that the HFEA requires that the remaining embryo is to be killed. Surely that is part of the argument. I find it very difficult to set a time in the development of the miracle which could become a child before which it is quite all right to use it as experimental material and after which it is not.
Of course there is a very strong case for "spare part surgery"—some people will certainly die without it—but to produce a living human being simply to supply the necessary hearts, livers, kidneys, corneas or whatever is needed is morally wrong, and indeed utterly repugnant. Some things are surely sacrosanct, and respect for human life, in spite of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, is one of those things.
It seems that it would not be against the law to use the same technique which produced Dolly the sheep to produce a human being. The law is very ambivalent about this. We do not quite know what kind of human being that would be except that, if we are to judge from Dolly, it would have all the bits and pieces that surgeons want for transplants. It would have all kinds of other cells as well which could be used for experiments. I am horrified to have heard what my noble friend Lord Alton told us about the make-up of the advisory committee which advises the Government on these matters. Every member of that committee is in favour of cloning.
Such a body cannot give unbiased advice; yet surely this is one subject, above all others, on which we need balanced advice, not biased advice. There are some strong views in this House in favour of the individual and its most basic rights. I believe that the public overwhelmingly share these views. It would be a mockery of Christian ethics and a gross indecency to permit humans to be cloned.
To hold that view certainly does not mean that one does not respect and admire the brilliance of doctors and scientists. It does not mean that one has no sympathy for the sick people who need transplants or for women who long to conceive and yet find that they cannot. But to create sub-humans for these purposes would surely be wrong. There are, after all, alternatives to therapeutic cloning. Furthermore, we know that there are many human risks attached to this, which I do not have time to address in this very short speech. The Government have said they are not prepared to allow the cloning of humans, but they will permit the use of cloned embryos as source material for organ transplants. It surprises me that an embryo has organs big enough to transplant. I suppose what happens is that we allow the embryo to go into a test tube where it is developed and fed in some way so that it actually grows the transplant organs. But the mind boggles.
334
In spite of what has been said—so far we have had one view from my noble friend and another view from the noble Baroness—about slippery slopes, I believe that we are certainly in slippery slope territory.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are in danger of running out of time in this debate. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am sure I was right to spend a few moments in congratulating the noble Baroness and I am just concluding my speech.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are on a tight timetable with the debate. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will draw her remarks to a close.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am aware of that. I say, finally, that we are on a slippery slope and slippery slopes are there to be slid down. We should never open the way, as we would if we permitted human cloning.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, we are once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for giving us the opportunity to delve into this perhaps most vital—literally, most vital—of all subjects that we could ever hope to discuss.
When the Warnock Committee considered the whole issue of human reproduction in the light of modern scientific and technological advances, it wisely recommended a complete ban on the cloning of human beings. That is the law to the present day, as it was enshrined in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
Let me say at once that I am not impressed by the argument so frequently advanced that we are playing, God by delving into these mysteries of creation itself. On the contrary, I believe that we as human beings, endowed with a divine soul and intelligence, are meant. to use that endowment in the service of mankind, medically or otherwise; and every time we bring human ingenuity to bear on alleviating human suffering, bringing solutions to problems of human reproduction, not only do we not play God, we perform an essential basic duty of man; that is, to be Godlike—imitatio dei.
The specific reference to human cloning may call for some fresh consideration and elucidation, especially in the light of the latest scientific and medical developments. In the debate in 1989 when the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House, I suggested that the line drawn between embryos under and over two weeks old—as was mentioned in two contributions here this afternoon—seemed entirely arbitrary. Because the first signs of the so-called "primitive streak" were not apparent before that, it was suggested that, up to two weeks, one should be able to carry out experiments and that thereafter such experiments should cease. Rather, I suggested then that a distinction ought to be made

335
between embryos generated for experimental purposes, which ought never to be sanctioned, and between embryos that were potentially viable and others which were in any event destined to die.
Let me explain. There was no reason why an excess of embryos which had to be generated in in-vitro fertilisation procedures in order to produce the one or two possible viable births, and which could not afterwards be re-inserted in the mother because it might lead to multiple births and thereby either endanger the mother or the developing foetuses, should not be used for experiments so long as those experiments were designed to lead to possibly life-saving ends. That seems to make a much more logical division that would not infringe or impinge on the dignity and value of human life, potential or otherwise. The whole subject calls for careful re-examination to ensure that human life is adequately protected as well as promoted and that human intelligence is used to remove, as far as we can, human suffering and deprivation.
Let me conclude with one important observation that exercises me constantly as a recipient of an age-old tradition in the pioneering of the moral law and the tremendous infinite esteem for human life that we cherish and wish to share with the rest of the human family. These are subjects that are still far too delicate and weighty and, as we have seen in this debate already, too controversial to warrant a definitive ruling, decision or vote at this early stage—early both scientifically and morally.
Therefore, what is called for is a further moratorium, as President Clinton advocated not so long ago, before we take steps that cannot be reversed which could lead to incalculable disaster. If we make one slight miscalculation, we may produce monsters over the generations that cannot be undone. Therefore, caution is the order of the day. But let us not forget that our ultimate assignment is to bring healing on the one hand and the supreme dignity of man and his reproduction on the other to bear on us as humans in maintaining a divine order; a human order that will preserve the distinctiveness and uniqueness of our task as men and women made in the image of our creator.
4.48 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord is highly respected in this House. I have special reasons for thinking about him constantly. I read the Gospels every day and many times Jesus Christ says, "As it is written". I need someone to tell me, and I will come back one day to the noble Lord and ask him, "Where is it written? Where were these famous pronouncements made in the Old Testament?"
Be that as it may. I usually try to speak—as others do in this Chamber—on subjects to which one has devoted a certain amount of prolonged attention. But one cannot always do that. Sometimes one feels so strongly about a matter that, without having been any kind of expert, one must offer one's conviction. I have no difficulty in offering my conviction in relation to human cloning.
336
I have studied this subject enough recently to be aware that under human cloning human beings will be produced without a father being involved in the reproduction process. There will be no man in the picture; in other words, it will be the end of marriage and of family life. That is the direction in which the cloning of human beings would take us. The idea is revolting to me.
These are the ideas of high-minded people, one of whom has just left the Chamber. Such high-minded people are responsible for science, but we must not let our scientists determine our morals. Very often they are as moral as we are; but their science points in one direction and, although morals may sometimes point in the same direction, on other occasions they may not. As far as I am concerned, the moral conclusion must come first. The cloning of human beings might mean the end of family life and of marriage. I detest that thought and I hope that the proposition will be rejected on every possible ground.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first, like many other speakers, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for tabling this Motion. Secondly, I should like to say that I am always happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because I find that he and I so often think the same way. The noble Earl puts it more succinctly than I do and manages to be much shorter. Therefore, I shall try to keep an eye on the clock.
Cloning was not a subject to which I had given very much thought. It seemed to me that although the scientists and the doctors were experimenting and working on the subject, it was likely to be a matter for the coming generations—and not us—to think about moral issues and, generally, about what should be done. Then there came a great shock. I have in mind Dolly. I suddenly realised then that we face the moral issues as regards what might be possible now rather than the future generations. When it could apply to humans, it is a tremendous worry; and we are today debating this very subject.
If the Western world, the Jewish world and the Christian world were all of a mind—indeed, I thought that they were, but I am less certain after having listened to some of today's debate—it would good if they were to take a stand and say that, for them, it was out of the question to have human cloning. I was encouraged by hearing that Europe, save for two nations, had so subscribed. I think that it would be a great idea if the British Government could participate in this process with the rest of Europe. We should make it clear that we are firmly behind everyone else in the sense of supporting their decision.
It would be ideal if we could get world opinion together on the matter; in, for example, a United Nations motion. However, I suppose that that is wishing for the impossible. Nevertheless, it is worth a try. After all, if we have got it for Europe, we have already gone some way towards achieving agreement with the rest of the world.

337
I want to make two particular points. The first is my belief that we should never forget that the human being consists of a body and a soul. The human embryo, as Professor T. F. Torrance puts it, is,
"an embodied soul and a besouled body".
His pamphlet, The Soul and Person of the Unborn Child, published by the Scottish Order of Christian Unity, is invaluable on that point and should be read by all who care about such matters. The poem at the end of the pamphlet is both tragic and unforgettable.
My second point relates to pain and the unborn foetus. For many years, the Women and Children's Welfare Fund and many other organisations have been at great pains to establish this fact against much opinion. Recently—I mean two or three years ago—there was a great change in attitudes and I believe that it is now well established that the human foetus can feel pain. Indeed, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists issued a statement to this effect saying that, at any rate after 26 weeks, one must do all that is possible to avoid causing the unborn pain. That is a great advance. which took many seminars and much publicity in the press to achieve. Indeed, pain is something which has been worried about a great deal in relation to experimentation.
I conclude by saying that I believe that what we decide will be the most momentous and frightening decision that any government could face. It is not a party matter, but its implications can be very near to acts of God. Indeed, I remember what the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, said in this connection. However, I repeat: I think that the Government must go very slowly as regards making any change to the present law. This whole subject needs far more debate with the public, with the Churches and with the media than it has been given. I only hope that that debate will take place before any change in the governing rules is allowed.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on introducing today's debate. I have always admired him and have, in the main, always agreed with his expertise on all matters concerned with these human embryology issues. I know that there is no general agreement in the debate, either here or elsewhere. Indeed, one speaker has already quoted the differences of opinion expressed by my noble friend Lord Winston who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber. However, in the past my noble friend has varied his own opinions about whether or not this was a good idea. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, instanced one or two of his different views. So this is a very complicated subject on which, probably, none of us has firm and fixed views.
I believe it was my noble friend Lord Winston who brought God into the issue. He said that God gave us the brains, the intelligence, and so on, and that we must use them. However, God also laid down a set of rules that we ought to be bearing in mind. He did not say that we could do what we like; indeed, the scriptures do not go that far. There are rules if you accept the scriptures and accept God as the supreme being. If one accepts those things, one also accepts that there are rules. One
338
does not say, "We shall accept that bit but we shall make up our own rules as we go along because God has taught us how to think". That is not how I see the matter. I am simple-minded in this respect. I accept the scriptures and I try to obey them every day. I certainly accept God's will. I do not accept that because God has given us a brain we are entitled to abuse that privilege.
I am not a scientist, as noble Lords will have guessed. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that there is a line here which should not be crossed. I could not agree more. If there ever was a line, we have almost reached it. That line should not be crossed. We should not even discuss crossing that line in the way that some people are doing as if different circumstances apply in this area.
I have always taken a keen interest in scientific activities and achievements, of which there are many. I could not enumerate them now. However, this short debate is about cloning. When I first read about the experiments and possibilities in this area in the, wake of the cloned sheep that has already been mentioned, my first reaction was one of repugnance. I know that many thousands of people feel that repugnance. That has been revealed in a number of articles and in a poll carried out by the Daily Telegraph just before Christmas. Many people have expressed their opposition to these activities. This has been nicknamed the "yuk" reaction, as when people first hear of this matter their reaction is to say, "yuk". They cannot imagine who has dreamt up such a policy.
The "yuk" factor is not evidence of an unreasoned reaction. Feelings of repugnance are sometimes an appropriate moral response. We cannot assume that such feelings will lessen upon mature reflection. Two of the leading philosophers of British enlightenment. David Hume and Adam Smith, believed that ethical judgment is rooted in human moral sentiments such as repugnance. There is an argument for and against everything, but what we are witnessing are further signs of public disquiet and repugnance. Scientists should have learnt a lesson from the reaction to genetically modified foods. It was said initially that that was simply a case of the "yuk" factor and that public sentiment would settle down. However, it has not settled down and scientists are having to accept that fact. I suggest that public repugnance will be expressed ever more strongly if the activities we are discussing go ahead. I do not know of anyone who can even contemplate the prospect of creating babies in this way. People always ask about the psychological effects on children who are created in this way.
Those who took part in the poll that I have just mentioned thought that it was unnatural and dangerously self-centred to want to produce a child that was a perfect copy of either the mother or the father. Although such procedures are not yet possible, and would be illegal, some researchers believe that human cloning may be only a few years away. That must frighten all of us. I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate she will tell us why there has not been a proper parliamentary debate on this matter. Why does it appear that we cannot have an impartial debate on this matter on any television station? A number of debates have taken place but they have all been rigged. No opposing

339
point of view has been submitted. The participants in the debates have all been scientists or doctors, or people who have a vested interest in promoting this subject, as is the case with people who support GM foods. Those vested interests have caused many problems. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some hope that the Government take a positive view on this matter. That positive view should be that the Government object to and oppose cloning for any purpose.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, we have now reached 28th April 1999. Who would have imagined—I include myself in this, especially because during the war I served with the highly secret Polish Section of Special Forces (SOE)—that we would be told on the Floor of your Lordships' House about the idea or desire to use human embryos for cloning? This, most sadly, is a proof of our semi-pagan society.
Assurances were given by the then government in 1990 that IVF would be used only for the benefit of infertile couples. Now, IVF is being used for "social" reasons, for example, to allow career women to choose when they want to have their children. We must therefore be extremely suspicious of current proposals that the use of cloning technology will remain under the strictest scrutiny. Frankly, that is just waffle.
The sanctity of marriage and the sacrament of God giving children drifts further and further away from the minds of millions—such, alas, is Britain today. As Christians and believers—and always remembering our Jewish friends—we should express our total shock about that which is against God's law. As a Catholic, I am appalled by these proposals. I also try to represent Poland, where the government, Church and people are horrified to hear what is happening here.
I was witness to what the Germans carried out in the majority of over 7,000 death and concentration camps all over Europe where every variety of experiment, including human cloning, was carried out on people of over 40 nationalities and of all age groups. I believe that those of us who fought in the war realised we were fighting evil in all its worst forms. We did not fight to defeat all the evil deeds of the whole Nazi system between 1933 and 1945 only to sanction, over 50 years later, equal evil to be taxed on humanity in what used to be our proud and united country of Britain. To quote Edmund Burke,
"One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good".
Burke also wrote,
"For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing".
5.7 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this debate before the Government respond to the review of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority entitled, Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine.
340
This review concluded that human reproductive cloning should not be allowed, in line with widespread concern about such a possibility. This would mean that no cloned human baby, child or adult could be created. However, the review recommended that the Government should permit the creation of cloned human embryos by nuclear transfer in order to develop and grow stem cells to produce tissues and cells for transplantation. This would require an amendment to the current law.
Those in favour of using embryos argue that it will bring medical benefits such as the possibility of more successful transplants. However, the fact that there seem to be beneficial possibilities to a programme of research does not in itself justify that programme. Given how controversial the whole area of embryo research remains, both in this country and worldwide, it seems surprising that the review did not consider the ethical concerns arising from the creation, manipulation and destruction of cloned human embryos in order to use their cells in other humans. Such use inevitably raises afresh questions about the status of the embryo and the use to which an embryo can be put in scientific research.
Like many others, I believe that life begins at conception. Even those who do not hold that view will generally acknowledge that human embryos have a special status and should not be misused in any way, particularly on the scale necessary for this research. The deliberate destruction of hundreds of thousands more human embryos at 14 days does not seem consistent with the view expressed in the Warnock Report that the,
"embryo of the human species ought to have a special status".
In 1975 the Declaration of Helsinki embodied these words:
"In research on man, the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject".
It continued:
"The doctor can combine medical research with professional care, the objective being the acquisition of new medical knowledge, only to the extent that medical research is justified by its potential diagnostic and therapeutic value for the patient".
In conclusion, there are significant issues at stake which have not been fully or widely considered and debated. Once human cloning of any type or for any purpose is allowed, it will be very difficult, probably impossible, to recall it. So, while there still remains a technological barrier to the creation of human cloned embryos, I believe that there is a need to fully debate and consider the ethical issues, and the implications inherent in allowing their creation, before heading down the path of human cloning of any kind whatever.
5.11 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I speak as one who supported and was involved in the passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 1990. I fully support the role of the HFEA and the way it has proceeded in regulating the Act. I hope that it is now fully clear to the House that if we accept, or had accepted, the fundamentalist position of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—certainly in relation to the 14-day period—none of the benefits of the 1990 Act would have followed.

341
I am sure that at that time, just as now, the noble Lord was raising the argument that this was the thin end of the wedge. Today we have had, as expected, the "slippery slope" argument, which is right when it is used in the proper context, but it has to be judged in the context under discussion. I have been trying to work out how many of the noble Lord's supporters in the debate today are like-minded and believe that we still should not be able to use the 14-day period specified in the Act.
Perhaps I may reminisce for a moment. I well remember the seminal key debate in the House at the Committee stage of the 1990 Bill, when there was a free vote according to conscience. The House, in its wisdom, voted by a massive majority of about three to one—the figures were 234 to 80—in favour of keeping the Bill as it was. Obviously, a clear majority was obtained in the other place.
In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made a key speech, which was extremely influential in this Chamber. I am sorry that he is not able to be here today. He is, unfortunately, on a lecture tour in Canada. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brampton, was most instrumental in assembling the support on our side of the debate in that Bill. I know that he would have liked to have spoken in the debate, but unfortunately he is not able to be present today.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked for a clear line to be drawn. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said that we had drawn a line at 14 days. That is what happened in the House in 1990. I am surprised that we are still continuing to debate the matter in the way that we are. Obviously, we are allowed to revisit old arguments. but the argument was decided then. I see no reason to change the fundamental 14-day period which, in my opinion, has worked very well. I approved of the other points in the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford when he talked about the prodigality of nature and using the environment.
The steps taken by the HFEA are the best that we can take. We are talking about what we can do in this country. We have raised the spectre of what happens in America, Mexico and Korea, but we are trying to approve a suitable regulatory framework which can control what happens in this country.
The noble Lord raised the matter of what has been approved under the Council of Europe protocol. He has made quite an issue of it in the Questions he has put down for Written Answer. I am sure that the Minister will tell us the answer, which is very simple and does not reflect on the Government. We have not signed the protocol to the treaty referred to. One simply cannot sign a protocol to a treaty unless one signs the treaty itself. The reason we have not signed the treaty has nothing to do with human cloning and therefore the remarks about the speech of President Chirac are, in my opinion, completely irrelevant.
The provisions in the original Act have operated well. The two recommendations now before us in the report—to establish procedures which could not have been anticipated at the time—are, after nine years, a reasonable step forward. I find the report well balanced
342
and moderate. The recommendation that there should be another review in five years' time is not the uncontrolled haste in this field that some people are warning against. The report has clearly and fairly placed before us the possibility of putting the banning of human cloning into primary legislation. It is clear that the Government and the HFEA are against that. All the spectres raised today, which are designed to worry us about what might happen, are very much dreams and ideas for the future. We must concentrate on the immediate years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked for a proper debate on this subject. I am not sure that the debate today has been the measured and reasoned debate that I should like. Following the Government's response to the HFEA and HGAC report, I understand that there is nothing to stop a debate taking place in the House. I am sure that there will be a debate in another place.
Finally, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that it is not helpful to a reasoned debate in Parliament to raise the spectres of "sub-species of human clones" and "nightmare kingdoms". It does not help to raise by association a farrago of fears about Dolly, goats, and abortion. We have a regulatory system—we are very lucky to have it—through the HFEA. We are making slow progress by slow steps. I hope that that progress will continue.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the subject of this debate is truly fascinating, involving as it does issues of scientific ethics, religion and morality, human health and the nature of the human person, and the requirement for legislation and government action. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing forward the debate, even though I disagree with much of what he said. It has been a struggle for me to understand the subject of the debate. But the effort has been rewarding and it does us all good to be obliged to think seriously about such issues. I join other noble Lords in welcoming to the Chamber the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, who made a most distinguished, balanced and calm contribution to the debate.
The remote possibility that humans could be cloned is a typically contemporary issue. Throughout history, "modern thinking" or "science" has challenged accepted truths. The problem in our time is that so many things are changing so fast. The press carries news of potential change, often less than accurately, to every citizen. So criticism of new scientific developments, particularly when they seem to upset not just the settled human order, but the "natural order" itself, is more acute and more widespread than in earlier ages.
Reading the briefings and listening to the debate, the basis for non-acceptance of, or doubts about, human cloning seem to fall into several categories. The approach that it is immoral to take on God's powers or that interference with nature is unacceptable may well be stimulated by comments such as those of Julian

343
Savulescu of the ethics unit, The Murdoch Institute for Genetic Research, Melbourne, who said recently:
"Some people think that human zygotes are special because they have the potential to create people. Cloning has shattered that belief. There is no morally significant difference between a fertilised egg in a petri dish in an IVF clinic … a cloned cell, and a skin cell: they could all be persons, with the application of modern technology".
That statement can be turned entirely upside down to support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
There is the fear of the effect cloning could have on the status of the cloned infant or on society at large. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, spoke convincingly on that issue. There are doubts about the safety of the technology. There are accusations that cloning could become a source of profit for a few large pharmaceutical companies and that it is being pushed forward by them for that purpose and possibly with inappropriate speed. There are accusations that the whole fertility/cloning area of medicine is just one more example of dominant male science trying to control women's reproductive processes. There are arguments that the techniques of cloning do not offer the only route to more effective therapies and could be more difficult and more expensive than the development of cell culture of neural brain or bone marrow stem cells.
I am a politician and not a moral philosopher or a scientist. Like many others, including the Liberal Democrat working party currently debating these issues, I am hard-pressed to decide on the merits of these arguments. What is more, in a 10-minute speech, I do not have time. I will just say, however, that my sympathies lie rather with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the right reverend Prelate than with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Ryder of Warsaw. In any case what is quite clear is that these arguments give cause for government and legislators to proceed with great caution. Furthermore, history teaches us that the law-making process cannot outrun or lag behind the accepted ethic of the day by too large a margin without causing some level of unrest. Today public opinion is unmistakably opposed to the creation of cloned human beings.
Finally, it seems clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, also reminded us, that cloning of animals is accompanied by a very high risk of foetal abnormalities and perinatal mortality. One might say that this renders the process of cloning unacceptable for animals, let alone for human beings. It is in this area that doubts about the motivation of those who are pushing this technology seem most justifiable. The history of the introduction of GM foods gives a vivid example of the case.
The Government have responded by resolutely setting their face against the creation of full human clones, as a number of recent Answers to the Questions of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have indicated. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, gave other instances of the current policy background to this subject. But if today we reject full cloning of human beings, other options for progressing beyond what is permitted under current legislation exist, options which may or may not be seen as acceptable. That, I believe, is the distinction which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made earlier.
344
First, there is the culture of cloned cells to provide tissue, such as bone marrow, for patients whose bodies would not reject the tissue because it would be genetically identical to their own. Secondly, there is the transfer of a cell nucleus from one woman's egg to another and its subsequent fertilisation by the intended father's sperm for the purpose of avoiding the transmission from the woman to her offspring of mitochondrial disease. The joint report of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority recommend that these two procedures should be added to the list of subjects, research into which is permitted by the 1990 Act. Their view is that all of this could be done by regulation under the Act. I therefore wish to ask the Minister: when do the Government anticipate responding to that report? Are the Government minded to accept that recommendation?
The question also arises as to other actions the Government should now take in the light of the report itself and of the rapid technological change and public ignorance of that change which in part prompted it. In an interesting article in The Times Educational Supplement of 2nd April this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, whose status in this subject is unimpeachable, broadly supported the suggestion of the establishment of a Royal Commission to study and report back on issues connected with genetic engineering in general. The body could also publish its reports, the minutes of its meetings and the evidence submitted to it. But, sadly, she clearly had doubts about the possibility of such a body today being completely independent or being listened to with respect and confidence.
In the closing sentences of her article the noble Baroness suggested that the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is due to publish its report on GM foods in May, could be kept in being as a permanent commission to examine genetic issues as they arise. Such a commission could help to remedy the state of unreadiness to face these issues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred in his speech, by monitoring and evaluating the rapid changes in technology which are part of the problem. It could provide a rational, detached source of information to government and public alike. It could assess the risk of genetic technology becoming the private property of individual companies and of such companies driving the law ahead of popular consent in the search for profits, as is the case with GM foods. Have the Government given serious thought to this kind of permanent body and, if so, what are their conclusions?
We have had a long and interesting debate. Some noble Lords took more than their time. I am very willing to sit down with one minute of mine unexpired.
5.28 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a debate of exceptional interest and importance, and I should straightaway like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his timely Motion and for his very thoughtful introductory speech.
If ever there was a topic that cried out for debate within the calm and measured procedures of your Lordships' House, it is surely this one. The ethical

