Sitting of 12 March 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Record Checks
    Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the cost of criminal record checks for volunteers in voluntary organisations. [151698]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates, which will relate principally to positions involving working with those under the age of 18, or with vulnerable adults, will be issued free of charge to volunteers—not only in voluntary organisations but in other situations too.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. As chairman of the all-party group on charities and the voluntary sector, and on behalf of the sector as a whole, may I say how pleased we are by the Government's response to the campaign? It is important that volunteers have free checks so that children can be properly protected. The sector fully supports criminal record checks, and there was concern that, in the international year of volunteering, children would not receive that kind of protection. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when the system is introduced, the checks will provide the kind of security and information that those organisations need to ensure that children receive the best possible protection?
    Mr. Boateng: The Government are grateful to the all-party group and to my hon. Friend, its chairman, for their work in representing the voluntary sector's concerns. I can give him the assurance that he seeks, but he will understand—as, I am sure, will other Members on both sides of the House—that the protection of children and vulnerable people cannot be served by a body like the Criminal Records Bureau alone. It is important to make sure that those responsible for recruiting workers in that sector themselves carry out the necessary checks of other references, and put in place the necessary arrangements for proper interviews and performance monitoring. We
    610
    need a complete package to protect children and vulnerable people better, but this step is an important part of that, and we are glad to have taken it.
    Mr. Donald Gorrie: Can the Minister assure us that the certificates will be transferable, whether given by the Scottish Executive, the Home Office—in England—or, presumably, the Welsh Assembly, and that people who move to different parts of the country will not have to apply all over again?
    Mr. Boateng: We are working closely with the Assembly and the Executive to make sure that there is a proper exchange of information. Those negotiations and discussions are continuing, and I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman to tell him of our progress.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for exempting volunteers from the proposed charges for the Criminal Records Bureau, thus inadvertently responding to a recommendation that the Home Affairs Committee is likely to send him. Will he pay particular attention to inaccuracies and omissions in the police national computer records of convictions, involving failure to record convictions against some people, as well as the opposite? When those checks are made, it is essential that they are as accurate as possible.
    Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the Committee for their work in that area, as is my fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has identified a problem that we are exploring with the Association of Chief Police Officers. We will make sure that we get things right, because we seek to achieve the degree of accuracy that he rightly pinpoints as important.
    Mr. David Lidington: I welcome the Government's change of policy, and the alacrity with which they changed course once they knew about the speech that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Would that the Government always followed my right hon. Friend's suggestions with such alacrity.
    The Minister talked about exemptions for volunteers. Will the Government exempt voluntary organisations generally, or just individual volunteers? In particular, will he explain why, a week after the Government's announcement, in a written answer on 15 February, another Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), mentioned registration fees for the Criminal Records Bureau, which would involve employers and voluntary organisations paying a charge of £300? Have the Government not been rather shy about letting us know about that?
    Mr. Boateng: if I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically churlish in his response to the announcement. I thought that he had a sunnier disposition—but perhaps it is the time of year, and the anticipation of potential approaching events. As he well knows, this is an exemption for volunteers, not for voluntary organisations. It is right that voluntary

    611
    organisations should pay a registration charge, and we are having discussions with them about that and several other related matters. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would give a broader and more generous welcome to the measures that we have announced.

    Police Numbers (Sussex)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Sussex constabulary on police numbers in Sussex. [151699]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government have no plans to call for such a report. Sussex police have been allocated a total of 206 crime fighting fund recruits. According to the latest information provided by the force, about 42 of those will be recruited in the current year and the remainder in the following two years. For 2001–02, the Sussex police authority will receive funding support of £181.8 million, which represents an increase of £9.3 million, and is 5.4 per cent. more than the provision for 2000–01. The authority will also receive about £500,000 a year from the rural policing fund.
    Mr. Loughton: It is a shame that the Minister should say that, because last month he revealed that there are now 273 fewer police officers in Sussex than there were in March 1997. That represents one of the biggest cuts in the country. His statement also masks the added problem of the extra drain on resources, in the Worthing area in particular, caused by a series of murder investigations, including that into the murder of Sarah Payne; by the investigations into the human trafficking of at least 40 Nigerian girls abducted from social services and sold into prostitution in northern Italy; and, most recently, by the investigations into the 20 armed raids that have taken place in Worthing in the past nine weeks alone. Those raids include those involving my local sub-postmaster, Jack Sahaid, who was held up twice at knife-point and once at shotgun-point in the space of a week, and who has shown great bravery and community spirit by keeping the sub-post office open.
    When will the Minister intervene and do something to give back the police officers taken away over the past four years, rather than coming up with this constant guff about additional resources—which do not result in extra police officers—and about numbers being the responsibility of the chief constable? Many of my constituents—such as shopkeepers and sub-postmasters—are living in fear at the moment.
    Mr. Clarke: It is not guff at all. The fact is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, throughout the country crime is falling and police numbers are rising.
    Mr. Loughton: Not in Sussex.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman should stop heckling; he has already had his say.
    In Sussex, as in every other police authority, it is up to the chief constable to decide how to allocate resources. The chief constable, his staff and his authority decided quite explicitly to increase the number of civilians in the
    612
    force over a long period More than one third of forces in the country now have more police officers than they had in 1997, and that will happen in Sussex as well.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the Minister not remember the present Prime Minister's pledge in 1995 that a Government led by him would put thousands more police officers on the beat? Given the fall of 2,500 in police numbers across the country, including 273 in Sussex—and not forgetting the fall by one third in the number of specials—is this not just another example of all spin and no delivery? When will the Minister give us a timetable—a short one—for restoring those police numbers in Sussex and throughout the country?
    Mr. Clarke: That phrase does not improve with age. The facts are simple and straightforward. Since 1993, the number of police officers in Britain had been going down—until about a year ago when, following the decisions of this Government, police numbers started to go up for the first time.
    A while ago we published figures that showed an increase of 444 police officers across the country up to September last year. Those trends are increasing and we shall be in a position to continue to increase them through the next year or two, as we continue to achieve a constant movement towards increasing police numbers. Many forces are already saying that they have the largest number of police officers in history coming in, in the short term, and nearly half the forces in Britain have more police officers than they had in 1997. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are nonsense, as he well knows, and he should get down to examining his own record as well as ours.

    Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)
    Mr. Keith Danrill: What measures he is taking to increase the recruitment of police officers to the Metropolitan police service. [151700]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government have provided generous funding to the Metropolitan police service to enable it to increase its police numbers. The Met has been allocated a total of 2,044 recruits under the crime fighting fund. That, combined with the resources recently agreed with the Greater London Authority, should enable the Met to increase its target strength by 1,050 officers, to 26,650, in the coming year.
    Other measures to boost recruitment in the Met include the increase of about £3,300 a year in the London allowance paid to officers in the Met and the City of London police who joined after 1994, the provision of free rail travel within a 70-mile radius of London for the Met's officers, and the national recruitment campaign. Several outline bids covering the Metropolitan police area are also being assessed under the first round of the Government's starter homes initiative
    Mr. Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and I am grateful to him for reminding the House of the raft of measures that address recruitment and retention in the Metropolitan police service. Can he assure me that he will continue to monitor closely the progress being made to increase police numbers, and will he ensure in

    613
    particular that outer London police divisions, such as Havering, have their fair share of police officers? Despite the Government's creditable performance in reducing overall crime by 10 per cent., concern remains that police numbers still need to reflect the changing demands in localities, so that the Metropolitan police can continue to bear down on criminal behaviour.
    Mr. Straw: I fully understand the needs of the outer London boroughs, not least Havening—an area I know well. As my hon. Friend knows, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has removed an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy from the Metropolitan police service. That is releasing officers for front-line duties, as is his policy of dealing with unnecessary sick leave, which in turn has released more than 500 officers for front-line duties. The bare gross figures do not tell the full story about numbers, but I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that recruitment in the last month was running at double the level of a year ago.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the mix-up over Metropolitan police housing in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, does the Home Secretary accept that the motivation of pre-Sheehy and post-Sheehy officers in Metropolitan police housing may be adversely affected by the turn of events, and that retention as well as recruitment may be at stake?
    Mr. Straw: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but as he knows, we are taking steps to put the matter right. The latest figures show a net increase in the number of officers going into the Metropolitan police service. In general, morale is greatly improving—all the data suggest that—and a major factor in that improvement is the provision of free rail travel for all officers.

    Ex-Offenders
    Mr. Paul Clark: What steps the Prison Service is taking to help offenders secure work on release from prison. [151701]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government are committed to reducing reoffending by those released from prison. That is why we are investing £30 million in a new Prison Service custody-to-work programme, with the aim of doubling the number of prisoners going into jobs on release over the next three years.
    Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that jobs—as he clearly said—and stable accommodation are two of the most important factors in ensuring that people do not reoffend? Does he acknowledge that current research suggests that only about 10 per cent. of offenders get a job, and that 40 per cent. have no stable accommodation on release? Crime is falling overall in Medway, but there is still a long way to go. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the Government are taking all the steps that they can to ensure that people do not reoffend?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right. On a recent visit to Medway, I met a number of people engaged in the voluntary sector, not least those involved with
    614
    resettlement. We know that only 10 per cent. of prisoners get a job on release, and that more than 40 per cent. are released without stable accommodation to go to. The thrust of the custody-to-work initiative will be to ensure that prisoners get advice and assistance in advance, so that they can get a new deal place or a job, and issues such as housing benefit and the need for a stable address are dealt with by the probation service and the Prison Service working in tandem rather than separately. We thereby hope to ensure that we make a real contribution, through resettlement, to reducing reoffending. That is the bottom line: protecting the public better by ensuring that such people go to work, and go to a stable address.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister will be aware that prison-based commercial activity can contribute to reducing recidivism, but will he consider the way in which such activity is being carried out at Kirkham prison in my constituency? I have recently received complaints from those in the poultry industry that a new commercial enterprise based at the prison is being conducted in a very uncompetitive fashion. Those running the enterprise from the prison are doing a lot of boasting that it is cheaper than those that operate commercially outside, because their labour does not have to be costed in at a commercial rate. Will the Minister examine the matter for me?
    Mr. Boateng: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman have had some correspondence on this issue. We are well aware of the difficulties that he has outlined, which highlight the problem—he may like to make that point to his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). We must get the balance right between creating commercial enterprises in a prison context and ensuring that they do not have an unfair advantage over the wider community. We are making real headway in this area. The total number of prisoners employed last year was 19,000. The number in the public sector has risen from 7,600, the figure that we inherited when we came into office, to 8,500 today. We are getting there, but it takes time and effort, and we are determined to put both into the equation.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I know that my right hon. Friend shares the view that providing education and training in prison is essential if prisoners are to be able to get jobs when they are released, and avoid going back to a life of crime and reoffending. The opportunities vary considerably from prison to prison, although improvements are being made. How much further does my right hon. Friend believe we can improve the opportunities, to ensure that all prisoners have education or training before they are released?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. We still have further to go. We will increase spending on education in prisons by 17 per cent. over the next three years. Last month, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blackstone and I introduced a new prison/DFEE partnership at Wormwood Scrubs. Such partnerships will be rolled out across the country, and should provide real benefits for prisoners and for their future employment.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the evidence produced in yesterday's "Panorama"

    615
    programme that 90 per cent. of the people who leave Feltham young offenders institution reoffend? Does he agree that, although considerable progress has been made in educating the younger offenders, the vast majority leave without education or training, and are functionally illiterate and totally unprepared for the world of work? Could he explain how he is taking forward the programme to address that problem?
    Mr. Boateng: I am well aware of the problem. Feltham will be one of the pilot institutions under the custodyto-work programme, and we have recently opened a new education centre there. It is true that the under-18 estate has had the benefit of real and substantial investment over the past three to four years. We have more to do for those between the ages and 18 and 20, and we are determined to do it.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that only last month the Director General of the Prison Service described many of our prisons as "hellholes"; that under this Government slopping out has returned; that assaults on staff have risen by 25 per cent.; that incidents of self-harm have soared by 35 per cent.; that only 9,000 out of 63,000 prisoners work in prison workshops—representing a reduction of 4 per cent. on the previous year—and that more than half of all ex-prisoners typically reoffend and go back through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, why does the right hon. Gentleman not abandon his smug complacency and either adopt the Conservative policy of a full working day for a full working wage, or accept that a Government who have an insatiable appetite for public office should give way to an Opposition who have an insatiable appetite for public service?
    Mr. Boateng: I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman does justice to this subject. My responses to this question have in no sense been complacent. We still have a way to go, but the hon. Gentleman caricatures the director general's speech and the current state of the Prison Service.
    This morning I attended the Butler Trust awards ceremony at Buckingham palace. The trust gives awards to prison officers—men and women—so that they can address some of the problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman. It is inspired by the former Conservative Home Secretary's approach to these issues—
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: One nation!
    Mr. Boateng: As my hon. Friend says, it is very much a "one nation" approach, seeking to build consensus rather than division into penal policy.
    We are addressing problems long neglected under the last Administration. That is why under the present Government, industrial output in prisons is up, qualifications for prisoners are up, and crime is coming down.

    Animal Experimentation (Intimidation of Staff)
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What discussions he has had with trade unions representing work forces engaged in animal experimentation about the intimidation of such workers. [151702]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I recently had a very productive meeting with representatives from the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, which represents many employees in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical research industries. Officials were also in contact with the MSF when preparing drafts of the new measures to combat animal rights extremists that we have included in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We welcome the strong support that the MSF has given these measures.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and welcome his association with the MSF.
    Many believe that the people concerned are a determined group who will stop at nothing to secure their aims. Does my right hon. Friend agree? Will he afford full protection to Home Office licence holders so that they can carry out vital research, and will he attempt to involve the Trades Union Congress in that process?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concerns. I have had discussions with the chief constables of two areas where there is a high concentration of scientific research to assure my self that proper protection is being provided. One such discussion took place this morning.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that unfortunately, as we know from the record, many of those involved in extremist animal rights movements are—
    Mr. John Bercow: Poisonous.
    Mr. Straw: Poisonous and worse—and willing to go in for any kind of totally unacceptable tactics against people who are simply carrying out lawful and important duties.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I recognise the severity of the intimidation, and welcome the proposals in the impending Act. Will the Home Secretary nevertheless consider sympathetically the need for an emergency round-table conference of interested parties—including unions and other laboratory technicians, the pharmaceutical industry, the MPs affected, the police and, of course, Ministers—to reassure the public about what can be done, concentrating on how the existing law can be better used, and on whether new laws in addition to those in the Bill are needed?
    Mr. Straw: What the hon. Gentleman proposes has more or less taken place already. I have had substantial discussions with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and the major scientific and medical research establishments, as well as with the police, both about the concerns of those involved in animal experimentation and about the response of the police and the Home Office.
    I have been very anxious, at an institutional level but above all at a personal level, to offer the support of the Government—and, I believe, that of the whole House—for the work that those people are undertaking. As I have said before, without flat work, many important scientific and medical advances would never have been made and many people would have died prematurely or not been able to maintain the quality of their lives.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is not merely scientists who have been the

    617
    targets of these vandals? The Horlicks factory in my constituency, for example, has been invaded by animal rights extremists. Will the Home Secretary congratulate Thames Valley police on their vigorous action against those responsible for the attack?
    Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the concern: the fact is that those people are both bad and mad. I have no idea quite how targeting a Horlicks factory can help to propagate their aims; none the less, it was dangerous. I am very pleased that Thames Valley police responded as they did.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Home Secretary might like to know that only last week, there was another incident in my constituency, directed against individuals working in the pharmaceutical industry. This is intimidation verging on terrorism. Will the right hon. Gentleman join other colleagues in raising the profile of the issue even higher, so that the Public understand that the animal liberation people are thugs and terrorists who will use no tactic other than violence against those individuals? Apparently, the animal liberation people are also threatening two of the Home Secretary's colleagues because of a reasoned argument about hunting. The situation is getting out of hand. What worries me is that, in relation to the importance of experiments on animals, and the awful way in which the animal liberation people behave, we do not have all the public on our side.
    Mr. Straw: It is incumbent on all hon. Members to make the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. We have to say that that type of intimidation and attack—including the recent attack on Mr. Brian Cass, the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, but also many other less well-publicised attacks—is totally unacceptable.
    We have a job to do in this place. However, the organisations that campaign for changes in animal welfare law also have a job to do. I believe that they should be much more vigourous in wholeheartedly condemning those animal rights extremists, and separating their perfectly lawful campaigns for change in the law from those who shelter behind them. I am sometimes very concerned indeed about the absence of a clear barrier between allegedly respectable organisations and those who go in for outright extremism and terrorism.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences came to an all-party group, some of us were dismayed to learn the extent to which the cars of even relatively junior staff members had been vandalised. What can be done to protect junior members of staff? May I also ask, in the light of the Home Secretary's last answer, whether the Government are happy about the lack of backing from some who might be expected to show more courage in this matter, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland?
    Mr. Straw: To deal with the last point first, I am certainly not happy about the response of some of the United Kingdom's financial institutions, which I believe were pusillanimous in the extreme. If financial institutions give in to that type of intimidation, it will wholly undermine those who are on the front line of that very
    618
    important scientific research. People in the financial institutions are far less likely to come under personal attack than those who conduct the experiments.
    Although I realise that the institutions have responsibilities to their shareholders—undoubtedly that was the excuse used by the Royal Bank of Scotland, and by Barclays, which sought to withdraw provision as a registrar of one of the companies because it might be intimidated or harassed—they also have wider social and business responsibilities. The banks would be the first to squeal if, because of their pusillanimous approach, part of our scientific base, and therefore part of their income, were reduced.
    As for my hon. Friend's first point, I happened by chance to have quite a conversation with Mr. Brian Cass as he was on his way to that meeting. I applauded his own personal courage in dealing with that attack. I am also aware of the attacks on those at a much lower level in such companies. The Government and the police are doing our very best to provide maximum protection. That is one reason why, two months ago, I announced a special grant of £1 million to Cambridgeshire constabulary to meet the extra costs of policing these problems.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the entry requirements to join the police force. [151703]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, and correspondence from members of the public. Representations from hon. Members have been about the medical entry requirements affecting unsuccessful applicants to the police forces. Most of the representations from members of the public have requested that entry requirements, particularly those on eyesight or health, be reviewed. The entry requirements for police officers are currently being reviewed as part of a strategy to develop national recruitment standards.
    Mr. Amess: Although I accept everything that the Minister has said, will she explain why this rotten, incompetent shambles of a Government have cut the number of serving police officers in Southend by nine over the past year and by 181 in Essex since 1997? Does she not understand that the reason why police morale is at rock bottom is that the Government let out 250 criminals who had assaulted police officers after they had served only a third of their sentence? What on earth does this rotten Government mean by being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? Was that simply a reference to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?
    Mrs. Roche: May I advise the hon. Gentleman that in future he should really say what he means? He should not be so shy.
    Let us look at the facts. Resources are available for Essex to recruit up to 197 officers through the crime fighting fund. Essex is benefiting from the national

    619
    recruitment campaign. Essex officers may also benefit from the Government's starter homes initiative, which will do something to help police officers.
    The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on this point with his constituents. Under the previous Government, between 1979 and 1997, crime in Essex went up by more than 88 per cent. Crime in Essex has come down by 3.2 per cent. since May 1997.
    Mr. John Cryer: To return from Planet Zarg after the previous speaker, may I ask my hon. Friend whether there are any plans to introduce a multiple-point entry system for the police force?
    Mr. John Bercow: Tell us all about multiple points, Barbara.
    Mrs. Roche: I would be very glad to if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would contain his enthusiasm for a bit. We are currently reviewing the requirement.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on the Government's policies to deal with antisocial behaviour. [151704]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, including the crime and disorder partnerships and antisocial behaviour orders.
    We are introducing further measures in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, including fixed-penalty notices, for a wide range of offences to help police deal immediately with loutish behaviour and to provide strengthened controls on drinking in the streets.
    We are implementing in full the policy action team report on antisocial behaviour. The crime reduction toolkit on antisocial behaviour, which was published in January, gives practitioners comprehensive and detailed advice on good practice and partnership working.
    Mr. Blunt: Is it antisocial behaviour to tell an untruth?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is of course the case that telling an untruth may be honestly done or dishonestly done. People have to consider these matters for themselves.
    Antisocial behaviour is being addressed by the legislation that the Government have put through the House. We are ensuring that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contains provisions that will deal with the real problems that concern the people of this country. They are concerned about law and disorder on our streets and about policing. That is why, under the Labour Government, crime is coming down and police numbers are going up, and that is why we are dealing with these issues, and ensuring that we do so effectively.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the Minister say what action the Government intend to propose to the House to deal with the antisocial behaviour of the shadow Home Secretary and a Conservative Whip, who, by their example, are saying to louts and hooligans
    620
    that they should break the rules and break the law? Will my hon. Friend explain how louts, hooligans, drunkards and criminals can be expected to obey the law of the land if official spokesmen and spokeswomen of the Conservative party disregard, obstruct and set aside the decisions of the House of Commons?
    Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is quite right: antisocial behaviour takes many forms. It is important that Members of the House set a good example—especially those who might one day aspire to high office. Opposition Front-Bench Member, especially the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in some of her behaviour last week, displayed a regrettably bad example for the young people of this country. When the right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box to condemn loutish behaviour on our streets, let us make sure that we have no loutish behaviour from her in this place.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: When Home Office Ministers look back over their four years of dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime, do they register the fact that, according to the latest opinion polls, nearly two thirds of the British public—more than in any other area of Government policy—think that the Government have failed on law and order?
    The Government's senior policy adviser at the Home Office says that their performance has been incredibly poor; he cites clear-up rates that are the same as they were when those Ministers took office in 1997. At this late stage, may we at least have honesty? Gimmicks such as giving parking-type tickets to drunkards on the street and having curfews will not do much at all. To take away people's right to choose jury trial is positively an act in the wrong direction. If there was a commitment to real increases in police numbers and to real community safety forces that would give additional police service in each local council area— instead of all the rhetoric, all the window dressing and the many policies that have totally failed over four years—we might get somewhere.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric today is nothing short of amazing. The Liberal Democrats go around the country claiming to be tough on crime in one place and soft on crime in another. Every policy that the Labour Government—or indeed, any Government—have introduced to deal with crime and disorder on our streets has been attacked by the Liberals as being too tough on criminals.
    Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government's record is one of crime going down and police numbers going up. We are patting funding into fighting crime, while during this Parliament and in recent years, the Liberal Democrat party and especially the hon. Gentleman, as its spokesman on law and order, have been soft on crime throughout.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome the policies introduced by my hon. Friend to combat antisocial behaviour. Does he agree that in crime hot spots, portable closed circuit television would help further to continue the reduction in crime? In many areas, there is a genuine fear that if the Tories had the opportunity to impose their

    621
    public spending cuts, such services would be reduced and crime would increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that portable CCTV would help to reduce crime still further?
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The massive investment made by the Government in CCTV—encouraging local authorities and the police to install such facilities throughout the country—has certainly had a powerful impact on crime. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right to say that portable CCTV has a place in the array of tools needed by the police to deal with the problems of crime on our streets. He is also right to say that, while the Labour Government have a record of putting extra resources into the police, ensuring that we provide them with the communications systems that they need and that we put resources into CCTV and other technology, if the Conservatives got into power we would see £16 billion worth of cuts in public expenditure. Those cuts would fall on the police too. Let there be no mistake about it: when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her party were in office, we saw cuts in policing from 1993, with cuts in the housing allowance; we did not see the sort of investment that has been made in CCTV under the Labour Government. Their record was crime up; our record is crime down. Their record was cuts in police numbers; our record is police numbers now going up.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If the Minister can come out of pre-election auto-rant for a second, will he tell me whether any progress has been made on a practical suggestion about CCTV that I have made on several occasions and to which he has responded positively in the past? Where shops and garages trade during antisocial hours, there should be a requirement that they have adequate CCTV coverage in the places where people have to pay—where they have to queue in vulnerable situations and could be attacked by louts. Have the Government actually done anything about that, rather than saying that they think it is a good idea—which, of course it is?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is indeed a good idea, and we are agreeing on resources for the retail crime reduction partnerships. It certainly would help if those late-night shops and various other facilities—
    Mr. John Bercow: Outlets.
    Mr. O'Brien: Outlets, as the hon. Gentleman helpfully suggests. If the various outlets were to have CCTV outside their premises, it would assist not only those who run them but the police; indeed, the Government are working with retail outlets in particular to try to ensure that we do that. I am a little concerned that small businesses in particular are reluctant to have extra burdens placed on them, and I am sure that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) does not want to do that. We need to take action by a process of proper discussion and negotiation with the business community, rather than by merely imposing regulations, as lie seemed to suggest. I am sure that, on reflection, he would agree that the previous Government imposed far too much regulation on
    622
    small businesses. The Government are trying to reduce that over-regulation, and that is one of the areas where we can make progress.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: My hon. Friend will be aware that no behaviour is more against the interests and legitimate aspirations of many of the communities that we represent than that of those who deal in drugs and then flaunt the wealth that they have accumulated in that fashion in front of the communities that their behaviour is impoverishing and destroying. He will be aware that the publication of the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill and the extra money in the Budget for tackling crime and drugs were very welcome in Scotland, as they were throughout the United Kingdom, but does he agree that steps must be taken to foster a culture of whistleblowing among those who deal with criminals and who allow them the opportunity, inadvertently or by deliberate omission, to launder their money and transfer it into the legitimate economy?
    Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The draft Proceeds of Crime Bill will apply to Scotland, and the Budget announcement of an extra £220 million to tackle drugs was welcomed in Scotland, especially by my right hon. Friend the First Minister, who said that it was
    "a landmark piece of legislation"
    and
    "a big step forward in the war against drugs".
    I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that there is effective provision to encourage whistleblowing.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is it antisocial to say that someone has told an untruth who is found not to have done; and, if so, should an apology be made to the victim?
    Mr. O'Brien: I think that I have dealt with that, but the right hon. Lady has not dealt with the behaviour that she displayed in the House last week. Frankly, she and I are here to ensure that when we deal with such matters, we present an image to the public of some responsibility. What she has displayed during the past week puts the House in a bad light and reflects badly on her. Indeed, it reflects very badly on any Member of Parliament who seeks to put himself or herself in a position of responsibility. Those in high office have a responsibility to set an example, and she has failed to do that.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman at least agree that mugging is antisocial? If so, what is the appropriate response to someone who mugs 56 clauses, 42 Opposition amendments, 10 Government amendments and six schedules? Is not the correct penalty for such a person five years out of office, with no early release? Is not someone who stands up to that mugging acting in self-defence and should not he or she be supported by the authorities of the House, who care about effective parliamentary scrutiny? Get to the Dispatch Box and apologise.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is the right hon. Lady who ought to be apologising for her appalling behaviour during the past week. She comes here and starts to say that she is

    623
    concerned about crime, but she sets a bad example to the people of this country in the behaviour that she displays. People are responsible for their actions, and she is responsible for the bad example that she set in the House last week. She should be at the Dispatch Box now, apologising for her behaviour not just to me and Labour Members but to every hon. Member and to all those who elect us.

    Community Policing
    Mr. Howard Flight: What guidance he gives to, and targets he sets for, chief constables with regard to community policing. [151707]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The only nationally required targets for the police service are those relating to burglary, vehicle crime and, for five major metropolitan areas, robbery. However, next year, all chief constables have agreed that they will report to their constituencies the measures that they are taking to increase visibility and accessibility in every ward and every parish in their police authority area.
    Mr. Flight: Why have the Government neglected at least to provide guidance on targets for community policing over the past four years? The lack of police visibility and of community policing is perhaps the greatest concern of citizens in urban and rural areas. Why have the Government ignored that issue when they are only too willing to give guidance and directives on virtually every other?
    Mr. Clarke: As the House knows, the Government significantly reduced the amount of guidance and performance indicators for the current year at the request of the police, and for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman suggests. To identify as we did the key crimes—burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime—was the right way to proceed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier answer, but I said that we have had a new departure in that chief constables have agreed with us that they all will report every year on the levels of visibility and reassurance that they offer to every parish and every ward in their police authority area. That is significant.
    The hon. Gentleman's authority receives about £500,000 of the rural policing money every year and it will report every year on how that money is used to increase visibility and community policing. Later this year, we shall publish detailed advice and a toolkit of precise measures that can be used to develop that. That is a positive approach that is bearing very strong fruit already.

    Retained Police Officers
    Mr. David Heath: If he will introduce a category of retained police officers. [151708]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The idea of retained police officers is one of those that is being considered to increase visibility and reassurance in the current police reform discussions. Constables who serve probationary periods and sergeants may already work part-time, and the Police Negotiating
    624
    Board is currently considering proposals and draft regulations that would extend that right to probationers and to the inspecting ranks. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a range of creative approaches to the question of increasing the police presence is important and that is what we are actively discussing with the police at the moment.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Is it not the case that people in villages and small towns in rural areas across the country want sufficient police numbers so that there is a greater visible police presence? They want those police officers to be fully trained, fully equipped, in proper uniform and acting in the office of constable. Retained officers play a large part in providing rural firefighting services, and I am glad that the Minister is considering further the possibility of having retained police officers. Will he consider the matter with a degree of urgency to see what can be done for rural areas?
    Mr. Clarke: We are considering the issue with a degree of urgency. As the hon. Gentleman knows, crime in Avon and Somerset has gone down by about 15 per cent. since 1997, but there is a great deal further to go. The types of measures that he has described that would develop an increased uniformed police presence—through specials, retained officers, targeted policing, patrols, different types of police station and so on—in every community are all part of the range of issues that we are actively discussing. We are already taking a number of different measures to encourage that approach.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: I may have to confess my ignorance. but are not retained officers really the same as special constables? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, let me make my point then.
    There has been a significant increase in the number of police officers in Lancashire, and that is good. However, there has been a reduction in the number of special officers, and that is bad. About a fifth of special officers go on to become full-time police officers but, in recent years, the number of specials in Lancashire has fallen by about 150. What do we need to do to get good, public-spirited people—who do not want to be full-time police officers but who would like to do the job part-time—to join the specials? The specials have a role in bolstering police numbers when the police are overstretched, and we must do everything that we can to increase their numbers.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about specials, and he gave the answer to the problem in his question. His figures reflect the fact that many people who have joined that force see it as a route to recruitment as a full-time police officer. The harmonisation of health and safety regulations several years ago encouraged that process and we are considering whether it is the right way to proceed. Parish specials, who are located in their local parishes or wards, do not have the same obstructions or responsibilities as the police and we are actively considering whether that might be a better approach.
    For my hon. Friend's information, special constables are different from retained constables because they get no basic pay for performing that role. Retained specials would get paid, although at a different rate to the regular

    625
    police force. That is what distinguishes their pay from the part-time rate. We are considering the retained option but, frankly, developing our approach to the specials, whose numbers have declined over recent years, is a higher priority because there are many obvious positive aspects to that force.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister has emphasised the importance that he attaches to increasing the number a special constables, and I agree with him. However, as I have told his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on previous occasions, I believe that it is proper to pay them, and that would be a useful way of increasing the numbers. There is a parallel with the retained fire service in rural areas, which is paid. There is no reason of principle why special constables should not be paid an allowance.
    Mr. Clarke: First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be glad to note that crime has decreased by 20 per cent. in Lincolnshire since the election. I know that he will celebrate that fact with the Government. Secondly, he is right to say that there are issues relating to how we could pay retained officers in the way that he describes and that there might be parallels with the retained firefighters.
    Mr. Hogg: I said specials.
    Mr. Clarke: I know that, but the fight hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to retained officers. Whether we are considering volunteers, specials, part-time or full-time police officers or retained officers, we need to develop a new approach to maximise police presence in every community in Britain. That is precisely what we are discussing in the police reform process.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: As part of the reform, will my hon. Friend reflect on the experience of the Wandsworth and Greenwich packs police, which was established under a Greater London council provision to allow every London borough to have such a force for their open spaces and parks? Will he consider extending that power to all local authorities in England and Wales? In addition, will he consider extending the scope of the force so that it is not confined to municipally owned and controlled parks, but relates to other open spaces where the force could complement and supplement the work of a Home Office force?
    Mr. Clarke: There is a range of different approaches, including park wardens. Local authorities can pay for police officers, which they do in some circumstances to help to encourage the policing of their parks. We encourage that in certain regards. However, I am slightly wary of encouraging the growth of a parks police force that is separate from the official office of constable. I was in Merseyside the other day and people asked me why they had a ports police and a Mersey tunnel police.
    My hon. Friend's proposal raises some issues. It is important that there is co-ordination and organisation. Our crime and disorder partnership, which is a departure from the Opposition's approach when they were in government, attempts to establish the relationships that will encourage such a development.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on violent crime. [151710]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The British crime survey reported a 4 per cent. fall in violent crime between 1997 and the end of 1999, but violent crime is still too high and street robberies have increased. Our comprehensive strategy for dealing with violent crime is set out in "Fighting violent crime together: an action plan", which we published on 10 January. Violent crime encompasses a wide range of offences that differ from each other greatly in terms of both type and seriousness. Our overall strategic approach is based on improving support for victims, better policing, more effective punishment, dealing with the causes of violent crime and tackling the conditions that breed violence.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Home Secretary says that violent crime is still too high, and I agree with him. Is he aware that violent crime in Staffordshire has increased by 43 per cent? Is he further aware that, according to a parliamentary answer that he gave, we have lost more than 240 police officers from the beat since 1997? Does he not see a connection? Is it not the case that the Home Secretary, who has presided over the Hinduja passportsfor-money affair is not only seeing a breakdown of law and order in the country as a whole, but in his own Department as well?
    Mr. Straw: I am aware that although crime in Staffordshire has increased by 4 per cent. overall in the last four years, that compares with an increase of 154 per cent. in the preceding 18 years of Conservative government. I am the first to accept that crime is too high, but I point out that crime levels throughout the country have decreased, and that includes overall violent crime as measured by the British crime survey. It does not include robbery, and we are concerned about that. We are taking action to ensure that robberies go down as well.
    On overall police numbers, the Staffordshire chief constable has been provided with more than sufficient resources for an increase—
    Mr. Fabricant: Don't blame him.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but in 1994 chief constables were given the power to decide the number of constables that they needed, as opposed to civilian staff and equipment. The chief constable of Staffordshire chose significantly to increase the number of civilians. In 1997, there were 2,974 civilians and officers in Staffordshire, but at the last count, in September, there were 3,054 officers and civilians—an increase of 80. It is for the chief constable to decide how resources should be used. We have ensured that crime has fallen throughout the country and that the number of police officers is rising, and that is a significantly better record than that achieved by the Conservatives.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ms Bridget Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that at 8.30 this morning there was a train crash at Hither Green station in my constituency. Indeed, one of the trains involved was probably one that I would normally have used to get to Westminster. Although I am relieved that only nine people were relatively slightly injured and that the emergency services arrived very quickly and dealt with matters as professionally as we have come to expect, more than 1,000 people were on those two trains and many of them were probably standing. Have you heard whether a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement about whether there will be an inquiry into what happened at Hither Green this morning?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to hear that bad news. I have had no contact from any Minister.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful that you can consider this point, of which I have given you notice. On Friday morning, at column 527 of Hansard, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), gave an undertaking to the House. He said:
"On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I confirm that the Government will be tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated for the House to consider at that time."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) drew attention to the importance of that undertaking, when he said, at column 530:
"I did not catch whether he said 'on Monday' or 'for Monday'. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is an important distinction."
At column 531, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said:
"I apologise, Mr. Speaker. We need some clarification. I believe that the Minister indicated that he would be tabling a motion today for debate on Monday."—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 527–31.]
That relates to the motion that appears as No. 3 on today's Order Paper. Some of us consider the motion to be absolutely disgraceful, but that is an issue for tonight, unless, Mr. Speaker, you can give me satisfaction on my point of order. The Minister of State indicated dissent to my hon. Friend, indicating that the motion would not be tabled on Friday. However, it was tabled on Friday, meaning that Back-Bench members of the Committee to whom the proceedings refer, such as myself, who had taken the Minister at his word, did not remain here until the close of business. Having listened to the points of order on Friday, I thought I would have an opportunity to table amendments to the motion today. That has not been the case. Given the Minister's undertakings and the fact that the terms of the motion are outrageous, I ask that the motion not be considered today.
Mr. Speaker: What the Minister said on Friday is not a matter for me. A motion has been tabled, and an amendment has been put down. So far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Tuesday, you were kind enough to hear
628
an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24 on the situation in southern Serbia and Macedonia. Since then, the situation in the Presevo valley has got even worse. We now have news that Albanian extremists—the UCPMB—have refused NATO' s invitation for there to be Serb troops in the buffer zones. In view of the fact that Peter Feith, Lord Robertson's special envoy, has been rebuffed, that Kalashnikovs—mostly Chinese—are to be found all over the area, and that ground-safety zones are being abused, have you had any request from the Ministry of Defence for permission to make a statement about those dangerous events in the southern Balkans?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By way of brief background, I have been receiving telephone calls all weekend from Eddisbury farmers about the foot and mouth crisis. Following clearance on one suspected case just two miles from my home, Cheshire remains, as of this morning, a clean county—in stark contrast to the 1967 outbreak, when many farms across Cheshire were devastated.
Given reports that carcases from Devon are going to Cheshire for rendering at the Widnes plant, the backlog of burning on farms, the shortage of manpower, sleepers and coal, the need for the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the insurance industry to check everything, and despite the superhuman efforts of vets, we need to know whether there will be a statement to address the serious concerns of Eddisbury farmers. They are receiving reports of carcases, lying on disinfected sawdust only, going through their clean county in lorries with open air vents and loose tarpaulins. Live animals are now coming from Scotland through affected areas in Cumbria to St. Asaph. Without assurances, the farmers of Cheshire, and those of Eddisbury in particular, are deeply concerned that, by such action, the clean county of Cheshire will be affected.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be reporting to the House this week. That will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise these matters with him.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), would you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the Tories have completely misread the procedure? They have bungled procedurally, allowing the Liberal Democrats to jump in to do what they themselves should have done.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into the argument.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), Mr. Speaker. My point concerns the procedure for getting in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to foot and mouth.
I received this morning a phone call from Mr. Jan Rowe, a senior member of the National Farmers Union, about the Blakeney outbreak of foot and mouth in Gloucestershire. It is particularly serious because the person who owns the sheep in the Forest of Dean also has sheep running on the

629
two main rubbish tips in Gloucestershire. I understand that hundreds of lorries go to and from those tips each day without any precautions being taken. MAFF will not be able to inspect the sheep until Wednesday.
I immediately phoned the Minister' private office, to be asked by an official, "Have you rung your local animal health office?" I said, "Come on, I am a Member of Parliament. These are strategic issues which need to be dealt with centrally." He then told me, "I will get somebody to phone you back." Nobody rang me back.
I then telephoned the foot and mouth helpline, which is based in Yorkshire. The gentleman who answered the phone said, "It is no good phoning us: we are inundated with inquiries. Our information is way out of date; we are three days out of date on confirmed outbreaks of foot and mouth on farms." I said, "Thank you. You have given me all the information that I need to raise a point of order in the House this afternoon." He said, "I hope you will, and vociferously"—which I am doing now. We need a dedicated person in MAFF to deal with such serious points on foot and mouth—somebody at a senior level who can give us answers.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns have been noted.
Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the premeditated and yobbish behaviour of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three of her Whip colleagues, who disrupted Standing Committee F on Thursday, do you have any plans to issue guidance to right hon. and hon. Members, and to members of the Chairmen's Panel, about the power that a Chairman has to direct the Serjeant at Arms to deal with the withdrawal of non-members of Standing Committees if they are disrupting proceedings? Please tell us whether you plan to issue such guidance; page 704 of "Erskine May" suggests that the House has made orders relating to such incidents in the past.
Mr. Speaker: The Chairmen's Panel consists of experienced Members. They do not need more guidance. The Chairman of the Committee concerned showed that he has all the experience that is needed. I would be insulting the members of the Chairmen's Panel if I gave them any more guidance.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already raised a point of order. He will have to wait until the end of points of order. Members are rationed to one at a time.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the behaviour of Members. You are old enough, as I am, to remember the Profumo inquiry. Over the weekend, there have been some serious allegations made in newspapers against the Foreign Secretary and his behaviour in the House. I shall not comment on those allegations. However, as the Foreign Secretary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make any comment about a Member, he must write to me
630
about the matter. At the time of the Profumo affair, I was 17 years of age and I had more things on my mind than that affair.
Mr. Phil Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to a matter raised earlier, will you clarify what options are open to the House when four Members deliberately flouted the rules of the House by refusing to remove themselves from Standing Committee F last Thursday? It is particularly shocking that the leader of the rule-breaking rabble was the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She deliberately broke the rules to prevent the democratic passage of a Bill through Committee; I know that you personally disapprove of that action. What sanctions do we have to punish the right hon. Lady and to prevent a recurrence of her appalling behaviour?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should read Friday's record of events. That is the best advice that I can give him.
Mr. Blunt: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which again I have given you notice. I have been passed a letter from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on House of Commons headed notepaper. I gave notice to the hon. Gentleman that I would be raising the point of order. The letter is marked "in confidence" and it is addressed to two of his constituents. It reads:
"I am writing to ask for your help. The General Election is no more than six weeks away from being called. I can tell you confidentially that we have learned that Labour will be conducting extensive polling after the Budget on 7 March. If the results are positive, Tony Blair will call the Election on Monday 12 March."
It would appear that that polling has not gone terribly well.
The letter continues:
"As things stand, my agent will not be able to give our printer the go ahead for printing my election address. My agent tells me that we are about £1,500 short of our target to cover the cost. That is why I am writing to you to ask if you would make a donation towards my election address …"
I have two points of order. First, the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged to me that it was a mistake and that the letter should not have gone out on House of Commons headed paper. He is making arrangements to repay £1.20 to the House to cover the cost of the stationery. However, it is serious that a Member should importune people for party political funds on House of Commons paper. Is that sufficient recompense to the House, in your judgment?
Secondly, I presume that if the hon. Gentleman is writing to solicit funds for his re-election, his campaign to be elected as candidate for the Liberal party for Sutton and Cheam has begun, and that a record of his election expenses, including the cost of the letters, should also have begun.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Concerning the use of stationery and postage, the regulations have been broken. The Serjeant at Arms has looked into the matter and I understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will repay all the costs of the stationery. That will be the end of the matter.

Air Travellers (Provision of Health Information)
3.45 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require air carriers to provide information to passengers on health risks associated with flying and to contribute to research into such risks.
I introduce the motion with sadness and regret—sadness because it relates to the tragic death of one of my constituents last summer, and regret because I fear that we will not get all the airline companies to co-operate on such a matter unless they are forced to take action by legislation or the prospect of legislation.
My constituent, John Anthony Thomas, of Flemingston in the Vale of Glamorgan, was just 30 years old. He was in the prime of life; he was perfectly fit. He was a policeman and had just undergone a five-year police health check and had a clean bill of health. He returned from a dream honeymoon in Honolulu with his new wife and, a couple of days after returning, dropped dead with a pulmonary embolism.
That would be a tragedy for any family. When the Thomases asked me to get involved with the case, I thought at first that it was just one of those human tragedies that can affect anyone, and that there is not much that we can do about it—except that the family told me that had the consultant pathologist not mentioned that he thought that the death was due to a long-haul flight, the Thomases would never have made the connection between their young son's death and his recent honeymoon holiday.
For me, that rang alarm bells. If the Thomases found out only by accident, how many hundreds or possibly thousands of people have died from the same condition, without any such connection being made? Checks are not made in the NHS or in other hospitals to establish whether sufferers of deep vein thrombosis have recently taken long-haul flights.
I found out from my first meeting with the Thomases that it was the personal belief of the same pathologists that as many as 20 per cent. of deaths through DVT handled by the NHS could be due to air travel. If that is true, many thousands of people could be dying, unaware of the risks that they had taken. I, for one, knew nothing about the problem until it came up as a constituency matter, and I suspect that many citizens still know nothing about the possible connection between DVT and long-haul flights.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has done quite a bit in the House on the matter, precisely because his wife had suffered from the condition following a flight. We do not know with certainty whether it is a major public health problem or whether it affects only a small minority of people. Some experts say that scores die from DVT; others say that thousands, or even many thousands, are dying from it.
We must establish scientifically and objectively the scale of the problem. I am delighted that the Select Committee in the House of Lords has introduced an extremely responsible paper calling for more research into this worrying and possibly major public health problem. My Bill attempts to prevent a repetition of mistakes made when we were in exactly the same position regarding the
632
assessment of the implications of other public health problems. In the case of BSE, there was a long time lag before the effects first became apparent and we discovered that many people were dying and, indeed, may still die. In the case of the asbestos industry and the asbestosis connected directly to it, it took decades to make the connection. Some would say that the public health hazards caused by smoking and its connection with lung cancer took even longer.
My Bill proposes that we do not make the same mistakes again. We should undertake research now, but also take sensible, measured steps to ensure that people do not die or place themselves at risk unnecessarily during long-haul air travel. My Bill calls on the airline companies to provide up-to-date and accurate information on current health risks. Some airline companies that recently decided to do that because the public profile of the problem has been raised have, I fear, been slightly disingenuous. As I understand it, the information that they provide is misleading, inadequate and possibly dangerous.
It is said, for instance, that passengers on long-haul flights should stand in front of their seats periodically and exercise their legs and feet. If hon. Members do not already know it, that is virtually impossible in economy class seats where, one hour into the flight, most of the passengers are asleep the seat in front is reclined, and one is more or less pinned to one's seat for however long the journey takes. The exercises are thus impossible. Worryingly, there are also other examples of inaccurate and misleading advice. I wonder what the airlines have got to hide and why they are providing inadequate information.
The second part of the Bill calls on the airlines to update information when, following research, we discover the scale of the problem. Plenty of information is available: the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has produced a very good leaflet on steps that passengers can take and exercises that they can do to avoid the effect of so-called traveller's thrombosis. It is looking for sponsorship so that is can distribute those leaflets freely to all airline companies to ensure that all passengers can read the information and take precautionary exercise.
It is not just about exercise. One can take steps to minimise the risk, such as taking aspirin before the journey to thin the blood slightly, or wearing compression stockings during the flight to prevent blood pooling in the bottom of the legs and feet, which causes thrombosis and embolism. That is simple, basic advice and, as we learn more about the condition, airline companies have an obligation to distribute information to their passengers to reduce their risk of suffering from it.
Finally, the Bill aims to get airline carriers and companies to co-operate with any research into the scale of the problem. Again, there are worrying signs that our airline companies are not co-operating, and I must ask myself why. Worryingly, they are not providing ready access to passenger lists and medical records and are involved in limiting research. The Bill therefore includes three measured proposals which could make the difference between life and death.

633
I shall finish by quoting from a letter that I received from the mother of John Anthony Thomas last year. It was the first communication that I had received from her, and in it she said:
"1 beg you Mr. Smith, please do not let my son's death be in vain and do all in your power to ensure airlines face their responsibility for the health and well-being of their passengers."
That letter came from a distraught mother. My asking the House to accept this motion is a direct result of that plea, and of my promise to her and to her family that I would do all that I could to prevent any future deaths.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Smith, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Dr. Howard Stoate, Dr. Brian Iddon, Dr. Desmond Turner, Dr. David Clark.

Air Travellers (Provision of Health Information)
  AIR TRAVELLERS (PROVISION OF HEALTH INFORMATION)
  Mr. John Smith accordingly presented a Bill to require air carriers to provide information to passengers on health risks associated with flying and to contribute to research into such risks: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 59].
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 March].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  (1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
  (2) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (6) below, this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable;

  (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description. and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

  (3) Paragraph (2) above does not exclude the making of amendments with respect to value added tax—

  (a) providing for refunds of the kind specified in paragraph (4) below;

  (b) providing for that tax to be charged at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. on supplies of the descriptions specified in paragraph (5) below (and on equivalent acquisitions and importations); or

  (c) making provision of the kind authorised by paragraph (6) below.

  (4) The refunds mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) above are refunds of value added tax where—

  (a) that tax is chargeable on a supply to, or an acquisition or importation by, a museum or gallery, and

  (b) the supply, acquisition or importation is attributable to supplies of free rights of admission to the museum or gallery.

  (5) The supplies mentioned in paragraph (3)(b) above are—

  (a) supplies, in the course of a conversion of a building (or part of a building), of services related to the conversion if after the conversion the building (or part) contains living accommodation;

  (b) supplies, in the course of the renovation or alteration (including the extension) of a dwelling that has been unoccupied for at least three years, of services related to the renovation or alteration;

  (c) supplies of goods by a person making a supply of services within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) above if—

  (i) those services include the incorporation of the goods into the building concerned (or its site), and

  (ii) the goods are building materials within the meaning of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994;

  (d) supplies of children's car seats.

  (6) The provision authorised by this paragraph is provision re-enacting, without altering any person's liability to value added tax or the amount of any such liability, provisions providing for that tax to be charged at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. on certain supplies, acquisitions and importations.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]
  Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In opening this third day of the Budget debate, I make no apology for repeating the accolades that are due to the Chancellor for the way in which he has ensured that our economy is offering prosperity, stability and success for the future. By choice, not by accident, and by conscious and deliberate action, the Government have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the fruits of stability and competence can be reinvested to bring greater prosperity in the years to come.
In lifting debt from the shoulders of the British people and in enabling us to pay our contribution in lifting debt from the developing world, we can ensure that we apply the people's money to the people's priorities. Those priorities, in health, education, regeneration and employment, are critical to a decent quality of life and to a future to be proud of.
In ensuring that we can invest in improved services, and in avoiding the failures of the past, we are turning the fruits of employment and the reductions in benefit payments into an ability to re-apply them for further employment and for reducing the need for those benefits. We have already spelled out the reduction, from 42p in the pound to 16p, of tax revenue spent on debt and on the payment of unnecessary benefits. That is a foundation on which we can build by reinvesting in social cohesion, and today I shall spell out some of the measures that we are taking to underpin that investment to ensure that quality teaching is in place and that we can recruit and retain the teachers that we need.
Having ameliorated the worst evidence of poverty through the measures that the Chancellor has taken since the election in 1997, and through the future measures spelled out in last Wednesday's Budget, we can now begin to concentrate on investment to overcome the need for ameliorative measures by tackling the causes as well as the symptoms. By investing in education and skills, self-reliance and independence, by liberating the talents of all our people so that they can contribute to their own well-being and reach out and contribute to the wider community, by investing in future success and, in particular, by investing in jobs and community regeneration, we can make it possible for those who follow us to continue an upward spiral of investment in key services, rather than the stop-go policies of the past.
Tackling the legacy of neglect has been the major task of the Government; avoiding its recurrence will be the task of the next Parliament. That is why the extra investment of a third of a billion pounds each year in education and extra investment in skills is so important. It is linked with further cash for employment and for our wider welfare-to-work measures. The Opposition would cut, whereas we are reconstructing. The Opposition were prepared to sacrifice services, whereas we are using them not only to ensure the liberation of the talents of the individual but to contribute to economic well-being, because economic prosperity and social well-being go hand in hand.
In the Chamber a few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Secretary of State, painted a picture—a distorted portrait—of my leadership
636
and that of my colleagues, describing it as centralist. She evoked the image of "Thunderbirds". I reminded Lady Penelope that her party introduced the national curriculum, centrally directed tests, the Office for Standards in Education, the predecessors to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Funding Agency for Schools. [Interruption.] Yes, I did pick up the issue of grant-maintained schools and, yes, Conservative Members introduced the Teacher Training Agency. Lord Dearing, to whom I pay tribute once again, managed to dig them out of a hole by slimming down some measures.
This Government Lave taken further steps to lighten the national curriculum, slim down the TT'A, amalgamate the two predecessor bodies into the QCA, lighten the inspection regime and ensure that it falls less frequently on schools that are doing well and provide through the literacy and numeracy strategies the relevant support to make the tests attainable.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State talks about lightening the administrative burden, but is he aware that teachers in Staffordshire, whether they work in a comprehensive school or not, say that they are bogged down by the administrative burden? Does he not understand the betray 11 that teachers feel, especially given the promise that he and his team made in 1997, when they said that they would produce a new funding system, which was not delivered, whereby Staffordshire would not remain second from bottom in funding per pupil? The combination of burden, red tape and low funding in Staffordshire remains.
Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that the legacy of low funding is nowhere near what it was when we took office in 1997. Direct funding to head teachers, which we enhanced last week to an average of £70,000 for a secondary school and an average of £24,000 for a primary school for running costs, will have helped schools in Staffordshire as it has helped schools across the country. The two-thirds reduction in paperwork over the past six months—the figure for primary schools is 40 per cent.—will have helped to raduce the time taken to access that paperwork.
Paperwork for literacy and numeracy—for example, the grammar guide, which was sent out last term—is not bureaucracy or administration, but direct support. I again make the point to the House that those who want to direct teachers to teach in a particular way and who want to toughen up on phonics should not also claim that teachers should not be directed on how to teach. Those who are prepared to abandon phonics, decent spelling and grammar and the literacy hour should stand up and be counted.
I have made the point before, but it is worth making again, that Conservative Members can hardly claim that they introduced the literacy hour, given that the hon. Member for Maidenhead famously said that 60 minutes is too long for the literacy hour, thus redefining a metric hour, which no doubt will be an interesting feature of any debate on Europe.
Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State referred to the Teacher Training Agency, and he always tries to convey the impression that he is a sound traditionalist, although it is obvious that Mr. Chris Woodhead, among others, is not so persuaded. Is the right

637
hon. Gentleman aware of the abominable observations of those three supposed specialists in the teaching of reading, Kimberley, Meek and Miller, who are on record as saying:
"Within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out and children must therefore learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts."
What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give that such drivel, which has done so much damage to the life chances of a generation of children in our state schools, is not continuing to spread like a disease?
Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reading of that piece of psycho-babble.
Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend quoted it from memory.
Mr. Blunkett: From memory! That is a remarkable achievement. I reinforce my congratulations. What a smart and able Member the hon. Member for Buckingham is, and what a smart Alec, too. As far as I am aware, the three authors to whom he referred had nothing to do with the literacy hour. Fortunately, the phrase that he memorised and quoted has not passed over my desk.
Mr. Bercow: 1 am glad to hear it.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the accolade from the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to hear it, too.
Having disposed of that matter, we can get back to reality, which is the £200 million allocated last Wednesday—£100 million of revenue for running costs, and £100 million of devolved capital for heads and governors to use. Incidentally, that brings the amount of devolved capital available for investment in repair and renewal during the spending period 2003–04 to £600 million a year. That compares with £683 million, which was the total for capital investment in repair, renewal and new build for the whole of England in 1996–97. It clearly shows the transformation that has taken place as we move to an £8.5 billion investment in repair and renewal of our schools, which will help teachers to do the job better, will make the teaching profession more attractive and will ensure that youngsters get the environment they deserve.
Today, we are introducing new measures. Conservative Members raised the issue of administration and bureaucracy. I can announce a £35 million investment from the capital modernisation fund, which is entirely new money that was not announced last Wednesday. I am grateful to my Treasury colleagues for releasing £35 million for us to invest in a new management information system. It will enable us to ensure that we can collect, collate and transfer data, and thus avoid the statistical nightmare of constant data collection for different purposes. It will be possible to transfer data between schools and age groups, so that the unique pupil number and added value measures can be introduced more effectively; so that collated information on children in the primary sector can be transferred easily and quickly to secondary schools; and so that we can reduce the volume of form filling to about one working week per head per year, which will make a substantial contribution to reducing pressure on heads and teachers. I am pleased that we have been able to make a start on that.
638
I am also able to give details of the additional £200 million programme over three years, which was mooted in the Chancellor's Budget statement, for recruitment and retention measures for teachers.
Mr. Phil Willis: My party strongly supports the introduction of a bureaucracy-buster and the passing on of records, which is an excellent initiative, but how does the Secretary of State intend to commission the work? One of the great problems in the past has been that schools and education authorities have all gone their own way. Unless the software is consistent, the system will fall down when children transfer from one authority or school to another.
Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree that there has been a problem, although, in the context of Government as a whole, my Department's record on implementing new technology—in the Student Loans Company or in the development of the national grid for learning—is not bad. In the latter context, we shall want to move quickly, in consultation with representatives of heads and with the e-envoy, to ensure that we get it right. Compatibility is an important factor.
The retention and recruitment package will build on steps that we have already taken. Whatever people may feel about the immediate problem of recruitment, there has been a remarkable turnaround in the attitude to teaching, especially among young people. I would not go so far as to say that teaching has become fashionable again, but a 19 per cent. uplift in applications for the next academic year and a remarkable increase in the number of inquiries constitute symbols of hope.
This time last year, there were 51,000 inquiries; this year, there have been 141,000. The 19 per cent. uplift in applications for September—which, of course, will not feed through in terms of teachers in the classroom for another 18 months—includes a 14 per cent. increase in maths applications, a 27 per cent. increase in science applications and a 7 per cent. increase in modern languages applications. That is a substantial and welcome improvement, which we must build on as quickly and effectively as possible; but we must also keep teachers in the classroom, which is why our measures are about retention as well as recruitment.
It will certainly not help if teachers walk away from children, leaving others to cover classes, denying the children an education and reducing their chances of future success. It will not help those children to do well in tests, GCSEs and A-levels. No one will gain unless those in classrooms act as professionals and ensure that cover is provided while we take the measures that have been demanded to lighten the pressure and ensure that enough teachers are in the classrooms. I thank all the professionals who have been doing that job—under considerable strain in some schools—and appeal to others not to make matters worse by walking away from children who need teachers to cover their classes.
This is a real problem, which arises from decades of under-recruitment and loss to the profession. Together, we need to do something substantial to ensure that, while we await the outcome of new applicants' training, a return to teaching is an attractive option.
Two years ago we introduced "golden hellos", and enhanced them for shortage subjects. We introduced training bursaries to give postgraduates an incentive

639
to train. We introduced the graduate teacher programme, which has been such a success in the development of in-school training, and the new training schools: it is working extremely well, as I saw for myself this morning when I visited Southfields community school. This time last year, on the back of the Budget of 2000, we put a further £180 million into the programme. I believe that we are beginning to turn the corner and that the success of our measures is shining through, but the time scales are agin us.
Mrs. Theresa May: Along with others, I raised a number of problems relating to the graduate teacher programme during a recent Opposition day debate on the teaching profession. We mentioned the calculation of subjects that would qualify for the programme, and various other issues to do with the qualifications of those entering it. The Secretary of State undertook to tackle those problems; what has he done?
Mr. Blunkett: I was planning to deal with that matter later, but I shall do so now. The hon. Lady proposed to slim down the administration and application of school-based graduate teacher programmes. I am pleased to tell her that we will take the action that she advocated. I said that we would examine her proposals, and I meant it. We have accepted them and shall implement them. They are part of the programme that we are announcing today.
As we are on the subject, I can also announce that we shall substantially increase the graduate teacher programme by adding another 570 places, bringing the total number to 2,250. That will make a substantial contribution to enabling people with experience to receive a salary while training and to encouraging them. The increase will commence at Easter.
I am seeking to ensure that we do not treat the issue as a football to be kicked around. I am prepared to listen and to learn. I shall continue to offer everyone—Members and members of the public—the opportunity to offer ideas on how to deal with teacher shortages in some of our schools and some of our regions. I assure the House that we will work with people and take those ideas on board.
Mr. Willis: In our previous debate on the subject, the issue of the degree requirements for those who wish specifically to access key stage 3 teacher training was raised. Graduates who had not trained in a national curriculum subject were being denied access to training. The Secretary of State said that he would investigate the issue and report back. Has there been any progress on it?
Mr. Blunkett: Although I shall try to avoid reporting back on everything today, I shall do my best, so that hon. Members can tick off the boxes. I acknowledged that there was an issue, and we have investigated it. We have also agreed with the Teacher Training Agency and institutions that if the course content of a degree is sufficient to provide assurances that an individual has the necessary background and foundation to take on a specialism, that individual may access training for the specialism. In our previous debate, a psychology degree was cited as an example. If graduates are able to show that their psychology degree involved sufficient statistics content to enable them to undertake maths training, they should be able to participate in such training.
640
I hope that that assures the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that we are trying to balance the desire to ensure quality with the relevance of an individual's background. We are trying also to offer upgrade courses in specialised subjects, so that there is not an automatic cut-off for applicants. Those who are particularly committed and interested should be able to take in-service courses, making it possible for them to transfer to those specialisms.
In some schools and some parts of the country, non-specialists have had to take on specialist teaching to ensure that cover is provided. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, as an ex-teacher, will be aware that that has happened for many years. As someone who taught in a college of technology, I was aware that it was happening around me. I shall never forget being asked to teach law. I said that although I had A-level law, I was not intent on teaching it. I think that many teachers have found themselves in a similar position.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are victims of our own success? The simple fact that an extra 1.1 million people are in jobs, that wages are increasing and that there are pressures on housing markets in the south-east perhaps helps to explain why, although we are investing enormous sums in teacher supply, it is still difficult to square the circle. Although standards axe rising, there are still many options for good teachers.
Mr. Blunkett: There are indeed. By trying to recruit more teachers, rather than fewer; by recruiting an extra 7,000 teachers in the past two years while seeking to reduce class sizes and ensure not only in-service training for mainstream teachers but training for supply teachers; by putting in place booster classes that are attractive to supply teachers; and by offering professional development courses that teachers find attractive, but which require cover, we are perhaps making a rod for our own back in trying to match supply and demand. That is particularly true in high-cost area; in which attractive salaries can be paid and there are additional costs. That is why the review body report recommended substantial uplifts of 30 per cent. in London weighting and outer-London weighting and retention bonuses of £5,000 a year to be rolled into a £15,000 package of retention over three years. That is why performance-related pay, which we introduced, is so critical. It offers not simply an uplift of £2,000 for good teachers but access to new pay scales of an additional £4,000. That will make a difference to retaining as well as attracting teachers.
This afternoon's package will deal with the problem of how we get people back into the profession now. The immediate £2,000 incentive—£4,000 for shortage subjects, which matches the bonus that is already in place for new recruits to the profession—will, I hope, be an attractive proposition, but it needs to be matched by other measures. Those measures will include an acceleration of the graduate teacher programme and a £35 million programme of funded measures this year, to be matched by at least £35 million in the next financial year. The money will go directly to head teachers and governors, without bureaucracy and administrative difficulty. There has to be co-ordination. We want a light-touch approach at local authority or area level, using the recruitment managers who are already paid for by the Department and are in place.

641
The money will enable head teachers to pay for additional housing costs and for care components, if needed, to help returners with the costs of child care and of caring for older relatives. It will enable travel costs to be met and changes to incremental scales to be offered. The scale on which a post is offered can be changed to meet the needs of a returner, whether that person has just had a family or took early retirement.
I was tickled to hear that one of the agencies had written to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, an ex-head teacher, to ask whether he would like to come back to the profession. I gather that he has reserved his position until after the election—a wise man. I have been out of the profession for so long that no one has sent me anything, but one never knows.
The new funding will be made available immediately, but through the review body we will simultaneously consult to avoid any misunderstandings or allegations that we did not consult. We will ensure that the money is made available as speedily as possible to those who return to the profession.
I hope that the measures will enable us to say to people on the edge of returning to the profession that this is an appropriate moment to do so. We will offer free update courses of six weeks and child care provision. We will also pay a bursary during those six weeks so that there is no disadvantage to the family.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate the Secretary of State on what he and his colleagues have been doing to improve standards, particularly with regard to the recent intervention on behalf of schools in Thurrock. That was timely and much appreciated by parents and me.
Will my right hon. Friend undertake to revisit a problem with the allocation of scan e resources from the Department? I understand that the indices include the number of children who have free school meals and levels of employment. In my area, although unemployment levels are not high, a lack of wealth and opportunity is disguised by the large retail sector, which pays relatively low salaries. The numbers of the many children who are greatly deprived are not reflected in the indices of free school meals and unemployment. The allocation of funds needs fine tuning to reflect tradition ally poor areas.
Mr. Blunkett: There is always a problem with crude measures versus complexity—between trying to set up simple measures of deprivation and the complicated evaluations that inevitably have to be dealt with through greater central administration. There is a dichotomy between what is fair and what is simple, as I can well understand, for example, in relation to the pupil learning credits that we announced in the Green Paper.
This afternoon's package will be aimed at areas where vacancies exist; it will be tailored both to particular geographical areas and to schools with the biggest problems. The money will follow the problem and will thus be related not to prosperity or bidden deprivation but to the specific problem that we want to overcome. As with other measures in the Green Paper, we shall apply some of the resources proposed in last week's Budget, together with the spending review allocations, to ensure that we can be flexible on other measures hat will be attractive and fair to people coming into the profession.
642
As I said, some hon. Members are concerned about undergraduates taking BEd and BA courses. We want to use some of the Budget resources for experiments in the fourth year of such undergraduate courses to enable students to achieve qualified teacher status early and move into the classroom as appropriate, and to help them financially. I look forward to being able to move on that matter, on which there will be further consultation.
I hope that this afternoon's package will enable us, once again, to appeal to people to work together, rather than against each other, to solve a genuine difficulty. Success breeds success, as schools show through their higher standards and achievement; and, with the additional support and resources that have been made available, they will be able to tell others that teaching is an excellent profession to be in. We can see from the increased number of applications that young people believe that. We can reach out to former teachers and draw them back into the profession.
We cannot solve all the problems that arise from the success of the economy in parts of the country where prosperity puts enormous pressure on housing costs and offers alternative employment. However, we can take steps to match that. We are putting in place the precise measures that most people wanted, ensuring that recruitment, retention and reward go hand in hand. In a spirit of collaboration, we are challenging the main Opposition party to say whether it will match the funding that we are putting in place. The commitment of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor applies only to money allocated to schools. However, there will be allocations from the DFEE budget for many of the measures that we are taking, including the information technology package to reduce administration. Given the extra resources that we are putting in, in the event of the Opposition miraculously finding themselves on the Government Benches, it would be interesting to hear where the cuts of £8 billion and tax cuts of £8 billion would be imposed. I doubt that Conservative Members will answer the question because no one in Conservative central office has worked it out yet. Everyone outside knows perfectly well that the sums do not add up.
The foundations that we are laying today will carry forward opportunity for all our children, investment in schools across the country, greater delegation of budgets and the freedom of heads to use them. We are introducing measures that directly address the problem of recruitment. We are overcoming the legacy of years of neglect that we inherited. We are very pleased indeed to have been able to do that. I am grateful to the Chancellor for enabling me to announce these measures this afternoon.
4.29 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: Four years ago, this Labour Government were elected with the priority, "education, education, education." Four wasted years later, they have manifestly failed to deliver on that promise. That is clear to anyone who visits schools and listens to teachers complaining about the burden of bureaucracy; to head teachers complaining about Government interference; to governors complaining about the overload of red tape; to pupils complaining about disruptive children being kept in class, damaging their education and that of others; or to parents worried about teacher shortages that are creating difficulties in their local schools.

643
Jenny Short, the head teacher of Loddon junior school in Earley, wrote in her open letter to the Prime Minister,
"As a head teacher of a junior school, I am at a complete loss as to how to cope with the staffing problems I now face."
She set out those staffing problems and continued:
"Whilst I shall continue to make every effort to cover absence in the event of illness, if this proves to be impossible, children will be sent home."
She has subsequently been in touch with me and said:
"I leave my school after five years and two successful OFSTEDs exhausted and disillusioned. Once we could choose our teachers carefully with due regard for the balance of age and experience, ability and expertise, personality and potential to fit in with our high standards and ethos. We could build on our successes, make real improvements …Now …the daily staffing crises reduce us all to firefighters where strategic planning and real improvements are impossible".
On a doorstep in Hurst during the weekend, a parent told me, "The Government promised education would be their priority. I haven't seen any evidence of it."
So as we consider the Budget's impact on education, what is the end-of-term report on the Government and the Secretary of State? "More red tape—done. Increased interference from Whitehall—done. Teachers leaving in droves—done. Larger secondary classes—done. More disruptive pupils in class—done. Grammar schools under threat—done. Abolition of grant-maintained status—done. Fiddled figures—done."
The legacy of the Government's four wasted years is a national crisis of teacher shortages, a demoralised teaching profession, schools threatened with four-day weeks, standards damaged and children's education suffering—for the Government, who came in promising so much, have delivered little, not just in education. The Secretary of State did not refer to any of the comments on the new deal that the Chancellor made in his Budget speech, because the Government have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the new deal—a scheme that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown has directly resulted in only 13,000 jobs.
The evidence shows that the new deal works when the private sector is involved, using its expertise and flexibility in the interests of unemployed people—for example, Reed Executive in Hackney and Pertemps in Birmingham. We have seen what the private sector can deliver. That is why we will replace the new deal with "Britain works", which will involve private sector expertise and will focus on getting people into jobs as soon as possible and helping them to stay in them. "Britain works" will be a better deal for unemployed people, for employers and for taxpayers. The new deal is a broken pledge.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that the shadow Chancellor's policy of keeping inflation below 2 per cent. would inevitably drive up interest rates, thus increasing unemployment and resulting in less money for education?
Mrs. May: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consider the inflation rate at the moment. I understand that it is less than 2 per cent., so perhaps he should reconsider his intervention. He should look at the new deal figures,
644
which show that the programme has failed to provide jobs for young long-term unemployed people; that the rate of decline in long-term youth unemployment has slowed under this Government in comparison with what was happening during the last years of the Conservative Government; and that where the new deal works, it does so because the private sector is involved. With "Britain works", we shall ensure that the private sector is involved, to get people into jobs.
Mr. Blunkett: Why has long-term youth unemployment fallen by 75 per cent" Why did the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research say that the new deal has added £500 million steady state a year to GDP? Why did it acknowledge that more than 200,000 youngsters have got into jobs faster? Why are 274,000 youngsters who had been unemployed for more than six months now in work when they were not when we came into office? And why are employment zones working so well that even the Conservative party cannot think of abolishing them?
Mrs. May: The figure from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research is 13,000 new jobs from the new deal. The report showed that hundreds and millions of pounds hive been spent to find 13,000 jobs. Unemployed people deserve a better deal. They do not want to be put on training programmes only to find that they come off them when they go back on to benefit because there is no job for them. The new deal has become a revolving door for too many of the long-term unemployed, and that is why it needs replacing with a better scheme. "Britain works" will be that better scheme. The new deal is a broken pledge.
Let us consider the Government's education promises and look back on their early claims about extra education spending. Three years ago, in the first comprehensive spending review, the Government announced an extra £19 billion for education. We soon saw how wrong that figure was. As The Guardian said:
"Mr. Blunkett's claim to be spending an extra £19 billion has collapsed in empty rhetoric".
The Times reported:
"Mr. Brown added together increases over three years to produce his global figures of ti billion more for education … This is misleading since it represents triple counting".
[Interruption.] The Secretary of State seems to be commenting on the author of The Guardian report, but perhaps he would like to comment on the rebuke that he received from the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which said that there was
"no cash bonanza of the type which newspaper headlines might suggest".
True to form, the Government have been up to their old tricks. They are perhaps getting a little better at hiding them—as they do in table C13, on page 202 of the Red Book. The Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion of spending on education, but a comparison of the figures on page 202 of the Red Book with the latest comprehensive spending review show s that, as a result of the Budget, the increase in education spending over the next three years is actually £200 million—not £1 billion. The answer is that one simply cannot believe a word that the Government say about their spending.
That is not the only' way in which the Government are fiddling the figures. Ministers welcomed the School Teachers' Pay Review Body recent pay award for

645
teachers, but they did not tell anyone that they were not going to fund the increases fully. Local education authorities will have to find the extra money, and schools will see their budgets being cut to provide the pay for teachers.
Ministers claimed to put £65 million into school budgets this year for the new AS-levels, but how many schools have seen a penny of that money? Their teaching costs have gone up, their resources costs have gone up and their examination costs have gone up, but the Government have not provided them with the extra funding to pay for that.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: May I remind the hon. Lady that I spent some years in local government? In every one of the 18 years of the Conservative Government, my local authority had to find a proportion of teachers' salaries—and she can check that point out. She should not complain about this Government when they are trying to do something to right that wrong.
Mrs. May: The Government are not doing that; that is the whole point. Local authorities today have to scrape around for the extra cash because the Government are not providing it. The Government hide and fiddle the figures so that schools do not know exactly what they will get, and fail to provide the funding that they promise for schools. The expectations of teachers and parents have been raised, but that is why they are now becoming totally disillusioned and fed up with the Government, They have heard so many promises on which the Government have completely failed to deliver.
We should not be surprised by that, given that, when the Government claimed to be introducing fairer funding, they said that more money would go direct to schools. while at the same time specifying 89 categories of spending that local authorities could hold back from schools. The Government promised that they would change the standard spending assessment within a year of coming to office but they have done nothing about it. Few schools in the numerous authorities—such as Wiltshire, Worcestershire, Dorset, Leicestershire and indeed Staffordshire, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred—that have been disadvantaged by that calculation think that funding today is fairer. That is certainly not what I heard last week from heads in Wiltshire who face problems and budget deficits because of the difficulties caused by the Government's lack of funding. In any case, how much of the money announced in the Budget will be top-sliced from local authorities and redistributed to them as new money?
What about the way in which the Government tell schools how to spend their money? During a visit to a secondary school in Formby last week, I was told by the head, "I've got four pages of A4 which describe all the different funding streams that come into this school. One page covers the funding streams over which we have discretion; three pages cover the funding streams over which we have no discretion." The Secretary of State referred to the Chancellor's Budget announcement of an extra sum that will go directly to schools, but that is only true of about 1 per cent. of the money. Money should go directly to schools so that heads have the freedom to spend it in the best interests of children in their classrooms: they should receive 100 per cent. of it
646
directly. Heads should have the freedom to spend the money on what they know is needed in their schools in the interests of their pupils.
The Secretary of State mentioned devolved capital. At a primary school in Woodley this morning, the head told me, "It's all very well talking about this devolved capital, but the problem is that I am only allowed to spend it in chunks of £10,000 and then only on certain priority areas. I can think of a lot of things I want to spend the money on, but I am not allowed to." We are far from the Secretary of State's claim that the people's money is being spent on the people's priority. Instead of the people's money being spent on schools' priorities, it is being spent on Labour's priorities.
It would be unfair to suggest that the Government have not increased spending on education, however. They have increased the amount that is spent on advertising in the Department for Education and Employment and the money that is wasted on bureaucracy. During the past four years, the Government have introduced 530 regulations. In the past year, they have sent out a directive a day to teachers. They have published well over 2,000 press releases and goodness knows how many of the Secretary of State's speeches have been published in glossy booklets. Increased spin—done.
At the top of the Government's list of achievements, however, is the increase in bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork that they have imposed on teachers. The Secretary of State mentioned reducing bureaucracy. In the Green Paper that was published a few weeks ago, the Government claim that they have reduced the number of pages of material sent to primary schools by 1,170 pages to just 490, but it was their fault in the first place that those schools were receiving nearly 2,000 pages of circulars telling them what to do.
What about the time that that bureaucracy, which keeps teachers away from the core job of teaching children, takes up? The Government say in the Green Paper that the standards fund will be changed and not all the money will go directly to schools. Some categories will remain as they are, but the system is apparently being changed to save time in schools. However, according to the Government, schools have spent three months filling in forms for the standards fund. That is hardly a reduction in bureaucracy.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's concerns reflect those that hundreds of teachers throughout my constituency—from north to south and from west to east—have put to me over the past four years. Is she aware of a written answer given by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) that said:
"The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]
Given that the vacancy situation is three times worse in the capital than at national level and that one fifth of people who leave their posts are leaving the profession altogether, is that not the most damning indictment of the continuing failure of this Administration?
Mrs. May: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a telling intervention. It seems that the Minister of State, Home Office knows a great deal more than the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about what is happening

647
in the education system today. The problem is that people are leaving the profession because of bureaucracy and red tape.
One has only to look at the 2 March edition of The Times Educational Supplement, which has a front-page heading, "Crisis? What crisis?" What annoys teachers, head teachers, governors and parents is that unlike the Minister of State, Home Office, the Secretary of State fails to recognise the impact of his policies on the morale of the profession and the crisis that his actions have generated in our schools. The headlines inside the TES say, "Morale plummets as shortages rise" and "Official denials only add insult to injury". The head teacher of New college, Leicester says:
"We'll reach meltdown unless a miracle happens by September."
The head teacher of the Malling school in Maidstone says:
Don't even let me hear Estelle Morris say again 'there's not a crisis'. Come and spend a week in Kent."
That is what is happening in our schools under the Labour Government.
The Secretary of State tells us that everything is all right because the number of applications at the graduate teacher training registry has gone up. If we look back over the four years of this Government, we see that there are fewer applications than in 1997. Applications to teach maths have fallen by 21 per cent. since that year: applications to teach modern languages have fallen by 26 per cent. and applications to teach English have gone down by 19 per cent.
Despite all the cash incentives and all the money that the Government claim to be spending on the problem, teachers are still not coming forward. Teacher applications have fallen and teachers are leaving the profession because they are demoralised by the red tape and paperwork that the Government have imposed and because the Government's interference means that they can no longer get on with the job that they want to do, which is teaching children.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend also comment on the management of the Department? I have just received two written answers to a parliamentary question. I asked the Secretary of State when he would reply to my letters dated 8 November and 21 September 2000 concerning the exclusion from holiday play schemes of children with medical conditions. I wonder if my hon. Friend can help me, because I have had two replies to the same question. The first says:
"I replied to the hon. Member on Friday 9 March".
The second says:
"I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."
Both those answers have just arrived on my desk. Can my hon. Friend tell me which is correct? Do I have a reply or not?
Mrs. May: I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that I know the Secretary of State's mind no better than it seems he or his Ministers do. My hon. Friend makes a telling point about the bureaucracy in the Department—the very bureaucracy that causes problems for our schools and teachers. I can only suggest to him that perhaps the people
648
who were supposed to be responding properly to his question were too busy drafting yet another circular to send to teachers.
We know that because of the shortage of teachers many schools have been able to operate without sending children home only because of the large number of supply teachers from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries. Unfortunately, those schools may soon find that they face another problem. An article in Sydney's The Sun-Herald yesterday said:
"Australian teachers recruited to work in British schools are quitting in increasing numbers because of poor behaviour by students and alien working conditions."
The headmaster of Chalvedon school and sixth form college in Essex, who recruited nine Australians, finds five months on that four of them have left. As another teacher said:
"Staff shortages are so severe that we are getting Australian teachers who get off the plane one day and are literally standing in front of a class the next".
That is the state to which the Secretary of State has brought our education system in his four wasted years in office.
Let us look at funding for schools and bureaucracy. We know that the Government will never give schools all the money or stop the bureaucracy, because they simply do not trust teachers or parents. The Secretary of State referred in his speech to liberating the talents of individuals. I hardly think that his proposals for advanced specialist schools in the Green Paper represent "liberating the talents of individuals". Advanced specialist schools will be able to
"volunteer to take on a number of innovative ideas".
Good—I am in favour of innovative ideas in education. However, as we read on, we learn that they can only do so
"from a menu developed centrally".
Yet again, the Goverrment are obsessed with centralising and interfering, rather than letting schools get on with doing what they know is right for children in their classrooms.
As the former chief inspector of schools said:
"David Blunkett has presided over a set of initiatives that has wasted taxpayers' mom .y, distracted teachers from their real responsibilities and encapsulated the worst of the discredited ideology that has done so much damage since the 1960s".
That is what this Government have done instead of delivering on education.
Mr. Blunkett: I should be ever so grateful if the hon. Lady would tell me whether she agrees with one or two of the initiatives to which she is referring, such as the excellence in cities programme, the new deal for schools, the national grid for learning and the reduction in class size—all of which were listed as initiatives over and above the two with which the former chief inspector of schools agreed. Does she think that all or any of those should have been initiated, or would she abolish them?
Mrs. May: The Secretary of State still does not get the point. The point is that schools should be given all of their budget and allowed to spend it on what they think is right for children—not on what the Government think is right. Head teachers constantly tell me that they want the ability

649
to spend the money that is due to their school in the way that they think fit—in the interests not of the Government but of children.
Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady clear up a misunderstanding, probably on my part? Will central funds be the same for each child in a primary school and for each child in a secondary school, wherever in the United Kingdom that school may be?
Mrs. May: No, the national funding formula will take account of some differential needs. I am happy to clear that up for the hon. Gentleman.
The next Conservative Government will get rid of the endless bureaucracy that takes teachers' time and resources and means that money is not spent in the best interests of children. We are absolutely clear that we will match the money that the Government are spending, and are proposing to spend, on schools. That will include the increases to which the Secretary of State referred in his speech today, which were announced in the Budget. Perhaps more important, we will tackle serious reform of education by devolving all budgets to schools and by ensuring that money which is currently held back by local education authorities and central Government goes to schools. That will mean hundreds of extra pounds per pupil for schools.
We are not just about devolving money. Head teachers should be given the freedom to do the job for which they were trained. A head teacher from Essex wrote to me recently:
"We as head teachers need more finance into the school with the freedom to be creative with it to suit our needs. We need less paperwork and more encouragement as a profession".
The Secretary of State seems not to understand when teachers' representatives tell him that the introduction of the various initiatives that he has described will not bring teachers back into the profession or help to recruit more of them. Potential teachers do not want to join a profession in which they will be the mouthpieces of bureaucrats in the town hall and at Whitehall.
As the staff at Willowbank junior school said to me this morning, they long to bring creativity and spontaneity, which are now being pushed out because of the imposition of targets by the Government, back into the classroom. The Government are imposing pressure on schools to do things in the way they want. Teachers and young people going into teaching want the freedom to use the skills that they have developed to inspire young people. The Government have yet to learn that inspiration does not come from a Whitehall circular.
Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. May: No. I have given way on several occasions and I shall not do so again.
We shall set schools free. Unfortunately, the Government and the Secretary of State cannot and will not see the need to do that. That is why they have failed to deliver. It is why we have teacher shortages, why children are being sent home early and why children are being taught by non-specialist and unqualified staff. It is why the Government will continue to fail.
650
We need a vision for education, and a Government with that vision. As long as we have a Labour Government who think that education is merely a tool for achieving politically set numerical targets or for meeting politically correct slogans, and as long as the Secretary of State agrees that teachers are learning managers, equipping children with "learnacy" skills, children's education will suffer.
Parents, children and teachers need a Government who value education in its own right, recognise the importance of instilling knowledge and encouraging creativity as well as teaching skills, and above all recognise the importance of inspiring children and young people to achieve. We will be that Government. We will set schools free, let heads manage and let teachers teach. We will raise standards in the classroom. Our children cannot afford another four years of Labour.
4.57 pm
Ms Bridget Prentice: After that strange rant about what goes on in our schools, I want to move on, but I have a comment about the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). When I visit schools in my constituency, I find that teachers and head teachers do not want every penny of spending devolved to them. They appreciate much of what the local education authority does for them and want it to continue to have a role.
I welcome yet another triumph of economic mastery by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I welcome also the money that will be given directly to schools. The move has been welcomed by schools in Lewisham in the past, and it will be welcomed again. However, I hope that the money will be used not only for the bread-and-butter issues of the day but more imaginatively to expand pupils' aspirations through creative projects that will further develop and enhance their future life styles beyond the classroom and after their lives in school.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement about funding to increase the number of teachers. As he knows, teacher numbers have been a problem in Lewisham, and continue to be. We have a peculiar problem that stems from the inadequacies of the Conservative Government, both in 1989 and 1993, when they did not deal properly with the recruitment and retention of staff in schools.
I shall take an overall view of the Budget. Anthony Crosland, writing in the 1950s at a time of growing prosperity, talked about
"the declining importance of economic problems"
and the need for a greater emphasis on personal freedom, choice, happiness and culture in future. Commenting on the values of those pioneers of the Labour movement, the Webbs, he wrote:
"Total abstinence and a good filing system are not now the right signposts to a socialist Utopia; or at least, if they are, some of us will fall by the wayside."
Almost half a century later, we are again living through a period of growing prosperity. I hope that Tony—Crosland, that is—may yet be proved right. We have in our Chancellor of the Exchequer a true stakhanovite—a man who wears more hair shirts than anyone since Thomas More. We have a Chancellor who has given us economic stability and whose values are work and thrift.

651
In the Budget, he is continuing to make work pay and to make savings pay out more. People will benefit from the Budget if they contribute to the economic prosperity through work.
I do not deny that there are traditional battles that still need to be fought and won. It is an indictment of 18 years of Conservative rule that when we came to power, one in three children were living in poverty. There was hopelessness and despair in some of our inner-city housing estates, including those in my Lewisham constituency. We inherited a Britain in which our NHS, schools and other public services had been run down to the brink of disaster. That is changing, sometimes frustratingly slowly, but the comprehensive spending review and the Budget measures are together building us a better Britain.
We must aspire to do more. Although we are acting to end child poverty—more than 1 million children will be taken out of poverty thanks to the Labour Government's policies—to eliminate sink estates and to provide an education system and an NHS that are second to none, we should not lose sight of the fact that, for many people, the important issues of the future are more leisure time, happiness, the arts, architecture and the environment.
Of course Budgets are important. They can have a real impact on the economy. Over the years, Budgets have become major spectator events, closely watched and extensively commented on by the media. However, for those doing nicely or who are quite well-off—in other words, large swathes of middle England—the Budget is only a sideshow. More important to them are the preservation of the green belt, the quality of local restaurants and the performance of their favourite football team, and rightly so.
Budgets need to strike a balance between helping those in need and rewarding those who contribute to making society a better place. They should expand people's aspirations and creativity and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, liberate the talents of individuals. That is why the changes in funding for churches and renovation have been particularly welcome in my constituency. Only yesterday, I visited St. Margaret's church in Lee to celebrate in choral evensong the magnificent renovations there. During the evening, many of my constituents commented on and welcomed that aspect of the Budget.
Budgets should expand horizons. People in Lewisham, like those elsewhere, want to be able to use their leisure time purposefully. They want their environment to be both preserved and protected. They are concerned about the built environment. They want to ensure that proper respect is given to our heritage, preserving all that is good from the past while also being interested in developing new ideas and constructs for the future. Budgets should aim to create an environment that allows for creative expression in the arts or sport. That is why the changes for museums in the Budget are so important.
The Government are committed to social inclusion. That involves not only work to alleviate poverty, raise standards in schools and reduce crime, all of which collectively improve the well-being of our citizens, but giving them the opportunity to enjoy the arts as both spectators and producers. As we create more wealth, we
652
need to create an environment where more people can enjoy that wealth. Thanks to the Chancellor's successful economic management over the past four years, we can do that. As a modern democratic socialist, I believe that economic policy must be about helping those at the bottom of the pile and creating a good-time society. For that reason, I very much welcome the Budget.
5.5 pm
Mr. John Major: "Education, education, education" was originally a cry from Lenin, who did not mean it. I suspect that the Secretary of State, who has just left, does mean it. He is sincere and, in his unavoidable absence, I should like to congratulate him on graciously adopting some of the: proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is shadow Secretary of State. That behaviour is as welcome as it is unusual, and I hole that future Governments of both complexions will be inclined to follow that particularly good example.
Turning to the Budget as a whole, I am pleased that the Chancellor has cut taxes and given back to taxpayers a small proportion of the money that he has extracted from them in the past four years. His generosity is not surprising: notwithstanding the problems of foot and mouth, a general election is pending and the public accounts show ample scope for tax reductions and, perhaps, modest expenditure increases. Yet, only a few weeks ago, when the Opposition said that, they were condemned as "irresponsible" by spokesmen from the Treasury and elsewhere. We now see how shallow those attacks were, for if the Opposition were irresponsible, why has the most prudent of Chancellors done what they recommended? In truth, my right hon. and hon. Friends were right to identify the scope for tax reduction. Not only were they right but, if the economy stays on course, there may be scope for even more tax cuts in future.
A principal reason for that remarkable leeway is the sheer size of tax increases over the past four years. We must disentangle fact from fiction. Prior to the Budget, there had been 26 increases in personal taxation and 19 increases in taxes on business in this Parliament. That number has risen slightly although, given the Chancellor's remarkable gift for sleight of hand, one must study the small print carefully to find out precisely how many tax increases there are. However, their sum total is enormous. The abolition of tax credits on dividends alone will cost shareholders about £6 billion in the current tax year. The reorganisation of advance corporation tax at the beginning of this Parliament has affected the quality of pension funds for millions of elderly people and cost those funds more than £5 billion during the course of this Parliament; it will do continuing damage until it is changed.
Even after offsetting tax reductions—of which there have been some, mostly minor, examples—the Inland Revenue's overall tax yield has risen by an astonishing one third during this Parliament. No wonder the savings ratio has fallen so badly. That is not a wicked Tory calculation; an independent survey shows the average family to be worse off than it was in 1996. The old tax-until-the pips-squeak bruiser Lord Healey must be salivating enviously at the extent of the tax rises forced through by the Chancellor.

653
More people have been dragged into tax. An extra 2 million now pay tax; 28 million pay it, compared with 26 million three years ago.
Mr. Mackinlay: That is just nonsense. What about unemployment?
Mr. Major: If it is nonsense, it is Red Book nonsense. Those figures come from the Red Book. Before the hon. Gentleman mutters into his non-existent beard, he should read the Red Book and check. It is possible that the Chancellor has given us more duff facts; we are used to that. However, if they are duff, that is his responsibility, not mine.
There are 2 million more taxpayers and 700,000 more higher-rate taxpayers than there were four years ago. In addition, mortgage interest relief at source has been scrapped, although I do not object to that particularly. However, not only has MIRAS been scrapped, but stamp duty on home purchase has been increased and national insurance contributions for middle-income earners have risen sharply. So much—on the eve of the next general election—for the promises that the Labour party made to middle England and middle-income groups throughout the United Kingdom on the eve of the last one. Those groups may also care to note that the yield from inheritance tax has soared 50 per cent. during this Parliament. The Chancellor still has no concept—I genuinely believe that he does not understand its value--of letting more of the fruits of a lifetime of work filter down to the people whom the earner most cares about: his own family and the next generation.
It is no wonder, with such tax increases, that the ratio of tax to gross domestic product has risen 2.5 per cent. to 37.7 per cent. The Chancellor, despite all his promises, has not so much wooed middle England as assaulted it.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, taking tax and borrowing together as a share of GDP—given that borrowing is deferred taxation—the figure went down two points from 38.2 per cent. in 1996–97 to 36.2 per cent. in 1999–2000, and down to 34.1 per cent. in the current year? The current figure is due to the spectrum auction of mobile phone wavelengths, but for the previous period, those two points represent the equivalent of an increase of 7.3p in income tax. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman simply borrowed instead of taxing, and tried to fiddle the figures.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that his Chancellor changed the way in which the figures are quoted in the Red Book, and the actual equivalent of what he has done is an extra 10p on tax The hon. Gentleman may care to examine that matter. [Interruption.] If it is nonsense, it is the Government's nonsense in the Government's own figures. Those are the figures that I am using. I am glad to hear from Labour Members that they do not believe them.
It is ironic that the Government and the Chancellor have increased taxes so much. During the last Parliament, I remember vividly the present Chancellor and his colleagues, ever ready to find a catchy slogan, repeating the slander of 22 Tory tax rises, with no acknowledgment whatever of any offsetting tax reductions. To call their attacks disingenuous would be kind. They were patently
654
untrue, and a forerunner of the manipulation of facts that has characterised so much—not all, but so much—of what the Government have said and done in the past four years.
The Government cannot deny that, because the figures for tax increases are now clear. The statistics cast light where the slogans cast deception. Before this Budget, the real increase in taxes over this Parliament was about 4.5 per cent. a year. Obviously, that figure is now a tiny bit lower, but not all that much. That compares with 1.8 per cent. between 1979 and 1997. I am indebted to the Institute for Fiscal Studies for pointing out that there were tax rises of 2 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1990, and of 1.3 per cent. between 1990 and 1997.
So much for the 22 Tory tax rises, or, indeed, the unsustainable proposition—unsustainable except by malice—that the previous Government wrecked the Tory tradition of low taxation. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who rather timidly accepted that fiction in the early part of this Parliament can now feel comforted that it was not true and refute it. They need not concede, but may safely move on and reassert our traditional tax credentials. Taxes were not unduly increased, despite the pressures of a recession that began in the 1980s and cast its shadow into the 1990s—although not, from the point of view of the health of the economy, much beyond 1992.
The Chancellor is ever ready to gloss over the excellent parts of his inheritance. He cherry-picks the bits on which he can make party political capital, and I do not blame him for that: most politicians do. However, he misses other bits. He is, after all, a very political Chancellor who wishes to be Prime Minister, and he is doing a bit of image building.
We need more facts and less of the fiction that we so often hear. The economy has been growing steadily since 1992, before—some hon. Members may not wish to hear this next point—sterling left the exchange rate mechanism. Unemployment has also been falling since that economic recovery began, and the very welcome job growth across the country—in both the number and the variety of jobs—has been consistent throughout the previous Parliament and this one.
Inflation, too, began to decline in the early 1990s and has remained low. It looks set to fluctuate only within historically narrow parameters.
Mr. Mackinlay: The Chancellor has been skilled, but I put that in perspective. Other factors have contributed, such as the ebb and flow of the economy, and I accept, to an extent, that employment growth was under way during the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. I have intervened only because of his breathtaking assertion that people are somehow worse off than in 1996, which defies both belief and the litmus test of what one sees and feels. There was extensive unemployment, particularly among poor and unskilled people, during the period to which he refers, and although I do not apportion credit or blame in respect of employment, people are now in jobs. Demonstrably, they are better off.
Mr. Major: Demonstrably, the people in jobs are better off. That is undeniably so, but I was referring to the scale of tax increases. If the hon. Gentleman reads some of the independent research, he will see precisely why I made that comment.

655
As it happens, I was about to give credit to the Chancellor. The economy is in good shape and he can take a great deal of satisfaction from that. I shall not be mealy-mouthed: he can take a good bit of credit for it as well. Were he to be similarly candid, he too would offer credit to his predecessors, because he has built on what they did and on a trend that was established five years before he went to the Exchequer.
For example, some hon. Members, but perhaps not all, believe that an economic miracle began on 2 May 1997. Let us take a date at random—1 May 1997. Growth was set to be 3.5 per cent. for the next year. Inflation was 2.6 per cent. and stable. Unemployment was falling rapidly and, although still high, was down to just over 1.5 million. The fiscal deficit was falling sharply—a point that the Chancellor invariably overlooks because it embarrasses his campaign to discredit his predecessors. The trend of a falling fiscal deficit was clear, and it was falling sharply. The right hon. Gentleman can take credit for not wrecking the trend, but he cannot take credit for beginning it, for it preceded him by four years.
I thoroughly welcome the fact that economic management has reached a maturity whereby the two major parties do not feel it necessary to reverse all the actions of their predecessor. That is beneficial to the British economy, and it will remain so for as long as that is the case. I may be wrong, but I think that the Chancellor took that too far in his first two years by adopting the previous Government's expenditure plans in toto. I can tell the House, and I hope that it is not a great shock, that we certainly would not have done that. We would have increased them in the two public expenditure rounds that followed, as we had in every public expenditure round since 1979.
Stakhanovite is one word; masochistic is another, which might perhaps describe more plainly the Chancellor's disposition. He has been an economic masochist over public spending. We hear a huge amount about public spending, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was at it as well this afternoon, but despite the hype about the unprecedented sums for health and education, the fact is that the Chancellor has raised taxes by far more than he has increased expenditure. The public have not noticed because one skill that the right hon. Gentleman has perfected is that of counting, and that includes the capacity to double count, overcount and miscount, which he has done repeatedly.
Again, I am indebted to the Institute for Fiscal Studies: total Government spending in this Parliament has risen at 1.2 per cent. a year in real terms. That is not only less than tax increases, but less than economic growth. It compares with public spending of 2.6 per cent. in the previous Parliament, which is a point that Liberal spokesmen have often made, although they are not often nice about the Conservative party. I am glad to see a nod of agreement, rather than a shake of the head, from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), because that is undoubtedly the case.
I concede that much of that expenditure was not discretionary: it resulted from the unavoidable impact of the recession. However, it puts in a better context that hoary old myth about Tory cuts, which the Prime Minister
656
is trying to recycle with his current spate of posters about potential future Tory cuts. Either he is ill-informed or scaremongering—probthly the latter.
The Government's publicity on cuts is familiar: it is an echo from the past. It was an odd experience in the last Parliament to be taunted by the Labour party over so-called cuts while hostile monetarists attacked us for spending far too much money.
Mr. Willis: Nothing has changed.
Mr. Major: The lion. Gentleman may be right.
The health of the economy in 1997 and subsequently suggests that we may have got that balance about right.
During this Parliament, the Chancellor has benefited from the supply side reforms of the 1980s and the disinflation brought about by the policies of the 1990s. When he chants his mantra of boom and bust—I lost count of the number of times that he and the Prime Minister uttered such drivel last week—he should remember that the last unsustainable boom was well over a decade ago. That h is not stopped the Prime Minister depicting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor as Mr. Boom and Mr. Bust. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury sniggers, but that is the politics of sneer and jeer. Neither of my right hon. Friends were policy makers at the time of the last boom, and one of them had barely been in the House of Commons.
There is a boom and bust today: a boom in tax raising and a bust in the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. Perhaps the Chancellor and the Prime Minister should concentrate on that boom and bust.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Major: I shall make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a redistributive Chancellor. He tries to hide that fact, but it is evident, and from his perspective he should not hide it. He aims to redistribute to the less well-off, but in general he redistributes to the Inland Revenue. Even his well-intentioned schemes are not wholly successful. I do not disagree with all of them. Bits of what the Chancellor has done have been good social justice, and if I had been in government with the economy that he now has, I would certainly have taken some of the measures that he has taken, and I am not remotely shy about saying so. However, some of those schemes have not been successful.
The Chancellor abolished the married couples allowance last year, and this year—after a helpful 12-month gap for the Treasury and the Inland Revenue—he has introduced a children's tax credit to replace it. However, many people will not receive that credit, because it is means-tested and millions will lose either some or all of it on the means-tested taper.
The organisation of that tax credit is a shambles. As it is based on the highest-earning member of the household, it throws up huge and unacceptable anomalies. If one parent works and earns £42,000 a year, no payment of the

657
child tax credit is made, whereas if both parents are at work, with no one at home with the child, and earn £35,000 each, the full credit is payable. As a means of social justice, attacking poverty and helping low-income families with children, this scheme is nonsense on stilts. If the Chancellor were serious, he would have examined those problems and sought to correct them before introducing the tax credit in its present form.
The minimum income guarantee is the Chancellor's safety net against poverty, but it is so complex that more than one third of eligible pensioner s do not claim it. The form is so complex and absurd that a large percentage of graduates might not claim it.
The 10p band extension is right in principle. I do not disapprove of minimising tax on lower income groups. However, the proposal is so niggardly and mean as to be almost pointless. The maximum gain from the Chancellor's measures in the Budget is 75p a week—that figure should strike a chord with Labour Members. Given pensioners' response to that amount previously, surely he should have done it differently.
Many of the main effects of all economic management, by every Chancellor of the Exchequer, become apparent some years after the announcement of the original tax and spending decisions. This Chancellor was lucky. He was lucky in his predecessors—lucky, notably, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lamont made the painful and unpopular decisions that contributed so much to the subsequent benign situation of which the present Chancellor has made such use in this Parliament. And—unless my memory is failing—I seem to recall that they made those decisions in the teeth of unrelenting opposition, not least from the present Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
I will not be in the House to see the Chancellor's legacy at first hand, but much of it is now predetermined. He inherited an economy of falling unemployment and low inflation, and he has maintained it. That was well done; but under his stewardship also, taxes have risen too much. The tax system has become far more complex. Manufacturing industry has declined further. Regulations have soared. Increases in business taxes are undermining competitiveness, and so in due course will the social charter, whose economic folly is not yet fully apparent but will become so.
It is, in truth, a mixed record—some good, some bad—for this luckiest and most fortunate of modern Chancellors of the Exchequer.
I cannot be certain, but this may well be the last occasion on which I shall speak in the House. Let me say that it has been a privilege beyond measure to be here, in this mother of Parliaments. I hope that the next generation of hon. Members, whichever of our peat parties they may represent, will feel as I did when I first came to the House; I hope that they will feel that way in future, and I hope that we shall be able to end the miserable political climate of spin and counterspin that has grown up in recent years.
We need to separate fact from fiction, substance from soundbite, information from innuendo. The public—the electorate—the people who sent us here—deserve more than to be spoon-fed a cocktail of headline-grabbing feel-good stories. They deserve the truth, unvarnished sometimes, but the truth, and every Member of this House, whether Minister or Back Bencher, has the obligation—the duty—to provide it.
5.27 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I hope that that was not the last speech that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will make in the Chamber. We can agree with some of what he says from time to time and disagree with other things he says, but we must all recognise that he has made interesting contributions to the House over the years—and, indeed, ended up being Prime Minister as a result. I hope that we shall hear from him one last time: he may say things that Labour Members do not like sometimes, but that is the nature of politics and the nature of debate.
I welcome some of the initiatives announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I appreciate the £8.5 billion capital investment in education, as I am sure will many local authorities, and the capital investment in the new transfer of information scheme from primary to secondary schools. If that will reduce the amount of paperwork, it must be worth while. As I said earlier, some of us—sadly—remember the years when the present Opposition were in government. They may talk of red tape, but I remember teachers showing me cupboards full of paperwork that they were expected to go through. It is not all Labour's fault; there is much for which to blame the other side. The Opposition talk of freedom, and money going directly to schools. Who introduced local management of schools—again, the forerunner of bureaucracy?
Opposition Members talk about teachers being demoralised, but who was it who took away teachers' bargaining rights? I seem to remember that it was Conservative Members—although they seem to have changed coats now. I also remember, some years ago, a Conservative Secretary of State receiving a very rough ride at a teachers' conference. Although I agree with Opposition Members that there are some cases of low teacher morale—no one would deny that—the Government are making various attempts to raise it.
I welcome some of today's announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, as they should help to lift teachers' morale. Training bursaries must be welcomed, because anything that encourages more people to enter the teaching profession must be good. I also welcome the increase in teacher training places to 2,250 as part of the direct funding package for education, which should commence in June. It is a good development which should also help to lift teachers' morale.
In many ways, the teaching profession was devalued by some of the measures implemented by the previous Administration in their 18 years in office. It is therefore perhaps not difficult to see why it is so difficult to persuade the profession to trust the current Government's efforts to help it.
Opposition Members have mentioned the Government's schemes to retrain young people and to get them into work. I remember three or four of the previous Government's youth schemes, some of which only served to disillusion young people. Indeed, those schemes may be part of the reason why we have a lost generation of young people. Regardless of what caused that disillusionment, it is indisputable that, because of this Government's action, 270,000 young people now have prospects that they never had before and 1.1 million adults have been able to take up full-time employment.

659
Such progress was never made under the previous Government. I remember when, under that Administration, there were between 3 million and 4 million unemployed. That is quite a contrast with the current situation. Conservative Members accuse others of cherry-picking issues, but they, too, address them selectively. They take credit for the improvements, but blame everything else on the Government.
A few weeks ago, I raised the general issue of education standard spending assessments. Often when Governments of whatever complexion say that they are providing money in the SSA, it turns out that that money is not available. I am not accusing my colleagues of doing that, but simply telling them that that means of funding is well worth examining. The sooner we do that, the better.
Reorganisations—school amalgamations and closures—are under way both in my constituency and in other parts of Coventry. I am not so sure that the way in which we are dealing with those reorganisations is always right. A consultation exercise is being conducted and the public are essentially being told that alternative proposals will be considered. However, it is not always appreciated that the public may need assistance in developing and proposing such alternatives. Some members of the public have never before dealt with public authorities such as big education departments, which have great resources, or tried to persuade them to change policy. Although drastically declining school rolls sometimes require the amalgamation or closure of schools, I believe that that policy, and SSA funding, should be revisited.
Other matters, such as further education, were not dealt with in the Budget, but we cannot have an education debate without considering them. The Government have made some progress on further education, but it is still sometimes treated like a Cinderella eduction sector, squeezed between secondary and higher education. I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to think about that. Very often, people who have not had the benefit of a university education find their niche in further education. I see the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), nodding his head.
I hope that in the next Parliament the Government will not be in favour of top-up fees. Universities are looking for a variety of means by which to raise resources. Only a couple of weeks ago, one of the universities in my constituency tried to introduce a system whereby students who did not have laptop computers would find it difficult to get into that university. I hope that the Secretary of State is looking out for such schemes and gimmicks.
We cannot have disparity between north and south of the border, and it is about time that we looked at the Cubie report.
The long-term care of elderly people will not go away and I hope that Ministers will consider it after the election, if not before.
It has been said that our manufacturing base has been threatened. We have a well-known problem with Rolls-Royce in Coventry. People have heard me ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to look at that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has agreed to do so. An important lesson has come out of discussions with Rolls-Royce.
660
The decisions that resulted in the lack of money invested in research and development were made in about 1992, and earlier. I remember saying on many occasions that the money saved by people losing their jobs should be used for research and development. A colleague of mine, a prominent shop steward, once told a Minister, "You're going to have some expensive shelf-stackers at Sainsbury's." That gives an idea of what people feel about a lack of research and development and the consequences that that can have in Coventry, particularly for companies like Rolls-Royce.
We welcome the increases for pensioners. Whatever the merits or demerits of the link to earnings, we have to convince pensioners about our policy. I readily acknowledge that Ministers have some valid reasons for not going down the road to re-establish the earnings link. For example, the £200 winter fuel allowance would be taxed. Nevertheless, at many of the meetings that I attend, pensioner constituents voice a lot of concerns about their incomes and it would be remiss of me not to repeat them. I hope that the Government will take note of that.
Low interest rates mean that the economy expands, and that assists manufacturing industry, certainly in the midlands. That has to be welcomed. Interest rates are probably the lowest they have been for about 35 years, and low inflation—the lowest for about 30 years—plays a significant part in the economy. Short-term interest rates from 1997 have averaged about 6 per cent., while longer term interest rates should average about 5 per cent.
People will remember the problems of negative equity. Mortgage interest rates have dropped—they have stabilised, from an average of 11 per cent. between 1979 to 1997 to about 6 per cent. at present. That gives comfort to small businesses, and to anyone buying a house, particularly young people. Low mortgage interest rates allow young people to plan ahead, which most of them want to do.
Manufacturing has started to rise—to about 1.6 per cent. That must be vitally important to the economy—especially in the west midlands. Productivity has been a subject for debate for 35 years or longer—certainly, during all my time in public life and in industry. It has grown by 4.4 per cent. That has got to be good, when we consider the years when it did not grow. I am sure that most people welcome that growth. We can all remember the days of boom and bust when exports were down and imports were up, creating balance of payments problems. Exports have risen by about 7.4 per cent. That has to be welcome—as is this year's surplus of £23 billion.
One of the things that the Conservatives lectured previous Labour Governments about was borrowing. The debt repayment is about £34 billion, so that is surely welcome.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman talks of the importance of debt reduction, although he does so very much at national rather than local level. If the issue is of importance to him—it is right that it should be—will he tell the House what assessment he has made of the impact on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt of the change in the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses?
Mr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman should not throw that red herring into the debate. The issue of capital

661
receipts was always mixed, depending on which local authority one spoke to. It was a Conservative Government who told local authorities that they could keep all their capital receipts only to start to plunder them. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework.
Lower unemployment means lower social security costs. In the past, the Opposition have criticised social security; they talk about cutting the budget and introducing swingeing measures that would make it almost impossible for people to claim social security. In fact, the cost of social security under my right hon. Friends, is down by about £4 billion—that must be welcome. In effect, it means that in order to achieve our other targets we do not have to make it more and more difficult for people who need social security to claim it.
During the period from 1979 to 1997, 42p in every pound was being used to pay off debt. That is down to about 16p at present. All in all, we must congratulate my right hon. Friends—especially on the reductions in corporation tax and capital gains tax and, more important, the assistance to be given, through reduced VAT, to small businesses with turnover of up to £54,000, and £100,000 for larger businesses. Those reductions should certainly be helpful.
Inner-city regeneration has caused much consternation and debate over the years. Under previous Governments, improvement grants were available, but people in inner-cities would now find it extremely difficult to obtain them because the Conservative Government cut them. I welcome the new initiatives to reduce VAT, to encourage inner-city regeneration—whether of property or by setting up small businesses.
Once again, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on an imaginative Budget, which gives something to everybody. I hope that they have noted the concerns that I highlighted and that, at some point in the future, they will revisit them.
5.43 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: It was a pleasure to be in the House to listen to the speech of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). It was a pleasure to listen to a speech that was part of the debate, that entered into it and offered information and informed opinion. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was in stark contrast to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition—especially the speech about "a foreign land" that he made in Harrogate two weeks ago. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon did not give the House that impression today. It was delightful to hear the right hon. Gentleman forgive his former friend, Lord Lamont—although I suspect that Lord Lamont has never forgiven me for defeating him at the general election.
I want to quote a wonderful remark made by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon—he may intervene if I do not get it right. In 1997, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked to comment on the Labour Government's policy of "education, education, education", he replied that he thought it was a good policy but that he would have put it in a different order. That brings me to a critical comment on the right hon. Gentleman's Government.
Although I would not challenge the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and understanding of economics, I would certainly challenge the fact that successive
662
Conservative Governments, one of which he presided over as Prime Minister, left 7 million adults functionally illiterate and only one in four adults functionally numerate. That legacy was unacceptable, and it behoves all of us, irrespective of political party, to address that huge deficit and to ensure that future generations do not face the world without the basic skills that they need to operate successfully.
I, too, welcome this debate and echo the comments made at the beginning of the Budget debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who said:
"the mark of a society is what sense of opportunity it gives its youngsters and how much security it offers the most elderly and vulnerable."—[0fficial Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 318.]
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), who is no longer in her place, hit the nail on the head. The one thing that I took from the Budget, and the one thing that the House should praise, was the concentration on removing child poverty. Without ending child poverty and ensuring that fewer of our young people begin life and spend their early years in poverty, much of the rest of what we do is reactive rather than proactive; it is a sticking plaster.
In terms of my right hon. Friend's comments on 7 March, two main issues were not dealt with in the Budget, and they have been addressed by Labour Members during the debate. First, there was nothing in the Budget on the care of the elderly. That was a huge omission; it is one of the most pressing issues that we face. It is not simply a pensions issue—clearly, we have had many debates about pensions—but one of how we care for our elderly. The way in which the long-term residential care needs of our population are looked after distinguishes a caring from an uncaring Government, an idea to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) alluded in his speech.
There was nothing in the Budget to support local authority social service departments, which are desperately struggling with the costs of residential and nursing-care placements. It was rather sad that there was nothing to support the cross-over between health authorities, health care trusts and social services in trying to meet those needs. The Chancellor, who had the resources available, could more wisely have used his money in that way.
Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may want to consider the fact that Library figures show that, in the first two years of this Government, the Chancellor reduced personal social services expenditure to the detriment of the very vulnerable groups that he describes.
Mr. Willis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments, but he must accept that, certainly in each of the five years before the new Labour Government's election on 1 May 1997, the resources given to local authorities for social care use were reduced, year on year; and that, more perversely, capping arrangements meant that council tax rises could not compensate for those reductions, so I would say, "A plague on both your houses!"
This debate is primarily on education, so I shall return to education as soon as possible. It was rather sad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spent virtually

663
all her contribution offering a diatribe without ideas, regurgitating the same old accusations, mostly on behalf of The Guardian and Nick Davies, about the Government's spending plans.
The hon. Lady and the Tory party offer one specific response to our schools' needs—free schools. The response that she gave to my question about funding was appropriate, because it goes to the heart of the debate on the Tories' proposals for free schools. They seem to be suggesting that every school will be funded centrally, so I asked whether every child would receive the same level of funding. Interestingly, the answer was no. There would have to be a formula to distribute resources and that is one of the issues that has bedevilled Governments in their attempts to provide equitable resources to individual schools.
I have often discussed the issue with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). The tragedy of the Tories' proposal becomes clear when one considers which of the services that are currently offered by local authorities to schools would have to be offered by the schools themselves as part of the package. The costs for special educational needs for schools in an inclusive education system can be horrendous if they are not largely picked up by the central administration. The idea that each school would have to meet the requirement does not bear the critical examination that such a policy should receive. The idea that head teachers want to be responsible for school transport and want to organise buses and taxis is beyond belief. Again, the suggestion that the service could be provided more cheaply if it were run by each individual school rather than by a local authority does not bear critical examination.
One of the key suggestions that the hon. Member for Maidenhead constantly makes to head teachers relates to disruptive pupils. Under a Tory Government—God forbid—schools would be able to kick such pupils out, but where would they go and how much would it cost to look after them? All the evidence shows that it costs at least five times more to educate a pupil in a pupil exclusion unit than it does in school. Where would that money come from, and what would happen if the number of units were expanded? My authority does not have such a unit. It would have to build one, and that would have to be resourced centrally.
In my role as education spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, for the past two years I have had spats with the Secretary of State and accused him of all sorts of things. However, I would never accuse him of not being interested in, or committed to, education. From the age of four, I have spent my whole life involved with various Secretaries of State in one guise or another. In 1944, my father was presumed killed in the war and that was the year I attended my first nursery school. Since then, I have been involved, in one way or another, with every Secretary of State. Perhaps Butler to Blunkett does not sound as good as Huxley's cradle to the grave, but the Secretary of State will be right to be proud of many achievements if he leaves the Department for Education and Employment and goes to the Home Office.
Sadly, however, the Secretary of State's legacy will not be as good as it should have been. In 1997, the whole education world welcomed a change and expected that things would be different. I was a head teacher in 1997
664
and I know that schools were demoralised then. The whole education system was demoralised and underfunded and there was a 20-year backlog of repairs to school buildings. The situation was dire. So it is rather sad that the Government have abandoned the proud ambitions with which they came into office. They have squandered them on spin, triple accounting and knee-jerk reactions. Above all, the Government have put their faith in the likes of the former chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, who betrayed not only the Secretary of State, but the education system.
The Budget was announced as we look forward to a general election and I support much of what the Chancellor said last week. I welcome the fact that much additional money will go to head teachers to spend on books and equipment. When I was a head teacher, I would have welcomed greater flexibility in the spending of part of my resources, and I am sure that most heads welcome the proposal.
However, the Government should not be able to claim that a huge sum of extra money was announced in last week's Budget. The £1 billion was an underspend from previous years. It was not new money, but money that had been regurgitated. If we take account of the Barnett formula and subtract the money for Scotland, we are talking about £800 million over three years, of which £200 million will go towards earmarked recruitment and retention packages. The money for each school will thus be about £10,000 to £11,000 a year, and a school's future cannot be planned on the basis of such funding. That is the huge mistake that the Government continually make. Year after year, they drip-feed money into our schools and they attract major headlines, but they do not attack the root cause of the major underfunding in the resource budgets of all our schools.
Let me give some examples. A head teacher in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames has written to the chairman of the Conservative-led council. Kingston is reducing school budgets, because it is anticipating the money that the Chancellor will give directly to schools. Exactly the same thing, is happening in North Yorkshire—again a Conservative-controlled authority—which is top-slicing its school budgets by £2 million. Although Harrogate grammar school—which, by the way, is a top-class comprehensive school—will receive an extra £12,000 from the Budget settlement, it will lose £40,000 because of the reduction in funding from the county council. I recall what the hon. Member for Coventry, South said, and point to the nonsense of the current funding arrangements and to their lack of transparency.
Mr. Hayes: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern that the problem with the drip-feed approach that he describes is that, although it may attract headlines, it is unrelated to need. It is a crude instrument. He criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) because she said that the formula would have to take account of need, but surely he would acknowledge that the Government's approach of handing out money in lump sums does not address the core issue of need.
Mr. Willis: I think that I have already said that. I have never met an hon. Member who supports the current system. I asked for an explanation of the current standard spending assessment system and, because I knew that it would be a leisurely debate, I have the answer with me.

665
I shall describe to the House how primary schools get their money. Under the fairer funding scheme, the Government's SSA for primary pupils for 1999–2000 contains the following formula:
"(a) Pupils aged 5-10 multiplied by the result of: £1,722.06; plus £206.93 multiplied by Additional Needs index; plus £94.75 multiplied by Ward sparsity index; plus £200.94 multiplied by free school meals;
(b) The result of (a) is multiplied by the Area Cost Adjustment for education;
(c) The result of (b) is then multiplied by a scaling factor (1.00000461765064)."
It is plainly nonsense to have such a lack of transparency in our funding system, and the Government promised to change it.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: First, it ill behoves the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman to talk about SSAs when no one manipulated them more than the Conservative Government. Secondly, every year they were in government we had the hardy annual of finding out whether an area would retain its cost adjustment. We cannot know where we stand when we relate cost adjustments to SSAs.
Mr. Willis: Again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, while the Labour party was still in opposition, it promised that the system would be made fair and transparent. The Secretary of State should give a commitment to that effect.
Another myth needs to be exposed. It was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon and relates to the amount that the Government are spending on education services. It is thought that such spending is increasing dramatically. However, according to Library figures, the proportion of gross domestic product that is spent on education during this Parliament will be 4.6 per cent., compared with 4.9 per cent. under the Government of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. We can argue about GDP until the cows come home, but the Government said that they would spend a greater percentage of the country's wealth on education. That is clearly not happening.
Liberal Democrats welcome the £200 million for recruitment and retention which the Secretary of State announced. We also welcome the fact that the Government have understood that there is a problem. However, we want to dissociate ourselves from the right hon. Gentleman's disgraceful attack on dedicated professionals which appeared in the Daily Mail today. When we are in the middle of a sensitive dispute, it does no good whatever to launch a wholesale attack on the teaching unions. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), is in the Chamber and I have a challenge for the Government: rather than bandy words with trade unions about teacher shortages and, in particular, the strike action, they should immediately organise an emergency summit with trade union leaders, local authorities and the Department to set a timetable and resolve the crisis.
Last year, we established the General Teaching Council, one of whose key tasks should be to operate as a standing committee on teacher supply. I hope that I
666
receive a response to that idea. We have all continually warned the Government about the problem of teacher recruitment. In last year's debate on the Budget, I said:
"It is surprising … that there is nothing in the Budget to assist with teacher recruitment … despite the worrying trend."—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1150.]
This year, we have received £200 million over three years. That is an improvement, but it is clearly not enough.
According to last week's survey by The Times Educational Supplement and the Secondary Heads Association, there are 10,000 vacancies in our secondary schools, and some 10,000 vacancies in our teacher training colleges have gone unfilled since 1997. That cannot go unchallenged. Indeed, Ministers have acted. They have introduced "golden hellos" and have tried to introduce a grant, which has become a training salary. Baroness Blackstone has said:
"The Government have introduced training salaries".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 February 2001; Vol. 622, c. 861.]
Hon. Members should note the term "training salaries". Paragraph 5.17 on page 68 of the Green Paper, which was published two weeks ago, said:
"We have introduced a new £6,000 training salary".
However, it is not a training salary and, if it is, it breaks all the Government's rules on salaries. A £6,000 salary works out at £3.95 an hour, based on a 40-hour week, but last week they told the House that we must have a £4.10 minimum wage from October. There is a real conflict here. Perhaps the Government will admit that the new training salary—if it is to be a salary—will have pension rights attached to it and that national insurance contributions will be paid on it. Without those, people will be disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead said that there was a problem with the Government's figures on applications for teacher training. I do not want to repeat those. Last week, we had a major spat with the Graduate Teacher Training Registry because it published figures a day early for the Government. It said that the Government asked for their early release so that they would not conflict with the good news in the Budget. It cannot be right that an independent organisation should leak information to the Government ahead of time, but not give it to Conservative Front Benchers, Liberal Democrat Front Benchers or anyone else. The Government so often get it wrong by attempting to manipulate information rather than giving everyone access to it.
There has been a 13 per cent. drop in secondary course applications, despite all the Government's belated actions since 1997. That is having an effect on our schools because of the related shortages. Rather than criticising the teaching unions, we should work with them to redress that balance.
Higher education was—conveniently—almost totally absent from the Budget statement and the Secretary of State's statement today. The Chancellor recognised that we need 2.5 million more employees who are educated to degree level. However, he offered nothing to ease the growing burden of student debt. There is an aversion to mentioning that problem. Indeed, the Select Committee on Education and Employment avoids recognising that debt aversion is relevant. It puts people off going into, and staying in, higher education. The Liberal Democrats are the only party to guarantee students reduced debt and the abolition of tuition fees. I was delighted to hear the hon.

667
Member for Coventry, South mention the Cubie report. Ultimately, we will return to that and have similar arrangements for students in this country.
Last Friday's editorial in The Times Educational
Supplement said:
"The Liberal Democrats' proposals to restore means-tested grants are the most coherent solution to student poverty and are a prerequisite to expansion. Labour should steal them."
That is a good message for the Minister.
Mr. Richard Allan: My hon. Friend will know that many of my constituents are academics who work in Sheffield's two universities—the university of Sheffield, and Sheffield Hallam university. He should also be aware that many of them are writing to me to tell me how poor morale is within the higher education sector. Does he share my concern that the Government's policy is about cramming more bodies into the higher education institutions without dealing with the fundamental pay problems in higher education? The product that they provide will inevitably suffer as more industrial disputes take place and other problems of morale arise.
Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. Expansion is pointless without sufficient investment to ensure quality. After the Robbins report in 1963, the sector expanded year after year, but in the 1990s, under the previous Government, there was a year-on-year reduction in real terms in the amount available for each student in higher education. The sad fact is that every year since 1997 there has been a reduction per student in the amount of money for their education.
The Prime Minister recently announced that his ambition was to have 50 per cent. of young people going into higher education. That is meaningless unless we are told where all those people are to come from. At the moment, the demand simply does not exist. Last year, 53 higher education institutions were unable to fill their student places. There were 40,000 unfilled places in our universities. The Government are planning unbridled expansion simply to grab headlines.
I agree with the earlier comments about further education. There was not a word about that sector in the Chancellor's statement. It is as if the Learning and Skills Council has wiped away all further education worries and resolved all the problems. There is a massive problem of recruitment and retention in FE, just as there is in our schools. There is a huge issue surrounding pay, just as there is in higher education, as the Bett committee reported. An even bigger issue in FE is the professionalisation of lecturers. If we do not grapple with those problems, we will see the same sordid results as have occurred in many of our schools, such as young people being sent away and teachers being pulled in from wherever possible to fill staff places.
The Government's policy on lifelong learning began with a huge agenda and was going to revolutionise the world. Under the policy, "learning works", no child, young person or adult who was failing would be allowed to continue to do so. Sadly, the joined-up thinking has not taken place. The schools taskforce said that we
668
desperately needed people to have access to level 2 and 3 qualifications throughout their lives. The Chancellor says that he wants to underpin level 2 training, but that is all. There will be access to training at level 2, but not beyond, even though, apart from Mexico and Greece, we have the lowest number of people in level 3 training anywhere in the developed world. That is the challenge that the Government have not met. Hopefully, a Liberal Democrat Government will meet it in the next Parliament.
6.12 pm
Mr. Ivan Lewis: We have heard perhaps the final contribution of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), so it is appropriate for me to say a few words in response. If we put politics to one side, most of us would accept that he is basically a decent man, but he found himself leading a political party that was unleadable. Indeed, much of his time was spent standing up to the right-wing, extreme elements that now control the modern Conservative party, so it must be difficult for him to make speeches from the Opposition Benches these days.
It was, however, curious to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the economic situation in Britain. He was clearly anxious to rewrite the legacy of his stewardship of the economy. Listening to him, one would have thought that his Governrnent had a reputation for economic competence and that he had led them to a barnstorming victory on 1 May 1997, but history records something very different. It shows that Black Wednesday was the beginning of the end of the Tories' claim to be the party of competent management, economically and more generally. That Government left the country with national debt that had doubled. They left the country extremely insecure, socially divided and very unhappy, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman led his party to the worst election defeat in living memory. That is no reflection on him as an individual or on his decency; it is a reflection on the record of the Government whom he led, and more specifically on their economic incompetence and the social division that they created.
The right hon. Gentleman made one useful contribution to the debate of which the Government should take note. In his condemnation of the use of the terms "Mr. Boom" and "Mr. Bust" to describe the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, he spoke of "sneer and jeer" politics. I am sure that Labour Members would regard "Mr. Sneer" and "Mr. Jeer" as equally appropriate descriptions of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that idea.
Labour Members would agree with much of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, although, like every Liberal Democrat Member, he asked for more and more public spending. There is never any reckoning of how that is to be paid for, and account is never taken of the need for a stable economy and for economic prudence as the foundation of public spending.
I shall give an example of Liberal Democrat contradiction from my area. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) recently said that we cannot have high levels of public spending and low levels of taxation, and that it is important that politicians are honest about the fact that they must put up

669
taxes if they want to increase spending. Last week, the Liberal Democrat group on Bury council proposed an amendment to the Labour-controlled council's budget to reduce council tax. They displayed none of the honesty recommended by their national leader; they did not say that reasonable, fair taxation is necessary to pay for decent services. They made a nakedly political move to pander to an audience.
Throughout the country, Liberal Democrats at a local level are inconsistent with their national leadership. They do not merely have different policies in different towns—sometimes they have different policies in different streets. Is it not about time that they were honest with the British people about how they would pay for the increased public expenditure for which they continually ask?
Mr. Allan: Before the hon. Gentleman awards us the monopoly on complaints about local taxation, I hope that he will refer to Labour opposition groups, such as the one in Sheffield, who attack Liberal Democrat-controlled councils for their council tax rises. Does he not accept that it seems to be a traditional role of the opposition in local government, whatever party they represent, to attack the ruling group for its council tax rise? Will he pay attention to the proposals published in the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget, which clearly point out where additional funding at a national level would come from?
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman's party says that it is different; that is the whole point of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West. He tries to pretend that the Liberal Democrats are somehow separate from politicians in other parties, and that they are more honest, straighter and tell the truth. Yet in Bury, the Liberal Democrats did exactly what their national leader tells us is unacceptable and misleading—they called for a council tax reduction purely to pander to local opinion at the time and without any regard for the consequences for local services. The Liberal Democrats cannot continue to have it all ways.
The Budget has been warmly welcomed by my constituents. It demonstrates that the Government have honoured their pre-election promises to the British people. To be specific about the fundamental pre-election promise, the Budget continued the rebuilding of the country on the foundations of economic stability and social justice. The Government have always aimed to combine encouragement of individual ambition and aspiration for families who want a decent life and to do well for themselves with a commitment to community solidarity, to public services and to the idea that we achieve far more together than we ever do alone. The Budget is responsible and it ensures that we are able significantly to invest in the people's priorities. It would never have been possible without the tough choices made by this Government early on in our Administration.
The Conservative party seeks to pretend that we have continued its economic policies and that, had it continued in government in 1997, the economy would have been as strong as it is now and the fundamentals would have been in place. I shall give three specific examples of why that is arrant nonsense and of where this Government had to make distinctive and difficult choices.
The first decision was to give responsibility for the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. That option was available to Tory
670
Chancellors for many years, but they declined to take it. This Government took the decision to prioritise paying off the national debt. That is a distinctive choice, which Governments do not have to make. In fact, the Conservative party doubled national debt while in office.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lewis: I shall give way in a minute.
This Government chose to make the payment of national debt central to their economic strategy. Yes, we chose to stay within tight spending limits, but that did not mean that we did not spend considerably more in the first two years of the Parliament on health and education—we did. [HON. MEMBERS: "No you did not."] Yes we did. However, the overall Government spend stayed within previous limits. It is interesting that the Conservative party says that that is the best example of our continuing its economic policies, yet the right hon. Member for Huntingdon said that the Conservatives would not have done so had they been in government post 1997.
Mr. Brooke: I feared that the hon. Gentleman would get to a point where my intervention would be irrelevant. As he has said that the previous Government doubled the national debt, will he remind the House of the national debt in 1979 and of that in 1997? I think that he will find that it did not double during that period.
Mr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was referring specifically to the period between 1992 and 1997, when he was a leading and respected member of the Government. It is important that people who served in that Government take responsibility for their record and legacy, and do not seem to have a collective fit of amnesia.
This Government made distinctive and difficult decisions in their early days that led to today's economic stability. It is wrong to pretend that the economic strength of our country, which the right hon. Member for Huntingdon was honourable enough to acknowledge, was created by accident or chance. We, as a Government, recognise that it is also due to the enterprise of the British people and their contribution to that economic growth and success. If this Government had not laid such foundations, we would not now be able to use that economic stability to invest in our country's future.
Let us consider the outcome of those policies of economic stability and competence. One difficulty for Conservatives is that they cannot cope with the fact that the British people now see the Labour party as the party of economic competence. The Conservative party finds it difficult to stomach the fact that the British people recognise that the Labour party has travelled a tremendous distance and demonstrated—not just promised—in four years that it can be trusted to manage the economy. The outcome of the policies is clear. We have the lowest inflation for 30 years and we have low interest rates. The average family now pays £1,200 per household a year less for their mortgage than they did in 1997. That is a significant contribution to household income. The Government have created 1 million new jobs, and we have the lowest unemployment for 26 years.
We should remember that it was not so long ago that we were being told that mass unemployment was a price worth paying for low inflation. For a long period during

671
the reign of the Conservative party, the British people were told that they could not have low unemployment and low inflation at the same time because it was managerially impossible. In fact, I think that it was Lord Lamont who said that unemployment was a price worth paying. That was an insensitive and disgraceful comment, and this Government have demonstrated that unemployment is not a necessary price to pay for the creation of a low-inflation Britain. It is a Labour Government who have delivered low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment.
All that does not mean that there are not job losses—of course there continue to be people who lose their jobs. In recent weeks in my constituency, I have seen the sad loss of the East Lancs paper mill, which had offered a number of very important jobs and played an integral part in the community of Radcliffe, which is an important part of my constituency. What is important now to those who have lost their jobs is an opportunity to get another one, and that there will be investment in their area and community to give them hope, so that they are not consigned to long-term unemployment.
In the 1980s and 1990s, far too many people were consigned to the scrap heap of unemployment. In some families, three generations of people were never given the opportunity of a job and of engaging positively in society and in the community in which they lived. There continue to be job losses in certain sectors, but if one maps what happens one sees that the majority of people who find themselves out of work are very quickly able to reskill, retrain and find alternative employment opportunities.
Indeed, one of this Government's great successes has been the incentivisation of work through the new deal, which gets young and long-term unemployed people off benefit and into work. There has been a cultural shift in the social security system and economic strategy. Many people used to be better off not working. Low-paid jobs were available, but people were not able to secure work that provided a decent income for themselves and their families. This Government have created an environment that incentivises work and makes it pay. That in itself constructively engages many people in the community, so that they can make a positive contribution to the economy.
It is essential that our economic and social policy is relevant to all parts of the country. That is why the establishment of the regional development agencies was so important. They look at the strengths and needs of each region and ensure that we invest according to their sensitivity, history and future needs. Of course, the Conservative party is committed to abolishing RDAs, which would be disastrous in areas such as the north-west, where we are beginning to see the coming together of a local strategy between the public and private sectors, working with central Government to lay the foundations for continued economic growth and prosperity while at the same time tackling the fundamental social exclusion that has built up over many years. To ditch regional policy and, more specifically, to abolish RDAs, as the Conservatives would if they had their way, would be a lost opportunity.
One of the most incredible facts revealed in the Budget is the statistic on national debt: in one year, this Government have paid off more debt than was paid off in the preceding 50 years added together. That is a major achievement. I say that not because it is a good soundbite
672
or because it sounds good politically but because I believe that we should analyse the way in which the state spends its money and how it prioritises that spend.
Under the Conservative Government, in 1997, 42p in every pound of taxpayers' money was spent on paying either unemployment benefit or debt interest repayments. Only 58p in every pound remained to be spent on front-line services such as education, health and the fight against crime. Now, only 16p in every pound is spent on debt repayment and unemployment benefit and 84p in every pound of taxpayers' money is available to be spent on services that matter to people. There has been a massive change and a fundamental shift in the management of the economy since the 1997 election.
Mr. Willis: Why have the Government not considered local authority debt, especially that of hospitals and health care trusts? The local health care trust in my constituency spends about £900,000 a year on servicing debt. Why is it only Government debt that is written down? Why is there not support for local authorities and health authorities?
Mr. Lewis: The Government's responsibility is to lay foundations at a national level and to set parameters for the way in which local agencies work and for the choices that they make. The Liberal Democrats would be the first to criticise us for over-centralisation if we decided to dictate priorities for health care trusts and other local agencies in terms of the balance between debt repayment and investment in services. We have set parameters and taken a lead but, ultimately, given the massive extra moneys that are being made available by the Government to local health care trusts and LEAs, it is for those organisations to make choices and judgments on priorities locally.
We in Bury were pleased to receive my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to open the Third Millennium building at the college of further education last week. It was a successfull visit, and my right hon. Friend was warmly received by all those who were fortunate enough to attend the opening. We are generally proud of our education system in Bury. We have excellent levels of performance. We have a family of schools working together in partnership with the LEA, which is recognised nationally; Ofsted acknowledges that it is one of the best in the country.
All those educational achievements—among the best performances in the country—must be set in the context of our having probably one of the worst levels of funding per pupil in England. That is why the public, and especially head teachers, teachers and governors, welcome the fact that the Government have produced a Green Paper on the reform of local government finance which for the first time identifies the distribution of education standard spending assessments as a difficulty and commits the Government to taking action to ensure that there is a far fairer distribution of education resources. I am told that a White Paper will follow after the election.
It is important that we tackle the issue of SSAs and have a more equitable system. Wherever a child is educated, a minimum sum should be agreed. No education authority should be expected to receive less than that sum.
Mr. Geraint Davies: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, but does he agree with me that we also need to

673
take into account issues such as ethnicity, multicultural education, mobility and other costs that certain urban centres face and certain rural areas do not?
Mr. Lewis: Of course I agree that those factors must be taken into account in creating a new and fairer system. The Government are not seeking to justify the funding gap that exists as between some LEAs. Indeed, they are seeking in their Green Paper to redress the balance. The factors to which my hon. Friend has referred matter, but they do not in themselves explain the gap between funding per pupil that exists as between some areas. That is why we welcome the Green Paper.
There are some political parties who say that the Government should have revamped local government finance in their first three or four years—that we should have got to grips with extremely complex and difficult problems that the Conservative Government did not tackle in 18 years. The Liberal Democrats know that, realistically, they will not have the opportunity to tackle them in the near future. We all know that local government finance is amazingly complex and that it is not easy to reform. However, the Government are committed to reform. In the Green Paper, they have specifically acknowledged the inequity of education SSAs as one of the issues that must be put right. Bury regards that as an extremely important commitment.
Those who imply that, because the SSA system has not been radically reformed, massive amounts of money have not gone into schools in places such as Bury and the other LEAs, are deceiving and misleading the public. Investment in the standards fund in Bury has risen from £27 per pupil in 1997–98 to £151 in 1999–00. We have seen £240,000 allocated to school security. Access initiatives have received £133,000. To recruit additional teachers to reduce class sizes, there has been funding of £2,082,000. Various capital projects have been allocated £1,448,000. There has been spending of £1.5 million on new classrooms to reduce class sizes, and £1.9 million has been made available for the new deal for schools. Given what was happening in the education system in the lead-up to the 1997 election, there has been a massive shift.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon accuses us of scaremongering about the threat posed to communities by Tory cuts. Our argument is based on real experience. Anyone who served on a local authority during the Tory years knew what the annual cycle meant: it meant managing cuts exercises year after year to ensure that cuts did the least damage to the most vulnerable people in our communities.
The extra money that is going into schools and other local services throughout the country is making a real difference to the quality of those services and to the quality of education available in schools. It is a pretence that there has been no difference. We remember annual cuts exercises. We remember when there was inadequate money for books and equipment. We remember when class sizes in primary schools were far too large. We remember that era.
Anyone working in education at any level would acknowledge the significant amount of extra investment that is going into schools, which is making a difference to standards, to the quality of education and the physical environment and to opportunities to learn. The assertion
674
that the Government are not making a difference to education is false and mislading and is not borne out by the evidence that exists in every community.
The Budget will also make a difference to schools through the teacher recruitment strategy announced today, which is backed up with resources. One subject that has not been discussed so far is the reason for the crisis that we face in recruiting people to work in the public services, part of which is the way in which the public services and public servants were devalued and run down during 18 years of Tory government. Public services were portrayed as a leech on the public purse. Young people were not encouraged to go into public services if they wanted a decent standard of living or quality of life.
The status of public services and those who worked in them was undermined and demeaned over an 18-year period, yet in four years the Government are supposed miraculously to turn that culture around. Labour is responsible, allegedly, for the fact that we have thousands too few nurses, doctors, teachers and other public service professionals. In the words of a famous tennis player, "You cannot be serious." Most of the British public accept that, it takes time to make a fundamental shift in such a complex situation.
If we have thousands too few teachers, doctors, nurses and hospital beds, what was going on during the 20 years of unbroken Conservative rule, when there were periods of great prosperity and economic opportunity for the Government of the day? Where did that dividend go? Where did our money go? It went on tax cuts for a very few at the top, and the rest of it went down black holes on Black Wednesday and on debt repayment and paying the costs of mass unemployment.
It is a bit rich for the Opposition to attack the Government for the difficulties arising from the shortage of certain public sector workers. No one out there believes that. I suspect that many Opposition Members do not believe that that is a credible position. Everyone accepts that public services had to be rebuilt from the lowest level at which they have been since the war as a result of the damage that the Conservatives did to them. That will not happen overnight. Most of the British people acknowledge that, and are fair enough to accept it and to congratulate the Government on the achievement so far, even though they want more.
It is important to mention the Government's attack on child poverty, which has a direct correlation with educational performance. It is not good enough to look in isolation at test results, exam results and the resources going into schools. It is essential that we also consider the resources going to ordinary, hard-working families to tackle the problem of poverty and people living on unacceptably low incomes. The Budget introduces the children's tax credit, which will be £520 a year for ordinary families, and £1,040 in the first year after a child's birth, in recognition of the fact that that is a particularly expensive time for families bringing up children.
There will be enhanced child care allowances, which contribute towards a stable home environment, allowing children to learn and do better educationally. There will also be long-overdue improvements to maternity pay and leave, which again contribute towards stable foundations for the average family. The increase of £5 a week in the working families tax credit will incentivise work, making it worthwhile for people to make the choice to have a job.