345
issues arising from the matters that the noble Lord has raised are as complex as they are deep. Yet even amidst a calm and measured discussion such as ours this afternoon, it is all too apparent how divergent views can be and how closely interwoven are the three underlying components of ethical principle, reason and emotion. That is significant when we come to realise that parliamentary debate, invaluable as it may be, is not on its own able to provide a sufficiently robust foundation for government decision-making in a matter such as this. The other vital precondition is surely to have a good measure of public consensus.
If I am conscious of one thing about this particular ethical issue, it is that in many respects it is a new one, and that the public debate, which is only just beginning, has been outpaced by the progress of the science. As we have seen all too clearly with the issue of genetically modified foods, that situation is always a worrying one. Although a good deal of the press coverage on cloning that I have seen has been balanced and informed, at the same time we can discern from some of the language that is used that, if we are not careful, scope exists for over-simplification and the kind of public debate that we decidedly do not want; namely, the kind of media treatment that moves in short order from rational argument to unreasoning hysteria.
So, informing the public is as important as listening to them. The process must not be unduly rushed. In other words, we want to avoid a situation in which the public feel that the pace of the agenda is being driven by impatient commercial interests. That situation is almost guaranteed to induce a knee-jerk reaction, not a considered one.
That said, the main and very clear message that has emerged from public consultation to date is that so-called reproductive cloning is anathema to most people. The report published last December by the HGAC and the HFEA set out the arguments clearly. The most compelling of those centre around the unacceptability of seeking to create a human being without the interests of that person being uppermost. The other, quite different, issue is that nuclear replacement carries a high risk of congenital malformation and miscarriage. The Government have already said clearly that the legalisation of human cloning for reproductive purposes is not to be countenanced, and I wholeheartedly endorse that position.
The debate therefore centres on whether cloning experiments should be permitted under strictly controlled conditions with a view to establishing what benefits the technique may bring to the treatment of disease. In that context, let me say without further ado that 1 agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on a number of matters. I agree that simply because there is widespread agreement about the need to prohibit reproductive human cloning, that is no reason for us to adopt an unquestioning approach to the morality of what is known as CNR—the replacement of a cell nucleus—for therapeutic purposes. The word "therapeutic" must not distract us. The ethical case for CNR has to be made. I am very far from clear that that case was made by the HGAC and HFEA in their report.
346
I also profoundly agree with the noble Lord that moral values which espouse the sanctity of all human life should not be overridden in the name of expediency or the inexorable march of science. Those who proclaim such values uphold the best and most precious features of a civilised society, and if we depart from them, we must never do so lightly. Now, in the same breath, we also need to recognise that although many individuals adhere in their personal lives to a code of moral absolutes—or try to, our legal system, in so far as it attempts to balance different interests in society, cannot do that. Yet even a code founded on moral relativism ought to take as a starting-point that amidst the sometimes conflicting values of a society, certain values, such as the inherent worth of a human individual, should enjoy a status that is pre-eminent.
But if our aim is to inform the public, one of the issues about which we ought to be clear is the need to distinguish between the separate strands of what might be termed the "ethical backdrop". One strand is the issue of cloning; another is the issue of using human embryos for the purpose of research. If, like the noble Lord. Lord Alton, you believe that the use of embryos for scientific experiments is unacceptable on absolute moral grounds, you are not likely to be persuaded that the use of a cloned embryo is any the less repugnant, whatever its intended purpose.
Nevertheless, the strands need to be separated. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 established, as a result of decisive parliamentary majorities in both Houses, that there were limited sets of circumstances when research on the human embryo up to 14 days was permissible. That decision may not be to the liking of everyone. There is, indeed, a case for asking Parliament to revisit such legislation at intervals to ensure that it still holds good. But I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that it was not illogical or irresponsible of the joint committee of the HGAC/HFEA to have examined the issue of cloning as a discrete matter within the context of the existing law.
One criticism advanced against the current proposal for therapeutic cloning is that it treats the creation of an embryo as a means to an end and not an end in itself. But, like it or not, that is what the law already allows. The purpose proposed is indeed new; but I suggest that the moral Rubicon of embryo usage is one that has already been crossed. The point at issue, therefore, is whether the intended purpose is ethically acceptable or not, and whether cloning, per se, presents us with a real moral difficulty.
To take the second of those issues first, I have heard no argument that convinces me that replicating the genome of a living individual is of itself a morally dubious course of action. However, I am of course open-minded on this. As to the new intended purpose of embryo usage, I am hesitant. That there may be medical benefits in prospect, albeit some way down the road, I have little doubt. What I am not clear about, however, is whether the claims that are made are well founded, or whether experiments involving human cloning provide the only possible route to securing those benefits. If they do, the proposal deserves a fair and dispassionate hearing. If they do not, and there is an alternative on the

347
horizon, as some reports suggest there is, I do not think that the case has been made. We ought to start from the position that if research using embryos can be avoided, we have a moral duty to avoid it.
So I come back to the point at which I started. Science should be accountable to the public for what it does. In my view, the Warnock report was well handled by the previous government; it was allowed to gestate and gain support before any attempt was made to legislate. The same process is needed here. Parliamentarians should not propose to crystallise the issue in statute or regulation without deep reflection or in isolation from informed public opinion. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
5.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for providing the opportunity to debate these issues. There was a widespread view when the noble Lord recently asked a Starred Question on the subject that such a debate should take place. The debate provoked by the noble Lord has been wide-ranging, well-informed and deeply felt. We have heard a wide variety of views, ranging from ethical nightmares to scientific dreams—sometimes posing false dichotomies between the two. None of the contributions has lacked understanding of the need for respect for the issues of human dignity that are entailed in these considerations. or the need for the ethical debate to keep pace with the scientific debate when we make far-reaching decisions in these areas.
We have also had contributions that, in the noble Lord's terminology, have been both clever and wise. One was the very distinguished maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve. She brought to this debate particular knowledge and expertise, not least from her role as a member and now acting chair of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. I am sure that everyone in this House welcomes the noble Baroness and her contribution today. Perhaps those of us who are alumnae of Newnham take particular pleasure in having the principal of their old college as a Member of your Lordships' House.
When considering these issues it is important to do so in the broadest of contexts, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We should also do so without any unnecessary stereotyping or assumption that scientists have no sense of responsibility of the enormity of some of the ethical dilemmas produced by their creativity. The need to welcome and celebrate what science can achieve was very well described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, also reminded us of the duty to explore creativity and potential advances that contribute to human wellbeing. We should not assume that scientific advances are necessarily bad, any more than we should assume that simply because something can be done it should be done or that the implications in the widest social, moral and ethical setting should not be well considered.
348
I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will understand if I do not answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The noble Baroness asked what the Government were minded to do in this area. There were enough calls this afternoon for a wide-ranging and well considered debate to indicate that the Government should move very carefully and slowly in response to the recommendations of the report. I should like to take the comments made in your Lordships' House and feed them into the consideration of the report.
I have also taken careful note of the calls by the Benches opposite and my noble friend Lord Stallard for a debate in another place on these issues. However, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was quite right to suggest that it is not only in Parliament that these issues need to be debated. I shall certainly pass on those comments to the business managers in another place. I am not responsible for business management in another place; nor am I responsible for the editorial policy of television companies as to the coverage that they give to these issues. However, those who have suggested that we would all benefit from a well informed public in these areas are absolutely right.
Before I turn to the question of cloning, like other noble Lords perhaps I may set the scene in respect of embryo research generally. Many who have spoken today are clearly familiar with the workings of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, it bears repeating because there may be some misunderstanding about the extent to which the Act controls the use of human embryos in infertility treatment and research. These issues were first considered by the committee led by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to whom tributes have been paid today. That committee reported in 1984. Following considerable public consultation, that committee concluded that embryo research should be permitted subject to strict safeguards, not least that such research should be limited to very early embryos; that is, only up to the 14th day after fertilisation. As has been pointed out, after further public consultation by the then government the majority of the report's recommendations were introduced into Parliament, debated at considerable length and approved in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Some noble Lords have put forward the "slippery slope" argument and said that we should not embark on any of these issues at all. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I first became involved in consideration of these ethical issues when the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists set up an ethics committee to consider what its response should be to the Warnock Committee, on which I served as a lay member. Certainly, the "slippery slope" argument was put forward then. When one is on a slippery slope perhaps one should have some strong, trusty and reliable boots. Those boots may take the form of a moral and ethical framework in which one considers the issues.
The framework created by the 1990 Act is very well respected and has made the United Kingdom one of the world leaders, having the most comprehensive regulation and oversight of developments in these areas. It is also one in which the benefits that we have seen

349
have not been accompanied by some of the worst fears as to what may happen. Although I respect the view of some noble Lords that ab initio the recommendations were not correct and breached an ethical and moral rule with which they were not comfortable, in the main the Act has been considered to work very well.
I say to my noble friend Lord Longford that between 1991 and 1997 27,777 children were born as a result of IVF techniques. That has been a very considerable contribution to strengthening the family and marriage and is one that we should not undervalue in this area.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does my noble friend deny that if cloning proceeds it is possible to have children without fathers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, very soon I shall turn to the position of the Government on reproductive cloning which is very much the same as that of my noble friend; namely, that we do not envisage that possibility or find it ethically acceptable.
Perhaps I may refer to the suggested profligacy in the use of embryos, particularly very early ones. Of the total of just over 600,000 embryos created in the six years between 1991 and March 1997, which is the latest date for which verified figures are available, nearly half have been used in treatment; one-quarter stored for future treatment and some 43,000 used in research. Therefore, we are not talking about hundreds of thousands of wasted embryos.
Much of the debate today has centred on the joint Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and Human Genetics Advisory Commission report Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine. The Government received that report in December last year and are considering its recommendations. Perhaps I may seek to clarify what we mean when we talk about human cloning. Human reproductive cloning would involve the birth of a baby who had an identical genetic makeup to another individual, which is the situation to which my noble friend refers.
My noble friend Lord Stallard asked for a clear statement as to where the Government stand on such techniques. I can give him that. It has been made clear in another place and in your Lordships' House, but I make no apology for repeating what we have said before. Our position on human reproductive cloning remains firmly that such cloning is ethically unacceptable and will not be permitted within the United Kingdom. There is recognition of this in the joint HFEA/HGAC report, and the public support given in response to the consultation on that report demonstrated that public consensus to which the noble Earl referred. There is no ambiguity in the Government's position.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of that lack of ambiguity. Nothing sinister should be inferred from the fact that we have not signed the cloning protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Perhaps I may add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, said on this point. The Government played an active role in the development of this protocol, which was opened for
350
signature on 12th January 1998, and we fully support the principle it enshrines. However, a member state of the Council of Europe can sign a protocol only if it has previously signed the relevant convention under which the protocol was developed. In this case that is the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. That convention contains a wide range of complex ethical and legal provisions. In particular, the provisions on research on persons not able to give consent have aroused some public concern. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have therefore undertaken a wide public consultation on these provisions as part of the wider consultation on decision-making for people who are mentally incapacitated.
We have to consider the responses to this consultation before we can address the question of signing the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. But that is the reason for that position rather than any issue on cloning. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, suggested, a broader international community beyond Europe is also addressing the issue of human cloning. In November 1997 the member states of UNESCO unanimously agreed the declaration of human rights and the human genome which includes a prohibition on human reproductive cloning. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on that point.
I wish also to reassure him that there is nothing sinister in the fact that the report was placed in the Library of the House, and that, in accordance with usual practice, individual responses to consultation were not placed in the Library. It has been made clear that, in line with normal practice and where respondents have not asked for confidentiality, individual submissions to the consultation may be viewed by arrangement with the HGAC secretariat.
Some doubts have been cast on the membership of the working party which undertook some of the preliminary work for the report. I stress that Ministers make appointments to the bodies fully in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The report is a report of the two bodies, not simply of the working group. If noble Lords look at the lists included in the report, they will note that membership of those bodies represents a wide range of knowledge, background and experience. It brings together people from many different areas, adding expertise to the subject, and ensures transparency in further consultations which take place.
While I speak of reassurance, reference has been made to an article in the Sunday Times about a doctor who said that he wishes to clone embryos in order to store a back-up embryo to recreate a child to ease the parents' grief in the event of the first child's death. I shall clarify the position. While one form of cloning is specifically banned by the 1990 Act, as regards embryo splitting a licence would be required from the HFEA. The authority has made crystal clear that it will not licence cloning by embryo splitting for treatment purposes. I should make clear that the authority has received no such application, as reported in the Sunday Times.

351
The recommendations made by the report would require changes to the regulations under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and would require careful consideration. The use of cloning techniques for research into therapy or treatment is a very different issue to that of human reproductive cloning. I have made the position clear on that. These techniques, which involve the replication of individual cells, have long been used in medical research and treatment—for example, in the development and use of vaccines, and for producing skin grafts for burn victims. We would not wish to disturb the long-existing arrangements in medical research and treatment which have brought and continue to bring so many benefits to so many people.
I emphasise that any decision to extend the currently permitted purposes of research involving human embryos requires the most careful consideration. I believe that the tenor of today's debate has been that the Government should not be rushed into giving their response on such a sensitive and wide-ranging issue. The HFEA and HGAC consulted widely before making their recommendations. It is right that we take full account of the views expressed in the course of that consultation. The Government's response will be made in due course. Today's debate has been a timely occasion for Members of your Lordships' House to put their views.
These are exciting times in terms of potential developments in science, technology and medicine. We hear regularly of advances; for example, research into treatments for cancer, heart disease and other serious debilitating illnesses. The human genome project, which is close to completion, offers literally amazing potential for better understanding of the genetic contribution to many diseases and the developments of safer medicines. We must not be carried away on a tide of enthusiasm for what might be and allow it to undermine the basic need for a clear-sighted ethical, moral and social evaluation of the consequences of these potential changes. Neither should we be so frightened that we do not make advances which have enormous potential benefits for medicine and humanity.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is customary for those winding up these short debates to be brief. I intend to abide by that custom.
I thank the Minister for her remarks about the debate with which I entirely concur. It has been balanced and measured. It has been a timely contribution to the debate about whether cloning of human beings should be permitted. The noble Baroness said that there should be proper access to, and transparency of, all the arguments. I agree. She will be concerned, as I was, that when my research assistant sought to see the submissions he was told that he could do so only under supervision for a period of two hours and could take written notes but could not photocopy the documents. When I requested that the documents be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House, I was told that that would not be
352
possible. I believe that it should be possible for us to have access to those documents so that we can reach balanced conclusions.
I believe also that just as the Government were right recently to replace their advisers on environmental matters because they were seen in the wake of the controversy over GM food to be too close to the industry, they should think carefully also about those who have been advising them on these matters.
I am sure that noble Lords will want me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, on a magnificent maiden speech. We have a mutual friend who is an academic at St Andrew's University where I am a visiting Fellow. He told me that we could expect erudite contributions from the noble Baroness. We have not been disappointed today. Hers was an authoritative contribution which I know will be weighed by your Lordships. I was especially struck by what she said about the ambiguous and confused heritage which might be the fate of clones were we to proceed down that path. We look forward to her future contributions.
Today, we have heard voices from all parts of the House ranging across many different traditions, ideologies and religions. I was struck by the speeches of my noble friend Lady Ryder of Warsaw; the noble Earls, Lord Longford and Lord Perth; my noble friend Lord Jakobovits and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Those voices speak to us out of the din of the hard lessons of the 20th century. They embody wisdom gleaned from this, the bloodiest of centuries. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House who were unable to be present today will read those contributions and ponder their wise advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, told us that we should at all times be prepared to think again and to exercise caution. He called for a moratorium, which I am sure all of us who have spoken today will take to heart and, it is to be hoped, agree with.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised many moral questions embodied in the debate. My noble friend Lady Knight—she is my noble friend for the purpose of these debates—with whom I co-operated in another place on many such issues, has often been vilified for raising them. She was one of 29 who in 1967 voted against the Abortion Act. Four years ago in another place, we worked together when there was an attempt by scientists at the Rosslyn Institute to take embryos from aborted baby girls to use in fertility treatments. What an extraordinary way that would have been to have come into this world if your Lordships and Members of another place had not decided to use the Criminal Justice Bill to outlaw such a proposal. What a way to come into the world, to have an aborted foetus as your mother, her life having been taken by your grandmother. Just because something may be scientifically possible does not make it right.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, who I admire enormously and with whom I am often a combatant on these questions, both here and outside, inevitably disagreed with me today. But that does not diminish my respect for him. Indeed, his is a voice to which people will listen and I hope that he will weigh the awesome

353
responsibilities that scientists have in such matters. I am not against science—far from it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jakobovits that science must be harnessed for the benefit of mankind. It is an important profession. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, accused me of using a blunderbuss and missing my target. He will forgive me if I tease him for sometimes being a moving target. Today he told us that it would not happen, but he has also said that i t could happen and be beneficial. In The Times of 24th February 1997, he said:
"There is no medical reason for cloning humans and there are obvious risks. I don't think that anyone seriously believes that there would be any benefit to cloning humans".
I agree with that entirely, but in the Independent of Monday 12th January 1998, he said:
"I don't know if cloning human beings could bring benefits, but I think probably, yes".
Therefore, we are entitled—
Lord Winston: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to a newspaper comment. I have never accepted that human cloning is either necessary or desirable, in spite of what has been said in this debate. But the technology is valuable and it is the technology that I would protect and support.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is the tradition of the House that the concluding remarks of the mover of the Motion should be brief.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I shall be brief. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and I can take up the debate outside.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood; the noble Earl, Lord Howe; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, speaking from their Front Benches and on behalf of their parties, dealt with great political questions which will be increasingly important to their parties in the future. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made a speech which I found extremely disappointing. But there are first-class Anglican theologians such as Oliver O'Donovan, Professor Torrance and Michael Banner to whom I would refer him. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, said that cloning human beings would be unethical and carry risks. I agree with him.
In thanking all noble Lords who have taken part, I recall the words of the American Poet, Robert Frost, who said:
"Two paths diverged in a wood, and I— took the path less traveled by, And that has made all the difference".
In 1967, we chose abortion. In 1990, we chose destructive experiments on human embryos. In 1999, we face an equally momentous choice. By repudiating human cloning we may be taking the less travelled path, but to do so will make all the difference. The alternative should be unconscionable. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Hedgerows
6.4 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath rose to call attention to the current arrangements for the protection of hedgerows; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate an issue which is interesting to many Members of your Lordships' House and to not a few million people concerned about our natural inheritance and landscape. It will give my noble friend Lady Farrington the opportunity to explain the Government's position and to indicate the improvement which must be made to the flawed 1996 hedgerow regulations. It would be useful to have an indication of the Government's thinking on the matter.
My interest in conservation and hedgerows extends over a long period. I served as chairman of the Natural Environment Sub-Committee and the Environment Committee of the Council of Europe. I was frequently rapporteur—on one occasion before the Co uncil of Europe Convention on Wildlife and Habitat. I welcome the fact that the Government swiftly acceded to that convention. I was delighted when they sought to pat their obligations into practice by the introduction of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill. It was a measure of considerable importance, but it offered no advantage to hedgerows.
Therefore, in 1982, with the invaluable assistance of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and with support from parties across the Commons, I presented the Hedgerows Bill. The Government blocked it and used as their reason their belief that the destruction of hedgerows had virtually ended. That was not so.
At about the same time I realised that enclosure awards in South Yorkshire, where I live, usually provided protection for hedgerows in former common land. The South Yorkshire enclosure awards spelt out that the fields formed from the common land should be perpetually surrounded by fences, in most cases fences protected by oak palings. I could see no reason doubt that that legal perpetual obligation continued to apply.
I was advised by Mr. Colin Seymour, who lived in West Yorkshire and whom I shall mention again, that the same conditions applied there. I found enclosure awards in East Anglia covering thousands of acres. All of them had the requirement that hedgerows or other field boundaries—walls or dykes—had to be maintained forever as an obligation and condition of the possession of the land. I may be accused of making a revolutionary proposal if I say that if the individual who possesses the land breaches the conditions on which that possession is based it might not be a bad idea to suggest that he should lose possession. However, perhaps your Lordships would not go quite so far as that.
When I realised that such protective arrangements were relatively comprehensive, I wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for confirmation that the law still existed. I suggested that substantial sums of taxpayers' money might have been spent on grants to encourage grubbing out of hedgerows. I suggested too that the Ministry had taken no steps to ensure that grant

355
was not paid where the hedgerow was required to be perpetually maintained. The response was that if that had happened the Ministry would have to recover the grants that had been paid. I do not think any such grants were recovered.
However, one continued to press for progress. The Government made it clear in the following years that they did not want another Bill, but in 1987 I received some encouragement. At that time I was serving on the Council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It was celebrating its centenary. The celebration commenced at King's Cross Station, where the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as Prime Minister, was the guest speaker. It was an important occasion for the RSPB, a very large body with more members than all the political parties in England put together.
I was not an enthusiastic fan of the then Prime Minister. I was delighted, however, that she made a splendid speech calling specifically and clearly for the protection of hedgerows and urging us to act as guardians and trustees of our natural heritage. It was a slight disappointment to me that I could not join in the rest of the celebrations. I was on my way to the House of Commons to present the 1987 Hedgerows Bill, which met the wishes passed to me of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association. I amended the 1982 Bill to meet their requirement that they should have the right to demolish part of a hedgerow for reasons of access. That seemed to me entirely reasonable.
The Bill was supported across the Floor of the House, but on the Friday when we hoped to secure Second Reading it was blocked. I do not blame the Government Whips who blocked it; they were doing their job having been ordered to do so by the Government and by No.10, Downing Street. The noble Baroness said, in some rather acrimonious correspondence, that the Government had other things to think of as well as conservation. Some of us have been thinking of conservation since then, as we did before.
I suggested that the national conservation bodies should seek to pursue the matter by bringing a test case to protect the enclosure hedgerows, but they were very slow to do so. However, our Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, a splendid regional trust, maintained a keen interest and protected hedgerows in some areas under threat. In some instances it was successful in stopping destruction.
Mr. Colin Seymour, who by then had moved to Flamborough, raised the proposed destruction of an enclosure hedgerow by Flamborough Parish Council. With the support of our trust and my own express support, the matter proceeded to court in 1996. The court accepted that the case was good. I advised the Government, who were then preparing the hedgerow regulations in fulfilment of a clear 1992 manifesto promise, that it would be wise for them to ensure that nothing in the regulations would embarrass or imperil the decisions that might accrue from the Flamborough judgment or indeed any other.
But the Government went ahead and inserted into the regulations the words, "important hedgerow". The enclosure awards covering virtually the whole of
356
lowland England did not differentiate between one kind of field boundary and another, and the law did not say that the perpetual obligation was only for those hedgerows that someone might think important. It said that that protection was absolute and perpetual. The phrase "important hedgerow" requires subjective judgments from all kinds of people who may be in permanent disagreement.
The regulations placed local authorities in an impossible position. If someone wishes to pull down a hedgerow the local authority in effect has four weeks to carry out a very detailed ecological assessment. It needs to count the plants in the hedgerow. I do not suppose it occurred to Ministers of the day, or even to some civil servants, who should know better, that during the winter months many of the plants which might grow in the hedgerow and which the local authority is supposed to count cannot be seen. In any case, in the winter months—although perhaps less so in the more salubrious south—snow is frequently encountered. Even with global warming, snow can last for quite a few days, especially if it drifts along hedgerows in hilly areas. It is not possible for a local government officer to count plants in a hedgerow which might have a couple of feet of snow upon it.
More foolish, and what annoyed me most, was the attempt by the Ministry to say which plants were native English species. Someone must have delved deep into pre-history to ascertain how long plants had been growing in this country. Some plants that we regard as an essential part of the English scene were not approved in the Government's regulations, which were badly flawed. Since it is now two years since the Government took office, I hope that it will not be long before we have the improvements that are so greatly needed. Those improvements should in no way weaken the protection by which so much of British land is possessed.
I had taken the view that protection under the enclosure awards applied to the 4,000 Acts of enclosure enacted before 1840. I understand that the splendid recent work of the House of Commons Environment Select Committee on field boundaries has established that the protection may have come much more recently than 1840. For example, many measures, such as the turnpike measures, passed after that time require large areas of hedgerows to be perpetually maintained. Unfortunately, turnpikes have served their social purpose. The obligations placed upon those responsible for them have passed to the local authorities, some of which appear to have been unaware of the responsibilities devolved upon them.
It is a very complex area, but the value of our landscape and the importance of our habitat are issues to which conservationists will be giving much greater attention at as the years pass. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that there are two cases before the courts which may well extend the protective cloak of law provided by the Flamborough judgment. That judgment was a masterly piece of historic and legal work. I remember feeling somewhat restive because the judge seemed to be taking a long time. However, when the judgment appeared it was obvious that it had been reached on the basis of a very skilled, highly

357
professional and masterly study of the historic position. That has given the conservation bodies in Britain a great deal of hope and a very substantial opportunity to pursue protection.
I hope that in many cases that will not be necessary, but I should like my noble friend to confirm that the parish councils and all other local authorities have obligations in this matter. Parish councils may be very small. They may not have much money and they may not have many responsibilities, but they have an obligation to look after the local interest, and if there is a measure in their area which protects the landscape it is reasonable to suggest that they have an obligation to have regard for that particular matter. It could be seen as a duty.
The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust has recently raised another matter. If a hedgerow lies between fields owned by two different people, one may protect the hedge. If the hedge is by the side of a road, the local highways authority is responsible for one side of the hedge and can ensure that the hedge is protected. That is an obligation of which local authorities need to be reminded because sometimes they have neglected to ensure that they act properly in that regard.
It is a great deal more complicated than the approach which I adopted in 1982 because the Hedgerows Bill which I proposed, at a time of vast and rapid destruction, was extremely simple. I proposed that the Government should protect and that Parliament should enact the protection of hedgerows forming the boundary of farm and parish and those beside highways, footpaths and bridle ways. That is a much smaller degree of protection than the Government may now like but it would have taken us a considerable way forward and it is a pity that it was not enacted.
hope that we can have not merely good sense but also the imaginative approach now required. I urge the Government to adopt the reassuring approach adopted in the last manifesto. I beg to move for Papers.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, some 26 years ago, I made my maiden speech on fencing and hedgerows while my noble friend Lord Ferrers was sitting on the Front Bench as Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture. Shortly after that, a fencing grant was introduced which also gave grants for removing hedgerows, to which the noble Lord has just referred.
I admit, with no sense of guilt whatever, to removing quite a few hedgerows, but I admit also, with a certain amount of embarrassment, I am sorry to say, that I have won two awards for my remaining hedges.
I make that introduction to point out the difficult decision as regards what should and should not be an important hedgerow; who is to make that judgment; and on what grounds it should be made. I must tell your Lordships that I am fed up to the back teeth with being told how to manage my farm by those who have no practical experience of having to make a living from farming. Indeed, it is my view that those who like to order my—our—affairs, be they various quangos or voluntary green organisations, consist of members who
358
have little experience of having to farm for a profit in order to support a family; or, if they do have that experience, they are privileged in that they have inherited the farm free of mortgage or with no rent to pay, which inevitably means that they look on farming in a totally different light from those, such as myself, who have had to make those payments.
I raised objection to the hedgerows legislation in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and again in a classically humorous yet very serious debate on the laying of the order, in which I had to divert the wrath of my noble friend Lord Ferrers on to my noble and green friend Lord Marlesford. In company with others, he criticised my noble friend Lord Ferrers for bringing forward regulations which were pathetic and weak. I, of course, criticised my noble friend because his regulations were too severe.
The problem is that it is extremely difficult to try to legislate on what is or is not an important hedgerow. I am glad to say that that difficulty is illustrated by the fact that the Government, although promising to bring forward a revised order in the autumn of 1997, have not yet done that. I congratulate the Government on that. It is, indeed, strange for the Government to think before they act.
Your Lordships will no doubt say that I am an arch farmer—I am—driven by greed and thoughtlessness. In mitigation, I say that it is only when one becomes deeply involved in the day-to-day practical work of running a farm, which I have done for 50 years, rather than viewing it from the comfort of some quango boardroom et al that one realises that nature forces itself upon one. As the right reverend Prelate is in his place, perhaps I may be so bold to say that "Nature" is God. One must reconcile one's efforts to her ways. But that certainly does not mean submission—God never meant that—to her, or, more importantly, to stupid legislation. I am sure that the noble Baroness will make sure that it is not stupid.
Perhaps I may say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about the ruling. As I understand it, the legal case in relation to the enclosure matter to which he referred was a very narrow ruling on an entirely geographical matter. Therefore, it is not nationwide.
I suppose that today, if I am going to be hung for a lamb, I may as well be hung for a sheep. Perhaps it is the other way round, but as a sheep is worth nothing, it must be for a lamb! Whatever happens, the farmer's view really must be paramount. If it is not, no regulation will work. Non-co-operation is the worst scenario, for there are many more ways of destroying a hedgerow than using a bulldozer. Keeping stock is one of them.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, on introducing this subject in your Lordships' House today. I first got to know him when we were both on the Council of Europe together. That is now an admirable body celebrating its 50th year. The work which he did then was extremely valuable. I congratulate him on that and on what he has been doing ever since in this field.