675
The Government were the first Labour Government, after many promised it, to introduce the national minimum wage. That is to be increased from £3.70 an hour to £4.10 an hour—another policy of which the Government are proud, and which the Opposition said would cost millions or hundreds of thousands of jobs. Not a bit of it. The shadow Chancellor has accepted that if the Conservative party ever returned to power, the minimum wage would have to remain. Of course, that party would allow it to wither on the vine. That is the difference in approach between the Opposition and the Government. We will ensure that it increases according to the economic conditions that prevail, so that people on low pay benefit when the economy is doing well. Although the Opposition say that they would not eliminate the national minimum wage if they ever returned to government, they would certainly have a strategy of allowing it to wither on the vine.
All the Government's support for families, for children and for people who are working hard will make a substantial difference to those people's quality of life and standard of living, and ultimately to the quality of our education system. The Conservatives' comments about the Government's spending plans as set out in the Budget imply that they would make significant cuts in public expenditure. They have accused the Chancellor of having irresponsible spending plans, and they have identified the areas in which they believe those spending plans are irresponsible. If the Tories were ever re-elected, every community throughout the country would face tangible and massive cuts to local services that matter to local people.
It is about time that the Tories were honest and told us where the cuts in local public services would fall. How many teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers and transport schemes would be lost? How many essential services would be cut, and how quickly would we return to the culture of public service cuts? The Opposition also say that they would reduce taxes. We all know who would be the beneficiaries of that policy. The Conservatives would reduce taxes for the few at the top in our society, whereas our tax proposals are directed at reducing taxes in a targeted way for those who most need it.
Opposition Members look horrified at that proposition, but it has always been the way of the Tories, throughout history, to cut the taxes of the very people who least need it, and to do nothing about the hard-working majority of people, especially those on low incomes. It is not new and should not come as a shock to the Opposition that such accusations are levelled against them. It is entirely consistent with what they are promising in their election manifesto, and even more consistent with what they did when they were in government for all those years. It is often best to judge politicians by what they did when they had power, rather than by what they say they will do.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Having listened to him drone on for 40 minutes because his Whips cannot get enough speakers to fill the time allocated for the debate, we are at least entitled to an accurate representation of the Conservative party's policies. There is no question of cutting health, education, transport or police spending. We would make a darn sight better job
676
of running those services than his party has done. Likewise, the tax cuts that we announced would be far more effectively targeted on those who genuinely need the help—the elderly and savers, in particular.
Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for yet another example of the Opposition denying reality. Whatever the debates and disputes about the state of the economy, when the Government came to power in 1997, we inherited hospitals in crisis, schools that were crumbling, public services that were in a dreadful state, and a transport infrastructure that was a disgrace to a modern economy. That was the legacy not of four, eight or 12 years of the Conservatives, but of 18 years of unbroken government, when they had the opportunity to run the country in whichever way they saw fit. That is the situation that people faced in their daily lives on 1 May 1997, which may provide a miraculous explanation of why the Conservative party had the worst election result ever in the history of a major British political party.
Mr. Willis: Until the next election.
Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his confident prediction.
It is important to remember that, in four years, it is impossible to put right 18 years of under-investment, social division and the running-down of public services. That view prevails among Labour Members and others and explains why we were elected in such large numbers. Many people who had previously voted Conservative transferred their loyalties to the Labour party because they saw destruction on the ground and society crumbling in their communities.
The Budget redresses the belief that there is no such thing as society and that we are simply a collection of individuals. That was not just Conservative rhetoric; the previous Government tried to run this country on the basis of that belief. They divided the country from top to bottom and, having failed to deliver high-quality public services and a cohesive society, added to that between 1992 and 1997 by messing up the economy. They were deemed to be economically incompetent and unfit to govern.
Nobody believes that the Opposition have any new solutions to the country's fundamental problem. Everybody knows that, if they came back into power, it would be more of the same—cuts in public services and tax cuts for the few at the top of society at the expense of the mainstream majority. There is nothing new about that; it has been Tory philosophy throughout the ages and from one generation to the next.
I am proud to support the Budget. Having spoken to my constituents at the weekend and read newspapers that I am not normally inclined to read, I genuinely believe that it is a Budget for hard-working families and high-quality public services. It is a good Budget for pensioners and small businesses; it is a Budget of which the Government can be genuinely proud.
6.52 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) droned on for so long, with so many travesties of the truth and the facts, making so much irrelevant comment about history—

677
rewriting it and spinning—that he will forgive me if I do not follow his example. Indeed, the longer he went on, the more I realised that it was not worth following him and responding to his comments.
I have spoken in many Budget and Finance Bill debates, both as a Minister and a Back Bencher, during my years in the House. There was a pause only when I was a Minister in a certain Department. This may well be my last opportunity to speak in a Budget debate before retiring from the House, so I am glad to have had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to cover the entire ground, only some key points, as I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), not least about our strong economic legacy. I shall come back to that.
My overwhelming impression, as I listened to the Chancellor and looked at the Budget over the weekend, is that this is an itsy-bitsy Budget which, as in previous years, used the smoke and mirrors of the conjuror's art—I know something of that art—to deflect attention from what was really happening. There were little bits for everyone, but they did not add up to much. Nevertheless, the Chancellor got what he wanted: media coverage that made it look like goodies all round. I shall refer to smoke and mirrors later.
It has been widely recognised—and much commented on—that the Chancellor is apparently giving away, or, more accurately, giving back, only a small proportion of what he has accumulated during the past four years. That cannot be said too often because the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and others on the Government Front Bench tried to deny for some considerable time that there had been an increase in the overall tax burden—until, of course, the facts became irrefutable. Many studies by the House of Commons Library, accountants and others demonstrated that what the Government said was untrue. Now, the Red Book demonstrates that there has been a considerable increase in the tax burden, which, as a proportion of gross domestic product, has increased from 35.3 per cent. when the Government took office to 38 per cent. in the coming year. That is a measure of the increase in the tax burden, of which a significant proportion comes from fiscal drag.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was right to talk about the legacy of a strong economy. When history is written, that will be seen as one of the great benefits that the Chancellor inherited. To be fair, by and large he has not gone back to the policies of past Labour Governments, which would have dissipated all the benefits of the strong legacy that came about partly through the supply side reforms undertaken by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s and the many other economic reforms during that period.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I have listened to the debate for a long time and I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute.
During that period, there were strong economic policies, low inflation, and falling unemployment. As those of us who have worked at the Treasury know, those trends continue and others benefit from them—which is what has happened to the Chancellor. As I said, to be fair, he has not returned to the policies of the last Labour Government.
678
One reason for the fiscal drag is that the Chancellor has indexed all the thresholds on direct tax, including inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and has not compensated for the substantial earnings increases and capital cumulation during those years. When I listened to the Chancellor, I was struck by an illustration of that. The starting point for the tax threshold for the 40 per cent. higher rate, taking into account the personal allowance, is about £34,000, which is only about £9,000 higher than average earnings. Someone earning £34,000 goes straight into the highest tax band, which is a big tax jump and particularly unfair for households with a single earner in the family. They start to pay higher rate tax at the comparatively low level of £34,000 and are particularly disadvantaged compared with two earners in the same family each earning £25,000. That is a similar point to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon about the children's tax credit. That issue must be addressed. However, fiscal drag is not permanent and can soon wither—I shall return to that later.
The other reason for the big fiscal surplus is the collective stealth taxes, the bulk of which have been levied on companies and their pension funds, and also involve indirect taxes. Starting with the burden on companies and pension funds, the Chancellor has been able to give the impression that he has not increased the tax rate because the burden has been put on those who, if I may put it this way, are not ordinary voters, and on bodies where the effect of the tax increase will come much later. Some people therefore feel that because the Chancellor has not increased direct taxation, he has not increased taxes overall.
However, the disadvantageous effects of increases in stealth taxes are bound to come through, especially in relation to pension funds. In the past four years, £17 billion has been taken from pension funds and added to the Chancellor's revenue, giving him the opportunity for fiscal surplus. That £17 billion, which will continue to accumulate in coming years, will have severe effects on companies and pensioners. Speaking as the chairman of the House of Commons pension fund, I suspect that, before long, it will feel the impact; the surplus will disappear partly because of the change in advance corporation tax. There is already a severe impact on a lot of companies, which now find that they have to cut benefits, move to direct benefit pensions—rather than direct contribution pensions—and considerably increase their own contributions to pension funds. Damage is already becoming apparent, but we shall see much more.
As for indirect taxes, the one that really affected individuals was the constant increase in fuel duties. Looking at the Chancellor's environmental measures, on which I shall comment in a moment, he has now recognised that technological improvements have made a bigger contribution to our climate change targets and so on than any increase in fuel duty. In fact, the Chancellor's continued increase in the fuel duty escalator was simply for revenue-gathering purposes, not for any environmental reason. It was only because of the outcry last autumn that the Chancellor called a halt to that. The impact of indirect taxes such as those has been very severe indeed, particularly on rural areas.
It is because the collected stealth taxes do not make a direct impact on individuals that the Chancellor's figures suggesting that various households are better off are so misleading. His calculations in the Budget documents

679
about people being better off refer only to direct tax. The situation looks very different if we take into account all the indirect taxes.
The Chancellor is at it again with the stealth taxes that were not announced in the Budget, but which leaked out later. The 7.5 per cent. increase in the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions announced this week is an increase of three times the rate of inflation. Many individuals earning about £30,000 will be worse off as a result of the Chancellor's measures because that stealth tax was not announced in the Budget. We did not hear anything about it in the Budget for the simple reason that the Chancellor wanted to introduce it stealthily.
Another reason for the fiscal surplus has been the restraint on public expenditure in the Chancellor's first two years, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon correctly referred. That restraint was spun out by the treble counting that we kept hearing, year after year. Figures were repeated constantly by the spin doctors and by the Prime Minister, accumulating three years' increases in expenditure and giving the impression that they were being introduced all at once. That is one of the reasons why the public were unaware that many of the increases were nothing like as large as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor tried to pretend.
There has also been an underspend in the departmental expenditure limits, by £2 billion last year and £1 billion this year. That could be one of the reasons why a reluctant Chancellor managed eventually to allow the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to announce changes to the amounts of agrimonetary compensation last week. The underspend no doubt made that very easy for the Chancellor. It is a pity that the announcement was linked to foot and mouth disease, because it has nothing to do with it and should have been introduced much earlier.
I also suspect that the underspend made it possible for the Chancellor to announce what I thought was going to be another smoke and mirrors announcement: the £1 billion increase in health and education. I was watching for an element of retreading or reannouncing of an announcement that had already been made. I grant that that did not happen on this occasion, but the three years' increases were rolled into one and made to look very much larger than they are. The increase in education, for example, is £290 million next year, a far cry from the impression of £1 billion that was given. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who has just left the Chamber, that education spending as a proportion of GDP under the previous Government was higher than it has been under the Labour Government over the past four years.
I shall make one comment on part of the educational spend—the new £290 million—which is that I welcome the conversion to the way in which we approach education spending in terms of the direct payments to schools announced as part of the package. I notice that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment spoke today about greater delegation of budgets and giving more freedom to head teachers. Well, what a conversion. One of the most damaging things that he did was to abolish the grant-maintained schools approach, in which a large
680
proportion of the spend was directly delegated to head teachers, who were given the freedom to spend it as they wished.
I agree with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the way in which so many of the education initiatives have been ring-fenced and small, giving the impression of great initiatives and great activity, when they would have been much better directed if they had been given directly to the schools in lump sums.
On health, the reality on the ground and the spin relating to the amount of money are poles apart. A general practitioner in a small village called Brooke in my constituency is retiring. It is proving very difficult—indeed. I think that it will be almost impossible—to replace that GP. One reason is the shortage of money. When I tried to discover whether the relevant funds could be rolled forward into the next three years, I was told that the Norfolk area health authority and the primary care groups were under huge pressure in relation to their budgets. That is the reality on the ground, and the announcement made last week will not make a great deal of difference.
More smoke and mirrors, now. I noticed, when I started to read through the press releases, that many of the tax reductions and grants are, as in the previous Budget, in years two and three. The impression is given that all those goodies will be immediately available, but we shall have to wait for two or three years for them to come through.
Furthermore, press release No. 1 from the Inland Revenue is absolutely littered with proposals which, when we examine them, turn out to be proposals to consult on this, that and the next thing. They give the impression of substantial giveaways to companies—many of the proposals affect the corporate sector—while doing almost nothing at all. As a former Minister with responsibility for small businesses, I can say that the changes proposed for small and medium-sized enterprises are absolutely minimal. The spin is much greater than the reality.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, I want to give credit to the Chancellor on two counts. First, on the macro-economic front he has not, by and large, pursued old Labour policies. He has avoided the ludicrously high rates of tax and the reckless spending that we saw under previous Labour Governments. I freely acknowledge that, because of that and the continuation of many of the policies that we were pursuing, he has been able to make a significant repayment of debt. Any Chief Secretary to the Treasury—especially one of my political composition—would always wish to be in that position. In fact, I was close to getting to it myself when I was Chief Secretary, and my point about inheritance was that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon who inherited the opportunity to repay debt.
I acknowledge that the Chancellor has been able to repay that debt, very much for the other reasons that I have given. However, he is in serious danger of throwing away his advantage. I sometimes wonder why there are so many rumours about an imminent election. I suspect that it is because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not want to wait until the autumn because they are aware that, given the slowdown in the American economy, the difficulties in Japan and the possible repercussions of globalisation that we experience from

681
time to time, the fiscal drag and the opportunity to repay debt might quickly start to move away. I suspect that that is one reason for having an early election.
However, we must also take into account the threat to the Chancellor's position on the repayment of debt. According to the Red Book—this point has now been well documented and commented on—in the next three years, the increases in public expenditure are planned at between 6 and 7 per cent. a year, with the three years growth estimated at very much less than that. Anyone who has been involved with the Treasury will know that, in terms of the surplus or the deficit—because we are talking about a small residual figure in relation to the expenditure numbers and the revenue numbers—if the economy moves into a slowdown, or if we spend much more than the growth in the economy, we can quickly experience a reverse in that repayment of debt and in the improvement that the Chancellor has been able to achieve on that front. That is the danger.
I also want to give credit to the Chancellor on the environmental front. I strongly welcome the reductions in fuel duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol, and a number of the other proposals in the Budget designed to improve the environmental aspects of transport generally. I remember clearly that I was Chief Secretary when my noble Friend Lord Lawson was Chancellor and we introduced the first reduction in duty on unleaded petrol. Although we were all in favour of that measure, we greatly underestimated the impact that that reduction would have on quickly moving everyone over to the use of unleaded petrol.
I generally welcome the Chancellor's proposals on environmental issues, but he is persisting with the climate change levy, with all the damage that it will do to the many businesses that will not be compensated by the national insurance reductions. He promises an aggregates levy next year, but that will be equally damaging to certain parts of our industry, and the threat of the pesticides tax to agriculture has still not gone away. If we read the small print, we discover that there is still the threat of a pesticides tax being introduced next year. I can think of nothing more harmful to our beleaguered agriculture industry at the present time than the continuation of that threat.
I have further detailed points to make. I believe that the climate change levy should not have been proceeded with and that the pesticides tax and the aggregates levy should not be introduced. I am sad that the Chancellor did not reverse IR35. When I was in California last September, I talked to a lot of Brits who work in the high-tech and biotech industries. Although California was the magnet that attracted British expertise from these shores, the spike of IR35 has greatly accelerated the trend and the visit to India made by the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce provided one of the more ludicrous examples of its impact.
The Minister tried to recruit skilled consultants in the high-tech industries, for whom an accelerated immigration procedure was to be introduced, because we were losing our people. We have had to turn to others because IR35 has forced home-grown consultants from our shores.
Mr. Brooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fastest-growing sport in the state of California is cricket, which is played in silicon valley?
Mr. MacGregor: As always, my right hon. Friend, through an illustration or an anecdote, makes the point extremely well.
I understand that the Chancellor has a passion for and obsession with detail, and that certainly shows in the complexity of so many of the new measures. As with education and getting budgets into schools, I believe that it is much more sensible to reduce taxation on families generally than to introduce a series of directed schemes that appear to be favourable and attractive to families. It is much better to leave families to make their own choices.
The complexity that we are beginning to detect on the tax credit front is frightening. Following the working families tax credit, a series of extremely complicated tax credits has been introduced. I must tell the Chief Secretary that I hope that that is not another way to fiddle the figures by reducing the public expenditure totals, as was done by the working families tax credit. The first of the two more serious consequences of such an approach is complexity for the recipients, and I am not surprised that there is not a big take-up.
Coming to the House in the car the day after the Budget, I listened to "Money Box Live". All the questions were about tax credits and the experts had great difficulty in explaining them. A lot of people outside the House simply will not comprehend them and I understand that the form is 40 pages long. That is not the way to set about establishing new systems, nor is it the way to encourage take-up.
Anyone who has tried to complete a self-assessment tax form this year, as I have, will have discovered that, because of a number of minor changes that the Chancellor has introduced to the tax system, that form is also 40 pages long and extremely complex. 1 happened to fill in my own, but it represents a bonanza for accountants, who will have to spend much longer on it. Introducing schemes of such complexity is not the right way to proceed and, of course, the burden on employers will be substantial too.
In the light of what is undoubtedly a Budget that will greatly exacerbate the complexity of our systems, I await the Chancellor's proposals on simplifying tax. It is perhaps significant that the press release on that subject comes last of all the Budget press releases. What is being simplified this year? The measures, which are the most minor that one could imagine, conclude with
"increasing to £50 the de minimis limits within corporation tax, self-employed income tax and VAT for business expenditure on gifts, so that fewer minor items need to be reported and tracked by business."
Big deal, when so many complexities are being introduced.
On savings, I have to declare an interest. As stated in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a non-executive director of a life assurance company. However, my remarks are geared not to that, but to pensioners. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) said that the Chancellor wears a hair shirt and is greatly interested in thrift. She might be right about the hair shirt, but he shows his interest in thrift in funny ways. We know how much the savings ratio has dropped—it has more than halved and is down to 3.75 per cent. this year from about 11 per cent. when the Government took office.
I regard that as serious, but I am not at all surprised when I consider ISAs—which replaced PEPs and TESSAs and are nothing like as good by any measure—and the

683
changes to pension fund income in relation to advance corporation tax. I predict that the stakeholder pension scheme will not do for the Government what they hope it will. It certainly will not achieve substantial take-up among the targeted income group—those who earn between £9,000 and £18,000. Indeed, the scheme is likely to proceed in such a way that there will probably be many fewer providers and much larger ones than in the past. That, too, will not produce the results that the Government seek, although I am certainly with them in wishing to encourage much more take-up of pension contributions at a much earlier age from all employees.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that savings ratios tend to go down at a time of consumer confidence and economic stability? The majority of people's savings these days is in their houses, not in conventional savings accounts, and the savings ratio does not take on board wealth accumulated in housing.
Mr. MacGregor: When providing for old age or saving for other reasons, it is not helpful to put all one's money into a house.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. MacGregor: Let me finish. I was a great supporter of the original Conservative concept of the property-owning democracy and supported all the way through every measure that we took to achieve it, but it has been achieved. The next stage is the share-owning democracy and the vast majority of the population providing for their own pensions. We all know, and the public widely recognise, that the state system will not do that, which is why I want to encourage those other measures and why it is worrying that the savings ratio has gone down.
There was speculation before the Budget that the Chancellor would introduce a measure to deal with the fact that people with personal pensions have to purchase an annuity by the age of 75. The concerns about the current system have been well documented, not least in a report by a retirement income working party headed by Oonagh McDonald, a former colleague in the House who participated in debates on the Finance Bill. I shall not go into those concerns because of the shortage of time, but they are well understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has introduced a private Member's Bill to address the matter, but as far as I can see the Government took every step to talk it out last Friday. Why is not such a measure in the Budget? Why are not the Government removing the deadline age limit of 75, by which one must have turned to a retirement annuity? If we are in a low-inflation environment, annuities will pay much less so it would be much better for individuals—certainly with their personal pensions—to subscribe enough to what the McDonald working party report describes as an index-linked annuity to meet a minimum retirement income. That would cover the possibility that individuals may squander their money. not have enough and, in due course, rely on a minimum income guarantee from the state.
I agree that it is right to protect that, and people have been working out ways to do so, but, beyond it, there is no reason why people who have been encouraged to build
684
up personal or money-purchase pensions should be encumbered with such a restrictive regime, which, in my view, is out of date, not least because they would have nothing to pass on to their families. Therefore, it is sensible to introduce a measure to remove the deadline age limit, and the absence of that represents a great gap in the Budget. I hope that it will be addressed and I am interested to know why the Government have set their face against such a measure.
This may be the last time that I speak in the Chamber and I echo all the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. Participating in so many Budget and Finance Bill debates has been a tremendous experience, but, above all, it has been a privilege and a thrill to be a Member of the House.
7.19 pm
Mr. Colin Burgon: As a relatively humble Back-Bencher, I am proud to take part in a debate with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I hope that they will still have further contributions to make. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon is a straight man whom I respect. I also respect his experience, but I think that it was Frederick the Great who said:
"Experience is useless unless the correct conclusions are drawn."
Perhaps we will have to debate these issues further.
After the Budget, like all good constituency MPs, I went out and about trying to judge people's mood and find out what they thought about the proposals. I should like to cover three subjects that have been drawn to my attention: education, the environment and pensioners.
On education, I did not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). On Thursday, I went to West Garforth primary school to meet the head teacher, Ann Oxley, and open a computer suite, thanks to Government funding. The head was pleasantly surprised to hear that the amount of money she was expecting to receive for her small primary school had leapt from £10,000 to £13,000. Similarly, down the road in Allerton Bywater primary school, a larger school in my home village, Gill Weatherhead, the head teacher was delighted to hear that her expected sum of £50,000 had leapt to £63,000. Likewise, the amount for the two large comprehensives in my constituency, at Boston Spa and Garforth, leapt from £92,000 to £115,000. That is money well spent and well received.
We must be honest. I wish that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was still present. I used to be a neighbour of his in more ways than one: I am a neighbour as an MP and he taught just up the road from where I taught. He got a lot more money than I did, and I was in a tougher school—but then again, he was a head teacher, so he can speak with authority. Any MP who goes round schools and talks to teachers must accept that they recognise that more money is coming in, but that is not the full picture.
We must address two problems. First, I hope that when we are re-elected at the general election, whenever that may be, we will do something about teachers' pay structure. Secondly, we must deal with an area that will otherwise give us problems by supporting teachers in the most difficult aspect of their job, which is maintaining discipline. There is no doubt that it is impossible to

685
contain some pupils in an ordinary school setting, so we must consider pupil referral units. Such units are costly, but they are productive. If the element that is difficult to control were removed, teachers could get on with the job of teaching.
I do not think that I am so aggressive or imposing that head teachers cannot speak to me frankly, and not one of them has ever told me that they want a full, 100 per cent. devolved budget. If the argument is that head teachers are already disappearing under a sea of bureaucracy and paperwork, such a move would involve them in even more bureaucracy, whether it be on school dinners, school transport or special needs. I did not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Maidenhead.
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comments on the big issue of recruitment and retention. It is no good trying to shy away from this problem. I welcome the £35 million to be invested in the new management information system. It is our job as MPs—certainly on the Labour Benches—to ensure that the claim that the new system will lighten the load of data collection is delivered. Teachers tell me that the amount of paperwork they receive is extremely time consuming. I regularly receive a lecture from my brother, who is a head teacher and who tells me how much time he has to spend dealing with forms.
In the discussions I have with teachers, I encourage them to speak their minds, and in response I am allowed to speak mine. After having a face-to-face, full and frank discussion with staff of a large comprehensive in my constituency, I asked the head teacher—I shall not say who—"Don't they realise the amount of money that is going in? I can't believe their reaction." He said that, at the end of the day, they will vote Labour, because they know that a Labour Government will deliver the resources they need. We may have an argument with teachers, but it is within the family, and I feel confident that they will support us.
We need to get a grip on the lack of cover in schools. In my city of Leeds, several schools are balloting on strike action. If a pool of people is not available now—to be blunt, supply teachers are of variable quality—I am not sure what strike action will achieve.
I am also interested in the Chancellor's proposals on the environment and how they affect my city of Leeds. Leeds takes a dual approach to many matters. It has an affluent outer core, and an inner-city core where the business sector has developed. It also has areas of devastating poverty. The steps that the Chancellor has taken to regenerate Britain's towns and cities, such as Leeds, are excellent. I want to highlight three or four key proposals.
The stamp duty exemption for property transactions in the most disadvantaged areas is an excellent measure. My right hon. Friend has cut VAT to 5 per cent. to encourage renovation and conversion of existing property, and he has proposed 100 per cent. capital allowances for creating flats over shops. I hope that people will support all those ideas.
I am particularly interested in the 150 per cent. accelerated tax credits to help to clean up contaminated land. That is good news for the industrial and old mining areas of Leeds that I represent. The only bad news is that that was not done a few years ago. In my home village of
686
Allerton Bywater, the colliery site has just been reclaimed. I wish that the tax incentives had been available at that time.
Those measures taken in conjunction with the various planning legislation that the Government have introduced—I am thinking principally of planning policy guidance note 3—provide a package of measures that show the interrelation between the inner city and the suburbs, whose fates are inextricably linked. In Leeds, we are developing housing in the city centre. We must ensure that it is not only flats for wealthy people. If we use our derelict land effectively, it will help us to protect our greenfield sites. I hope that Conservative Members agree with us on that issue.
The proposals in the Budget that have preoccupied me most are those relating to pensioners. Like all MPs, if I had a pound for every time a pensioner chewed my ear, I would not be here—I would be sunning myself somewhere. Pensioners are great people, because they speak their minds. As long as I can speak my mind back to them, I welcome that. I welcome the priorities in the Budget that will improve pensioners' incomes. It is important to consider the strategy that the Labour Government have developed over the years. It represents a giant step forward, but we have a few more to take.
In an overall strategy of ending pensioner poverty by 2010, the Government have taken the initial steps of increasing the basic state pension by more than the rate of inflation to £72.50 for a single pensioner and to £115.90 for a pensioner couple; increasing the amount of income that is taxed at the low rate of 10 per cent., which will help an estimated 3 million pensioners; and increasing the minimum income guarantee to £92.15 for a single person and £140.55 for a pensioner couple.
When the MIG was introduced, like most other MPs, I ran campaigns up and down my constituency to raise awareness of the guarantee and to encourage people to take it up. In such wonderful-sounding places as Swillington, Allerton Bywater and Swarcliffe, we engaged in vigorous discussions about the Government's policy on pensioners and the minimum income guarantee.
An important aspect of the Budget for pensioners, and for me—after all, I may well be a pensioner soon—is the announcement of the start in 2003 of the pension credit scheme, which will reward the 5.5 million pensioners who have made the sacrifice of contributing to modest works pensions, and/or saving for their later years. I encountered many households with very small tailors' or miners' pensions, for instance—they were usually the husbands' pensions; for some strange reason women tend to outlive men, and research will doubtless explain why—which prevented them from claiming other benefits. That rankled with them. I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to claim that they have listened to me, although greater forces were probably at work. In any event, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
During that first half of 2000, I went out of my way to meet as many of my pensioner constituents as possible to promote the minimum income guarantee. They raised a question which I hope the pension credit scheme has at last begun to answer. Under the scheme the sacrifices that they made while in work will be recognised, and credit will be given for modest pensions and savings. I am gratified to note that pension credit will be linked

687
to earnings, thus giving pensioners more than they would have received through the restoration of the link between the basic state pension and earnings.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, and I am enjoying listening to it. However, given his interest in thrift and prudence, and the inevitable and perhaps desirable fact that people will themselves always have to contribute to the pot from which they draw on retirement, would he in principle endorse the notion that we should abolish tax on savings for basic rate taxpayers?
Mr. Burgon: Not at this stage. I think it would be financially irresponsible to do so.
Let us consider what the Labour Government have already done. I said that we should see everything in context, and there are things that I never forget—and never forget to remind pensioners about when they speak to me in the street, whether in a friendly or in an abrasive manner. We have provided winter fuel payments of £200 in every household containing someone over 60; we have provided free television licences for those over 75; and we have given pensioners the right to free eye tests. In June, we will introduce a national bus scheme for pensioners guaranteeing at least half-price fares. The fares will be 20 per cent. of the full amount in Leeds, so we are not doing badly. We have reduced value-added tax on fuel to 5 per cent. We have introduced the home energy efficiency scheme, which gives pensioners grants of up to £2,000 to install central heating and insulation. We estimate that that scheme will benefit some 400,000 pensioners over the next three years, and we hope to hit our target of ending pensioner fuel poverty by 2010.
In our dialogue with our constituents, we must also present the alternative, because a choice may have to be made in a year or less. When considering the Conservative party's approach to pensioners, we must take account of three or four key facts. Under the Conservatives, the gap between the poorest and the richest pensioners grew to its widest since 1960. They allowed the value of the basic state pension to decline throughout their years in office: by 1997, one in three pensioners lived in poverty. They scrapped free eye tests, and cut free travel passes. They condemned more than 4 million pensioner households to fuel poverty.
I can offer the Conservative party a way out. [Interruption.] It is not suicide, as someone has just suggested from a sedentary position. On Saturday, I was in Kippax, Garforth and Wetherby. An old couple came up to me in Wetherby—traditionally, a rock-solid Conservative bastion—pushing a trolley, and nearly knocking me down with it. In the course of our subsequent conversation, they told me that they had never been so well off: they were doing really well under this Government. I replied that it was brilliant to hear that, because quite often a certain group of pensioners did nothing but give me a hard time. They said "Mr. Burgon, they will only be happy if you give them a gold pig." I offer this advice to the Conservative party: the only way back to power lies in offering every pensioner a gold pig.
There is no doubt that the buzz on the ground is that Labour has delivered a very positive Budget. I know that the Chancellor did not have one eye on the election,
688
because he is not like that: his strategy is quite different. However, I am delighted that a by-product of the great effort that he has put in is the laying of the groundwork for a Labour victory.
7.35 pm
Sir David Madel: In his Budget speech, the Chancellor made a glancing reference to farming industry. He referred to
"farming—an industry essential to Britain, which today faces immediate and long-standing difficulties".
Since he made that reference, things have got much worse, and they are getting much worse for the tourist industry as well. A real crisis is brewing up. I know that a number of electioneering speeches have been made over the past few days, but the Government need to consider the implications of what is happening in farming and tourism if they decide to plump for 3 May.
The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) said that he had offered advice to the Conservative party. In return, I offer the Labour party some advice: if it has a big domestic crisis on its hands, the public expect Labour to solve it rather than running to the polls. We went through all this in February 1974. I vividly remember the reaction on the doorstep, and believe you me, if an election is called a year before it is necessary during a full-scale crisis in farming and the tourist industry, the party concerned will receive a pretty hostile response on the doorstep.
My advice to the Labour party is that of Mr. Harold Macmillan, who used to say that the time to call an election was in the autumn, when the charabancs had rolled back from Seville. I must update that now, and say that the time to call an election is when the airlines have safely delivered all their passengers to Luton airport after the summer peak time. Hon. Members will know why I make that particular point. I have no shares or other interest in easyJet, Britannia, Monarch or any of the others, so the sleaze-buster will not be upset by my reference to them.
Budgets always involve grand ideas and lots of detail. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) that this Chancellor hugely prefers detail. To me, the test of the Budget is whether unemployment will fall further and whether it will stay down, whether the 2.5 per cent. economic growth target will be met, what the effect of the United States slowdown will be on this country as Americans start to save rather than spend, and what will happen—the Chancellor mentioned this—if oil prices suddenly become volatile.
There are two grand schemes mentioned by the Chancellor to which I want to refer. In relation to unemployment, he said:
"For the hard to employ, those still left behind, we are proposing from 1 April, at a cost of £200 million a year, a new regime built around more intensive coaching and stronger sanctions for the over-25s."
If that means—as I suspect it does—that local authorities will be involved in such essential work, they will inevitably have to take on more staff. I hope that the revenue support grant will be adjusted accordingly to take account of the additional staff who will be needed if they are to contribute to the employment of those who, in the Chancellor's words, have hitherto been hard to employ.

689
The second "grandish" scheme features in another part of the Budget statement. The Chancellor said:
"Today we issue proposals and will consult on the best way to extend a research and development tax credit to the larger companies."
All I can say is that I hope the scheme will help research graduates just coming into work pay off their student debts and loans. I also hope that there will be comparable arrangements for medium-sized companies, which also go in for research and development.
I mentioned the Chancellor's devotion to detail. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk mentioned the problems over 1R35. Let me give a particularly muddled example. I have been in contact with the managing director of a company in my constituency, who said:
"I have at long last managed to get a credible answer from the Inland Revenue to the question which I raised in November … whether an employee who has acquired a more-than-5 per cent. interest in my company through membership of an employee share scheme is subject to tax on her entire fees if she works on a time-and-materials contract which falls within the scope of clause 1(1)(c) of Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 2000."
The first reply that the managing director received from the Inland Revenue declared:
"if the person alluded to in your letter is as you have stated an employee of your business being paid through the payroll the provisions of IR35 will not apply."
The managing director went on to say that that reply was
"remarkably similar to Dawn Primarolo's response to you"—
"you" being me, as I had taken up the issue with the Government. That response stated:
"If the person … is … an employee of'
that company,
"then that person should already be on"
the company's
"payroll and the company should already he deducting PAYE and National Insurance Contributions from money earned. If that is the case, then the 'ir35' legislation will not apply."
The managing director's letter goes on to say:
"Yet now, after repeated prodding, I have the following statement from the same Inspector who sent me the first reply:
"I can confirm that if the work that your employee undertakes under any given contract were to fall within the scope of clause 1(1)(c) of the Finance Act 2000 then by virtue of the fact that a more-than-5 per cent. interest in the Company share capital has been acquired, as per clause 3(1)(a) and clause 3(4)(a), a liability would arise under IR35.'"
It is a first-class muddle and an example of a business having to spend a lot of time worrying about the Inland Revenue and IR35 when it should be concentrating on the needs of its customers. We cannot say that we have not been warned. The February brief from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants warns that it is very concerned about the impact of IR35 on income and corporation tax self-assessment. The brief states:
"IR35 mistakes made under the self-assessment arrangements could prove to be a ticking time bomb. If errors are made, they could lie undetected for years only to detonate in the future at huge expense to the individual or company concerned."
I should like to deal with another, albeit slightly different ticking time bomb. My right hon. Friend the Member for
690
Huntingdon (Mr. Major) mentioned inheritance tax levels. The Chancellor said this of his inheritance tax proposals:
"I propose to raise the allowance, so that no tax will be charged on estates up to almost £1/4 million—a threshold of £242,000. Ninety-six per cent. of estates will pay no tax."—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 298-304.]
With house prices surging ahead in the south-east, how can he be so sure?
I also do not understand the reasoning behind some aspects of our tax system. When someone dies and something has to be done about the house, payment of tax is the first thing that must be done. The house cannot be sold until probate has been granted, but probate will not be granted until the tax has been paid. Surely we can change the system so that, when someone dies and leaves a house, the first charge on the money that is raised is for the taxman—who will be the first in the queue. I certainly do not believe that people should have to borrow to pay the notional tax on a house that has not been sold because probate has not been granted. I should think that that tax reform would appeal to the Chancellor's sense of detail, and that it should be introduced very quickly indeed.
The Government have another looming, detailed problem. Ministers have made much of help for the family and child minders and help with child care. I have a constituent who is a single mother with three children, aged six, three and one. She must pay £100 per week to the child minder and £12 per week to the play scheme which the middle child attends. My constituent gets back 70 per cent. of the £12 that she pays to the play scheme, but gets back nothing for the £100 per week that she pays to the child minder, because the child minder looks after the children not in her own house, but in the mother's house and is therefore classed as a nanny and not as a child minder. That particular child minder—just to make the situation more interesting—works in the play scheme looking after the middle child at certain times of day. The only reason why she is able to do that is that she has the necessary qualifications.
It is a detailed muddle. I do not understand why my constituent cannot claim back money because the child minder looks after her children in her own home. If I have encountered that problem, other hon. Members will have done so too. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and those who advise on tax credits advised that constituent to see me, which she did on Saturday morning.
Like my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon and for South Norfolk, I found some good things in the Budget. In South-West Bedfordshire, we have had the tremendous shock of Vauxhall's decision to stop building cars at Luton next year. I was heartened when a statement from management this week stated:
"Vauxhall management will continue to take all reasonable steps to avoid any compulsory redundancies as a result of the restructuring".
The management is hopeful that it will achieve that aim. It also goes on to say—this is music in my ears—that it has reaffirmed its
"undertaking to pursue new business opportunities in the UK."
I hope that those opportunities will come in the Dunstable and Houghton Regis area. The Chancellor's comments in the Budget statement were very relevant for my area because he said that there would be six targeted tax cuts to speed up regeneration, at a cost of more than £1 billion over the next five years. He also said that he

691
will do more to clean up contaminated land and help to revitalise high streets, with 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances to bring empty flats over shops back into the residential market. He also said that there will be more help for the Small Business Service. However, he made not one mention or glancing reference to the need to improve the infrastructure in my constituency to make those changes happen. They will not happen until we get new roads such as the Dunstable bypass and other improvements.
This speech—like those of my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon and for South Norfolk—will pretty definitely be my last in this Chamber. I echo everything that they have said. However, the greatest privilege for me has been to represent my constituents in this place for almost 31 years. Above all, I want the employment base to become strong again in South-West Bedfordshire, after some horrific shocks over the years. I want us to remain an industrial area. We want a hand up from the Government, not a handout, and that entails immediate improvements to our infrastructure. When I leave the House of Commons, I want above all to be able to say to my constituents that action has been taken to reduce unemployment and to retain my constituency as a powerful industrial base.
7.47 pm
Mr. Geraint Davies: Listening to some of the speeches by Opposition Members, I was a little bemused by their recollection of the state of play in 1997. They have described a golden legacy. My memory is of debt doubling and of interest rates being much higher than they are now. I also remember talking to the chief economist of the NatWest bank, who pointed out that the interest rate cycle varies from 7 to 15 per cent. We are now enjoying the low part of that cycle and a stable economy.
Before the Government were elected, unemployment was 1.1 million higher, and inflation was much higher. There were also much higher levels of bankruptcy and repossession. The picture being painted by Opposition Members is a figment of their imagination. Since 1997, the themes in the Chancellor's Budgets—promoting stability, prosperity and fairness, and the focus on benefits to families and businesses—have been remarkably consistent. It is those themes that have regenerated Britain and will serve us in good stead for the future.
Hon. Members will remember that, in the first couple of years of this Government, the overall economic picture was a bit precarious. Hon. Members will recall the so-called south-east Asian financial crisis—when a quarter of the world economy was in recession, world growth targets were halved and Opposition Members were predicting an awful recession and saying that the Government's expenditure plans were grossly irresponsible. They have obviously forgotten all that, and we have moved forward. We still face global threats—the United States economy is slowing down and the Japanese economy is barely growing. Yet there is a robust certainty in the way in which we are moving forward, having prudently paid off debt and repositioned ourselves in the global marketplace for the good of Britain.
We have put an extra 1.1 million people in the workplace; they are making a contribution, rather than taking enormous amounts of money in unemployment
692
benefit and lost tax. The average cost of an unemployed person is some £12,000 a year. In my borough of Croydon, where I was leader of the council, the unemployment figure has been reduced by 4,877, translating into a saving of £58 million every year that can be invested in more services or tax reductions. Indeed, they are being invested in both, for the good of my constituents and the wider economy.
Getting 1.1 million people back into work is the key to the Government's success in being able credibly to say that they will invest more in public services and reduce taxes. The other side of the coin is that people know that Conservative economic policy means lower employment, hence higher taxes and cuts in public services—the worst of both worlds. It is very important, as we approach another time for public decision, that people realise that fundamental difference.
It is not by choice or by legacy that we are enjoying the current economic environment, but by decision and difficult choice. The Bank of England's independence was one of the Chancellor's first master strokes. It immediately took the risk premium out of interest rates. Long-term interest rates dipped and are at a 30-year low. Independence encouraged more investment in jobs, enabled consumers to enjoy lower mortgage payments and allowed stability to reign in the economy and the housing market. In addition, the new deal meant that people who had been taken out of the labour market and had disengaged from the habit of work could get back into work and make their contribution. The Chancellor's overall fiscal management was excellent.
I intervened on the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was describing how he saw his past. The hard facts show that, in 1996–97, the previous Government's total managed public expenditure was 41.2 per cent. of gross domestic product and 6 per cont. of that went on borrowing. The previous Government did not take tough decisions—although they imposed 22 tax increases—but decided to borrow and borrow, thereby doubling debt. We are all familiar with the statistic that for every pound spent since 1979, 42p went on borrowing, debt and dole. Now that figure has been reduced to 16 per cent.
If we compare the percentage of GDP that was tax plus borrowing in 1996–07—38.2 per cent.—with the figure for 1999–00 of 36.2 per cent., which is 2 percentage points lower, that represents £19 billion more that would have been taxed or borrowed under the Tories. That is an equivalent of 7.3p on income tax. If we were doing what the Tories did with the economy, which we have enlarged through economic prosperity, the punter would be paying 7 per cent. more tax.
People need to realise that, under the Tories, taxes would be higher and cuts deeper because of economic incompetence. They have already announced £16 billion worth of cuts in planned expenditure, but that is a massive underestimate. We must add to it the cost of higher unemployment. For example, the borough of Croydon would be looking at cuts of £72 million a year against planned investment, plus the £58 million saving resulting from people who are back in work. That is a total of £130 million a year—an enormous amount for a borough such as Croydon. It does not bear thinking about.

693
There have been references to the savings ratio. People are saving less because of economic confidence and because the primary method of saving in the modem economy is through housing, and house prices have been going up.
I realise why the right hon. Member for Huntingdon painted the picture that he did, but I did not recognise it. The Conservatives were responsible for unsustainable borrowing and debt which would inevitably have meant the road to ruin for any business. Thank goodness the Chancellor arrived; he has balanced the books by making tough decisions about containing cost, focusing on job creation and repaying debt. In addition, the cost of that debt has come down because marker confidence has led to lower Bank of England interest rates. All those factors have combined to provide a more benign economic picture.
Let us compare that with the shadow Chancellor's proposition to ask the Monetary Policy Committee to reduce target inflation from 2.5 per cent. to 2 per cent. We should remember that the Conservatives did not want a Monetary Policy Committee; they did not want independence for the Bank of England. Now they have come round to the idea—in fact, they have gone a step further. They know that the public have no confidence in their capabilities, so they want an independent commission to look at fiscal policy as well. Their attitude is, "Don't worry, vote Conservative and we will not actually manage the economy at all. We will ask Evan Davies of 'Newsnight' to do it."
The Conservatives want a 2 per cent. inflation target. I realise that, given the good management of the economy, that would be achievable in terms of the current inflation rate. However, that is not a desirable constraint because it would inevitably mean that, other things being equal, interest rates would have to be higher than they would otherwise be. That would reduce investment and increase the cost of mortgages, thereby increasing unemployment, debt costs, and the cost of unemployment, and reducing the tax take.
Even if the right thing to do were handed to the Conservatives on a plate, they would go back to the bad old days of boom and bust. That is why their claims to match our expenditure and our action on taxes are completely unbelievable.
Mr. Willis: To give the hon. Gentleman a break, does he think that that is why, in last Friday's Yorkshire Post, Mr. Paul Sykes, the multimillionaire who has rejoined the Conservative party, said:
"I don't want anything to do with the Conservative Party. They are a disaster."?
Mr. Davies: I do not have time to list all the possible reasons for Mr. Sykes to come to that conclusion. Many people come to that conclusion for a variety of reasons. Obviously, Mr. Sykes is particularly interested in not joining the single currency, for reasons best known to himself. He does not want to attach his campaign to the Conservatives' failed campaign. He does not want to attach himself to a bunch of losers, so he is keeping his money in the bank, keeping his powder dry, and he will fight his own campaign on the single currency.
We are all concerned about sovereignty, as opposed to the single currency. Sovereignty is, by definition, about having maximum control over the choices that dictate our
694
destiny. Are we around the table, leading the debate, or are we on the sidelines, being led by the "Nos"? I have nothing against people who live in the rest of Europe, but some of the speeches made in Harrogate suggested that much of the policy is led by a loathing of foreigners as opposed to a rational analysis of the pros and cons of the single currency and of integration.
Turning back to the good fortune that I see personally in Croydon as a result of the masterly management of the economy, the NHS locally has received an extra £18 million. There is a linkage between good health, a strong economy and good education. People who are able to work more regularly are healthier and happier. Their morale is higher—that is good for the economy. We can see that in the police force in London, where the reduction of absenteeism has added the equivalent of 500 police officers to the force.
The Mayday hospital in Croydon does not have the best reputation in the world, but there have been an extra 2,000 operations; there are 90 more nurses, a new kidney unit and a new maternity unit, and the accident and emergency department has been refurbished. Things are getting better; people realise that. They want more and that is what they are getting.
I know that hon. Members are interested in the education situation in Croydon. There is an extra £370 per pupil. Standards are rising—an improvement of 13 per cent. in mathematics since 1997. Primary class sizes are smaller. There are difficulties in teacher recruitment, but that is part of the wider economic success that the country is enjoying. If 1.1 million more people have jobs, if after-tax income has gone up by 10 per cent.—as it has—and if the labour market is tight, graduates or trained teachers enjoy more choice. We must work harder to get those people into the classroom. We are working harder and they are coming into the profession. The other day, a chap who had just left college told me that, because of the "golden hello", he was becoming a mathematics teacher—good luck to him.
We are investing in areas that faced economic and poverty challenges. Often, because of economic circumstances and educational background—in respect of the availability of books in the family home—people from those areas have not succeeded as much as they might have done. That is why we have an education action zone in Croydon, where the business community has come to the table—I helped in that process. Companies such as Sainsbury and Mondial Assistance see that initiative as a one-way street to success.
Individual self-esteem is being raised. Often children are held back in school because perhaps their parents or parent say, "I didn't do very well in school son, and you're not very bright. School's not a very good thing." That holds people back. Education action zones break down those difficulties with more investment and more new ideas. That brings new success by raising standards that will shape the life choices of our children so that they can contribute to the new economy that is growing for the future.
Education is the key to the new economy and the family is the key to education. The big challenge faced by the Government, in a tight labour market, is how to add to productivity and skills. Yes, we can do so through technology, but also by enabling parents—especially women with young children—to engage flexibly with the

695
labour market in a way that does not ruin their family life. With a family of small children, it is extremely difficult to engage meaningfully with the labour market. That is why we have introduced all the extra benefits—the working families tax credit, the children's tax credit and help with child care. There is universal provision of nursery schooling at four—now at three. There is extra provision before and after school. Those measures are of enormous importance to providing flexibility.
People with very young children also have the choice to stay at home to look after them. As a parent of very young children, aged six, three and three months, I believe it important to invest enough time with them—reading to them, and so on. We must create a flexible environment whereby people can engage in the labour market and have a meaningful family life. That is why we have invested more in maternity and paternity benefits. I very much welcome that. With working families tax credit and children's tax credit, working families are better off than ever.
Employment is growing and productivity is rising. There are some interesting misconceptions about productivity growth; some criticisms have been made. Last Friday, at a dinner of the Chartered Institute of Bankers, there was a question about relative productivity rates and the slow-down in productivity growth, and I pointed out the simple fact that if employment is quickly increased by 1.1 million, it is obvious that the extra people will be less productive on average than the existing stock of workers. One would expect current average productivity to go down, because marginal productivity is less than the existing average. After any rapid increase in employment, productivity will slow down in the short term, but will then quickly speed up. That is the Chancellor's ambition and I am sure that with the investment in education, skills and information technology, our economy will go from strength to strength.
Business is, of course, the basis of the prosperity that we enjoy and that we invest in the social products which we all consume—through education and health. Businesses are succeeding. As someone who has run his own business and worked in multinationals, I believe it right to hold robust discussions on red tape, discrimination and the relative focus on administration versus entrepreneurial activity. However, it is also right to remember that some of the key costs identified by the British Chambers of Commerce—the minimum wage and the working time directive—themselves make contributions towards more profitable and productive business. When those costs are taken out, the BCC's somewhat exaggerated claims become massively deflated.
Enabling people to join the labour market effectively and profitably is part of the process of business success. People who run small businesses say that there is too much red tape, but when one asks them whether they are making more money and employing more people, the answer is, "Yes, yes, business is good." If we had listened to the Opposition, we would be back in the world of small business bankruptcy that we all vividly remember.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) mentioned that he would have liked to reduce debt. Sadly, his Government increased debt. He said that he would have liked to give more help to small
696
and medium enterprises. Sadly, bankruptcies ran at a record high. We have delivered his aspirations; I am glad about that.
On the environment, people have mentioned the fuel tax problems. We all know that fuel taxes in Britain are higher than they are on the continent. However, income and other taxes are higher on the continent, so on average, taxes are much lower in this country. That is a clear choice. When people tell me, "I have paid too much for my petrol," I say that, yes, it is right that the Chancellor has taken away the escalator because world oil prices have risen.
People have a choice. Do they want income tax or fuel tax? I do not have a queue of people asking for more income tax. If I did, we could discuss the matter. However, I do have a queue of people worried about asthma in children and about the environment they live in. The people wit complain about greenfield site developments need to understand that we have to create a good environment in our towns and cities in respect of air quality, education and security. Those are key drivers that make towns nicer places to live in. That is what I am pressing for in Croydon as a local MP. People understand that there are better alternatives in transport. I very much back the extra investment in public transport to be made over the next 10 years.
Through the combined effort delivered in the Budget, we have a situation in which education standards are being driven forward to help the economy, but where the economy also helps education. Health is improving; that is helping the economy. Institutionalised poverty tends to cluster—in bad housing, bad health, bad education and poor pay. Those problems, which were endemic under Conservative Governments, are being targeted directly and broken down. We are taking an enormous step forward.
Only a few years ago, those of us who talked about full employment were told that it could not happen again. We were asked how we could compete with the developing world, but we are doing just that by empowering people with skills and by providing the infrastructure and the human-based services that people desperately need, whether in care homes, public services or, indeed, in restaurants and all the other services that we enjoy because of our higher disposable incomes. All those things are moving forward; we are living in a better Britain. There are difficulties and there is a long way to go, however.
Crime is an issue, but it is down by 10 per cent. Many people are misled about crime. As hon. Members may know, the British crime survey is the only reliable indicator of all actual crime. It records all crime in a sample of about 20,000 people and shows that crime is down by 10 per cent., as crime recorded by the police represents only between a quarter and a fifth of total crime. A bit more crime is being recorded, so people believe that there is a real problem.
We need to invest in more Bobbies and Beatrices on the beat; we need to make progress on crime. As a London Member, I am glad that an extra 2,044 police will be provided and that, because of previous Budgets, almost an extra £3,500 has been added to the pay of new police recruits. I am also glad about the extra investment in closed circuit television and in partnerships with councils.

697
In my own area, the police budget is about £30 million; the local authority budget is, of course, 10 times that amount, so much of the incremental, unseen investment in combating crime takes place through local authority partnerships. It is not surprising that crime is down when we have more people in work and more people are being educated. The difficulties with mobile phone thefts and one-on-one assaults are being confronted, but they are non-financial issues.
Overall, in relation to business success, our fundamental services, stability, mortgage payers and the wider community, we have much to be proud of in the Budget; it is a stepping stone to the future. We do not want to be complacent, but actions such as paying off an enormous amount of debt strengthen us for the inevitable buffeting of the world economy, in which the future is unpredictable. We are stronger and better prepared than any of our European partners, and I commend the Budget to Parliament.
8.13 pm
Mr. David Davis: I feel privileged to speak, bracketed between the valedictory speeches of several hon. Members who are among the most admired—certainly by me—in the House. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), a colleague of mine on the Public Accounts Committee, although he will understand if I disagree with almost everything that he said, as will become apparent in a moment.
I should like to address the Budget in the context of the Government's overall economic strategy—especially that on taxation, spending and borrowing—of the past four years and its long-term implications. The one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, Central is that the Budget has had a good press. The public sector financial figures look healthy at first sight. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) mentioned the smoke and mirrors that are involved in that, and it is true that financial and economic commentators like a surplus.
There are two sets of reasons for the surpluses—one good, and one bad. The good reasons reflect the healthy economy, delivered by nearly 20 years of Conservative economic reforms. Cutting tax rates and tax complexity and limiting regulation have been vital to the healthy and dynamic economy that underpins the Budget. In more fundamental terms, however, which the Government will not like, without the great trade union reforms, the great financial market liberalisations, the great privatisations and the dramatic reductions in tax rates under Conservative Governments, the Budget would not have been possible.
The bad reasons for the surpluses reflect the fact that we are simply being charged too much tax. Even the Government now admit that the burden of taxation has increased. We now pay between £25 billion and £35 billion in extra taxes. We must also take into account another £10 million—the cost of extra regulations—not to mention the ferocious complexity of the modern tax and benefits systems. The irony—the paradox—of the Budget is that it is slowly destroying the very things that made it possible.
Despite continually repeating economic platitudes about caution and prudence, the Chancellor and the Government have not learned the key concept of Conservative economic
698
arithmetic, which is straightforward enough: lower tax rates lead to higher growth rates; higher growth rates lead to higher tax takes; and higher tax takes allow tax cuts and spending increases—the story of 18 years of Conservative government. That virtuous cycle is the key concept behind Conservative economic policy.
The Government are gradually breaking that virtuous cycle for three reasons: first, their attitude to spending and their inability to manage it; secondly, their obsessive attitude to debt, which we have heard about today and with which I shall deal in a moment; and, thirdly, the high level of waste in government and the associated poor delivery of services.
I shall deal first with spending. Old Labour was characterised by feast, famine and overspending, followed by cuts when the Government ran out of money. The Chancellor knew that the financial markets would punish him for such behaviour. Indeed, his approach to the first few years has been dominated by the overwhelming desire to build up his reputation, at all costs, as cautions, careful and even prudent. He first ran up his war chest by overtaxing, and when he had a surplus he set out his pre-election bonanza. Old Labour represented feast then famine; new Labour represents famine then glut. That may have created the Chancellor's current reputation, but it is the worst possible way to manage public expenditure.
Starving the public sector of cash, followed by throwing money at it in panic will lead to waste and to the public sector failing to reach its targets. Runaway spending will fail to deliver the proper level of improved services. It will destabilise the public finances and, in the longer run, it will be unsustainable.
One of the Chancellor's strangest characteristics in his obsessive pursuit of prudence has been his obsession with public debt. Some of that obsession has been reflected in today's debate. The national debt in Britain is about a third of national income—half the European average—so it is not unmanageable; it is not even high by international standards. It is about half the level that is judged to be sustainable. We are not facing the situation that existed after the Napoleonic wars, when debt was three times as high as national income. We are not even facing the situation when debt was in the high 50s as a percentage of national income, which happened to be when the previous Labour Government were in power. The Chancellor, however, is saddled with Labour's history and reputation for economic incompetence, so, like a reformed alcoholic, he has to be a debt teetotaller and purchase Labour's economic credentials with taxpayers' money.
It is important to understand the purpose of national debt, which acts as a flywheel for the economy. When the economy slows, debt increases to allow the budget to meet increasing welfare payments without increasing taxes. When the economy is going well, debt should grow at a below-average level or a modest proportion should be paid down. Over the whole economic cycle, debt should stay roughly constant as a proportion of national income. The problem of paying down too much debt is that one has to raise too much tax to do it. The Government paid down £34 billion this year. In my judgment, it would have been smarter to have paid off about half that.
The Government's strategy is paradoxical. In the pursuit of their own reputation for financial prudence, they are damaging the financial standing of their citizens. The greatest single immediate effect of the last few years

699
of taxation and economic policy has been to drive the savings ratio down from 10 per cent. in 1997 to about 3 or 4 per cent. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central said that that was all the result of changes in economic confidence, but the numbers do not reflect that. There have been changes in economic confidence—up and down—in the past few years, but they have not been reflected in the rate of change in debt.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that debt and borrowing are, in fact, deferred taxation? The money has to be paid in any case, so in paying off a huge chunk of debt—for example, by the spectrum sale—we can save £2 billion of tax or avoid £2 billion of cuts in a given year without breaching the rules of the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Those rules would be breached under his prescription.
Mr. Davis: I would not breach any of those rules, but I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point shortly.
By 1999, the reduction in personal savings was about £25 million and, by 2000, about £35 million. The increase in taxes is also about £25 million to £35 million, depending on when one measures it. Therefore, for every £1 increase in our tax burden at least £1 has come out of savings. The overall aggregate effect of the Chancellor's four-year strategy has been to transfer money from personal savings to the Treasury.
Instead of considering the issue in terms of billions of pounds, which is incomprehensible for most people, let us think of it in terms of the effect on the ordinary family. The level of national debt is about £15,000 per household. The Chancellor is expropriating more than a £1,000 a year from every household—money that would otherwise have gone into savings—and is using it to pay down Government debt, which is subject to the lowest possible rate in comparison with the return that a normal saver would get.
Before I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, I wish to deal with a technical issue. The reduction in public debt might have a perverse effect that could lead to a shortage of gilts. The Chancellor might think—he almost said so in his speech last week—that the Myers report and the relaxation of the rules on investment solve the problem that that creates. Ironically, the reduced availability of very low-risk investments might, through the management of average risk, lead the financial institutions to cut their exposure to high-risk investments—precisely the opposite of the Chancellor's wishes. I have told the Financial Secretary that I shall write to him about that point, because the issue is too technical for this debate.
Debt reduction is being represented to the public as a virtue. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central, among others, has made that point. I can summarise his argument, because a Treasury press release does just that. It states:
"We are now building a virtuous circle of falling debt, lower interest rates, lower debt repayments and a stronger economy, releasing more resources for public services."
That is the thrust of the argument, but it completely ignores the fact that the tax raised to pay down the debt has the effect of depressing the growth of the whole economy.
700
The destructive effect of high taxation on overall economic performance is now well understood, but appears to have been ignored by the Government. Studies based on Warwick university's economic model, by Robert Barro of Harvard university and by David B. Smith of Williams de Broe, whose work has recently been published by Politeia, show that a stark reduction in economic performance is related to increased spending and taxation.
The simplest way to understand that is to consider another model and another country. Through the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, the social democrat model in Sweden went along the route of increasing public expenditure faster than the economy's growth rate. In the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden was the third or fourth richest country in the world. Today, it is the 19th richest, and that is the direct consequence of higher taxation. The studies that I mentioned argue that, if it had maintained a sensible and Conservative policy, its private sector would be three times as large as it is today. Had Sweden gone the low-tax, high-growth route, not only would individuals have been richer, but its expenditure on public services would be much higher than it can conceivably afford today.
Politicians' classic error is that they love to be the distributors of largesse—the apparent benefactors of their fellow citizens. In the Chancellor, that vice has become an addiction. Social engineering is so detailed and complex that it is now social micro-engineering. He and other politicians ignore the fact that their complex and burdensome taxes and regulations destroy initiative; that their largesse brings millions more into dependency—2 million in the past three years—and that the destruction of savings and the savings culture undermines the primary instrument of self-help and independence, which is people's investment in their own family's future.
The greatest help if that we can give the poor is to provide better jobs and better choices and give them the right to keep more of their money. Those would all be better than the Chancellor's cold charity and would all be delivered by a vibrant low-tax economy. The Government's strategy is tax a lot, spend more than we can afford, pretend prudence by the unnecessary payment of debt and ignore the long-term consequences for growth.
The approach of Conservative Front Benchers is to promise £8 billion of tax cuts, based essentially on the reduction of waste and bureaucracy in government. They rightly intend to focus much of that benefit on cutting taxes on savings. The Government have rubbished that strategy, but I am not too worried by attacks from Treasury Ministers who cannot manage their own spending to within £5 billion and cannot forecast their surpluses to within £20 billion. Indeed, Treasury forecasting is so far off that I am beginning to believe that it is a deliberate attempt to persuade the world that tax cuts are not possible.
In reviewing Conservative policy, I considered the possibility of cutting waste and bureaucracy. The best study that I could find was by Mr. Tim Ambler, a senior research fellow at the London business school. It is due to be published later this year and draws on experience in Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere. It estimates that £30 billion a year could be saved. Although I do not accept all Mr. Ambler s arguments, I certainly believe that it is possible to achieve savings of £20 billion with no

701
adverse effects on public services and front-line spending. Indeed, it is possible to achieve that while improving public services.
Mr. Geraint Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way twice. He has painted a picture of a Labour strategy of excessive spending and taxation, but the statistics show that although we are spending more on health, education, crime prevention and so on, we are spending less on failure—on unemployment and debt. As a share of total GDP, total Government spend is marginally down because we do not have to service the same debt as the Conservatives. Tax, and borrowing as a share of GDP is also down. All aspects of policy are good, even according to the right hon. Gentleman's terms.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman assumes that the effects of the upturn of the economic cycle will always be available to the Government. Incidentally, he assumes that the effects of 20 years of Conservative reforms will always be available to a Government who follow a social democratic programme. That is not plausible. We are not just interested in the waste—as he rightly calls it—of people on unemployment benefit; w e are also concerned about the waste in government.
I did not intend to mention this, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it and as he is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I should explain that the Treasury assesses that the PAC has saved £1.5 billion a year so far. Is he really saying that that cannot be multiplied 10 times over by a Government who are determined to do their job properly, because it certainly can? He should accept that before he makes any more fatuous comments.
In conclusion, there is great scope for increasing savings beyond the £8 billion proposed by Conservative Front Benchers. It might be possible to double that in the following year. In addition, the Government's shortfall in spending appears to be systemic at about £5 billion a year—sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. The result is that we are systematically paying £5 billion a year too much tax. In addition, we have the obsession with debt that I described earlier. It is not at all implausible that an incoming Conservative Government could, in their third year, consider tax cuts of some £20 billion, which would go some way to restoring the situation that existed when this Government came to power.
The simple fact is that the strategy that the Government have followed will not, in the long term, deliver economic success for this country. The Prime Minister likes to talk about preferring "what works". What works is freedom, as Conservative Governments have demonstrated over the years. We need freedom from excessive regulation, excessive taxation and excessive Government meddling. It is clear that the Government have not understood that message. I trust that the next Conservative Government will understand it and apply it with vigour.
8.30 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I apologise for being absent for a couple of hours of the debate while I attended a Select Committee meeting and polished off a couple of related reports.
I pay my respects to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who has just left his place. He and I come from the same part of Scotland. He became a
702
magician and I kicked a football about. I have retained my accent, but he has slightly lost his—I do not know why. Our politics diverged very early in life and are very different now, but I pay credit to his hard work for his constituents, the county, his party and, indeed, his country. I look forward to working with his successor, who will undoubtedly—and, I hope, soon—be a Labour MP. The right hon. Gentleman and I will no doubt meet again on the A 1 1 dual carriageway, which the Government have now allowed to be developed. He will be glad that we finished the work that he started, although I note that it took a Labour Government to finish it off.
I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I want to concentrate on the growing confidence in Norfolk, especially in education, although it is reflected in other sectors. Norfolk county council is taking up Government initiatives. I pay tribute to the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who have worked hard together to implement those initiatives, shown great entrepreneurial spirit and kept in touch with reality. I pay tribute also to Norfolk's outstanding director of education, Dr. Bryan Slater.
Norfolk local education authority is responding to the Government's agenda of high standards for all and dealing with the legacy of the laissez-faire, market forces approach of the Conservatives nationally and locally, which has directly led to under-performance in far too many schools and low standards for far too many children. Norfolk now has a rapidly improving standard across the board, and at key stage 2 the improvement in our pupils' performance over the past three years has been the highest of any of the shire counties.
Norfolk is achieving that by challenging and supporting its schools in the way expected by the Secretary of State, and by making the best possible use of increased Government funding and education initiatives. The extra funding for schools announced in the Budget will therefore be put to good use in Norfolk. It will add to the pump-priming money that Norfolk will receive as part of its capital service agreement with the Government, which it signed recently. Norfolk will deliver even better performances in its schools in return for up to £4 billion of extra funding, and will do so by using the new flexibilities provided by the Department for Education and Employment.
Norwich, part of which I represent, is the heart of the county. Over the years, it has had education problems, but six schools, including two high schools that were in special measures, have been restored to health in the past three years. Norwich still has problems with fast economic growth and with the increase in the number of pupils. That has created a difficulty for the LEA in finding school places.
The problem stems from planning consents given by Conservative-controlled district councils that do not require developers to contribute to what can often be small towns on the edge of conurbations. In my constituency there are two growth areas with many new houses, but no schools were built, which has created problems. It would make sense if, in the next Parliament, regulations were introduced to make developers' contributions to infrastructure a mandatory element of planning consent. I believe that the Secretary of State has some sympathy with that view.

703
It is opportune to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on the forward-looking initiatives announced in the recent Green Paper on education, "Schools: Building on Success". Much of the media attention has focused on the proposal significantly to increase the number of specialist schools. Norfolk has already embraced the idea of specialist schools and 10 have been set up in the past two years. Ten more are in the pipeline, and expansion of the specialist schools programme will be music to their ears.
The specialist schools in Norfolk's network are working together to improve standards for all children in all schools. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the ultimate logic that all secondary schools should develop a specialism, that those that might find it difficult to raise sponsorship funding should be given the financial help that they need, and that particular attention should be paid to the difficulties of schools in less-advantaged areas as well as those in sparsely populated rural areas where there is no large employer to call on as a sponsor. It would be a tragedy if a two-tier secondary school system were to result from the specialist schools programme. Experience in Norfolk to date shows that there is no reason why that should happen. I shall return to that point in a few minutes.
There are a number of other positive features to the Green Paper proposals. This country has lagged disastrously behind other developed countries for many years in its failure to develop a system of secondary schooling in which academic and vocational education are of equal worth. Of critical importance to providing appropriate provision for all individual learners is the development of a system in which individualised pathways, involving a mixture of academic, vocational and work-related activities, can be provided. The Green Paper proposals offer the first real hope for the development and implementation of such an approach in our schools since the abandonment of the technical and vocational education initiative in the early 1990s.
Equally, if used sensitively and in the interests of the individual learner, proposals to enable individual young people to progress at different rates will provide a further means of ensuring that not only the content but the pace of learning is more likely to be appropriate and therefore to continue to engage the individual learner in learning. Those two developments underline the importance of developing through the new Connexions service, comprehensive and effective guidance for young people as they progress through the secondary education system.
Equally welcome are the clear statements about the role of local education authorities—reformed education authorities, in the language of the Green Paper—in future. All the signs are that local authorities have recognised and acted on their duties to raise standards.
The Green Paper also makes strong statements about the need to ensure collaboration and mutual development across schools. The stated intention of the welcome proposal for expansion of the specialist schools programme—both in the number of schools and the range of specialism—is to drive collaboration and not competition. That feature of the Green Paper has attracted the most comment and criticism since its publication.
704
Many have argued that the need for schools to attract external sponsorship in order to make a bid for specialist status will result in a two-tier system of secondary schooling, in which schools in more affluent areas are able to achieve specialist status, while others are not. That point is worthy of some examination in the Norfolk context.
Norfolk has rapidly developed a network of specialist schools: six technology schools, two sports colleges, one arts school and one language school. It has done so exactly in the spirit of the Green Paper, by developing a geographical spread and a range of specialism with the explicit expectation that schools will share the developing expertise across the secondary sector. That approach has been adopted as an intentional counter to the clearly emerging two-tier perception of secondary schooling in parts of the county—most notably the urban areas. The accumulated effect over a number of years of previous legislation and its interaction with local circumstances has come dangerously close to producing sink schools in some areas. Happily, things have moved on, and none of the worst-affected schools are any longer subject to special measures.
That pattern can be properly reversed only over a period of time, with schools and the LEA working together in the shared belief that all schools can be good schools. We must remember that it is the education of every child that counts. I passionately hold to the view that it is not necessary to have endemically weak schools in order that the majority of children can receive a good education.
The opportunity further to expand the specialist school system in Norfolk in a collaborative framework is therefore welcome news. However, it is slightly galling that it comes only weeks after the Department for Education and Employment wrote to tell Norfolk that it was nearing its ceiling for the number of specialist schools that it could have. That position has been reversed, and that will come as great encouragement to the 10 schools that are bidding to join the existing 10 specialist schools, and to the entire secondary sector.
Mr. Willis: How does the hon. Gentleman square what he has just said with that fact—it is also in the Green Paper—that only four out of 10 schools in Norfolk will be allowed to be specialist schools under the new framework? All those schools can opt to select 10 per cent. of their students. Surely the art of selection will undermine the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman is so admirably presenting to the House.
Dr. Gibson: The way round the problem, as Norfolk education authority sees it, is to take forward the spirit that head teachers throughout the county have adopted for years. They have not split away and formed grant-maintained schools. Instead, they have worked together. They are determined to show that a specialism in one school does not mean that it is higher up a hierarchy than another school. That is the spirit of partnership that drives education forward. It is all right having a valuable sector in a school, but that does not reflect on the other sectors. Instead, it encourages them. I have worked in education establishments where there has been one really classy department. That stimulates other departments to think that they, too, can be classy. If we create that spirit, it will drive education forward. It is a scene that we have not experienced for many years.

705
It would have been even more welcome if the Green Paper had fully grasped the nettle and had given the green light for all secondary schools, over a period, to develop their own specialism within a collaborative network. Perhaps Norfolk should itself work towards such a position in partnership with secondary schools in the county. I know that the people that I have mentioned—the head of the education committee and the director—have that in mind and will be reflecting; that position over the years, given the increased money that the Government have given them.
It is important to recognise that Norfolk will need to continue to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between so-called competition and collaborative approaches as the specialist school programme develops. There is no magic blueprint. I think that a spirit of co-operation and a determination to drive standards forward will overcome many of the problems that we could perceive in perhaps a more intellectual environment.
A further tension lies within the Green Paper. Teachers will find it difficult to reconcile statements about greater freedom for schools with highly prescriptive statements about the organisation of schools and curriculum delivery elsewhere in the Green Paper. Were local education authorities to adopt some of the stances set out in the Green Paper, such as those in relation to the use of setting or curriculum delivery, it would he regarded by schools and Government alike as old-fashioned interventionism. The Green Paper therefore offers an insight into the Department for Education and Employment mindset. Much room remains for development of the trust that could enable the appropriate exercise of professional judgment at all levels within the education system, based on commonly held principles that are developed in partnership with Government, local government and schools. That should be not only allowed but encouraged.
Without doubt, the Green Paper envisages a period of rapid development in coming years in the secondary sector. It proposes a significant expansion of the specialist schools programme. It welcomes more faith-based schools and the continuing establishment of city academies, and proposes changing the law to allow external sponsors to take responsibility for under-performing schools against fixed-term contracts of five to seven years, with renewal subject to performance.
The drivers for change in the secondary sector have been apparent for some time. Put simply, changes are encroaching on secondary schools from both directions. Sustained and significant improvement in attainment at the end of primary schooling means that secondary schools must be much more able to provide continuity of experience for all children, as well as meeting the higher potential that is now being demonstrated for many.
A separate paper on the agenda considers the Government's proposals for reform of key stage 3 of the national curriculum. At the same time, key stage 4 is facing massive change. The Government's post-16 reforms are designed to ensure that in future the vast majority of young people, if not all, stay in some form of education after the age of 16. In order to achieve that, changes and reforms in key stage 4 will be vital to provide a wider variety of experience than at present. The long-overdue establishment of vocational GCSEs and workplace learning in key stage 4 will need to become realities within a short time.
706
There is much more in the Green Paper, but the vision set out in it will bring about improved performance, which is already being seen in secondary schools in Norfolk and across the country, and even higher standards and greater equality of opportunity. The Budget initiatives and investments being made in schools will add to that vision, and send our people on to higher education and a more fulfilling life.
8.45 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). He has added to the scientific understanding of the House since he entered it, and I shall follow him primarily in speaking about an educational subject, though I hope that I shall be closer to the Budget and perhaps less close to the Green Paper. A year or so ago in the Chamber, I declared interests in higher education. I apologised for their egocentricity. They are in the Register of Members' Interests, and I do not propose to be egocentric again.
The febrile attitude in the popular prints suggests that an election is on the way. In that context, I take the liberty of quoting a famous passage from the Venerable Bede:
"Such, O King, seems to me the present life of men on earth, in comparison with that time which to us is uncertain, as if when a winter's night you sit feasting with your ealdormen and thegns—
I am addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
"a single sparrow should fly swiftly into the hall, and coming in at one door, instantly fly out through another. In that time in which it is indoors it is indeed not touched by the fury of the winter, but yet this smallest space of calmness being passed almost in a flash, from winter going into winter again, it is lost to your eyes. Somewhat like this appears the life of man".
In that quotation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you, of course, are the king, the Clerks at the Table are the ealdormen, and the Serjeant at Arms and his staff are the thegns. We, the Members of Parliament, are simply the sparrows who fly through the Chamber from one door to the other.
I made my maiden speech on the Monday night of the Budget debate in 1977 and, like various of my right hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), I am making what may be my final speech in the Chamber on the Monday night of the Budget debate in 2001. Those 24 years are exactly what the Venerable Bede had in mind in the quotation that I have just given.
As the poet said,
"The Ancient of Days is an hour or two old".
Twenty-four years is a bagatelle in a rural seat. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is also leaving the House, says that there have been five Members in East Devon in the past 130 years. Inner-city seats are a little different. Because of that, 24 years gives me the bronze medal in the City of London, which for most of the period since 1283 has had six Members of Parliament, and it gives me fourth place in Westminster, which has had two Members of Parliament since 1544 and Members of Parliament representing the same area since 1295. As fourth place gets one money in the grand national, I think that those are two reasonable places in the two seats.
I do not propose to spend what may be my final speech in the Chamber wandering down memory lane, save to make one confession and, from it, a single point. A year

707
or so ago, as I mentioned earlier, I indicated the intention to pursue in the House the issue of higher education in the latter part of this Parliament. That that was a reasonable intention is evidenced by the fact that in the Palace this very evening a meeting has been debating the future of higher education. That I have been prevented from doing so over the past months has been because my constituency office has become an outstation for the Home Office, to compensate for the latter's taciturnity and reticence towards my asylum-seeker constituents. Every Monday morning, I tidy up the asylum-seeker backlog from the previous week and, by Monday afternoon, the asylum-seeker constituency mail for Monday and the previous weekend has refilled the tray that I emptied in the morning. Although the correspondents have no votes, I do not begrudge the time I spend repairing the country's honour towards asylum seekers. Like all Tories, I recognise that, sadly, we live in an imperfect world.
My confession, as my prolegomenon may have made clear, relates to our universities, which have been a continuing interest of mine throughout my 24 years in the House. I spoke sympathetically about university pay in the Chamber in 1978 and thought it careless of the Association of University Teachers never to quote it against me when I was the higher education Minister five years later. My confession relates to that period. My Secretary of State was the late great Sir Keith Joseph, who was as sceptical about public expenditure—I use the old-fashioned term—as he was enthusiastic about freedom. My noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby, under whom I later served at the Treasury, was awash with oil revenues in the same way as the Chancellor is with mobile phone licence revenues. The universities, on the other hand, were imprisoned in a straitjacket of state planning. That meant that, in 1983, if a university sold an asset, it had to return the proceeds to the Treasury—a spectacular disincentive to entrepreneurialism, which we happily soon corrected, even if in two stages. It also meant that, even when we framed the rules on overseas student fees in sufficiently flexible language to encourage entrepreneurialism at all academic levels, universities tempted to try it feared that the University Grants Committee would penalise them. Thus Gulliver was held down by tiny but restrictive ropes.
My regret is that I did not even attempt to persuade the late great Sir Keith—who played a large and honourable part in changing the intellectual playing fields of British politics, on to which new Labour was finally obliged to follow us—to seek to persuade Lord Lawson to set free what were our then 45 universities with the encouragement of endowment if they were ready to be cast loose. Of course, I would not have insisted on their being cast loose. In the words of C.S. Lewis, if one hears of someone going round doing good to others,
"you can always tell the others by their hunted look."
However, for those to whom freedom is important, there is no substitute for it. I seek to make amends for my juvenile silence in the mid-1980s by nailing my colours to the mast of freedom now that I have entered the final third of my first century, and as I leave this place.
The Chancellor has chosen to put the proceeds of the mobile phone licences towards repaying the national debt. I am aware of the attraction of that repayment for the Chancellor's place in history. Because I go back to
708
prehistory—that heady mixture of Rider Haggard's "She" and Sir Leonard Woolley's "Ur of the Chaldees"—I recall the level of the national debt in 1979. I did so during the lengthy speech of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who made me recall an observation about Margot Asquith in the first world war. After she had visited the wounded in hospital, someone said of her:
"Margot is so marvellous … She can make the deaf hear and the blind to see, and she would cause the dumb to speak if they could only get a word in edgeways."
I recall the level of the national debt in 1979, so I recognise why Government's base date for the national debt in this Parliament has always been 1990, rather than 1979, especially as international commentators warmly commended the previous Government's handling of the national debt during our full 18 years in government. Of course, the fact that the Chancellor has used the proceeds of licence fees for debt repayment, rather than true investment in our higher education by endowment, does not prevent the next Conservative Government from borrowing to set our universities free, without offending against the Chancellor's golden rule.
I pay the Chancellor tribute for championing genuine investment for 15 years, as against new Labour speak for revenue expenditure, unknown in the late Sir John Hicks's classic book on the national accounts. The Chancellor has championed genuine investment in training and higher education, for which I admire him all the more. Endowing universities would provide real investment, under whichever Government, and would set universities and the Chancellor free from the Laura Spence syndrome.
Under a planned system, an Oxford college—I declare an interest as a former undergraduate—is free to allocate places only in limited numbers and in particular subjects, determined by the system. Under a free system, Harvard—I declare an interest as a former postgraduate student there—is free to offer Laura Spence a scholarship, albeit in a different subject to the one that she sought to study at Oxford, because of the endowment funds that it has accumulated for that purpose.
I acknowledge the amount that the Government have put into higher education in the current year, and I do so unreservedly. I am happy that they have done so, but theirs is not the same aim as the one that I am espousing. When I was in the private sector, I gave up a day a year to sit at the feet of the futurologist Herman Kahn. One year, in the mid-1970s, he said that the United Kingdom's opportunities in post-industrial society would be in its three special centres of excellence: medicine, higher education and government. My ambition potentially embraces not just one of those centres of excellence, but even one and a hall.
When I was at the Treasury, we held the view that anything that could not be measured did not exist. That view was put to the test some years ago by the Foreign Office, which we all know and love. There was concern in the British embassy in Brussels that the doorway between the main spare bathroom and the main spare bedroom in the embassy would be insufficiently large to encompass the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, who was, I acknowledge, a large man. A telegram was sent from Brussels to London, which stated:
"Please verify diameter of Secretary of State."

709
A telegram came back from London, which demonstrated that those in the Foreign Office—for those of us who know and love it—are possibly more literate than numerate. It stated:
"Unable verify diameter, but circumference is 60 inches."
Beyond measurement—and, therefore, infinite—is the potential of our universities, which respond to the spirit of the British genius. I hope that, as I leave this place, in this new century, our 90 British universities will blossom in the way they truly deserve to do.
8.57 pm
Mrs. Betty Williams: Like those of several other Labour Members, my constituency has many attractions and advantages, but wealth is not one of them. The Budget is welcome news to my constituents. Also like many other Labour Members, I am looking forward to the results of the Chancellor's sound management of the economy further benefiting the economic and social fabric of our nation. The Chancellor's prudent management has placed the Exchequer in a position to respond to unexpected problems in ways that are not possible when a Government spend, day by day, to the limit of their resources.
The foot and mouth epidemic is such an unexpected problem, and is having a serious effect on the economy in my constituency. The news last week that it may continue for a long time was a blow to the many who, although affected by the epidemic, can do little or nothing to bring it to an end. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for acting so incisively and for reporting to the House so well. I also pay tribute to the National Assembly for Wales, not only for the personal commitment of its Minister for Rural Affairs, Mr. Carwyn Jones, but for the excellent foot and mouth disease information service that it has provided on the website, at www.wales.gov.uk. The Assembly has gathered information from several sources and the website is a great help in the Principality.
Compensation is available to farmers whose livestock is slaughtered, and I understand that other assistance may be available through the European Union under the EU agrimonetary compensation scheme. I am sure that that will be well received. However, the foot and mouth epidemic is having a much wider effect in my constituency. In Conwy, the landscape and the seashore are our livelihood in many ways, and the epidemic is having serious repercussions. Incomes are suffering and jobs are threatened in tourism, hotels, catering, countryside pursuits—including those of climbing instructors and mountain guides—shops and the haulage industry, to name but a few examples.
To seek some measure of the likely extent of the problem, I briefly examined "Digest of Welsh Local Area Statistics 2001". For an accurate assossment, I would need the services of a statistician, which most certainly I am not. My constituency contains parts of Conwy and Gwynedd and it is probable that the agriculture and tourism-related industries provide respectively 2,500 and 10,500 jobs in those counties. A substantial proportion of those 10,500 jobs may be under threat at present and the incomes of some of my constituents who are not involved in agriculture have already been reduced to nothing by the epidemic.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales are aware of my concerns. That, and the
710
fact that they and their colleagues are examining the consequences of the outbreak, was made clear in their answers to my questions on 8 March at columns 426 and 427, and on 7 March at column 277. I am grateful for that and for the agreement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to meet my constituents on Wednesday.
The policy of slaughtering all affected animals is of long standing and I accept that it may be one of economic necessity. If so, we must give more serious and detailed consideration to the wider economic effects on constituencies such as Conwy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's stewardship has brought our economy to a state of unprecedented security, so I hope that a way may be found to assist my constituency and others where the epidemic is having a disproportionate effect on the local economy.
The Labour Government have brought many benefits to my constituents and to the nation, but they have done much more. International development and the relief of world poverty are examples. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). During her hectic day, I was delighted to introduce her to the university of Wales, Bangor. In particular, the work of the school of agricultural and forest sciences and the centre for arid zone studies was demonstrated and explained by staff, including the work being carried out under the Department for International Development plant science programme. My right hon. Friend's work on tackling world poverty, in which she co-operates with the Chancellor, is much appreciated by my constituents and I am proud that the university of Wales, Bangor, is playing its part in that mammoth task.
Sadly, towards the end of my right hon. Friend's visit, she was attacked by persons who are neither students of our university nor residents of my constituency. I feel that the House would wish to know that I have been sent many messages from my constituents expressing outrage at the treatment that my right hon. Friend received. I quote from a letter from Penrallt Baptist church, Bangor:
"Our own Baptist forefathers fought hard and with great sacrifice on the side of free speech and democracy and we share the dismay you must feel. Although our church hosts a variety of different political viewpoints we are all united in our support for you in this matter and assure you of our prayers on your behalf."
To add to that moving message and the others that I have received, I wish to extend to the House my own sincere regrets and apologies.
9.4 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: I declare the interests recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
First, I shall discuss the Budget framework. The Chancellor appears to have delivered a healthy Budget surplus, but we need to look behind that. Yet again, he has substantially undershot on the revenue side. Yet again, he has substantially undershot on departmental spending. He goes on about long-term stability and consistency, but he is consistent about one thing: he keeps undershooting his own underestimates.
Secondly, it is by now obvious to almost everyone that the golden rules that the Chancellor claims to have met so comfortably are not quite as golden as all that. This is fool's gold, or at the very least gold plate. One must ask

711
oneself, certainly after this year's outcome, whether these golden rules mean anything and whether they are any guide to the Chancellor's performance, so easily does he skip past them. Thirdly, as previous speakers have emphasised, the Chancellor has enjoyed the one-off proceeds of the mobile phone auction—some £22 billion to add to the revenue side.
The plain fact is that behind this year's healthy Government surplus, as defined by the Chancellor, spending goes on rising faster than the economy is growing. Even on his own forecast, he plans to borrow again in just two years' time. In the financial year beginning April 2003 he will borrow £10 billion, then £11 billion and £12 billion. That assumes continuous growth. If growth should slow or stop, all those figures will look suspect.
That must be why the Commission, in its assessment for the Council of Ministers, and the International Monetary Fund have warned of the consequences of the Chancellor's future tax and spending plans. The IMF warned of
"negative consequences for investment and growth."
When I asked the Chancellor about that last Thursday, one of his junior Ministers said that I was misrepresenting the report. The IMF and the Commission warned that the Chancellor's tax and spending plans over the next three years may not be sustainable if growth turns down. If growth does turn down and he wants to go on increasing spending at the rate that he has been doing, we can be sure that taxes will rise again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) told us graphically how taxes have already risen. In the last year of the Conservative Government, income tax receipts were some £69 billion, and this year they are £99 billion. I make that an increase of well over 40 per cent. Pension funds are paying £5 billion more in tax on dividends. Capital gains tax receipts have doubled from £1.2 billion to £3 billion. Inheritance tax is up from £1.5 billion to £2.3 billion. As my right hon. Friend said, 2.2 million more people currently pay tax than paid tax three years ago, and there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of people paying the higher tax rate. It would have been inconceivable before the war and in the period just after the war for so many people doing straightforward jobs to be classified as higher-rate taxpayers. Police sergeants in London, heads of department in schools and senior nursing officers are now classed as higher-rate taxpayers.
The result of all that is that total revenues—income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and excise duties—are up by a third in three years to more than £250 billion. The tables in the Red Book finally and clearly reveal what the Chancellor has consistently tried to avoid disclosing in the past few years, which is that the tax burden is up from 35.2 per cent. of gross domestic product to 38.2 per cent.
Mr. David Ruffley: Is my hon. Friend aware that Credit Suisse First Boston has calculated that, after tax and inflation, average household disposable income under the Government has risen by
712
1.6 per cent. compared with 2.5 per cent. under the previous Conservative Administration, and 2.9 per cent. between 1979 and 1990?
Mr. Fallon: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point on the record so clearly. We hope to hear more from him later this evening, or in tomorrow's debate if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The facts on tax are now coming out. For so long the Chancellor and his colleagues first tried to deny that the tax burden was rising at all, then they claimed that it had risen but was planned to fall. Now, on the record in their own tables in the Red Book, we see that the tax burden has risen for the first three years. Whatever their plans are, we can be clear about what has actually happened: the tax burden has gone up. We are therefore entitled to ask where the money has gone and why it is not getting through.
It is interesting that today's debate, inaugurated by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, has concentrated on teacher shortages and the difficulty of recruiting teachers. Given the billions of extra revenue and the billions that the Government have boasted of giving to the education service, why have they failed to get enough teachers into our schools?
When I visited Swanley school in my constituency on Thursday morning, the head teacher had to excuse herself from our discussion. She had to go and teach English—not a shortage subject—because the school was unable to recruit enough English teachers. Why is there a shortage of hospital staff, despite all the tax revenue and all the billions that have been allocated? Why is the money not getting through to front-line services?
The money is clearly not getting through. As is plain from last year's Budget, the pre-Budget report and the Budget last week, the Chancellor keeps topping up a settlement that he said was comprehensive and fixed for three years. Departments, he said in 1998, should not come back for more: the settlement would allow them to plan for the next three years. But in each successive year—in each successive mini-Budget and Budget—the Chancellor has to top it up to try to ensure that the money gets through. Now he is saying that he will give money directly to schools each year—money that is clearly not getting through under the existing system.
Mr. Ruffley: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's experience in his Sevenoaks constituency is similar to mine in Bury St. Edmunds, where police numbers have fallen, there are waiting lists for the waiting lists at local hospitals—longer than they were in 1997—and secondary-school class sizes are larger as a result of the gerrymandering at the bottom end in primary-school class sizes.
Mr. Fallon: That is an excellent example of the way in which Government targets, schemes and policies have distorted allocations. Two things are happening. First, money is not getting through to the front line—to the area police commanders, the NHS trust chief executives and the head teachers. Secondly, when it does get through it is distorted by centrally fixed priorities that dictate to the people running local services how those services should be run from the point of view of Whitehall. Our hospitals

713
and schools are ending up as branch offices of the great Departments of State in Whitehall, doing the Secretary of State's bidding.
Something is wrong with the way in which the Government have been allocating their spending. That is proved by the fact that they keep coming back to announce further allocations in some desperate bid to get the money through before people notice at the general election.
So much for the framework; let me now turn to some of the specific decisions in the Budget. Of course, I welcome some of the Chancellor's measures for entrepreneurship. It is certainly refreshing to have a Chancellor who claims to believe in entrepreneurship: that is not something to which we have been accustomed in the case of previous Labour Chancellors. I welcome, for instance, the extension of the enterprise management incentive scheme, the changes in capital gains tax and the help for small businesses. As I hope the Financial Secretary agrees, however, it is important for those moves to be followed up.
On the one hand, the Treasury accepts the case for share ownership in binding employees more closely to their companies and encouraging company loyalty; on the other, it is not prepared to go further and cut the costs of share dealing in this country. If the Government firmly believe in share ownership, they should ask themselves why it is so much more expensive to deal in shares in the United Kingdom than it is elsewhere in Europe or in America.
The Chancellor's proposals on capital gains tax and small businesses raise similar issues. It is no use the Government exempting more small businesses further up the turnover scale from VAT when they are simultaneously piling on to those businesses more of the social red tape and other regulation to which we are becoming accustomed. If Ministers believe in exempting those businesses from VAT, why ate they also piling on extra regulation? The Government's entrepreneurship proposals need to be followed through much more consistently if we are to believe that there really has been a conversion in the Treasury to the cause of entrepreneurship.
The Chancellor's decisions can be characterised under four headings. First, there is far too much fiddling about with the provision of small tax credits here and there. The credits are all intended to deal with ostensibly worthwhile causes such as community investment, research and development and persuading people to build flats over shops. However, I warn the Treasury that there are always deadweight costs in introducing such incentives for people who may well have made those decisions regardless. There are certainly bureaucratic costs in processing all those applications and ensuring that they are dealt with. I also doubt whether, ultimately, such incentives change behaviour in the way that the Treasury hopes they will.
My favourite line in the Budget is the announcement that the Government will
"remove VAT on the purchase of adult cycle helmets … to encourage people to cycle more".
All I can say to Treasury Ministers is that I doubt that people will suddenly abandon their motor cars—or that the commuters of Sevenoaks will suddenly leave their
714
Mercedes or Volvos at home and cycle down to Sevenoaks station—simply because VAT has been abolished on cycle helmets. That is not how people behave in the real world.
Mr. Ruffley: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the unacceptable face of the new Labour nanny state?
Mr. Fallon: That is an uncharitable view.
More fully, the sentence states that the Government will
"remove VAT on the purchase of adult cycle helmets … to encourage people to cycle more and improve road safety".
The Government are therefore reducing VAT on cycle helmets to improve road safety. I do not quite follow that. Nevertheless, that sentence demonstrates all the overweening ambition and the futility of fiddling about with the tax system and thinking that, on 1 April, because a couple of pounds have come off the price of cycle helmets all the cars will be left at home and millions of people will be happily cycling to work. It really doesn't work like that.
The Chancellor's decisions can be criticised as quite clever packaging—like the "new and improved" formula that one sees in the shops. Not only has the decision on VAT on church repairs already been announced, it has already been blocked. Now, Ministers are trying to find a different way of producing the same money.
We have also already heard about the children's tax credit being increased to £10. The Government were consulting on that proposal and—surprise, surprise—people said that they were in favour of it. That change was reannounced again in the Budget statement. In his clever packaging, there were some measures that the Chancellor did not include. He did not remind us of the increase in national insurance contributions. Although that had been announced before, he did not trouble us by reannouncing it.
On Thursday, the Paymaster General was rather caught out and with some embarrassment had to explain to the House that Ministers had not provided hon. Members with the press notices with which we are usually provided and which explain some of the changes, including the one on the application of VAT to spectacles. Some of the notices were not even included in the Budget bundle. I think that the hon. Lady tried to convince the House that that was standard practice. It certainly has not been standard practice. In the old days, the Budget bundle included all the press notices and hon. Members did not have to ring up the Treasury or plug into the website to try to obtain more information.
My third criticism of the detail of the Budget is that there are, again, costs to business. Right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to hear that, because the Budget was in general presented as one that cut taxes. However, maternity leave has been increased and paternity pay has been introduced. Even if the cost of those changes does not fall directly on business, it will do so indirectly. Business ultimately funds the changes through increased costs or it has to accommodate itself to the changes. That is particularly true of very small businesses which may have only three or four key people. Nevertheless, the Government tell them that they must provide so many weeks maternity leave and paternity leave. All those changes pile extra costs on business.
My fourth and final criticism is that the Budget perfectly demonstrates just how far the Chancellor has strayed from Treasury matters into all kinds of areas. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has had time

715
yet to read the Treasury Committee's report on the role of the Treasury, which clearly shows that the Chancellor is involved in almost everything. He is involved in welfare policy—he is running the welfare system. He is involved in family policy. As we have just heard with regard to road safety, he is involved in transport policy. He is involved in education policy, in getting the money directly to the schools, helping to bypass the local education authorities. He is also involved in many other policies. Indeed, the Chief Secretary has become involved in something quite different. According to a Treasury press release, the right hon. Gentleman has announced an award for the most outstanding public building. So the Chancellor is also into architectural policy and has announced a new design award scheme. What does architecture have to do with the Treasury? The Chancellor simply cannot resist meddling in anything and everything—welfare, families, cycling and transport education and now public architecture.
The bigger issues are neglected. The Treasury has issued another consultative document to puzzle out why our productivity is still slipping behind that of our major competitors and why it seems that the gap between us and the United States cannot be bridged. There are issues at which the Treasury should be looking. For example, why do the Americans pay less tax but seem to work harder, for longer hours, and take fewer holidays? Why do our medium-sized companies find it so difficult to train and retain their work force?
After productivity comes the tax code. It is quite striking that commentator after commentator has gone on about the complexity of the tax code and the need for simplification. It is bad for individuals and complicated for business. Of course, I welcome the rewrite project and the work of those who are attempting tax simplification, but the structure is far too complex. It is time that the Treasury addressed these criticisms and came up with at least a commitment to taking an interest in simplifying the tax code.
In conclusion, this is not a very successful Budget. Taking the past four years as a whole, the Chancellor put up taxes quite massively for two years 'and then, in the past two years, reduced them slightly. As a result, taxes are much higher, but spending, as I have demonstrated, is no better. It is said that the Budget will benefit those with babies. It will certainly not take in those who were not born yesterday.
9.23 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: This has been an interesting and quite prolonged debate. The opening speeches highlighted the contrast between the parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made an incisive, constructive speech which showed her free thinking, in complete contrast with the wooden, inflexible speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has done so much to induce initiative fatigue in those of us who have to listen to him.
This was a unique day. We heard no fewer than four valedictory speeches from colleagues on the Opposition Benches—unfortunately only one of them is still in the Chamber. The first was made by my right hon. Friend the
716
Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who drew attention to the Government' s and the Chancellor's assault on middle England. He drew attention to the boom in tax raising and the bust in manufacturing.
In truth, the Chancellor has much for which to thank my right hon. Friend, who laid the foundations for the Budget. The tough decisions on which the Chancellor has based his Budget were taken in the Budgets of Lord Lamont and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon looks back at his career, I pay him the compliment of summing it up in this phrase: he made a difference and I pay tribute to him.
The second valedictory speech came from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, had his finger on the button. He rightly said that the Budget was patchy, with little bits for everybody, and that the increase in the tax burden was caused by fiscal drag. With his unique knowledge of the pensions industry, he drew attention to the problems with annuities.
The third valedictory speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who incisively exposed the flaws in the Budget. He drew particular attention to the mess caused by IR35, giving an example that highlighted that problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Bowden (Mr. Davis) pointed out most effectively and clinically how the Budget and its predecessors were eroding Britain's competitive position.
The fourth valedictory speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who really is my friend. He and I soldiered through the proceedings of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 together, so I know what a support he can be for those less experienced than him.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that as the Member for the City of London, he would have won a bronze medal and as Member for Westminster he would have taken fourth place. In the affection of Members on the Conservative Benches today, he certainly takes first place. His speeches never fail to illuminate and lift whatever forum he chooses to speak in. To include the Venerable Bede, Margot Asquith and C.S. Lewis in one speech is unique and is unlikely to be heard again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) also made an incisive speech. He pointed out that in two years, the Government will be borrowing and that the IMF has noted the negative consequences of the Government's present monetary and fiscal stance.
What is most remarkable, however, is that although the Government have 417 seats in the House—a majority greater than the total number of Conservative seats—there were fewer Members on their Benches throughout the day than on the Opposition Benches. That shows how little interest Labour Members have in the serious consequences of the Budget that we are debating.
I shall deal with some of the wilder misrepresentations of Conservative tax and spending policies on education. The Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion for education over the next three years. He has used that technique before. Every year, he seems to produce a new three-year plan of some sort. A future Conservative Government will match that extra expenditure. However, somehow the inference has been made that that affects our projected tax and spend policies.

717
Before the Budget, the Chancellor had projected that public expenditure would be £442 billion in 2003–04, and we had set out how we intended to spend £8 billion less than that. After the Budget, the Chancellor still proposes to spend £442 billion in 2003–04, which includes the extra funding for education. We still intend to reduce that figure by £8 billion, but as none of that sum touches the education budget, we can match the Government's education proposals without affecting our overall policy.
The mystery, if there is one, is how the Government can spend an extra £1 billion In without increasing the spending total. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead showed the manipulation in the figures and seriously brought into question whether an extra £1 billion existed at all. In fact, it looks more like an extra £200 million by 2003–04.
Our education policy would have fundamentally differed from that in the Budget in one way—our plan to endow the universities, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred. Before the Budget we had already announced that we would use the surpluses from future privatisations and spectrum sales to endow universities for the future. The universities will then invest the money and fund themselves through the income raised.
In the Budget, the Government propose to repay £32 billion of the national debt from the surpluses that they have accumulated during the past four years. In our judgment, much of that money could be better used to endow the universities, allowing them to receive substantial sums, which they could invest to fund themselves through the income. We will put our great universities on a standing with Stanford, Yale and Harvard, which revel in their independence.
Our policies will free the universities from excessive control and interference, allowing them to forge links with business and harness funding from the private sector without affecting their grant. They will decide the salary structures and how many students to take. That policy will remove the uncertainty about university funding, and it will be fiscally neutral.
That imaginative proposal stands in stark contrast to the Labour party's manifesto commitment in 1997, when it undertook to raise the proportion of national income spent on education. Under the previous Government, the average figure was 5 per cent.; under this Government it is 4.7 per cent.—another broken pledge.
Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between a permanent endowment fund and an endowment fund? Could he explain which fund would operate under the Conservative party's policy?
Mr. Ottaway: The fund will be perfectly straightforward; the money will he given as a grant to the universities, thus removing the need for the Government to give them their grant, which is why the policy will be fiscally neutral.
We acknowledge that the Budget's foundations were laid in the 1990s. We acknowledge the current stable, monetary position, the reasonable growth in the economy, low inflation and falling unemployment, but, as many hon. Members have said today, the growth in the economy started in 1993, when unemployment started to fall, as did inflation shortly thereafter. Yet despite the Chancellor's
718
achievement in not messing up the golden legacy that we handed him, the fall in unemployment is slowing down under this Labour Government. Between 1994 and 1997, unemployment fell by 27 per cent.; since 1997, it has fallen by only 24 per cent.
The Labour party said in its 1997 election manifesto that it would get 250,000 under-25-year-olds off benefit and into work, but according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, youth employment has risen by only 13,000 in the past two years. So it is clear that the new deal has been an expensive failure and one of the least effective job creation schemes in history. The next Conservative Government will replace the new deal with "Britain works", a scheme modelled on the highly successful "America works". It will save about £400 million of public expenditure and it has a greater likelihood of success.
Despite the relative stability of the economy, what the Chancellor is doing with it is alarming people across the length and breadth of the country. Whatever the Government's protestations and whatever phrase or spin they choose to put on the situation, there is absolutely no argument that the tax burden has risen under this Government. They may talk about a couple of pence off petrol or an increase in the children's tax credit, but the remorseless, indisputable truth is that, in 1997, the tax burden was 35.3 per cent. of gross domestic product and, today, it is 37.7 per cent. Britain is paying more; Labour has taxed by stealth.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only did the Government inherit a benign set of circumstances from the previous Government, but they inherited a benign set of world economic circumstances, particularly in north America? North America still has a very much lower tax burden as a percentage of GDP than the Government are currently imposing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to become competitive in world terms, we still need to have a lower tax burden?
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I intend to deal with the position of the United States shortly.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: No, I am sorry, but time is against me.
The Government have invented 45 stealth taxes on everything from holidays to pensions. If people are married, smoke, drink or drive a car, they feel it in their pockets. The irony is that those taxes are being introduced by, of all things, a Labour Government. They are regressive taxes, hitting those on the lowest incomes and hitting worst of all in the Labour party's heartlands.
With the election imminent, those of us who have been on doorstep know what the public are saying. There is a sense of unease about what the Government have done. Labour voters from 1997 have their doubts and Millbank spin doctors warn us of apathy among the voters. It is not apathy; it is dissatisfaction among the very people whom Labour were voted in to look after.
The Government's tax increases since 1997 add up to £25 billion a year, equal to lop on income tax. A typical working family is £670 a year worse off under Labour.

719
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk pointed out, the cruellest tax of all is the stealth tax on our pension funds. We all know that the price of cigarettes has gone up, but millions are unaware of how their pension fund has been eroded. Unless, one puts in hundreds of pounds extra a year into a pension, one will be much poorer in retirement than planned.
In a cynical step, with the election weeks away, the Chancellor has started to give a fraction of that money back. He has widened the lop tax band; he is going to give people an extra 69p a week. That, on top of last year's 75p increase to pensioners, illustrates that the Government have lost all sense of relativities. All that they are doing is earning the anger of the British people.
However, while the Chancellor is trumpeting his tax cuts, as in most of his Budgets, reading the small print reveals much more. The rises in national insurance contributions mean that 2.5 million taxpayers will be worse off; the climate change levy will start to clobber business; the increase in company car tax continues the right hon. Gentleman's relentless assault on the motorist; and the aggregates tax will hit the cost of construction.
However, it gets worse. Deep in the small print of the Red Book, it is revealed that the increase in corporation tax this year will be more than £5 billion. The Chancellor may have trumpeted a modest reduction in the headline rate of corporation tax but, since he came into office in 1997, he has not adjusted the threshold at all. Furthermore, he has left IR35 untouched. No wonder business feels unfairly treated.
However, most contemptible is the imposition of VAT on spectacles. It will particularly hit the poor and the elderly. Just what do the Government think they are doing? The elderly in our society are the most vulnerable. That is why we will cut taxes for the over-65s, eliminate tax on savings and substantially increase the age-related allowance, which will take 1 million pensioners out of the tax system altogether.
What a contrast with the fiddly changes to the rules on individual savings accounts and personal equity plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, those changes illustrate the central features of any of the Chancellor's Budgets—the complexity and dramatic extension of means-testing and the use of tax credits reflect his tinkering, meddling, fiddling, interfering, intruding, prying, snooping and tampering. All that from a Chancellor who, in 1994, told the Labour party conference that he would eliminate means-testing from the benefits system.
To qualify for the tax credits, people must fill in extensive forms, so they do not bother. It comes as no surprise that millions of people who are entitled to receive the children's tax credit probably do not know about that. The Inland Revenue does not know where the children are—it does not keep such records. The anomaly of the children's tax credit remains. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said, why should two earners who are both on £35,000 a year—a household total of £70,000 a year—receive the children's tax credit when a single earner on £45,000 does not. In last year's Finance Bill, the Minister said that he was looking into the matter. I suggest that he gets another pair of spectacles—if he can afford the VAT.
720
We recognise the need to maintain spending on schools, but that does not me in that savings cannot be made. A future Conservative Government will take the growth in the economy and increase expenditure on public services while letting people benefit from the reduction in taxes. We are proud to campaign for tax cuts of £8 billion, which the nation can afford and which it wants. That highlights the philosophical divide between the parties. Conservatives believe that people who work hard and make an honest living should be entitled to keep as much of their money as they can and spend it in the way that they wish. We will cat taxes because we believe that people know better how to spend their own money. The Budget fails to recognise that fundamental truism.
The Budget is complacent. Although the Government predict a deficit in two years' time, they plan to increase public spending at an unsustainable level. The world outlook is not that rosy. Japan's economy has stalled and the alarm bells are ringing in the United States of America, but the Chancellor claims to have eliminated boom and bust, as if it were in his gift to do so. If the American economy turns down, the surpluses of which he is so proud will disappear in the mist. The Government will face the stark and unenviable choice of cutting expenditure or increasing taxes. That sounds like boom and bust to me, and they know it.
9.43 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The fundamentals of our economy are stronger today than they have been for a generation. The centrepiece of our economic strategy—the establishment of a new stability in the economy—was set out before the last election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) reminded the House. The new macro-economic policy framework, with interest rates decided independently by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and the rules of fiscal prudence, was needed to establish a new stability in the economy after decades of instability, compared with the record of our competitors. Having achieved that, we see it as a precious prize indeed. So maintaining it and locking it in for the long term was at the heart of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's objectives last week.
We are enjoying clear benefits from that approach. More people are in work than ever before. The unemployment rate is at its lowest for 25 years. Of particular importance is the dramatic fall in youth unemployment. The number of young people aged 18 to 24 who are unemployed for six months or more—the group targeted by the extremely successful new deal for young people—has fallen by more than 75 per cent. since 1997. Everyone can appreciate the huge benefit to us all of so many young people becoming familiar with the habits and disciplines of having a job, especially when such a large number of them grew up in households in which no one regularly went to work. Opposition Members referred to the evaluation carried out by the Institute for Social and Economic Research. Its conclusion is that the new deal for young people will have cost £150 million a year over this Parliament and will have increased national income by £500 million a year, such is the scale of its success.
Interest rates are low and stable. We have the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, and unprecedentedly high rates of business investment—over 14 per cent.

721
of GDP. Inflation is on target, and has been lower for longer than at any time in the past 30 years. It is the lowest in the European Union. National debt has sharply decreased. The fall in debt charges, which some Conservative Members have questioned in the debate, has alone freed up £7 billion for next year, compared with four years ago. The fall in spending on unemployment benefit has freed up about £4 billion. That is why we can now plan with confidence for substantial increases in investment over the next three years in education, science, transport and health—the priorities on which our future prosperity will depend.
I shall respond to points made in the debate and set out the approach on productivity that we have taken in the Budget. There is still a substantial productivity gap between the UK and our leading competitors. The most recent data suggest that there has recently been significant improvement, with manufacturing productivity up by 4.4 per cent. in the past year, but we still have a long way to go to catch up on past failure, and we are determined that we should do so.
There are five key drivers of productivity growth on which we need to make progress: investment, skills, innovation, enterprise and competition. I shall outline how the Budget addressed each of those. On investment, we want to maximise the contribution of institutional investors to boost productivity. Following an investigation by Paul Myners of Gartmore Investment Managers, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor List week accepted his recommendations, which included making it easier for institutions to participate in venture capital investment. We want it to be worth people's while to move from a secure job in a large firm to a fast-growing start-up, so we are extending the enterprise management incentive, which has been welcomed in the debate. In future, tax-advantaged share options in small firms can be extended to as many employees as the company chooses, up to £3 million in total for all the options. We want a new regional dynamism to boost the economy, so we are introducing new flexibility to how the regional development agencies can use their budgets.
On skills, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced earlier in the debate our measures to improve recruitment and retention of teachers. We also want higher investment in work force training throughout the economy, and we are prepared to consider a tax credit for it. We need businesses and others to take complementary steps in response. Sir Gareth Roberts, the former vice-chancellor at Sheffield university who has just moved to Wolfson college, Oxford, will conduct a study of the supply of highly skilled scientists and engineers, focusing on those skills areas where shortages are most acute.
There is a great interest in sectors facing shortages in recruiting people who are currently out of the work force altogether: young people, lone parents, returners and early retirers. We will develop intensive. sector-based welfareto-work strategies in skill shortage areas such as retail, construction, financial services and information technology.
Mr. Bercow: The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), is on the record as saying in a written answer on 11 December:
"The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale."—[Official Repot, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]
722
Is not the Financial Secretary therefore able to recognise that there is an obvious link between the massive explosion of circulars, glossy publications and consultation documents that have spewed forth from the DFEE over the past four years on the one hand, and the number of people leaving the teaching profession on the other?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman, who I know has been present for most of the debate, will have heard several hon. Members recording their constituency experiences of the very high morale in schools throughout the country, which reflects the huge improvement in investment in our schools in recent years. He will have heard also about the substantial increase in the number of people applying for teacher training and about the measures that we will take over the next 18 months before those people go into employment in schools.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said in his winding-up speech, the debate has been marked by—possibly—the last speeches of three distinguished former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, all of them, as it happens, former Treasury Ministers, and by that of a very distinguished Conservative Back Bencher as well. I want to run through the points made by all who spoke and say something about their remarks.
In a thoughtful and commendably succinct speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) drew attention to and welcomed in particular, among other features of the Budget, the special grant for museums, to repay their VAT and to help them offer free admission, which we very much welcome.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in a dignified speech which he said might well be his last in the House of Commons, spoke with great feeling of the privilege of being a Member of the mother of Parliaments. He described my right hon. Friend as "this most prudent of Chancellors", paying him a number of compliments as well as levelling some criticism. The right hon. Gentleman commented on tax as a proportion of gross domestic product. It is worth making the point that it is less than it would have been on the previous Government's projections when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister.
As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly said, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon struck a very different tone from the current leader of the Conservative party in Harrogate. The right hon. Gentleman explained that he would be unable to be present for the close of the debate, but he will take with him when he leaves the House the good wishes of all hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) raised his interest in further education. The Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), was on the Government Front Bench when he spoke and heard his remarks with particular interest. My hon. Friend also welcomed the support for research and development announced in the Budget, and the consultation on the new tax credit for large firms. That will be of particular interest to firms such as Rolls-Royce in his area.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough supported moves in the Budget to reduce child poverty and made a number of points about education. My hon.

723
Friend the Member for Bury, South was right to point out, however, that representatives of the Liberal Democrat party have a tendency to make endless demands without ever telling us how they would pay for them. My hon. Friend also made an important point supporting the new partnerships encouraged and gathered by regional development agencies.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), another former Conservative Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in what he said would be his last speech in a Budget debate, paid some slightly back-handed compliments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy. He said that the fuel escalator was abolished in response to the fuel protests in September. Of course, that was not so. The abolition of the fuel escalator was announced in the pre-Budget report in 1999, well before those protests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) was one of those who passed on to the House the welcome of head teachers in his constituency for the additional sums that are being provided directly to their schools following the announcements last week. That is one of the factors that has improved morale in schools up and down the country.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), in what I think he said would be his last speech after 31 years in the House—he is the longest-serving of those who spoke in this debate before retirement—said that, although he welcomed the research and development tax credit for large firms, he was concerned about small and medium-sized enterprises. I can tell him that we introduced in last year's Budget precisely what he wanted—a tax credit for small and medium-sized enterprises which has been widely welcomed and in place for the past year. He also asked about support for the cost of child care at home. I refer him to paragraph 4.17 in the Red Book, where that point is directly picked up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), in a highly economical, perceptive and well-informed speech, said that the key to the Government's success was the 1.1 million extra jobs that have been created. He made the telling point that the proportion of tax as a percentage of gross domestic product needs to be considered alongside the unsustainable borrowing that was taking place in 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) showed his strong commitment to improving education in Norfolk. He welcomed the impact of the Green Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) spoke effectively of the repercussions of foot and mouth disease through the local economy in the area she represents, and welcomed the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
I regret that I do not have time to comment on some other interesting speeches, including that made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). There was also the—possibly—retirement speech of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), another former distinguished Treasury Minister.
The greater prosperity that we are working for and taking forward in the Budget depends on public investment. We could not seriously aim for greater
724
prosperity if we continued in the old way of under-investing in our schools. We could not seriously aim for greater prosperity if we carried on in the old way and failed to invest in science. We could not do so if we carried on in the old way and failed to invest in transport. Investment, and public investment, are the essential prerequisites for prosperity in a modern economy.
What do the Tories offer us? They long to make cuts, but they know that the country has had enough of under-investment and crumbling services. They long to wield the axe, but they know that only a minority would support them. Instead of a frank commitment to cuts in services, we have an extraordinary list of fudges, exaggerations and naiveties, to which the hon. Member for Croydon, South referred, and which they claim would amount to £8 billion in savings.
Let us be charitable and pretend that £8 billion in two years would be enough to make the Conservatives' Budget arithmetic add up. It would not, of course, but let that pass. Let us consider the list on its own terms. Even on the most charitable interpretation, the list crumbles into dust when it is exposed even to cursory examination. It simply does not stack up.
It is well known, tot example, that there are no regional assemblies in England, yet the Tory list claims that £205 million will be saved by abolishing them. They are not there to abolish. We have been told this evening that the Conservatives would use the £34 billion debt repayment this year—it has already been made, but presumably they would borrow it again—to establish an endowment for universities. That opens up an additional hole of £2 billion that needs to be plugged by other measures that have not been specified. At point after point, the entries on the list cannot sustain even more than the most cursory scrutiny.
I am particularly interested by the claim that housing benefit reorganisation would yield nearly £450 million in savings. The Conservative party has experience of housing benefit reorganisation. The Conservative Government reorganised it twice in the 1980s, and made a hash of it on both occasions. The figure that the Conservatives have come up with is completely fictitious. They count savings from taking away housing benefit from some local authorities, but forget to add in the extra costs that the Benefits Agency would incur in taking on the additional work. It is all like that.
It is a curious fact that in the 1985 public spending White Paper, the Tories spelled out how much they thought they would save by housing benefit reorganisation. Yes, the sum was £450 million, but the saving never materialised. It was groundless then, and it is completely bogus now. As I have said, the numbers do not stack up.
Our numbers do stack up. We said before the election that stability was the key to success in managing the economy, and stability is what we have delivered. It presents us with our best economic opportunity in a generation, and all of us should wish to seize it.
It is being recognised increasingly that the United Kingdom is an attractive place for setting up a business. A few weeks ago, Arthur Andersen and Growthplus released their first annual pan-European benchmarking study on—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put ,Forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour— [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 134.

Division No. 143]

[10 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Allen, Graham

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Dismore, Andrew

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Dobbin, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Donohoe, Brian H

Atkins, Charlotte

Dowd, Jim

Austin, John

Drew, David

Bailey, Adrian

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Barnes, Harry

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bayley, Hugh

Efford, Clive

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Ennis, Jeff

Begg, Miss Anne

Etherington, Bill

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Bennett, Andrew F

Fisher, Mark

Benton, Joe

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Berry, Roger

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Best, Harold

Flint, Caroline

Blackman, Liz

Flynn, Paul

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Foulkes, George

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fyfe, Maria

Bradshaw, Ben

Gapes, Mike

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gardiner, Barry

Browne, Desmond

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Buck, Ms Karen

Gerrard, Neil

Burgon, Colin

Gibson, Dr Ian

Butler, Mrs Christine

Godsiff, Roger

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Goggins, Paul

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cann, Jamie

Grocott, Bruce

Casale, Roger

Hain, Peter

Caton, Martin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cawsey, Ian

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clapham, Michael

Healey, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hill, Keith

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clelland, David

Hoey, kate

Clwyd, Ann

Home Robertson, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Coleman, Iain

Hope, Phil

Colman, Tony

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Cooper, Yvette

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corbett, Robin

Howells, Dr Kim

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cox, Tom

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cranston, Ross

Hurst, Alan

Crausby, David

Hutton, John

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Idon, Dr Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Illsley, Eric

Cummings, John

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'tryS)

Jamieson, David

Dalyell, Tam

Jenkins, Brian

726

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Rammell, Bill

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Raynsford, Nick

Joyce, Eric

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Rogers, Allan

Kemp, Fraser

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kidney, David

Rowlands, Ted

Kilfoyle, Peter

Roy, Frank

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ruane, Chris

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ruddock, Joan

Lammy, David

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Leslie, Christopher

Ryan, Ms Joan

Levitt, Tom

Sarwar, Mohammad

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Savidge Malcolm

Lock, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McAvoy, Thomas

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McCabe, Steve

Skinner, Dennis

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Macdonald, Calum

McDonnell, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McFall, John

Smith, Liew (Blalenu Gwent)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Snape, Peter

McIsaac, Shona

Mackinlay, Andrew

Soley, Clive

McNulty, Tony

Southworth, Ms Helen

MacShane, Denis

Spellar, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Squire, Ms Rachel

McWater, Tony

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McWilliam, John

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Stoate, Dr Howard

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Martlew, Eric

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Maxton, John

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Meale Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Merron, Gillian

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Michie, Bill (Shefl'd Heeley)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Miller, Andrew

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Timms, Stephen

Morley, Elliot

Tipping, Paddy

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Todd, Mark

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Mudie, George

Tynan, Bill

Mullin, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Ward, Ms Claire

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Watts, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

White, Brian

O'Hara, Eddie

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Olner, Bill

Wicks, Malcolm

O'Neill, Martin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Perham, Ms Linda

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Pike, Peter L

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Plaskitt, James

Winnick, David

Pond, Chris

Worthington, Tony

Pope, Greg

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Pound, Stephen

Wyatt, Derek

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Mr. Ian Pearson and

Primarolo, Dawn

Mr. Clive Betts.

727

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Lansley, Andrew

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Letwin, Oliver

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Lindington, David

Baldry, Tony

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Ballard, Jackie

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Bercow, John

Luff, Peter

Beresford, Sir Paul

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Blunt, Crispin

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Body, Sir Richard

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Boswell, Tim

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Madel, Sir David

Brady, Graham

Malins, Humfrey

Brazier, Julian

Maples, John

Breed, Colin

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Browning, Mrs Angela

Moss, Malcolm

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Nicholls, Patrick

Burns, Simon

Norman, Archie

Butterfill, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Ottaway, Richard

Page, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Paice, James

Paterson, Owen

Chope, Christopher

Prior, David

Clappison, James

Randall, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Rendel, David

Collins, Tim

Robathan, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Cotter, Brian

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Cran, James

Ruffley, David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

St Aubyn, Nick

Day, Stephen

Sanders, Adrian

Duncan, Alan

Sayeed, Jonathan

Duncan Smith, Iain

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Evans, Nigel

Shepherd, Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Fallen, Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Fearn, Ronnie

Spicer, Sir Michael

Flight, Howard

Spring, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fraser, Christopher

Steen, Anthony

Garnier, Edward

Streeter, Gary

Gibb, Nick

Stunell, Andrew

Gill, Christopher

Swayne, Desmond

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Syms, Robert

Gorrie, Donald

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gray, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Green, Damian

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Grieve, Dominic

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Townend, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Tredinnick, David

Hammond, Philip

Trend, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Walter, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Waterson, Nigel

Hayes, John

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Heald, Oliver

Whittingdale, John

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Wilkinson, John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Willetts, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Willis, Phil

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Wilshire, David

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Jenkin, Bernard

Keetch, Paul

Tellers for the Noes:

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Mr. Eric Forth and

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
10.15 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we debate the Leader of the House's motion on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, will you tell the House whether there is any precedent for the Government moving a motion that consideration in Committee of any Bill be deemed to be completed when it clearly has not? The point is simple. There will be arguments later about what happened, but it seems to me to be wrong for Parliament ever to cut any part of proceedings on a Bill and not to return to the stage at which proceedings were disrupted. Will you rule on whether it is out of order for the Government to seek to cut a whole stage of the parliamentary process on the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: There is no precedent, but we have a motion covering that matter before us. Therefore, it is not for me to say that the Government are out of order.
Mr. Stephen Day: That is up to the Lobby fodder over there.
Mr. Speaker: Older. The Government are in proper order; if it were otherwise, I would say so.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you please advise the Houle whether it would be possible for the Government to table a motion recommitting the Bill to the Committee and giving the Committee sufficient time for proper debate?
Mr. Speaker: That matter is hypothetical. We are dealing with the motion before the House, which has been tabled by the Government, and an amendment, which has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Alan Duncan: And others.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, the motion has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats; others have added their names to it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen more often—he might learn something. Before I was interrupted, I was telling the House, and I might tell him, that I have accepted the amendment in the name of the Liberal Demcrats.
10.17 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That, following the Report of the Chairman of Standing Committee F on 9th March, the Criminal Justice and Police Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House, as amended by the Committee, and as if those Clauses and Schedules the consideration of which had not been completed by the Committee had been ordered to star d part of the Bill, with the outstanding Amendments which stood on the Order paper in the name of Mr. Charles Clarke.
I begin by saying how really delighted I am to see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) here for the whole debate. Earlier, she notified the Whips Office that she would have to miss the first half because of the annual general meeting of her

729
Conservative association in Maidstone, which will presumably call on her to justify her behaviour last Thursday to Conservative party members.
Mr. Crispin Blunt rose—
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way at this stage.
This afternoon, the right hon. Lady and I had a very frank exchange outside the Chamber after Question Time. I am very glad that she has considered further counsel and is with us for the whole debate. I welcome her.
Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: Later, but not at this stage.
I believe that the debate is about judgment—three different judgments. The first is the Government's judgment in allocating time to the Bill. The Opposition claim that we did not allocate enough. The second is the judgment of the Conservative party in determining its approach to the Bill. The third is the judgment of the right hon. Lady in deciding to flout the rules of the House and the authority of the Chair. I shall discuss those three judgments in order.
Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he explain to the House why he said that he could
"confirm that the Government will be tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated"—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 527]—
which is this motion? He told the House on Friday that the motion would be tabled today and then slipped it in surreptitiously on Friday. Why did he change his mind?
Mr. Clarke: There was no change. That matter was dealt with at points of order immediately after Question Time this afternoon and I have nothing to add.
Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister says that this matter was dealt with at points of order after questions, but what he said on Friday was not dealt with by you. You have made it clear that you are not responsible for what the Minister said on Friday. What is perfectly clear from Hansard and from the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the Minister's reply. Opposition Members have a chance to rebut what the Minister states tonight. That is known as debate. The Minister is involved in the debate, and the hon. Member or his Front-Bench colleagues can rebut the case that he puts.
Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am keen to debate fully all three judgments. First, on the judgment about the time allocated for consideration of the Bill, in the light of some of the examples that have been given I want to give just one example to which the Opposition should give good consideration. The Police Act 1997, which was passed in the pre-election 1996–97 Session, had 138 clauses and 10 schedules on enactment. It was
730
considered for a total of eight sittings, compared with the number of sittings for this Bill under this Government. The House should bear that in mind when considering the crocodile tears that are being wept by some Opposition Members.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, not at this stage.
Our overall approach to this matter was clear. First, we wanted to co-operate with the Opposition on the issues developed, as I and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), have on previous Bills such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill. Secondly, we wanted to be out of Committee by 8 March. Thirdly, following Second Reading we initially proposed 16 sittings, equivalent to 36 hours, and said that we were prepared to put in more time and sittings. Fourthly, we made it clear that it was up to the Opposition to choose the subjects that they wanted to spend time debating. That was the basis on which we went to the first Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Mr. James Gray: There were 14.
Mr. Clarke: As is being shouted out, the resolution proposed for 16 sittings, not 14. That followed a personal commitment by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who believed that his unavoidable absence had been accepted by his opposite number in the usual channels. For that reason, I made it clear at the Programming Sub-Committee that we would allocate time at least to make up the missing four hours, and more if necessary, to debate the subject of the Bill.
The Opposition were not interested in the time. They were interested only in the end date of 13 March, when the Bill would come out of Committee—an extra five hours on the original proposal in the resolution that we submitted. That was their only concern, not time.
I believe that that dispute—it was a sharply held dispute through the whole process—originated from Conservative inflexibility for reasons that I shall explain later. It poisoned the work of the Committee. As a result of that inflexibility, the Opposition usual channels were not prepared to come to agreements unless the Government agreed to change the end date to 13 March, as originally proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
Mr. Gray: Does the Minister accept that what happens between the usual channels is not a matter for debate in this Chamber? I for one do not intend to enter into discussion about what the Government usual channels and I discussed. That is a private matter for the usual channels, and he should not be raising it from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman spent 20 minutes speaking in Committee as a Whip. As these issues were fully debated in Committee, when I said exactly what I have said now in this Chamber, his argument has no substance.