359
There is obviously a need for farm boundaries and for boundaries in the countryside, for obvious reasons, the most obvious being the keeping in or out of various livestock, although that is less and less important these days as there is less and less livestock mixed farming in the countryside.
However, it is important that there should be appropriate boundaries. Barbed wire will not always do. It is not always the most appropriate option. It is not at all sightly, but that is not necessarily the main point. There is a need to resist soil loss by wind blow, and with climate change that may become much more important than it is at present.
There is a need for boundaries to provide homes for wildlife, and with the growing loss of wildlife, particularly of birds, in the countryside that becomes more and more important. There is also a need for boundaries which do not provide hazards to either wildlife or human beings. I draw attention to the Unstarred Question which is being asked this evening by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the fate of the capercaillie. To a certain extent, that is governed by the fact that enormous losses are caused because that stupid bird flies into deer fences and injures or kills itself. We therefore have a need to produce not only field boundaries but appropriate field boundaries.
We have at last stopped paying people to grub out hedges; we now even pay them to plant them. There is one major point I should like to make. Although I do not go a very great deal of the way with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, as noble Lords can imagine, nevertheless I join with him on this matter, as I think he will with me. I refer to the fact that we must be aware of the need to subsidise the continuing care of field boundaries. Money is not just needed to plant them; it is needed in order to look after them.
I know people who are members of the Family Farms Association or the Small Farms Alliance who would very much like to plant more hedges and to look after them. They do not complain at the amount of subsidy they receive for planting hedges, but say they cannot afford to look after them.
We all know that looking after a hedge by staking and binding it, or by cutting and laying it, is heavily labour-costed. The same is true of dry-stone walls in appropriate areas. Help must be given. In the present appalling state of farm finances—here, I entirely sympathise with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley—we cannot expect the very people who would willingly look after farm boundaries to plant more unless they know that they will not incur great losses by so doing. That is not the case at present.
In certain areas it is much easier. I have the honour to be on the governing body, as vice president, of National Parks, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary. That organisation manages to maintain the skills needed for the preservation of field boundaries and is to be congratulated on so doing. The Government need to consider this whole matter. They need to provide money to enable those farmers who really want to do their duty in this particular area—I entirely agree with
360
the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, as to what their duty is—to do it without serious monetary loss at a time when farming is going through a very difficult period.
6.32 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, perhaps I may declare an interest in so far as I have been involved with agriculture all my life. Like my noble friend Lord Stanley, I have also pulled up hedges and, like him, I do not regret having done so because that was in the nature of the farming enterprise.
Secondly, and possibly more importantly, perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for the fact that I was not in my place for the earlier part of his speech. I am afraid to say that I was stuck in traffic and could not get here.
The subject of hedgerows is always a deeply sensitive matter because people have wildly differing views. Sometimes it does not do any harm to remember that in the days before enclosures there were not many hedges. Then we had the enclosures, and we had lots of hedges. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley stated, they are the habitat for wildlife.
As agriculture has increased and changed its methods, as has every other industry during the past 50 years, it has been necessary to make fields larger. Similarly, people now want to go to great big supermarkets and those have squeezed out the village shops. That is a great sorrow. In the same way, so I believe large farms have, up to a point, tended to make small fields a thing of the past. At any rate, small fields have become uneconomical. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable to make them more economical. Curiously, many people do not realise that, despite all the row about pulling up hedges, more hedges are planted each year than are pulled up. Folk do not always get the credit for that.
There is a great move to try to regulate everything, which I believe is a great mistake. Many people say that they are conservationists. This debate is almost the conservationist versus the agriculturist argument; but it should not be so. The majority of farmers and agriculturists are also great conservationists. It is they who have the responsibility of trying to look after the land, which means looking after the hedges and everything else that goes on the land.
However, there has been a great move to try to have some form of regulation for hedges. The great conservation bodies are great pressure groups, and pressure was put on the previous government, as I have no doubt that it is being put on this Government.
I had the privilege of serving in the Department of the Environment when the subject of hedgerows came up. Perhaps I can let your Lordships into a little secret. When you are a Minister in a department, some issues are at the top of the list of things you are keen on and some are at the bottom. The implementing of hedgerow regulations was at the bottom of my list of priorities. I was not at all enamoured with the idea and I tried to persuade my colleagues of that; but, as they say in the current jargon, "You lose some and you win some". I did not find that I won very many.

361
At any rate, it was determined that there should be regulations. These blessed regulations had to come through my patch. I was disturbed about that. I thought that they were deeply bureaucratic and almost unintelligible. I said to those with whom I had the privilege of working that I thought it embarrassing to put on the statute book something that you could not understand. I said that if I, as a Minister with the privilege of civil servants to draft regulations, could not understand them, I wondered how others would do so. I am not. I hope, being at all condemnatory of the officials who did wonderful work. However, it is a complicated subject. The trouble with any regulations is that as soon as you try to make them easier, you are taken down further paths and they become more complicated.
Eventually, some 15 pages of regulations were produced on how one should or should not pull out hedgerows. Suddenly, the election was called. "Hurray, hurrah" some of us said because all business was guillotined. If certain Bills were not passed by the time of the election, they were dropped—and the regulations were to be dropped. I had the greatest sympathy for other Ministers in my department who were keen on this issue, but I thought, "Thank goodness. These regulations will now fall". However, much to my horror, they appeared like a big whale, leaping out of the water. The day before Parliament was dissolved I was told that I had to take the regulations through your Lordships' House. They were my last piece of business ever from the Front Bench in your Lordships' House. I was disturbed at that prospect.
However, the regulations were passed. Your Lordships charmingly approved them and we are now lumbered with those 15 pages of regulations. The upshot of all this, as I hope that your Lordships will understand, is not that I intend to be disloyal to my colleagues or to the officials who worked wonderfully on this issue, but, to return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, these regulations are very complicated. If the noble Baroness can do anything within her department to stop people making regulations, she should do it; it does not matter what they are about. For goodness sake, let us not have any more. They make life too complicated.
I believe I have one more minute left.
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Ferrers: I have some time left, at any rate. When the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was being debated some time ago, we were in opposition. One lunchtime I happened to sit next to the chairman of de Havilland, Canada. He made a pertinent remark. He said, "Ministers can say, 'Don't worry, we will leave it all to the officials or to the business to run when it is nationalised'. It won't make any difference. " He then said, "They can say that and they can mean it, but it will be the civil servants who will badger the thing to death". That was said about nationalisation. If you ask people to produce regulations, it is not the civil servants' fault. But the fact is that if you have got to make regulations, you must make them fair for any conceivable
362
circumstance—and that will he difficult. My plea to the noble Baroness is please not to let any more horrible regulations come out of her department and, if they do. to try to make them more simple.
6.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I want to express my warm welcome to this debate and my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for initiating it. I should also like to thank the Government for being willing to review the 1997 regulations. I believe that those regulations have achieved a good deal. They have saved considerable lengths of historically and ecologically important hedgerows; but they are too complicated and, I believe that in some respects they are not strong enough. The criteria by which a hedge is judged to be important are complex and narrowly drawn. warmly approve of the attempt to define what is important, and I think one has to acknowledge that the authorities have tried to operate these regulations in a responsible and conscientious way.
I want to speak particularly of Herefordshire. which I know best. The success of the unitary authority in Herefordshire has been quite encouraging. Fifty-five per cent of hedges proposed for removal have been protected-3.6 kilometres out of 5.3 kilometres, for which application was made—but the planning authority itself greatly regrets the lack of a landscape criterion. Again and again important hedges have been lost. They are important in landscape terms because the critical need to retain a rich and diverse beautiful network of small fields in certain special areas has not been supported in any sense by the regulations. In particular. the requirements of a specific number of woody species to define the length of a hedge is very complicated and too demanding and, as has already been said, in winter you cannot tell which is which.
I suggest that it could at least be simplified by, say, five woody species in 100 metres or less of hedge, with no reference to the associated features, which complicate the present arrangements. So I would add my voice to the many asking for a landscape value criterion which would complement the proper emphasis on ecology and history in the existing regulations.
I want to draw particular attention to one aspect of hedgerow destruction which receives very little publicity. It is not well understood, I believe, and in fact is encouraged by the present agricultural support system for hill farmers. Of course the origin of the problem, if one wants to call it a problem, of hedgerow destruction was, and still is, in arable country. The demands of farmers for larger acreages on which ever larger machinery can operate has been part of the desire for greater efficiency. In many ways that is entirely laudable and necessary, although the price in terms of the transformation of the landscape is one which needs to be carefully weighed. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others who have said that farming is an important industry and it has to be taken seriously; but it is a case of balance between the needs of the farmer and the needs of the community which values the landscape and may be prepared to pay for it.

363
I am acutely aware of a particular problem in rural Herefordshire and Shropshire, in the hill country of the Welsh Marches. Here it is not a question of farmers applying to remove hedges, but of the progressive and relentless degradation of hedges by grazing patterns, which are themselves the direct result of the policy of subsidies designed to give those hill farmers a precarious living. It is precarious, but it is some kind of living. For 35 years I have known and loved the walk up Black Hill, the Cat's Back, a protruding spine of the Black Mountains, from which point you can look west into the remote and beautiful Olchon Valley or east towards the lush pastures of the Wye Valley. Westwards, this view has hardly changed in hundreds of years. Eastwards, for the first mile or so there are still the small steep fields; and then the further you go the larger the fields become, many of them at this time of year hideous with oil seed rape.
Eastwards a lot of hedges have been removed, but not as many as in other parts of England. However, it is the Olchon Valley itself, and many similar upland landscapes, which are under a new threat. This is the structure of agricultural support. The system of paying farmers for production units, that is headage payments on each ewe, coupled with the low cost of purchasing those production units, at the moment increases the number of sheep grazing the land. The headage payment is £8.88 per ewe for "specially qualified ewes". A further upland subsidy of £4.09 is claimable. Ewes of this type are very cheap to buy, and quota, which confers the entitlement to both payments, can be bought or leased. This encourages the farmer to acquire more sheep and to bid high for "keep" in upland areas, far above their real values as grazing land.
A farmer can buy a ewe for £8 and be paid nearly £13 per year for keeping it, and so he keeps too many. By contrast, the countryside stewardship scheme requires farmers to observe strict stocking limits, refrain from using fertiliser and maintain hedges. These restrictions preclude revenue from letting grazing, but the CSS pays only £35 an acre on species-rich meadows, and nothing at all on rye grass and clover leys. So there is no incentive for these farmers to enter into a stewardship agreement when they can reap subsidies for extensive sheep grazing, either themselves or by the price they can charge for the grass keep.
It is a sad fact that government policy is exacerbating the decline of upland hedgerows. The present legislation has to be welcomed, but I would suggest two further measures which I hope may stem from this review. First, I believe we should decouple the land management and the hedgerow management components of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, so that farmers who are currently discouraged from using the scheme because it imposes such demands on them in terms of land management could still subscribe to the hedgerow management measures.
Secondly, and more importantly, we should institute area payments heavily weighted in favour of environmental criteria. This is the single best change to protect our landscape and, incidentally, the family farm. Headage payments on production units are illogical in
364
a world where red meat is over-supplied. They simply encourage high numbers, poor husbandry and landscape dereliction. This is a nonsensical way to spend public money, helping to destroy what we want to protect and producing what we do not want or need.
The over-production, of course, does depress prices and further distorts the market, and so, while I would urge an imaginative and wide-ranging review of the present legislation, I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to give your Lordships some indication that the Government recognise this particular unwelcome and undesirable aspect of our farm support system. I hope she will be able to give a firm indication that funds can be redirected in a more environmentally beneficial direction. It would be very warmly welcomed by those who care about both our upland hedges and our family farms.
6.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the more I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, the more I thought that his opening comment was not quite accurate. He said he had always been interested in the conservation of hedgerows. I thought it was more the preservation of hedgerows that interested him. I would not have been at all surprised, had the noble Lord been alive when the enclosure Acts were put before Parliament, that he would have been the first to vote against them because they would have altered the countryside as he knew it then.
Like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I am against regulations and I was sad that the government I supported introduced the regulations when they did. Regulations should be introduced only when they are absolutely necessary, and I do not believe them to be necessary for hedgerows. What saddens me more is that it is absolutely instinctive for any Labour Party to ratchet up and increase regulation and put a further burden on individuals. If we are going to continue to have these regulations, I make a plea to the noble Baroness that they should be transparent, equitable and objective. It should be vital that every farmer should be able to understand clearly, whether he farms in the uplands or the lowlands, what the purport of the regulations is and to implement them to the best of his ability without additional costs.
I thoroughly support the protection of hedgerows and their conservation, but it is not only the protection of hedgerows that I support. It is equally important to preserve the dry-stone walls of Oxfordshire, where I have spent so much of my life, and the slate walls of Caithness, in the right circumstances. Again, it comes back to balance, and there must be balance in the regulations between the environmental and aesthetic aspects and the needs of the farmer to continue to farm into the next millennium.
It is quite clear that this Labour Government are no great friend of the countryside. This Labour Government will reduce the support given to farmers and, given that, the farmers must have the flexibility to be able to continue to farm profitably on the land. We cannot put the countryside into a glass case and preserve

365
it as it is now. That has never worked in the past and will never work in the future. The countryside is a place where people live and work; they struggle for an existence. Many farmers are having a really tough time at the moment and the more regulations one imposes on them that they cannot sustain, the more the countryside will deteriorate. Farmers will be reluctant to pursue their traditional role as custodians of the countryside.
It is management of the countryside that is important. It is only through good management that one will be able to preserve the things that we like to see so much. And I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, if I were still a land agent and read his speech, I regret that I would be tempted to go to my clients—my farmers, tenant farmers and landowners—and say, "Look, this is only going to get worse for you. My advice is to get on and reshape your farm as quickly as possible before they make it harder for you to take out hedgerows with any flexibility". I am sad to say that. I would not like to give that advice; but if I were to go back to my old job as a land agent, that is the advice I would have to give, because it seems to me that matters are going to get worse.
Let me move on quickly to a topic that has not yet been raised. I refer to the question of genetic engineering and farming. Sir Robert May, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, gave advice to a Select Committee in another place. Sadly, that advice has riot yet been printed and I shall therefore have to rely on press reports. I do not like relying on press reports; I have never found them accurate in the past but it is the best I can do today.
The press report claims that,
"Sir Robert did, however, also warn the committee that commercial genetically modified crops could ruin wildlife unless there was tight regulation…they could intensify the dramatic postwar decline in songbirds, insects, wild flowers and hedgerows".
Here we have a new aspect of farming to hit us hard in the next millenium that could destroy the very thing we are debating tonight. Could the noble Baroness update me as to exactly what the position is on this? If the farmer next door to my noble friend Lord Stanley plants genetically engineered crops and destroys the hedgerows that he wishes to maintain, who is at fault? Where is the liability on that? Will the regulations have anything to say on that matter?
Finally, I wish to reiterate just one matter. Will the noble Baroness please concentrate on the management of the countryside, not on further regulation?
6.52 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hardy for raising this debate tonight. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire who can claim to have laid and planted probably more than double the length of hedges than he has removed.
It is little more than a year since the 1997 hedgerow regulations came into force. That is hardly long enough to draw too many hard conclusions about the effects of this measure. While removals and plantings around town or road developments may occur at any time, farm
366
operations would tend to be concentrated during spring or autumn cultivations. Statistically, this would be a small sample on which to base conclusions.
The 1997 regulations require a person wanting to remove a hedgerow to seek prior approval from the local planning authority, which decides whether it is important in terms of its wildlife, historical or landscape value and whether it should be protected. At the time: these regulations became law, it was considered that only 20 per cent of hedgerows were likely to be deemed important. From the information provided by the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) in its excellent booklet, Hedging Your Bets, experience since seems to bear out that figure. On page 7, the CPRE claims that only 20 per cent of hedgerows are being protected, ranging from around 10 per cent in the North East and West, to around 39 per cent in East Anglia and 33 per cent in the South West. The booklet goes on to claim that that is woefully inadequate. I am not so convinced. Perhaps the Minister tonight can indicate whether the Government are still content with that 20 per cent figure, or whether they would like to see that figure increased.
It must not be forgotten that hedgerows are natural boundary fences. It would not be unexpected that they would change following changes in the area they enclose. Losses arise from many causes, including development, roads and neglect. It would be helpful if a review could indicate how important each of those regions is, and portray the differing regional trends in hedgerow loss and standards of management. That could prove instructive in developing the criteria for assessing the importance of a hedgerow; for example, hedgerows which qualify for protection by all other criteria are excluded if they border gardens or are in an urban area. Furthermore, it is important that the implications of any change in the criteria are fully assessed before any changes are made.
The amount of hedgerows at any one time will also depend on the rate of new plantings. It is my understanding that in the last recorded period, 1990–93, new plantings exceeded removal. More diverse species can often be used in new plantings; blackthorn, the bane of many a hedge to a livestock farmer, can be reduced. In conducting its survey, it would have proved instructive if the CPRE had recorded details of new plantings to provide a picture regarding the development of our hedgerow landscape.
The CPRE questionnaire dealt only with the hedgerow protection regulations and was directed at local authorities. It would prove extremely beneficial in this debate to have the input of the advice of information agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group. Any review must also take into account how hedgerows have benefited under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, environmentally sensitive areas and Tir Cymen, with its successor Tir Gofal.
The FWAG, which I understand is the only organisation to implement biodiversity on farms, operates on the principle of "no net loss of hedges". In

367
other words, where hedges have to be removed, new ones should always be planted to at least the length that was removed. In the last available FWAG advisory statistics for England for the year April 1997 to March 1998, of approximately 4,500 advisory visits, 69 per cent included advice on hedge management, 55 per cent on field margins and 37 per cent included direct advice on hedge planting.
The rural landscape must not be simply frozen in protection legislation, but its development enhanced by positive schemes. Hedgerow legislation needs to be administered via a regional and local framework. If administered in the planning department of local authorities, local knowledge and expertise must be drawn upon to assess hedgerows and allow greater liaison with other departments and environmental agencies.
Local authority biodiversity plans and farmers' habitat action plans have the potential to sustain the environmental value of hedgerows in a more meaningful way and to work alongside protection. Management options could be more widely promoted in renovating boundary hedges, including stone walls and ditches. Additional resources will be needed for this purpose, but should not be found at the expense of other activities supported by the agri-environmental schemes. A real increase in the funds available for agri-environmental schemes is needed. Those schemes are already over-subscribed. Funds should be sought through urgent reforms to the common agricultural policy (CAP) by changing this into a rural development policy.
As a side issue, I should like to stress that "cross-compliance" is not the way forward. It will bring an added costly level of bureaucracy that, once enacted, will become entrenched and will prop up unwanted production support. Funds must be targeted on what they seek to achieve.
The conclusion to be drawn from the CPRE booklet, Hedging Your Bets, is that experience of the hedgerow regulations 1997 has shown the difficulties of establishing a simple regulatory regime that properly reflects the changing needs of land management while safeguarding the environmental values associated with boundaries. Time, further analysis and consideration of alternative initiatives is needed before the extension of protection to hedgerows and, indeed, other field, road or urban boundaries is embarked upon.
7 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, any discussion about hedgerows has to take into account the fact that their agricultural functions differ widely within the UK. Their functions in the livestock farms west of the Pennines, in the South West and in Wales are largely different from those in the arable East of England where their chief function was to mark the boundaries of fields and holdings fixed during the enclosures. In the drained fen lands of south Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, there never were any hedges. To grow them on that land would have been a gross misuse of that very fertile soil.
368
The environmental importance of hedgerows is a different matter. It gives rise to public concern and a call for orders and regulations, hence the hedgerow regulations 1997. As a farmer, I understand the functions—and sometimes lack of any function—of hedges. I understand why many miles of hedgerows were grubbed up in the post-war years. At the same time, I am on the side of the conservationists in wishing to preserve hedges which are environmentally important and which enhance the landscape.
As has been said, on purely practical grounds hedgerows can prevent erosion; but, more importantly, if insects and grubs are not kept under control by other insects and by birds which depend upon the hedgerows, disaster threatens. However, it goes deeper than that: there is a love of our countryside that animates all of us, from town and country alike. None of us wants to see a landscape like that of Oklahoma.
What do you see now if you drive around England and Wales? You do see farms, especially in East Anglia and the East Midlands and, I am sorry to say, in some parts of the North of England where I come from, where hedges have been removed, yet the greater part of rural England and Wales is, to all appearances, untouched.
Hedge removal in some areas was overdone, giving farmers a bad name. But although I do not have up-to-date removal statistics, I guess from what I see that the pattern of the countryside has stabilised. I know of many farms where new hedges have been planted and it is evident that farmers are now well aware of their responsibility for the appearance and ecology of the land that they occupy.
The hedgerow regulations 1997 now provide a regulatory floor to protect important hedgerows. As we have heard, they may need tidying up. But do we need more regulation to govern the activities of the harassed farmers of the millennium? As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, reminded us, planners are already faced with the most difficult task in assessing which hedges are important in terms of historical, landscape and wildlife value. The first involves laborious research and the second and third, as the noble Lord reminded us, require difficult subjective judgments before permission for removal can be granted.
I believe that the carrot is a more effective instrument than the stick of tighter regulations. One form of incentive of which I am not in favour is "cross-compliance", whereby grants and subsidies to farmers are dependent upon certain prescribed activities; for example, the maintenance of hedges. While I was serving on Sub-Committee D, I heard many witnesses to our inquiries recommending cross-compliance, yet I never heard a satisfactory answer to the question: "Well, what happens when a grant or subsidy is phased out as the common agricultural policy undergoes reform?"
Had this debate been held before March of this year, I would have said that the environmental payments recommended by the Commission in Agenda 2000 should be used to provide incentives for such things as hedgerow management. However, these Agenda 2000 proposals were considerably watered down as a result of

369
the Berlin meeting of the Heads of State on 26th March. Nevertheless, it will now be mandatory for member states to run environmental programmes—these may inclucle cross-compliance requirements—but, as I understand it, there is a discretion for member states to make environmental payments decoupled from farm support payments.
While funding will be considerably less than generous, it is still available for separate agri-envi ronmental measures. It is in this area that I believe Her Majesty's Government should be delving in order to produce incentives rather than going further down the regulatory road. It will need great ingenuity to find the money to do it.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, hedgerow protection was first introduced only two years ago. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has frankly told us that even that was a bit of a fluke. However, I am one of those who believe that some legislation was necessary following that introduced regarding trees. After all, in the past half century the total length of hedgerows has diminished by newly half, and at a pretty constant rate.
We have to accept that the greater part of the destruction had to happen. No one could reasonably suggest that the field patterns of pre-mechanical farming, whose intricacies were fortuitously photographed by the Luftwaffe over southern England in 1940, could have remained unchanged if British agriculture was to flourish. The governments of the day provided grants for the grubbing up of hedgerows. Urban development, airfield construction and highway improvement also played their part. But it was also excessive and, in many cases, particularly in the cornliands of eastern England, ruthlessly executed to maximise farm incomes without any regard for ecological considerations.
It has to be said that during this period members of the public were altogether unconcerned about hedgerow destruction, just as they had been about the destruction of ancient buildings before the 1960s. Until the 1980s it was not a political issue. Most land managers now share the general disquiet about what has happened. Many are prepared to help to rectify the loss, assisted by Countryside Stewardship and other schemes. During the three years from 1990–93 a greater mileage of new hedgerows was planted than was destroyed. It was probably of an even higher proportion in subsequent years. We hear from the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord. Grantchester, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord. Ferrers, how they have been planting new hedges in great lengths. I see also that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is in his place. He has shown me long distances of new hedges planted on his estate in Suffolk.
However, it is the continuing destruction that exercises us today. It continues despite the new regulations which anyway only affect about a fifth of the total remaining hedgerows. The main thrust of the Government's review of last year is that clearer criteria should be set for the importance of hedgerows in respect of landscape and wildlife and that notification of
370
hedgerow removal should be lengthened. It is expected that the Government will shortly issue changes to the regulations which should substantially increase the proportion of preservable hedgerows. At a later stage, the Government may introduce primary legislation to grant local authorities the right to determine whether a particular hedgerow is of importance. I believe that such measures can be desirable so long as they simplify rather than complicate.
The urgency of the need to stiffen the regulations is powerfully emphasised by the new report published by the CPRE, referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Grantchester. The report demonstrates effectively wide regional variations in terms of the proportion of protectable hedgerows and in terms of the particularities of the landscape.
The CPRE report also raises the further question of hedgerow maintenance, pointing out that neglect rather than wanton destruction is now the main threat. It suggests that incentives should be given for hedge repair. That seems eminently sensible However, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, who is to be commended for providing us with today's debate, has put forward the idea that the provisions of the ancient enclosure Acts should be invoked requiring farmers to keep their hedges in good condition. As many old hedgerows are in such a state that they would have to be completely relaid, I presume that the cost would be enormous. Bearing in mind the extensive planting of new hedges, which is such an encouraging feature of the countryside today, enforcement of this ancient legislation would, in my opinion, be most uncalled for and unfortunate. I hope that the court cases will not lead to a general. move to enforce it.
The fact is that most of the hedgerows of today exist because they enhance the look of the countryside. demarcate boundaries, and act as sanctuaries for wildlife. Only a minority provide an economic benefit. and most livestock is now controlled by electric fencing. Consequently, most hedgerows, no longer cropped or ditched, have expanded from close cropped barriers which a horse could easily jump into wide bushes along lines of trees.
It can be argued that in some ways the appearance of the landscape has actually been improved compared with a century ago when hedges were small and treeless except for pollarded stumps and when there were far fewer mature trees. William Cobbett, during his travels in eastern England, painted a not very attractive picture of some of the agricultural countryside in that respect. It is fascinating to walk in Dedham Vale to the precise points where Constable painted his canvases and to observe how hedge-trees have altered the scene. From the side of the valley the scene appears largely wooded, although in fact it is pastoral. Old straggly hedgerows can thus enhance the landscape, even if they sometimes provide a diminished habitat for natural life.
There are several pleasant ironies in the changes in public attitude towards hedgerows. When first introduced, the hedges and ditches with which farmers bounded their fields were always hated by the peasantry who thereby lost their common pastures and were