731
The Opposition's argument was not about increasing the time for debate, but about their ambition to change the end date. We made offers that were not accepted. We offered to meet on the afternoon and evening of Budget day on Wednesday 7 March, but they said no because they would not come to any understandings. We also offered to sit longer on other occasions, but none of those offers was accepted.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, when I have gone through the facts on time, so that the hon. Gentleman knows where we are.
We originally committed to 16 sittings: a total of 36 hours. The programme motion that we tabled began with 14 sittings: that is, 32 hours. We agreed six extra extensions during that period: 30 minutes on 6 February, 30 minutes on 13 February, an hour on 27 February, an hour and a half on 6 March, two and a half hours on 7 March and two hours on 8 March. That represents a total of eight hours in addition to the 32 that we originally proposed. We allocated 40 hours to the Committee stage, equivalent to 17 or 18 sittings.
The House may wish to consider the amount of time that the Committee spent on procedural discussions of that very point.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: Not at this stage.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will have noted that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) sought to intervene earlier. I wonder whether, before he is given an opportunity to do so, my hon. Friend will ask him why he has not been allowed to speak for the Opposition in this debate.
Mr. Clarke: The way in which the Opposition have allocated opportunities to speak is certainly very interesting.
Mr. James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that another has tried to intervene when he has not?
Mr. Clarke: Let me be candid, Mr. Speaker. We decided that the Ministers who were on the Committee should open and close the debate. I find it extraordinary that neither Opposition spokesman is prepared to speak openly tonight, but that is a matter for them.
Mr. Heald: In fact, I am the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
732
The Minister knows that, in the Sub-Committee, we pressed for extra time to be provided and for the end date to be put back to 13 March because we knew that consideration could not be completed in the time that he was allowing. Does he agree that on the Wednesday afternoon, which he mentioned, we moved a motion that would have allowed us to sit all night if necessary in order to complete consideration, and have 13 March as the end date? We did that because we did not want to deprive the real victims of the guillotine—the organisations and individuals who wanted their case to be put—of the chance to have that case put.
Mr. Clarke: That is remarkable. The amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled at that first Programming Sub-Committee sitting would have given us 37 hours of debate. In fact, we had 40 hours. Beyond that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House. I cannot hear the Minister. He is entitled to a proper hearing, and he is not getting one.
Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to lower my voice, in order not to drown out the voices of others.
What I was seeking to add to my point about the allocation of time, which was that we had given more time than had been requested by the Opposition, was that two and a half hours—equivalent to a whole sitting—had been occupied by debate of procedural matters. In the first sitting on 6 February, the time occupied was 30 minutes; in the ninth sitting on 1 March it was 40 minutes; in the 13th sitting on 7 Marc h it was an hour; in the 15th sitting on 8 March, we witnessed the notorious events led by the shadow Home Secretary and potential leader of the Opposition following the election, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who sought to disrupt the Committee with a sit-in. On a series of other occasions, the Opposition deliberately sought to waste time.
Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No. I want to continue my speech.
Let me give some specific examples. When we were discussing clause 2, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—I cannot see him, but he may be present—devoted half his speeches to reading out evidence from the Criminal Bar Association. We had "interpretation" debates about the meaning of "police" and about British islands; we had ridiculous and misleading information about early-day motions on animal rights.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Betcow) must behave himself.
Mr. Clarke: Therefore, on the first judgment—allocation of time—I believe that the Government more than fulfilled their commitment on 16 sittings. We gave more time than the Opposition requested and ample time to discuss the issues.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to challenge the ruling of the

733
Standing Committee Chairman, who, in the sixth sitting—which was long after the events that the Minister described—ruled:
"My view, and that"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. The Chairman is perfectly capable of looking after the Standing Committee.
Mr. Clarke: I therefore believe that on the first judgment the Government fulfilled their pledges and that there was ample time to discuss the issues.
I come to the second judgment—the Opposition's judgment—
Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No. I have made it clear that I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. It is no good for the Speaker to have to keep interrupting proceedings. I appeal to the House to come to order.
Mr. Clarke: I now come to the nub of the debate—the Opposition's judgment in this whole process. I believe that the Opposition had a deliberate strategy to undermine the Bill. From the outset, they had the strategy of arguing that there was not sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill and of arguing against the programnting procedures of the House. They would have made that argument regardless of what happened. I believe that the explanation for that deliberate strategy lies in their voting record in Committee.
In Committee, we had an extraordinary series of no votes by Conservative Members on important issues of principle. I shall provide a series of examples. On the matter of payments made for proceedings on fixed penalty notices, they voted against clause 5 stand part. On extending child curfews to older children, they voted no. Liberal Democrats voted against that, provision; Labour Members voted in favour of it.
On extending current disclosure powers, Conservative Members again voted no. On reducing the rank of officers authorised to notify arrest, they voted no. On the use of video links for review of proceedings under the Terrorism Act 2000, they again voted no. On extending the national fingerprint database, they again voted no. On building the DNA database, they again voted no. On doing the same in Northern Ireland, they again voted no. On restricting DNA and fingerprint exchange with overseas authorities, they again voted no.
Mr. Graham Brady: Surely if my colleagues on the Committee were wishing to waste time, they would have sought to have more votes, not fewer.
Mr. Clarke: Each of those was a vote in which Liberal Democrat Members said that, for libertarian reasons in accordance with their principles, they did not like our proposals. Therefore, they voted. However, on each of those occasions, Conservative Members decided not to
734
vote. Those no votes are a matter for them, but they chose that option because they could not decide on the issues of principle involved.
When faced with the choice between libertarianism and authoritarianism, Conservative Members could not decide. When faced with the choice between the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), they could not decide. They could not resolve the next leadership battle in the Conservative party. That was the argument at the heart of Conservative policy—as we saw at the most recent Conservative party conference. Conservative Members cannot decide where they stand on those key issues. That was reflected in Committee. Throughout our proceedings in Committee, Liberal Democrat Members—although I did not agree with them—were clear on where they stood on all the issues.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can we believe anything that the Minister says when he said that he would not table a motion— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying because other hon. Members are shouting. I must be able to listen to a point of order.
Mr. Fabricant: Mr. Speaker, how can we believe anything that the Minister says when, on Friday, he said that he would table a motion on Monday, only to table it a few hours later on the same day?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that matter.
Mr. ClarkeI believe that, on that key list of amendments, Conservative Members sat on the fence for a very simple reason. They wanted to hide the deep split in the Conservative party and to hide their policy differences on every issue.
Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please take his seat while I am speaking? I hope that we will not go over points of order that have already been dealt with. It must be new business.
Mr. Brady: It is new business, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see any relevance to the motion that we are discussing in the rather pathetic, feeble excuse for an argument that the Minister is advancing.
Mr. Speake: Order. I will be the judge of that.
Mr. Clarke: For the illumination of the House, the relevance of what I am saying is that I believe that the Conservatives had a deliberate strategy of trying to wreck the working of the Committee by their conduct throughout. The explicit political reason was that their judgment was to obfuscate and obstruct, to prevaricate and pontificate, as a way of hiding their own internal divisions. That is what is was about.
Mr. Blunt: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will recall saying at the Committee's ninth sitting:
"I praise the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), whose contributions, throughout the proceedings and without exception, have been constructive and to the point."
The hon. Gentleman then went on to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)
"has shown no evidence of having read or discussed the Bill, and has been repetitive ad nauseam on points of no substance."— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 1 March 2001; c. 343.]
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he had to withdraw clauses 7 and 8 after arguments from my right hon. and learned Friend showed just how deficient the Bill was? Will he also accept that the fact that more than 50 clauses were not debated in Committee is the cause of this debate and of the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself?
Mr. Clarke: No, the cause was the Opposition's decision from the outset not to come to the kind of accommodations and discussions about the conduct of business in the House that is conventional.
I turn finally to the judgment of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She made her position clear in the media. In the Financial Times, she said that her protest—
Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not. The right hon. Lady said that her protest was about the fact that the Bill could not be reported and that her aim was to delay its passage. That was very explicit. She said in The Mirror that it was an official Opposition protest. She confirmed again on GMTV on Sunday that it was an official Opposition protest. The right hon. Lady deliberately flouted the House's rules to pursue her dishonourable cause. [Interruption.] She was aided and abetted by the Opposition Whips—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been out of order. I ask again that we should not have this shouting across the Chamber. I will not tolerate a situation in which hon. Members tell me how to do my job.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a proper point of order.
Miss Widdecombe: It is a proper point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to rule on whether the use of the word "dishonourable" to describe the conduct of an hon. Member is in order?
Mr. Speaker: Order. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman used the term "dishonourable cause". He was not calling anybody dishonourable; he said that it was a dishonourable cause. [Interruption.] Order. I am giving a ruling. The hon. Gentleman is not out of order and I do
736
not want any Member to shout at the Chair. I have already given a ruling and a statement about Members telling me how to do my job.
Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm by reading from my text that the right hon. Lady deliberately flouted the House's rules to pursue her dishonourable cause—exactly as you stated, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not. I went on to say that the right hon. Lady was aided and abetted by the Opposition Whips. The hon. Members for Beverley and Holdemess (Mr. Cran), for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) assisted her in her disruptive action. That was their deliberate intent.
The right hon. Lady was also aided and abetted by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). After the entrance into the Committee by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues in crime, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said:
"On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I understand from 'Erskine May' that there have been occasions … when hon. Members have entered a Committee and stayed there … The Committee has no power to require Members to leave. My understanding of the procedure set out on pages 703 and 704 of 'Erskine May' is that after the requests have been made, the position is reported to the House".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 2001: c. 675.]
My point is that before the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends went in, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire knew and had prepared himself to deal with the situation in that way. It was an Opposition conspiracy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to deal explicitly with that situation.
If we are talking about defending Parliament, I contrast the Opposition's practice with the experience in 1988 in respect of the Standing Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill. On that occasion the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was leading for the then Government and disruption of the same type occurred. On Thursday 21 January 1988, it was caused by the then Member for Falkirk, West, Dentin. Canavan—exactly the same thing happened and exactly the same issues arose. An hon. Member moved a resolution—as I did last Thursday. On that occasion, the resolution was that the then hon. Member for Falkirk, West be reported to the House. The Standing Committee member who moved that resolution was the present Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—then an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He said that such behaviour could not he tolerated or understood. That is quite unlike the position of the current Opposition.
If it was an official Opposition act, we need the answer to some questions—from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) when she opens for the Opposition or from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald when she winds up. Was that act explicitly approved by the Leader of the Opposition? Was it or was it not? Was it approved by the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)? Was it approved or was it not? Did the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire explicitly and

737
directly plan those acts with his light hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the Opposition Whips?
My conclusions are clear—as, I believe will be those of the House. That act was a conspiracy to deflect Parliament. It was agreed by the official Opposition—by the whole Conservative party. It does immense personal discredit to every Conservative who does not publicly dissociate himself or herself from the actions of the right hon. Lady. It proves the right hon. Lady's unfitness for high office of any kind. It shows that the Tories are not fit to be an Opposition, let alone a Government.
I hope tonight that the House will not reward in any way such contempt for its rules. I urge the whole House to support the motion.
10.42 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: It is with regret that I note that the Leader of the House is not leading for the Government tonight. Clearly, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who opened for the Government—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Leader of the House tells me that it would have been a pleasure to open the debate; I am sorry that she was disappointed. She knows that matters to do with the House's experiment on programming—especially in respect of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—have not only occupied the Committee dealing with that measure; as shadow Leader of the House, I have raised them no fewer than three times recently, because of my concern and that of my colleagues about the way in which the Committee was proceeding.
Although the Opposition are opposed to programming in principle, in the spirit of the experiment, we accepted the Government's word from the Dispatch Box that they would co-operate, that they would be flexible, that the official Opposition would be listened to and that the Government would negotiate with us in good faith.
Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
Mr. Steve McCabe rose—
Mrs. Browning: Let me make a little progress. I have spent quite enough time at the Dispatch Box trying to convey a message to the Government about the Bill—
Ms Joan Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: I do not intend to spend valuable time tonight—when it is clear from the presence of so many hon. Members in the Chamber that they' ant to contribute—on trivial interventions from Labour Members who chose not to say a word on the three occasions when I raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions. Instead, I shall give way to the Minister.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would explain to the House whether she was part of the conspiracy. Did she know? Did she agree?
Mrs. Browning: There is no conspiracy, merely an attempt by the official Opposition to ensure that the democratic processes of the House are carried out so that
738
we, as individual Members, can represent our constituents, and so that the Conservative Members serving on the Committee can make genuine representations and amend the Bill, in accordance with what we, in our recent history, have thought to be the democratic process. It is no good the Minister's waving his hand at me; I will make some progress.
The motion states that
"the Criminal Justice and Police Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House".
As part of this wonderful experiment in programming, we are now faced with virtual legislation.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: No.
If we are to accept tonight that a Committee and all its outstanding business, which I shall mention in a moment, are deemed to have been considered and concluded, why do we not deem Second Reading debates to have been completed? Why do we not deem Report stages to have been completed? Why do we not deem ourselves to be elsewhere, and allow some robots to sit on these Benches and legislate on behalf of the people of this country?
The House should not be surprised that the Bill has caused great anger among Conservative Members, although the Conservative party concurs with many of its provisions and has helped to fashion them in Committee so that it can become a better Bill. It was in that spirit that my hon. Friends approached the Bill's consideration in Committee.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: I will give way, but just to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hughesgrateful to the hon. Lady. Just for the record, will she tell the House and the public what fundamental objections, if any, the Tory party has to the Bill?
Mr. Browning: My hon. Friends have raised many issues in Committee, and the Minister spelt out his objection to the fact that Conservative Members did not vote for several amendments and clauses. In many cases, my hon. Friends were not objecting in principle; they were objecting to the detailed wording and to the way in which the provisions were introduced. That is what a Committee is for; it is intended to scrutinise the detail, the wording and the amendments.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: No, I will not.
The Minister of State knows that the purpose of considering a Bill in Committee is to scrutinise the detail and vote on the particular, not on the generality. It is normal in Committee for hon. Members to accept a principle but not to vote for or concur with the detail of certain provisions. Hence, they abstain on many provisions, as was the case with the Bill.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Lady accept that many of the issues were in fact points of principle,

739
not points of detail? Will she confirm that she knew what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was going to do last Thursday before she did it?
Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend had no discussion with me about her actions on Thursday.
Ms Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has already indicated that she is not giving way.
Mrs. Browning: In conclusion on the previous intervention, if the Government choose not to accept Conservative amendments, they should not be surprised if the Conservative Members serving on the Committee do not vote for their proposals. That is the normal procedure in Committee, and I am surprised that, having refused the amendments, the Minister should make such a fuss about it.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: No. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that I want to make progress by stating our principled objections to the programme motions that have resulted in the Bill becoming such a shambles.
At business questions on 1 March, I put it to the Leader of the House that there were problems with the Bill in Committee. When the right hon. Lady replied, she did not address any of my concerns relating to the Bill. I raised the matter again on 8 March, which was my last opportunity at the Dispatch Box to raise with the Leader of the House our genuine concerns about the Bill's progress in Committee. I am sorry to say that, again, the right hon. Lady failed to make representations to her right hon. Friends. As we know, on 8 March, the Committee stage was concluded.
The Committee had only reached clause 90 by the conclusion of its proceedings on Thursday 8 March. Elements of the Bill that were not discussed by the Committee at all included setting up the police training authority, changes to the constitution of police authorities, changes to police ranks, inferences to be drawn from silence in police conduct proceedings, pensions for staff, courts to give reasons for granting opposed bail, expenditure interpretation and repeals. Many important matters remained outstanding. Not only that: yet further amendments in the name of the Minister of State, Home Office are before us tonight. These amendments are bundled up in the wording of the motion. Does the hon. Gentleman even intend to describe to the House tonight that they mean? Are they to be deemed to have been accepted without any discussion in, or explanation to, the House?
Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
Mrs. Browning: I shall give way to the Minister. Does he want to explain the amendments to the House?
Mr. Clarke: What I want the hon. Lady to do is accept that the Committee did not finish its business, because it was disrupted by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
Mrs. Browning: That is rather disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman.
Menzies Campbell: will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: I shall, since it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is the last intervention.
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Lady did not know of the plan for disruption, will she tell us whether she endorses or dissociates herself from it?
Mrs. Browning: The actions of my right hon. and hon. Friends were the only actions left given that, just hours before, as shadow Leader of the House, I had used the only opportunity that was available to us to put to the Leader of the House the difficulties that we were encountering with the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock)rose—
Mrs. Browning: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I read what he said in Committee.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: 1 shall give way to the right hon. Lady shortly.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department wasted more than one whole sitting of the Committee on clauses that he eventually abandoned, having been extremely rude about the former Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and having virtually told my right hon. and learned Friend that he did not know what he was talking about. The hon. Gentleman then had to withdraw the clauses, so I do not think that we want to hear anything from him.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady claims that I made no response to the representations that she made about the timing and handling of the Committee. She must recall that that is not correct. She knows, I am sure, that I repeatedly made it plain, first having inquired into the circumstances that she was describing to the House, that the Government had offered extra time and that the Conservative Opposition had not taken that offer up. That is not the same thing as no action being taken. The hon. Lady is not correct in saying that.
Mrs. Browning: The record of business questions on 1 March shows that, when I first raised the issue, the right

741
hon. Lady did not, as she usually does—she is usually very particular in responding to each of my points—respond specifically to the point that I made about the Bill. She responded to a point about another Bill—the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill—to which she referred, but she did not mention this Bill at all.
Mrs. Beckett: I can clarify that for the hon. Lady. At that point in time, I did not precisely recall what the explanation was. I did recall it later. As she says, when she raised the issue on the last occasion, I made it plain to her that the Government had offered extra time, which is the clear answer to the basic point that she has made, as she rightly says, on number of occasions.
Mrs. Browning: The problem when we run into difficulties with programming is thal there is no record of what has been discussed in the Programming Sub-Committees. However, we know that, in this case, the Government voted down the Opposition's proposals. It was my clear understanding, not only from the right hon. Lady but from Labour Members in general, when we discussed the issue in November that unless we made an outrageous and cavalier request this Government would consider our opinion and help to accommodate us. I believe that my hon. Friends' requests were reasonable, which is supported by the fact that we have felt it necessary not to conclude the Bill. Had the Government acted as they said they would, we would have had more time to scrutinise the Bill and they would have got their end date. It was all achievable.
Mr. Bercow: The Government are clearly being deliberately obtuse. Does my hon. Friend recall the 1997–98 Session, when the Crimi; and Disorder Bill, which was 152 pages long, had 22 Committee sittings and 54 hours of debate? Does she also recall that the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that that was a good example of how a Committee stage should operate? Is it not obviously absurd that a Bill of comparable length-150 pages—should have only 15 Committee sittings and 38 hours of debate? Surely that is so obvious that only the most extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it.
Mrs. Browning: It is obvious, and this Bill is comparable in terms of the work involved.
The motion states that we shall be deemed to have concluded our proceedings on the Bill. If we deem ourselves to have passed legislation that has not been scrutinised either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, we will set a precedent that could well be used in praying in aid the outcome of court cases. Hon. Members will be familiar with Pepper v. Hart, which decided that a Minister's interpretation was important in determining Parliament's will when the House considered legislation. How could any court del eimine our will if we deem ourselves to pass great chunks of legislation—
Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way again.
If Parliament passes great chunks of legislation that have not been scrutinised or debated at all, how can the courts determine our will? We mth,t be very careful.
742
However annoyed the Minister may be that his Bill has come to the surface as an example of why programming is not only a mistake but damaging to our democratic process, it would be wrong if, in a fit of pique, his antics tonight were accepted by the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Antics?"] Antics was the word I used, and antics was the word I meant. If the hon. Gentleman's antics were seen as being accepted by the House, there would be a read-across for this and many other Bills.
Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. BrowningNo, I am sorry, but I am really not giving way. [Interruption.] The Minister says that the antics of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have brought us to this state of affairs. It might have been different had we been able to accept the Government's word that programming motions would be negotiated and that there would be compromise between the parties. However, this Bill got off to the wrong start. The Minister knows that the whole House had the opportunity to negotiate the programme motion on the basis of information that was not even accurate.
It is no good the Government praying in aid the fact that somebody had a personal appointment or saying that the half-term holiday reduced the time for which the Committee could sit. It was evident to my colleagues on the Committee that more time was needed for discussion, yet it had to be drawn out of the Government hour by hour, and even then it was not enough. If the Bill had been properly drafted and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department had not wasted at least half a day of the Committee's time on clauses that he withdrew, we would clearly have been in a much better position tonight.
We are focusing on a particular Bill, and an important one at that, but it has demonstrated that the current experiment in programming is not only an abysmal failure but an affront to the democratic process.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Everybody, especially many Labour Members who spent 18 years in opposition, understands that opposition is frustrating, and there will be many occasions on which the Opposition do not get their way on programme motions or guillotines. We could name plenty of occasions when much less time has been allocated to Bills more controversial than this.
I want to be clear about the answer given by the hon. Lady, who is the shadow Leader of the House and aspires to be Leader of the House, to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Is she saying that it is now the official Opposition's policy that where they object to the time allocated to a Bill, they believe that the generation of "grave disorder"—those are the words of the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—by Front-Bench Opposition Members is entirely justifiable?
Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents the case because the actions of my—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) is very noisy this evening. I do not want to hear him.
Mrs. Browning: The actions of my right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday were in answer to the negative

743
response that we had received not only in Committee but on the Floor of the House. As shadow Leader of the House, I personally did everything in my power to try to resolve that on-going problem before the Committee reached its final stage. The Home Secretary will be aware that, in the words of the Leader of the House, this procedure is an experiment. I hope that, as a result of what has happened with this Bill, he will realise that the experiment needs to be halted or radically changed. I am sure that, as a radical himself in days gone by, he will recognise the thrust of what I am saying.
Mr. Straw: As I said, we all understand the concerns of the Opposition about whether enough time has been made available, but the hon. Lady has just said, from the Front Bench, that she can justify the generation of grave disorder by Front-Bench Members as part of a protest. As the grave disorder was directed not at the Government but at the Chairman of the Committee and, by implication, the Chair of the House, may we take it that the hon. Lady is endorsing, as an official Opposition policy, grave disorder undermining the authority of the Chair?
Mrs. Browning: No. What undermines the authority of the House, whether in the Chamber or a Committee, is the fact that the official Opposition can no longer take the word of members of the Government. When they come to the House and say 16 sittings, they should mean 16 sittings. The Government say that the changes are an experiment, and that they will be co-operative and flexible, but they are not. We have assessed the situation and used every opportunity possible. We are not making a complaint or trying to insult the Chair of any Committee of this House. We are standing up for the democratic rights of the people of this country, and we will continue to do so even if they are not held in respect by the Government of the day. The sooner the people of this country change the Government of the day, the sooner we can get back to democracy as we have known it in this Chamber and the country.
Mrs. Beckett rose—
Mrs. Browning: I give way for the final time because I want to conclude my remarks.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that the hon. Lady wants to make progress, and I understand also that she finds herself in a very unfortunate position. I say to her in her role as shadow Leader of the House that many of us—[Interruption.] I do not need advice from Conservative Members, thank you very much. When we were on the Opposition Benches, many of us found ourselves sympathising with actions taken by Members in objection—not normally by the shadow Home Secretary, but we will not go into that—but we simply understood that this House cannot work unless Members, and particularly Front Benchers, sustain the authority of the Chair. Even if we think that the Chairman's ruling is mistaken, we must sustain the authority of the Chair in this House. I hope that the hon. Lady will indicate that she understands that.
Mrs. Browning: I should not have to remind the hon. Lady that the experiment has caused such chaos
744
because—for the first time ever—she and her Government have imposed on this House changes to the Standing Orders without the agreement of the official Opposition. When people flout the rules of the House and show no respect whatever for its precedents, this is the result. It is not any affront to any Chairman; it is a definite affront to this Government, who respect neither this House nor its procedures.
11.7 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: We have just heard what I can only describe as an astonishing speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to press her on these matters. I was involved in an incident such as this some years ago, and I want to draw to the attention of the House what happened on that occasion and the position taken by Conservative Members and, indeed, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who voted against me.
I was concerned about proceedings in the Select Committee on Members' Interests—the former Privileges Committee—in the case of an inquiry into Neil Hamilton. I was worried that a Conservative Whip had been placed on the Committee. I sought to obstruct proceedings because I felt that that Whip was interfering with proceedings and leading the Committee, with its Conservative majority, into taking partisan decisions. It was clear—this all happened prior to Nolan—that the Committee was being politically manipulated. I confess that I took a maverick position and obstructed proceedings.
What was interesting about that affair was what happened when the matter came before House. As my right hon. Friend the header of the House said, the Labour Opposition sought to protect the House and prevent the likes of me carrying out similar practices in future. I refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who spoke from the Opposition Frort Bench in the debate on the motion that dealt with my conduct. He said:
"I see no case for disrupting Committee procedures, whether they be Select or Standing Committees held in public or in private. Hon. Members can always find a suitably convenient time and place to raise any issue that they want on the Floor of the House. I remember those long distant days wren we had a Labour Government—those times will soon return—and, as a humble Back Bencher, I found that I could raise any issue that I chose whenever I chose to do so by using the procedures of the House."
That was the position we took in opposition. It was a thoroughly responsible position, but I had made my point.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) also spoke in the debate. I shall watch with great interest which way he decides to vote tonight. He said:
"What the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done is wrong. I appreciate that he holds strong opinions about the matter, but it must be wrong for any Member of the House to override the procedures of the House and take it on himself to decide the way in which the Committees operate. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour the Select Committee has been obstructed."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 404-06.]

745
The hon. Gentleman might wish to intervene to tell me which way he intends to vote. Can we rely on him being consistent in the approach that he takes to these matters?
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of hearing my views later in the debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's views. I shall take great interest in them.
There is another Member for whom I have particular affection this evening, as do many of my hon. Friends. I understand that we have all 'come with the same tracts and quotes. It does not surprise me that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton took upon herself the duty of speaking for the Opposition. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may have had great difficulty in doing so. He, too, participated in the debate in 1995, and he led for the Opposition in Standing Committee F. He is the one who made the complaint. He conspired with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to carry out their little dirty deed. He cannot deny it.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the hon. Gentleman's contribution when he opened the debate. The hon. Gentleman said:
"My understanding of the procedure set out on pages 703 and 704 of 'Erskine May' is that after the requests have been made, the position is reported to the House".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 2001; c. 675.]
He continued with that sort of stuff. He could never have known what pages 703 and 704 said. He does not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of "Erskine May"; he must have known in advance what would happen. I put it to him—he can deny it from the Opposition Dispatch Box—that he was party to the conspiracy.
Mr. Heald: In Committee, the Opposition were pushed to a point that was intolerable. We were pushed by a Minister who was so arrogant that he would not give the time that was needed for debate. There was no option left.
I have quite an encyclopaedic knowledge of "Erskine May", and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those were interesting words, and I think that we heard them correctly. The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition were pushed to the point of opposition.
Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. The hon. Gentleman can speak when I have finished. I have something to say about him, as well.
The debate is rather like the one that we had the other month on programme motions. The Conservatives leave so much dirty linen in their cupboard. There are so many opportunities for us to respond to their points—
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like Opposition Members to hear what I am about to say because it is quite remarkable.
746
I shall quote the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, who speaks for the Opposition on these matters. In the debate on my misdemeanour in Committee, he said:
"Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee has its authority as a result of the resolution of this place, that it is therefore arrogant of him to say that its decisions, which are made with that authority, are wrong, and that he is entitled just to walk into the Committee and speak in breach of all the rules? What does that say about this place's powers and the Committee's authority? Is he not breaching it through arrogance?"
That is said of me—arrogance.
Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, no; there is a lot more to come, and I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the best come at the end.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said:
"If we invest a Committee with authority, especially an authority which … is absolute and exclusive in a certain area, it should be wrong for individual Members, whether they be the hon. Member for Workington or. indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery"—
that was Mr. Carlile—
"to say that their judgment is greater than that of the House, greater than that of the Committee, thereby abandoning an essential principle. If one sets up such a Committee, as we have in this House, we should not interfere with its authority."
That is the hon. Gentleman's position.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire continued:
"That principle has been in this place for more than 150 years. In 1844, the Speaker observed in a similar issue"—
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but I must say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that it is fairly evident that the hon. Member for Workington is not giving way at present.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I return to the quote from 1844. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire obviously felt passionately about the matter. The Speaker said in 1844 that
"no member who was not a Member of the Committee had any right to interfere with the proceedings … though he might be present in the room."
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire went on to say that
"we might just as well go back to having a Committee of the whole House with witnesses brought to the Bar of the House—if all Members were entitled to attend Committees and to interfere in the processes. There must be a remedy."
On the remedy, the hon. Gentleman said:
"The only remedy is that which the motion suggests—in fact, the traditional remedy. On other occasions when it has been necessary to exclude a Member from a Committee, a motion has been placed

747
before the whole House and that person has then been told that he must not attend the Committee at the behest of the Chairman. If there is no remedy, such Committees will become meaningless."
The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"I do not believe that it is right for an individual Member to put his strong views above those of the House. When this place has decided by resolution to give a Committee authority to deal with an issue, it is simply wrong for another Member to be there trying to interfere with the members of the Committee and with its deliberations."
The hon. Gentleman put a prolonged case. He clearly believed passionately in it, yet he sits on the Front Bench today, somehow justifying the actions taken by his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. He continued:
"A more fundamental issue is at stake—the law of Parliament, which has set out those principles for more than 150 years, and which the hon. Member for Workington, aided and abetted by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, now wishes to break and to treat with contempt. That says something about the form of campaign with which they wish to associate themselves."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 389–98.]
There is more. The House would get bored if I went on, but there are pages of such quotes.
Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: In a minute.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire shamefacedly sits before the House, defending his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald for doing what I did, and himself being party to the decision that she should proceed in the way that she did. Far worse in many ways is the fact that what those right hon. and hon. Members did was official. It was done on behalf of the Opposition. That shows that they have changed their very attitude towards Parliament. Whereas historically the Conservative party stood for law and order, it now stands for no law, no rules and disorder.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been in the House as long as I have, and he used to have a reputation for defending parliamentary liberty. He knows a lot about the history of Parliament. Does he not recognise that, from time to time, hon. Members have had to define the practices of the House to cure a greater injustice? May I remind him of Mr. Bradlaugh and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), both of whom defied the practices of the House to cure a greater injustice? That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did last week.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is true. There has been a series of those incidents over the years, but there is a distinction between those that have occurred in the past 200 years and the one that we are discussing this evening. This occasion, unlike those in 1849, 1827, 1952, 1974, 1982, 1989, 1994 and 1991, was organised by members of the shadow Cabinet—people who, in six weeks, will aspire to run this country. That includes the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who seeks to be Leader of the House of Commons. Tonight, at the Dispatch Box, she is sanctioning outrageous activity. That is deplorable and, in my view, she should withdraw immediately from the Chamber.
11.21 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, in line 2, leave out from 'be' to end and add
'remitted to Standing Committee F for consideration of all remaining clauses, schedules and amendments not so far debated in Standing Committee without limit of time for further consideration; that a week shall elapse between the completion of Committee Stage and the commencement of Report Stage: and that notwithstanding the Order of the House of 29th January, Report Stage do continue without limit of time until completion; and that one day be allocated for the Third Reading of the Bill.'
Liberal Democrat Members tabled the amendment, and Conservative Member; added their names to it. The speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was a useful and helpful contribution. In the words of Edward Lear, I was coming to it. I shall return to a slight inconsistency in a minute.
May I remind the House of the Bill that we are discussing? It is the Government's flagship legislation and has run into trouble tonight. In fact, it ran into trouble over its content a long time ago. It raises serious law and order issues and, as we discovered both on Second Reading and in Committee—when my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I tested the Government—it raise; major civil liberty issues too.
Mrs. Joan Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, not at the moment.
In many cases, the ideas in the Bill were shown to be flawed and its policies unworkable. The Government proved to those Committee members who listened and paid attention that a lot of it was about trying to find "eye-catching initiatives"—in the words of the Prime Minister—to put in the pre-election shop window. We all know that if the Prime Minister keeps to his intention to hold the election on 3 May, the Bill will not complete its parliamentary stages anyway.
This is a flagship Bill with no port of destination. Its cargo is fatally flawed, and now it has run into difficulties concerning procedure in the House. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are making innumerable contributions: the Bill has foundered; it is sinking; it is sandbagged; it has run into difficulties. Although it does not sound like it tonight, the Bill is beached, if not becalmed.
The issue before the House is not whether we have programme motions for Government Bills, but whether, for the first time in our history, we get rid of whole stages of procedure and allow a Government, however arrogant and consistent they have been in wanting to push their business through, to get the approval of the House for a procedural stage to be completely removed. This is a night for Parliament, Labour Back-Benchers and Opposition Members to say to the Government, "You must not have your motion accepted because Parliament should never be told that it should not do its job properly." If there has been disruption, we should go back to where we were and not get rid of a Committee stage which, for one reason or another—I shall come to that later—we could not finish.
The arrogance of the Government—arrogance is often a manifestation of Governments—has led them to become a Government trying to railroad a Bill through Parliament.

749
I remind Labour Members that their party received 43 per cent. of the vote, not a majority of the votes of the British people, at the previous election. Only 30 per cent. of the electorate voted for them: not a majority, nor even a third of the electorate. They cannot, therefore, come to the House claiming that they speak for the British people. They speak for a minority of the people, just like the rest of us.
The accident of the present distorted political system gives the Labour party more Members of Parliament, but the job of Parliament is to ensure that the accident of the electoral system does not mean a denial of democracy for the citizen. We shall not allow the Government, however big their majority, to get away with brushing aside parliamentary procedures. We shall ensure, if possible, that Parliament resists whoever is on the Government Benches taking away powers from Back Benchers and giving them to the Government, just because they have decided that they want to get lid of parliamentary procedures.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the hon. Gentleman's party support the principle of programming? The amendment that he and his hon. Friends have tabled today appears contrary to what his party agreed to in the Modernisation Committee, and to what has been agreed to by the House. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the tactics used by Conservative Members last Thursday—which could be used time and again in disputes in which hon. Members disagree about difficult issues—completely negate how democracy in Parliament works?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has asked two perfectly proper questions. He served on the Modernisation Committee, and we appreciate his work. On his first point, we believe in sensible programming, provided that Front Benchers and Back Benchers have a say in how that is decided, and provided that, when a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that we shall have 16 sittings, we have 16 sittings. On this occasion, we went from the 16 sittings announced by the Government to the 14 announced by the Government in Committee, then, after negotiation, to 15.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, that if the Government propose a programme, they must keep to the promises and the proposals that they make. On a flagship Bill, they cannot expect Opposition Members suddenly to sign away the amount of time for its consideration that the Government had told us—although we had not agreed to it—was the least that we would have.
The Liberal Democrats have supported the idea of programming, but we have never supported the way in which the Government have set about implementing it. We should not have programme motions put before the House the minute after Second Reading. Such programme motions do not take into account the breadth of views expressed on Second Reading; nor do they give the House an opportunity to consider them, If we are to have programme motions, they must be introduced at a decent interval after Second Reading, when the House has been able to reflect on how much time needs to be given to each Bill.
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman of something that many hon. Members seem to have
750
forgotten. The proposal that programme motions should be taken with Second Reading was contained in the first report of the Modernisation Committee—before I was a member of it—which was carried unanimously.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady is quite right to remind the House of that. However, she knows that our shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), has said on regular occasions since he and the right hon. Lady took on their respective jobs that, if we are to get agreement across the House, we must allow time for the House to reflect on Second Reading debates.
I shall come to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), concerning the behaviour of Conservative Front-Bench Members, in a minute, as it is an important matter and one that I want to say something about.
The Bill is not only a flagship Bill; it is a Bill containing 132 clauses, and one to which a large number new clauses and 300 amendments have been tabled, many by the Government. At the beginning of our last afternoon sitting, we had got as far as clause 77, out of 132. When we finished our work last Thursday evening, we had only reached clause 90 out of 132. There were amendments yet to be considered, including Government amendments.
Those who chaired the Committee—experienced Members of the House—were clear that there had been no filibustering. Both kept the Committee on a tight rein. My hon. Friends and I pay tribute to them for doing an extremely competent job, as the House would expect of them. If they said that all debate was in order, clearly there had not been enough time to complete consideration. When we finished last Thursday afternoon, had there not been the proceedings to which I shall refer in a moment, about a third of the Bill remained to be considered. We should have considered all of it. Parliament had not properly done its work when the guillotine fell on the timetabled Committee debates.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he would not want to give the House the impression that we had considered 77 clauses. We had not considered the whole of part III, from clauses 49 to 69.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct. He also played an extremely good and effective role in Committee. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman was very much an independent Back Bencher who moved his own amendments and argued on his own as well as supporting his colleagues. Debate on the early parts of the Bill was often guillotined and we did not fully consider the rest, so it is true to say that we had not properly considered many measures, including significant clauses.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he not overlooking the fact that the equivalent of a full sitting was wasted by Opposition Members discussing programming and procedural motions?
Mr. Hughes: I do not accept that because all the debate was clearly in order. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and he knows that that was the ruling. It is not

751
surprising that programming was discussed when we were debating the flagship Bill of this Session, which deals with controversial matters.
Although the hon. Gentleman will remember, I remind him that we were debating fixed penalty notices—not uncontroversial; whether curfews should be extended to under-16s—not uncontroversial; how we should deal with alcohol and alcohol-related offences—not uncontroversial; drug-related offences; protection of witnesses and possible witnesses; granting bail; information exchange between Departments and between the Government and agencies abroad—not uncontroversial; limits on the rules of detention; and the use of video links in extending detention under terrorism legislation, which is extremely controversial.
The hon. Gentleman will also remember that, at the end of proceedings, we were discussing not only how to deal with animal rights extremists, which is a matter of particular interest and concern to him for perfectly proper reasons, but whether innocent people whose DNA samples were taken when they were under suspicion should be allowed to have those samples withdrawn, rather than being held for the rest of their lives even though they have done nothing wrong. If those are not controversial civil liberty and law and order matters that need proper debate, I do not know what are.
I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister dealt with the Committee and argued the Government's case. To his credit, he agreed that major issues such as DNA sampling deserve a major national debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I voted in and forced Divisions more often than the Conservatives. We did not agree with the fixed penalty notice system proposed by the Government. We were not in favour of some of the Government's proposals to allow the authorities to close licensed premises without warning landlords.
We were not in favour of extending child curfews, which have not worked for the under-10s, to the under-16s when the police say that curfews would not work for them either. We were not in favour of extending without qualification the power of seizure. We opposed the Government because we were not in favour of detention under terrorist legislation being extended to people at a remote distance. We were not in favour of allowing DNA samples to be kept indefinitely.
We opposed. the Government. I am surprised that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) did not oppose his Government on those hugely important matters. All deserve to be debated properly.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the debate on each issue of principle that he has raised was substantial and not guillotined? Debate on non-key issues was guillotined.
Mr. Hughes: In general terms, the Minister is right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, the Minister is right, except that the debate was guillotined. We had a timetable and a fixed end point. The Government wanted to come out of Committee by 8 March. Some of us think that that had something to do with a possible election on 3 May. The Government fixed the end point, and they fixed staging points. Although we had decent debates on the major
752
matters, by the end of our consideration of the Bill we were trying to deal with important issues, such as the running, training and organising of the police. The Minister knows that those police matters would never have been debated.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with my fundamental point. Does he also acknowledge that we debated clause 1 for four hours and clause 2 for two and a half hours? We fully discussed issues such as fixed penalty notices, as he would wish.
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I have argued that there were major matters to debate. We had some major debates, but the question is whether we had enough time to consider a flagship Bill of more than 130 clauses. The answer must be no, given that we had only reached clause 90 half an hour before the end of the last sitting.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we did not discuss issues such as the disclosure of tax records, the seizure of property, and police organisation, training and discipline—given that the burden of proof is to be changed for disciplinary proceedings? Those are not trivial matters, and many outside bodies, including chartered accountants, lawyers, the Police Federation, police authorities and the National Association of Probation Officers, and individuals wanted us to debate those matters properly and to seek assurances, but we were not able to do so.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct. This is a two-part Bill: it is a criminal justice Bill and a police Bill. The police clauses started at clause 86, and we began to debate that clause at some stage last Thursday. We only had until 7 o'clock to debate all the matters to do with the police. Hon. Members on both sides of the House spend much time saying how important the police are, how much we value them, how many more we want to recruit, how difficult it is to hang on to them, and how undervalued they are. I do not think that the police can be satisfied when those clauses in the one Bill in this Session that deals with police matters are allocated less than a day in Committee, and we do not discuss about 40 clauses to do with their future, their structure and their organisation. On that point, I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's view.
We were a few minutes away from the end of the Committee last Thursday when things took a turn for the slightly bizarre. One of the Government's difficulties is that in opposition— I accept that it was not members of the Front Bench—the Labour party often used tactics, as we did, to ensure that it gave the Conservative Government a hard time. We must all be careful not to be self-righteous about this. When Government want to get their business through, they use the levers available to them. When the Opposition want to stop them, they will use ruses to try to do so. Trying to block the timetable has always been one of the weapons open to Opposition parties and to Back Benchers. I and my colleagues have used it, and I give credit to the Conservative party for what happened on Thursday, because it was a good wheeze and it delayed the proceedings.
My hon. Friend and I are slightly confused.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No. not for the moment.

753
On all the important matters of principle—fixed penalty notices, child curfews, closing licensed premises, extending powers of seizures, allowing detention by remote link and DNA samples—we did not notice the Tory party opposing the Government.
Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No.
This is the great flagship Bill. Of course, there were differences and unhappiness about the nature and extent of the legislation, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), on the fundamental principles there did not seem to be any opposition to the 10 major ideas in the Bill.
On Thursday, we saw a protest about procedure, but on a Bill on which the Tory party's view was pretty similar to that of the Government. It might have been better to protest about the Bill and its content than to protest about the way in which the Government were taking the Bill through the House.
Mr. Heald: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so shocked. We did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. The point is that there were numerous matters of detail in regard to which we had tabled amendments, wanted assurances and wanted to improve the Bill. As a result, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have dropped two clauses, accepted four amendments, and agreed to reconsider a range of other matters and issue guidance. We served our purpose when we were able to do so; the complaint is that, for much of the time, we were not able to do so.
Mr. Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, about which he has always been straightforward. The Conservatives did not object fundamentally to the policy in the Bill. They wanted to improve it; they wanted assurances. In regard to certain matters—perfectly properly—the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and my party agreed that the Government needed to be pushed, exposed and pressed, and the Government made concessions. I make no criticism of that. My point is that the great showdown took place in connection with a Bill on which the Tory and Labour parties have one view, and we have another. It is a strange coincidence in British politics that on law and order the differences between Tories and Labour become narrower every day, almost paling into insignificance—[Interruption.] It is true. It is left to some of us to argue about both the procedure and the principle.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I will give way once more.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely the scandal is not who said what on a particular clause, but the fact that no one said anything about so many clauses.
Mr. Hughes: I have said so myself. The hon. Gentleman, who is consistently good in this regard, knows that the House must stand up for the rights of the House—Back Benchers, Front Benchers and members of every party—to take an interest at each stage of the proceedings.
754
The mischief tonight is that we are being asked by the Government to cut out a whole section of procedure, to ignore the last part of the Bill, and to behave as though it had never had a Committee stage and had never been tested. That must go beyond what Parliament has ever been asked to do.
I sincerely hope that when this is put to a vote, not just the hon. Gentleman—who I am sure is entirely trustworthy on matters such as this—but Members on both sides of the House will realise that the issue is bigger than the Bill or the Government of the day. As Mr. Speaker said about an hour ago, there has never been a precedent for a motion such as this, and the House should not allow a precedent to be set tonight.
As for the action on Thursday, I have said that in terms of procedural rules it was—described neutrally—a jolly good wheeze. It is also true that, as the hon. Member for Workington has argued throughout his distinguished career, many great parliamentary developments have occurred because of peaceful protests by those elected to Parliament. Many things would not have happened otherwise, and many people—not just the Charles Bradlaughs, but many others—would not have secured rights for parliamentarians had they not protested and taken a stand. There is a difference, however, and the hon. Gentleman put his finger on it.
Here was someone who aspired, and still aspires, to be Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, leading a protest, seconded by someone who wants to be Home Office spokesman on police matters and backed by the Conservative Chief Whip. The shadow Leader of the House now endorses the protest. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is one thing for Back Benchers to engage in a peaceful protest and challenge the Government; it is something else for people who, as the hon. Gentleman said, aspire to govern the country from the Home Office in six or seven weeks and to set an example in regard to law and order to act as they did.
I sometimes feel a grudging respect and admiration for the antics of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but I think she made a terrible error of judgment on Thursday evening. For her and her colleagues, who speak on Home Office matters and who want to set an example in regard to law and order, to lead such "non-law and order" activity and defy the Chair of the Committee—who was trying to do a job on behalf of the House—was indeed a bad error of judgment. It was not an example to set: it was not an example of upholding the law, and not an example that the Tory party can easily justify or be proud of. If the right hon. Lady, with that record, ever were to become Home Secretary, heaven preserve the rest of us. If that is the example from the top, there is not much hope for the people at the bottom.
Miss Widdecombe: The burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that it would have been perfectly all right if I had asked some Back Benchers to go in, but that it was not all right for me to go and do it myself in a straightforward and honourable manner.
Mr. Hughes: As I said, if Back Benchers had done it, it would have been an entirely different kettle of fish. However, I understand that the right hon. Lady is never one to shy away from a teeny bit of publicity and that that

755
was another golden opportunity. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said about the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I think that I heard a plea of guilty, but the mitigation seemed to be argued at the same time.
On Thursday, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) was absolutely right and the Conservative party leadership was absolutely wrong. Tomorrow, I think, the House will have an opportunity to decide whether we have to give the right hon. Lady and her colleagues a disciplinary rebuke for Thursday's events. That is a matter for us. In about six weeks, however, the country may have to judge the prospect of a Conservative Government. My judgment is that, on that occasion, the country will give Conservative Members collectively a red card.
Today, however, we are considering a Government motion, and an Opposition amendment that attempts to reassert the rights of the House. I hope that the House will say that the Bill should return to Committee; the Committee should finish its consideration of the Bill; and that only then should the Bill be considered on Report and Third Reading in the House. It is a very simple choice: do we properly observe democratic procedures, or do we allow an unprecedented Government motion to deny debate to which Parliament is entitled? I hope that hon. Members, including many Labour Back Benchers, will support the amendment and that the Government will not be so arrogant again.
11.47 pm
Mr. Phil Hope: The motion has been tabled because four Conservative Members—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—decided to cause grave disorder in Standing Committee F, which was considering the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. Opposition Front Benchers themselves have now confessed that that was a deliberate and premeditated manoeuvre to prevent the Committee from completing its business in the time allocated to it in the programme motion on which the whole House had voted.
Clearly, therefore, the action was not taken by a group of renegades. It was not even a leadership bid, prior to the general election, by an aspirant leader of the Tory party. It was a planned campaign by Opposition Members, with the endorsement of the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. The Committee Chairman was left in the impossible position of having to deal with an organised rebellion and challenge by Opposition Members to his authority as Committee Chairman.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) so eloquently said, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)—who sought to oppose the motion moved by the Standing Committee Chairman, who is a Conservative Member, asking those Opposition Members to leave the Committee—spoke in the 1995 debate on Select
756
Committees. I should like to add a couple of quotes to those given by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that the issue at stake is
the upholding of our constituents' rights. I believe that for that purpose the law of Parliament is important. Once we start breaking that law, there will be no end to it."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 399.]
That is why it is so important that this motion be passed.
Maria Eagle: Will my hon. Friend also look at the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in that debate regarding the misbehaviour of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? The hon. Gentleman said:
"The worrying aspect is the 'demoism'—the wish to take direct action to establish a form of street cred. The House should have no truck with that."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 399.]
Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the cant and hypocrisy of the Conservative party, which said one thing when it was in power in 1995 and which acts another way now.
In 1995, the then Conservative Leader of the House moved, with the support of the then Opposition, that any Select Committee
"shall have power to direct such Member to withdraw forthwith; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such instructions as he may receive from the chairman of the committee in pursuance of this Order."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 383.]
However, we are today talking about a Standing Committee of the House, a point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire in defence of his Front Benchers as they tried to disrupt the democratic procedures of the House.
How often will we allow this kind of behaviour to take place in this Parliament? What action should Parliament take to prevent an organised rebellion by the Opposition from undermining the democratic procedures of the House?
Pike: Is it not a fact that a democracy can work only if the Opposition are positive about their role? If they misuse the rules, democracy can be ground to a halt.
Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend is right. The passage from "Erskine May" quoted by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire makes it clear that there have been orders in the past
"empowering the chairman of a standing committee to direct that any Member who disregards the authority of the chair or persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the committee do withdraw immediately and directing the Serjeant at Arms to act on any consequent orders he may receive from the chairman."
Mr. Rogers: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is surprised at the behaviour of the Conservative party. The yob tendency has always been there. There was one occasion when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) picked up the Mace to disrupt proceedings. I cannot quite see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) being cast

757
in the role of Jane to the right hon. Gentleman's Tarzan. The Conservatives have always been a yob party. If they do not get their way, they behave like a bunch of yobs.
Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend is right. The anti-social behaviour orders that the Government have introduced to deal with yobs in the community may well have some bearing in the House.
Maria Eagle: Has my hon. Friend noticed from the debate in 1995 on disruption in Select Committees that the response of the then Government was immediately to come to the House to change a Standing Order to give a general power to Select Committee Chairmen to deal immediately with this kind of behaviour? Does he agree that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might consider giving a general power to Standing Committee Chairmen so that we do not have to come to the House on every occasion to ask for a particular power?
Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend makes the very point that I was about to make. Although "Erskine May" makes it clear that there have been orders in the past on various occasions, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington listed, there is no general power for a Standing Committee Chairman to impose his authority where there is and has been, as in this case, a persistent and wilful desire to obstruct the business of the House. It is therefore incumbent on the House to determine whether such a procedure, which currently applies to Select Committees, should now apply to Standing Committees to prevent the undermining of our democratic process.
The motion is before us because of the Conservative party's appalling behaviour. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald purports to support the rule of law and to condemn those who break the law, yet, with breathtaking hypocrisy, she deliberately set out to flout and break the rules of the House by which we make the very laws that she seeks to uphold. That exposes the arrogant contempt with which she treats our democratic—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and about hypocrisy should be withdrawn and apologised for.
Mr. Hope: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have made any comments that are outside the accepted procedures of the House.
I hope that I am clearly making the point both to the House and to the external world that the contempt with which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has behaved with regard to the Bill's Committee exposes the fact that she thinks that there is one rule for behaving outside but another way of behaving in the House.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House precisely how democracy is protected by a motion of one paragraph stating that the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House? Is that not an outrageous breach of the rule that he is trying to establish?
Mr. Hope: Obviously the hon. Gentleman did not bother to listen to the first part of my contribution: the
758
reasons we are debating this matter at this late hour are the contempt for the democratic procedures of the House and the anti-democratic behaviour exhibited by the shadow Home Secretary.
We have three tasks to undertake tonight. First, we must restore the proper democratic procedures of the House by passing the motion. Secondly, we must ensure not only that such behaviour is condemned but that the miscreants do not go unpunished.
Finally, on a point of parliamentary procedure, because of the anomaly as between Select Committees and Standing Committees, we should consider the introduction of new measures to ensure that never again will the procedures of the House be undermined by an Opposition who resort to breaking the rules of the House to have their way and to exert influence, because they cannot gain the support of the people through the ballot box.
11.57 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) has got it wrong in a very big way. We are not in the Chamber this evening to discuss the behaviour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues; we are here because the Government are attempting to railroad through the House an extremely important and complex Bill in a way that shows utter contempt for the democratic procedures of the House.
Many years ago, when I was sitting on the Government Benches, I was so angry at the way the then Conservative Government were trying to guillotine a Bill that I walked out, saying that I would take no further part in the proceedings. At the time, I said that we should be careful about taking to ourselves powers that we do not want others to have. I commend that sentiment to the Minister of State and his hon. Friends. What we did in a minor way is being done in spades by the Labour Government—that lot opposite. It is quite disgraceful.
Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Before I give way, I will give the Minister something else to talk about. Last Monday, he appeared as the first witness before the new Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I am privileged to sit. We considered only one or two aspects of the Bill, but they showed—and the hon. Gentleman admitted in as many words—that the measure needs the most careful and detailed scrutiny. Indeed, he and I had a passage of arms over precisely what is meant by "quarrelsome" as distinct from "argumentative"—
Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about unreported evidence?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the evidence is unreported, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) should avoid talking about it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: If I have transgressed in any sense, I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

759
The Minister knows that what we said during that sitting of the Joint Committee shows that the Bill needs the most detailed scrutiny. However, not only will a whole section of the Bill receive no detailed scrutiny—it will receive no scrutiny at all.
Mr. Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that none of the issues we discussed in that Committee were guillotined and that they were all debated fully? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the activities of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and say that they were wrong and out of order?
Sir Patrick Cormack: That is not the point at issue tonight. The hon. Gentleman made a very belligerent speech from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) adopted the advice given in Bardell v. Bardell in "Pickwick Papers"—weak case: abuse plaintiff's attorney. That is what he did this evening, and he has the good grace to laugh now. What we are really discussing this evening is the way in which the Government, without any regard for parliamentary propriety, seek to railroad Bill after Bill through the House with programme motions which are, in fact, guillotines in disguise.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Perhaps in a moment.
Few Members on either side of the House would have a legitimate argument against proper programming which gave proper time for all clauses in the Bill. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—a former shadow Leader of the House—and I briefly served on the Modernisation Committee, we made it plain, as did others, that we were prepared to discuss that proposal, but the Modernisation Committee has become the emasculation Committee; it is preventing the House from fulfilling its function. The prime function of the House is to subject to detailed and critical scrutiny measures introduced by the Executive, thereby holding the Executive to account.
Mrs. Beckett: Can the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that a similarly sized Bill was passed after half the number of sittings during the previous Parliament?
Sir Patrick Cormack: We are not debating that this evening; we are debating the way in which, time after time, the Government use a so-called programme motion as a guillotine—and use their massive majority, which is vastly in excess of the one we finished up with in the previous Parliament. The right hon. Lady should get the smile off her face and remember that she is, in fact, the Leader of the House; she has a responsibility to every Member to ensure that the procedures are properly followed.
Mr. Hope rose—
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: No; I might give way later.
760
The right hon. Lady, for whom I have a high regard, is letting herself down very badly by putting her name to the motion. As Mr. Speaker said when he was in the Chair, it is a motion without precedent because we are being asked to deem something done which has not been done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to develop my argument, then I may perhaps give way again.
We are being asked to say that the House has done something that it has not done. We are being asked to be parties to a collective parliamentary lie. We are being asked to say that something has happened which has not happened.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Sir Patrick cormack: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in his admirable speech, made it plain that that is what we are being asked to do.
Mr. Cook: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been a Member for longer than I have, and he has a very good memory. He is basing his argument on the fact that some clauses have not even been read, let alone debated. I ask him to cast his mind back to the Hungerford tragedy and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which was introduced as a result—the Minister then responsible is present this evening—when 67 clauses, many of which went against commitments given in Committee and which would not be applicable to Northern Ireland, were introduced on Report and the Bill was guillotined not against the then Opposition, on whose Front Benches I sat, but against Conservative Members, because the then Government had to deal with their own hunting, shooting and fishing crowd, who were very much against the measure. So let us have none of the misrepresentation about such a motion being unique and having been introduced for the first time, because that is far from accurate.
Sir Patrick Cormack: That was a very inexact analogy. However, I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken out—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhill (Mr. Shepherd) has done so even more than I have—against guillotines by whomsoever they have been introduced. My hon. Friend's record is without equal, but I have a reasonable record too in that regard. I have never liked the instrument. I am not seeking to defend what may or may not have been done in the past.
Mr. Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry, but I will not give way again.
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Labour Members are trying to rake up the embers of the past when we are concerned about the raging inferno of the present. We have a Government who are seeking to consign parliamentary procedures to the bonfire of their own vanity.

761
The motion is without precedent. We have never before in the history of Parliament had a Government who have come before the House and sought to persuade it to connive—I use my words deliberately and carefully—at the collective lie that something has been done that has not been done.
Dr. Ladyman rose—
Mr. Miller rose—
Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not give way.
We have not discussed the clauses and that is why the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right, in his admirable speech, to concentrate on that aspect of the issue. As he rightly said, we are discussing the Government's motion, which is urging us to deem something to have happened that has not happened.
Labour Members may laugh, but if any one of them goes into the Lobby to support the motion, he or she will be denying his or her parliamentary heritage. Any Member who votes for the motion is, in fact, voting for the Executive against the legislature. Any Member who votes for the motion is voting for the emasculation of Parliament and what it stands for and must continue for stand for.
Any Member who votes for the motion is voting against a free Parliament in a free country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Labour Members may say that, but the Government have a massive majority. Of course, the real reason why we are being asked to accept the motion is that the Prime Minister—who has such a massive majority, who has 15 months of his mandate yet to run, who has, as he has readily told us many times, much unfinished business to do and who is now faced with a national calamity—now sees in the opinion polls what he believes to be a chance to renew his mandate. He will therefore rush anything through regardless of whether it is discussed or not.
Mr. Bercow: That is totally unacceptable.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friend says—but that is what the debate is all about.
Dr. Ladyman: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman deprecates what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did, but that he is too loyal to say so. However, will he at least accept that if we do not take action of the type the Government have proposed, what the right hon. Lady did will become the norm and we shall never again get business through the House?
Sir Patrick Cormack: What arrant nonsense. If we vote as we should for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and his Friends, to which the Conservative party's Front-Bench spokesmen have attached their names, all that will happen is that Bill will receive adequate discussion and debate. That is what it must have and that is what it deserves. There will be no need for future protests. If the Leader of the House takes this lesson to heart, continues to hold her job and produces properly
762
negotiated programmes that give adequate opportunity for all parts of all Bills to be fully discussed, the problem will not arise again.
At this late hour, we face an important matter. In my 31 years in the House, never has Parliament faced such a serious transgression of its rights and privileges by the Executive, who are trying to prevent the legislature from holding them to account. They are behaving with a draconian ferocity that is usually found only in dictatorships. For that reason, it is incumbent on every lover of parliamentary democracy to go into the Lobby to support the amenment.
12.11 am
Mr. Allan Rogers: I am amazed at the general air of hypocrisy that is seeping from Conservative Benches. It stinks. Those of us who sat through the 1980s and saw the Government use their majority to push through the privatisation of gas, transport, electricity and the atomic weapons establishment can only cringe. I understand why some older Members have sat through our proceedings with a smile on their faces, but I also understand the bowel syndrome of new Members. Their constipated look of pain has been fed by the oracle, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who has suggested that something terrible is happening. It is a pretty awful scene. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he, too, understands the Conservatives' frustration—their bowel syndrome. However, I cannot bear to hear the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) bounce from pillar to post. He has more sides than an old thruppenny bit, which is typical of Liberal Democrats in action.
What happened last Thursday is regrettable, but the hon. Member for South Staffordshire should reflect on this thought: regardless of whether the Government were right or wrong to introduce a programme motion, they have a majority and the rules under which the Committee was to operate were set down. The Opposition have deliberately conspired to go against the wishes of the elected Parliament, but he should remember that the shoe is on Labour's foot, in the same way as it was on the Conservatives' foot in the 1980s—and, by gosh, did they use it. Talk about boots being made for walking—they walked over all semblance of democracy in the House and rammed through all the legislation that they wanted, so much so that someone said that a large majority might be bad for democracy. However, that is another argument. The Liberal Democrats will not like the system because they stand no chance of getting a majority.
Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: No. The hon. Gentleman can speak for himself later.
Some sanctions must be applied. If we do not accept that, we cannot accept that the House is able to set the rules under which we operate.
From the swinging of the mace to the swinging in the trees, Opposition Members want to make Parliament a jungle. It has been pointed out that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) had a peerless record of standing against his own Government when he felt that something was wrong. I have such a record, but I cannot honestly see that any wrongdoing occurred in this case,

763
except that the official Opposition deliberately conspired to break the rules of the House. If they are allowed to get away with it, parliamentary democracy will go out of the window.
12.15 am
Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, but I am rather sorry that it is taking place at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is a Whip, seeks to participate. Perhaps he will deviate further from procedure and speak in the debate as he is already having a stab at it.
We are debating not the conduct of particular Members but that of a Government who are prepared to deem that a Bill has been considered in Committee—
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brady: I cannot resist.
Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to condemn unreservedly the activities of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)?
Mr. Brady: I will take the opportunity to condemn unreservedly the arrogant contempt that the Minister and his colleagues show for the House. I shall express the strong views held by Conservative and, I am pleased to say, Liberal Democrat Members. We believe in parliamentary democracy, and the hon. Gentleman, as a Minister of the Crown, ought to have regard for Parliament and some understanding of why we were all sent here.
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Brady: The Minister made a pathetic point the last time he intervened, so I shall not give way again. He and his colleagues must begin to understand that they are not here simply because of one day on which there was a general election—[Laughter.] Labour Members show how little they understand parliamentary democracy; it does not begin and end on the day of a general election.
We are sent here to do a job, not to be ciphers or delegates or to endorse the Labour manifesto, and even Labour Members frequently depart not only from the manifesto but increasingly from their pledge card. The essence of our job entails scrutiny of legislation and requires that all Members, even Labour Members, should devote their minds and their energy to considering the quality of legislation put before them in Committee. I have sat on Standing Committees and seen how rarely Labour Members do that. All Members have that obligation. The Government are prepared to ride roughshod over the rights of Members from all parties to perform that duty. In addition. I suspect that when we vote later this morning, Labour Members will simply accept this neutering of the role of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not the situation even worse than that? Police morale is at rock bottom. The Minister of
764
State is responsible for police morale, yet he grins and keeps making inane points instead of saying why Members have not even discussed all the clauses that deal with the police.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and it will not be lost on members of police forces throughout the country that the Minister responsible for them is not prepared to allow parliamentary debate of matters relating to the police.
Mr. Heald: When I talked to the Police Federation about the matter this morning, its response was great dismay that discussion of whole clauses on which it wanted assurances was simply guillotined.
Mr. Brady: I am not surprised to hear that. The dismay of the Police Federation is mirrored not just by dismay but by cynicism and scepticism among the public, to which the Prime Minister has alluded. Is it any wonder that the electorate, whom we are meant to serve, hold the House of Commons in such low esteem, when it is clear that the Executive hold us in such low esteem and we are not permitted to do the job that we are sent here to do and raise our constituents' concerns?
Mr. Hogg: The position is even graver than my hon. Friend has said. It is not just that these clauses have not been discussed in Committee. Under the timetable motion that the House has passed, they cannot be discussed on Report or even, by implication, on Third Reading. There will not be enough time at those stages either, so they will never be discussed.
Mr. Brady: My right hon. and learned Friend has many more years' experience in the House than I have, but in my four years here I have seen the destruction of so much of the freedom and the power of the House of Commons that it appals me. It is frightening to contemplate what the Government are seeking to do: trying further to reduce the powers and the rights of the House of Commons to scrutinise legislation. In doing so, Ministers do a disservice not merely to the Opposition but to themselves, the House of Commons and to the office of Government.
Ultimately, the problem is not just that we will not be able to scrutinise the Government's legislation, or that the Police Federation and other interested bodies will not have their views expressed. As the Government have discovered so many times in the past few years, their all-too-shoddy legislation will not have the opportunity of scrutiny and, therefore, will not be improved by the consideration that it should receive in Committee. If Ministers had a little more humility and a little less arrogance, they might accept that Parliament has a genuinely important function in seeking to improve what the Government introduce. If a Government are not too arrogant to see that, they can benefit. An arrogant Government such as this will soon be discovered by the failures of their legislation.
Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in the House for the same time, and I am trying to following his argument. Is he suggesting that the duty that he owes to people outside this House means that he has the right to override the House's rules and procedures in trying to fulfil that duty?
Mr. Brady: The Minister is trying hard but he is not doing very well. Surely the crucial point is that, when

765
the House behaves as a proper, functioning part of a free Parliament, procedural matters are dealt with broadly by agreement among all parties. This programming procedure manifestly does not have the support of the House of Commons. It has been forced through by the Executive, who object as a matter of principle to being held to account and do not like to face parliamentary scrutiny.
When the Executive are prepared to force their way in procedural matters and abuse the rights of the House of Commons, the procedure has less validity than when it is agreed properly by all parties. Ministers need to understand that if they are to ride roughshod over the interests of the House of Commons and ignore the rights of Back Benchers, and particularly the Opposition parties, they will lose. I happily give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). [Interruption.] I could have sworn that he wanted to make another entertaining contribution to the debate. I wish that he had been about to; I would have enjoyed it immensely.
Ministers must understand that if they abuse the rights of the House, seek to suppress debate and to prevent scrutiny of their legislation, overturn and disregard its procedures and instead impose procedures on it rather than gaining agreement for them, the House must fight to retain its independence. It must fight to have the right to scrutinise legislation. It must hold Ministers to account.
12.25 am
Mrs. Joan Humble: I shall speak only briefly because I do not want to delay the passage of the excellent Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
I was pleased to be asked to be a member of the Committee that was to scrutinise the Bill. I took my role seriously. We had hour after hour to debate the detail of the Bill. Extra sittings were made available to us to debate—
Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Humble: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution later.
We had plenty of time to debate the detail of the Bill. Yet the Opposition have said explicitly that they are seeking to delay it. They admit that last week's extraordinary behaviour was deliberate. The message that my constituents will take from this evening's debate will not be about the detail of parliamentary procedure but about the fact that the Opposition want to delay the passage of legislation that they want to see on the statute book.
I remind the Opposition of an occasion in Committee when Conservative Members agreed with me. I pointed out the need to consult local communities when areas were to be designated by local authorities for the purpose of making illegal drinking in public places. The Opposition also agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister of State on other aspects of the Bill. Yet now they are trying deliberately to delay the passage of the Bill.
The message that I will take back to my constituents is that the Opposition do not want to support measures to give the police powers to control drunken behaviour; or measures to allow licensed premises where disorder is
766
taking place to be closed; or measures to limit the right of convicted drug traffickers to travel; or measures to protect workers who are engaged in legal employment. That is the message of the debate.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Humble: No, I will not.
My constituents want to see all those provisions enacted. They benefited from byelaws—
Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Humble: Yes. I am a generous soul.
Mr. Heald: As the hon. Lady said, we did agree from time to time in Committee. Does she recall the Huntingdon Life Sciences new clauses, which were to be dealt with at the end of consideration of the Bill in Committee? That would have been the position if I had not moved that they should be brought forward. That was my idea, and it was accepted later by the Minister. Those new clauses would not have been brought forward if the order of consideration had remained the same.
Mrs. Humble: I remind the hon. Gentleman that several Members raised that issue in points of order. My hon. Friend the Minister listened to those points of order.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the first meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, and at all subsequent meetings, I said to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and to Members of other Opposition parties, in accordance with practice, that it was for the Opposition to determine the order of the amendments to be debated? When a proposal was made, I said that we would accept it immediately, and we did.
Mrs. Humble: I return to the point that I was making. In my constituency, Blackpool, we already have byelaws that cover some of the matters dealt with in the Bill, such as drinking in public places. Those byelaws have been extremely successful. The police welcomed them, as did the local community. However, that is a cumbersome way of dealing with an important issue. The Bill will enable many other local authorities to deal much more efficiently with the sorts of problems that we encountered in my constituency, with which the police are now dealing through byelaws. Unless the Bill is passed, other local authorities will not be able to do that without going through all the rigmarole of byelaws. My constituents want the Bill passed. The message that I shall take back after this debate is that the Opposition do not want that. Long may they stay in opposition, so that we shall have a Labour Government who will protect my constituents and deliver public safety.
12.30 am
Mr. John Townend: It is unusual for me to be in the House at this time of night, and it is even more unusual for me to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, tonight is different. I am speaking because I am furious at the Government's action in putting before the House a motion that hits at the main purpose of the House, which is to give adequate line-by-line scrutiny to all legislation before us.