371
restricted to farm labour. But today these symbols of human exploitation are regarded as the adornments of the landscape and the sanctuaries of natural life. Likewise, in our own lifetime, when hedgerows generally have ceased to be beneficial to farmers, they have often been preserved for the purposes of hunting and shooting—sports which are despised by many people today.
But one central fact remains above all others. Hedgerows are merely the boundaries of fields. Fields exist because of agriculture. If agriculture declines, fields will themselves deteriorate into areas of rough ground, ultimately growing into woods. When this happens, the hedge will no longer be a hedge. An awful warning of what might happen is apparent to anyone who has travelled through New England. There are endless square miles of grim secondary woodland growth. If one walks beneath it, one can discern the desolate stone walls of former fields. Let us ensure that old England never goes the same way.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is a most interesting subject and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for his choice of topic for debate today.
Having been born in Australia, I came to Britain in 1955 for six months. Considering myself a visitor, I travelled widely throughout the United Kingdom from Land's End to John o' Groats. This old world was to me a completely new world. I marvelled at sights that local people took for granted; thatched roofs, dry-stone walling, village market places, ancient monuments and castles, and, not least, the glorious specimens of broadleaved deciduous trees and the old, old hedgerows.
For 10 years I had my home in Cornwall, a county where the lanes are often so narrow they have special passing places for vehicles. Our house was on a working farm in a beautiful area which was a designated site of special scientific interest. All the fields around were bounded by hedgerows and it was a joy to look out from our raised position on to this marvellous patchwork. The farmer described his methods as traditional; we would now say they were organic. He loved wildlife, birds and butterflies and taught my children, who were young at the time, how to spot and identify the different creatures, many of which either lived in the hedgerows or sheltered under them.
County councils, as the traffic authority, are responsible for maintaining the hedgerows along the roadside. Safety is one of the most important factors and so these hedgerows are trimmed but not destroyed. It is the hedgerows within the fields that are at risk, and those who aim, by destruction of the ancient hedgerows, to convert English fields into American-style prairies are very shortsighted. I have seen the devastating effect in Australia where severe soil erosion has been the result of over-ambitious clearing of the land.
In Oxfordshire last week the hedgerows were alight with hawthorn blossoms. The very sight of them lifted my spirits. I strongly support the retention of hedgerows of native species in rural situations. However, an
372
entirely different situation exists where—usually in urban areas—unsuitable "foreign" boundary hedges are planted. I think it is very important for the Government and the public to appreciate the difference and I hope that in the DETR review of the 1997 hedgerow regulations, maintaining this distinction will not be overlooked.
I know that Members of Parliament are increasingly encountering such cases in their constituencies, and Hedgeline is having a major meeting in the Grand Committee Room tomorrow. Hedgeline is an organisation which advises and helps those who suffer loss of light, damage to buildings through subsidence, and loss of the proper use of their gardens for plant growing and recreation due to dense, evergreen conifers planted on, or close to, garden boundaries. The culprits in these unneighbourly situations are not British native trees but Lawson cypress introduced from Canada or Leyland cypress, a relatively new hybrid with an amazing speed of growth. These trees rapidly reach up to 100 feet in height. Planted along boundaries between gardens, they have been a great cause of at least annoyance and even major nuisance between neighbours. It is interesting that if a person wishes to erect a garden wall between houses planning permission is required for anything higher than two metres. Yet a densely planted row of trees can grow without control and destroy a neighbour's amenity and sometimes cause great loss of light.
One district council not far from London, in an area beset by many of these problems already, has, in granting full planning permission for a new building, included conditions that a landscaping scheme must be agreed with the council. The type of hedge to be planted must be of a species agreed in writing with the council and,
"thereafter maintained at a height between 2 and 4 metres to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority".
The same planning consent also covers the point that,
"no other new hedge shall be planted within five metres of that boundary without approval in writing of the District Planning Authority".
I commend this considerate and far-sighted approach. It seems clear to me that the council has been aware of the Birmingham case of Michael Jones on the Bournville Estate in Birmingham where neighbours fell out over hedge heights about 20 years ago. The court decision confirmed that Mr. Jones could trim the intervening hedge and he did so. The neighbour then planted a further parallel hedge inside the first hedge. The Bournville Village estate was established by George Cadbury as the prototype of an urban village almost 100 years ago. The trust which manages the properties confirmed to me yesterday that on 15th April it served a writ requiring the owners to maintain the inner hedge.
Hedgeline wrote to English Nature to explain its aims and to seek common ground. In the reply, headed "Problem Hedgerows", English Nature set out its three interests: first, the appropriate management of hedgerows of native species on SSSIs; secondly, its role as part of the steering group of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for Ancient and Species Rich Hedgerows

373
and. thirdly, its involvement in the group chaired by the DE 1['R reviewing the 1997 hedgerow regulations. Its final paragraph states,
"we have no involvement in disputes over unsuitable boundary hedgerows".
My contribution to this debate today is to make clear that Hedgeline is supportive of the aims of English Nature, and also to ensure that those involved in the review of the 1997 regulations should be fully aware of the different situation in urban areas and to draw attention to the wording in Regulation 3(3) of the present regulations which reads,
"These Regulations do not apply to any hedgerow within the curtilage of, or marking a boundary of the curtilage of, a dwelling house".
This is an important point and should not be changed. Urban and rural hedges each require appropriate controls but the present clear distinction between the two should continue. I hope that the Minister is able to reassure me that, whatever other changes are proposed to the 1997 regulations on hedgerows, this unambiguous paragraph will remain.
7.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, we owe a continuing debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for keeping before the House both the significance of our hedgerows and what is happening to them. Most people simply take hedgerows and, indeed, other field boundaries for granted. They see them as a God-given part of the landscape. They admire them and are inspired by their variety and colour, but perhaps rarely think about who maintains them and at what cost. They are simply there; we expect them to remain; but in reality. in some areas at least, they are slowly but surely disappearing. Indeed, I heard of a farmer in the West Midlands who last year lodged an application to remove nine kilometres of hedgerow from his land—virtually every hedgerow on his farm—and withdrew that application only after a local outcry. But he could well resubmit that application.
As we have heard, the picture differs from area to area, as the CPRE's recent report, Hedging our Bets, reveals. I take no pleasure that under current criteria in the north-west of England the protection is less than 10 per cent.
One of the main causes for this decline in maintenance and loss of our field boundaries is quite simply, but sadly, neglect. That is not: very surprising since they are now less justified in agronomic terms and the cost of maintaining them, as we have heard, often brings little benefit to the farmers and landowners at a time when much of agriculture, in spite of increased government subsidy, is in a very real and serious depression. It is clear that there is a strong case for public support to recognise the benefits we all gain from the hedgerows and without which the decline will continue.
I must declare an interest—and with it my real concern—as a member of the former Countryside Commission for England and now of the new Countryside Agency. The Government are to be
374
commended for, soon after their election, establishing the review group on how the existing regulations might be strengthened to provide more effective protection. The Countryside Commission was represented on that group and pressed strongly, as one might expect, for landscape considerations to be taken more adequately into account. As a result, as your Lordships may know, the commission commissioned land use consultants to identify locally distinctive hedgerows, which is an important part of the necessary detailed work. This work is now complete, I understand, and the agency hopes to receive its draft report next month.
In view of what is happening in the countryside to this valuable asset, I can do no more than to urge Her Majesty's Government to consider most carefully the appropriate way to allow further and appropriate protection. The matter is serious if all types of traditional field boundaries are to be protected before it is too late. I hope that consideration will be extended to include those dykes and ditches, banks and walls, which are the equivalent of hedgerows in some distinctive parts of our country. It would be a real shame if, having protected the hedgerows, other distinctive features of the landscape and important wildlife habitats were lost.
For reasons which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, eloquently suggested, this matter cannot be allowed to drag on. There is every evidence from recent history to suggest that if something is in the offing, people will take serious and dilatory action beforehand. I know of a case in Warwickshire where between the passing of the 1995 Act and the regulations coming into force a kilometre of 18th-century hedgerow was removed to create a 283-hectare field.
However, that said, we must be realistic. The result of such protective legislation will cost money to farmers and landowners who, although many are hard-pressed at the present time, are the stewards of our countryside, both to the Creator and to ourselves. There is, therefore. a further need to examine the potential for providing greater funding for such field boundaries currently under agro-environmental schemes. I would go further—in the light of the debate, I think I have support—and ask the Government to consider the potential for introducing a simple, stand-alone, agro-environmental scheme, the purpose of which would focus solely on field boundary protection, maintenance and development. I hope that the Minister will be able to give cause for hope that the Government will not delay but will continue with thegood work they have begun in this area.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as a land manager of historic parkland, an ancient forest with nature reserves, SSSI and farmland, I wish to indulge the House with some of my views on hedgerows—views that I have formed as a hands-on farmer over many years. I wonder how many noble Lords speaking today have planted, cut or laid hedges.
When the enclosure Act came into being and fields were enclosed with stone walls and hedges, there was quite an outcry. Today the opposite tends to be true. As a land manager I look for the practical purposes of

375
having hedgerows as well as the value to the landscape. One should not focus on just one item in our landscape but look at the landscape as a whole, including woodlands, copses, trees, hedges and grassy banks.
The purpose of a hedge is to be a boundary, a palisade and a shelter for stock. More recently, we believe it is also an important reservoir of wildlife and can often be beneficial to our crops. For it to be of any use as a stop barrier, the composition of a hedge should not include such things as elder, but thorn and the like, which is hardy and strong, and enables laying. Advisory groups such as FWAG, RSPB and ADAS give invaluable advice on this conservation.
A farm is a commercial enterprise producing high quality foodstuffs that are sold in a very competitive world market. We have to bear that in mind when we consider what we want from hedges on our farms. I have a medium-sized farm. I believe that in an ideal world a field should be big enough to allow one or two combines to harvest it in a day—it should be, say, 20 to 40 hectares—but certainly bigger than in the days when ploughs were drawn by horses. Fields should be of a sensible size so that our high-tech equipment can travel in straight lines and reduce spray overlaps, thus ensuring that excesses of pesticides and fertilisers are minimised. Too many hedges on a farm lead to too much costly work and, consequently, poor quality hedging. Surely it must be correct to have one large field with a well-nurtured hedge on a good, wide, grassy boundary than several small fields with poor hedges, poor habitat for wildlife and more detrimental areas of spray overlaps.
There is much misunderstanding about the conservation of the landscape. For instance, from a wildlife point of view, trees in hedgerows are not necessarily a good thing. The natural predator of an English partridge is the goshawk, and goshawks live in trees. Thus, any wise partridge will never go near a tree in a hedgerow for fear of its natural predator. Over the past 25 years, grey partridges have declined by 78 per cent. It would be too simplistic to say that this decline would be halted or reversed by strengthening the hedgerow regulations. In fact, the number of hedgerows increased during part of that time. Sportsmen tend to prefer the more easily managed French variety. Most importantly, there has been a large rise in the grey partridge's natural predators. Another example is that of the barn owl, which flourishes on grassy banks where its prey lives.
I am a land manager who has planted, renovated and laid hedges as well as removing some hedges. At the end of the day, my aim is to enhance the landscape of our countryside in a beneficial way and to ensure that our landscape is not a decaying museum piece but a working, evolving landscape. I believe that land managers who live on their property and, most importantly, operate profitably, best do this. Subsidies given for conservation do not necessarily make land managers begin conservation work, but they do enable them to do considerably more than they would have done in the first place. Cross-compliance is not the way forward.
376
If the public wish further to enhance the landscape, then surely the public must bear some of the finance. I therefore question whether any more bureaucratic and expensive protection is necessary. Land managers require more advice, training and incentive and better farm profitability. I am sure that the Government will tell us when they intend to come forward with their conclusions on the 1997 hedgerow consultations.
I should like to go over one or two points that were made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, suggested that local authorities are responsible for the inside of hedges next to highways. I believe that the land beneath these hedges belongs to the farmer. I suggest that the hedges are the responsibility of the fanner. However, if that is not the case, one must surely ask whether those local authorities will help to finance the maintenance and laying of those hedges. I rather suspect that they will not.
Finally, on a more interesting point, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to hideous oilseed rape. I have to agree with him because it is not really a conservative colour. It reminds me too much of the Liberal Democrats. It looks like they are canvassing around the countryside. However, I should like to point out that oilseed rape is an important crop. It produces oils not only for animal consumption but for human consumption. Most importantly, it produces extremely high quality oils used in cars which replace those unfriendly oils that are produced from minerals. It can also be used most advantageously for producing diesel.
7.31. p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House.
I took over a bankrupt estate at the beginning of the1970s Had it not been for the grants available at that time, the turn-around of that estate into a viable farming operation would have been nigh on impossible and I could not have fulfilled the call for "more food from our own resources". I admit that with those grants of between 40 and 60 per cent, whether they were in the form of the earlier farm capital grant or the later farm and horticultural grant scheme of the European Union era, huge changes were made to the farm; not only in terms of providing drainage to nearly all the land, but also with regard to the realignment of hedges and the scrubbing of hedges to create the needed efficiencies of modern farming methods. Farmers were paid to remove hedges and increase production.
Where some farmers can be blamed is for the neglect of thousands of miles of hedges, or of stone walls, or of fencing generally. It is true that much grassland has been lost to cereal production, but farmers, whether tenants or landlords, should be caring guardians and trustees of that land for future generations. Farming is going through an extraordinarily difficult time, but hedges have been degenerating since the Second World War. It is interesting to note that one hectare of land is equivalent to six kilometres of hedge.
Not all, but many, hedgerows are being lost through neglect and poor management. Neglect is considered to be one of the primary causes of hedgerow destruction,

377
with more than 110,000 kilometres of hedge apparently lost through neglect between 1984 and 1993 and 61 per cent of that neglect taking place since 1990. However, I agree that losses arise from the development of dwellings and industry, and from quarrying and road building too. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, the rate of new planting in the latest recorded period, 1990–1993, exceeds removal.
It is true, too, that more diverse species can be used in new planting. This will help to reverse the decline of tree sparrows, grey partridge, turtle doves and red bunting, to name but a few birds that specifically use hedgerows. Those hedgerow birds have had the highest percentage rate of decline, ranging from minus 64 per cent to a staggering minus 87 per cent loss between 1971 and 1996. Those figures come from the British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
The work carried out by the Council for the Protection of Rural England to review the impact and effectiveness of the hedgerow legislation has shown some interesting trends. The snapshot created by its work shows the relationship between hedgerow legislation, which uses a centrally determined definition of importance, and the great diversity of hedgerows across the country. It presents the first regional view of how the hedgerow regulations are being implemented across England, illustrating significant differences in the regional distribution of hedgerow removal. The information gathered highlights the lack of effective protection afforded to local hedgerows by the hedgerow regulations and reinforces the need for a wholesale revision of their operation to ensure that decisions regarding hedgerow removal are sensitive to local character and distinctiveness.
So what are needed are clearer environmental objectives, supported by sensible advice, information and incentives, with farmers and managers being involved in habitat action plans and Agenda 21 local biodiversity plans.
National parks provide an example of inadequate protection. I declare an interest as a vice-president of National Parks. Hedgerows and stone walls must be seen in a broader context, taking in the landscape, of which they are, and should be, an integral part. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mention the 25th anniversary of the national parks. In fact, it is the 50th anniversary.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Sorry!.
Viscount Addison: It is okay! My grandfather was involved, so I thought I would give it a mention.
The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, in which again I declare an interest as a vice-president, supports groups, which are spread all over the country, which teach and train people in the art of conservation. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will be pleased that I have been on a hedge-laying course with BTCV and have been tremendously encouraged by its ability to make things happen and to give skills back to ordinary
378
people who might otherwise never have the chance to do something practical to help to conserve our hedgerows and dry stone walls.
The National Grid has done a great deal to support the hedgerow cause through the BTCV. Its programme, the National Grid for Wildlife, is one of training and volunteer support by BTCV to care for the UK's hedgerows and create new ones. Just as the National Grid's transmission lines and cables cross the landscape to connect towns and cities with a constant flow of electricity, hedgerows form wildlife corridors connecting isolated habitats and allowing safe passage of wildlife between them.
I, too, was surprised to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford mention the hideous yellow of oilseed rape. Does the right reverend Prelate realise that yellow is this year's fashion statement?
In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, I press the Government to support programmes that protect the environment and maintain threatened wildlife habitats.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dourer: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest. First, I am one of the species of nanniers, in the form of a councillor, disliked by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Secondly, I am one of those who currently is spreading glorious gold over the countryside. I am glad that it is this year's fashionable colour.
We are mostly agreed that hedges are extremely important for the many reasons noble Lords have so eloquently explained. How can it be that we have such a clear understanding of what makes hedgerows important while we have criteria that are very complicated and dwell so extensively on the historical aspect alone? Birds certainly do not choose to live in a hedge because it is 300 rather than 150 years old, although I accept that the number of woody species will vary according to age. Certainly, stoats, weasels, and voles do not live under a hedge because it is a parish boundary.
Noble Lords agree that the regulations are over complicated. Any reform must make them less complicated so that we develop a much less narrow view of what constitutes an "important" hedgerow. The regulations reflect a centralist view of what is important. The current criteria therefore exclude so many sorts of hedgerow that they end up protecting only 20 per cent. They are most ill-equipped to take any local considerations into account.
My noble friend Lord Beaumont and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, mentioned national parks. I find it extraordinary that neither areas of outstanding natural beauty nor national parks can do anything to protect the hedgerows in their landscapes. For example, in my area, Somerset, there are the distinctive local hedgerows of Exmoor. But they are single species hedgerows—beech—so they fall outside protection. We have a local planning system that should deliver preservation and take into account both national. planning policy guidance and local views. It is quite a well-developed system. Good local authorities have

379
developed methods of consulting parish councils, appropriate agencies and organisations, and indeed applicants. That should be of some comfort to those who are worried that we try to over-regulate farmers. In my area, quite a number of parish, district and county councillors are farmers.
I was interested to read the account of the debate that took place when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, moved the regulations in this House in March 1997. The noble Earl said, at col.1170 of the Official Report of 20th March 1997:
"The countryside cannot be fossilised. It changes; indeed, it always will".
Of course he was right. But in terms of wildlife and landscape, public opinion is that matters have changed dramatically for the worse over past decades. To retain what is by common agreement extremely important, we need (the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, stole my words) to apply both stick and carrot. Our reference so far has been mainly to application of the stick, in the form of regulations, but the idea of the carrot was mentioned by several speakers. Most of the work of preserving, managing and replanting hedgerows falls on farmers. They are the ones who are being asked to sacrifice time and efficiency; and that costs money.
Many of the reasons given by noble Lords for trying to retain more hedgerows are of no direct benefit to the farmer, and will sometimes prove a disbenefit. The benefits to wildlife and landscape are, equally, benefits to the local pub owner, the child, the pensioner, indeed anyone who lives in or visits a particular locality. So we should be willing to see that agri-environment measures recognise the "public good" element of a farmer's work. I am extremely disappointed that reform of the CAP is unlikely to recognise the wider role of the farmer as manager of the countryside and not simply as food producer. We must encourage the Government to address this matter wherever they can. The recent increase, for example, in the organic aid scheme is a positive step. And the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford had some good ideas on how to progress hedge conserving measures.
Several noble Lords mentioned the question of hedges as habitat and the phenomenal fall in the numbers of many farmland bird species. That fall has been much less marked where traditional patterns of agriculture have led to well-maintained hedgerows. The sterling work of the British Trust for Ornithology and of the RSPB has made sure that the effect on the bird population is widely known. But the effect on other dependants on the hedgerows is less well known. I refer, for example, to mammals and wild flowers. The margins around a hedgerow are often the only place to find wild flowers in an intensively agricultural area. Those of your Lordships who spent last weekend in the countryside might have seen pink campion, cow parsley, cowslips and bluebells, but those are now mostly to be found underneath hedgerows and not all over the fields. They are the kinds of flowers that make the English countryside memorable, distinctive and special.
380
However, they are not regarded as especially important. The revised regulations must be complementary to the biodiversity action plan and the habitats directive.
Several noble Lords mentioned the question of soil erosion. A couple of years ago we were asked, as councillors in Somerset, to approve a sum of money for filter fences to prevent soil being washed on to the highway, thereby blocking drains and causing flooding to local houses. We visited the area and found that all the hedges had been removed or neglected. In addition, the pattern of ploughing had changed, so that where the earth had previously been retained by ploughing across the slope, and by hedges across the bottom of fields, those natural methods were no more. Instead, the council tax payer was expected to fund filter fences, which, being long strips of unsightly plastic which do not last for very long, are a far less effective and desirable method of soil retention than is a hedge. We are therefore looking closely at the economic arguments for the replacement of hedges.
One of the worst aspects of the 1997 regulations is the lack of emphasis given to the importance that hedgerows have in defining the character of a region. It is sometimes easy to tell where you are merely from the boundary system. I have mentioned the beech hedges of Exmoor, and noble Lords will be able to produce other examples. The hedges on high banks in Devon are fundamental to local distinctiveness. They are as much a part of the value of the landscape as the building materials that are used in the houses. Local authorities must produce local plans and policies that reflect local distinctiveness, and their residents may wish them to do so. But they may still not decide that a hedge is important simply because of its value as a landscape feature. The present national criteria do not empower local authorities to resist the breaking up of a traditional landscape of small fields; and many hedgerows do not fall into the important criteria as defined by the hedgerow regulations.
What a strange set of criteria they are. If a hedge marks the boundary of a pre-1600 estate or manor, it is important; if it marks the boundary of a mid-18th century estate, possibly not. If it includes at least seven woody species, it is important; if it includes only five, possibly not—and so on. I support the view that the criteria should be simplified. Defining nationally what is important locally is not conducive to creating regulations that are coherent, easy to understand and easy to regulate.
Because the previous government wished to remove any meaningful power from local authorities, they denied them the right to decide, preferring instead for Ministers to impose a set of regulations which, by common agreement in this debate, left much to be desired. If we compare them with what happens in the built environment, the Countryside Commission, now the Countryside Agency, promotes village design statements which enable local residents, in consultation with their local authority, to draw up a plan of exactly what they want to happen in their locality. That is a good way of ascertaining local views, and it could be widened to include local landscape.