767
I believe that the motion proposed by the Minister is an abuse of power and undermines the power of Members of Parliament. The Government are asking us to accept that the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which has not been reported to the House, should be deemed to have been reported, even though 41 clauses, amounting to 85 pages of text, have not been discussed. That is particularly objectionable because this is a criminal justice Bill affecting individuals' rights before the courts.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Townend: In a minute. The Minister must be patient.
I shall point out just two items covered by the clauses that have not been discussed: inferences to be drawn from silence in police conduct proceedings, and courts to give reasons for granting opposed bail. Those are extremely important.
If I give way to the Minister, I hope that he will not ask me whether I condemn my colleagues on the Front Bench. I do not. I hope that the Minister will agree that the proposition that something should he deemed to have been done is a serious matter and would set a very serious precedent. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that such a motion will never be moved in respect of a Second Reading or a Third Reading?
Mr. Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why the Committee's proceedings were not completed was the yobbish behaviour of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)? Will he condemn that behaviour?
Mr. Townend: The Minister does not seem to have been taught when he was a small boy that two wrongs do not make a right. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell the House that he is entitled to a respectful hearing, as is any hon. Member.
Mr. Townend: The Minister has forgotten that even if members of the Government think that Opposition Members have acted incorrectly, that is no justification for bringing before the House a motion that undermines the House and sets a precedent, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, by asking the House to accept a lie and to state that something has happened which has not happened.
Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I accept his argument, will he tell me in return what he thinks would be the appropriate response of the House to gross disruptive behaviour that
768
was deliberately designed and organised to disrupt parliamentary procedure? What would be the appropriate way forward?
Mr. Townend: It is appropriate for the House to behave properly and send the Bill back to Committee.
Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Townend: No, let me answer your question first. You are setting a precedent—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member. He must use the correct parliamentary language.
Mr. Townend: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What point was the hon. Gentleman making?
Mr. McCabe: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was asking what would be an appropriate response. He has kindly told the House that it would be appropriate to send the Bill back to Committee. What steps would he take to ensure that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues would not do exactly the same thing the minute the Bill went back to Committee?
Mr. Townend: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Can tpbell-Savours). There are numerous occasions on which such things have happened; Government Member;' objection is that, this time, instead of being organised by the Whips Office, as it probably was in the past, it was done openly and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) led from the front. Government Members are not objecting to the principle; they are objecting merely because those on our Front Bench were involved.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) asked what the answer is. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, the Government have a large majority and ample time. They have another 15 months. My hon. Friends are talking about another two or three days. There is no need for the Government to rush into an election—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Hall Green may laugh, but I have a rural seat and, as all of the countryside is coming to a halt, it is strange that the Government are proposing to have an election and force things through. They have tabled a motion that sets a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Blunt: Of course, there is an answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). If the Bill went back into a Committee without an artificial timetable and deadline, the Committee would be able to take powers to tackle any disorder without our having to come to the House to deal with it. The deadline imposed by the Government is the cause of the entire problem.
Mr. Townend: As I said, this is not the first time that the Government have sidelined Parliament and reduced its powers. One reason why I decided to stand down at the election, even though my constituency party wanted me

769
to do another term, is that Parliament has been undermined. When I came here 22 years ago, I was proud of our unwritten constitution, monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Parliament was supreme; one Parliament could not bind the next. We did not have a supreme court; the people of this country were the supreme court, through their elected representatives in Parliament. If the courts did not interpret legislation correctly, Parliament could pass further legislation and impose its will on them.
Now, Parliament has lost that right. With the incorporation of human rights legislation in British law, we can be overruled by judges. Every day, more power is transferred to Europe—it is all part of the same programme, as has been brought home to me. To be fair, the previous Government allowed power to go to Europe. At that time, I remember fighting for my constituency, as a parliamentarian should. I have a fishing constituency; we persuaded the Government to stop quota hopping, and they passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. They were overruled by the European Court of Justice and had to pay the Spaniards millions of pounds in damages.
It is worrying that more power has gone to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Eventually, it will go to the British regions. Parliament has been neutered—indeed, it has been castrated. What the Government are suggesting tonight is just another step in that process. That is very serious, and I do not want to be part of it.
12.40 am
Mr. Andrew Miller: It is extraordinary to consider, having heard the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), that only a week ago Conservative Members were putting forward exactly the opposite argument. They were seeking to argue, on Standing Orders issues, that it was appropriate that the House should bind a future Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman now seems to be arguing a different point. [Interruption.] If he does not understand what I am saying, he should read the debates on procedural motions that have taken place in the House.
I understand the frustration of being on the Opposition Benches. I sat there for five years.
Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman might unwittingly have misled the House. He said that certain statements were made by hon. Members on this side of the House when they were not. Would he now like to say precisely when those statements were made?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate.
Mr. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read Hansard, he will understand what I am saying.
Mr. Bercow: When?
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman shouts "When?" from a sedentary position. With his photographic memory, all that he needs to do is get his photographs processed. Then he would understand.
770
I was saying that I understood the frustrations of being in Opposition. Five years was long enough for me. I understand even more the frustration of the Liberal Democrats. The frustration of sitting on their Bench must be absolutely enormous.
We must understand, looking back at the history of this place, that Governments get their business through and Oppositions try to amend it. Sometimes, in periods of great frustration, Oppositions fail to achieve that.
The Opposition—fragmented, split, and not understanding the will of the people of this nation—have failed to understand the golden offer given to them by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when she presented the changes with which we are now experimenting. The Opposition misunderstood the difference between time and timing. They have this daft idea that, by keeping things going for ever, they are going to convince members of the public of the wisdom of their way. Would not it be better if they used the opportunities in the Chamber and upstairs in Committee to use timing, like a good cricketer? A good cricketer can score more runs by using good timing than by stonewalling for ever.
Mr. Heald: I am not going to talk about cricket, even though the English team was so successful recently. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the Committee—in which the Minister said that there was time-wasting—the Chairman of the Committee said:
"My view, and that of my co-Chairman, is that, to date, there has been no untoward or over-lengthy debate … we are dealing with intricate issues".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 2001; c. 199.]?
That is exactly the view put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). This was not a case of time-wasting; this was simply a case of not having enough time to do the job.
Mr. Miller: If I had suggested that the hon. Gentleman was deliberately time-wasting in Committee, I would clearly have been out of line with the views of the Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. Deputy Speaker would quite rightly have called me to order. I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman in the Smoking Room the other day that if he looked at a Bill, as it was published, identified the parts on which he thought that the Government Front Bench was on shaky ground, and negotiated with the Leader of the House to ensure that those parts of the Bill had substantive examination on prime time television, he would get far more out of it. But no; as with many other Bills, the Opposition did not see the wisdom of that approach. The truth is that they have nothing to offer. They have no challenge to Ministers that they are even prepared to have exposed on prime time television. We are considering an issue of law and order.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but really the debate is about proper scrutiny of legislation, not prime time television. Does he think that every part of a Bill should be considered in Committee?
Mr. Miller: Members of the House and of the other place should ensure that, before they cast their vote on Report, they are satisfied that that which they are voting on meets the will of the House. I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman during his speech, but I thought

771
that, tactically, he was going down a dangerous route. He needs to understand that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which Ministers presented the issues, the bottom line must be that the House cannot accept hooligan behaviour. Democracy cannot be conducted in such a way.
Mr. Hogg: I put to the hon. Gentleman the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). In Committee, there are essentially two matters at stake: policy and the language used to reflect that policy. If the language of the statute is not right, that will cause immense problems in the courts and elsewhere. It is the business of a Committee to consider the language of each clause in order to perfect it, if perfecting it needs.
Mr. Miller: I would be more sympathetic to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views if guillotine after guillotine had not fallen when I sat on the Opposition Benches. Those guillotines were operated by Conservative Members, including him. We are dealing with issues of law and order. I genuinely thought that all Members of the House wanted to stamp out the criminality, bad behaviour and anti-social behaviour that goes on throughout the nation. How can the nation accept leadership from the House if we accept hooligan behaviour?
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make such points, but they are not the central issue. Will he deal with that? Why do not the Government support the amendment? It would allow us to complete consideration in Committee and the Bill to complete all its stages. It would allow democracy and would prevent nothing. Let us leave to one side the punishment of people who may have disrupted the House, as I gather that another motion has been tabled for debate tomorrow. We can debate that matter another time.
Mr. Miller: I am not aware that such a motion has been tabled as I have not seen tomorrow's Order Paper, although I look forward to reading it. I may seek to amend the motion because I might not think that the proposed punishment is sufficient. [Laughter.] There is laughter, but the simple fact is that we need to set standards. We have sought to set standards in respect of football hooligans by preventing certain people from travelling to away matches. Perhaps that means that Opposition Front Benchers must not travel away to the Committee Corridor. We have introduced anti-social behaviour orders, which constrain people. We have considered introducing curfews. Those punishments may be appropriate.
The bottom line is that we cannot have one law for Members of the House, in any aspect of life, and another for private citizens. How can the nation be expected to work with us and the forces of law and order to improve standards in society if it is considered acceptable for an official Opposition to act in such a manner? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the programming of a Bill, I will not be drawn into the particular by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because I was not on the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS:
772
"Ah."] That is a matter of record. As I was not on the Committee, I do not know precisely what people said to each other.
We must ensure that a Bill has adequate time. I raised the point on the Floor of the House in respect of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, because 14 out of 18 columns dealing with one of its clauses were taken up by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. If we analyse the content of those 14 columns, we realise that only three columns dealt with the substance of the clause.
Mr. Bercow: Read them out.
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman has a photographic memory, so I am sure that he can remember every one of his own words.
Dr. Ladyman: Would my hon. Friend take it from someone who was on the Committee that the constructive element of the Opposition's case, if it had been put by a private company and someone was paying the bill, would have been contracted into about 30 minutes?
Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend's recent, high-level experience in the private sector may legitimately lead him to that conclusion. As he was on the Committee, I accept his judgment.
The House must set standards. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her cohorts in this disruption have set standards that are unacceptable to the House and to a nation that is crying out for leadership on law and order. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is seeking to give that leadership, and any respectable Opposition would support him hook, line and sinker in his attempts to do so.
12.52 am
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to make a short contribution to the debate. It is noticeable that Government Members have not addressed the motion. The problem is that the motion asks us to deem that black is white, and that something that ought to have happened, but which everyone in the House knows has not happened, has happened. That is why it is unprecedented and wrong, and we should not accept it.
The problem comes about because the Government have gone in for programme motions, pushed through with their large majority, that do not give sufficient time for an important Bill of this nature. The Government describe it as their flagship Bill, but they have allowed only 15 sittings for this important criminal justice legislation. I should like to compare that with the way in which the Conservative Government behaved when we put through important legislation. I shall give two examples of criminal justice legislation that I think are fair. The first is the Criminal Justice Act 1982, and the second is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I sat on both Committees—for obvious reasons, I had a close relationship with almost all the criminal justice legislation that went through in those 18 years.
The Criminal Justice Act 1982 set the scene, as everyone who follows the courts knows, for the

773
magistrates courts, the Crown courts and criminal justice powers for a generation. It had 45 clauses, was considered during 22 sittings, and went through at exactly this time of year, between January and the end of March. It went through as a result of sensible agreement. We did not sit late, we did not waste time, and we had a full debate.
Mrs. Beckett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course.
Mrs. Beckett: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to include in his example the Bill that became the Police Act 1997, debated in 1996–97? It was about the size of this Bill, and went through at the same time of year with half the number of sittings.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Let us consider my example for a moment. The Bill went through and was fully debated, and that could have happened in this instance.
I cited the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because it started life as the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill 1983. Again, it was a highly important piece of legislation, which appeared in the run-up to the 1983 general election. It fell because, although it completed all its stages in the House in the early part of 1983, there was no time for it to go through the other place. It therefore did not become law.
Every Member present tonight must accept the overwhelming probability that this Bill, too, will not become law because there is likely to be a general election on 3 May. If that does not happen, there will be plenty of time for the Bill to be taken through the House properly; if it does, the Bill will fall. When we had the power, we allowed a reasonable and proper time, and that is what ought to be done now.
Mr. Straw: May I return the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the point put to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? The 1983 example is a very poor one for the Opposition to use. It is true that we were in "oppositionist" mode in that year: we refused to agree to legislation going through in a truncated form before the election, although we broadly agreed with it. That is one of the reasons why we paid such a heavy price in the polls. [Interruption.] It is true. It is a matter of record.
Let me bring the right hon. and learned Gentleman up to date, and return him to 1996–97. The Police Bill to which my right hon. Friend referred was of a similar length to this Bill and similarly non-controversial, but it nevertheless required examination. It had much less examination in practice, and we agreed it. That strikes me as a far better precedent; why do the Opposition not follow it?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The difference between the Home Secretary and me is that I was a member of the Committee considering the 1983 Bill, while he was not. Yes, there was a good deal of opposition for opposition's sake on Labour's part, and Labour Members were wrong to do
774
that, but the 1983 Bill is not a good example. The debate was constructive, the Bill went through all its stages in the House of Commons, and it was scrutinised sensibly.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that I was a member of that Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) led for the Opposition. We had a constructive debate, which resulted in the enactment of the Bill. What would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have thought had my right hon. Friend led a sit down strike in the Committee?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: That is not the point. [Interruption.] Hold on a second: I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention before returning to what I was saying.
Complaint is made about the manner of protests here, but the fact that a protest may transgress rules does not justify oppression if oppression has given rise to that protest. That argument would have been used against John Hampden, the Tolpuddle martyrs and Mr. Gandhi.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I was the Whip on the Committee considering the second Bill. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) asked what our reaction would have been to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He would never have acted in that way because there was no timetable. The Committee ensured that there was adequate time for the Bill to be debated, so there was no reason, justification or need for such action.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. Both those Bills were properly scrutinised and, as I think that the whole House would agree, became good legislation.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it that after five interventions on the Police Act 1996, no Tory Member is prepared to address himself or herself to the questions that are being asked, which are very simple? In our consideration of the 1996 Act, 18 clauses and schedules were dealt with per sitting. In our consideration of this Bill, nine clauses and schedules are being dealt with per sitting. In other words, in 1996, under the Tory Government, twice as many provisions were considered per sitting. Rather than waffling, why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman address the specific issue of the 1996 Act?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have heard special pleading before, and I hear it from the hon. Gentleman now. Labour Members really have to make up their minds about the 1996 Act—are they saying that it was pushed through with or without adequate consideration? We are saying that this Bill—it cannot be denied—is not being adequately considered and that it is being pushed through unreasonably fast. I have participated in the Committee's consideration of the Bill, which has had 15 or 16 sittings.

775
If it had had about 22 sittings, it could have been perfectly adequately dealt with. If it could not have been so considered by the general election, it could have been reintroduced after the general election.
There are reasonable ways of dealing with these matters. It is not right that we have not had time to address really important issues such as the disclosure of material from the Inland Revenue to overseas Governments. Those issues have given rise to very sensible letters to all Committee members. Some of those letters, however,
776
arrived only the day before or on the very day on which we reached the aspects with which they deal. There has therefore been no time to deal with those aspects. The legislation is being handled badly.
Mr. McCabe: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Forgive me, but no.
This motion tries to say that black is white and it is a precedent that should not be followed. It should be opposed and defeated in the Lobby today.
1.2 am
Mr. Steve McCabe: As a Committee member, I should like to make just a couple of brief points. We are being told by the Opposition that it would be an outrage and disgraceful for Parliament to pass the motion. Perhaps I take an over-simplified view of these matters, but it seems to me that the reality is that there was a programme motion on which there was a vote. The Chairman often acknowledged that fact to the Committee. Earlier, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that the Opposition had agreed to an experimental programme motion.
Mrs. Browning: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. Conservative Members opposed the programme motion on principle and voted against it. We particularly opposed the programme motion for consideration of this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) tabled an amendment to that motion, but Labour Members voted against it, so the amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. McCabe: I am grateful. I must have misheard the hon. Lady. I thought that she said that the Opposition had agreed to the experiment although they had some reservations about it.
The point is that the events occurred with fewer than 10 minutes to go in the Committee's consideration of the Bill. After those 10 minutes had elapsed, the outstanding matters would have been guillotined regardless, putting us in exactly the same position as we are in now.
It is possible for experienced and honourable Conservative Members to huff and puff about the outrage and the affront. However, the reality is that we were within 10 minutes of the end of the Committee's proceedings—exactly the position that we are in now. At that point the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) chose to prevent that from happening by barging into the Committee and disrupting its procedures. That is what happened, no matter how it is dressed up or described. We should not delude ourselves about what actually happened.
Whether Conservative Members liked it or not, the programme motion had been put to a vote—the Chairman reminded them of that on numerous occasions in Committee. We had reached the stage at which the Committee had run out of time, and we would have guillotined the outstanding items. However, we were prevented from doing so because of the actions of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
Jackie Ballard: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman appeared to have reservations about some aspects of the Bill. Does he think that adequate time was given for proper consideration of all the 132 clauses as well as the new clauses? If not, will he vote for the amendment tonight?
Mr. McCabe: First, let me say that I thought that the hon. Lady's contribution in Committee was extremely helpful. She was very constructive in her opposition.
To answer her question, I thought that when members of the Committee turned their attention to the content of
778
the Bill and the issues of substance that it contains, there was effective scrutiny. As she knows, there were matters on which I and others had reservations. I felt that my hon. Friend the Minister did his level best to take on board many of those reservations. The record of the Committee's proceedings show numerous examples of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) thanking the Minister for the consideration that he gave to the objections cited. My view is that when the Committee turned its attention to the substance of the Bill, scrutiny was ideal.
The difficulty is the amount of time that was wasted, a point which the official Opposition cannot escape. We had numerous references to and complaints about the programme motion, despite the fact that the Chairman made it plain what his ruling was and that he did not want to pursue the matter further. We had a lengthy debate on whether the term "British islands" should be in the Bill. At the end of that debate, we discovered that that term had been in use since 1978. No Conservative Member had chosen to table an amendment challenging those words in any piece of legislation that had gone through the House since 1978, yet they spent at least an hour debating whether "British islands" was an appropriate term. What that has to do with the police or the criminal justice system in this country, I do not know.
There were lengthy references to the "Dangerfield" television programme regarding the use of samples and whether a doctor or a registered nurse might be the appropriate person to take a sample. It is worth right hon. and hon. Members hearing about the effective scrutiny to which the Bill was sometimes subject. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) told us:
"I was especially interested in the series because a great deal of its filming took place in and around the courts where I practised. The Parliamentary Secretary is not with us at the moment, but he was also on that circuit. Much of the filming was done in and around towns such as Warwick, and the exteriors of real police stations were quite often used. It was a successful series with a wide and large audience, and doubtless there is now greater appreciation of the serious risks that sometimes face not only officers but police doctors".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 2001; c. 602.]
That added a great deal to the scrutiny of the Bill.
Mr. Stunell: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to argue that two wrongs make a right? Is he entirely happy with that argument?
Mr. McCabe: Either I am doing a very bad job of explaining myself or the hon. Gentleman is not hearing me properly. I am making the point that it is not a question of two wrongs making a right; there was a vote on a programme motion and, as is normal, we accepted the ruling of that vote and the ruling of the Chair. It was only when the Opposition realised that they were not going to have their way—after deliberately wasting time throughout the Committee's proceedings—that they chose to use a further parliamentary, or non-parliamentary, device. Those were the actions of a flying picket—an attempt to block our legitimate procedure. That is not a question of two wrongs.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall not ask the hon. Gentleman to give his views on flying pickets in public.
Putting aside the people involved, does the hon. Gentleman agree that what happened on Thursday was that Members of the House used a tactic open to any Member to try to prevent the fulfilment of the timetable? It was just as proper a tactic to try as any other. In the event, it has brought us to the Chamber tonight. However, whether or not the Committee stage is guillotined, that does not answer the question why we should not go back to finish the Bill's Committee proceedings.
Mr. McCabe: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's views, but he is fundamentally wrong on this matter. Whatever his view, he knows that if that spectacular intervention had not taken place—with less than 10 minutes to go—the Bill would properly have completed its proceedings. The hon. Gentleman may have disagreed with the manner in which the procedure was organised, but that would have been the outcome. The only reason that did not happen was that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was unhappy about it.
The Opposition freely admit that they had used all the normal procedures of the House to try to prevent the Bill's proceedings. Not content with the outcome and unprepared to accept the judgment of the House. they decided to ignore that judgment and to take another course of action. If we were to take the position advocated by the hon. Gentleman—to go back to the point at which the right hon. Lady disrupted the Committee's proceedings—I have no confidence that, as soon as something occurred that the Opposition were not happy about, they would once again dispense with parliamentary rules and go back to the same bullying tactics. That is how they are prepared to behave.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I understand the point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is trying to make. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the danger with the course of action for which the hon. Gentleman argues is that it creates an incentive for people to repeat conduct that we all deplore?
Mr. McCabe: It would be difficult to arrive at any other conclusion. That is exactly what would happen. It appears that we are being told that the House can vote and take decisions on procedure, but that at any point when the Opposition lose a vote—fairly and squarely—and are unhappy about it, they can tear up the rule book. We are being asked to agree that if they take such actions, we should go back to square one and let them do it again. For the life of me, I cannot see the sense of that.
Tonight, as my constituents in Hall Green look at the broken glass outside rowdy pubs or wonder what is happening down the street, not many of them would be too happy if we let offenders have a second chance.
Earlier, we talked about police morale. The morale of the police officers whose pensions would have been sanctioned by the provisions in the Bill that we were due to discuss will not have been particularly reinforced by the actions we witnessed on Thursday—especially if we
780
are not allowed to complete our proceedings. The decision to prevent us from reinstating the rank of chief superintendent—that reinstatement was largely supported by the vast majority of police officers—will not necessarily boost police morale; the police have been asking for that reinstatement for years.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's account of the proceedings of the Committee, although I am not sure that his description of the antics of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) as "spectacular" is appropriate. Does he agree that those events demonstrate not only the need for the programming of legislation but that perhaps we need more effective programming to ensure that all the important parts of a Bill are debated?
Mr. McCabe: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We are still in an experimental phrase, and we need to learn from the experiment. I am sure that improvements can be made.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCabe: Not just now, thanks.
Undoubtedly, improvements can be made, but the bottom line remains that there must be good will and good faith on both sides when we enter into any experiment. We must believe that having voted for something, other hon. Members will respect that decision. We must also believe that the time made available will be used constructively. Let us not hear lengthy discussions about the British islands, the "Dangerfield" television series, the virtues of Mr. Matthew Gullick—the son of a High court judge and a junior Conservative party researcher, who is paid to write amendments occasionally. If we have to listen to his suggestions and those of his colleagues being read into the record—
Mr. Heald: Matthew Gullick—a Conservative researcher—was mentioned because the Government accepted three of the amendments that he drafted. Should he not have been mentioned? He did rather well.
Mr. McCabe: It is perfectly true that Matthew Gullick was mentioned on day one, when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that the score was three nil. He was mentioned the following day. On the third day, the Chairman of the Committee said that he need not be mentioned again. That certainly was three nil.
If there is time wasting, inevitable repetition and less focus on the content it ill becomes anyone to talk about having insufficient time to scrutinise the Bill. As I said at the outset, I welcomed Opposition Members' efforts when they turned their attention to the content. It is an important Bill and there have been important issues to discuss, but it is too late to bleat about running out of time when the time available has been used for everything but consideration of the Bill. To block the Bill by the outrageous behaviour that we witnessed on Thursday, involving discourtesy to the police and the Chairman of the Committee, and then to say tonight that the motion it is an outrage to parliamentary democracy beggars belief.
1.17 am
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The motion seeks to do two things. First. it states that the
"Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House, as amended by the Committee, and as if those Clauses and Schedules the consideration of which had not been completed by the Committee had been ordered to stand part of the Bill".
Secondly, it states:
"with the outstanding Amendments which stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Charles Clarke."
The Minister's amendments—no one else's—will be deemed to have been discussed, so a clear distinction has been made.
Why am I concerned about the motion? It does not take any great feat of imagination to think that it reinvents history. Four days ago, the House failed to do something. The Government have moved a motion that states that it has done something. Stalin rewrote history. I am concerned about the rewriting of history by deeming things to have happened that have not—because what else can be deemed to have happened?
A Minister of the Crown could say that he deems that the Bill has completed all its stages. That is why Mr. Speaker said, when sitting in the Chair, that the motion was without precedent. That is why it is very serious. The Minister's belligerence made me think that he was nervous about the case that he was presenting.
The motion and the amendment test the Government's response. The Bill has not been debated properly. If it reports back to the House under a guillotine, it will be smuggled back to us outside the attention of the wider world and large parts of will remain undiscussed. The Opposition's protests are designed to show that the House must now consider the consequences of the Committee's reporting that it had been unable to complete the Bill's consideration.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shepherd: Not just yet. The Government have been presented with two choices. They could have done what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested and the Bill could have been returned to Committee with sufficient time to discuss the 42 amendments that have not yet been debated. The Government did not choose that route. They chose to table this motion. They are saying that what they say is the law. The Government ate not suggesting that we should debate the issues in the way that has been offered by the Liberal Democrats, who have been supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. The Government motion, in effect, says, "What we say shall he the law."
The issue of majorities is a theme that has haunted the new Labour Government. Within four years, they have reached for the old Stalinist trick of putting on the Order Paper—[Interruption.] Government Members may laugh, but the Order Paper now suggests that what is not true is true. That is what the House is being asked to say. Each one of us must consider where that leaves us. What are we being reduced to? [Interruption.] I agree with that point about the poll tax. I do not think that guillotines
782
should be thrown around in the way they have been. My concern about the Bill is deeper. I wonder how we have come to this pass.
The motion has been tabled under the name of the Leader of the House and is supported by the Home Secretary. The Leader of the House does not even deign to "deem" in person and the Home Secretary, whose Bill it is, has not yet spoken. Standards are changing. The Government are becoming so grand that, in less than four years, they insist that they should have a Bill under their own timetable even though there is always a rhythm to a Bill.
Sessional Order (b) was accepted on 7 November 2000 and it lies behind these problems. Despite the objections of the Opposition parties and individuals, a majority determined that the Government should be given the power to guillotine every Bill. However, we have debates of only 45 minutes to discuss these matters. What has been the consequence? Every Bill that has been guillotined—that is, every Bill this Session—has been opposed by those on the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. Can we now talk about a Government who seek acquiesence and government by consent? Not a bit of it.
The Leader of the House is almost the Caligula of the House. She insists on things that are not true and is trying to bring about a culture change. If the House is to give authority to a Government and their actions, its whole purpose is to debate their actions. How else can they seek consent and attest to the fact that the issues have been considered?
We are now telling ourselves that we are redundant. If every Minister can deem, with a majority behind him, that something has happened, we can cut out the process of debate and transfer the business to the other end of the Palace. The reformed or unreformed House of Lords will become pre-eminent. That is the cause of our anger. A process has been forced through by the Modernisation Committee, which has not listened with the necessary tolerance to other views. Steam is now building up in a Chamber that has no exits or valves to allow it to be released.
How do I make representations to the Government? How do those on the Opposition Front Benches even begin to negotiate with the Government as to how to consider each part of a Bill? The Modernisation Committee has prattled on about holding the Government to account, but do the most important people—the majority in the House—hold the Government account? All they are doing is marching through the Lobby to support the cutting off of the historic role of Parliament.
Even this debate is being held at 1.24 am. The Government, confident and secure of their affection in the opinion polls, think that such matters are not important and that the public do not care. That is not the issue. Vasari once said something important. Why was it, he reflected, that the Florentines had reached a particular level of excellence in the arts? His response was that it related to the spirit of criticism: the brutality of the critical approach ensured that the second rate could not survive.
The spirit of criticism is essential to the way in which the House has always done its business. No one can be under any illusion about what the Government are arguing for, but the second rate cannot survive in such a system. Yet as we close down all the hatches for reasonable and

783
detailed investigation of how the law bears down on each one of us, we sink into the mediocrity exhibited by the Labour Front Bench. It is not dignified.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend mentions the other place. Not content with neutering this House, Lord Falconer will tomorrow propose a motion to instruct a Committee of the whole House
"to whom the Hunting Bill has been committed, that, notwithstanding the normal practice of the House in Committee, no amendments be considered except any amendments to leave out clause 1 … and insert a new clause".
Is he aware that the Government are now also working on the other place, which appears to be the only forum for real debate?
Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that the other place will address the issue tomorrow in the appropriate form. However, I am concerned with the motion before the House, which directly affects the only democratically elected body in Parliament. Each of us has been sent here to represent someone. We are all equal in those terms. That is why the Government have become second rate. No Government could table such a motion. Never before have a Government have sought to say that the House of Commons has considered a Bill when it has not. They say that our right to ask them what they mean, what something is about and whether it can be amended is just part of an arcane principle.
It is not just me, on my own, opposing the guillotine. The entire Opposition oppose it. The Government should reflect on that. The motion should not be before the House. As the Government, and the Leader of the House in particular, know, this inconvenience is the result of the imposition of their will on the Opposition. If we punch someone, he responds.
I regret that that is the state of affairs. Even Mr. Attlee's Government of 1945, which was far more radical than this Government, except in constitutional matters, did not act in such a way. Most of us are beneficiaries of some of the profound social changes that that Government introduced, but they needed only three guillotines. My right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher presided over a major radical Government, from whom the mediocre bunch on the Labour Front Bench inherited the economy. In 11 years, she used fewer guillotines than this new Labour Government have imposed in under four years. It is an extraordinary record. One wonders, on reflection, how any business was ever conducted in the House in those days.
By trying to meet a 10 o'clock rule, the Government have ensured that the House sits later because of the principled opposition of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives to this systematic guillotining of Bills after Second Reading without knowing where the opposition to them lies or what debate is needed. They assign an odd number of days that, by their divinity, they have chosen as appropriate for discussion.
The House would work much better if it returned to the situation prior to the introduction of these new Standing Orders and if the Government had the necessary tolerance. However impatient a Government may be, they must occasionally listen to the contrary view. Each of us is now regularly prevented from speaking, and then the
784
Government chant at us, "But it is the will of the majority that you shall not speak, and we were elected as a majority." I have always been against that attitude. As Burke said, and as I have said enough times in the House, a Government seek not just acquiescence; they seek consent. They do so not by dividing x by 2 plus 1 but through the process of allowing each of us the opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents. That is what lies behind the motion.
In truth, Labour Members should reflect on why they came here. Their purpose is to represent and speak up for their constituents' interests. No one doubts that their support is for a Labour Government, but nothing is divine. We have to subject the propositions of Government to criticism. Without that, they will remain as they are—arrogant and mediocre.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 240. Noes 142.

Division No. 144]

[1.32 am

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Colman, Tony

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Cooper, Yvette

Corbett, Robin

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Corston, Jean

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cox, Tom

Atkins, Charlotte

Cranston, Ross

Austin, John

Crausby, David

Bailey, Adrian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Barnes, Harry

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bayley, Hugh

Cummings, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Dalyell, Tam

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Darvill, Keith

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bennett, Andrew F

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Benton, Joe

Denham, Rt Hon John

Berry, Roger

Dismore, Andrew

Best, Harold

Dobbin, Jim

Betts, Clive

Donohoe, Brian H

Blackman, Liz

Dowd, Jim

Blizzard, Bob

Drew, David

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bradshaw, Ben

Edwards, Huw

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Efford, Clive

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Ennis, Jeff

Browne, Desmond

Etherington, Bill

Buck, Ms Karen

Fisher, Mark

Burgon, Colin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Butler, Mrs Christine

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Flint, Caroline

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell-Savours, Date

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Caton, Martin

Foulkes, George

Cawsey, Ian

Gapes, Mike

Clapham, Michael

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gerrard, Neil

Godsiff, Roger

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clwyd, Ann

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Grocott, Bruce

Coleman, Iain

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

785

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Olner, Bill

Healey, John

O'Neill, Martin

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Hepburn, Stephen

Pearson, Ian

Heppell, John

Perham, Ms Linda

Hill, Keith

Pike, Peter L

Hinchliffe, David

Plaskitt, James

Hoey, Kate

Pond, Chris

Home Robertson, John

Pope, Greg

Hope, Phil

Pound, Stephen

Hopkins, Kelvin

Prentice Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Prosser, Gwyn

Humble, Mrs Joan

Purchase, Ken

Hurst, Alan

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Hutton, John

Quinn, Lawrie

Iddon, Dr Brian

Rammell, Bill

Illsley, Eric

Raynsford, Nick

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Jamieson, David

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Roy, Frank

Jowell,Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Ruane, Chris

Joyce Eric

Ruddock, Joan

Keeble, Ms Sally

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Savidge, Malcolm

Kilfoyle, Peter

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Skinner Dennis

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Lammy, David

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Leslie, Christopher

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Levitt, Tom

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Lock, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCabe, Steve

Snape, Peter

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Soley, Clive

McDonagh, Siobhain

Southworth, Ms Helen

Spellar, John

Macdonald, Calum

Squire, Ms Rachel

McDonnell, John

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McFall, John

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

McIsaac, Shona

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

McNamara, Kevin

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

McNulty, Tony

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McWalter, Tony

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McWilliam, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Martlew, Eric

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maxton, John

Thomas, Gareth R (Clwyd W)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Meale, Alan

Timms, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Tipping, Paddy

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Todd, Mark

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Touhig, Don

Miller, Andrew

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Tynan, Bill

Morley, Elliot

Walley, Ms Joan

Mudie, George

Ward, Ms Claire

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Watts, David

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

White, Brian

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Whitethead, Dr Alan

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Williams;, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

O'Hara, Eddie

786

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winnick, David

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Worthington, Tony

Mrs. Anne McGuire.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Keetch, Paul

Amess, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Lansley, Andrew

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Letwin, Oliver

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Baldry, Tony

Lidington, David

Ballard, Jackie

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Bercow, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Loughton, Tim

Blunt, Crispin

Luff, Peter

Body, Sir Richard

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Boswell, Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Brady, Graham

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brand, Dr Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Brazier, Julian

Maples, John

Breed, Colin

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Browning, Mrs Angela

Moss, Malcolm

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Nicholls, Patrick

Burnett, John

Norman, Archie

Burns, Simon

Oaten, Mark

Butterfill, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Ottaway, Richard

Page, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Paice, James

Pickles, Eric

Chope, Christopher

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Prior, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Randall, John

Collins, Tim

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Rendel, David

Cotter, Brian

Robathan, Andrew

Cran, James

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Duncan, Alan

Ruffley, David

Duncan Smith, Iain

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Evans, Nigel

St Aubyn, Nick

Fabricant, Michael

Sanders, Adrian

Fallon, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Flight, Howard

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Shepherd, Richard

Foster, Don (Bath)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Fraser, Christopher

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Garnier, Edward

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gibb, Nick

Spring, Richard

Gidley, Sandra

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Steen, Anthony

Gorrie, Donald

Stunell, Andrew

Gray, James

Swayne, Desmond

Green, Damian

Syms, Robert

Grieve, Dominic

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hammond, Philip

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hayes, John

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Heald, Oliver

Townend, John

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Tredinnick, David

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Trend, Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Tyler, Paul

Horam, John

Walter, Robert

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Whittingdale, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Wilkinson, John

Jenkin, Bernard

Willetts, David

787

Willis, Phil

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mr. Stephen Day and

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 240.

Division No. 145]

[1.44 am

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hayes, John

Amess, David

Heald, Oliver

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Baldry, Tony

Horam, John

Ballard, Jackie

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bercow, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Blunt, Crispin

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Boswell, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Keetch, Paul

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brady, Graham

Lansley, Andrew

Brand, Dr Peter

Letwin, Oliver

Brazier, Julian

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Breed Colin

Lidington, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Loughton, Tim

Burnett, John

Luff, Peter

Burns, Simon

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Butterfill, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Malins, Humfrey

Clappison, James

Maples, John

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Collins, Tim

May, Mrs Theresa

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Moss, Malcolm

Cotter, Brian

Nicholls, Patrick

Cran, James

Norman, Archie

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Oaten, Mark

Day, Stephen

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Duncan, Alan

Ottaway, Richard

Duncan Smith, Iain

Page, Richard

Evans, Nigel

Paice, James

Fabricant, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Fallol, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Flight, Howard

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Prior, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Randall, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Fraser, Christopher

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Garnier, Edward

Rendel, David

Gibb, Nick

Robathan, Andrew

Gidley, Sandra

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gorrie, Donald

Ruffley, David

Gray, James

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Green, Damian

St Aubyn, Nick

Grieve, Dominic

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Shepherd, Richard

Hammond, Philip

Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

Hawkins, Nick

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

788

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Walter, Robert

Spicer, Sir Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Spring, Richard

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Steen Anthony

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Swayne, Desmond

Wilkinson, John

Syms, Robert

Willetts, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Willis, Phil

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Yeo, Tim

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Townend, John

Tredinnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trend, Michael

Mr. Andrew Stunell and

Tyler, Paul

Mr. Adrian Sanders.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Cummings, John

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Dalyell, Tarn

Darvill, Keith

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Atkins, Charlotte

Denham, Rt Hon John

Austin, John

Dismore, Andrew

Bailey, Adrian

Dobbin, Jim

Barnes, Harry

Donohoe, Brian H

Bayley, Hugh

Dowd, Jim

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Drew, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Edwards, Huw

Bennett, Andrew F

Efford, Clive

Benton, Joe

Ennis, Jeff

Berry, Roger

Etherington, Bill

Best, Harold

Fisher, Mark

Betts, Clive

Filzpatrick, Jim

Blackman, Liz

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Blizzard, Bob

Flint, Caroline

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Flynn, Paul

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foulkes, George

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gapes, Mike

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Browne, Desmond

Gerrard, Neil

Buck, Ms Karen

Godsiff, Roger

Burgon, Colin

Goggins, Paul

Butler, Mrs Christine

Golding, Mrs Llin

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cann, Jamie

Grocott, Bruce

Caton, Martin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cawsey, Ian

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clapham, Michael

Healey, John

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hill, Keith

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hoey, Kate

Clwyd, Ann

Home Robertson, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hope, Phil

Coleman, Iain

Hopkins, Kelvin

Colman, Tony

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cooper, Yvette

Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stratford)

Corbett, Robin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Corston, Jean

Hurst, Alan

Cox, Tom

Hutton, John

Cranston, Ross

Iddon, Dr Brian

Crausby, David

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jamieson, David

789

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Rammell, Bill

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Raynsford Nick

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd S)

Joyce, Eric

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rooney, Terry

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Rowlands, Ted

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Roy, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ruane, Chris

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ruddock, Joan

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Lammy, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

Leslie, Christopher

Sarwar, Mohammad

Levitt, Tom

Savidge Malcolm

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Lock, David

Skinner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Fit Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McCabe, Steve

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Macdonald, Calum

McDonnell, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McFall, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McIsaac, Shona

Snape, Peter

Mackinlay, Andrew

Soley, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Southworth, Ms Helen

McNulty, Tony

Spellar, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Squire, Ms; Rachel

McWarter, Tony

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McWilliam, John

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Martlew, Eric

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Maxton, John

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Meale, Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Merron, Gillian

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Michie, Bill (shef'ld Heeley)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Miller, Andrew

Temple—Morris, Peter

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Timms, Stephen

Morley, Elliot

Tipping, Paddy

Mudie, George

Todd, Mark

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

O'Hara, Eddie

Tynan, Bill

Olner, Bill

Walley, Ms Joan

O'Neill, Martin

Ward, Ms Claire

Organ, Mrs Diana

Watts, David

Pearson, Ian

White, Brian

Perham, Ms Linda

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pike, Peter L

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Plaskitt, James

Pond, Chris

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Pope, Greg

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Pound, Stephen

Winnick, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Worthington, Tony

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Primarolo, Dawn

Prosser, Gwyn

Tellers for the Noes:

Purchase, Ken

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 142.

Division No. 146]

[1.57 am

Ayes

Ainger, Nick

Etherington, Bill

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Flint, Caroline

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Flynn, Paul

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Atkins, Charlotte

Foulkes, George

Austin, John

Gapes, Mike

Bailey, Adrian

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Barnes, Harry

Gerrard, Neil

Bayley, Hugh

Godsiff, Roger

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Goggins, Paul

Begg, Miss Anne

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Benton, Joe

Grocott, Bruce

Berry, Roger

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Best, Harold

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Belts, Clive

Healey, John

Blackman, Liz

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Blizzard, Bob

Hepburn, Stephen

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Heppell, John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hill, Keith

Bradshaw, Ben

Hinchliffe, David

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Hoey, Kate

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Home Robertson, John

Browne, Desmond

Hope, Phil

Buck, Ms Karen

Hopkins, Kelvin

Burgon, Colin

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cann, Jamie

Hurst, Alan

Caton, Martin

Hutton, John

Cawsey, Ian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Clapham, Michael

Illsley, Eric

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Jamieson, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Clelland, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clwyd, Ann

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Coffey, Ms Ann

Joyce, Eric

Coleman, Iain

Keeble, Ms Sally

Colman, Tony

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Cooper, Yvette

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Corbett, Robin

Kilfoyle, Peter

Corston, Jean

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Cox, Tom

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Cranston, Ross

Lammy, David

Crausby, David

Leslie, Christopher

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Levitt, Tom

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Cummings, John

Lock, David

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Dalyell, Tarn

McCabe, Steve

Darvill, Keith

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Macdonald, Calum

Denham, Rt Hon John

McDonnell, John

Dismore, Andrew

McFall, John

Dobbin, Jim

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Donohoe, Brian H

McIsaac, Shona

Drew, David

Mackinlay, Andrew

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McNamara, Kevin

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McNulty, Tony

Edwards, Huw

Mactaggart, Fiona

Efford, Clive

McWalter, Tony

Ennis, Jeff

McWilliam, John

791

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Skinner, Dennis

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Maxton, John

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Meale, Alan

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Merron, Gillian

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Michie, Bill (shef'ld Heeley)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Miller, Andrew

Snape, Peter

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Soley, Clive

Moran, Ms Margaret

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Spellar, John

Morley, Elliot

Squire, Ms Rachel

Mudie, George

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Tortaen)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

O'Hara, Eddie

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Olner, Bill

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Organ, Mrs Diana

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pearson, Ian

Perham, Ms Linda

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Plaskitt, James

Temple—Morris, Peter

Pond, Chris

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pope, Greg

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pound, Stephen

Timms, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tipping, Paddy

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Todd, Mark

Primarolo, Dawn

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Prosser, Gwyn

Twigg, Derek (Harton)

Purchase, Ken

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Tynan, Bill

Quinn, Lawrie

Walley, Ms Joan

Rammell, Bill

Ward, Ms Claire

Raynsford, Nick

Watts, David

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Rooney, Terry

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Roy, Frank

Winnick, David

Ruane, Chris

Worthington, Tony

Ruddock, Joan

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mr. Don Touhig and

Savidge, Malcolm

Mr. Jim Dowd.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Butterfill, John

Amess, David

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baldry, Tony

Chope, Christopher

Ballard, Jackie

Clappison, James

Bercow, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Beresford, Sir Paul

Collins, Tim

Blunt, Crispin

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Body, Sir Richard

Cotter, Brian

Boswell, Tim

Cran, James

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Duncan, Alan

Brady, Graham

Duncan Smith, Iain

Brand, Dr Peter

Evans, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Fabrbant, Michael

Breed, Colin

Fallon, Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Flight, Howard

Browning, Mrs Angela

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burnett, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Burns, Simon

Fraser, Christopher

792

Garnier, Edward

Pickles, Eric

Gibb, Nick

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gidley, Sandra

Prior, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Randall, John

Gorrie, Donald

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gray, James

Rendel, David

Green, Damian

Robathan, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Ruffley, David

Hammond, Philip

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hawkins, Nick

St Aubyn, Nick

Hayes, John

Sanders, Adrian

Heald, Oliver

Sayeed, Jonathan

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Shepherd, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Horam, John

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Spring, Richard

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Steen, Anthony

Jenkin, Bernard

Stunell, Andrew

Keetch, Paul

Swayne, Desmond

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Syms, Robert

Lansley, Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Letwin, Oliver

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lidington, David

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Townend, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Tredinnick, David

Loughton, Tim

Trend, Michael

Luff, Peter

Tyler, Paul

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Walter, Robert

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Waterson, Nigel

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Whittingdale, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Malins, Humfrey

Wilkinson, John

Maples, John

Willetts, David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Willis, Phil

May, Mrs Theresa

Wilshire, David

Moss, Malcolm

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Nicholls, Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Norman, Archie

Yeo, Tim

Oaten, Mark

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Ottaway, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Page, Richard

Mr. Stephen Day and

Paice, James

Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That, following the Report of the Chairman of Standing Committee F on 9th Match, the Criminal Justice and Police Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House, as amended by the Committee, and as if those Clauses and Schedules the consideration of which had not been completed by the Committee had been ordered to stand part of the Bill, with the outstanding Amendments which stood on the Order paper in the name of Mr. Charles Clarke.
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, and pursuant to Order [this day], to be considered this day.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February],
That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118

793
(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Hon. Members: Object.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 31, at end add—
'( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Cromer Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
2.11 am
Mr. David Prior: It is a great pleasure to have the chance to debate the redevelopment of Cromer hospital—a pleasure that might be slightly diminished by the fact that it is 2.15 am, but a great pleasure none the less.
The first Cromer cottage hospital was established in Louden road in 1886. It was funded by local people, as were all subsequent additions and improvements. In 1932, it moved to its current site, and it was taken over by the national health service in 1948. However, the tradition of local involvement, personal donations and local fundraising activities has remained a hallmark of Cromer hospital to this day. The friends of the hospital are a dedicated and hard-working organisation, raising thousands of pounds a year and ensuring that the local community enjoys a close involvement with the hospital.
The atmosphere in the hospital reflects that close involvement. It is happy, friendly, relaxed, welcoming and caring. This is a genuine community hospital, and it is essential that, whatever its future development, its character is preserved. I have spoken to a great many people over the last few years—patients, and people who have known the hospital for years—who have praised it and its staff for the care and love that they devote to it. The hospital can be proud that it stands for all that is best in the great vocational tradition of the health service, but it stands for something else as well: it is a 1930s building, which has been added to piecemeal ever since.
A report prepared by Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust, of which Cromer hospital is a part, stated in 1998:
"Facilities within the Hospital are not efficiently organized.
Accessibility to critical areas is hindered by the current configuration.
Parking is increasingly a problem.
Entrance to the hospital grounds is narrow and makes access difficult.
The current facilities at Cromer are old, ill maintained and not best suited to modern medicine. The building requires substantial investment to meet the minimal requirements of relevant statutory regulations and it is likely that increasingly large amounts of investment will be required in the future as the buildings age and deteriorate further. Current estimates of the potential cost of carrying out the backlog of maintenance required at Cromer put the cost as high as £2.2 million over the next three years in order for the hospital to meet its statutory obligations for health and safety.
The report continues:
"The two wards currently cater for patients of varying ages and recovering from various ailments. This situation is by no means ideal as providing care on this basis greatly increases the risk of cross infection. At present strict procedures are in place for disease management in order to minimize this risk requiring extra resources for disease management."
In many ways, therefore, Cromer hospital is a symbol of the NHS: it has outstanding and caring staff supported by the community, but working with substandard

795
facilities. For those reasons, since 1994 Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust has generally accepted that Cromer hospital should be substantially redeveloped. The recent dedicated cataract surgery and gastroenterology services are examples of the trust's commitment to that.
In July 2000, a resident of Cromer, Mrs. Sagle Bernstein, died, leaving Cromer hospital a fantastically generous legacy of £10 million. The trustees of the legacy are the board of Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust. To avoid any misunderstandings, I wish to state unambiguously, first, that no NHS funding will be lost as a result of that legacy. The legacy must be additional to NHS funds.
Secondly, the legacy and all the accumulated interest are for the benefit of Cromer hospital; that will not be siphoned off for use elsewhere in the health service. That has been confirmed to me by the chief executive of the acute trust. I hope that the Minister will confirm those two vital points in her reply, as I know that that would go a long way to putting at rest the minds of many of those who live in Cromer.
That incredibly generous bequest allows the trust to create a world-class hospital in Cromer. It means that we can now look forward for the next 100 years, not only the next two or three. It also allows the nursing, clinical, caring and community traditions of Cromer hospital to be allied to world-class facilities, operations and resources. It is an opportunity that I as the Member of Parliament for North Norfolk am determined to see grasped.
The acute trust and the primary care group in north Norfolk have promised that they will deliver a business plan by the end of March 2001, setting out their joint agreed proposals for the future. It will bring together primary care, intermediate care, elderly rehabilitation and acute care. It will also need to take into account the location of the general practitioner's surgery in Cromer and the rehabilitation facilities currently located at Benjamin court, in Cromer, as well as the acute services.
It is generally agreed that all the existing services in the hospital will be retained and enhanced with major expansion in ophthamology, dermatology, endoscopy, cardiology, diagnostics, maternity services, diabetics, eurology—including a service for stroke victims—renal dialysis, minor surgery and post-operative cancer treatment. That is not a comprehensive list; nor would it be appropriate for me to submit one as I am not a clinician. By the end of March, however, there will be agreement between the primary care group and the acute trust on what should be included.
There must also be proper consultation with the community. It is essential that the deadline, at the end of March, is adhered to, so that local people feel that, after so many years of uncertainty, progress is at last being made.
Some 35,000 to 40,000 people in North Norfolk are over 65. By 2011, the number is predicted to increase by 20 per cent. That will lead to increased demand for intermediate care services, day care, rehabilitation and out-patient services. It is essential, therefore, that the plans for the hospital take those requirements into account. Cromer should become a centre of excellence for the treatment of older people, with intensive physio and
796
occupational therapy services such as hydrotherapy. I support also the provision of general practitioner community beds in the new hospital.
A few years ago, when the acute trust drew up its plans, it was looking at Cromer primarily as a satellite of the Norfolk and Norwich. That has changed. Rightly, the future of Cromer hospital requires an integrated approach from primary care through to rehabilitation. That may mean that the current site is not large enough or adequate and that alternative sites in Cromer will have to be investigated. If so, I am that sure that the district council will be supportive. A new state-of-the-art hospital could play a major part in the regeneration of Cromer, to which all of us in north Norfolk are committed.
I am anxious, however, that the involvement of different parts of the health service—the Norfolk and Norwich health authority, the acute trust, the community health trust and the primary care group—does not lead to unnecessary, bureaucratic delay. When the plan has been put together, it needs one organisation to be in charge to drive it through. The Minister needs to address that issue urgently.
I remember well when, in the early 1980s, Sir Roy Griffiths produced a report on the national health service and said that if Florence Nightingale was walking through an NHS ward, she would ask who was in charge. The issue of who is in charge at the new Cromer hospital is a very important one for the Minister to grasp. As I said, it is essential that there is open, transparent and genuine consultation with local people.
Cromer hospital is very much north Norfolk's hospital. It belongs to the people of north Norfolk, not to Whitehall or even to Norwich. We want a world-class hospital in Cromer, but we also want it to retain the character that it has developed over the past 100 years. It needs to reflect the great voluntary tradition of all those who have supported it for so many generations.
I hope that when the plan to redevelop the hospital emerges at the end of March, as has been promised, the Minister will lend her support to it. I also hope that she will lend her weight and authority to ensuring that the lines of responsibility are clear and that action is taken.
We have a chance that comes once in a generation to create something really special in Cromer. Let us make sure that we do the right thing and let us get on with it.
2.20 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on securing this debate on the redevelopment of Cromer hospital. However, I commiserate with him about the late hour at which the debate has been called.
I am aware that there has been considerable local interest in the redevelopment of Cromer hospital and the proposals for it. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the local support for Cromer hospital is something of which the local community can be proud.
The hospital's services provide a vital local resource which is clearly valued by local people and the town's many visitors alike. It currently provides a wide range of out-patient and day-case services, including neurology, orthopaedics and ophthalmology, as well as a minor injuries unit. The services provided by the hospital and

797
the dedication of its staff have rightly been given the recognition they deserve by the remarkable legacy of Mrs. Bernstein.
Cromer faces a number of challenges in terms of its health and its regeneration, particularly in relation to the decline of traditional industries such as fishing. There is widespread determination by the local NHS to ensure that all stakeholders, especially the public, will be involved in decisions on the future of the town and its services.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, there have been various and lengthy discussions about the future redevelopment of Cromer hospital to provide more efficiently organised, expanded and modern services. He is right to say that many challenges are faced by the hospital facilities. It is important that the discussions about the modernisation and development of Cromer hospital reach fruition and can make progress to benefit those living locally.
The hospital was built in 1932 and is run by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust, which provides the majority of services currently on the site. I understand that in 1995, and again in 1998, discussions began with local commissioners about what services should be included in a redeveloped Cromer hospital site. However, on neither occasion was it possible for commissioners to determine the scope of services required. That was due partly to the anticipated intermediate services strategy which was being developed by the then East Norfolk health authority, but also to uncertainties about future commissioning arrangements. As a result, no business case was produced at that time, and there was no tangible progress for Cromer hospital and its patients. These previous efforts to determine how Cromer hospital should be redeveloped have clearly contributed to an understandable local feeling that more needs to be done to progress Cromer hospital and that the investment needs to be secured and made without further delay.
This is a matter for the local health authority, the trust, the community health council and local people to determine, through formal consultation, if required. If there is still local disagreement, the community health council can, of course, refer the matter to Ministers. However, this is first and foremost a local matter, and it should be resolved locally.
I understand that progress is being made on the redevelopment of Cromer hospital. The proposals being considered include diagnostic and treatment services, pathology and primary care, such as general practitioner services, as well as the future configuration of community care in Cromer. No decisions have been made to date, and it is anticipated that the proposals will be completed in the near future, when there will be an opportunity for the public to have their say. The proposals will then be developed into a strategic outline case by the local NHS, led by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust. The strategic outline case will be submitted to the regional office later this year. The production of the proposals is, of course, not the end of the process, and it is important that this is understood by all; even after the proposals have been made public, discussions will need to continue on development, the cost of the proposed services and how they will be provided, and other details. I look forward to the conclusion of that work and the publication of the proposals as soon as possible.
798
One of the most fundamental issues that will have to be thought through as part of that process will be the running costs of the redeveloped Cromer hospital. That matter must be resolved before any work can begin on the ground. Agreement will need to be reached on the revenue implications of the developments. All local parties, including the public, must satisfy themselves that the benefits of the improvements to Cromer hospital and health services in Cromer are sustainable, adaptable and robust for the long-term future.
Public involvement and support will be key aspects of the proposals for Cromer hospital. There is a great deal of local interest in the future of the hospital, so it is crucial that patients and local people support the future developments.
The NHS plan demonstrates the Government's commitment to patient-focused services, and it is essential that services meet that aspiration; after all, that is what patients and the local community expect. Those proposals must have local support, so the involvement of the local community health council in the working group is also a key part of the process.
The working group that has been established to consider the redevelopment includes Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust, the North Norfolk primary care group, local GPs, the Norwich Community Health Partnership NHS trust, local authorities, including North Norfolk district council, and the local community health council.
It is extremely important that we take a partnership approach to the development of Cromer hospital. I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the need for clarity in developing the proposals and his argument that a partnership approach should not entail too many discussions that do not lead to a conclusion. I do not think that is the consequence of a partnership approach; it is clear that Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust would take the lead in developing the strategic outline case. However, I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind as the plans progress. It is important that the partnership is conducted so as to deliver the results that local people expect.
Fresh impetus has been brought to discussion of the proposals by the substantial and completely unexpected bequest of Mrs. Bernstein in summer 2000. Mrs. Bernstein's regard for the excellent care and services provided to her sister by the staff of Cromer hospital led her to bequeath the remarkable sum of approximately £10 million to the hospital for the improvement of its general facilities. Understandably, that has invigorated discussions about the hospital's future.
Of course, the size of the bequest and its significant implications for the hospital mean that decisions about the future redevelopment have to be the right ones. An opportunity on that scale is unlikely to he repeated, so there is an obligation on the people drawing up the plans locally to ensure that the money is used to benefit local people for the long term. The public will have to be satisfied that the plans are right for the local area and will deliver the maximum possible benefits.
In response to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I can reassure him that no money from Mrs. Bernstein's legacy is being spent on any other project; it is not being used to support the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital or any other health project in the area. It will be used specifically for Cromer, as stipulated

799
in Mrs. Bernstein's will. It will make a significant contribution to the capital expenditure on the redevelopment of Cromer hospital. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be completely unacceptable if the area's fair share of NHS funding for a wide range of projects were affected by Mrs. Bernstein's bequest—it was clearly intended to improve facilities and to make a real difference for the people of Cromer.
The bequest represents a huge opportunity for those in Cromer, for the local community and for those in the NHS. It coincides with a big increase in funding to the NHS in Norfolk. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement the biggest ever increase in funding for the NHS in England. I am sure that he is also aware that, in his Budget speech on 7 March, the Chancellor announced extra resources for the NHS in England in each of the next three years, with an extra £300 million in 2001–02. That involves additional revenue and capital resources; provides a chance to improve NHS facilities across the board in Norfolk and the Norwich area; and comes at a useful time in the debate about Cromer hospital's future.
800
I am sure that all parties in the process are working towards a common aim—providing the best possible health services for the people of Cromer. I look forward to the speedy development of the proposals for the future of Cromer hospital and to those proposals being made public in the near future, as well as to partnership work involving not only all those in the NHS but local authorities, voluntary groups and the local community. Things are not standing still in Cromer while those discussions are taking place. Developments continue at the hospital—for example, improvements to the dermatology department are currently being implemented.
The redevelopment of Cromer hospital will be a very significant milestone for health services in Cromer, so all parties must ensure that the best possible solution is found. The health authority, the trust and those involved in the local discussions will take note of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in this debate. All local stakeholders owe it to the people of Cromer, the hospital's staff and Mrs. Bernstein, who had regard for them all, not to waste this opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Three o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Joint Service Defence Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 631W, on the Joint Service Defence Council, what factors led him to authorise the withdrawal of JS DC1 88/00. [152852]

  Mr. Spellar
  I authorised the temporary withdrawal of Joint Service Defence Council instruction 88/00, pending a review, as a result of concerns that the Ministry of Defence's policy towards membership of societies such as the Freemasons might not be fully compliant with the European convention on human rights.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the special adviser working for him will relinquish his post on the dissolution of Parliament. [149320]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 130W.

  DERA
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the private-public partnership within DERA. [152775]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement I made in the House on 24 July 2000, Official Report, columns 777–79 about our decision to implement the core competence model for the DERA public-private partnership. Under core competence, around three-quarters of the current DERA organisation will be turned into a company, referred to as NewDERA. For strategic reasons, the remainder will be retained within the Ministry of Defence to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector.

  Work to implement the PPP has intensified over recent months and significant progress has been made on separating DERA into two new organisations. An amended trading fund order, entitled the draft Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Trading Fund Order 2001, was laid before Parliament on 17 January 2001. Operational separation of DERA is planned by 1 April 2001. Legal separation follows on 1 July after a period of shadow operation to test the organisations and their infrastructures. We will then carry out the remaining work necessary to prepare NewDERA for sale.
  410W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent to which DERA has met its targets in relation to payment of its sub-contractors; and what steps are being taken to improve the timeliness of payments. [152772]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: During the year 1999–2000, as reported in the annual report for that year, DERA paid in excess of 97 per cent. of invoices within the agreed credit period on receipt of an undisputed invoice or date of confirmation of receipt of an acceptable service. The payment process is monitored and DERA is currently exploring the possibility of introducing a fast-track payment system for the large number of low value invoices that it processes and making payments more frequently. DERA currently makes payments twice a week, once by cheque and once by bank automated clearing system (BACS).

  Private Simon Jeans
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the verdict reached by the Croatian court on the killing of Private Simon Jeans in Split, Croatia, in September 1996; what representations he has made to his Croatian counterpart regarding the killing; and if he will make a statement. [153176]

  Dr. Moonie
  Despite the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Private Simon Jeans, it would, of course, be wholly inappropriate for this Government to attempt to intervene in the judicial process of another country. We have to recognise that the Croatian judiciary, like our own, is independent and not subject to external pressure or direction.

  We did, however, make it clear to the Croatian Government, at a senior level, that the case was important and that we were anxious it should be handled both properly and swiftly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the then Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, all raised the subject, in addition to the regular dialogue conducted between the Embassy and Defence staff in Zagreb and Split and the Croatian authorities.

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough Unitary Authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister. [151022]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Minister for the Armed Forces visited North-West Cambridgeshire on 31 March 2000 to meet the right hon. Member. No other Defence Ministers have visited constituencies which are in the Peterborough unitary authority between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001.

  Lost Medical Records
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the medical records of a member of the armed services have been declared lost in each year since 1992. [151811]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not maintain a central list of lost records. Duplicates of some of the documents contained in Service personnel personal medical folders are held centrally and over the last four years 3,722 requests have been made for copies of these records. Of this total, 95 records could not be traced. In addition, hospital records are forwarded to a central repository, which over the last five years has been unable to trace 429 records from 7,227 requests made. Requests for duplicate copies of medical records do not necessarily indicate that the originals are lost: they may be held in another location or an additional copy may be needed.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much depleted uranium is unaccounted for or missing as a result of the malfunction of the test rig which was placed on the sea bed at the Dundrennan range in 2000. [151845]

  Mr. Spellar
  The depleted uranium samples attached to the test rig damaged by heavy seas in the Solway Firth, and which are now missing, amount to 20.76kg. This is the equivalent of four depleted uranium rounds. If not recovered in a diving exercise planned for the week beginning 5 March, this material will oxidise and disperse in exactly the same way as the existing penetrator rounds, causing a negligible increase above the level of uranium occurring naturally in sea water. Since 1982, when firing of DU rounds into the sea began, there has been no detectable increase in uranium levels in samples of sea water, sea-bed sediment and shellfish taken in the area.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium shells were fired into the Irish Sea in each of the last 10 years. [152629]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: No depleted uranium (DU) shells have been fired into the Irish sea in the last 10 years. DU projectiles are fired from Kirkcudbright into the Solway Firth and the numbers fired over the last 10 years are as follows:

  Year

  Numbers fired

  1991

  666

  1992

  781

  1993

  682

  1994

  455

  1995

  280

  1996

  147

  1997

  740

  1998

  134

  1999

  111

  2000

  272

  2001

  114

  Total

  4,282

  1 to date

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the Government's policy that it remains premature to make any judgment on a proposal for National Missile Defence until such a proposal has been made. [151857]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 7 March 2001]: We share the United States concerns about missile proliferation and we recognise the role that missile defence can play as one part of a strategy to deal with it. We have made it clear that we would want to respond helpfully should the US make a specific request, but until any such proposal has been made it does remain premature to make a specific judgment.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been received from BAE Systems and other British companies regarding participation in US National Missile Defence. [152668]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: None.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 192W, on Defence Medical Services, if he will list each level of medical downgrading used in the medical downgrading categorisation system stating in each case (a) the nature of duty restriction, (b) the nature of geographical restriction and (c) the level of deployability; and if he will make a statement. [151807]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 March 2001]: The various levels of medical downgrading used in the services medical downgrading categorisation systems are set out in detail in service publications. These are currently under review and a revised version is expected to be finalised shortly. As the level of detail involved would require an answer of considerable length, I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Consultancy Companies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to ensure that small consultancy companies are given a fair chance to compete for contracts. [152773]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: The use of competition to select contractors and sub-contractors in order to secure best value for money is the cornerstone of Ministry of Defence's acquisition policy. Suppliers, whether they are small and medium enterprises or large corporate groups, are encouraged to compete for requirements in excess of certain value thresholds (£93,000 for the Official Journal of the European Community, and £250,000 for the MOD Contracts Bulletin for consultancy requirements), which are widely advertised. For low value requirements, formal competition may not be considered cost-effective (in respect of bidding and resource costs), and in such cases a supplier may be selected on the basis of expertise or past performance for example. The principle of fairness throughout the acquisition process is not only MOD policy, but is enshrined in UK and European law.
  413W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the imposition of a turnover threshold in relation to competition for consultancy assignments. [152774]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence needs to be assured that potential bidders can fulfil its requirements, and therefore seeks only to invite tenderers with whom it is prepared to place a contract. This not only helps to reduce the cost of bidding to industry, but it provides reassurance that value-for-money defence capability is being delivered. Financial status is just one of the factors taken into account when considering potential bidders eligibility. Turnover size may be employed as part of the calculation to determine whether a supplier has adequate resources to undertake a particular contract, whether for consultancy or other goods or services. This process accords with the central unit on procurement's guidance on good professional practice.

  Service Personnel (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests are carried out on members of HM armed forces for(a) sexually transmitted diseases and (b) HIV/AIDs; and if he will make a statement. [153169]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no compulsory testing for sexually transmitted diseases or HIV. Standard laboratory tests, specific to the particular type of disease, for sexually transmitted diseases are carried out on service personnel where clinically indicated. Tests for HIV are carried out where this is a requirement prior to service in certain countries, or at the request of individuals who are concerned that they may have contracted HIV. Service personnel can, of course, make use of civilian genitourinary clinics.

  2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland since 1971. [153098]

  Mr. Spellar
  The dates on which the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland since 1971 are listed.

  22 April 1971 to 26 August 1971

  15 February 1972 to 15 June 1972

  29 July 1972 to 28 September 1972

  27 March 1973 to 17 July 1973

  29 May 1975 to 29 September 1975

  2 December 1976 to 16 March 1977

  19 September 1977 to 14 January 1978

  27 July 1979 to 6 March 1981

  12 November 1984 to 26 March 1985

  3 March 1990 to 12 June 1990

  4 June 1993 to 3 June 1995

  1 October 1994 to 1 April 1995

  3 August 1996 to 4 March 1997

  15 December 1998 to 15 June 1999

  2 December 2000 to current date1

  414W
  1 Only one company of the 2nd Battalion has been deployed to Northern Ireland during this present tour. This company has been used mainly to protect those military personnel and contractors who are involved in the dismantling of the three remaining Fermanagh Patrol Bases.

  Muslims (Forces)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to ensure that persons of Muslim belief are able to serve in HM forces without discrimination and are facilitated in their religious observance. [153061]

  Mr. Spellar
  The armed forces are fully committed to the avoidance of all forms of discrimination and make every effort to respect and accommodate the religious requirements of personnel. Muslim personnel are normally allowed to celebrate religious festivals and holidays and to fast and pray. The armed forces also aim to cater for religious dietary requirements: Halal, Kosher and vegetarian meals are provided by service messes and are available in operational ration packs for operations and exercises. However, there may be some circumstances when, in the interests of health and safety or operational effectiveness, some flexibility may be required on the part of the individual.

  Service chaplains are currently working to establish a network of local religious advisers from the Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh faiths to ensure that the spiritual and moral needs of all service personnel are provided for to the greatest extent possible.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been provided for the enforcement of measures to prevent the further spread of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland; what instructions have been given to Army units that have patrolled rural areas concerning risk of spreading infection; and what correspondence has he received from Northern Ireland political parties, representatives of farmers organisations and others concerning these matters. [152865]

  Mr. Spellar
  The military have not been asked to help in the enforcement of measures to prevent the further spread of foot and mouth disease in Northern Ireland, either by other Government Departments (OGDs) or by Irish Ministers or farmers organisations.

  The prevailing threat from dissident Republican terrorists prevents the security forces from ceasing their operational activity. While full details cannot be given for reasons of operational security, modified patrol activity is being conducted to counter the threat. All operational activity remains in support of the police, and is aimed at thwarting and deterring terrorist activity.

  Royal Navy (Courtesy Calls)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many courtesy calls and visits have been made by vessels of the Royal Navy to UK towns, cities and ports in each year since January 1997; what the duration was of each visit; and if he will list the port and vessel involved in each case. [153029]
  415W
  Mr. Spellar
  The total number of courtesy calls and visits by vessels of the Royal Navy to UK towns, cities and ports since January 1997, including operational stand-offs, affiliation, fishery protection and informal visits, is as follows:

  Number of visits

  1997

  377

  1998

  434

  1999

  381

  2000

  478

  2001 (to date)

  51

  I am placing in the Library of the House a detailed list of the visits, showing the duration of the visit and the port and vessel involved in each case.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF air traffic controllers have(a) been recruited and (b) left the service in each of the past five years; how many air traffic controllers there are in the RAF; how many RAF air traffic controllers have joined National Air Traffic Services in the past year; and what plans he has for retention schemes for RAF air traffic controllers. [153172]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table shows the intake and outflow of air traffic controllers (ATC) in the RAF over the past five years:

  Intake

  Outflow

  1996

  11

  108

  1997

  43

  55

  1998

  53

  48

  1999

  64

  41

  2000

  49

  53

  The current trained strength of ATC as at 1 February 2001 is 822.

  The RAF does not maintain records to show how many ATC have joined National Air Traffic Services. There are currently no plans for retention schemes specifically related to RAF ATC.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what licences have been granted for the export of arms and military equipment to Sri Lanka in each year since 1997. [152481]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply

  Details of all export licensing decisions taken between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1999 were set out in the Government's 1997, 1998 and 1999 Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Library of the House. These reports list by country of destination the export licences issued and refused in each entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled, which is known as their rating.
  416W
  Between 1 January 2000 and 1 March 2001 40 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and five Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering goods on the Military List. Details of these are set out in the tables:

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued between 1 January 2000 and 1 March 2001 for Sri Lanka

  Rating

  Number of SIELs

  ML1

  6

  ML2

  3

  ML3

  8

  ML4

  3

  ML5

  2

  ML6

  2

  ML9

  2

  ML10

  2

  ML11

  8

  NL14

  1

  ML15

  4

  ML21

  1

  ML22

  4

  PL5017

  10

  P5031

  1

  Open Individual Export Licences issued between 1 January 2000 and 1 March 2001 for Sri Lanka

  Rating

  Number of OIELs

  ML5

  2

  ML10

  1

  ML11

  1

  ML13

  2

  ML17

  1

  MLPL5001

  1

  Note:

  Each licence may cover a range of ratings, and where this is so, data on them are included under each of the relevant ratings.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Solicitor-General if a decision has been reached concerning the future of Customs and Excise as a prosecuting authority. [153572]

  The Solicitor-General
  The report by His Honour John Gower QC and Sir Anthony Hammond KCB QC was delivered to the Attorney-General on 5 December 2000. I have today placed a copy of the report in the Libraries and copies of the report are available on request to the solicitor for HM Customs and Excise.

  The report concludes that the Customs and Excise solicitor's office should retain its prosecution function, but that in exercising this function, including the giving of advice to investigating officers, it must be truly independent and be seen to be so. To that end, the report has also concluded that in relation to the prosecution function the solicitor should be accountable to the Attorney-General rather than to the commissioners and that the solicitor/client relationship between the commissioners and the solicitor should cease in relation to this function. Where cases are referred to the solicitor's office with a view to prosecution, the decision on whether to do so will rest with the appropriate lawyer after consultation with, where

  417W
  necessary, an administrator on matters of policy and public interest. These recommendations ate supported by a number of associated recommendations on detailed structural and financial aspects.

  The Government have carefully considered all these recommendations. They accept all the recommendations in principle, but, given the significant resource implications associated with some recommendations, have opted for a phased approach to implementation.

  The Government have had particular regard to the need to ensure that adequate resources arc made available to the solicitor's office to enable it properly to conduct the large and complex drugs and other prosecutions which were the main focus of the report, and which are conducted by the special casework division of that office (SCD). They have therefore decided to afford this area of work the greatest priority.

  Accordingly, it has been decided that, with effect from 1 April 2001, Customs and Excise will invest sufficient extra resources in the solicitor's office to enable it to implement the recommendations in the report which bear directly on the cases conducted by the SCD. This will mean that, taken with additional resources already provided to the solicitor's office in relation to the Butler report, the number of staff working on those cases in the SCD will almost double.

  These additional resources will enable recommendation 10 of the report (the attendance at conferences with counsel, and attendance at hearings in the Crown court) to be implemented quickly in relation to all SCD cases, and in over 60 per cent. of the cases conducted by the solicitor's office in total. The implementation of the remainder of that recommendation will be subject to local trials to evaluate the benefits and costs.

  Recommendation 15 (the conduct of magistrates courts proceedings) will not be implemented immediately and will also be subject to such local trials.

  The report concludes that Customs and Excise lawyers are dedicated professionals with valuable skills and expertise, and the Government believe that making the changes in accountability, responsibility and resourcing referred to above will ensure public confidence in the solicitor's office as a prosecuting authority.

  To enable detailed consideration to be given to the implementation of the remaining recommendations in the report, particularly where these have structural and budgetary implications, the change in accountability will have effect on 1 April 2002.

HEALTH

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the criteria his Department uses in assessing whether NHS dentistry is available to those who need it; and how many extra dentists will be required to ensure full availability, on these criteria, by 2001. [143259]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to making National Health Service Dentistry available to all who need it by September 2001. The key test for this target will be whether callers (to the health authority or to NHS Direct) can be offered dentistry.
  418W
  There are more dentists working within the General Dental Service than ever before. In England there are now about 18,040, over 1,600 up on 1997. Availability problems are not caused by a shortage of dentists but by the amount of time dentists dedicate to private work. To address this problem the dental strategy, "Modernising NHS Dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan", offers incentives to NHS dentists to maintain and increase the amount of NHS work they do. The strategy also allows health authorities to commission personal dental services in areas where there are access difficulties.

  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the task force formed to study Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy; and if he will make a statement. [146327]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have not formed a task force to study Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

  However, the Griffith's review (Review of the Research Framework in the North Staffordshire National Health Service Trust) recommended that the Department convene an expert and inter-disciplinary panel to review methods of identification of children who have either had illnesses induced or fabricated by their carer. In response to this recommendation, which the Government accepted, a steering group has been formed to develop draft guidance for public consultation. This guidance is being developed within the framework of our interagency guidance on child protection "Working Together to Safeguard Children" (1999).

  The group is chaired by Mr. Bruce Clark, a senior official of the Department, and in addition to the external members listed, comprises administrative officials, together with medical, nursing and health advisers, from the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Home Office and the National Assembly for Wales.

  The external members include:

  Dr. G Adshead—Royal College of Psychiatry

  Ms I Charles-Edwards—English National Board of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Mr. J Fox—Association of Chief Police Officers

  Ms S Hensman—Royal College of Nursing

  Ms D Kinnair—Community Practitioner and Health Visitors Association

  Ms S Smallman—United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Dr. D Sowden—Royal College of General Practitioners

  Mr. A Webb—Association of Directors of Social Services.

  Genetic Conditions (Insurance)
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards apply to ensure that people applying for insurance policies are not asked to reveal the results of tests for genetic conditions which have not had approval from the Genetics and Insurance Committee. [148856]

  Yvette Cooper
  The use of genetic test results by insurers is governed by a genetic testing code of practice issued by the Association of British Insurers. For an insurance company to ask for the results of a genetic test
  419W
  for a condition which is not approved by the Genetics and Insurance Committee (or is not one of the specified tests for conditions currently being considered by the Committee) would be in breach of an undertaking given by the ABI and in breach of their code of practice. Individuals who feel they have been unfairly treated under the code of practice can refer their case to an independent Adjudication Tribunal set up under the code. If the tribunal upholds a complaint, it is required to consider what further remedy or penalty is appropriate.

  A requirement to report to Ministers on the compliance by the industry with the recommendations of GAIC is also included in the terms of reference of GAIC.

  We have asked the Human Genetics Commission to examine the issues and the use of genetic information including in insurance and employment.

  Cardiothoracic Transplant Services
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to publish a discussion document on the reorganisation of cardiothoracic transplant services; [149672]

  (2) what arrangements he is making for public consultation on the reorganisation of cardiothoracic transplant services. [149671]

  Mr. Denham
  We will issue a document soon setting out proposals for the future of the National Cardiothoracic Transplant service. The document will invite views on the proposals from patients, the public and appropriate organisations.

  Weston General Hospital
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times in the Gastroenterology Department of Weston General Hospital were in 2000; and what the national average waiting time was in that year. [152428]

  Mr. Denham
  The national average waiting times for the gastroenterology speciality at 31 December 2000 were two months for inpatient treatment; and 8.1 weeks for an outpatient appointment. Waiting times for the gastroenterology service at Weston Area Health National Health Service Trust are not reported separately to the Department because at the trust this service is provided within the general medicine speciality. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contact Ms Martha Perriam, chairman of the trust, for further information.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments were cancelled by Weston General Hospital in 2000; and what the national average was in that year. [152429]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Northwick Park and Mouth Vernon Hospitals
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the amount and (b) the purpose of each specific grant allocation made to (i) Northwick Park Hospital and (ii) Mount Vernon Hospital since 1997. [152490]
  420W
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Department does not give grants to trusts direct. The Department allocates directly to health authorities using a national weighted capitation formula.

  Northwick Park Hospital comes under the health economy area of Brent and Harrow health authority. The 2001–02 unified allocation for Brent and Harrow health authority is £371 million, which represents a cash increase of £31 million (8.99 per cent.). Mount Vernon Hospital comes under the health economy area of Hillingdon health authority. The 2001–02 unified allocation for Hillingdon health authority is £184 million, which represents a cash increase of £16 mill ion (9.35 per cent.).

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much certified timber has been purchased by his Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152114]

  Ms Stuart
  At present Departments do not yet have systems in place to provide data on the proportion of certified timber purchased over the last six months. The interdepartmental timber working group is working to develop a common reporting template which will form the basis for future reporting on timber procurement. An annual report will be provided in line with the answer given on 28 July 2000,Official Report, columns 947–48W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152113]

  Ms Stuart
  Departments will be reporting their progress on all aspects of greening government and the report from Green Ministers is due to be published in November. It will make specific reference to timber procurement. Further information may be published separately.

  Alcohol
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the consultation document on a national strategy for alcohol abuse will be published. [152665]

  Ms Stuart
  We remain committed to the publication of a cross-Government strategy to tackle alcohol misuse, and we are working with key stakeholders across Government, the alcohol field and the alcohol industry to ensure that this commitment is delivered.

  The NHS Plan, Published in July 2000, said that the Department would be implementing the strategy by 2004. The Department expects to publish a consultation paper in due course.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes were made to the draft leaflet "Mobile Phones and Health" in the section relating to the use of mobile phones by children and young people under 16 following receipt of comments from the Department of Trade and Industry; and if he will make a statement. [153256]
  421W
  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed discussions took place between the Department of Health, the Department of Trade and Industry, other Government Departments and United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers throughout the process of developing the leaflet. A number of drafts were discussed as is customary in situations where it is necessary to identify the best way to put complex scientific issues into plain English. The CMOs' intention to provide clear advice to parents over children using mobile phones was paramount throughout. The final version was signed off by all four CMOs after agreement between them.

  Psychiatric Drugs.
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of(a) Prozac and (b) other psychiatric drugs on children. [153260]

  Mr. Hutton
  Prozac is not licensed for use in children in the United Kingdom. Doctors may prescribe Prozac, outside the normal licensed indication, if they consider that this is in the patient's best interests.

  Other psychotropic drugs are less commonly used in children than adults as the prevalence of severe mental illness is considerably lower. Methylphenidate (Ritalin) and other similar stimulants are, however, licensed and used for the treatment of the more severe forms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance last November on the use of Methylphenidate.

  Waiting Lists (Mid Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures for the numbers of people(a) waiting for hospital treatment and (b) waiting to see a consultant in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area. [153374]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total number of patients waiting for hospital treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust in January 2001:
  January 2001—Total number of patients waiting 9,282
  Source:
  Monthly waiting list returns.

  Total number of patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust in Quarter 3, 2000–01:
  Quarter 3 2000–01—Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks—2,349
  Source:
  QM08 quarterly return.

  Abuse in Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who have been abused as children in the care system since 1971. [153392]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not know how many children in care have been abused since 1971, and do not have a sound basis on which to form an estimate. It is a tragedy for any child to be abused, and a particular betrayal when such abuse happens in care. As we made clear in 422W
  "Learning the Lessons", our response to the report of the Waterhouse Inquiry, too many children in the past were failed by the very services that should have been helping them. We are concentrating our efforts on ensuring that such failures in the care system are not allowed to happen again, as evidenced by our programme of new protective legislation for children in care and our £885 million Quality Protects Programme.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific services are available for people who were abused while in care. [153394]

  Mr. Hutton
  A variety of health and social care provision is available for people who were abused while in care. Counsellors, clinical psychologists and others are available within mental health services provided in primary care, and/or specialised services.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people who were abused in care needed mental health services in each of the past three financial years; and what was the cost of these services; [153395]

  (2) if he will develop a strategy to support those adults who were abused as children in care. [153396]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware that people who have been abused in care may continue to experience mental health problems. However, central records are not kept of the number who disclose this history. We have set out clear national standards in the National Service Framework for Mental Health. It describes how people should be able to get quicker access to more effective treatments in and through primary care, with support from specialised services where necessary.

  Children's Manifesto
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the Children's Manifesto produced by Barnardos, the Child Poverty Action Group and the NSPCC; and what plans he has to evaluate and monitor services to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. [153397]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Children's Manifesto is an interesting and thought-provoking document that we are considering carefully. We share the aim expressed in the manifesto of enabling today's young people to grow into secure, confident and resourceful citizens. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are children in need under the Children Act 1989. Services for them are, therefore, monitored and evaluated in the same way as other children's personal social services. From time to time, as necessary, we look specifically at services for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. For example, we asked local authorities to describe services for this group in their Year 3 Quality Protects Management Action Plans, submitted in January 2001. These plans are currently being evaluated.

  Child Sex Abuse
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that children who sexually abuse other children have access to appropriate treatment services. [153398]
  423W
  Mr. Hutton
  Children who sexually abuse other children are likely to have considerable, often complex, needs. Local authorities are expected to work closely with their partner agencies to ensure that such children receive support and treatment based on their assessed needs.

  Injury Victims
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent annually by his Department since 1997 on(a) research into the prevention of intentional injuries, (b) research into the epidemiology, care and rehabilitation of victims of injury and (c) research into the biological mechanisms underlying the injury process and injury treatment. [153178]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department's research is conducted into a wide range of areas including head injury, fractures and self-harm. However, information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) bilateral and (b) European Union aid has been given to Zimbabwe in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [152208]

  Clare Short
  UK bilateral development assistance to Zimbabwe was as follows:

  £ million

  1995–96

  15.0

  1996–97

  11.1

  1997–98

  12.2

  1998–99

  16.6

  1999–2000

  14.0

  We expect to spend £11.2 million in 2000–01.

  EC development assistance to Zimbabwe in the last five years for which data are available was:

  £ million

  1994

  63.2

  1995

  38.2

  1996

  38.6

  1997

  10.6

  1998

  13.2

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been spent by her Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152649]
  424W
  Clare Short
  Since its establishment in 1997 (as the successor to the Overseas Development Administration) this Department has spent the following on revised logo/identity:

  £

  Logo change

  6,000

  Licensing typeface

  5,000

  Guidelines for contractors: on logo/identity issues

  5,600

  Mozambique
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has received from Mozambique about the impact of recent floods; what response has been made; and if she will make a statement. [152266]

  Clare Short
  Following the immediate relief operation in response to last year's catastrophic floods in Mozambique, my Department has remained engaged in rehabilitation as well as in developing new measures, via the United Nations system, to strengthen both UN and Government of Mozambique contingency arrangements for future disasters. Over the past few months DFID, FCO, MOD, the RNLI and the UK Fire Service have been working together to prepare contingency plans for different emergency scenarios. In addition, we have continued to work closely with the Government of Mozambique's National Directorate of Water to set up early warning flood systems with the UK Met Office.

  Following the onset of the current floods, we have switched gear to immediate response operations which are deliberately aimed at preventative rescue and relief, i.e. extricating people before the worst hits them and there is substantial loss of life and suffering. In addition to contributing £250.000 to the Red Cross appeal for Mozambique. we are currently:
  funding two Puma helicopters which are busy moving people from the riskiest areas and transporting urgent relief supplies;
  providing three logisticians to World Food Programme to assist in its operational response;
  providing a humanitarian specialist in Beira to reinforce DFID presence on the ground and conduct field assessments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors he considered before he gave his advice that it would be beneficial for the Cabinet Secretary to accept a lunch invitation from the Hindujas. [153433]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office considered that accepting such an invitation would be beneficial to British commercial interests in India. The Hinduja group has extensive commercial interests in India.

  President Mugabe
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Belgian Government regarding their reception of President Mugabe. [152960]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign Secretary raised his deep concern at recent events in Zimbabwe, and his views on the current situation, with the Belgian Foreign Minister before the latter's meeting with President Mugabe on 5 March.

  UK/India Round Table
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2001,Official Report, column 173W, if he will list those present representing (a) the UK and (b) India at each of the meetings of the UK/India Round Table; and if he will list the recommendations arising from these two meetings. [153435]

  Mr. Wilson
  The following people participated in the two meetings of the UK/India Round Table held so far:

  First Meeting

  UK Side

  The Lord Paul of Marylebone—Co-Chairman

  Professor Judith Brown—Balliol College, Oxford

  Daljit Dhaliwal—Journalist and Broadcaster

  Stephen Evans—Head, South Asian Deptxtment, FCO

  Patrick French—Author

  Sir David Goodall KCMG—Former High Commissioner to India

  Melville Guest—Chief Executive, Asia House

  David Jeffries, CBE, FEng—Co-Chairman, Indo-British Partnership

  John Lloyd—Journalist

  Liz Lloyd—Policy Unit, No. 10

  Ros Marsden—Director, Asia/Pacific, FCO

  Alpesh Patel—Businessman and Journalist

  Sir Rob Young KCMG—High Commissioner to India

  Indian Side

  K. C. Pant—Co-Chairman

  Swapan Dasgupta—Deputy Editor, India Today

  HE Nareshwar Dayal—High Commissioner of India UK

  Dr. Ashok S. Ganguly—Chairman, ICI Ltd.

  Dr. Jamshed J. Irani—MD, Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

  Sandhya Jain—Columnist, The Pioneer

  Uday S. Kotak—Vice Chairman, Kotat Mahindra Finance

  Hemedra Kothari—Chairman, DSP Merrill Lynch

  Bashwati Mukherjee—Joint Secretary, Indian Ministry of External Affairs

  M. K. Rasgotra—Former High Commissioner to London

  Dr. Jahar Saha—Director Indian Institute of Management

  Aveek Sarkar—Editor-in Chief, Anand Bazar Patrika

  Professor Obaid Siddiqi—Scientist, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

  426W
  Second Meeting

  UK Side

  The Lord Paul of Marylebone—Co-Chairman

  Professor Judith Brown—Balliol College, Oxford

  Stephen Evans—Head of South Asian Department, FCO

  Patrick French—Author

  Sir David Goodall KCMG—Former High Commissioner to India

  Melville Guest—Chief Executive, Asia House

  David Jeffries, CBE. FEng—Co-Chairman, Indo-British Partnership

  Sir Tim Lankester, KCB—Director, School of Oriental and African Studies

  John Lloyd—Journalist

  Liz Lloyd—Policy Unit, No. 10

  Edmund Marsden—Director, British Council India

  Ros Marsden—Director, Asia/Pacific, FCO

  Alpesh Patel—Businessman and Journalist

  Mark Tully—Freelance writer and journalist

  Sir Rob Young KCMG—High Commissioner to India

  Indian Side

  K. C. Pant—Co-Chairman

  Swapan Dasgupta—Deputy Editor, India Today

  HE Nareshwar Dayal—High Commissioner of India to UK

  Dr. Ashok S. Ganguly—Chairman, ICI Ltd.

  Sandhya Jain—Columnist, The Pioneer

  Girish Karnard—Director, Nehru Centre, London

  Hemendra Kothari—Chairman, DSP Merrill Lynch

  Bhaswati Mukherjee—Joint Secretary, Indian Ministry of External Affairs

  M. K. Rasgotra—Former High Commissioner to London

  Jahar Saha—Director, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

  Aveek Sarkar—Editor-in Chief, Anand Bazar Patrika

  Dr. Gautam Sen—Lecturer, London School of Economics

  Professor Obaid Siddiqi—Scientist, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.

  On each occasion, the Round Table made a series of recommendations covering a range of issues which impact on the bilateral relationship—including trade, commerce, investment, IT, media, culture, academic co-operation and visas. A copy of the recommendations will be placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

  Echelon Surveillance System
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Echelon surveillance system. [153269]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The hon. Member will be aware that it is long-standing Government policy not to comment on alleged surveillance systems.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fuel Smuggling
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which date he last met representatives of the retail petrol industry in Northern Ireland to discuss the smuggling of motor fuel products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [153427]
  427W
  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met with representatives of the petroleum industry on Monday 5 March 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to hear the industry's concerns in relation to fuel smuggling into Northern Ireland. This criminal activity is being pursued with the utmost vigour. During the period April to September 2000, fuel to the value of £1.3 million was seized. Also, during the course of last year, 13 laundering plants with an estimated annual production in excess of 40 million litres of fuel were dismantled.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates in 2001 on which he or his officials have held discussions with his counterparts in the Irish Republic on the smuggling of motor fuel products into Northern Ireland. [153424]

  Dr. Reid
  My officials were due to meet with their Republic of Ireland counterparts on Friday 2 March 2001 to discuss fuel smuggling. The foot and mouth crisis prohibited that meeting from taking place and a new date has been set for the end of March.

  Mr. Vincent McKenna
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the RUC was first informed of allegations against Mr. Vincent McKenna; what steps were taken to protect children coming into contact with him; and what advice was made available to senior police officers and officials coming into contact with the campaign with which Mr. McKenna was identified. [150837]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 2 July 1998, under joint protocol arrangements, the Department of Health and Social Services informed the Royal Ulster Constabulary that Monaghan social services had made them aware of allegations against Mr. McKenna. As a result, RUC officers from the child abuse and rape enquiry (CARE) unit in Mr. Mckenna's area and local social services convened a number of case conferences and liaison was established with An Garda Siochana. It would be inappropriate to provide specific details of the action taken.

  There was no disclosure of the allegations against Mr. McKenna until such time as details were in the public arena.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates information was received from the Garda Siochana concerning the allegations and prosecution of Mr. Vincent McKenna. [150581]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 2 July 1998, under joint protocol arrangements, the Department of Health and Social Services informed the Royal Ulster Constabulary that Monaghan social services had made them aware of allegations against Mr. McKenna. Liaison was established with An Garda Siochana on or shortly after this date and was maintained until the criminal proceedings against Mr. McKenna concluded.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to share information with the Garda Siochana concerning Mr. Vincent McKenna; how many persons have 428W
  been interviewed since the conviction of Mr. Vincent McKenna; and what steps have been taken to investigate further allegations. [150582]

  Mr. Ingram
  Liaison with An Garda Siochana was established by the Royal Ulster Constabulary once they were made aware of allegations against Mr. McKenna and this was maintained until the criminal proceedings concluded.

  No complaints have been made alleging any offences in Northern Ireland; consequently no investigation has been conducted by the RUC.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  People's Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many persons are to be recommended to the Prime Minister for a people's peerage. [151863]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Prime Minister has asked the Appointments Commission to submit 15 names of people to be recommended for non-political peerages. In the past, each honours list was accompanied by the publication of four or five names of new peers. The last such honours list was at the new year 2000.

CABINET OFFICE

  Consultative Group on Better Regulation
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made by the high-level consultative group on better regulation set up by the Strasbourg meeting of European Ministers of Public Administration last November. [153703]

  Mr. Stringer
  Following the decision by the Ministers of Public Administration, the first meeting of the Group took place on 21 December in Paris. Chaired by Dieudonné Mandelkern, the French representative, the Group agreed its work plan for the first four months in accordance with its mandate from the Ministers. It decided to look at five themes—codification of existing legislation, simplification, improving consultation, impact assessment (including alternatives to regulation) and the administrative structures needed to support this. I have placed a copy of this work plan and a copy of the Ministers' resolution establishing the Group in the Library of the House.

  The second and third meetings of the Group looked at each of the five themes identified, resulting in agreement on the Group's initial report at its meeting in Paris on 26–27 February. On the suggestion of the Swedish representative, the Group also decided it should be known as the "Mandelkern Group' in future, after its chairman. I have placed a copy of the initial report in the Library of the House.

  The Group's initial report is an excellent document covering the main issues of better regulation. Alongside espousing some general principles of better regulation, it makes specific and practical recommendations on each of the five key themes. It is being discussed by the Internal Market Council today and will then be one of the

  429W
  contributions to the Stockholm European Council on 23–24 March. This document is a very positive development, representing as it does the first time that representatives of all 15 European member states have endorsed such a specific text on better regulation.

  Rural Policy
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met other Ministers to discuss co-ordination of the Government's rural policy; and if she will make a statement. [153403]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  It is established practice under exemption two of Part 11 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the post of director of policy studies was established; which of the director's reports are in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular(a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for him on a full-time basis. [150365]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Policy Studies Directorate (PSD) is part of the Centre for Management and Policy Studies and the Director of Policy Studies was appointed in March 2000. PSD supports policy makers by evaluating new approaches to policy making and promoting best practice, by encouraging and enabling an evidence-based approach and by working to ensure high standards in Government research and evaluation. It is the intention that research reports on new approaches to policy making will be published as they are completed. Special Advisers to Ministers may contribute to the work of the unit in the same way as they would to the other work of a Department, in line with their role and duties as set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". The Director currently has a staff of 22; six are Cabinet Office permanent staff; 11 are on loan from other Departments;

  Table—total and planned expenditure

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Public Opinion Research

  2—

  656,604

  897,622

  270,096

  532,076

  Advertising (television, radio and newspaper)

  337,465

  238,270

  246,438

  678,601

  662,277

  Direct Mail

  548,204

  660,427

  521,950

  428,304

  553,060

  Total

  885,669

  1,555,301

  1,666,010

  1,377,001

  1,747,413

  1 Planned

  2 Not available

  Notes:

  1. Figures only include Cabinet Office entities and divisions as of 31 January 2001.

  2. Figures do not include the salary costs of Cabinet Office staff.

  3. Direct Mail includes all postage services costs of the Cabinet Office.

  4. Expenditure on advertising include recruitment advertising.

  5. Expenditure undertaken by Central Office of Information on behalf of clients is not included.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what facilities are immediately available to Departments principally involved in the collection or 430W
  one is on secondment from a university; and two are temporary clerical staff. All work full-time for her. Two research fellows—one permanent Cabinet Office staff and one secondee—work part-time for her.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what terms and conditions apply in the case of public sector employees seeking early retirement when those same workers are part of the disabled quota. [152841]

  Mr. Stringer
  Early retirement terms are the same for all civil servants, including those with a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 removed the system of quotas and allowed individuals to declare themselves disabled without the need for formal verification from medical records or a doctor.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what conditions must be satisfied before a civil service worker can take early retirement. [152842]

  Mr. Stringer
  The minimum age at which most civil servants can retire with full superannuation benefits is 60. The Civil Service Management Code enables staff to retire or be retired early by Departments and agencies on several grounds. A copy of the code is available in the Library.

  Public Relations (Expenditure)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in her Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149269]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The total expenditure during(b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and the planned expenditure during 2000–01 on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail, is shown in the table. All figures are inclusive of VAT where applicable.

  distribution of funds in the event of existing computer systems failing; [152633]

  (2) what instructions have been given to Government Departments to ensure effective back-up systems exist in

  431W
  the event of existing computer systems failing; and if annual reviews of these instructions take place; [152634]

  (3) when the last assessment of departmental computer back-up systems took place; and what improvements were made subsequently; [152635]

  (4) if he will list those commercial companies he has been in contact with in the last 24 months regarding disaster contingency programmes; [152636]

  (5) which Minister has specific responsibility for computer disaster contingency programmes. [152637]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Each Government Department is responsible for ensuring it has robust business continuity plans in place to ensure that they can respond effectively to a wide range of problems, including computer failure. Departments are expected to test these plans regularly and to respond to any weaknesses identified. From January 2001 all new high risk projects involving procurement in the Civil Departments of central Government, along with their executive agencies and NDPBs require a business continuity plan that addresses potential problems during implementation and roll out of the project.

  Guidance to Departments is principally made available via the Office of Government Commerce, which also chairs an Interdepartmental Business Continuity Planning Forum. This forum has involved a range of commercial companies, including the Guardian IT Group and SGRS.

  Departments are also required to ensure that their computer systems are adequately protected, and to review regularly security measures. An IT Health Check Service is available from companies accredited by GCHQ's Communications-Electronics Security Group, which will identify vulnerabilities and recommend effective security counter measures.

  To enhance further security across Government, especially in relation to computer systems, all Departments have now prepared plans to achieve compliance with the International Standard on Information Security Management (ISO 17799). The standard requires organisations to develop and test effective business continuity plans, and Departments will be asked to gain objective assurance that key systems are adequately protected.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the cost of running the Strategic Communications Unit for each financial year since 1 May 1997. [153265]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  The cost of running the Strategic Communications Unit (SCU) in 1999–2000 was £838,421. In the current financial year, the cost up to the end of December 2000 was £732,364. For information on previous years' expenditure, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 April 2000, Official Report, column 22W.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets and indicators his Department has set to monitor progress towards delivering increased employer awareness of the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [150819]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: We have not set specific targets for employer awareness of the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). Employer awareness is, however, one of the indicators used by my Department and we test the level through research. A survey carried out in 1998 showed that 75 per cent. of respondents were aware of the DDA, including all respondents from large firms. While 80 per cent. of large firms also stated that they were very or fairly aware of the employment provisions in the Act, awareness was much lower among small businesses at 36 per cent. My Department has recently commissioned a survey of workplaces, involving interviews with line managers as well as personnel staff and head office staff. This survey will examine a range of issues regarding the employment and retention of disabled people, including awareness of the employment provisions of the DDA.

  As part of our efforts to raise awareness, a wide range of information about the DDA has been included in free leaflets and by April 2000, over 2 million had been distributed by the DDA Helpline, which was set up to give information and advice to businesses and disabled people. The "See the Person" campaign was launched in June 1999 to raise awareness about disability and to give information and advice to employers and service providers about the requirements of the DDA. The campaign included TV and radio advertisements, posters, press articles, and publicity organised through employers' organisations. The campaign was used to promote new publications such as a good practice guide for employing disabled people which has also been helpfully promoted through organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the CBI. The Government's current publicity campaign—"What have you got to offer"—is aimed at service providers and their responsibilities to provide access to disabled customers under Part III of the DDA. The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) took over responsibility for the Helpline, when it was set up in April 2000, and continues to provide support, advice and free publications about the Act. The DRC Helpline is on 08457 622 633.

  On Monday 5 March we announced our intention to end the exemption of small employers from the DDA employment provisions in 2004. Through our document—"Towards Inclusion"—we are consulting on what help small employers might need as a result and we said that the DRC, the Small Business Service and the DfEE's telephone advice line, Equality Direct, would all work together to ensure that effective advice and information are available at the right time. Our intention is to continue working with these and other organisations and services and increase awareness through a range of initiatives including publicity campaigns.

  Job Loss Compensation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the occasions since 1971 when compensation was paid to individuals who lost their jobs as a result of a change in the law. [152278]

  Ms Jowell
  Job gains and losses occur for a variety of reasons. Currently, job gains exceed job losses with employment in the UK up 225,000 over the last year (ending October to December 2000) Where job losses occur it is, in general, contrary to EU state aid rules for the Government to compensate companies, partnerships and/or individuals whatever their cause. In these cases, individuals have employment rights including statutory entitlement to redundancy payments from their employer.

  Teacher Training
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was made available for teacher training and in-service teacher training for teaching about child protection in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; and how much will be available in 2001. [152280]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department made a further £1.5 million available from the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme for 1997–98. The purpose of this funding was to enable senior teachers with designated responsibility for child protection to receive appropriate and practical in-service training. From 2001–02, schools will be free to use most of their devolved Standards Fund grant to meet their individual priorities, including, where appropriate, in-service teacher training in child protection. The Standards Fund will increase to around £2.2 billion (excluding capital expenditure) in 2001–02, most of which will be devolved to schools.

  Circular 4/98, "Teaching: High Status, High Standards", sets out the requirements for all courses of initial teacher training. It makes specific references to child protection standards, which all trainees must demonstrate that they meet in order to gain Qualified Teacher Status. It is for individual providers to decide how best to deliver appropriate training from within their overall funding.

  We are currently reviewing our child protection guidance to the education service and will make a decision later about whether to support any new guidance with further funding for training.

  School Councils
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will develop a statutory framework for school councils in both primary and secondary schools. [152281]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Citizenship programme of study, which will become statutory for secondary schools in September 2002, encourages active participation of young people in the democratic life of their school and the wider community. School councils and class councils provide excellent opportunities to fulfil this aim, although within the flexible Citizenship programme, it will be open to schools to decide whether to have a school council.
  434W
  To support the schools that decide to introduce a school or class council, the Department has funded School Councils UK to produce a primary schools toolkit, and develop resources for secondary schools to enable teachers and pupils to set up effective structures for pupil participation. The primary toolkit was made available to schools last September and the secondary resource will be made available to schools this summer.

  School Buildings (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been made available to the London borough of Wandsworth in each year since 1997 for improving school buildings. [152680]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following table shows the total central Government support for capital investment made in Wandsworth local education authority from 1996–98 to 2000–01. This includes £4.651 million investment through the New Deal for Schools programme.

  In January this year, we announced that the New Deal for Schools would be extended over the next three years to 2003–04. Allocations benefiting schools in Wandsworth local education authority announced in January under the New Deal for Schools total £2.827 million over three years. This amount will be increased by the extra funding announced in the Chancellor's Budget Statement on 7 March, and later this year when allocations to local authorities of the new £555 million New Deal for Schools Modernisation programme are announced.

  It will be for Wandsworth and its schools, working within guidelines provided by the Department, to allocate this new funding to individual projects.

  Nationally, capital investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.5 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £8.5 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Central Government support for capital investment in Wandsworth local education authority 1997–98 to 2000–01

  £000

  Year

  Wandsworth

  1997–98

  861

  1998–99

  1,897

  1999–2000

  3,476

  2000–01

  6,980

  Total

  13,214

  Numeracy and Literacy (South Tyneside)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on trends in numeracy and literacy among children in junior schools in the borough of South Tyneside since 1996. [152765]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In the 2000 Key Stage 2 tests, 72 per cent. of South Tyneside's 11-year-olds achieved the expected standard for their age in English, an increase of 16 percentage points since 1996. In mathematics, 74 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected standard, a
  435W
  21 percentage point increase since 1996. These results are clear evidence of the success of the national literacy and numeracy strategies.

  Education Funding (South Shields and South Tyneside)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the annual increase has been in the Standards Fund since 1996; and how much of the Standards Fund has been spent in(a) South Shields constituency and (b) the borough of South Tyneside in each year since then. [152766]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the annual cash increase in the Standards Fund since 1996–97:

  £ million

  Year

  Total allocations

  Increase on previous year

  DfEE contribution

  Increase on previous year

  1996–97

  265

  14

  163

  12

  1997–98

  320

  55

  211

  48

  1998–99

  620

  300

  395

  184

  1999–2000

  1,260

  640

  862

  467

  2000–01

  2,490

  1,230

  1,913

  1,051

  Note:

  The total allocation figures include both Government and local authority contributions.

  Figures for the amount of grant spent in an individual constituency cannot be provided, but the following table

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–01

  2000–01

  2001–02

  SSA

  59.0

  59.5

  65.7

  68.8

  71.8

  73.6

  Grants

  0.7

  3.0

  1.4

  3.0

  6.5

  7.7

  Of which:

  Standards Fund1

  0.7

  0.9

  1.1

  2.0

  4.1

  4.9

  Class Size Reduction Grant

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  Education Action Zones

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.8

  0.9

  —

  Nursery Vouchers Grant

  —

  2.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £50 million Special Grant LEAs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.5

  School Standards (Special) Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  1.9

  Capital

  1.5

  1.5

  2.5

  3.4

  5.6

  n/a

  1 DfEE contributions only. Figures for 2001–02 are provisional.

  In the Budget on 7 March, national increases of £100 million for School Standards Grant and devolved New Deal for Schools Capital were announced. South Tyneside will benefit from these increases; the precise allocations are being calculated, and have not been included in the table above.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much direct grant was received by each school in the South Shields constituency for the 2000–01 financial year; and what his estimate is for each school in 2001–02. [152781]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the School Standards Grant payable to each school in 2000–01. No estimate by individual school is yet available for 2001–02. However a typical primary school will receive £24,000 in 2001–02 compared with £9,000 in 2000–01; and a typical secondary school, £70,000 compared with £40,000 in 2000–01.
  436W
  shows the Standards Fund grant spent in South Tyneside local education authority since 1996–97. The figures include all grants paid through the Standards Fund payment system excluding New Deal for School capital, which is not part of the Standards Fund programme.

  Amount of Standards Fund spent in the borough of South Tyneside

  £ million

  Year

  Total expenditure

  DfEE contribution

  1996–97

  1.1

  0.7

  1997–98

  1.4

  1.0

  1998–99

  2.4

  1.5

  1999–2000

  4.0

  2.8

  2000–01

  9.5

  7.3

  Notes:

  1. The total expenditure figures include both Government and local authority contributions

  2. The figures for 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are audited outturn expenditure figures.

  3. The figures for 2000–01 are the total expenditure currently expected to be incurred in this financial year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funding allocations, by scheme, to South Tyneside Local Education Authority in each year since 1996; and what his estimates are for the 2001–02 financial year. [152780]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the letter sent to him by the Secretary of State on 16 February. The total funding for South Tyneside local education authority since 1996–97 is set out:

  £ 000

  School name

  Amount of grant

  Elizabeth Diamond Nursery School

  3

  Wharfedale Drive Nursery School

  3

  Cleadon Park Nursery School

  3

  Chuter Edge Behavioural Support Unit

  3

  Hadrian Primary School

  9

  Ridgeway Primary School

  9

  Downhill Infants' and Nursery School

  6

  Harton Infants' School

  9

  Laygate School

  9

  Mortimer Primary School

  9

  Mowbray Junior Mixed School

  9

  Marine Park Junior Mixed Infant and Nursery School

  6

  Stanhope Junior Mixed and Infants School

  9

  Westoe Infants' School

  9

  Biddick Hall Junior School

  9

  Temple Park Junior School

  9

  Highfield Infants' School

  6

  437W

  £ 000

  School name

  Amount of grant

  Temple Park Infants' School

  6

  Biddick Hall Infants' School

  9

  Monkton Junior School

  9

  Monkton Infants' School

  6

  Ashley Primary School

  9

  Harton Junior School

  9

  Cheviot Junior School

  9

  Lord Blyton Primary School

  9

  Albert Elliott Primary School

  9

  All Saints' CofE Junior School

  6

  All Saints CofE Infants' School

  3

  St. Mary's CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School

  9

  St. Bede's RC Voluntary Aided Primary School, South Shields

  9

  St. Gregory's RC Voluntary Aided Primary School

  9

  SS Peter and Paul RC Voluntary Aided Primary School

  9

  St. Oswald's RC Voluntary Aided Primary School

  9

  Harton School

  50

  Mortimer Comprehensive School

  40

  Brinkburn School

  40

  King George V School

  40

  St. Wilfrid's RC Voluntary Aided Comprehensive School

  40

  New Deal for Schools—allocations for schools in the South Shields constituency

  Year/School

  Project

  Total allocations (£)

  1997–98

  Included within an LEA wide package:

  Roof repairs

  1 536,000

  Biddick Hall Infants

  Highfields Infants

  Brinkburn Comprehensive

  Harton Junior

  Harton Junior

  IT development

  Mortimer Comprehensive

  1998–99

  All Saints CE Junior

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  42,500

  Biddick Hall Infants

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  53,100

  Margaret Sutton Special

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  53,100

  Harton Comprehensive

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  84,600

  Monkton County Infants

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  63,400

  Monkton Junior

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  42,500

  St. Mary's CE Junior

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  51,685

  St. Peter and Paul RC Primary

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  63,300

  Temple Park Infants

  Replacement of electrical wiring

  38,000

  Mortimer Comprehensive

  Improvement of ventilation

  25,500

  Cheviot Junior

  Renewal of obsolete firm alarm

  75,000

  Cleadon Park Nursery

  Renewal of obsolete firm alarm

  5,250

  Downhill Infants

  Renewal of obsolete firm alarm

  5,250

  Harton Comprehensive

  Renewal of obsolete firm alarm

  85,600

  Laygate School

  Renewal of obsolete firm alarm

  41,200

  Ridgeway Junior

  Renewal of obsolete firm alarm

  31,650

  Temple Park Infants

  Renewal of obsolete firm alarm

  13,700

  Brinkburn Comprehensive

  Installation of safer emergency lighting

  32,300

  Harton Comprehensive

  Installation of safer emergency lighting

  42,500

  King George V School

  Installation of safer emergency lighting

  34,000

  Laygate School

  Installation of safer emergency lighting

  24,650

  Mortimer Comprehensive

  Installation of safer emergency lighting

  47,600

  St. Wilfred's RC Comprehensive

  Installation of safer emergency lighting

  26,800

  Bamburgh Special

  Fire precautions

  17,000

  1999–2000

  Included within a 16 school package:

  Bamburgh School

  Boiler/Heating distribution replacement

  2718,309

  Cheviot Junior

  Downhill Infants and Nursery

  Harton Infants

  Harton Junior

  Stanhope Primary

  438W

  £ 000

  School name

  Amount of grant

  Bamburgh School

  15

  Margaret Sutton School

  15

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the amount of capital funding made available to schools in the South Shields constituency through the New Deal for Schools since May 1997. [152782]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following table shows those schools, in the South Shields constituency, which have benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools programme, which commenced in 1997–98. These allocations formed part of the £5.5 million investment made in schools in the South Tyneside local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme between 1997–98 and 2000–01. In total, in those four years, some £13 million of funding for capital investment has been allocated for schools in South Tyneside local education authority.
  439W

  New Deal for schools—allocations for schools in the South Shields constituency

  Year/School

  Project

  Total allocation (£)

  Included within a 16 school package:

  All Saints CE Junior

  Flat roof finishing

  2438,990

  Bamburgh School

  Brinkburn Comprehensive

  Cheviot Junior

  Cleadon Park Nursery

  Lord Blyton Primary

  Margaret Sutton Special

  Marine Park Junior, Infant and Nursery

  Ridgeway Primary

  Wharfedale Drive Nursery

  Brinkburn Comprehensive

  Food technology room refurbishment

  97,325

  2000–01

  Ridgeway Primary

  Ridgeway family support centre

  753,431

  St. Gregory's RC Primary

  Replacement extension

  211,119

  Hadrian Primary

  Electrical rewire and flat roof renewal project

  22,019

  Marine Park Primary

  Emergency lighting and flat roof renewal

  20,249

  Included in a 4 school package:

  King George V School

  Boiler and heating distribution replacement

  2560,387

  Stanhope Primary

  Included in a 4 school package:

  Margaret Sutton Special

  Re-roofing

  2178,664

  Wharfedale Drive Nursery

  1 Local education authorities were not required to specify individual project costs for phase 1 of the NDS programme, so the amount shown is the total allocation in that year to the LEA. South Tyeside LEA holds project level information.

  2 Allocations made to package projects covering more than one school. South Tyneside local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools which benefited from these allocations.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of its local schools' budget South Tyneside Council has delegated to schools in each year since 1996. [152784]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is set out in the table. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a target for all local education authorities to delegate 85 per cent. of their local schools budget in 2001–02.

  Financial year

  Percentage of schools" budget delegated

  1996–97

  78.8

  1997–98

  78.1

  1998–99

  78.6

  1999–2000

  80.5

  2000–01

  83.3

  Table A: Central Government capital investment in schools in South Tyneside local education authority

  £000

  Funding Stream

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  618

  571

  148

  314

  424

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  556

  253

  34

  786

  350

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  34

  94

  94

  136

  326

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  307

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  536

  1,675

  1,270

  2,058

  School Security Grant

  —

  45

  56

  56

  56

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  —

  67

  —

  —

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  —

  364

  488

  543

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  129

  440W
  Note:

  For 1998–99 and previous years, the figures represent the percentage of South Tyneside's General Schools Budget (adjusted mainly to exclude capital expenditure and capital financing costs) delegated to schools in accordance with the LEA's school funding formula.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the capital investment in schools in South Tyneside local education authority was from 1996 to 1999(a) in total and (b) by funding stream; and what his forecast is for the next three years. [152786]

  Jacqui Smith
  Table A shows the capital allocations made to South Tyneside local education authority, by funding stream, from 1996–97 to 2000–01. Table B shows the forecast investment for the South Tyneside local education authority over the next three years.

  Nationally, capital investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.5 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £8.5 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  441W

  Table A: Central capital investment in schools in South Tyneside local education authority

  £000

  Funding Stream

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,174

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  126

  Schools Access Initiative Grant

  5

  —

  18

  —

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59

  Early Excellence Centre Grant

  —

  —

  —

  319

  321

  Total

  1,520

  1,499

  2,456

  3,391

  5,640

  Table B: Forecast investment in South Tyneside local education authority

  £000

  Funding Stream

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Basic Credit Approvals

  185

  1—

  1—

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  167

  1—

  1—

  Private Finance Initiative Credits

  —

  1—

  1—

  New Deal for Schools Devolved Formula

  649

  873

  1,680

  New Deal for Schools Condition Funding

  477

  1,367

  1,733

  Seed Challenge Funding

  142

  226

  226

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  126

  1—

  1—

  School Access Initiative

  232

  1—

  1—

  Total

  1,978

  2,466

  3,639

  1 Future years' allocations shown in the above table are those already announced as being attributable to South Tyneside local education authority.

  In addition to the amounts shown above, schools in the Authority will also benefit from a share of other programmes where allocations have not yet been made. These include over £1 billion of credit approvals, mainly to provide new pupil places; £440 million of grant to governors of Voluntary Aided schools; £555 million funding through the NDS Modernisation programme; £170 million worth of funding under the Schools Access Initiative and additional New Deal for Schools Devolved Formula announced in the Budget on 7 March of £300 million in total over the next three years.

  This funding will be augmented by capital receipts and other contributions from local education authority sources, and the contribution which governors of Voluntary Aided schools make to their building work. In addition, around £1.6 billion is available nationally through Private Finance Initiative Credits for projects which will sign in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Funding specifically ring fenced for the renewal of school laboratories and secondary learning support units is ending in 2001–02. Local authorities will be able to prioritise their other increased funding for this purpose, if they wish.

  New Deal (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24-year-olds in Wansbeck have entered(a) voluntary work, (b) work experience, (c) education and training and (d) unsubsidised employment through the New Deal in the last year. [153137]

  Ms Jowell
  Figures for the period January 2000 to the end of December 2000 for the constituency of Wansbeck show the following numbers of young people participated in New Deal:

  Number

  Starts to New Deal

  457

  Starts to Options

  129

  of which:

  Employment

  28

  Full Time Education and Training

  42

  Voluntary Sector

  35

  Environment Task Force

  24

  Unsubsidised Employment

  295

  Note:

  All options include an element of work experience and training

  Age Diversity in Employment
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish the evaluation of the code of practice for age diversity in employment. [153251]
  442W
  Ms Hodge
  A summary of key findings from the code of practice on age diversity in employment and three other research projects on age will be published at the end of this month.

  The full report on the evaluation will be published summer 2001.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to letters from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 8 November and 21 September 2000 concerning the exclusion from holiday play schemes of children with medical conditions. [153253]

  Jacqui Smith
  I replied to the hon. Member on Friday 9 March 2001.

  Childminders
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses were received to the consultation on national standards for the regulation of day care and childminding in England; how many of the responses were included in the sample considered reaching the decision that the Government would not ban childminders from smoking in front of the children in their care; what method was used to select the sample of responses considered in reaching this decision; and how
  443W
  many of the responses considered (a) opposed the proposal that parents should be allowed to decide whether childminders should be allowed to smoke, (b) supported the proposal and (c) neither supported nor opposed the proposal. [153380]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 February 2001,Official Report, columns 365–66W.

  Out-of-authority Education
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils in each local education authority in England were educated in maintained schools in that local education authority and normally resident in other local education authorities in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [153295]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on children educated in a local education authority area other than the one where they normally reside is collected only for those pupils with special educational needs.

  Polish Students
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Polish students attended summer schools in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [151176]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152104]

  Mr. Wills
  In line with other central Government Departments, DfEE will be reporting annually to the Committee of Green Ministers on its timber purchases. The Green Ministers' annual report will be the main vehicle for publishing DfEE information and there are no plans for a separately published report.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 16 to 24-year-olds were claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in(a) May 1997 and (b) January 2001. [152334]

  Ms Jowell
  The following table illustrates numbers of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants in 1997 and 2001. Figures for January 1997 and January 1998 are also included in order to enable annual comparisons in the absence of seasonal adjustments:

  16–17 year olds

  18–24 year olds

  Total

  January 1997

  16,510

  457,950

  474,460

  May 1997

  17,750

  382,020

  399,780

  January 1998

  15,230

  357,070

  372,310

  January 2001

  12,980

  250,270

  263,250

  444W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost to the Employment Service has been of and how many Employment Service staff have been attributable to, the administration of Jobseeker's Allowance. [152450]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mark Neale to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 12 March 2001:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question concerning the Employment Service cost of, and the number of staff attributable to the administration of Jobseeker's Allowance. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying on Mr Lewis behalf.
  The resource available to the Employment Service for the financial year 2000–2001 to administer Jobseeker's Allowance was £183m. This resource equated to approximately 10,600 staff in Jobcentres.
  I hope this is helpful

  New Deal
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 16 to 24-year-olds have(a) entered the New Deal in London and (b) entered unsubsidised employment through the New Deal since 1998. [152335]

  Ms Jowell
  Latest figures for the period ending December 2000 show that since the introduction of the New Deal, 89,000 young people have started the New Deal for Young People, aimed at 18 to 24-year-olds, in the Greater London area. 32,200 young people have gained unsubsidised employment as a result of being on the programme. We know that many other young people will have left the programme for employment without telling the Employment Service—these people are not included in this figure. Nationally, in addition to the 274,000 young people recorded as gaining jobs, we estimate that a further 83,000 young people gained jobs from the New Deal.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents in London have participated in the New Deal for lone parents since its inception; and how many have entered employment after participation in the scheme. [152336]

  Ms Jowell
  All statistics are taken from the New Deal Evaluation Database.

  NDLP latest results

  London ES districts

  Number of initial Interviews

  27,901

  Number agreeing to participate

  24,088

  (Percentage of interviewees)

  86

  Number of jobs obtained

  7,637

  (Percentage of participation)

  32

  All figures relate to the national programme only up to December 2000

  Post-16 Inspections
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to reduce the numbers of forms required to be completed during(a) external and (b) internal inspections of post-16 establishments; and if he will make a statement. [152639]

  Mr. Wicks
  On external inspections, all the inspectorates require providers to complete one or two forms to enable the planning of inspections. In the future in line with guidance given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State such information will be routed to the inspectorates through the Learning and Skills Council. During the inspection, inspectors draw from standard documentation prepared and made available by providers. The Secretary of State has required the new Post-16 inspectorates to keep the burden of inspection to a minimum consistent with maintaining the rigour and quality of inspection. As to internal inspections, how these are conducted are matters for the providers themselves.

  A-level Students
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of A-level students working to fund their studies; what assessment he has made of the effects that this has had on their results; and if he will make a statement. [152095]

  Mr. Wicks
  According to the Youth Cohort Study, 53 per cent. of 16–18-year-old-level students, in full-time education, were also in some form of employment. They worked an average of 10 hours per week. Research evidence indicates that young people choose to undertake part-time work for a variety of reasons: not solely to finance their studies.

  I am not aware of studies specifically looking at the effects of paid work on the results of A-level students. However, the evaluation of the first year of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) found that young people, in EMA pilot and control areas, who worked in Year 11 achieved better exam results than those that did not. Subsequent stages of the EMA evaluation should throw further light on this issue.

  Student Voting
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by constituency of origin the number of students attending university who went to a school within the constituency of their parental address. [152411]

  Mr. Wicks
  The data are not collated centrally on a constituency basis.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set higher targets for physical education within the National Curriculum for all pupils, in response to the recent NAO report on obesity. [152537]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 11 January that all children should receive an entitlement
  446W
  to two hours of physical activity. This will be delivered during and after school through the PE curriculum and study support. We will be consulting with parents, teachers and relevant organisations to see how the two hour entitlement can be best delivered, and we are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to look at ways of increasing the opportunities available to children to participate in physical activities. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are also producing evidence that demonstrates how schools can achieve the two hours entitlement. Over the last two years, seven out of 10 schools have increased their provision of out of school hours activities, of which sport is the most popular, and over a half plan to increase provision in the coming year. The current curriculum is designed to promote positive attitudes towards active and healthy lifestyles, and the importance of fitness and health is a part of each Key Stage. We are working closely with the Department of Health on the National Healthy School Standard, which seeks to promote health and well being in schools.

  Invalidity Care Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will disregard invalidity care allowance paid to the natural parent of a young person applying for an educational maintenance allowance where a sibling is disabled and in need of the benefit arising from the invalidity care allowance; and if he will make a statement. [152641]

  Mr. Wicks
  Education maintenance allowance (EMA) is paid on the basis of an assessment of the income available to a student's parents. In line with long established practice, taxable benefits are included in the income to be assessed. Invalid care allowance (ICA) is classed as a taxable payment because it is intended to compensate a carer for the lost earnings which result from not being able to work full-time. Exempting income-replacement benefits from tax would discriminate against those whose income comes from earnings. But other benefits which are intended to meet a specific need of the claimant—such as attendance allowance and disability allowance—are not subject to tax, and are not included in the income to be assessed in deciding on eligibility for EMA.

  Paperwork (Teachers)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to reduce paperwork for teachers. [151697]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2001]: The Government are fully committed to reducing paperwork for teachers in order to allow teachers to concentrate on teaching and raising standards. Examples of our action to do so include: guaranteeing to cut by a third the number of documents, and by a half the number of pages, that the Government send automatically to schools during this school year—last term we reduced paperwork to secondary schools by 60 per cent. and to primary schools by 40 per cent.; harnessing DfEE and Cabinet Office resources to simplify some of the paperwork that schools complete—the first results of this joint project are set out in the "Making a Difference: Reducing School Paperwork" report. This shows that a typical school is

  447W
  expected to save over 200 hours of paperwork every year—equivalent to more than a month's work for one person; and across the school system 4.5 million hours will be saved annually; simplifying radically the operation of next year's Standards Fund—we have replaced bidding, claiming and reporting with a single expenditure returns sheet; we have allowed schools to vire funds between almost all grant headings; we have allowed schools to carry funds over to the end of the school year; and we have introduced monitoring against existing targets; placing model schemes of work on the DfEE website to underpin all National Curriculum subjects at Key Stages 1 to 3—they are entirely voluntary and teachers may use them directly or adapt them as they wish. We also have plans to place model lesson plans on the website in a further effort to reduce paperwork and make the necessary lesson preparation as straightforward as possible; and developing new ICT resources, including the launch of:
  (a) EASEA—a full electronic in-tray and document archiving service for head teachers, teachers and governors that now has 7,000 registered users,
  (b) TeacherNet—a single web page offering links to the full range of educational resources on the internet,
  (c) an internet based "A-Z" of school leadership and management—an electronic encyclopaedia for heads with succinct, practical guidance on a wide range of topics, full search facilities, and links through to reference material on organisational and legal issues, and examples of good practice.

  School Dinners
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he provides to(a) head teachers, (b) school governors and (c) local education authorities on choosing the suppliers of ingredients for school dinners. [152768]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not provide guidance on choosing suppliers of school meal ingredients. It is for local education authorities and schools in England to obtain supplies or contract for meals provision in line with relevant legislation. They have a general duty to ensure the health and safety of pupils.

  From 1 April this year, local education authorities and schools in England will have to meet compulsory minimum nutritional standards for school lunches. The new standards will ensure that a nutritionally balanced

  Constituency

  Full-time education and training

  Voluntary sector

  Environment task force

  Aberdeen, Central

  78

  54

  32

  Aberdeen, North

  50

  19

  24

  Aberdeen, South

  52

  16

  16

  Airdrie and Shotts

  151

  87

  165

  Angus

  122

  108

  117

  Argyll and Bute

  63

  39

  108

  Ayr

  131

  134

  98

  Banff and Buchan

  71

  32

  10

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  108

  31

  70

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  157

  157

  148

  Central Fife

  275

  67

  165

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  185

  52

  112

  Clydesdale

  229

  92

  101

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  95

  50

  142

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  176

  45

  33

  Cunninghame, North

  139

  134

  52

  448W
  lunch must be available to pupils every day. Our guidance for caterers on the standards offers advice, for example, on menu planning, suitable ingredients, and healthy cooking methods.

  School Uniforms
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities provide assistance towards the cost of school uniforms. [152955]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. Local education authorities have a discretionary power, but not a duty, to offer grants towards the cost of school uniform and school clothing in cases of hardship. It is for them to decide whether to offer assistance and, if they do, what the eligibility criteria should be. It is also for them to defend their policies locally in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Department al Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152316]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

SCOTLAND

  New Deal
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people in each constituency in Scotland have received full-time education, training or work experience with the voluntary sector or the Environmental Taskforce as a result of the New Deal in each constituency in Scotland. [152467]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table shows for each constituency in Scotland the number of young people who have received help through full-time education, training or work experience with the voluntary sector or the Environmental Taskforce options of New Deal for Young People between April 1998 and December 2000.
  449W

  Constituency

  Full-time education and training

  Voluntary sector

  Environment task force

  Cunninghame, South

  235

  145

  72

  Dumbarton

  246

  83

  163

  Dumfries

  253

  79

  58

  Dundee, East

  237

  145

  199

  Dundee, West

  238

  133

  244

  Dunfermline, East

  177

  78

  88

  Dunfermline, West

  172

  48

  90

  East Kilbride

  126

  20

  37

  East Lothian

  40

  33

  44

  Eastwood

  83

  32

  69

  Edinburgh, Central

  102

  59

  28

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh

  81

  63

  45

  Edinburgh, North and Leith

  104

  98

  63

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  101

  43

  72

  Edinburgh, South

  64

  43

  40

  Edinburgh, West

  39

  27

  48

  Falkirk, East

  127

  87

  76

  Falkirk, West

  165

  76

  76

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  104

  66

  48

  Glasgow, Anniesland

  204

  142

  76

  Glasgow, Baillieston

  171

  206

  206

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  170

  74

  76

  Glasgow, Govan

  278

  91

  94

  Glasgow, Kelvin

  258

  74

  53

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  259

  140

  136

  Glasgow, Pollok

  261

  53

  115

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  149

  52

  82

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  238

  114

  131

  Glasgow, Springburn

  328

  120

  209

  Gordon

  36

  40

  20

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  100

  95

  53

  Hamilton, North and Bellshill

  167

  119

  98

  Hamilton, South

  125

  53

  160

  Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber

  86

  35

  43

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  199

  145

  125

  Kirkcaldy

  272

  65

  179

  Linlithgow

  89

  80

  77

  Livingston

  98

  78

  76

  Midlothian

  28

  35

  72

  Moray

  43

  79

  79

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  203

  145

  161

  North, East Fife

  95

  35

  37

  North Tayside

  77

  60

  55

  Ochil

  170

  74

  125

  Orkney and Shetland

  17

  8

  20

  Paisley North

  155

  157

  64

  Paisley South

  140

  120

  84

  Perth

  45

  73

  23

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  115

  24

  44

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  84

  69

  70

  Stirling

  131

  32

  31

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  74

  42

  49

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  46

  75

  73

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  36

  20

  21

  West Renfrewshire

  78

  71

  30

  Western Isles

  56

  19

  42

  Total

  9,857

  5,389

  6,042

  Poverty
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) children, (b) families and (c) people, in each constituency in Scotland, were living in poverty in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000. [152465]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Poverty and social exclusion are multifaceted problems. Therefore, the Government do not use a single definition of poverty but instead use a range of indicators to monitor the progress of our strategy. Information relating to the indicators can be found in the 450W
  second Government "Opportunity for all" report on tackling poverty and social exclusion "One year on: making a difference". The report also describes and monitors the impact of policies we have already introduced, and sets our plans for the future.

  When tackling poverty in Scotland, the UK Government work in partnership with the Scottish Executive, through mechanisms such as the Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty. The Scottish Executive produces a Social Justice Annual Report " … a Scotland where everyone matters".
  451W
  This report outlines measures taken by both the Executive and the UK Government to promote social inclusion in Scotland.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Leisure Facilities
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to meet the Fitness Industry Association to discuss competition from Lottery-funded leisure facilities. [152861]

  Kate Hoey
  The Fitness Industry Association has not asked for a meeting.

  Former Coalfield Areas
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to ensure that former coalfield areas receive increased awards from the National Lottery distributors. [152997]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department and Lottery distributors commissioned research into the impact of the Lottery on the coalfields and is working with coalfields groups to take forward the report's recommendations. These include actively encouraging applications from areas of low take-up, producing flexible partnership funding requirements, making decision making more transparent, and better co-ordination with other organisations responsible for regenerating coalfields. We shall continue to monitor carefully applications and awards in coalfields areas.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has made to the European Commission regarding the value thresholds applying to works of art for which export licences are required; and if he will make a statement. [152625]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The financial thresholds were most recently discussed on 2 March at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods, at which my Department made representations about a current proposal to change the date for conversion from euro into sterling, which will effectively reduce the thresholds by 20 per cent. In addition, my Department also made representations about the need for a review of the financial thresholds to, at least, update them in line with inflation. As a result, the European Commission has agreed to consider a review next year, in order to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to explain our concerns in detail.

  Palliative Care (Funding)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will report on the outcome of the consultations into the proposed sum being made available through the New Opportunities Fund to provide palliative care for adults and children. [153290]

  Kate Hoey
  The Department announced the results of the public consultation on 10 March. On 1 March the Department laid an affirmative order in the House specifying the new initiatives to be funded by the New 452W
  Opportunities Fund. Draft policy directions for these new initiatives and an analysis of responses to the consultation were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 9 March.

  Wembley Project
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what role he had in(a) discussions and (b) recommendations relating to the Chairman of the Wembley Holding Company; [152509]

  (2) what involvement Ministers in his Department have had in the appointment of the Chairman of the Wembley Holding Company. [152508]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Wembley National Stadium Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Football Association. The appointment of Sir Rodney Walker as Chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd., and the terms upon which the appointment was made, is entirely a matter for them.

  Sir Rodney Walker informed me in December that he had been asked by the Football Association to take over as Chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and asked for my advice on whether the appointment would conflict with his position as Chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council. I advised Sir Rodney that as the United Kingdom Sports Council were not directly involved with the Wembley project, in my view no such conflict arose.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Rules (Gifts)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rules apply to officials within his Department relating to the receipt of gifts from(a) private companies and (b) individuals; and whether those rules continue to apply during the contractual period between end of employment and the date on which private sector employment may begin, where such gifts originate from the future employer. [153258]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department expects its staff to observe exceptionally high standards of personal honesty and integrity. Staff should not accept gifts which would or might appear to place them under any obligation to the donor, compromise impartiality or otherwise be improper.

  After consultation with senior managers, staff may keep gifts with a retail value of less than £25. Gifts that have a value greater than £25 given by commercial or trade organisations or individuals must be surrendered. Alternatively, if it is considered appropriate to retain such gifts, staff must pay the Department the value in excess of £25. Any gift which has a value of £10 or more must be registered.

  These rules apply to all employees of the Department; they do not apply after employment has ended.

  Parental Leave
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he will monitor the uptake of parental leave. [152849]
  453W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  A survey of working parents conducted in June 2000 by my Department asked parents whether they had taken up parental leave since December 1999. Initial analysis of the results suggests that 3 per cent. of working parents who had babies born since 15 December 1999 had taken parental leave. A full report of the survey findings is being prepared for publication.

  In addition, we are piloting the monitoring of uptake of parental leave in the next Labour Force Survey.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which the uptake of parental leave is influenced by an individual's level of income. [152848]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  A survey of working parents conducted in June 2000 by my Department asked parents whether they had taken up parental leave since December 1999. For the great majority of cases, the survey collected information on household income rather than individual income. We are currently analysing this information, which should allow analysis of take-up levels of parental leave across household income bands and provide an indication of whether potential take-up of parental leave is influenced by income levels. A full report of the survey findings is being prepared for publication, but no detailed results are yet available.

  Regeneration Initiatives
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the criteria for assessing applications for financial support for economic and physical regeneration initiatives for funds administered by his Department; and what account they take of(a) the variation in the availability of previously developed land and buildings and (b) other considerations of environmental capacity. [152339]

  Mr. Caborn
  The aims of my Department's policies for economic and physical regeneration were summarised in the recent White Paper, "Opportunity for All in a World of Change". These are based on putting greater emphasis on growth within all regions, by assessing under-performance, putting in place the building-blocks for economic success and establishing strategies for sustaining this success. The exercise of these policies is based on equipping all regions with the means to build on their own distinctive cultures, know-how and competitive advantages. These will include factors relating to land, buildings and the environment, and criteria of this kind are being included in the corporate plans currently being agreed jointly between the regional development agencies, my Department and the DETR and DFEE.

  Departmental Policies (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Stroud constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152400]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives in my hon. Friend's constituency. These include the competitiveness development fund, which has supported two projects close to Stroud. This fund is provided to the South West regional development
  454W
  agency. It includes funding for the regional development agency's south west innovation fund which supports research and development projects for small and medium-sized enterprises.

  One company which has benefited is IONEX—a small water treatment company where a grant of £3,000 was given to continue to develop electro catalytic electrodes for the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen and oxygen. Another company, Primrose Bumble, received a grant of £2,250 to help with the development of a spelling aid for dyslexic individuals.

  The constituency's small business community has also benefited from several smart awards and the local business link facilitated 95 business start-ups in the year 2000.

  The Department's funds have also benefited the Stroud energy group, an environmental group who advise on renewable energy and ways to improve environmental awareness. £200K in total has been given to the project's publicity funds.

  The Gloucestershire market towns scheme is an single regeneration budget (SRB) scheme which is active within the Stroud DC area. This covers seven Gloucestershire market towns, including Stroud, Dursley/Cam. This was a successful SRB round 4 bid in 1998 which secured over £1 million of Government funding. It is a five-year scheme which is designed to tackle social deprivation issues in all of the seven identified market towns. This SRB scheme has been providing very useful input into SWRDA's region wide new market/coastal towns initiative which is due to be launched at the end of March 2001.

  Gloucestershire-wide initiatives which may have impacted on the Stroud constituency are:

  The Gloucestershire Development Agency, West of England Aerospace Forum (WEAF) and Automotive Centres Excellence (ACE) the RDA partnership, which is committed to supporting the Aerospace and Automotive sectors, with approximately £80,000 being provided in 2000–01 to strengthen the businesses in the supply chains of these industries, primarily through networking and mapping exercises.

  The £200,000 which has been used to support the development of the Gloucestershire Innovation Centre which will be located at the former Bank of England site at Gloucester Docks. This centre will be of benefit to fledgling businesses in the Gloucester area who will be able to access business mentoring and state of the art facilities. This centre will be part of the regional Business Incubation South West network.

  The £45,000 that has been given for the development and improvement of the business focussed research facility at Gloucester Royal Infirmary, in partnership with Cranfield University and Gloucester City Council for 2000–01. This facility will benefit medi-science businesses in the area, who will have access to these facilities.

  Computer Failures
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those commercial companies he has been in contact with in the last 24 months regarding computer disaster contingency programmes. [152548]
  455W
  Ms Hewitt
  Over the past two years, officials from my Department have been in contact with a number of organisations to discuss security of information and ways of ensuring that the information is available after a disaster. The need for such contingency planning has been highlighted by the "I love you" bug and other computer viruses which have affected the operations of many companies around the world.