381
Perhaps I may now turn to the subject of deterrence for those who fail to abide by the regulations. Again, the complicated nature of the regulations makes it extremely difficult for a local authority to bring a case. I commend Herefordshire County Council which was the first to discover a blatant act of destruction when a farmer, under cover of darkness, grubbed out half a mile of medieval hedge. He was heavily fined. and replacement costs for the hedgerow made the fine even greater. That might be termed a success. But the extremely detailed and painstaking work required by legal and conservation officers of that authority bear out the fact that local authorities may not always be able to consider pursuing a prosecution. The regulations must be made less complex so that flouting them becomes easier to discourage. Incidentally, hedgerows are the poor relation to trees. If you destroy a hedgerow, you pay a maximum fine of £5,000, as opposed to £20,000 for a tree. I therefore call on the Government to simplify the regulations and bring them into line with other planning procedures so that local people can be consulted and local authorities can make decisions that are in line with the wishes of local residents.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, no one, apart perhaps from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, disputes that the existing legislation for ancient hedgerows is better than no legislation at all. Taken in conjunction with the amount of new planting that is going on, it may well be encouraging an approach that will benefit our countryside greatly over time. However, there seems little doubt that it could be improved. The NFU has stated:
"criteria that identify important hedgerows should be transparent, equitable and objective".
The problems that have been drawn to my attention by, for example, the Countryside Restoration Trust, the RSPB, the CLA, the NFU and the CPRE, suggest that further work is needed before "transparent, equitable and objective" legislation is introduced.
Anyone who wishes to remove a hedge must notify the local authority. The local authority has six weeks in which to refuse permission. It has six weeks in which to examine the hedge, check its history and call for evidence of its importance. In particular, if the six weeks begin in the autumn just when furry mammals retire to sleep away the winter, perhaps when foliage is dying and many farmers and landowners give their hedges a short back and sides, it can be difficult to establish what a particular hedge shelters in the normal course of events.
I understand that the main study is usually a species count that is carried out on hedge lengths of 30 metres. If the hedge is less than 30 metres in length, the whole hedge is examined; if it is between 30 metres and 100 metres in length, the central 30 metres, which may include gaps such as gateways, are examined; if the hedge is between 100 metres and 200 metres in length, and is divided into two equal parts, the count is based on the central 30 metres in each part, the results being added together and divided by two; or, if it is over 200 metres in length, the hedge is divided into three
382
equal parts and the central 30 metres of each part are counted and averaged. It is no wonder that there is deep confusion about the present application of the regulations.
It is possible for these counts to be made so that particular lengths are not examined. It is also possible to apply for permission to remove more than is intended, thereby weakening the result. Will the Minister consider extending the regulations so that the full length of hedgerow is involved in the count? Will she also consider amending the timetable so that applications to remove hedges must be made before, say, 1st April in any year, with the local authority having until 1st September to decide?
Historical data can save a hedge, but if that information is not already on file it must be adduced from sightings in the hedgerow at the time of the species count. Here, all the drawbacks of the suitability of the season and shortage of inspection time also apply.
No account is taken of the visual impact of the hedge, although I understand that for other purposes it is possible to commission a formal landscape assessment. Will the Minister consider changing the legislation to incorporate these assessments at least in areas of outstanding natural beauty?
I refer next to survey work carried out by Dr. Joe Crocker for an article in the Central Scientific Laboratory Science Review which implies that, at least in Herefordshire, the state of health of the bird population in cider orchards is more dependent on hedgerows than on pesticides and their application—the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, referred to this—and that the more overgrown the hedge, the greater the number of birds that it can sustain. Will the Minister take a close look at this research, perhaps with a view to restricting the frequency of hedge cutting?
Having said that, it is hardly fair to expect farmers to bear the continual cost of managing hedgerows and maintaining field boundaries—mention has also been made of dry stone walls—if they have no right at the same time to remove them when necessary. This becomes particularly important in those areas of the country where the Government propose to assert the right to roam or to institute new green open spaces. Will the Minister give earnest consideration to incorporating in the right to roam and the green spaces legislation a clause that requires the relevant authorities to pay the costs of maintaining boundaries in those designated areas? Such boundaries were devised originally to keep stock in and/or people out. On heath and moorland, it was mainly the latter.
Many noble Lords have spoken today about wanting to look after hedgerows. However, as my noble friend Lord Stanley and other noble Lords have pointed out, it comes down to cost and profit. Noble Lords have debated farming in this House on many occasions and are aware that farmers are going through a tremendously difficult time. To impose upon them extra burdens and regulations, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, seeks to do, may be the very straw that breaks their back. If we want the kind of countryside of which the noble Lord speaks, the farming community must make a profit and compete

383
in the global market, not just with other farmers in the UK. In earlier debates in this House we have considered animal welfare and "gold-plated" measures, the responsibility for which is placed on fanners by the Government. If we are not careful, the very things that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, wants to do may well prove to be too much. That burden will make many of our farmers uncompetitive and therefore they will go to the wall.
My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to the general public's chocolate-box perception of the countryside. That perception of our countryside exists only because farmers farm the land. If that were not so, that perception would not exist. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn quite rightly pointed out that there could be more and better effective protection of our countryside if it included dykes, ditches, hedges and banks. I am sure all noble Lords in this House would agree with that. However, in the end, it comes back to money. In the past week in this House we had a very important debate on trade sanctions between the EU and the US. I was disappointed that the Government and the European Union had failed to come to grips with CAP reforms. I believe that we have missed a great opportunity and that this will pose difficulties for us in the future. Other noble Lords have pointed out that those who farm the countryside are stewards, but that they need to trade commercially in the world market.
Finally, I turn to another aspect of hedgerow protection that concerns me. My noble friend Lady Gardner has already touched on one aspect of this. Most hedgerows disappear through neglect, but a portion are dug up by property developers, demolished at the edge of rural land by keen gardeners or are destroyed by the former public utilities digging holes in the roads. No sooner have they finished than they return and dig up the road again. There is also the debilitating effect of the installation of cable television. All of those activities place a great strain on urban hedgerows. My noble friend Lady Gardner referred to leylandii Will the Minister give consideration to the scope for regulations that bind the operations of some of the bodies to which I have referred in order to conserve one of the prime factors in the make-up of our green and pleasant land?
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for giving us this opportunity to debate a subject that is so beneficial. We all want to see greater protection of hedgerows, but the money must come from somewhere.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath for initiating this debate and drawing attention to the current arrangements for the protection of hedgerows. We have benefited from his longstanding interest and experience in the subject both here and in the Council of Europe. The noble Lord and others who have spoken today have expressed concern that the current arrangements may not be adequate to protect these defining features of our
384
country's landscape which also serve as a habitat for animals and plants and provide important evidence as to the historic development of the landscape.
As noble Lords have said, there are two main strands to the current arrangements. First, there are statutory controls on hedgerow removal in England and Wales under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, presented the regulations to your Lordships' House for approval, admitting—the appropriate term, I think, having heard his views—that they were the last piece of business transacted under the previous administration. The noble Earl need not feel ashamed. Many noble Lords who have spoken are glad that he carried out that action.
Secondly, we encourage the planting, management and restoration of hedgerows through financial incentives which are available throughout the United Kingdom.
I must make clear at the outset that the Government are committed to providing strong and effective protection for hedgerows. To that end, we have taken positive steps to strengthen both the statutory framework and the management incentive schemes.
As regards the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, announced in May 1997 that the system of protection in the regulations which were about to come into force would be subject to immediate review. The Government believed that early attention should be paid to those regulations because of concerns that the criteria, which local authorities must use to determine whether a hedgerow is important and therefore worthy of protection, were too complicated—a point raised in the debate—and did not protect enough hedgerows. At that time it was estimated that the regulations would catch only about one in five hedgerows. The period allowed for local authorities to respond was also raised. I shall refer to the issue of timing later.
The review was carried out by a group which included the statutory agencies, local authorities and the main farming and conservation bodies. Its report, published in July last year, demonstrated a thorough investigation of the complex issues and careful analysis of possible options. Key recommendations included simpler criteria representing the landscape and the historic and wildlife importance of hedgerows. The review also proposed an increase in time allowed for response to a hedgerow removal notice from six to eight weeks.
Before final decisions were taken on the group's proposals, however, it was recommended that research should be commissioned into the new criteria. In particular that would provide an estimate of the percentage of hedgerows the regulations would be likely to protect. We are currently studying the results of that research and expect to publish revised draft regulations for statutory consultation after the evaluation has been completed. Our deliberations will be informed by the

385
report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on The Protection of Field Boundaries, and the Government's response to it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when is that expected?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall come to that in a moment. We hope by the summer. The law alone cannot provide full protection. For example, much hedgerow loss is due to hedges becoming derelict. It is difficult to legislate to prevent that. Incentive schemes, advice and information have a key role to play in encouraging active management of hedgerows. That is why, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Government have increased provision for agri-environment schemes in England. The sums available for the major schemes will be increased by £40 million over the next three years,
New funding of £12.4 million (including running costs) will also be made available during the same period for Tir Gofal in Wales. That will be of enormous importance.
My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath referred to the importance of hedgerows and their management. We agree that there is a problem with the over-management of hedgerows and neglect. We believe that the issue is addressed in part through free initial on-farm consultation advice and incentive schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the importance of the agricultural voice and the needs of the farming industry. Organisations such as ADAS, the farming wildlife advisory group and the countryside and agricultural information advisory service give advice on sympathetic management of field boundaries; and MAFF is also funding research into the attitudes of farmers and contractors to see how best we can deal with the issue of inappropriate management of the resource.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and others raised the issue of cross-compliance, We agree that cross-compliance may be useful where environmental problems are directly related to agricultural activity, such as over-grazing. But our experience to date has been that such provisions can be costly and difficult to administer on a significant scale. Any further use of cross-compliance would need to take account of that earlier experience. We are considering all the options, including cross-compliance, in the light of the overall CAP agreement and the responses to the Minister of Agriculture's consultation exercise on Agenda 2000. Interested parties will have an opportunity to contribute their views on that process.
The possibility of new primary legislation on hedgerows was raised by my noble friend Lord Hardy and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. We have not ruled out new primary legislation to secure stronger protection for important hedgerows in England and Wales. We shall reflect on the review group's suggestions that further consideration be given to altering Section 97 of the Environment Act 1995. My noble friend Lord Grantchester and other noble Lords referred to the CPRE report, Hedging Your Bets. We
386
have read with interest the results of the CPRE survey of local authorities on the operation of the current hedgerows regulations. It is important that we continue to work with the CPRE and other bodies which share our concern in this area.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to experience of the existing regulations. We believe that the hedgerows regulations need revising to provide stronger protection. Therefore we have riot gathered data on how they are working in practice at present. The review group has worked with the Local Government Association on this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthome Domer, referred to the protection of hedgerows. Section 97 of the Environment Act contains the powers enabling Ministers to introduce regulations to protect important hedgerows in England and Wales. In particular, it confers on Ministers the responsibility for prescribing criteria which define what makes hedgerows important. Any approach which allows local authorities to determine which hedgerows in their area are important and worthy of protection would require amendment of the primary legislation. However, the noble Baroness's points are extremely valid and we shall consider them in detail.
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, referred to the valuable work undertaken by the national parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke of the diversity of stone walls arid hedgerows in our national parks. The point was well made. The Government will consider the need for legislative protection of all field boundaries in the light of forthcoming research, including up-to-date information on the state of field boundaries, when we receive the Countryside Survey 2000.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop or Hereford and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke in detail and with great knowledge about landscape value criterion and its importance. The review group spent same time grappling with that issue and found it difficult to identify a specific criterion to cover it but put forward some proposals such as a separate list of locally distinctive hedgerows. However, that tends to militate against the simple system which many speakers today stressed they would prefer.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke of regulatory burdens on farmers. We shall seek to keep them to the necessary minimum, proportionate to the need to take account: of research and consultation with other interests.
My noble friend Lord Hardy, and the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Middleton, spoke of the enclosure Acts. The Flamborough case suggested that obligations arising under the old enclosure Acts and awards may still be enforceable. It is extremely important for me to make the point that the obligations contained in the enclosure Acts and awards are enforceable as between private persons and are civil disputes. Neither the Government nor local authorities have a power to intervene or enforce on these matters. However, should there be further detailed information, I shall write to noble Lords.

387
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and my noble friend Lord Grantchester spoke of the effect of the CAP subsidy on the environment. We are committed to pressing for radical reform of the subsidy system. We argued for a progressive reduction in production subsidy and in compensation paid to farmers and a switch towards paying for environmental goods. The reform measures agreed in Birmingham did not go as far as we would wish. We are currently consulting widely on how to implement the reforms and will take careful account of noble Lords' views, in particular those of the right reverend Prelate. We are working on a draft code of good agricultural practice for conservation. It would include advice and guidance on the protection of the environment in hedgerows.
In response to the issue of finance, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, among others, for England the additional £40 million for the agri-environment fund is an important part of the Government's approach. It is the Government's clear objective to increase targeted payments for environmental projects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the overall impression of the countryside. The Countryside Survey 2000 will provide the information we need to be aware of any changes, removal, planting, construction, replacement and dereliction. That is important. She also raised the issue of leylandii and other high hedges. We know that many people are affected by the problems which they can cause and feel strongly about the issue. We are sympathetic to those who suffer and are considering whether there is anything we should do to address the matter. We have not yet concluded whether any form of legislative action is to be taken.
As regards urban hedges and the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, the review group supported inclusion within the scope of the regulations garden hedges which adjoin countryside land uses. That would extend protection to potentially important hedgerows which mark historic boundaries between villages and open countryside. They are currently excluded under paragraph 3(3).
I was asked about genetically modified crops and the evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation is to address the concerns raised by English Nature and other bodies that the widespread introduction of some types of genetically modified crops could bring changes to the agricultural environment which could be damaging to farm life. The process will include an assessment of the impact of GM crops on field margins, including hedgerows. If there is evidence of harm the Government can act accordingly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about local discretion over which hedges are important and the penalties. The maximum £5,000 penalty refers only to cases brought before magistrates. For those heard in higher courts the fine is unlimited.
Progress is being made on hedgerow diversity action plans. The steering group set up to take forward the UK biodiversity action plan for ancient and/or species rich
388
hedgerows met for a third time on 22nd April. All actions set out in the plan are being addressed. We will use on-going data to continue.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, with his introduction of the capercaillie, managed to worry me considerably by making me believe that I would have to answer two debates. However, his point was important because there is a connection. The deer fences to protect the woodland, which are being demanded by some environmentalists, are creating the problem for the capercaillie. I was reminded of previous Questions asked in your Lordships' House on red squirrels and the kind of trees they like.
The debate has shown the strength of feeling that the subject of hedgerow protection arouses as well as the complexity of the issues involved. Noble Lords from a strong farming and agricultural background, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the need for those involved in agriculture to act quickly and the possible destruction of things which are of value in order to prevent future problems. My limited experience of those whose lives and work centre around agriculture is that they are too committed to the environment to behave as vandals on this issue.
I conclude by saying that I shall write to all noble Lords who asked detailed questions to which I have been unable to reply in the time available. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I do not understand the changing language in agriculture. Whatever happened to mutton? I picked up his point about animals and, yes, sheep and lambs end up in butchers. But where has mutton gone? Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I shall read her substantial speech with interest tomorrow. I am sure that other noble Lords will also do so, and will recognise that she covered a substantial number of points very thoroughly.
I shall not take long; indeed, I do not have long. But a number of points need to be made. First, I was particularly grateful to both right reverend Prelates. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford gave me great encouragement when I learnt of the efficiency of his local authority. I very much agreed with his comment about the need to support agriculture on an acreage rather than a headage basis. I first made a speech calling for that in the House of Commons 15 years ago. I hope, too, that my noble friend the Minister will pay particular attention to the approach made by her fellow Lancastrian, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn.
I should like to make one or two points in my own defence in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. He seemed to think that anyone with an interest in natural history and the countryside would be a townie who ought not to interfere in agriculture, but I should like to interfere in agriculture on behalf of many of the small farmers whom I represented for a very long time in the other place and who did not like the fact that a very tiny

389
proportion of farmers received a huge proportion of the very substantial sums that agriculture received from the public purse. They cannot be subsidised as heavily as they have been and be completely exempt from the consideration of the rest of the community.
The noble Lord seemed to be objecting to my point that people who own land were given the land on certain conditions, broke the conditions, may have been given subsidy by the taxpayer to act illegally in breaking those conditions, and then perhaps expect to receive grants to put right the wrong-doing for which they were subsidised. That is completely illogical.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, could not give way because of pressure of time, but he asked me a question, in effect. He seemed to suggest that I would have voted against the Enclosure Acts in the 18th and 19th centuries, if I had had the choice. No one with any knowledge of history could have objected to the enclosure Acts, because they were designed to ensure that food production massively increased in order to feed the burgeoning population in the industrial areas. The difference between that and hedgerow removal is that in the past 25 years we have been grubbing out hedgerows not to produce food to feed people, but to build surpluses at great cost. We have been destroying the natural history of Britain for no useful purpose.
I also accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the hedgerow regulations were ridiculously complicated. I hope that the call for simplicity, which has been echoed throughout the debate, will receive proper attention from the Government.
I was particularly grateful for comments from my noble friend Lord Grantchester and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which reminded me of a grave omission from my speech. I should have declared an interest, being president of the Sheffield, South Yorkshire and Peak District branch of the CPRE, an honour that I accepted last year. I should have referred to it. although, apart from planting hedges in what was once upon a time my constituency, I have not been involved in its tremendous work on hedgerows, which has been proceeding for some time.
As regards my own credentials, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, may like to note that I come from the same community as the late Lord Williams of Barnburgh. He was a far better Minister of Agriculture than any of the distinguished Ministers of Agriculture produced from the other side. As a young man, I received enormous assistance from him, to the point that many of my constituents felt that I spent rather a disproportionate time seeking to assist and be on good terms with the farmers in the constituency that I was proud to represent.
I may have lived in and represented a metropolitan area, but it was rich in fields, woods and natural features. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the inspiration that this provides. It is essential that that inspiration be available for future generations. I hope that the present Government will earn the regard not only of the present generation, but of many more as a result of their commitment to the green priorities which seem to be clear within the manifesto. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill [H.L.]
8.24 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill, and therefore this will be a short speech. The history of the Bill dates from when my noble friend Lord Addison asked an Unstarred Question on motorcycle parking places, on 2nd March 1998. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, answered. for the Government, saying:
"secure parking is a key concern … The Government have declared that they will change the law when an opportunity arises to put beyond doubt the ability of local authorities to provide devices on the highways to which motorcycles can be attached. "—[Official Report, 2/3/98: col.953]
The Government have been immensely helpful in enabling me to bring the Bill forward. I would be Machiavellian if I mentioned the need for more powered two-wheeler (PTW) places, or PTWs in bus lanes. That would be very rude of me, so I shall refrain.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said in A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone in 1998 that it would consider specific measures to assist motorcyclists, such as secure parking on public transport interchange sites—that is, park-and-ride. The Welsh Office guidance for local transport plans 1999 stated:
"Another key factor for encouraging the use of powered two-wheelers is the provision of safe parking".
There has been a considerable increase in sales of powered two-wheelers over recent years. In 1992 a survey of 400 motorcyclists in Bristol found that the lack of secure parking facilities was the issue of greatest concern to riders. Ninety-eight per cent said that they would be encouraged to use a lock if anchor paints were available. A further survey in Sandwell, West Midlands, in 1998 found similar results. In 1991, against a backdrop of escalating levels of PTW thefts, the: insurance companies raised motorcycle premiums by a high percentage.
There can be little doubt about the need for secure parking, and its incentive effect. Before Christmas last year I was fortunate enough to listen to a talk by national association Bikers with Disability. One of the many support services it offers is engineering solutions to aid disabled bikers to modify PTWs to allow them to enjoy their freedom again. Imagine the severe disappointment that a disabled biker would suffer on the theft of his or her specially modified PTW. I apologise at this stage to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, because I know how much he dislikes the term "PTW".
Figures issued in January this year show once again a rise in thefts since 1997. It is estimated that around 25,000 motorcycles are stolen annually, with a recovery rate of 14 per cent, compared with the overall vehicle recovery rate of 65 per cent. I must declare are interest, for somewhere in those figures are two PTWs of mine that were "half-inched"—perhaps in your Lordships' House I should say "purloined".

391
One of the most stunning of a plethora of ghastly PTW figures is the fact that PTW theft is seven times greater here than in Germany. London is the capital of PTW theft, with double the problem of any other country. These gloomy stories have a financial impact on us all. The extra cost in insurance premiums, police investigation costs and criminal justice fees is borne by us all. As I have said, I have had two PTWs stolen in London in the past four years. I am sure that the financial impact was not borne just by me.
I understand that all parties pledged support for PTWs in their general election manifestos and there is strong support on all sides for the Bill which I bring forward for its Second Reading today.
Many local authorities are beginning to install PTW parking facilities and this Bill is designed to minimise the red tape and financial cost incurred by that red tape involved in installing secure PTW facilities. It seeks to clarify that grey area of the law.
This Bill amends Section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by merely authorising local authorities not only to provide stands and racks for bicycles but also for motorcycles. It does not interfere with any arrangements already made for bicycles.
It is as simple as that. The effect of the Bill is to give a small enlargement of existing powers to local authorities, but those new powers would be discretionary and there would be no obligation on the authorities to exercise them. The total expenditure of local authorities in consequence of the Bill is likely to be minimal. No effects are expected on public service manpower and it is expected that there will be a negligible impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies. I am extremely hopeful that this Bill will enable more PTWs to be secured successfully. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Rotherwick.)
8.33 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord's Bill is concerned mainly with secure parking places for motorcycles, but bicycles are also slightly involved in the Bill and I want to make sure that cyclists' interests are not overlooked. I must declare an interest as someone who cycles between 2,000 and 3,000 miles per year, many of them on a tandem.
I half-support the Bill because, as regards congestion and pollution, motorcycles come half-way between cars and bicycles. The noble Lord will be aware that under the 1984 Act, authorities responsible for roads already have powers to provide racks and stands for bicycles. This Bill permits them to add securing devices.
There are some 15 million bicycles in this country and I welcome anything which encourages people to use them more. Identified and secure parking places are an additional encouragement. They remove the hassle of having to find a safe place. What is more, the bike is there when you get back and you are glad about that, because it is your only means of transport. Proper parking places are so much better than just leaving the
392
bicycle leaning up against a wall or a fence where it becomes both an obstacle and an eyesore. Proper parking places look much neater.
Therefore, I welcome the parts of the Bill which encourage cycling. The Government too are moving towards a pro-cycling culture. The White Paper on transport contains a policy commitment to double cycling by 2002 against a 1996 baseline. It is right that they should do so for two main reasons: first, less congestion and pollution, which directly aids the economy; and secondly, better health.
Indeed, in 1993, the Cyclists Touring Club, in its study Costing the Benefits estimated that the annual cost savings to the economy by increasing the level of cycle use by 10 per cent was more than £1 billion. Therefore, substantial benefits are to be gained purely by using our cars less and our bicycles more.
I realise that an increase of 10 per cent bucks the national trend. However, the City of York increased bicycle use by 10 per cent in 1998 and at the same time reduced road deaths. Much of that was achieved by implementing the road safety strategy. So it is possible.
Central to encouraging the greater use of bicycles is safety on the roads. For cyclists and pedestrians, our roads are some of the most dangerous in Europe. So I welcome the steps that are being taken to encourage speed reduction and reallocating carriageway space. The introduction of cycle lanes is welcome but, speaking personally, I believe that cyclists would feel far safer if they were separated from the rest of the traffic, not just by a white line or a different coloured surface but by a kerb raised from the road.
I turn now to the health aspects of cycling. First, health is not just the absence of disease; it is also the presence of vigour, fitness and the ability to work. You perform better if you are fitter and you are less likely to be ill.
The Health Education Council recommends physical activity because research has determined that there is a relationship between physical activity and a reduced risk of a number of diseases. For example, cycling for between six and eight hours per week can bring about an important reduction in the risk of fatal heart disease which is the nation's biggest killer. People are aware of that. That is why many people go to health clubs three times per week and sit on a stationary cycle, often watching television. How much more creative and constructive it must be to use that time to actually cycle to and from work or to and from the station or to and from the shops or to visit friends and family.
Incidentally, I find that one of the major advantages of using a bicycle in an urban environment is that you know exactly how long a journey will take. On a bicycle, you are hardly affected by roadworks or traffic jams, so you can be more certain of your journey time. Cycling does not require any arrangements. You do not have to think about where to park the car. Cycling to and from places takes quite a lot of hassle out of life. Anything which takes stress out of life is to be welcomed.

393
My main point is that travelling in that way makes exercise part of your lifestyle. Regular exercise then just happens as a part of your normal way of life. That is why I support the Bill: because it is good for the economy and good for health. Who would not want to help the economy and to improve their health at the same time?
I have known the Minister for many years. I know him to be entirely reasonable. How can any reasonable person fail to be influenced by the force of those arguments? Who could not be in favour of improving the economy and improving their health? So I can envisage the Minister cycling from his home in London to his office in Victoria, which is not very far, and then cycling from his office in Victoria to Westminster, which is an even shorter distance. What is more, there are no hills on either journey.
The Chancellor is also encouraging the Minister to use his bicycle as he has raised the tax-free allowance for cyclists on business to 12p per mile. The Minister's department could provide him with a bicycle tax free. That is some encouragement to use the ministerial car less.
I hope that the Minister will support the Bill. I hope that he will ensure that local authorities are offered the appropriate funding to deliver on the Government's policy commitments regarding cycling. I hope, too, that his department will use its influence to ensure that cycling arrangements are incorporated into the plans of public transport providers and that cycling becomes part of the integrated transport system. In that way, cycling will become a real travel option for us all, and we shall all enjoy the benefits.
8.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I am strongly in favour of this modest proposal. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for bringing it forward. This afternoon I have come from a meeting of West Midlands bishops at a retreat in Worcestershire. Today I travelled from Hereford to Worcester and on to London by train. But yesterday, I made the journey from Hereford to the meeting and back again on my Honda VFR 750, and very exhilarating arid quick it was. However, I parked the bike with some misgiving in the car park of the retreat house. I threw it a lingering and affectionate look as I walked into the house because I did not know whether I would see it again. Nowhere, not even on such hallowed ground, is a bike safe. The statistics are appalling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I have been a victim. I fear the debate will be rather anecdotal.
Four years ago, for a few heady months, I was the proud owner of a Suzuki GSXR 750. It was double locked in the palace garage and was stolen, together with my daughter's boyfriend's Honda, in broad daylight at 5 o'clock on a weekday afternoon. The thieves had planned their raid very cleverly, bringing in their anonymous van at a time when numbers of plumbers and carpenters were moving in and out and one more Transit van would go unnoticed. I never saw or heard anything more of my beloved bike. I suppose
394
I should have seen it as some kind of judgment on me, at my advanced years and in my serious calling, wanting what is an archetypal hooligan bike. The fact is, I still feel it, like a bereavement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, two-wheelers are altogether desirable. Bicycles are healthy and non-polluting. Motorcycles are quick, convenient and cause amazingly little congestion. Eight motorcycles can be parked in the same space as one motorcar. However, worries about security are a serious problem. They are a significant deterrent to many who would otherwise use a two-wheeler.
For pedal cycles, the need is for cycle racks to be in a prominent place in full view, easily visible. I believe that most cyclists are perfectly happy to carry a chain and lock, but those are inevitably not very sophisticated devices. Bicycles can easily be dismembered even if the frame is locked to the rack. I remember going to Hereford station recently on my own bicycle and being slightly alarmed to find, in the next rack to where I was putting my bike, a frame chained to the rack. Every other component had been removed. So, I caught the train with some sense of misgiving. Mercifully, my bike was intact when I returned. It seems to me that what matters is that if we are providing bicycle racks for pedal cycles, they should be in an obvious place and not like the one at Hereford station tucked away where no one can see it.
Motorcycles require rather different treatment. Ground anchors of some kind are the only answer to the ruthless, highly-organised gangs of thieves. Many forms of suitable anchor are available from the high-tech Bikesafe bollard operated by a smart card and requiring payment per hour to the simpler, cheaper but equally effective steel rails, bars or loops to which a motorcycle can be secured. This requires the motorcyclist to carry a very substantial heavy-duty chain or locking device. With a sizeable bike, that is probably not a difficulty, but for riders of small, lightweight bikes it may be quite impractical to carry a suitable locking device. Therefore, I believe we urgently need, in every town and city, some secure parking of the Bikesafe/smart card kind which provides all the necessary equipment on site.
I hope the message will go very clearly from this brief debate and that the security interests of motorcyclists will be taken much more seriously for the benefit of those of us who are bikers and because of the environmental benefit for the common good.
8.43 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest, as a motorcycle licence-holder, an owner of a motorcycle and subscriber of annual funds to a motorcycle insurance company for the privilege. I am also a member of the All Party Motorcycle Group. Perhaps I may add that I have had my motor cycle knocked over while parked in the Palace of Westminster. That set up a concertina effect, damaging not only my own motorcycle but also that of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. I am pleased, therefore, that the Bill gives powers to authorities to provide, among other measures, stands or racks to enable the bicycle to be held in a stable, upright position while it is parked.

395
To be serious, this Bill is long overdue. We have heard of the numbers of motorcycles stolen, literally picked up off the streets. Any measure that helps to secure a motorcycle to its surroundings must be of benefit to all, except the thief. Lately, I have been interested to note that motorcycle magazines have published a kind of Which report on locking and securing equipment for motorcycles. Those useful reports have highlighted the various strengths and weaknesses of available restraints, which is helpful to both owners and insurance companies alike.
Many insurance companies offer discounts if certain alarms or devices are fitted, but there is not much to beat the heavy-duty lug in the road through which a serious section of chain can be passed. I trust that the Bill will enable authorities to be helpful to motorcycle owners who have no garage or garden frontage at home and that they will allow some flexibility in providing or supporting the fitting of lugs in suitable places outside the owner's home. Perhaps the Minister would respond to that point.
Also, I should like to see flexibility in car parks, such as NCP car parks, to accept motorcycles. We have heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford speak about the fact that eight motorcycles can be parked in one car parking place. I do not see why the NCP car parks or other car parks feel that they losing revenue by allowing motorcycles to be parked there or why they cannot provide bays for motorcycles. Many owners would be only too pleased to pay for covered accommodation for their motorcycles and thereby reduce the risk of theft.
I commend the Bill to the House and support my noble friend Lord Rotherwick.
8.47 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this is a useful Bill which provides a very simple aid to those who ride pedal cycles as well as motorcycles. I should, of course, declare an interest like everybody else. I am the rider of a motor scooter, and therefore the provision of racks, stands and devices for securing bicycles or motorcycles at the roadside would be of benefit to me. Scooters provide a cost-effective and convenient means of transport and are becoming more popular as traffic densities worsen. I shall listen with some care to how the Minister replies to his noble friend Lord Haskel as to what he proposes to do with his ministerial car on his way home.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, outlined in introducing the Bill, it is the ability to secure a bicycle, or particularly a motorcycle, to something solid that is absent in most instances. I wish to concentrate this evening on problems connected with motorcycles. Local authorities in London have provided a good number of spaces for the parking of solo motorcycles at the roadside and they are very well used. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford identified, there are problems with security. The most helpful
396
Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill go right to the heart of the matter. Page 2 states:
"motor cycles are vulnerable to theft by persons who can lift the whole vehicle and remove it in a van or lorry. The Bill thus provides for devices that secure motor cycles. "
It continues:
"these devices could be in the form of a bar to which a motor cycle could be chained or tethered".
There you have it—simple and very cost-effective. The motorcycle trade reports a substantial increase in the number of motor cycles, especially scooters, sold this year and so the Bill is very timely.
The cost of installing such devices would not be substantial but would have to be covered from the general rate. The concept of individual meters or some form of parking ticket is not practical for a motorcycle for on-street parking. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that some arrangements could be made for charging for off-street parking. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, stated, the new powers contained in the Bill are discretionary and local authorities must judge for themselves the need for these devices.
The Explanatory Notes recognise that the cost to local authorities would be minimal. Motorcyclists would benefit from reduced insurance premiums if these bars were fitted in the pavement, particularly in residential areas where motorcycles are parked overnight or over a weekend. Some scooters even have a built-in safety chain for that purpose. It could be seen as a useful crime prevention exercise.
What would also be most useful to motorcyclists is the provision of some form of map that would show where the parking places for solo motorcycles are located. Not every street has them and therefore it often requires driving up and down streets in the neighbourhood of one's destination in order to happen on a parking place. They are often tucked away in side streets, and not obvious from a glance up the street.
If the local authority goes to the expense of providing the security bars in the pavement it would be very convenient if they could also provide a map of where they are. I am sure that sponsorship would pay for the printing of the map in any local authority area, and perhaps the noble Lord the Minister could say whether he would encourage local authorities to provide this information in the way that I have suggested. I realise, of course, that the demand for the maps would be relatively small, but I am sure it would assist the air quality of the area by reducing the amount of time spent driving around looking for these spaces. All in all, this is a useful modification to Section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and I believe that your Lordships should give this Bill a fair wind.
8.50 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations paid to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on originating this small and modest Bill, and to those offered to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who, together with the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was responsible for raising the subject in your Lordships' House originally.

397
I must declare an interest, as chairman of the Motorcycle Industry Theft Action Group, which has been in existence now for seven or eight years and which was set up to address the problem of motorcycle theft. Motorcycle theft at that time had reached such proportions that insurers were no longer willing to write policies for motorcycle riders; certainly not new policies. The effect that that would have had on motorcycle sales would have been dire indeed; so something had to be done about it.
We drew into the Motorcycle Industry Theft Action Group all those who had some interest or some expertise in this matter. They included, obviously, the Home Office, the police, the insurers, various motorcycle groups and others. I think that we can claim to have been successful in quite a short time, not only by bringing in the help of, in particular, the Metropolitan Police Stolen Vehicles Squad, which worked very closely with us, but also by involving the Association of Chief Police Officers and creating some kind of awareness of the danger faced by motorcyclists if they are not properly protected. They have to be made aware of the dangers of leaving motorcycles where they could be stolen.
Of course, if you are like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and you choose a bike that thieves find most desirable, you have a particular problem. I would say to the right reverend Prelate that there are some quite simple measures that one can take in addition to locking up motorcycles, even when there are not the kinds of parking places that we are discussing. Perhaps I may suggest to him that a very old canvas cover could be used. Thieves, by their very nature, are lazy people and they tend not to look under covers. However, if they have targeted your motorcycle beforehand and have made an organised effort, your cover will not protect it. But, generally speaking, I have discovered that an old cover is very effective, in addition to all the other devices that we put on to motor cycles.
The parking situation at the moment is very worrying indeed. The Bill provides for local authorities to provide further encouragement, although I do not think it is any more than that. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will tell us more precisely what effect this Bill will have—because I do hope that it has a chance of getting on the statute book—in terms of ensuing local authority action.
Even in the London area it is necessary, if you wish to avoid the unpleasant surprise of finding a parking ticket on your motorcycle, to find out what particular local authority laws apply to motorcycles. I think it is fair to say that in the past some criticism has been extended, from both sides of your Lordships' House, to the local borough of Wandsworth. However, in one way it is a model in this area. It provides excellent motorcycle parking; just the thing that is suggested by the noble Lord in this Bill. In addition, it allows motorcyclists to park on spaces, whether they are spaces for residents or spaces with meters. However, it will not, of course, allow motorcyclists to park on yellow lines.
If you are a new motorcyclist and you move down the road to the borough of Lambeth, let us say, or to Wimbledon, you may think that the same thing would
398
apply; but it does not. It is necessary to find a friendly parking warden. They are often friendly to motorcyclists because they themselves more often than not use what are known as powered two-wheelers. Incidentally, I prefer the term "powered two-wheelers" to the acronym "PTWs", but perhaps both are slightly offensive and rather long-winded. However, most parking wardens have had some contact with motorcyclists and are willing to explain what the local regulations are.
Indeed, I was told in Wimbledon—this is a strange one—that in that authority one was not permitted to park a motorcycle unless it was parallel to the kerb because it provided no obstruction to traffic in that way. That is an odd one and I have never heard of it anywhere else. It is a curious thing, but there is no standard approach taken by local authorities, either as to what is permissible by way of motorcycle parking or what is supplied for motorcyclists by way of "fixings", as is suggested in this modest Bill.
If you go to other countries in Europe, and to France in particular, people are not so fussy about where you park a motorcycle. The police will not interfere; nor will parking wardens, if motorcycles are not causing an obstruction. They also provide very high-quality fixings, should you choose to use them. In this country, there has always been an underlying attitude about motorcyclists which does not exist in other European countries. In some local authorities, certain engineers, who are responsible after all for some of the decisions taken with regard to motorcycles, may to some extent be anti-motorcycle. They consider them to be a nuisance. That is not unknown in Britain. Motorcyclists are either seen as ruffians or eccentrics—certainly, Peers are seen as eccentrics—and so there is a kind of cultural attitude to be overcome. I hope that with motorcycles. including scooters, increasingly being used on the roads, that attitude will be broken down.
The advent of large numbers of scooters has aggravated the parking problem of motorcycles considerably. It is very difficult now, if you have a big motorcycle, to get on to one of the designated spaces, of which there are not nearly enough. Also, people are rather selfish about where they park. They often park obliquely in a space which might otherwise allow a motorcycle to be parked there also. Some motorists park rather carelessly, something of which motorcyclists must become aware.
Some innovative thinking will be required from local authorities with regard to paying for parking space improvements. Not only could they advertise in the area concerned in order to generate some income—that should not be difficult because, for a modest fee, garages selling motorcycle spares and clothing would be glad to advertise—but, in addition, they could provide helpful advice on parking, which would introduce good manners; and good manners are very much needed in our society in many areas. I shall say no more about motorcyclists except that I welcome the Bill.
On cyclists, I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, particularly because I am a cyclist as well as a motorcyclist. In recent weeks I have become

399
more of a cyclist because my doctor told me that I had to lose weight. I take doctors very seriously because I do not see them often, and I have been cycling around London and losing weight very quickly. I feel a lot better for it. I am sure that everything my doctor said was absolutely right and that people should be encouraged to cycle.
But cycling in London is a very exciting business. I get more thrills cycling in London than I ever got on a motorcycle. I cannot understand how some people are so brave and foolhardy as to wear things like Sony Walkmans when they are on cycles, which means they cannot hear the traffic around them. I am amazed by the bravery of young women in particular, who cross the road on cycles with verve and flair with scarcely a look around them. It is an extraordinary experience and I am enjoying it very much. We should do more cycling.
Today I encountered just the kind of situation which was pointed out earlier. It was extremely difficult to find a space to park my cycle in Holborn where there are cycle spaces, but not nearly enough. I had to park my cycle on a post which told people about the length of time they are allowed to park cars. When I came back, the cycle was where I had left it. It did not have a ticket on it, but I had felt uneasy leaving it there when I went to my meeting. One is terribly inhibited on a cycle and is often left to fasten it to railings.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he can tell us something about the position of cyclists who use railings, posts and other fixings on which to attach their cycles. There are some alarming notices around. One read, "If you put your cycle against these railings, it will be removed or destroyed". What is so special about railings? Why are people so worried about cycles on their railings? I do not understand that. The cycles are often more attractive than the railings. But it is perhaps one of our British traits to say: "We do not like cyclists. We do not like their clothes, their lycra shorts" and so forth—and that has a knock-on effect on the way we view our railings.
Life is as difficult for cyclists as it is for motorcyclists. There is a kind of war between the two groups and I find myself in the middle. When I am on a cycle, I dislike motorcyclists and when I am on a motorcycle, I dislike cyclists. But again, that is a British trait. We are all members of groups, clubs or parties and we hate everybody who is not part of our group. As I get older, I am trying to be more fair and even-handed with everybody and I hope that everybody will follow my example. I hope that I do not lose my temper tomorrow with a cyclist when I am on my motorcycle!
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, gave an excellent speech and I hope that it is reproduced elsewhere. That will encourage more people to use cycles and to improve their health. I look forward to what the Minister has to say and hope that he will be able to tell us that this Bill will have a fair wind. We all know that it is difficult to get Private Member's Bills on to the statute book, but this Bill would provide enormous encouragement for people and local authorities. It would also have a knock-on effect. It would start to break down the cultural attitudes against motorcycles in particular.
400
The orderly parking of motorcycles would make motorcyclists themselves more orderly and more acceptable. Many things could be achieved. I look forward to the Minister's remarks.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall not attempt to repeat the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. On a modest Bill like this 13 minutes was a triumph!
We welcome this Bill from these Benches. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on having introduced it. I find it hard to understand why it is necessary. After all, it has very modest aims. As far as I can see, practically speaking, it merely requires local authorities to put up rather stronger posts than they do at present.
I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said; that is, that it also improves the situation of cyclists. I am the first speaker so far—perhaps the Minister will be another—who has no interest to declare. I am not a cyclist, nor a motorcyclist. I do possess a motorcycle licence which I obtained when I was 16—one was allowed to have one in those days, which is quite a long time ago—but I do not now drive a motorcycle and do not ride a pedal cycle either.
I am a pedestrian in London; I am a user of the Tube and the bus and I am a motorist. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, one has to change one's allegiance as one uses the different forms of transport. As a pedestrian I dislike cyclists intensely. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is an exception to the rule, but mostly they ride on the pavements; they go on the wrong side of traffic bollards; they nearly knock you down as you are crossing the road; they disregard pedestrian crossings; they go the wrong way up one-way streets, and do all sorts of other things which, as a pedestrian, one finds thoroughly objectionable. As a motorist, of course, I make it my business to try and knock over as many of them as I possibly can—or at least I think I should do that but I never get around to doing it. However, that is what is in the back of my mind and, I hope, will never come to the front of my mind.
Motorcyclists in London, unfortunately, are somewhat tarnished by the reputation of the couriers who behave in much the same way as cyclists. I am sure no noble Lord would be tempted to behave in that way, but noble Lords who are cyclists must agree that they taint the reputation of bikers generally. I use the word "biker"; I am glad that the Bill says, "motorcycles". It does not say, "powered two-wheelers" or "PTWs", otherwise I could not support the Bill, unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
However, the courier fraternity could be taught a lot, and not only the courier fraternity who generally tend to ride the larger bikes, but the pizza delivery fraternity. They tend to ride the smaller bikes around London and look extremely perilous. I suppose it is mostly their own fault that they get knocked over, but it is not something one would wish to emulate.
However, having said that, I noted that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, described bikers as generally either "ruffians" or "eccentrics". I am sure that that is

401
not the case. Moreover, I believe that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick said that 25,000 motorbikes are stolen each year. To my mind, that means that there are 25,000 motorbikers out there who have bought stolen vehicles. So, presumably, not all motorcyclists are perfect in that sense. Perhaps the fraternity should look to itself to a certain extent. I give way to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the noble Lord is most gracious to give way. There are, of course, many stolen motorcycles, or indeed parts of them, which get into circulation. However, in all fairness to motorcyclists, I think that those who buy motorcycles with "pirated" parts, if I may put it that way, are often unaware that that is the case. As with motorcars, it is very difficult to check whether the vehicle or parts of it have been stolen.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly take the noble Viscount's point, but there must be some vehicles which are recirculated by unscrupulous buyers who know that they are stolen. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill and hope that the Minister will be able to give it a fair wind.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for introducing the Bill. It will tackle a gap in the regulations and I believe that it will be of great benefit to all of us if passed. I am delighted to say to the noble Viscount and others that the Government support the Bill and were able to agree that parliamentary counsel should help the noble Lord produce the legislation. However, I fear that the basic workload will still fall upon the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. The noble Lord has shown great energy and commitment in bringing forward the Bill. I am very much appreciative of his effort.
The Government hope very much that the Bill will succeed. lf, by some mischance, it fails, either in this or the other place, I reiterate the Government's commitment to ensure that legislation along similar lines will be pursued. Therefore, we are fully in favour of the Bill.
I have nevertheless to address a few problems. A cultural issue seems to be involved, which was perhaps best explained by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. There are images, reality, and behavioural and safety problems involved with motorcyclists and indeed with cyclists. I have often found it necessary to remark that similar had behaviour is quite frequent among car drivers who in fact cause the vast majority of accidents. It is true, however, that cyclists and motorcyclists are vulnerable. Motorcycling is often not a very safe means of transport. But it is part of our transport system and one which many people prefer, especially in crowded urban areas.
I should declare a complete non-interest in the sense that I have never been up front on a motorcycle; indeed, I have been utterly terrified as a pillion passenger on such a vehicle. I do not intend to alter that position. Moreover, I am rarely a cyclist. I shall respond in a moment to my noble friend Lord Haskel.
402
There are other cultural problems. But motorcycling is an important part of our urban transport system and indeed of our long distance transport system. It should be catered for better. Drivers of all modes of transport should demonstrate the kind of tolerance and reasonableness mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, reminded me that I am the Minister with responsibility for road safety and that I should deeply deplore what he said. However, he did pull back from the implications of his attitude when driving certain modes of transport.
The Bill builds upon the White Paper which we produced and to which my noble friend Lord Haskel referred in relation to cycling. However, a big chunk of that integrated transport policy related to motorcycling. We recognise that motorcycling can, in many circumstances, make a contribution to the objectives of integrated transport. We have been persuading local authorities to consider introducing in their local transport plans facilities for encouraging motorcycling, in particular by providing secure parking.
Before I continue further in the motorcycling direction, I believe that I need to respond to my noble friend Lord Haskel; indeed, I have been pondering on how to do so, especially as regards his more pointed remarks. I agree with my noble friend's general points, but when his remarks became directed at me I began to feel slightly uncomfortable. I can assure him that the Government are absolutely dedicated to increasing the degree of cycling.
I travel around the country pointing out to people that many car journeys comprise less than two miles and that most able-bodied people could quite easily walk or cycle such distances. That is an important pan. of our policy. Indeed, we have endorsed the aim of the national cycling strategy of reversing the decline in cycling and doubling the number of cycle trips by the year 2002—and doubling them again by the year 2012. It is a pretty ambitious aim. However, that kind of turnaround has already been achieved in one or two urban areas. We have supported cycling bodies in that aim.
To achieve those targets, it might be incumbent upon Ministers to make some contribution. I am sure that the whole House will be sympathetic to my following remarks. Ministers are not averse to more healthy forms of transport but, unfortunately, the electronic age has not yet arrived for us. We are therefore obliged to carry huge boxes of mail from your Lordships and others around with us at all times. I try to walk to my office in the mornings and my driver follows me around with the red boxes. Therefore I contribute to my own health but not to the health of some others in the community. That matter should be addressed, but I cannot give a clear answer tonight.
There are serious aspects. The noble Viscounts, Lord Ullswater and Lord Falkland, referred to motorcycle crime. As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, pointed out, there are victims of such crime in this House. It is estimated that 25,000 motorcycles are stolen annually. Some 86 per cent of them are not recovered. As has been said, many are cannibalised, resulting in illegal motorcycles being on the streets. That poses problems for law enforcement and road safety.

403
Safer, more secure parking would make a major contribution not only in encouraging motorcyclists to use their machines responsibly, but also in making them feel secure in so doing. The lack of secure parking facilities for motorcycles is probably a major factor in the high level of motorcycle theft. This Bill addresses the issue and gives local authorities new powers. Until now they have not had such powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked why the Bill is necessary. It is necessary because local authorities require powers before they can do anything. At present they do not have those powers. Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to address that problem and to amend Section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which deals only with stands and racks for pedal cycles. We are now extending the provision to motorcycles. I refer in this regard to the ground anchors mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and to the more sophisticated devices which we hope to see provided in the future. Certainly, we shall encourage local authorities to use these powers and to provide such facilities in their own car parks. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that only local authorities will have this power under the Bill. But in a sense it is only local authorities' lack of such a power that we have to address. Clearly, private operators can already provide such facilities on their own land.
However on-street parking facilities are the responsibility of local authorities. As regards individuals parking outside their own homes, local authorities would need to introduce an order on motorcycle parking under the regulations. That would enable them to install secure parking devices. However, that does not apply to an individual in regard to providing his own off-street parking facilities.
We have given much support to local authorities to develop their policies for motorcyclists. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that, by and large, the motorcycling fraternity does not believe that local authorities are particularly helpful to it. Many local authorities have provided facilities for motorcyclists but more could be provided for both cyclists and motorcyclists.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, asked about providing maps. We are happy to encourage local authorities to do that and to encourage a public/private partnership as commercial map makers may also be interested. Cycling and motorcycling organisations may be interested in distributing such information to their members. In some cities information is already made available. Exeter, Cambridge, Gloucester and York provide such information, together with other facilities, for motorised and non-motorised two-wheeled vehicles.
I should make clear that the Bill is an enabling measure. There is no obligation on local authorities to provide secure parking.
We are devolving responsibilities in other areas of transport policy, and indeed other policies, to local authorities. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, indicated a lack of common approach between local authorities. That will continue to be the case. We are simply giving local authorities powers which they can now use.
404
Nevertheless, I suspect that both the facilities and the by-laws will continue to be different where they are part of devolved local democracy. We are trying to remove barriers in order that local authorities may provide the facilities dealt with in the Bill.
The noble Viscount raised the question of whether cyclists should be discouraged, as they occasionally are, from chaining their bikes to railings. It varies from area to area but, by and large, railings are the property of the landowner. An additional problem in the Westminster area, one has to admit in this day and age, is that of security. Many of the heavy notices relate to security problems in the Metropolis.
The Bill may result in a relatively small increase in expenditure for authorities which take advantage of its powers. In general it will be a small installation cost, which they may be able to recover by charging for parking. However, that is very much a matter for the local authorities themselves. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure more secure parking for both cyclists and motorcyclists.
I wish to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. If I have missed any points I shall write to noble Lords in the normal way. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for producing the Bill. I assure him, once again, of government support. We have bikers and cyclists around the House of all parties—including a biking Bishop. There is truly cross-party and ecumenical support for the provisions of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, once again and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and especially for the kind and supportive words that I have heard this evening. I am aware that the Bill is not guaranteed of success and I shall continue to canvass for it in another place. I am sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. As an ex-biker I can quite understand his excitement about bicycling, although I am not quite sure whether I misheard him when he said he thought that bicycling takes the "Haskel" out of life. On the other hand, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the thrills that I can remember as a bicyclist.
If it is of any help to my noble friend Lord Brabazon, some time ago we listened to the Courier Association, which has a very strong code of practice that it imposes upon all its motorcycling members. I should also tell him that the stolen vehicle statistics I received from the Metropolitan Police state that in 10 years 1.5 million unrecovered stolen vehicles will be used on our roads either as complete vehicles or as part or parts of other vehicles. That is quite an astounding statistic.
If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would like to accept a lift from me, I would be very happy to drive him around London while his red boxes follow closely behind, if they can keep up. Finally, I ask that the House give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
9.24 p.m.
Lord Burlison Lord Burlison rose to move, That the draft laid before the House on 25th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the alterations is to add additional injury descriptions to the tariff of injuries set out in the criminal injuries compensation scheme. This would enable the body which administers the scheme—the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—to settle some 240 outstanding claims for compensation whose injuries are not currently listed.
By way of background, I should explain briefly that the scheme provides payment from public funds to blameless victims of crimes of violence and those injured in trying to apprehend criminals or prevent crime. The original scheme was introduced in 1964. It was non-statutory. Compensation was assessed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the basis of common law damages.
The terms of the original scheme were modified from time to time. But the scheme was changed more fundamentally with effect from 1st April 1996, when it was placed on a statutory footing following the passage of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995.
The new scheme broke the link with common law damages. It moved away from payment based on individual assessment and provided for payment to be made on the basis of a tariff of awards that grouped together injuries of comparable severity and allocated a financial value to them. The new tariff-based scheme is administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Appeals against decisions made by the authority are considered by an independent appellate body. the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel.
Applications lodged before 1st April 1996 are being cleared by the board under the rules of the old scheme. Nearly 110,000 cases were outstanding at that time. That figure has now been reduced to around 12,000, most of them appeals cases. The target is to clear these cases by 31st March 2000, when the board will be wound up. Until then the old and new schemes will continue to run in parallel.
It might be helpful if I reminded your Lordships that the tariff was set by reference to some 20,000 awards made previously by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. There are some 330 injury descriptions in the tariff of injuries, ranked against 25 levels of awards, ranging from £1,000 to £250,000. All successful claimants get an award from the tariff. However, victims who are more seriously affected by their injury can receive additional payment for loss of earnings and the costs of special care. And, in fatal cases, additional payment can also be made to those who were dependent on the victim's income and for the cost of replacing a deceased parent's services.
Since the tariff scheme was introduced in 1996, more than 140,000 claims have been settled under its terms. But some 240 claims cannot be settled because, although the injuries are serious enough to qualify for at least the minimum award, the injuries are not currently listed in the tariff. It was, of course, always recognised that the original tariff could not hope to be fully comprehensive. It was inevitable that some less common injuries would be inadvertently omitted, or that some injury descriptions would need to be changed or modified in the light of experience.
The tariff scheme accordingly provides for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to consult the appeals panel and then to propose to the Secretary of State a new injury description and corresponding award level. If the Secretary of State is content, he then invites Parliament to approve the necessary changes to the scheme by the affirmative resolution procedure. That is the process we are following here today.
In the meantime, the scheme also provides that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority can pay an interim award of up to half the amount recommended. It has done so in 230 of the 240 outstanding cases. Having consulted the appeals panel, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has recommended to the Secretary of State the addition of 49 injury descriptions to the tariff of injuries. To facilitate identification, these are highlighted in bold in the tariff appended to the explanatory note, which is otherwise identical to the augmented tariff for which approval is being sought. In our view, all the additions proposed are justified and necessary and the recommended award levels are appropriate.
Given the need to augment the tariff in this way, and mindful of pressures on the parliamentary timetable, we have also taken this opportunity to invite Parliament to approve some other, minor changes to the tariff of awards. The changes would make the tariff mere consistent in its use of language and punctuation. These are minimalist changes. They are purely presentational and have no other effect.
No other changes have been made to the tariff of awards. All existing injury descriptions and award levels have been left unaltered. The rules of the scheme have also been left unchanged. That only serves to emphasise the very limited nature of this exercise. Our sole aim is to enable the 240 outstanding claims to be settled.
The changes that we are proposing would, if approved by this House, come into effect tomorrow. having already received approval in another place. They would apply to applications whenever made, provided that no final award had been made.
I could well understand it if some noble Lords wanted to take this opportunity to suggest that other changes might be made to the scheme. We should, of course, always be interested to hear views on this. However. this is not the time to debate such matters or, indeed. any other points relating to the scheme. As some of your Lordships will know, the Government launched a public consultation exercise on the scheme on 25th March, when they issued a consultation paper. We very much hope that all those with an interest in the scheme will

407
find the time to read that document and submit whatever comments they consider appropriate. When we have had the chance to consider all the responses carefully, we shall be better placed to see whether further changes to the scheme would be desirable and, if so, to seek the necessary parliamentary approval.
The draft alterations before the House are being recommended without prejudice to the consultation exercise. We should like to think that we have got these limited changes about right, but we accept that others could take a different view. The important point to bear in mind is that these changes, like the rest of the scheme, are not cast in stone. Appropriate corrections can always be made at a later date, should that be Parliament's wish.
I hope it will be clear from my remarks that these changes are necessary and, I hope the House will agree, non-contentious. Their sole purpose is to enable the authority to settle a number of outstanding claims. I accordingly commend the draft alterations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft laid before the House on 25th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Burlison).
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am not here to declare an interest in respect of an injury sustained on Saturday, as I am unable to pin criminal responsibility on the members of the House of Commons rugby team. I simply missed my tackle.
However, I have an interest to declare as a former member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, from which I resigned when the previous Home Secretary, Mr. Howard, introduced his so-called "reforms" to remove the system that had worked well until that time, whereby compensation was assessed in accordance with common law damages, and introduced the tariff scheme. I am deeply disappointed that, after so long in office, this Government have done no more than tinker slightly on the margins of that scheme.
I note that in February 1994, when the tariff scheme was first introduced, the then Shadow Home Secretary said:
"Victims of violent crime should be properly compensated for their suffering… These mean-spirited proposals should be withdrawn".
The Shadow Home Secretary who made that comment, Mr. Tony Blair, continued to say that the proposed changes to the compensation scheme were wholly inconsistent with the Government's professed concern for victims of crime.
When the Bill that brought about those alterations was introduced into the House of Commons, the Shadow Home Secretary, who had changed his identity to Mr. Jack Straw, said:
"The proposals fail adequately to recognise the experience which victims have suffered or to assist them to recover from that experience and live as normal a life as possible… The Secretary of State said…that the scales of justice had tilted too far in favour of offenders…His actions belie his words. He has sought to cut victims' compensation by half and to cut the compensation available to some victims—the most severely injured—to a tenth of what they would have received". —[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/95; col.750.]
408
Since the tariff scheme was introduced there has been widespread public concern expressed in the newspapers about the level of awards made to people who have suffered grievous injury. For example, the parents of the murdered teenager Louise Smith received just £10,000; an Austrian tourist who was raped received £10,000; and a child aged seven wounded in a machete attack at school was awarded a mere £7,950. She suffered a scar across her face which will last for the rest of her life.
There was huge publicity about this matter last September, as a result of which it was reported that Mr. Straw, now the real Home Secretary, had caved in to public pressure and announced an urgent review of the highly criticised criminal injuries compensation scheme and would do something about it. It was reported that,
"A Home Office unit will carry out the review in the next few months but the overall budget of £200 million will not be raised".
What do we have seven or eight months after the announcement? With the greatest respect to the Minister who has introduced this measure—I appreciate that perhaps he does not have the same history of the compensation scheme that I have—all it has produced are awards to 240 people. When he said that for the first time, I wondered whether he meant 240,000 people. But it is quite clear that 240 people out of an annual figure of 60,000 to 70,000 will be entitled to awards under the draft scheme now before your Lordships.
The Minister also said that the tariff will remain the same—there has been no alteration—but that there has been some tinkering with the punctuation. What kind of Home Secretary is it who announces in September an urgent review of the highly criticised criminal injuries compensation scheme and comes up with total peanuts some eight months later? I ask the Minister to carry back to the Home Office the message that the tariff scheme, highly criticised as it was at the time, means injustice for the victims of crime.
The more I hear the Home Secretary and Ministers who speak for the Home Office in this House go on about making the victims of crime their first priority, the more cynical I become about politics in this country. Something must be done for the victims of crime to put them in the same position as those injured in other ways, whether in employment or road traffic accidents, whose lives are destroyed, to ensure that justice and parity are meted out in this country.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, to the Dispatch Box for the first time. It is pleasant to hear him speak in this capacity, and we look forward to hearing him again. I also welcome the draft scheme, modest as it is. It is undoubtedly an extremely modest scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the Minister adequately demonstrated. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also drew attention to the fact that, when the tariff scheme was first introduced, the Labour Opposition, as it was then, did not like the idea of an arrangement that fixed relatively moderate amounts of compensation for criminal injuries in this way. In the

409
meanwhile they appear to have been converted to the scheme and, with the zeal of the convert, they now make modest improvements to it.
The advantage of the tariff based scheme is that it allows more certain settlements to be made more quickly. As the Minister said, some 240 settlements have so far been held up because of the lack of precise definition; and this order is primarily devoted to allowing settlement of those claims already in the pipeline as well as future claims which will be covered by the new definitions.
These minor improvements are to be welcomed. However, we all recognise, too, that this modest order is likely to be succeeded by further legislation following the consultation which has been referred to. It has been going on for some time. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us a little more about how consideration of the wider reforms is progressing, the most modest of which would be increases in line with inflation, since the figures were first fixed several years ago. But the consultation involves a great deal more than the issue of inflation.
In the wider context, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. pointed out, greater emphasis has been placed in recent years on looking after the victims of crime. We support that emphasis. The previous government did so, and the Government have continued this theme into their Home Office policies. It is a valuable change of emphasis in our system. This modest order is to be welcomed; and we look forward to the future changes.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his kind comments. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his comments on the scheme. I note what he says. The noble Lord will appreciate that the consultation exercise has to take place before we can respond in the way he suggests.
The potential respondents to the consultation have been given three months, until mid-June, to submit their views. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated, at this moment in time the issue is ongoing. We shall need to consider all representations carefully and to take advice, as necessary, from the authority and the appeals panel as to the practicality and the affordability of any suggestions that appear to have merit. The appeals panel has a statutory duty to advise the Secretary of State when so asked. That will be done on this occasion.
We also need to consider the fact that, by July, Scotland will have devolved powers and we shall need to consult the Scottish Executive about any changes being considered. That will all take time. It is unlikely that we shall be ready to offer proposals to Parliament before the end of 1999.
I hope that those comments are helpful. However, I appreciate that, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, my history in this area may be somewhat less than his. I thank both noble Lords for their comments. Accordingly. I invite noble Lords to approve the draft alterations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Capercaillie
9.43 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to prevent the imminent extinction of the capercaillie in the United Kingdom by the creation of special protected areas under Article 4 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), and by seeking its re-scheduling as a Schedule 1 Part II species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and by other measures of special protection.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may correct my failure and congratulate the noble Lord who responded to the previous Motion on his accession to the Front Bench. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to have the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, replying to an Unstarred Question for the first time from the Front Bench.
As your Lordships will know, this is the season when the male capercaillie is most active in its breeding displays on the leks. For many years, Mr. Jimmy Oswald, who is well known to some of your Lordships in the House tonight, has kept a count in Glen Tanar, one of the few remaining habitats on Deeside, which is already designated a special protection area. He tells me that last year he counted 170 birds, but this year, despite trampling the whole of the estate for a period in excess of a fortnight, he has counted only 14.
That indicates an accelerating trend which is perhaps worse than the most pessimistic forecasts. It was believed that there were approximately 2,200 birds left in Scotland a year or two ago, compared with the 20,000-odd in the 1960s and 1970s. But even these estimates predicted a drop in the number of females from 1,467 in 1994 to 206 in 2003. Therefore, those pessimistic forecasts from the past are today, some four years in advance, being met in a count on the ground.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the capercaillie is a magnificent bird. I was amused to be advised today by my noble friend Lord Avebury that the word comes from the ancient Gaelic, capull coille, and that customarily in the 15th and 16th centuries it was spelt with a Z. I was not aware of that. It is an expression which means "the horse of the wood". It is a bird which was described in champagne terms by Mr. Duff Hart-Davies as the "jeroboam" of British birds. That appeared in the Independent a week ago.
As your Lordships will know, a cock bird can weigh up to eight or nine pounds and stand more than two feet tall, with the most magnificent colours: slate grey, a black beard of feathers on the throat, a brilliant red patch of skin above the eye and a glossy blue/green mottled white breast. It has feathered legs and in display it puffs out a black fantail, mottled with white. The female is more elegantly subdued with buff, black and greyish-white plumage and a reddish breast. Its diet is blaeberries, pine needles and conifer shoots. Although it is of turkey size, I am told that it is not much to eat. Indeed, a ghillie on the Glen Tanar estate told me that as a boy his mother would stuff a capercaillie, when one had been shot, with potatoes in order to take away the pine flavour. She would make sure to throw the potatoes

411
away, but even so he was not a fan of what he ate because the taste was something resembling an air freshener!
I understand that the capercaillie is fierce when roused. My noble friend Lady Linklater tells me that there was a caper living near the woods near her home when she was young and newly married. It was familiarly called "Stanley", which is a very appropriate name. It would puff up its throat feathers, fan out its tail and chase her away. That brings a rather pleasant picture into the mind. On one occasion, it knocked down her nine year-old son!
As your Lordships are aware, its habitat is wide in Scotland, through Aberdeenshire, Kincardine, Moray, Inverness and West Perthshire. So far, five special protection areas have been designated at Abernethy, the Cairngorms, Glen Tanar, Ballochbuie and Loch Lomond. There is another proposed and in the pipeline.
What are the causes of the decline which have so disastrously hit this glorious bird? The Institute for Terrestrial Ecology at Banchory and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds at Edinburgh agree that the cause of the decline is poor breeding. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is the reduction in and disturbance of habitat. It is curious that eager birdwatchers at lekking displays, or walkers stumbling upon lekking displays, can cause as much disruption to the cycle as anything else. It is fortunate that previous reductions of habitat have been checked and restored, but I have been told by Mr. Nigel Buxton of Scottish Natural Heritage that despite the restoration of habitat, the rapid decline has not ceased.
But perhaps the worst cause of the deaths of capercaillie is deer fence collisions. Mr. Bob Moss of the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology is of the view that flying into fences is the main single cause of deaths among young and full-grown capercaillie, particularly in spring, when females home in on the males on the leks and are caught in the unseen fence. Mr. Moss considers that if fence deaths had been halved, the decline would not have occurred, despite the poor breeding which is the fundamental cause of the birds' imminent extinction.
A study documented by the RSPB at Abernethy and Glen Tanar found no fewer than four dead capercaillie per kilometre of fence per month; the highest death rate being between September and November, when the capercaillie disperse. Thirty two per cent of capers that had been radio-tagged were found to have been killed by fence collisions. In 93 per cent of the cases documented in the studies, caper collisions with deer fences were fatal.
Deer fences are important in considering the decline of the capercaillie, but there is also over-grazing by deer and sheep, and the suppressing of growth of the blaeberry plants needed by the birds for food and shelter. In addition, pollution and climate change have undoubtedly had an effect on insect life in Scotland, as those of us who know the area are only too well aware. Moreover, chicks which hatch in the late spring, when there is insufficient food to support them, will not survive.
Fox snares are a further cause of decline when set in capercaillie leks, although perfectly legally set by keepers. It is said that one Deeside keeper has inadvertently snared five cocks in leks in the past two years. Therefore, it is important that the snaring of foxes be carefully controlled and carefully carried out.
I have outlined the problem, but what can be done about it? Some of your Lordships may feel that conservation is harmful to the preservation of the deer, but that is not the view that I take. It is true that the loss of areas of native Caledonian pine has been reversed, due to the enlightened activities of Forest Enterprise and environmental charities. Private landowners have been actively and enthusiastically engaged. Tribute must be paid to the landowners for the concern and care they have taken over the years to maintain the capercaillie birds.
It is essential that redundant deer fences be removed. There are many ways of controlling deer, but building deer fences and maintaining them after the trees they are supposed to protect have grown to a sufficient height is a way of ensuring that the capercaillie birds are wiped out. A policy of forest restoration in the Abernethy Forest, for example—a forest owned by the RSPB—involving removal of all the fences, has seen a net increase in the population. That is a positive indication of the way in which things can change.
There is an obligation under Article 8 of the birds directive, which prohibits,
"all means, arrangements or methods … capable of causing the local disappearance of a species".
Under that directive, redundant deer fences, or existing deer fences, could be made less fatal to the capercaillie by their replacement with plastic, wooden or electric fences, or by their clear marking so that the birds can see them easily as they fly in. Your Lordships should note that woodland improvement grants are available from the Forestry Authority for woodland biodiversity enhancement.
The deer management groups, which play an important role in Scotland and with which landowners are involved, are those to whom people concerned about the capercaillie should turn for discussion and for the working out of appropriate plans to preserve the bird. Throughout Scotland, landowners have imposed a voluntary ban on shooting. My Unstarred Question neither proposes nor implies that the capercaillie should cease to be a game bird. That is because the co-operation of landowners is vital to its success.
Annex IV of the birds directive also means that the killing of capercaillie by snares set for foxes is prohibited. So those who set those snares must take appropriate care.
But the RSPB and others believe that the number of special protected areas should be at least doubled. There are capercaillie on some 20 to 30 estates. The ITE study in 1994 covered 14 of those estates, so there are many more than the five existing SPAs and the one which is proposed. Scottish National Heritage is charged with identifying suitable territories. It makes the scientific case; it carries out the consultations; and the Minister instructs the SNH to classify the site so that the details

413
can be forwarded to Europe. It is crucially important that further special protected areas are designated in those areas where the capercaillie still exists in numbers.
My Question asks also for the transfer of the capercaillie to Schedule 1, Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That would result in the bird becoming specially protected during the vulnerable lekking and breeding season so that criminal offences would be committed by those who sought to take eggs or birds, whether live or dead.
Finally, I ask the Government to give the fullest support to the capercaillie core group, under the chairmanship of Mr. Steve Sankey of the RSPB, which is doing its utmost to publicise the problems and to work out practical solutions.
Today is almost too late. The capercaillie is nearly gone. It may be said that, effectively, it has gone. We do not ask for further committee meetings, assemblies or discussions to take place at some future time. We are asking for action which will protect a species which decorates and enhances the Caledonian forest, itself a living remnant from the long-gone Ice Age. The capercaillie depends upon an environment which is healthy and free at least from man-made hazards. It is in itself a reminder of the strength of the past and, at the same time, of the fragility of the Scottish landscape. We cannot afford to lose a single part of the intricate machine which makes up the diverse and beautiful country that is Scotland.
9.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as a Scot, I must extend special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, not only for raising this matter but also for, as a Welshman, giving us such a definitive and authoritative account of the circumstances surrounding the capercaillie in Scotland at present.
I should also declare an interest as chairman of the RSPB in Scotland. Indeed, it is the RSPB which has been tasked by government, along with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, to lead and co-ordinate the conservation actions required, it is hoped, to save the capercail lie.
Those conservation actions are set out in a specific biodiversity action plan. The steering group for the species action plan has also been set up. It includes, from the public sector, the Forestry Commission, Forest Enterprise, SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage). In addition there is the Game Conservancy Trust, the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners' Federation. It is also joined by an eminent capercaillie scientist in the person of Dr. Robert Moss. All these agencies and organisations must act together in a co-ordinated way if there is to be any hope of a comeback for the capercaillie.
The RSPB accords the highest possible conservation status to the capercaillie, which, as the noble Lord well described, is now on the brink of its second extinction in Scotland. The present population was originally released in Perthshire from Sweden in the 1830s. As the statistics given to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicate, that population has
414
crashed from an estimated 20,000 in the 1970s to what is predicted to be a mere 1,000 birds today. In addition, its range is calculated to have dropped by some 63 per cent between 1968 and 1991. The population modelling carried out by the RSPB scientists and others further predicts that only 200 capercaillies will remain in the year 2002 if the present rate of decline continues.
It is quite clear that this species is in the gravest danger. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, described, its decline is principally due to poor breeding productivity but that, in turn, is caused by a whole series of inter-related factors. Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have been compounded by a deterioration in the quality of that habitat which still remains. The breeding productivity of the capercaillie needs to be around 0.9 chicks per hen in order to sustain the capercaillie population in Scotland. Yet in recent years that productivity rate has plummeted to 0.2 chicks per hen or even less. Clearly, this is not sustainable and there is little hope that the population will not become extinct unless that productivity can be improved. As we have heard, the poor spring weather in the past couple of years has only added to the difficulties.
One of the principal problems, well described by the noble Lord, is the serious problem posed for capercaillies by deer fences within those forests still inhabited by the capercaillie. Scientists estimate that one-third of all adult capercaillies are killed each year by flying into those fences. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, gave us some stark and startling facts. It is quite obvious that urgent action is needed to rectify that situation, especially in those areas of Scotland which can still be regarded as being core sites for the capercaillie.
In addition, the capercaillie chicks depend heavily on blaeberry. They do so for two reasons: first, because blaeberry provides a high-energy protein for growth in the form of caterpillars. Secondly, and of importance, is the fact that blaeberry provides very useful cover for the capercaillie to hide from predators, which can be a threat. In most forests still inhabited by capercaillie, deer grazing has reduced the quality and quantity of this vital understorey. It is therefore essential that the Deer Commission for Scotland, helped by SNH, identifies the important remaining forests with capercaillie and ensures that effective deer management to allow the vegetation to recover is carried out across those sites. If I remember correctly, I believe it has a duty to do so under Section 1(2) of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996—legislation which this House will remember well. It should work closely with landowners and deer management groups to ensure that this better management occurs.
As described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, some of the problems for the capercaillie are not without irony. In recent years, as they have become rarer, they have become more vulnerable to disturbance by birdwatchers and others. This has proved a serious problem in areas such as Strathspey. This disturbance must be avoided at all costs in view of the perilous situation of the population. Adding them, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggests, to Schedule 1, Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1991 is a

415
proposal that the RSPB would endorse. This would give them the added protection through the threat of special penalties under law if they are disturbed during the close season, their breeding season.
What else can be done? Additional funding should, I believe, be provided to landowners and forest managers in order to remove fences, to manage deer better and to create other habitat features used by the capercaillie, such as pools and wet areas within forests. These areas are important for the proper management of invertebrate populations and therefore for the food that the capercaillie chicks need. All remaining capercaillie sites should be eligible for such funding. An increase in funds to improve biodiversity for the public good could be facilitated by Article 32 of the new Agenda 2000 Rural Development Regulation. It could be administered by the Forestry Commission. It is important that the new forestry strategy for Scotland should contain such actions to save one of our most magnificent forest species from extinction.
Rural support funds such as these, and others such as the woodland grant schemes, should be targeted towards biodiversity priorities in this way. Forest managers with capercaillie in special protection areas, special areas of conservation and SSSIs should be given the greatest possible assistance in managing the national assets for the public good.
The question put to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asks whether they will take steps to prevent the imminent extinction of the capercaillie in the United Kingdom. Anticipating the Minister's answer perhaps, I expect him to say that he will take steps and indeed is taking them to do just that. Indeed, from the public sector agencies involved in the Species Action Fund and the steering group, undoubtedly assistance is coming forward from Government. However, the question that therefore arises, which I would like to put to the Minister tonight, is this: will he make a commitment that the Government will take further steps if the sum of the current effort proves to be insufficient? I very much hope that the answer will be yes. I have a sneaking feeling that the answer may be that this is a question which is up to the Scottish Parliament to answer. To an extent, regarding the allocation of front-line effort and front-line resources, he may well be right. However, if he kicks the question into touch like that I believe he is wrong.
Ultimately we have an international obligation under European law to do everything we can to ensure the survival of the capercaillie. If we fail in that obligation it is not the Scottish executive who will stand accused of breaching European obligations; it will be the United Kingdom Government who will have to face that charge. It is the DETR and the United Kingdom Government in London who will have the infraction proceedings lodged against them. It is in London where the fines will be imposed if we are deemed to be in continuing breach of a European obligation. So, in answering the Question tonight as to whether or not the Minister can give a commitment that the Government will take further steps if the sum of the current effort
416
proves to be insufficient, I hope he will bear in mind that simply saying that this is up to the Scottish Parliament is not good enough.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he tell the House what effect he and the RSPB feel that the proposed right-to-roam legislation will have on the future of the capercaillie?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I express a sentiment which has been expressed many times in this House rather better than I will express it tonight; that is, if the proposed right-to-roam legislation is not accompanied by responsibilities to be exercised by those utilising that right to roam, and if the resourcing by government in terms of the management that would be required for a more general right to roam is not forthcoming, then it will further add to the problems from which the capercaillie are already suffering.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, a lot of things happened in 1745 in Scotland, but among others, that was the date when the last recorded capercaillie was seen in Strath Spey. It was last recorded in Sutherland in 1769. The Reverend Mr. Morris, writing in his British Birds in 1857, commented on the reintroduction—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lindsay—of the 54 adult birds that were brought into this country in 1838. He wrote that the native branch of the family was extinct, but the reintroduction of the collateral branch which holds sway in other lands allowed the bird to be renaturalised here.
So we have had a major problem with the capercaillie in the past, to the extent that it was actually extinct. I believe that the breeding success of the capercaillie and its close relative the black grouse, are directly related to predation by the worst mammalian predator which is now exploding all over Scotland; I mean the pine marten. All ground-nesting birds are at risk from foxes, but we can control them and feral cats—we have a particular problem with the protected wild cat. But the success of the 1838 reintroduction was at a time when the pine marten was virtually exterminated and driven back to its last remaining haunts on the west coast of Scotland in the deer forest, from which it has unfortunately recolonised much of Scotland.
The caper that were introduced in 1838 spread in a large way by interbreeding with the thriving population of black grouse. We all know that the black grouse and the capercaillie will cross, and there is very little difference between the caper hen and the greyhen. It was significant that Mr. St. John, in his Tour of the Highlands, mentions the extermination of the pine marten in 1870. If we were to follow that up by looking in Mr. Thorburn's book on British mammals, he actually gives the caper and the black grouse as the main species to suffer from the pine marten. He goes on to comment in his chapter on the pine marten,
"The most favoured place for a pine marten to rear its young is in the old nest of a greyhen or caper".
So the incrimination of the pine marten is well recorded and well known. It is no good increasing protection for the caper without using the powers that

417
the Government have to allow the eradication once again of the pine marten in the areas where we want the caper to do well. The growth of the pine marten is exploding all over Scotland. I have seen one in the daytime and run over one in the evening. They are quite easily controlled. They are a very bold member of the weasel family and the largest, and only they and the polecat in that family are protected.
Another point your Lordships should consider is that we must take more note of the work that is being done on black grouse research, which is now being carried on in Langden Beck. It is interesting that shooting of grey and caper hens in certain circumstances is a necessary tool of management. I do not know if it has been proven, but the old caper hen has the same problem as the old greyhen.
I remember a famous old head keeper telling me, over a period of 40 years, that we must shoot the old greyhens to have a thriving black grouse population, which we certainly had for 40 years. The old greyhen, and I suspect the caper hen, becomes infertile and pushes the fertile hen off the nest. Then that particular old lady does not have the patience or inclination to hatch the eggs. The old grey hen is certainly vermin and I suspect that a finger of suspicion must point at the old caper hen.
I shall not add to what has already been said about the problem of the deer fences. We have this craze all over Scotland at present for putting up these awful chain -link fences everywhere in order to achieve natural regeneration. But, with that regeneration, one gets not only the natural regeneration of the pine but also an area of rank, long heather that makes it quite impossible to control the predators.
There will not be time tonight to deal with the whole problem of avian predation, but we will be making a great mistake if we do not realise that a rather weakly caper chick is a very easy prey for the exploding population of hen harriers. There are many other reasons involved, but I believe that we shall be making a grave mistake tonight if, among the reasons for the decline and the poor breeding of the capercaillie, we neglect the whole problem of both mammalian and avian predation.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to the three previous speeches because all of them have been very constructive about how we might try to help encourage the number of capers that we have in the future. I need not rehearse the figures because the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, gave them most clearly, as indeed did my noble friend. Lord Lindsay. I was glad that there has been no pressure from previous speakers to say that a ban must be placed on shooting. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly said, the estate owners who are fortunate enough to have capers are very restrictive and carefully ensure that the voluntary ban is in place so that the capers are given every chance to reproduce.
I know from signing the Birds Directive myself in 1979 in Berne, Switzerland—and, subsequently, when I took the Wildlife and Countryside Act through the
418
House of Commons—how important it was that the capers should be included in the schedule. Of course, Part I of Schedule 2 allows them to be shot outside the close season. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and others, are right in pressing for them to be rescheduled into Part II of Schedule 1. I am not really certain that that would give all that much more protection than is given to them at present, especially during the important period of nesting.
Rescheduling is an issue about which I have always been worried. I say that because often when a bird or a mammal is transferred from one schedule to another—and that does not happen very frequently—it remains there. Indeed, there is far too much inflexibility about these schedules. I remember Sir Arthur Duncan, when he was chairman of the Nature Conservancy, before it became the Nature Conservancy Council, saying, at the time when the Brent goose was taken off the quarry list and put on the protected list, that that would be done on the assurance that the Brent goose would go back on the quarry list when the numbers increased.
As we all know, the south and south-east of England is awash with Brent geese, but there is no success at all in restoring them to the quarry list. That would be a much more effective way of controlling their numbers than simply putting them on the protected list. There is the same problem in Islay with the barnacle and, to a lesser extent, the white-fronted goose; namely, that we do not have sufficient flexibility. If we carried on in Islay with the responsible culling of barnacle and shot about 600 to 800 a year as was done before they were on the protected list, we would not have the immediate problems there, where the numbers far exceed the amount of food available on the island. We must consider a more flexible approach in the future.
My noble friends on this side of the House have rightly highlighted habitat as one of the reasons why reproduction is so disappointing at present. I accept that over-grazing and the loss of the blaeberries is one of the reasons for that. For that reason, we should give some credit to the Red Deer Commission, now the Deer Commission. Under the chairmanship of Patrick Gordon Duff Pennington, that body caused the deer management groups to spring into action and to cull hinds in the winter. I believe we have not allowed sufficient time for the work of the past three or four years to achieve results in terms of improved habitat in the pine forests.
We need to keep encouraging these groups. We should give every assistance to the Deer Commission carry out a high cull each year. I have been to Abernethy, which is of course run by the RSPB, and Creag Meagaidh, which is run by SNH, where the deer fences have to a large extent been removed. The deer are severely culled in those places. That has resulted in a significant improvement in capercaillie numbers. We should thank the RSPB for setting a fine example in this regard, particularly at Abernethy.
As my noble friend Lord Lindsay said, we should encourage the Forestry Commission to become more involved in the woodland grants scheme and to remove deer fences, both those that are falling down and those which may be erected in the near future. There is no

419
doubt that that is one of the leading causes of falling numbers of capercaillie. I believe that grants are available to do that under the challenge funds offered by the Cairngorm Partnership. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will mention that when he replies to the debate. I should like to see greater help being made available in Perthshire and Easter Ross, as the majority of the money is now given to projects in Speyside and Deeside. I have visited the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology at Banchory and I know what an important part it is playing in trying to increase capercaillie reproduction.
My noble friend Lord Kimball raised the important matter of predators. Predators pose as great a threat to the survival of capercaillies as do loss of habitat and the threats posed by deer fences. I believe we have afforded far too much protection to the pine marten. That predator has caused serious problems in the Highlands. I was dead against it receiving protection at all, as it is a species that offers few advantages and many disadvantages. It brings death and destruction to nesting birds in Scotland. As my noble friend Lord Kimball said, we can control foxes through efficient keepering. We really must consider the issue of raptors, although I know that is anathema to the RSPB. However, they pose a major nuisance in Scotland and there is an enormous number of them. They cause great harm.
It would be wrong of me not to mention the Langholm experiment, particularly bearing in mind the title I hold. We have been talking about the dramatic loss of capers and their imminent extinction and how right the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is to raise this subject. Once upon a time Langholm Moor was the finest grouse moor in Scotland with thousands upon thousands of grouse. It now has just a few hundred grouse. That represents as serious a drop in grouse numbers as in numbers of capercaillie in the areas we are discussing. The Game Conservancy, SNH and ITE produced a scientific report to suggest ways of restoring Langholm Moor. We have scientific proof of the drop in grouse numbers particularly as a result of hen harrier predation. Yet no one will take action in this regard. Everyone was agreed that if scientific evidence was produced of this drop in grouse numbers action should be taken to rectify the matter. We have the scientific proof but no one seems prepared to take action. The lead department, SNH, must say why it is doing nothing in this regard. It cannot just pretend there is a problem with the habitat. It is not just a matter of a problem with the habitat. Anyone who knows that part of the world—as I do—knows that hen harrier predation has had a disastrous effect on grouse numbers. Grouse and heather go together. If we were to have neither, think of the loss to the scenery and scenic beauty of Scotland, irrespective of the loss of the livelihoods of keepers who have been discharged from the Langholm Moors because there are no grouse to shoot there.
I agree with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lindsay about the right to roam. From what we hear about the probabilities of the Scottish Parliament, the right to roam may prove to be a very much more serious issue in Scotland than it is likely to be in England and
420
Wales. What more could one want to do than walk through lovely pine forests—I am thinking particularly of the ones in Deeside—but if large numbers of people are doing it at the time of the year when birds are nesting it will be a major setback for the caper. It is absolutely right that there should be exclusivity over breeding areas, perhaps through special protection areas. The more special protection areas there are, the more the caper will have peace and quiet during the nesting period. Anyone who brings in right to roam legislation in Scotland without giving this matter due consideration will be making certain that one of the most beautiful and wonderful birds in Scotland will disappear forever.
There has been a positive note in the debate that we must do something and not just sit back and wait for the capers to go. I shall be most disappointed if the ministerial response does not indicate that action will be taken this year. Current Ministers must have some influence over the future parliament in Scotland; there must be some relationship in carrying through urgent legislation. In the light of the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, which show that the situation could not be more serious, this matter must be given high priority. Something must happen this year.
10.26 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I have lived near capercaillie for most of my life and no one could have a keener desire to see their numbers built up once again. Alas, I fear that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will have the reverse effect of what he and I and everyone who has spoken tonight desire.
We have been told that caper died out in the 18th century and were reintroduced in 1837. Why did they die out? I do not know if it is now possible for our boffins to discover that. It may have been something to do with the environment or conditions of which there are historical records. That may provide the answer to the present situation. Once caper were reintroduced, they fairly rapidly spread until in many places there were surplus stocks which could be readily culled. What must be looked at, and can be looked at now, is the difference between 1837 and 1999. My noble friend Lord Munro gave a few answers. I agree with every word he said. I hope that those words will be listened to very carefully.
Caper were not liked by some of our foresters who felt that they damaged the Scots fir trees. The problem was over-exaggerated. One heard of woodsmen putting their feet on nests, which was quite unnecessary because caper preferred to sit on top of the old "granny" trees. Alas, there are very few of the granny trees left now—a lot have been cut down—and that is a part of the environment which has disappeared. Caper could sit on the top of these big trees and peck all around them without the risk of the top collapsing or breaking off because there was no main top to break. Caper did not like the commercial forests because they could not sit on the tops of fir trees, which have big, long shoots that would just break off. But they could damage the commercial forests until such time as the trees grew to above the head height of a cock caper sitting on the

421
ground, which is perhaps three, four or five years of growth. One of my plantings was quite badly damaged by capercaillie where they had pecked off the leaders from the ground.
Capercaillie are particularly partial to blaeberries and that type of vegetation which grows on our hills, though protein such as insects is also vital for the young birds. The giant ant-heaps which used to be found in our mature Scots fir plantations were important to the diet of the young birds. They were a wonderful sporting bird and could fly faster than any of the other types of grouse. In those days, they were plentiful where the habitat was favourable.
There were plenty of deer fanciers in those days. At the end of the rides we used to tie a bunch of heather on the fences so that the capercaillie could see them. Nowadays, we have all this plastic material and so we could quite easily make fences visible to the birds. They fly into fences when frightened. If people are walking about: all over the place scaring them, they will try to look back to see what is there or where a noise comes from. That is when they fly into the fences. In Abernethy, a considerable amount of disturbance is caused not only by people who perhaps should not be there but also by what I again call boffins who wander around looking at the caper.
As a small boy—a long time ago—I remember being placed with.410 gun round the corner of a wood at the end of a line of guns and in one drive managing to get five cock caper which were trying to creep away from the main line of guns. Sadly, however, disaster struck in about 1960 and almost all our stock of these fine birds died out in one winter. At about that time, other bird numbers also crashed, particularly birds of the moorland—plover, curlew, snipe, grouse, and many others. I believe that the crash in salmon and trout numbers also originated in the early 1960s. It would perhaps be easy to attribute the decline in caper to some disease, as they are very prone to ailments like "blackhead", but the loss of other species and fish leads one to believe that the cause was probably something else, possibly acid rain.
In spite of shooting, caper numbers rose steadily following their reintroduction and after the crash land owners ceased shooting them altogether. I know of no Scottish estate now which does not give strict protection to these birds. While I was deer stalking a few years ago, six giant cocks flew across a clearing, one behind the other. The stalker said to me, "Whatever you do, don't tell anyone what you have seen. They must be protected and left in peace. They must not be unnecessarily disturbed. " I have held my peace for some years but I think the time has come when I should tell the House the story. It shows how estate keepers were trying to protect those birds and other birds too.
We now have great difficulty with people wanting to see the birds. It would make life a great deal easier if those people asked where on the estates they could go. I gather that the Aviemore area in particular is indulging in what is known as eco-tourism. People are paying to go out to see these birds when they are mating—as one noble Lord said, when they are on the lek—and also
422
when they are nesting. It is intolerable to have a line of people walking though your wood trying to put the caper off their nests. That is happening. I need scarcely say that that is most damaging to what is now becoming a very rare bird. Indeed, our last breeding hen, having been put off her nest three years running by people walking their dogs, eventually disappeared. I say the last one, but I believe that for the past three or four years we have had one pair. I hesitate to tell anyone because they may be disturbed.
Modern forestry no longer allows Scots fir trees to grow or remain in mature condition. The economics are such that, as soon as they reach that stage, which is what the caper are looking for, they are cut down. The reduction in mature pine and the vast increase in predators, about which we heard so much from my two noble friends, apart from the disturbance, did not take place during the heyday of the capercaillie. In this day and age, much of the caper's territory, but not all, is polluted with pine martens. I believe that they have been reintroduced in the south-west by the Forestry Commission. I am not sure about Aberdeenshire; I do not think it is too bad as yet, but I gather that pine martens are spreading there. It is difficult to understand how the caper, as ground nesting birds, are expected to survive these predators, which are more destructive than any mink. An estate of my acquaintance lost two of its last capercaillie hens, while they were nesting, to goshawks released by environmentalists. But also, any caper chicks that survive make delicious meals for buzzards, which easily catch the young chicks on the ground.
One of the requirements for the caper chicks is low ground cover, particularly the likes of blaeberry. If the ground cover under Scots fir trees is not kept short, the heather will grow rank and high, which is totally unsuitable for what are fragile birds up to the age of about 10 or 12 weeks. Furthermore, when the heather is in that condition, there is nothing for them to eat. At one time, the deer, particularly roe deer, which are more territorial than red deer, grazed this woodland cover. But now foresters and environmentalists have branded deer "unfriendly". My noble friend Lord Lindsay again castigated deer on behalf of the RSPB. But I wish to draw attention to the fact that they have a useful purpose. My noble friend talked about deer doing damage. But, after all, many of the woods where the caper existed were fenced off. There were no deer in them. Now the undergrowth has grown and they have lost their habitat. One landowner I know is seriously considering burning the heather under the old Scots pine, but he is obviously frightened of the fire damaging his old trees. I shared his concern, but since speaking with him I have received a report from Stora:Forest, a firm in Sweden. It points out that, in Sweden, there are a number of natural forest fires every year; and, as nature uses fire, the firm has experimented and now burns the undergrowth over considerable areas itself. It states that the bigger trees do not suffer. The matter should be looked at. It is a possibility, although it would need careful controlling.

423
Is it considered for one moment that, if we increase the directives for protection, anyone would be allowed to burn any area where a caper might be nesting? It would obviate the whole approach. It is important that we try to look after this bird without endless interference from officialdom. That is vital for the survival of the young birds. The proposed directive refers to the repercussion of man's activities and also to the destruction and pollution of habitats. So burning is exactly what people should not be allowed to do.
Nothing is done about stopping the repercussions of man's activities. They are steadily increasing. More and more people are wandering about in the woods, being encouraged to look at birds, and disturbing them when they are nesting. Ospreys have been driven off their nests by people who come to look at them. It is much better that those who not only know about the birds but are very desirous of increasing their numbers should be allowed to continue to look after them.
It was not shooting that caused the crash in their numbers. Once the crash came the enormous increase in predators did not permit their numbers to recover. If this protection order was introduced, would eco-tourists and dog-walkers be banned from any area in which the birds might be nesting? If not, what is the point of the order? What kind of protection other than that which they receive at the moment will be secured by the order?
Possibly one of the most highly protected birds today is the kite, known by the British Army throughout the world as a shite-hawk. Two years ago one pair tried to breed on the ground of my trustee on the Black Isle near an osprey's nest. The ospreys objected to the kites and saw them off. The following year two pairs tried. Again, the ospreys drove off one pair but the other a little further away nested successfully and in due course the RSPB ringed, radioed and decorated the two chicks. Next morning one of the chicks was lying dead below the tree. Further inspection found another chick dead in the nest. Another highly protected creature—the pine marten—had visited the nest. Which is the more highly protected of these species—the pine marten or the kite? There is too much activity in protecting and watching these matters.
Currently, most landowners with capercaillie on their ground are anxious to protect them to their utmost. To initiate this order would remove all this incentive from the landowner and transfer protection to absentee bureaucrats, many of whom know little or nothing of these birds. The RSPB agrees that this protection order is not the best method of protecting this magnificent bird.
One further concern is how the protection areas will be chosen. Often placing a protection order on a piece of land draws attention to it so that public interest increases and destroys exactly what one seeks to protect. I am aware of a classic example. The SNH designated an area to protect great northern divers. Since the designation and increased public disturbance, these birds have not nested there. I understand that five specially protected areas have been set up but they appear to have suffered the greatest losses. I strongly disapprove of any change in the law concerning the capercaillie.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, having listened to this debate with much pleasure I feel that I should contribute my own experience of capercaillie, which confirms much of what has been said already. It began some 30 years ago and is confined to the Black Wood of Rannoch on the south shore of Loch Rannoch in Perthshire. In 1969 I became the shooting tenant there of the Forestry Commission, which at the time regarded the bird as something of a pest. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Burton has mentioned, its employees at the time were instructed to tread on any caper nests that they came across because the birds were eating the leading shoots of the Scots pine which had recently been planted over a large area.
The Black Wood itself is one of the most famous remnants of the ancient Caledonian forest and extends to about 2,000 acres, plus outlying trees. In the late 1960s and early 1970s we reckoned that there were up to about 350 caper in an area of 3,000 acres—an almost incredible density by today's standards. It was possible to count over 60 caper on a single lek. Apart from the predations of the forestry employees, the wood was driven once a year at the end of October, when about 20 cocks were shot in the day. This practice had been going on for many years, at least since the 1920s, and the population and annual bag remained pretty constant until the mid-1970s, when it started to decline rapidly.
In the late 1970s we stopped shooting it altogether, estimating that the population had fallen to below 100 birds. As far as I know caper, has not been shot at all in the Black Wood since 1980 but the population has continued to dwindle and today there are few indeed.
So what has happened? What is the cause of this sad decline? From what I have said, it does not appear that shooting can be blamed. The capers' decline in the Black Wood has become much more severe since they were no longer shot. Personally I do not think, as other noble Lords have suggested, that deer fences can be blamed either because our heavy population existed at least 10 years after the fences were built. The odd caper may have flown into them but we did not find many. And, of course, one has to be careful, too, of the anti-deer lobby which is perhaps a little too negative about deer fences, preferring to see massive reductions in the deer population generally.
What else has happened? The blaeberry heather, other natural regeneration and insects such as ants, have all benefited from the deer fences because the ground has been less heavily grazed. One would have thought that that was a good thing for caper, but perhaps it is not because the population was much greater when the ground was more heavily grazed.
There is one other change which other noble Lords have mentioned. Before I come to it, I should perhaps say that I am firmly in the camp of those who believe that habitat is far more important for game birds than is the control of predators. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the pine marten and the polecat have returned to the Black Wood, which were not present in the late 1960s. We suspect that the fox population has also increased as voles and other rodents appear to be more numerous in the denser ground vegetation.

425
The return of martens and polecats is a good thing in itself, of course, although, like my noble friend Lord Kimball and others, I fear that it could be an important cause of the caper's decline. At least I submit it is something which should be looked into by those more qualified than me.
Another change which other noble Lords have mentioned is that humans use the wood more than they did 30 years ago. Again, this is a good thing and rightly part of Forest Authority policy. But I always found the caper, unlike the grouse, to be a very shy bird, and it may be that it does not like being disturbed too much, especially during the lek and while nesting. I have been fortified in this fear by several conversations I have had with ski guides in the European Alps who were foresters or garnekeepers during the summer and autumn months. They have said that when a ski lift is erected in a new area the caper tend to leave. So I join with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and others and submit that human intrusion may be a factor we should take seriously.
It is hard to think what else can be responsible for this tragic decline of the caper. Perhaps the quality of their winter food—pine needles on the ancient and older trees—has grown impoverished with the trees' advancing age. But in many parts of Scotland maturing Scots pine are now available for them again, so this solution is not clear either. Perhaps the maturing trees are not quite mature enough for the caper. However, that may be, it is an area which justifies more scientific examination.
It will be clear from what I have said that I fear protecting the caper in the way suggested may not alone halt its decline. There must be other factors we must look for, and 1 have tried to suggest a few. Nevertheless, we must do all that we can, and so I for one support the protection suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, at least as a temporary measure, while we continue the search for the wider and deeper causes which may underlie this tragic decline of one of our most beautiful and mysterious birds.
10.48 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I join my noble friends in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. on introducing this interesting and important debate. We have heard speeches on many different aspects, and I shall try not to repeat matters referred to by other noble Lords.
The capercaillie, extinct in the last century, was reintroduced successfully by our Victorian forebears. We are now faced with the same problem; reduction in habitat and numbers. So much so that recent figures show that perhaps only 1,000 birds are left in Scotland.
What can be clone to halt the decline in numbers and to encourage this magnificent bird to make a comeback? As other noble Lords have said, the problem has many causes; for instance, overgrazing damages their habitat, and predators such as foxes and crows have been instrumental in killing chicks. However, a number of birds have actually managed to breed.
Are the Government prepared to consider removing the protection currently enjoyed by the pine marten? If it is a case of the pine marten or the capercaillie, which
426
will the Government save? Perhaps we should consider a reintroduction, particularly in areas where conditions are favourable to the bird.
However, deer fences have also had a great impact on the population in various areas. They have accounted for fatalities in many areas and their removal will lower the number of mortalities. The dilemma we face is that to encourage the natural habitat of the capercaillie, deer fences are required. Therefore, a balance must be achieved. These great birds suffer their highest mortality where the fences are only 4.4 metres from the nearest trees. If that distance were increased where deer fences were imperative, would that reduce the mortality rate among the birds? Are there similar problems in other countries? How have the respective wildlife organisations been able to halt the decline in the population?
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that the capercaillie should be moved to Schedule 1, Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That appears to give the birds greater protection throughout the season, in particular the closed season. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that proposal.
The present voluntary ban on shooting is enforced well by landowners. Much encouragement must be given to those who manage habitats to sustain this great bird.
10.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has provoked an interesting and informed debate. That is not surprising when one surveys the wealth of countryside experience, some of it ministerial, on the Benches opposite. He raised a number of issues which I shall address later, as did other noble Lords.
First, I should like briefly to deal with the Government's position in relation to the conservation of the capercaillie. I make no apologies for underlining many of the fundamental facts already registered so forcefully by your Lordships tonight. As noble Lords would expect, the Government share the noble Lord's concern to ensure that proper measures are put in place for the conservation of the capercaillie. This magnificent bird is one of the rarest and most endangered species in Britain, and it has a particular relevance in Scotland. I developed a special affection for it during a recent and all-too-brief chairmanship of the Cairngorms Partnership Board.
A full count of the capercaillie took place in the winter of 1993–94. It established that there were only about 2,200 birds left in Britain, all of them in Scotland. The likelihood is that a further count carried out last winter will show a decline. However, the report of that count will not be available until later this year, probably in September. The species is also declining throughout its European range, where the latest estimate is that there are between 200,000 and 300,000 birds left.
We cannot be certain of the reasons for the decline in capercaillie numbers. The interesting speculations tonight point to the complexity of the causality. The

427
advice that we have received indicates that among the likely causes are cold, wet spring weather as well as, as we have heard, predation, collisions with deer fencing, loss and fragmentation of habitat, and reduction of food available to chicks through over-grazing by deer.
As the noble Lord is clearly aware, the Government are advised on natural heritage issues by Scottish Natural Heritage, the Government's statutory nature conservation advisers in Scotland. Its view, which we share, is that all possible measures are already in place to support the capercaillie.
In particular, the noble Lord asked about the creation of special protection areas for the capercaillie under the EC wild birds directive. Under the birds directive, EU member states are required to identify areas to be given special protection for rare or vulnerable species and for regularly occurring migratory species.
In fact, five sites for capercaillie have already been classified (the term used in the directive) as "special protection areas" for the capercaillie. Those sites, all of which, as I have said, are in Scotland, are: Abernethy Forest, the Cairngorms, Glen Tanar, Ballochbuie and Loch Lomond. They extend to a total area of some 61,000 hectares. In addition, one further site is under consideration for classification.
The Government have selected those sites, using the best scientific information available, to meet their international obligations and in doing so to give the special protection of classification to the areas which are most important to the capercaillie. In those areas, which are also designated as sites of special scientific interest, the Government are required by the birds directive to take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbance to the birds which could be significant in relation to their survival and reproduction. Changes in management require to be notified to Scottish Natural Heritage, which may refuse consent, or advise refusal of consent, if there is a likely adverse effect on the capercaillie.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, also asks the Government to seek the capercaillie's rescheduling as a Schedule 1, Part II species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I noted the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Monro, which, on the basis of present evidence, the Government may share.
Like all birds, the capercaillie is given general protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and as such it is an offence to kill, take or damage birds, nests and eggs, apart from those species listed under Schedule 2. But it is more complicated than that. The capercaillie is listed in Schedule 2, Part I of the 1981 Act, and this allows birds to be hunted outwith the close season prescribed in the Act. The noble Lord is looking for a change in this listing, to the effect that the capercaillie would be included in Part II of Schedule 1. Such inclusion would create a further offence of disturbing birds at their nest or their dependent young. Special penalties are provided for this offence and for killing or taking any birds listed in Schedule 1.
428
At present, the Government have no plans to change the capercaillie's statutory protection by rescheduling it under the 1981 Act. Although the capercaillie is listed as a quarry species, there is in existence a voluntary, but very successful, ban on the shooting of capercaillie. This has been in place for a number of years. We cannot guarantee that no capercaillies are ever shot, but the number is likely to be very small indeed. As regards listing in Part II of Schedule 1, disturbance on or at the nest is not thought to be a factor which is contributing significantly to the capercaillie's decline.
We have not at this stage received any advice from Scottish Natural Heritage that changes to the statutory protection of the capercaillie are required. We are aware that it has the issue under consideration, and any further recommendations that it makes—I apologise in advance to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay—will indeed, with a Scottish election just over a week away, be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
In addition to measures taken under the birds directive and the protection given by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, a number of other actions are already being taken, both within and without designated areas, to help the capercaillie.
As I have already indicated, our advice is that the main threats to the capercaillie are loss of habitat, increased predation, collisions with deer fences and cold wet spring weather. As the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, noted, with the obvious exception of the weather, work on all those issues is being undertaken through the biodiversity species action plan. A steering group has been set up to oversee the implementation of the plan. That steering group is made up of representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—and I am delighted that the chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, is present to give us the benefit of his experience—and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, together with the Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Game Conservancy Trust.
The species action plan identifies a number of actions for the capercaillie. These include site safeguard and management measures; promotion of reduced deer fencing; the removal or marking of deer fencing; consideration of changes to the capercaillie's protected status; provision of advice to farmers and land managers on favourable methods of management; research and monitoring; and consideration of codes of practice. I understand also that a project manager is about to be appointed who will have the full-time job of advising landowners and managers on actions to help the capercaillie.
Many positive steps are being taken to monitor closely the progress of the capercaillie and to make sure that the measures that are in place are as effective as possible. Statutory protection under the 1981 Act and designation of special protection areas can make a contribution, but that will not be the whole answer. Therefore I commend the partners of the capercaillie biodiversity action plan on their efforts. They have succeeded already in stimulating awareness of the capercaillie's problems. That has been amply demonstrated in this debate.

429
Perhaps I may turn to a few specific points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised the problem of fox snares. As I said, we believe that the educational process which is taking place through the biodiversity species action plans will help to ensure that snares are set more appropriately. Of course, foxes predate on capercaillie chicks and, as with all pest species, they must continue to be controlled.
The noble Lord asked also for more special protection area classifications. We already have the most important sites classified. Scottish Natural Heritage will consider suggestions but can only consider sites where birds are actually present.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, raised a number of matters. He asked about our international obligations in relation to this matter. EC directives are matters of international policy. Therefore, post devolution, they are reserved matters. However, the day-to-day implementation of EC directives is a devolved matter. It will be for the Scottish Parliament to consider ongoing bird and habitat directives and issues arising from them, including continuing measures to help the capercaillie.
I was asked about the Forestry Commission and what aid may be available. Funds for a wide range of measures are available, including the removal of redundant deer fences which are hazardous to capercaillie and for funding the marking necessary.1 was impressed by the low cost of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that it may be cheaper to do as people did in the past; that is. tie a bunch of heather to the fences. But grants are also available for fence marking, which will help to reduce the number of fence collisions.
In answer to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on grants being made available to all capercaillie areas, that will indeed be the case. The
430
woodland improvement grants may be available throughout the capercaillie range for suitable woodlands. The Cairngorm Partnership Area Challenge Fund, introduced by the Forestry Commission in 1996, provides extra funding which should benefit the capercaillie. I thank the noble Earl for his suggestions as regards increasing funding elsewhere. I shall certainly pass on his suggestions about the Scottish forestry strategy.
As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on alternatives to conventional fencing, I note that a number of trials are already under way. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, mentioned pine martens. They are one of our rarest remaining Scottish mammals. I am advised by our boffins—not those of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in this case—that as yet there is no strong evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage that pine martens have a significant effect on capercailhe numbers. We believe that foxes and crows are the main predators.
As I reach the end of my allotted time, perhaps 1 may say—unconvincingly—that I would have liked the time to address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, on raptors. However, I know from my experience in the Cairngorm Partnership that for a man to get involved in an argument about raptors when the chairman of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is in the room is probably a dangerous occupation.
Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to end by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for bringing this important matter to our attention. I am sure it has been very educative, certainly for government. I was very amused by the story of the potato-stuffed birds. I just hope that in the enumeration of all the causes of decline he has not added Retsina-flavoured fowl.
House adjourned at six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme
  CAP Reforms: Agenda 2000 Negotiations
  CAP Reforms: Agenda 2000 Negotiations
  Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains
  Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Entry into Force
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Entry into Force
  British Dependent Territories Citizens: British Citizenship
  British Dependent Territories Citizens: British Citizenship
  EU Member States: UN Civil and Political Rights Convention
  EU Member States: UN Civil and Political Rights Convention
  Serbia: Cessation of Military Action
  Serbia: Cessation of Military Action
  Treaty of Rome: Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Treaty of Rome: Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Gibraltar: Illicit Trafficking Control
  Gibraltar: Illicit Trafficking Control
  FCO: Restructuring of Departmental Responsibilities
  FCO: Restructuring of Departmental Responsibilities
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Co-operative Initiatives
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Co-operative Initiatives
  Sudan: Killing of Relief Workers
  Sudan: Killing of Relief Workers
  Sudan: Ceasefire
  Sudan: Ceasefire
  Serbia: Costs of NATO Action
  Serbia: Costs of NATO Action
  Bahrain
  Bahrain
  Good Friday Agreement
  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. David Adams
  Mr. David Adams
  Castlereagh Holding Centre
  Castlereagh Holding Centre
  Part-time Judges: Commercial Directorships
  Part-time Judges: Commercial Directorships
  Appellate Committee and Privy Council Majority Decisions
  Appellate Committee and Privy Council Majority Decisions
  Appeal and Appellate Committees: Composition
  Appeal and Appellate Committees: Composition
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Corpus Juris
  Corpus Juris
  Animal Welfare Legislation
  Animal Welfare Legislation
  Murder of Relief Workers: Definition
  Murder of Relief Workers: Definition
  Medicines (Advertising) Regulations
  Medicines (Advertising) Regulations
  Human Cloning: Council of Europe Protocol
  Human Cloning: Council of Europe Protocol
  Form CRU1
  Form CRU1
  Mortgage Protection Insurance
  Mortgage Protection Insurance
  Buses: EU Legislation
  Buses: EU Legislation
  British Films
  British Films
  Electronic Interfaces with the Public
  Electronic Interfaces with the Public
  UK and Euro-area Interest Rate Comparisons
  UK and Euro-area Interest Rate Comparisons