  My Department encourages all organisations to implement ISO/IEC 17799/BS7799, the code of practice for information security management standard. This standard promotes the use of risk assessment and putting appropriate security controls in place before embarking on decisions which would involve losses or damage of an organisation. This includes business continuity management and information security education and training.

  Employment Compensation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce compensation for workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. [152695]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The redundancy and insolvency payments provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provide a safety net of minimum entitlements for employees who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The limits on payments under these provisions are subject to annual uprating. Employers and employees (or their representatives) are free to negotiate more favourable severance conditions than the statutory provisions require, if this accords with their own priorities, needs and circumstances. In most cases this is in fact what happens. The Government have no plans for any amendments to the law in this regard.

  Businesses (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many business failures there were in each of the last 15 years in London. [152190]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: The table shows compulsory liquidations and bankruptcies in London for the years 1991 to 2000. The County court allocates an Official Receiver and it is the location of the Official Receiver's office that is recorded, not the location of the business. Official Receiver's offices do not coincide with Government office regions. April 1991 is the earliest available record of regional insolvencies.

  Insolvencies in London

  Year

  Company compulsory liquidations

  Individual bankruptcy Orders1

  19912

  2,037

  1,649

  1992

  3,268

  2,954

  1993

  2,498

  2,859

  1994

  1,703

  2,245

  1995

  1,574

  1,895

  1996

  1,221

  1,714

  1997

  937

  1,345

  1998

  1,487

  1,374

  1999

  1,161

  1,286

  2000

  951

  1,285

  456W

  1 Individual Bankruptcy Orders includes the following categories: Self employed; Employees; No occupation and unemployed; Directors and promoters of companies; Occupation unknown.

  2 1991 only available from Q2

  Source:

  DTI

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses opened in London in(a) 1996 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available. [152191]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: Official statistics for new business openings are reflected in VAT registrations. There were 34,055 VAT registrations of London businesses in 1996 and 37,335 in 1999, the last year for which figures are available.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the agreement between the Post Office and the banks over the future of the universal bank will be signed; and if he will make a statement. [153027]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage.

  Motor Fuel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the pricing of motor fuel. [153288]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, the Director-General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour.

  The Director-General has investigated the supply of petrol a number of times over recent years and has found it to be competitive. He has said that he will continue to monitor this market very closely.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to require suppliers to display the level of duty payable on petrol and diesel on pumps at petrol forecourts. [153250]

  Mr. Hain
  Fuel duty rates are well known, and I have no plans to require retailers to display them.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 43W, what recent representations he has received on the adequacy of specialist working time officer availability. [152969]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am not aware of any recent representations made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for. Trade and Industry or myself on the adequacy of specialist working time officer availability.

  Departmental Policies (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly to the locations as possible, the effects
  457W
  of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 on (a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district. [153004]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has provided the following support for businesses in Wakefield since May 1997. Information at constituency level is not available in all cases.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)

  RSA is a capital investment grant linked to the creation or safeguarding of jobs in designated areas of need. 49 RSA grant offers totalling £4.9 million have been made to businesses in the Wakefield district, to support projects with a total capital expenditure of £52 million, and to create and safeguard a total of 1,984 jobs. Within these figures 10 offers related to the Hemsworth constituency where a grant of £0.8 million was offered against capital spend of £10.5 million and the creation/safeguarding of 246 jobs.

  Enterprise Grants

  The Enterprise grants scheme is a simplified scheme that was introduced in April 2000 to help small firms undertake fixed capital investment projects. Four offers totalling £14,000 have been made to firms in the Wakefield district, of which three were in the Hemsworth constituency.

  Smart

  Smart awards are designed to help small firms with the introduction of new products and processes. Seven smart awards totalling £557,076 have been made to firms in the Wakefield district. No awards have been made in the Hemsworth constituency.

  Business Link

  Business Link Wakefield have provided services to small businesses in the Wakefield area (including the Hemsworth constituency) since 1997. These include general and specialised advice to help businesses grown, export development counselling, ICT advice, and a full range of specialist information. From April 2001, these services will be provided by the Small Business Service operating through a new West Yorkshire business link with local concessions, including one in Wakefield. This new service will be more customer focused ensuring that services are driven by local need.

  Indebtedness Taskforce
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if Scottish advice providers have been involved in the discussions of his Department's indebtedness taskforce; [153074]

  (2) what involvement the Scottish Executive has had in the work currently being undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry to improve the lending practices of credit providers and the transparency of information provided to consumers. [153073]

  Dr. Howells
  Both the Scottish Executive and Money Advice Scotland are represented on the overindebtedness discussion group. This group, representing a wide cross-section of interested parties, works alongside the taskforce providing suggestions on areas to be tackled and comment on emerging conclusions, aimed at achieving more responsible lending and borrowing.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 281W, on BNFL, when his Department first informed representatives of the Japanese Government that the quality control worker who discovered the falsification of data at the MDF plant at Sellafield was a non-BNFL employee. [151662]

  Mr. Hain
  My Department has not provided information to the Japanese Government about the employment terms of the individual to whom the hon. Gentleman refers or about those of any other individual working at BNFL's MDF plant at Sellafield.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals have contacted his Department on the new pensions guide since the launch of the pensions awareness advertising campaign. [153291]

  Mr. Rooker
  The purpose of the campaign is to raise awareness of pensions in the wider population and to get younger people thinking about their pensions. We propose to assess how successful the campaign has been via a tracking study. We anticipate that this will provide evidence that many people have made their own pension provision on the back of the campaign. In addition, between the start of the pensions awareness advertising campaign on 11 January and 7 March 2001 the Department has had a total of over 212,000 responses to the pensions education marketing campaign. In response to this, we have sent out over 410,000 copies of the new pension guide.

  Computer Failures
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment of risk he has made of the impact of a major computer disaster on the work of his Department; what steps he has taken to minimise the effects of such a disaster; and what the standard of compliance is to protect his Department from its effects. [152545]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has contingency arrangements in place for all computer systems, including standby facilities for major disaster. These contingencies are comprehensively rehearsed at regular intervals.

  Miners (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will exempt from compensation clawback those ex-miners who have received, or will receive, compensation for having contracted respiratory diseases as a result of their work with British Coal or its predecessor firms. [146460]

  Mr. Bayley
  Compensation is intended to restore a person to the financial position which they experienced before the accident, injury or disease occurred.
  459W
  The Compensation Recovery Scheme is based on the long-standing principle that a person should not get compensation twice over for the same period.

  The Department is doing all it can to ensure that the Compensation Recovery Scheme is operated as efficiently and effectively as possible. In particular, in the case of miners the Department is currently putting in place a series of administrative easements to speed up payment on miners' compensation claims. These changes will include, for example, allowing the Department of Trade and Industry more time to negotiate with the miner, without the need to contact the Department of Social Security; and reducing duplication and red tape. These changes will ensure delays in the process do not occur.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people under 60 years are in receipt of(a) middle and higher rate care component and (b) the higher rate of mobility component of Disability Living Allowance; and what the annual cost would be to extend the Winter Fuel Payment to this group. [153372]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of people under 60 years in receipt of middle and higher rate care component of Disability Living Allowance and the higher rate of mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, with the annual cost of extending Winter Fuel Payments to these groups

  Number

  Cost (£ million)

  Higher and middle rate care component

  747,140

  130

  Higher rate mobility component

  709,560

  130

  Notes:

  1. Based on DLA administrative data, May 2000; DSS Information Centre data, August 2000.

  2. Cost rounded to the nearest 10 million.

  3. Winter Fuel Payment is considered to be paid at £200.

  4. Costs are based on households without a resident aged 60 years or over.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) initial claims, (b) renewal claims, (c) requests for review and (d) requests for appeal were received in respect of Disability Living Allowance claims in each quarter from 1996 to date. [152025]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Initial claims

  Renewal claims

  Reviews

  Appeals

  June 1996

  134,831

  40,054

  92,890

  9,338

  September 1996

  133,922

  37,848

  93,587

  10,233

  December 1996

  124,554

  42,073

  79,141

  8,420

  March 1997

  124,281

  47,879

  99,361

  11,702

  June 1997

  132,092

  43,863

  95,037

  11,683

  September 1997

  121,067

  42,403

  91,633

  10,918

  December 1997

  110,813

  44,968

  85,968

  12,298

  March 1998

  97,387

  53,668

  82,094

  13,810

  June 1998

  96,125

  48,505

  75,419

  12,342

  September 1998

  103,061

  46,243

  77,818

  12,087

  December 1998

  96,022

  46,840

  72,727

  11,238

  March 1999

  103,069

  56,845

  81,573

  11,158

  June 1999

  98,997

  49,899

  75,498

  10,418

  September 1999

  97,542

  48,650

  78,601

  11,570

  December 1999

  91,311

  47,419

  72,231

  16,020

  March 2000

  104,749

  56,778

  68,944

  24,093

  460W

  Initial claims

  Renewal claims

  Reviews

  Appeals

  June 2000

  104,079

  49,373

  64,631

  26,051

  September 2000

  100,670

  48,717

  69,636

  28,187

  December 2000

  96,333

  47,121

  60,629

  26,247

  Fraud
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many convictions for social security fraud there were in each of the last five years; how many of these convictions were for a second offence; if he will list the convictions by administrative areas for the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [152406]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available was given in my written answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 10 January 2001,Official Report, column 575W.

  Flooding (Housing Benefit)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department plans to assist persons forced by recent floods to move into temporary accommodation who receive Housing Benefit for one property but have to pay rents for the flooded and the temporary properties. [152444]

  Angela Eagle
  Housing Benefit provides assistance to those on low income to meet the housing costs of the dwelling they occupy as their home. Help can be considered on two such dwellings, for up to four weeks where the local authority is satisfied that the liability to pay two rents was unavoidable. We are aware of the difficulties faced by people whose homes are uninhabitable due to flooding and who have had to rent alternative accommodation. We are reviewing the current arrangements.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions there have been in each year since 1992 which involve benefit fraud and the misuse of national insurance numbers. [152435]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those men aged between 60 and 64 years have not been issued with their Winter Fuel Payment; and if he will set a deadline for these outstanding payments to be made. [152659]

  Mr. Rooker
  For this winter, we estimated that up to 1.5 million additional people could be newly eligible as a result of the changes to the eligibility rules. So far as we have received around 1.3 million claims, but people have until 30 March 2001 to claim a payment for this winter.
  461W
  For past winters, we estimated that up to 1.9 million people could be newly eligible. So far around 1 million claims have been made and paid. There is no time limit on claiming payments for past winters.

  It is open to those who are now eligible to choose whether they wish to make a claim. An information campaign has been running since April to inform existing and potential customers about the changes to the scheme and what, if anything, they need to do.

  Benefit Uptake
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the uptake was in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000 of (A) Child Benefit, (B) Housing Benefit, (C) Council Tax Benefit, (D) Family Credit and (E) Working Families Tax Credit expressed as a percentage of those eligible; and it he will make a statement. [153076]

  Angela Eagle
  Estimates of take up of Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Family Credit for Great Britain are published in annual statistics on "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up", copies of which are in the Library. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates for different parts of Great Britain and the latest published estimates are for 1998–99.

  No statistics are published for Child Benefit; it is believed that on average 98 per cent. of families take up their entitlement to Child Benefit.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the Scottish Executive about increasing levels of benefit take-up. [153072]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are in regular contact with the Scottish Executive over a number of issues. Reducing poverty is an aim of both administrations and the UK Government works in partnership with the Scottish Executive, through mechanisms such as the Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the procedures and operation of the Child Support Agency. [153077]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no current plans to review the procedures and operation of the Child Support Agency. As a result of a fundamental review of child support completed in December 1998, we have undertaken a radical reform of the system, detailed provision for which is contained in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. The new child support scheme will be introduced for new cases by April 2002. Parents who have an existing maintenance assessment will be transferred to the new scheme at a later date when the new arrangements are shown to be working well.

  The new child support scheme will be simpler and easy to understand. Child maintenance will be calculated based on a straightforward percentage of the non-resident parent's net income. The basic rate will be 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two and 25 per cent. For
  462W
  three or more. The Child Support Agency will be radically reformed to provide a service focused on compliance and the needs of its customers.

  Over 1 million more children will gain as a result of the new, simplified system.

  The White Paper "A new contract for welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities" (CM 4349) sets out the scheme in more detail.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of basic state pension he estimates could be paid in 2040 from the projected expenditure on the basic state retirement pension if the retirement age for men and women in 2040 was 70, having been raised by one year every two years between 2030 and 2040. [153292]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency of his Department's policies and action since 2 May 1997. [153283]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £1.0.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East 12,127 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of

  463W
  people claiming Jobseekers Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland. East the number has reduced from 3,200 to 2,900. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East from 1,800 to 1,700.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, so we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 18,000 older people in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 16,900 pensioners in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 6,100 in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. 2,900 pensioner families in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153415]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Private Finance Initiative (Heat Insulation Specification)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what standard of heat insulation is specified for pipework if PFI projects in his Department. [151657]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department expects all service providers, including PFI contractors, to make optimum use of plant, equipment and materials to meet 464W
  the output specifications of contracts in accordance with the policies and targets set by Government in respect of sustainability, environmental and energy conservation requirements. While we do not specify standards, the output specifications of contracts conform to Government standards for sustainability and energy efficiency.

  Traffic Congestion (Rail Disruption)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made as to the effect of reduced performance reliability of the trains on road congestion. [152356]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: DETR has 160 Automatic Traffic Counters continuously measuring traffic on a range of roads throughout the country. Overall these have shown no significant increase in traffic in the weeks after the Hatfield crash compared with similar weeks before the crash. Analysis of 56 Automatic Traffic Count sites in London similarly showed no overall increase in traffic. Similarly, no increase in road traffic has been detected following the Selby rail crash.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the planned budget of the Health and Safety Executive is for each of the next three years. [152606]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Commission's gross budget within the DETR's departmental expenditure limit for the next three years is £247.9 million for 2001–02, £258.8 million for 2002–03 and £264.8 million for 2003–04.

  Of this budget £59.4 million will be raised from income in 2001–2, £58.4 million from income in 2002–03 and £54.4 million from income in 2003–04. The remainder will be paid by the Government from grant-in-aid to the Commission.

  The figures exclude the Health and Safety Laboratory budget, which operates on a net nil administration cost regime.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the budget of the Health and Safety Executive was in each of the last 10 years. [152605]

  Mr. Meacher
  The budget of the Health and Safety Executive for each of the last 10 years is described in the table.

  £000

  Financial year

  Total gross

  Total net

  1991–92

  198,360

  157,700

  1992–93

  215,227

  171,324

  1993–94

  229,199

  180,489

  1994–95

  229,620

  188,364

  1995–96

  228,676

  186,826

  1996–97

  215,885

  179,487

  1997–98

  218,659

  180,957

  1998–99

  221,310

  182,228

  1999–2000

  231,254

  186,855

  2000–01

  247,775

  192,853

  465W
  The total net figures are net of receipts received for publications and other chargeable activities.

  The figures reflect accounting arrangements changed as a result of the Health and Safety Laboratory operating a net running cost regime from 1 April 1996.

  Construction Industry (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many health and safety inspectors who are able to inspect construction sites there are in each Government region. [152607]

  Mr. Meacher
  The number of health and safety inspectors who are able to inspect construction sites is 488. This is broken down on a HSE Divisional basis set out in table 1. These staff are nut all allocated to construction work.

  Table 1: Band 2/3 operational inspectors

  Division

  Number

  Scotland

  60

  Yorkshire and North East

  67

  North West

  68

  Midlands

  69

  Wales and West

  85

  London and South East

  65

  Home Counties

  74

  Total

  488

  Generally, inspection work is carried out by Band 3 inspectors, and managed by Band 2 inspectors. Band 4 inspectors (those under training) do not normally carry out inspection of construction sites.

  The current allocations to construction work for the 2001–02 workyear are as follows.

  Table 2: Band 2/3's allocated to construction work

  Division

  Number

  Scotland

  13

  Yorkshire and North East

  14

  North West

  13

  Midlands

  14

  Wales and West

  17

  London and South East

  27

  Home Counties

  18

  Total

  116

  This figure includes the Band 2 managers who manage the construction groups and produces a total ring fence number of 116 inspectors allocated to construction.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) routine inspections of construction sites and (b) inspections of construction sites in response to an accident there have been in each of the last five years. [152603]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table shows the number of inspection and investigation contacts made by inspectors from HSE's Field Operations Directorate to construction sites (based on the Standard Industrial Classification categorisation) for each of the last five years.466W

  Number of contacts

  Inspection

  Inspection resulting from accident

  1996–97

  33,937

  890

  1997–98

  24,828

  1,087

  1998–99

  21,024

  1,467

  1999–2000

  18,421

  1,670

  2000–011

  14,309

  2,769

  1 Incomplete year using data up to 5 March 2001

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the long-term strategy for the storage of waste arising from the decommissioning of nuclear reactors. [152687]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's policy is that radioactive wastes, including waste from the decommissioning of nuclear reactors, should be managed in ways that protect the safety of the public, the workforce and the environment, now and in the future. This is a complex issue and the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will publish a consultation paper setting out detailed proposals as soon as we can. This paper will begin the process that will lead to the implementation of a radioactive waste management policy capable of commanding widespread support across the UK.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on liaison between the emergency services and local authorities and BNFL on the transportation of nuclear materials by(a) road and (b) rail. [152685]

  Mr. Hill
  All transporters of nuclear material in Great Britain, including BNFL, are required by regulation to have emergency procedures to cover any shipment in the event of an accident. Liaison with local authorities and emergency services is not a regulatory requirement.

  The nuclear industry, including BNFL, has a nationwide emergency response organisation called RADSAFE, which has been drawn up after consultation with the relevant national bodies and organisations, including the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association (CACFOA).

  Selby Rail Accident (Crash Barriers)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to review the adequacy of crash barriers on the approach roads to bridges over railway lines; and if he will make a statement. [152853]

  Mr. Hill
  I am extremely grateful to the HSE and to TRL for their speedy consideration of the factors involved in the tragic accident at Great Heck near Selby on 28 February 2001. HSE and TRL will be continuing their investigations, but it is becoming apparent that there was nothing the railway industry could reasonably have done to prevent the train collision. It also appears that there were no technical matters connected with the road infrastructure that would help explain why the vehicle left the M62 in the first place. The road surface appears to have been adequate and the safety barriers more than met
  467W
  the current standards. We will, of course, have to await the report of the police into the incident. But in the interim my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the HSC to convene and lead a working group that will look at the circumstances of incidents where vehicles have blocked rail lines and whether there are features in common that might have been preventable. In parallel the Highways Agency will be reviewing its standards for safety barriers.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to meet members of the UK youth parliament to discuss the transport and environment issues raised in the parliament's manifesto. [152965]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We will consider sympathetically any request from the UK youth parliament to meet them to discuss the transport and environment issues raised in the parliament's manifesto.

  Housing (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each housing capital improvement project financed by his Department in Islington since 1 May 1997. [153115]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: Since May 1997, the London Borough of Islington has been allocated the following amounts of funding for specific housing capital improvement projects:

  Project/year

  £

  Capital Challenge (Marquess Estate)

  1997–98

  1,500,000

  1998–99

  4,500,000

  1999–2000

  3,500,000

  Estate Action (Harvist Estate)

  1997–98

  1,303,000

  1998–99

  1,693,000

  1999–2000

  1,119,100

  2000–01

  777,900

  2001–02

  500,000

  Single Regeneration Budget

  Kings Cross Partnership (housing projects)

  1997–98

  380,000

  1998–99

  1,962,000

  1999–2000

  1,301,000

  2000–01

  846,000

  2001–02

  577,000

  Finsbury Park (Tollington Estate)

  1999–2000

  45,000

  2000–01

  270,000

  2001–02

  1,200,000

  The following has also been allocated to the borough. However, it is a matter for the local authority to decide how this funding is allocated between their priorities.
  468W

  £

  Housing Investment Programme

  1997–98

  9,996,000

  1998–99

  8,170,000

  1999–2000

  9,816,000

  2000–01

  28,557,000

  2001–02

  12,863,000

  Basic Credit Approvals1

  1997–98

  8,977,000

  1998–99

  11,154,000

  1999–2000

  11,333,000

  2000–01

  27,822,000

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  1997–98

  2,848,000

  1998–99

  9,168,000

  1999–2000

  8,334,000

  Major Repairs Allowance

  2001–02

  25,434,034

  1 All services

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of the formula applied to calculate recycling rates of local authorities. [153432]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Information on the amount of waste collected and recycled by local authorities is obtained on an annual basis through the Department's annual Municipal Waste Management Survey. It is this information that is used to calculate household waste recycling rates at the national and local level. The proposed methodology for calculating the percentage of household waste recycled by local authorities in England was published in the consultation document "Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2001–02" in October 2000. The responses to the consultation exercise were taken into account in producing the final methodology published in Annexe A of the "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies" on 5 March 2001. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has commissioned into the establishment costs of local authorities, as distinct from those related to the size or needs of their populations, and any consequent implications for the studies of local government finance. [153399]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance", notes that future revenue grant distribution formulae could distinguish more clearly between fixed costs and the costs that vary according to the number of people for whom a service is provided.

  To help us explore how such formulae could be developed, we commissioned a scoping study from PricewaterhouseCoopers. The aim of the study was to review the existing evidence, and make recommendations as to the most promising avenues for further research if that was found to be needed. The study will shortly be published on the LGA website: www.lga.gov.uk. It

  469W
  suggests that fixed costs that do not vary much according to the size or needs of authority populations are most likely to relate to authorities' corporate administration costs. Examples are the costs of statutory external audits, and the costs of completing statements of accounts, annual reports and Best Value Performance Plans.

  We are currently considering the implications of the scoping study as part of our review of the local government finance system, including whether we need to commission more detailed follow-up research.

  Airport Operators Association Environmental Guidance Manual
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the AOA environmental guidance manual. [153289]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We welcome AOA's initiative to produce an environmental guidance manual. Any initiative which helps to mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation is to be welcomed. We hope that the manual will assist AOA members in consolidating and improving their environmental performance and building on existing good practice.

  Alcohol and Drug Abuse (Maritime Sector)
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing measures to tackle alcohol and drug abuse in the maritime sector; and if he will make a statement. [153376]

  Mr. Hill
  The Queen's Speech on 6 December outlined the Government's intention to draft a Safety Bill. We will use this opportunity to introduce a prescribed blood/alcohol limit for professional and recreational mariners with accompanying powers for the police to test suspects. We also intend to take permissive powers to allow testing for drugs.

  We propose to set a 80 mg per 100 ml blood/alcohol limit for mariners of all types of civil waterborne transport in UK waters, including non-UK vessels. It will be illegal for mariners, on duty, on board any commercial vessel or fishing vessel to be above the limit or to be unfit to fulfil their duties due to being intoxicated through drink. In the interest of passenger safety on passenger vessels or ferries the limit will apply to off-duty crew having a safety critical function in the event of an emergency. Those involved in the navigation or propulsion of recreational craft while in motion and not moored will also be included.

  The proposed measures follow from recommendations made by Lord Justice Clarke in his Thames Safety Inquiry report published in December 1999 and a consultation exercise conducted by my Department last year. Responses to the consultation paper were largely supportive of the proposals and a summary has been placed in the Library of the House and a compilation of the full response is available in my Department's library.

  Computer Failures
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment 470W
  of risk he has made of the impact of a major computer disaster on the work of his Department; what steps he has taken to minimise the effects of such a disaster; and what the standard of compliance is to protect his Department from its effects. [152546]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Risk assessments have been made of the potential impact on DETR(C)'s business of any major incidents, including those affecting computer systems. Measures are in place to minimise the effects of such an incident, including back-up of information, off-site storage and the identification of alternative work locations. Extensive plans are also in place to maintain essential operations and restore normal working with the minimum of delay. DETR(C)'s computer systems comply with Government Information Security Standards and the Department is currently working towards compliance with BS 7799 in the Security Management of key information processes.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all of the bidders for NATS are committed to the development of the air traffic control centre at Prestwick. [153281]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Yes. It is a fundamental requirement of all bidders. Furthermore, the commitment to develop and complete major air traffic control projects is enshrined in the Transport Act 2000, in clause 51 (3). This clause is specifically aimed at ensuring that Prestwick is completed.

  Waste Transfer Station, Sompting
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he received the Inspector's report on the public inquiry into the Halewick Lane Waste Transfer Station at Sompting, West Sussex. [153124]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions received the Inspector's report on the proposed waste management centre on 16 February 2001.

  Transboundary Air Pollution
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, transport and the Regions when his Department's national expert group on transboundary Air Pollution will publish its report into acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone in the UK. [153495]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report of the national expert group on Transboundary Air Pollution will be published today on the internet as a "draft" for comment. I will also arrange for copies to be placed in the House Libraries at that time.

  The draft conclusions of the expert group show a mixed picture on the impact of air pollution on ecosystems in the UK. For instance the, reduction in sulphur emissions has led to a 50 per cent. reduction in "acid rain" in the UK in the last 12 years, and as a result, some ecosystems are showing signs of recovery. However, following recent scientific developments, the expert group concludes that the continued impact of air pollution on ecosystems may be more widespread than previously calculated.
  471W
  The report is being issued in draft to allow the scientific community and other interested parties the opportunity to review and comment on the scientific developments and draft findings before the group publish their final report in August or September 2001.

  The draft report will also be available via the DETR's Environment Protection web pages, http:// www.environment.detr.gov.uk/conindex.htm

  Buildings (Non-occupational Accidents)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been spent annually by his Department since 1997 on research undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive and by the Building Research Establishment into the prevention of non-occupational injuries related to building regulations and design features. [153177]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Falls on stairs has been identified as the main type of non-occupational accident that involves design features. Research work in this area has been funded by Building Regulations Division, with support from HSE. The research, which was carried out by the Building Research Establishment, has concentrated on improving the design of guarding and stairs. The annual cost of this research to date has been:

  1998–99—£131,665

  1999–00—£105,987

  2000–01—£150,309 (£97,704 from Building Regulations + £52,605 from HSE).

  The work is expected to continue.

  Flooding (Housing Benefit)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department plans to assist persons forced by recent floods to move into temporary accommodation who receive housing benefit for one property but have to pay rents for the flooded and the temporary properties. [152443]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle),Official Report, column 460W.

  Wafic Said Business School, Oxford
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 219W, on the Wafic Said Business School, what representations were received by (a) him and (b) his officials from (i) other Government Ministers and (ii) officials about (A) the nature of his decision and (B) the timescale of his decision and its announcement, on whether to call in the listed buildings application (98/4580/L Oxford City Council) to dismantle the former London Midland Scottish railway station, Oxford. [152462]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: Our records include no representations on whether to call in the listed buildings application (98/45801L Oxford City Council) to dismantle the former London Midland Scottish railway station, Oxford from other Government Ministers or officials. However, they do include a representation from the hon. Member made on 18 August
  472W
  1998 asking that the application should not be called in and pointing out the adverse impact that any delay in the decision would have on the Oxford Transport Strategy.

  Once the decision not to call in the application had been reached, the timing of the announcement was discussed with officials in 10 Downing street in the normal way.

TREASURY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the quotas for lending to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board. [153704]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Public Works Loan Commissioners have issued a circular today notifying local authorities that the formula for calculating quotas for 2001–02 will remain unchanged from that for the present financial year.

  A copy of the circular has been placed in the House Library.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of absence from work due to sickness and injury for workers was in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [146961]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not maintain these statistics. The Cabinet Office does, however, publish each year a report on sickness absence in the civil service and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) on 15 February 2001, Official Report, columns 269–70W, for the position in 1999.

  The Office for National Statistics, through its Labour Force Survey, collects data on working days lost to illness and injury. The results, published quarterly in "Labour Market Trends", are not presented by the public and private sectors.

  Motor Fuel
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on tackling the smuggling of motor fuel products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [153426]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to tackling this problem and since September 2000 have increased by a factor of four the resources for tackling it in Northern Ireland. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 123W.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful prosecutions there have been in respect of the smuggling of motor fuel products
  473W
  into Northern Ireland; and how many vehicles smuggling motor fuel products into Northern Ireland have been seized in 2001. [153425]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The data for the opening months of 2001 are not yet available.

  Family Incomes
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of(a) families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit, (b) families in receipt of the child tax credit and (c) people in receipt of the national minimum wage in each constituency in Scotland. [152463]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For information on the Working Families Tax Credit, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W.

  It is estimated that 400,000 families in Scotland will be eligible for the Children's Tax Credit, which is to be introduced for the tax year 2001–02 No reliable estimates are available for each constituency.

  As to the information sought on the, national minimum wage, the national statistician has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These are based on an improved methodology using data from both the New Earnings Survey and Labour Force Survey. Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government office regions, including Scotland, are available on the national statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp No estimates are available for parliamentary constituencies.

  Computer Failures
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment of risk has been made of the impact to the UK economy in the event of the Inland Revenue being unable to collect or distribute funds for a period of more than three days due to massive computer failure. [152547]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue keeps under constant review its assessment of risks to its operations, including the collection and distribution of funds. It has full, tested contingency plans in place to minimise the impacts of any problems in a range of circumstances, up to and including massive computer failure.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Wansbeck are claiming the Disabled Persons Tax Credit. [153138]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W.

  VAT (Fitness Clubs)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Fitness Industry Association concerning VAT exemption for health-related fitness clubs. [152862]
  474W
  Dawn Primarolo
  No representations have been received from this association.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward legislation to allow children of Welsh parents born in England to be entitled to a Welsh birth certificate; and if he will make a statement. [152882]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government will consider using the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Bill, currently going through the House, to address this issue.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his target for the time within which the Inland Revenue replies to hon. Members' letters about the Working Families Tax Credit. [152952]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Target times are set out in the Treasury's public service agreement, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 103W, what proportion of employees are overpaying tax and national insurance as a result of the Working Families Tax Credit. [151862]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Deducting tax and national insurance is the responsibility of employers and the January 2001 "Employers Bulletin", sent to all employers, reminded them of how tax credits should be paid. When the Inland Revenue uncovers errors in the course of its work, or is approached by employees or employers when things go wrong during the year, it helps employers to put things right so that any temporary overpayments are corrected at the earliest opportunity.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of(a) the number of people who have claimed the children's tax credit to date and (b) the number who had claimed by 31 January. [152016]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Inland Revenue has invited PAYE taxpayers to claim for the children's tax credit (CTC). By 7 March they had received 3.2 million claim forms, which represents 80 per cent. of the potential 4 million families who are eligible for CTC and pay tax under PAYE. The position at the end of January was that the Inland Revenue had received 2.9 million forms. Claims are still coming in, and any which have not been dealt with in time for April pay

  475W
  will be backdated under the tax rules to April 2001 so that the claimant has the benefit of the tax cut for the whole of the tax year. The self-employed claim in the normal way when they complete their 2001–02 tax return.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what resources he has made available to publicise and promote the new children's tax credit; and if he will make extra resources available to increase the number of telephone advisers on the helpline. [151620]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On publicity, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 568W. The Inland Revenue has deployed extra staff to the helpline to deal with the increased number of calls resulting from the latest campaign.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the number of calls handled by the new children's tax credit helpline and (b) the level of staffing and resources allocated for the helpline. [151621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The children's tax credit helpline and orderline has taken around 1.9 million calls. The number of calls increased during the most recent advertising campaign and the Inland Revenue increased the number of staff deployed on the helpline.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it has been the policy for improvements to public sector pension schemes to be applied retrospectively; and if he will make a statement. [152161]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments that discretionary changes to improve the benefits from public service pension schemes should normally be implemented from a current date for future service of active members only.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since 3 May 1997, he has met members of the Hinduja family; where such meetings took place; and for what purpose. [148547]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 224W.

  Hammond Inquiry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to establish and publish the source of leaks to the media concerning the Hammond Inquiry. [153259]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The draft report of the Hammond Inquiry was not a Government document. I received Sir Anthony Hammond's report on 8 March 2001 and it was published on 9 March 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood on 30 January, relating to the Hinduja family. [153254]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Relations (Expenditure)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149257]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure by MAFF for the financial years 1996–97, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and planned expenditure for 2000–01 on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper per advertising and (iii) direct mail, is as follows:

  £

  Public opinion research

  Television, radio and newspaper advertising

  Direct mail1

  1996–97

  78,000

  109,000

  1,454,000

  1997–98

  257,000

  248,000

  1,254,000

  1998–99

  164,000

  834,000

  943,000

  1999–2000

  386,740

  614,104

  1,036,000

  2000–012

  83,000

  360,712

  1,043,000

  1 Including the despatch of forms and explanatory material to farmers for MAFF administered schemes

  2 Actual spending to date

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151505]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: A list of the major IT projects costing most than £100,000 and undertaken in the current year is shown in the table, together with the requested supplementary information. This includes a number of projects for the monitoring and control of animal diseases, as well as on-going projects for the payment of a number of common agricultural policy schemes which need annual amendment to take account of changes agreed by the EU. Costs relating to maintenance of existing systems and services are excluded.

  Major IT projects are approved (or rejected) on the basis of business eases indicating the benefits to the Department to be delivered from the expenditure, and are managed by formal project boards chaired by senior staff.
  477W
  To ensure probity and value for money, procurements are undertaken in compliance with EC public procurement rules, UK Government domestic procurement policy and best practice guidance to ensure probity and value for money, government accounting rules and National Audit

  IT project

  End date

  Total

  State Veterinary Service network/TB implementation

  1—

  5,306,704

  Replacement for current Vet Net systems—pilot projects

  July 2001

  150,000

  Cattle Ear Tag Allocation System

  April 2001

  200,000

  Geographical Information Systems for Animal Disease Control

  April 2001

  542,133

  British Cattle Movement Service Strategic Enhancements and Integration Testing of IT System

  1—

  3,204,727

  Web Access to Cattle Tracing System

  May 2001

  1,759,153

  Monitoring of Animal Movements within UK and EC

  1—

  237,965

  Pet Travel Scheme

  August 2000

  250,000

  GB Cattle Herd Registration Development

  November 2000

  1,367,000

  Scrapie Control System

  July 2001

  1,908,223

  Food Survey System replacement

  March 2002

  1,329,020

  Grants and Subsidies Management System for Common Agricultural Policy Payments

  1—

  2,823,476

  Combined Bovine Risk Assessment Scheme

  December 2001

  2,151,500

  Beef Extensification Premium Scheme

  May 2001

  1,339,000

  New Common Agricultural Policy Support Systems

  1—

  15,846,854

  Cattle Slaughter Premium Scheme

  1—

  1,767,500

  Agenda 2000

  1—

  1,378,650

  Hill Farmers Allowance

  May 2001

  1,838,501

  England Rural Development Programme

  February 2003

  2,135,375

  Sea Fish Management Systems

  1—

  394,005

  Fisheries Satellite Surveillance

  July 2003

  322,541

  Integration of Existing Building and Estate Management Databases

  1—

  1,553,085

  Upgrade to Financial Systems and reporting tools

  1—

  10,878,802

  E-Commerce

  December 2001

  1,867,334

  Replacement Office/Corporate Systems

  December 2001

  9,827,835

  Central Science Laboratories (CSL): Integrated Business Information System

  October 2001

  500,000

  CSL:Upgrade to Hardware to run new Office Systems

  May 2001

  250,000

  Centre for Environmental, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS): Laboratory Information Management Systems

  March 2003

  350,000

  CEFAS: Biological Sampling System

  March 2003

  120,000

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA): Invest to Save Interdepartmental project (MAGIC) Geographical Information System

  April 2002

  462,000

  FRCA: Cartography Tool Kit

  April 2003

  930,000

  FRCA: basic mapping for administration of agri-environment schemes

  October 2001

  292,000

  Intervention Board (IB): Oracle Multi Org for Intervention Board

  February 2001

  252,000

  IB: Block Guarantee Scheme System Redevelopment

  April 2001

  198,000

  IB: Audit Logging

  December 2001

  187,548

  IB: Data Integration

  March 2001

  287,833

  IB: Brussels Matrix

  March 2001

  429,018

  IB: Modulation

  June 2001

  350,000

  IB: Over Thirty Month Scheme System Extension

  July 2001

  343,214

  IB: Slaughter Premium Scheme System Development

  June 2001

  735,428

  IB: Porting PI Open Systems to Universe

  December 2001

  1,150,000

  1 Annual revision required

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151469]

  Project costs (£)

  Start date

  End date

  Orthophotos to support Integrated Administration and Control Systems Geographical Information Systems in Agricultural Payments' Agency

  250,000

  April 2001

  March 2002

  Redevelopment of Common Agricultural Policy Payment Schemes

  47,000,000

  April 2001

  March 2004

  Intervention Board (IB): Oracle Release 1li

  200,000

  May 2001

  July 2002

  IB: Oracle Personnel System Update

  210,000

  October 2001

  March 2002

  478W
  Office requirements. MAFF is also implementing the relevant recommendations of the report "Successful IT—Modernising Government in Action", published in May, 2000.

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: A list of the new IT projects costing more than £100,000 and expected to start in 2001–02 is shown, with the requested supplementary information. Costs relating to maintenance of existing systems and services are excluded.

  BSE
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis his Department has made of the costs of(a) rendering carcases killed under the OTMS prior to incineration and (b) direct incineration of such carcases. [151817]

  Ms Quin
  Rendering, meat and bonemeal incineration and direct carcase incineration services were procured by the Intervention Board through tenders conducted under EC rules.

  Rates charged by individual suppliers vary. Costs by each route are regularly compared. Historically, on a per animal basis, rendering followed by incineration of the resultant MBM and tallow has been cheaper than direct carcase incineration.

  However, following recently concluded negotiations leading to the extension of direct carcase incineration contracts, the costs of each disposal route are now more closely aligned.

  Imported Meat
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inspections are carried out, and by whom, on meat imports from(a) EU countries and (b) other countries. [151672]

  Ms Quin
  Community legislation requires member states to comply with strict hygiene rules in the production of meat and meat products in the Community before they are approved to trade. Among other things, this sets out the licensing, structural and veterinary supervision requirements to be applied in all meat plants before they can export.

  The European Commission is responsible for ensuring member states fulfil their obligations. EU legislation also provides for member states to carry out checks at points of destination. These are carried out by Meat Hygiene Service official veterinary surgeons at licensed premises, local authorities and the State Veterinary Service in the UK. Depending on the perceived health risk, checks at destination may be random or 100 per cent. Following the recent identification of specified risk material in imports of meat from Germany and the current foot and mouth disease problems in the UK, the Meat Hygiene Service has been instructed to step up levels of inspection at cutting plants and cold stores to ensure that increased volumes of imports can be checked for the necessary health marks and correct documentation.

  All meat imported from third countries into the UK must enter at designated UK border inspection posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterinary checking. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks in accordance with EU legislation. These checks are to ensure that conditions of import into the Community have been complied with and that the products have remained in a satisfactory condition during transport. They are carried out by official veterinary surgeons employed by the local authority in which the BIP is located.
  480W
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on banning the importation of beef, pigmeat and sheepmeat from countries suffering from outbreaks of(a) foot and mouth disease and (b) swine fever. [151916]

  Ms Quin
  The importation into the European Community of fresh meat from third countries is governed by Community legislation.

  When outbreaks of notifiable disease occur (including both classical swine fever and foot and mouth disease) the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 allow the Government to prohibit the import of meat from a country or part thereof. On notification of an outbreak these Regulations allow the UK to issue a Declaration prohibiting meat from the relevant country or part thereof. They are effective from the date and time of signature and are sent immediately to all enforcement authorities. These Declarations remain in force pending the adoption of appropriate Community legislation. These provisions apply equally to outbreaks in member states and in third countries.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate the Ministry has made of the total amount of imported meat in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [152379]

  Ms Quin
  Official Overseas Trade Statistics show that the total amount of meat and meat products imported into the UK in 1997 to 2000 was as follows:

  Thousand

  Year

  Tonnes

  1997

  1,195

  1998

  1,187

  1999

  1,300

  2000

  1,427

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excite

  Forecasts for 2001 are not published.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the control measures in other countries which export meat and meat products to the UK. [152418]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: All consignments of meat imported into the UK must have been produced in accordance with the harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC (as amended) (fresh meat) and Council Directive 77/99/EEC (as amended) (meat products). Among other things, these Directives set out the licensing, structural and veterinary supervision requirements to be applied in meat plants.

  Ensuring that all member states comply with their Community obligations in properly implementing and applying the Directives is the responsibility of the European Commission, whose Food and Veterinary Office carries our regular programmes of inspection visits to all member states. Depending on the perceived health risk, checks at destination may be random or 100 per cent. Following the recent identification of specified risk material in imports of meat from Germany and the current foot and mouth disease problems in the UK, the Meat Hygiene Service has been instructed to step up levels of

  481W
  inspection at cutting plants and cold stores to ensure that increased volumes of imports can be checked for the necessary health marks and correct documentation. The Food and Veterinary Office is also responsible for carrying out inspections in the third countries from which fresh meat is imported into the Community.

  All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK border inspection posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition. They are carried out by official veterinary surgeons employed by the local authority in which the BIP is located. In line with Community rules, random spot checks at destination may be carried out on consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK from other EU member states.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will break down the amounts paid by(a) the EU and (b) the UK Government for each year the UK has drawn down agrimonetary compensation. [151829]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 8 March 2001, Official Report, column 337W.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to claim agrimonetary funds from the EU; and if he will make a statement. [152283]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 5 March 2001, Official Report, column 103W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the results of his investigations into the source of each outbreak of foot and mouth disease in England and Wales. [152019]

  Ms Quin
  Initial epidemiological evidence suggests that the outbreak appears to have started in one premises in north-east England and spread from there. The main cause of spread appears to be the movement of sheep for trade purposes. Investigations are continuing into the original source. Information on the initial epidemiological findings will be published.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he uses to judge when an outbreak of foot and mouth disease is called an epidemic; and if he will make a statement. [151918]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Based on a definition of an epidemic as a large number of cases occurring simultaneously in the livestock population, it is too early to say whether the current outbreak represents an epidemic.
  482W
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to identify the cause of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and its point of origin. [151936]

  Ms Quin:
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Detailed epidemiological investigations are being undertaken for each of the confirmed outbreaks. Initial findings suggest that the outbreak appears to have started in one premises in north-east England and spread from there. The main cause of spread appears to be the movement of sheep for trade purposes. Investigations are continuing into the original source. Information on the initial epidemiological findings will be published.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sea defence projects(a) are in progress and (b) were completed in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [152884]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is only readily available in relation to schemes undertaken by the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards, for which the Ministry is providing grant aid.

  Currently, 64 such sea defence schemes are in progress. The numbers of sea defence schemes for which the Ministry was notified of substantial completion in 1999 and 2000 were 34 and 14 respectively.

  Meat Imports (Africa)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was first informed of the risk to animal health arising from(a) legitimate and (b) smuggled meat from Africa; and what action was taken. [152840]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The importation into the Community of fresh meat from third countries is governed by harmonised Community legislation. Under these rules, imports are only permitted from those countries or parts thereof where there is not considered to be a risk to human and animal health.

  All meat imported directly into the UK from third countries must enter, and is subject to veterinary inspections, at designated UK border inspection posts (BIP). All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments are subject to physical checks in accordance. These checks are to ensure that conditions of import have been complied with and that the products have remained in a satisfactory condition during transport. They are carried out by official veterinary surgeons employed by the local authority in which the BIP is located.

  With regard to illegal imports of meat we are aware of continuing risk that meat could be brought into the UK either from third countries or via other Member States which do not comply with UK import conditions. Both MAFF and Customs officials take immediate action and as soon as such consignments are identified. Any meat identified as illegal is seized and destroyed.

  Haddock Stocks
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on haddock stocks resulting from the closure of North Sea cod areas. [152839]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: Given the prevalence of juvenile haddock in the northern North Sea urgent consideration is being given to improved technical conservation measures. These are necessary whether or not there has been diversion of effort from cod to haddock.

  Export of Hides and Skins
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from businesses exporting hides and skins; and if he will make a statement. [153436]

  Ms Quin
  We have had a number of inquiries from businesses concerning the export of hides and skins. They have been advised that such exports can take place so long as they meet the requirements of Commission Decision 2001/172/EC.

  Under Commission Decision 98/256/EC (as amended), however, bovine hides may not be exported to a destination outside the UK if they are intended for use in human food, animal feed, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and medical products.

  Agricultural Employment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his estimate is of the number of people employed in agriculture in each of the past 15 years; and what the percentage change was in each year. [152696]

  Ms Quin
  The information for England is provided in the table.

  Total labour force on farms (England)

  Year

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage change

  1986

  488.5

  —

  1987

  477.9

  -2.2

  1988

  469.9

  -1.7

  1989

  457.4

  -2.7

  1990

  455.9

  -0.3

  1991

  445.0

  -2.4

  1992

  440.2

  -1.1

  1993

  437.7

  -0.6

  1994

  430.9

  -1.6

  1995

  425.2

  -1.3

  1996

  420.5

  -1.1

  1997

  417.0

  -0.8

  1998

  415.0

  —

  1999

  397.7

  -4.2

  2000

  373.9

  -6.0

  Note:

  In 1998, fundamental changes were made to the June Census labour questions which may have affected response. Therefore, figures from 1998 onwards are not strictly comparable with those for earlier years.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Compulsory Slaughter
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis farmers whose healthy livestock are compulsorily slaughtered are compensated. [152328]

  Ms Quin
  The level of compensation is set out in Schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Where the animal slaughtered was affected with foot and mouth disease, compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it became affected. In every other case, (eg animals exposed to infection but not affected) compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before slaughter.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the rates of compensation are for farm animals destroyed under foot and mouth control orders. [152416]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The level of compensation is set out in Schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Where the animal slaughtered was affected with foot and mouth disease, compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it became affected. In every other case, (eg animals exposed to infection but not affected) compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before slaughter.

  Farming (Young Entrants)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what encouragement the Government give to young entrants to farming; and if he will make a statement. [152291]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Young people can most effectively be helped through policies, such as those under the Action Plan for Farming, that support an efficient, competitive and environmentally aware agricultural industry that will be sustainable in the future. Further measures under the England Rural Development Programme will be targeted at young entrants where appropriate.

  Export Refund Certificates
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the regime of control regarding export refund certificates; [152184]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the decision of the European Union to apply a cut-off at the end of each application period For the operation of export refund certificates; [152186]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the European Commission on its decision to restrict refunds on processed goods by introducing the export refund certificate system; [152183]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the mechanism recently introduced by the European Union to split the year into six application periods for the operation of export refund certificates; [152185]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the policy of the EU to apply reducing co-efficients to exports and on the impact this will have upon (a) the exporting agents and (b) the principal's budgets. [152187]
  485W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The EU is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round agreement to reducing expenditure on export refunds. This applies to export refunds for both agricultural raw materials and to processed agricultural products. These refunds are provided to compensate for the higher price of EU raw agricultural materials which is supported under the CAP and is higher than prices on the world market.

  The UK's long-term aim is the reform of CAP to lower EU prices and to remove the need for export refunds—but this will take time. Meanwhile our priority is to ensure that WTO and CAP budgetary commitments are honoured with minimum damage to export competitiveness of UK industry. In consultation and with the support of our industry my Department has been active in developing these arrangements with the Commission.

  A system of refund certificates was introduced last year with the agreement of member states to keep expenditure within WTO limits. Under this system there are six tranches available in which traders may obtain time-limited refund certificates. These tranches are intended to facilitate planned access to refunds by traders throughout the year. If demand for certificates exceeds funds allocated within a tranche, access to refunds is adjusted by means of a reducing coefficient. The intention at times of such shortfall is to provide increased flexibility to enable processors to access raw materials at (cheaper) prices from the world market.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the chief constable of the Thames Valley to discuss Oxfordshire police numbers. [151706]

  Mr. Straw
  I have discussions with the chief constable, Charles Pollard, from time to time, the latest of which took place this morning.

  The Thames Valley force is in a strong position in terms of the resources available to it. The force has been allocated a total of 325 crime fighting fund recruits. In the next financial year, the force will receive funding support of £245.1 million, an increase of £13.4 million or 5.8 per cent. over 2000–01. The force will also receive £1.3 million from the rural policing fund. The national recruitment campaign should boost recruitment to the force and has already led to 437 expressions of interest being passed to Thames Valley.

  As a result of the range of measures we have taken, the chief constable has told me that he is "quietly hopeful" of the positive impact which they will have on police numbers in his force.

  Further to this, I am pleased to announce to the House today that I have accepted the police negotiating board's (PNB's) recommendation that there should be an additional annual allowance paid to officers in eight forces in the south-east.

  In the five forces bordering the Metropolitan Police service—Thames Valley, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey—the allowance will be £2,000 per annum. In the
  486W
  remaining three forces in the south east—Bedfordshire, Hampshire and Sussex—the annual allowance will be £1,000. The new allowance will be payable with effect from 1 April 2001 and will be paid to officers and rejoiners appointed on or after 1 September 1994 who are not in receipt of housing allowance.

  This is a good deal for forces in the south-east. The new allowance should help them both to recruit more constables and to retain experienced officers, and ensure that officers in these forces can meet the higher costs associated with living in the region.

  The allowance, combined with the unprecedented funding that we are now investing in the police service as a whole, will help ensure that the recent upturn in police numbers is sustained in Thames Valley, in the south-east more generally, and across the country.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving police officers there were on 31 March and 30 September for each year between 1997 and 2000. [151676]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: Police numbers on 31 March and 30 September for each year between 1997 and 2000 are given in the table.

  Police numbers 1997 to 2000

  Year

  As at 31 March

  As at 30 September

  1997

  127,158

  126,862

  1998

  126,814

  126,679

  1999

  126,096

  125,394

  2000

  124,170

  124,614

  Note:

  Full-time equivalents

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Police Service Strength 2/01" (to September 2000)

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in Sussex(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the last date for which figures are available. [151783]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 614W.

  Prison Accommodation
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the existing and future provision of prison accommodation. [151711]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total certified operational capacity of the prison estate was 71,461 on 2 March 2001. A new 800-place prison, Dovegate prison in Staffordshire, is scheduled to open in July this year.

  The Prison Service has also been funded to increase capacity by a further 2,660 by 2004.

  Street Watches
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce uniformed street watches in urban areas to support the work of the police. [151715]
  487W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are already jointly funding a neighbourhood wardens programme across England and Wales. The majority of the schemes are within urban areas. Neighbourhood wardens have a supportive and complementary role to the police, local authority and local partnerships to help tackle antisocial behaviour, make environmental improvements in a neighbourhood, have a real effect on the quality of life of local communities, and reduce crime and the fear of crime.

  Early Release Scheme
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been released under the early release scheme before serving half their sentences. [151716]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prisoners sentenced to four years imprisonment or less may be released before serving half their sentences under the provisions of the home detention curfew scheme. From the inception of the scheme in January 1999 until 26 February 2001, 32,510 prisoners have been released on home detention curfew.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the functioning of the national asylum support scheme. [151717]

  Mrs. Roche
  The new asylum support arrangements were brought in on a phased basis from 3 April 2000 and by 29 August the national asylum support service (NASS) had assumed responsibility for the majority of all new asylum seekers. In addition, since 25 September all eligible disbenefited cases are now the responsibility of NASS. This has limited the responsibility of local authorities in providing support for asylum seekers.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the national asylum support service. [151724]

  Mrs. Roche
  The new asylum support arrangements were brought in on a phased basis from 3 April 2000, and by 29 August the national asylum support service (NASS) had assumed responsibility for the majority of all new asylum seekers. In addition, since 25 September 2000 all eligible disbenefited cases are now the responsibility of NASS. As at the end of January 2001, NASS was providing voucher only support on 9,9601 asylum seekers including dependants and 19,8201 asylum seekers, including dependants, had been allocated accommodation.
  1 All figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest ten.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the level of drug-related crime. [151718]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Measures in hand include national roll-out of the drug treatment and testing order from October 2000 and the development of arrest referral schemes where virtually all police custody suites will be covered by April 2001, 12 months ahead of schedule.
  488W
  New initiatives planned include piloting the extension of drug testing across the criminal justice system from spring 2001. Consideration will also be given to the use of specialist drug review hearings to handle cases involving drug misusing offenders and the scope for setting up a police register for drug dealers similar to that which already exists for sex offenders.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 7 March extra funding over three years for the fight against drugs. This includes £220 million to be channelled through crime and disorder reduction partnerships to help the police and local communities to disrupt local drug markets and drive out the drug dealers. We will also be announcing shortly details of further funding for programmes to tackle drug-related crime.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with French Ministers regarding illegal immigrants; and if he will make a statement. [151719]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has frequent discussions with French Ministers about illegal immigration and related issues. In particular, he had full discussions with them at the United Kingdom/ French summit on 9 February.

  The summit confirmed the joint intention to introduce juxtaposed controls at the Eurostar terminals in June. In addition, French Ministers agreed to legislate quickly to ensure that all passengers travelling by train between France and the United Kingdom will be subject to the relevant controls, regardless of their destination.

  In addition, on 9 March my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met his French, German, Spanish and Italian counterparts in London to discuss immigration and other issues of common interest.

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with local authorities regarding the increase of cemetery provision. [151720]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. Provision of cemetery facilities is a matter for local decision, but we plan to convene an advisory group consisting of the key professional and representative organisations, including the local authorities, to consider a range of issues concerning burial law, practice and resources.

  Liquor Licensing Reform
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has drawn from the consultation on the Government's liquor licensing reform White Paper. [151722]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is presently considering the responses we have received to the White Paper. He hopes to announce his final decisions on the way forward very soon. We have been pleased by the level of support for the proposed modernisation of the system.
  489W
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding proposals to reform licensing hours in England and Wales. [151736]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The White Paper "Time for Reform: the Modernisation of our Licensing Laws" (Cm 4696), published on 10 April 2000, included a proposal to introduce flexible opening hours to minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, subject to consideration of the impact on local residents. Of the 420 responses which commented specifically on licensing hours, 56 per cent. were in favour of this proposal.

  CCTV
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the take-up of funding under the Government's scheme for supporting local CCTV systems since its inception. [151723]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the crime reduction programme closed circuit television (CCTV) initiative, more than £64 million has so far been allocated to crime and disorder reduction partnerships to help set up, extend or improve over 350 CCTV schemes in England and Wales.

  Further initial funding applications submitted by partnerships under the second round of the CCTV initiative are currently under assessment. We expect to advise partnerships of the outcome of the applications very shortly.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being held in detention under provisions of immigration law. [151725]

  Mrs. Roche
  The most recent information relates to the number of people detained under the Immigration Act 1971 as at 31 January 2001. At that (late a total of 1,334 people were recorded as detained.

  Current information on people detained who have claimed asylum is not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the detention centre rules 2001 will apply to all asylum seekers subject to detention. [151733]

  Mrs. Roche
  Detention centre rules 2001 apply to all those detainees accommodated in dedicated immigration detention centres. Persons detained in Prison Service establishments are governed by prison rules.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) illegal immigrants and (b) asylum seekers have been (i) refused asylum and (ii) deported since 1 January. [151737]

  Mrs. Roche
  In January 2001, 485 people were removed from the United Kingdom following illegal entry action. Of this number, 255 had sought asylum at some point.
  490W
  The number of initial decisions to refuse asylum and exceptional leave to remain taken in January 2001 was 10,935. The total number of unsuccessful asylum seekers removed in January 2001 was 635.

  Information on the number of illegal immigrants refused asylum is not readily available and could be produced only by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  I regret that data for February are not yet available. Figures given in this reply are provisional and have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Persistent Young Offenders
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to deal with persistent young offenders. [151726]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As part of their youth justice reforms, the Government have introduced a range of new and improved community and custodial sentences to improve the options available to the courts. Most recently, we have introduced curfew orders for 10 to 15-year-olds. Work also continues to deliver the youth justice pledge, halving the arrest to sentence time for persistent young offenders. We have already cut nearly 50 days from the 1996 average. This year we will be introducing new intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, targeting the 2,500 most persistent young offenders in the community each year. In the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, we have proposed extending the juvenile secure remand criteria to include those with a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while on bail or in local authority accommodation. We have also proposed electronic monitoring to supplement supervised bail.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the means of preventing electoral fraud relating to false claims of residence for voting purposes. [151727]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Electoral registration officers have a duty to ensure that their registers are accurate. They are entitled to investigate any claims for registration which they consider may be fraudulent and can remove names from the register if they have information which suggests that a person is not resident at the registered address. I am confident that electoral registration officers carry out their duties thoroughly and diligently.

  Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the recruitment of black people and ethnic minorities in the Metropolitan police service. [151728]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1999, my right hon. Friend published "Dismantling Barriers", which set all forces targets and an action plan for the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic officers. The Metropolitan police's target is for 25 per cent. of its officers to be from minority ethnic communities by 2009. The force has established a positive action team to take
  491W
  forward "Dismantling Barriers" through a range of initiatives which include the appointment of trained local recruiters with particular responsibility for minority ethnic recruitment; a programme to provide support to members of minority ethnic people who wish to join the police service; and a project to increase the number of minority ethnic graduate police officers.

  Referendums
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government plan to hold a referendum on the voting system for elections to the House. [151729]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government remain committed to holding a referendum on the voting system, but no decisions have been made as to its timing, or the question to be asked.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements his Department makes for administering referendums. [151730]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 128 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides that the chairman of the Electoral Commission (or a person appointed by him) is to be the chief counting officer in any national or regional referendum to which part VII of the Act applies (save in the case of a referendum held in Northern Ireland only where the chief electoral officer is designated chief counting officer). It will be for the chief counting officer and the Electoral Commission to oversee the conduct of a referendum poll in accordance with an order made under section 129 of the Act.

  Police Morale
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the state of police morale. [151731]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 11 December 2000, Official Report, column 65W.

  By 2003–04, funding for policing will have risen by almost £1.6 billion against the provision for this year, which is a rise of nearly 21 per cent. in cash terms and 11.8 per cent. in real terms. The crime fighting fund will enable police forces to recruit 9,000 police officers over and above the number previously planned in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03, with the aim of bringing numbers overall to record levels.

  By 30 September 2000, police strength was up 444 compared with strength at 31 March 2000. The number of police recruits starting their initial residential training in the period April 2000 to February 2001 (6,096) was up 72 per cent. on the same period in the previous financial year.

  Non-Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to strengthen public confidence in non-custodial sentences. [151732]
  492W
  Mr. Boateng
  It is vital that both the public and sentencers have confidence in non-custodial penalties. The following measures have been taken to achieve this aim:we have made it clear to the Probation Service that it must raise its performance oil enforcement of community sentences. Independent enforcement audits on cases commenced early and late in 1999 showed that the correct enforcement of breach procedures for community sentences improved significantly from 44 per cent. to 62 per cent. of cases being dealt with properly. This is welcome but there is still a long way to go. A third national audit is being conducted to keep up the pressure for further improvement;
  in April 2000, new national standards were introduced that tightened the standards for enforcement of community sentences so that offenders are returned to court no later than after second unacceptable failure to comply rather than, as previously, the third such failure;
  new enforcement measures contained in section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 provide that where the court finds an Afender in breach of his community order and takes the view that he is unlikely to go on successfully to complete the order ii must impose a custodial penalty, other than in exceptional circumstances;
  we are developing it range of high-quality offending behaviour programmes in the community, and we have set up a new process of accreditation, involving an independent panel of experts to ensure that only the most effective and cost-effective, evidence-based programmes are rolled out across the country;
  from April, responsibility for the execution of warrants, including fine warrants, will pass from the police to magistrates courts. This will provide a clearer focus than the present arrangements and deliver better enforcement;
  we are conducting a study under the crime reduction programme to identify best practice for fine enforcement. At present, various strategies are being piloted in a number of courts, and the results will be assessed later this year;
  from April, measures in the Access to Justice Act 1999 will be implemented enabling, under certain circumstances, the Department of Social Security to provide the court with up to date address details of fine defaulters. This should reduce the number of fines that are currently written off;
  more generally, the new national standards require local probation areas to ensure that they have a strategy to inform both sentencers and the general public about their work and the services they perform; and
  last year we made a grant to an organisation called Payback in connection with the promotion of community sentences.

  Drug Use
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to make lawful the medicinal use of cannabis. [151734]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government believe that it would be premature to amend the misuse of drugs legislation to allow the prescribing of cannabis before the quality, safety aid efficacy of a medicinal form of the drug has been scientifically established and a marketing authorisation issued by the Medicines Control Agency. This is the procedure that all prospective new medicines have to go through in order to protect public health.

  The Government welcome and have encouraged research into the possible medicinal uses of cannabis. The Home Office has licensed a number of laboratory and medical research in this area, including a large-scale research project aimed at producing a cannabis-based

  493W
  medicine with applications for multiple sclerosis and intractable pain conditions. Early clinical trial studies are now being conducted.

  If the clinical trials into cannabis are successful and lead to a medical preparation which is approved by the Medicines Control Agency. the Government have made it clear that they would be willing to amend the misuse of drugs regulations to allow the prescribing of such a medicine.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will prepare an assessment of the impact of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on illegal drug use. [151713]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. Such an exercise would serve little useful purpose and would not inform the development of anti-drugs policies. However, the Government do have a broad research programme designed to track the progress of the national drugs strategy. This will assist our understanding of what the drug problems are and what works best against them.

  "Make Your Voice Heard"
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of producing the documents "Make Your Voice Heard". [152662]

  Mr. Straw
  The "Make Your Voice Heard" documents are two leaflets created to inform the general public about changes to the electoral system under the Representation of the People Act 2000. The changes make it easier both to get on the electoral register and to vote by post.

  Each publication was produced in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, English, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi, Somali, Turkish, Urdu, Vietnamese and Welsh. Each was approved by the Plain English Campaign. Special formats including Braille and a British sign language video were also produced.

  Leaflet costs were as follow1"Make your voice heard"—electoral registration form inside £119,683.
  "Make your voice heard"—how to vote by post £22,085.
  1 Figures include, design, print, photography and translation.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the privately run prisons in England and Wales. [152816]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are currently nine privately managed prisons in England and Wales: Altcourse, Ashfield, Blakenhurst, Doncaster, Forest Bank, Lowdham Grange, Parc, Rye Hill and Wolds. A further privately run prison, Dovegate, is due to open on 9 July 2001. Blakenhurst will transfer to Prison Service management on 19 August 2001.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 23 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. R. Kaysar. [152454]
  494W
  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 12 March.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 17 January from the Right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Maqsood Ahmed Mirza. [152453]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 9 March.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152655]

  Mr. Straw
  A new Home Office corporate identity was introduced in 2000. The costs involved in developing this identity including design, research, project management and drawing up style guidelines for printed and electronic media were £155,000. This is offset by anticipated savings of £160,000 a year generated by the new identity.

  The four Home Office agencies, the Prison Service, the Forensic Science Service, the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Fire Service College each have separate logos developed before May 1997.

  The police recruitment and crime reduction logos were developed by the advertising agencies which competed for the campaign work, at no direct cost to the Home Office.

  The "Fire Kills" logo was developed separately for use with all fire safety campaigns and materials. The costs, which include research with the general public, were £42,000.

  Other logos developed since 1 May 1997 cost as follows:

  £

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998

  4,000

  Crime Prevention Agency

  6,000

  Crime Prevention—Plant Security

  1,500

  Human Rights

  4,500

  Metropolitan Police Authority

  5,000

  National Probation Service—costs to date

  10,000

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) under which categories his Department's annual statistics are recorded for(a) palatability trials, (b) digestibility trials, (c) faeces screening studies and (d) other tests carried out by commercial pet food companies; [153274]

  (2) how many dogs from non-designated breeders were used in licensed procedures at designated scientific establishments in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [153271]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Dogs are primarily used in pharmaceutical research and development, or in pharmaceutical safety and efficacy evaluations. They are also used, when no other species is suitable, in the evaluation of cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory
  495W
  problems in humans. Such work contributes to advances in human health care. Dogs are also used in the development of veterinary medicines and techniques.

  The work undertaken by commercial pet food companies is for the purpose of ensuring that food products for pets are safe, effective and nutritionally complete. Most of the procedures conducted are so mild as to not require licensed authority. The procedures which come under licence are very mild. There are pet rehoming schemes in place for animals once tests have been completed. If these procedures were not carried out we would be less aware of the risk to household pets.

  The number of procedures using dogs obtained from non-designated sources in 1998 and 1999 is given in table 2 in the annual publication "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain", copies of which are in the Library. It is not possible to give the actual number of dogs so obtained but it is likely to be close to the number of procedures referred to above. Figures for the year 2000 are not yet available.

  Not all of the studies referred to in this question would necessarily be regulated procedures, depending on the design of the study. Where they are regulated they would normally be returned as nutrition studies, which are shown in table 5 of the annual publication "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain", copies of which are in the Library. It is not possible to isolate work done by commercial pet food companies from other licencees carrying out research into nutrition.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the acceptability of the certificate of identity to countries within the Schengen agreement; [151714]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of 14 February between the hon. Member for Putney and the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), about amendments to the certificate of identity that would make it acceptable as a valid travelling document to all signatories of the Schengen agreement. [152661]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office certificate of identity (CID) is a travel document issued to foreign nationals, other than refugees, who are resident in the United Kingdom and cannot obtain a passport from their national authorities. This type of document is not issued under an international convention, but on a discretionary basis. Holders of CIDs who travel abroad are entitled to return to any United Kingdom port on a date within the CID's validity, and a visa is not required. Under the Immigration Rules, readmission after examination by an immigration officer is not an automatic entitlement but would normally be granted on the basis that residency here is to be resumed.

  A number of European Union member states have declined to recognise the CID, so holders may find their ability to travel abroad restricted because visas are not always issued.

  When I discussed this problem with my hon. Friend on 14 February, he expressed interest in altering the wording of the CID to state that holders of the document had an
  496W
  automatic right of return to the United Kingdom. This suggestion was not acceptable because it would place CID holders in a special position under the Immigration Rules compared to other categories of people who acquire residence status in the United Kingdom and wish to spend time abroad. The only residents of the United Kingdom who have an unconditional right to be readmitted at the ports after a stay abroad, no matter how long they have been away, are British citizens, and other Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode here.

  Since the meeting, United Kingdom officials have discussed the issues with colleagues from the countries that have concern Assurances have been requested about the return of CID holders to the United Kingdom, and other matters. I am hopeful that the information provided in response to this request will prove a significant step towards securing full acceptance of the CID by all our European partners.

  Departmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153284]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library. The next annual report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  Cleveland police, in partnership with Redcar and Cleveland borough council, received £12,300 under round two of the reducing burglary initiative, for a scheme in New Skelton, Cleveland. Interventions include target hardening of relatively modern local authority housing, which is predominantly occupied by single young females.

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Closed circuit television (CCTV)—Redcar and Cleveland borough council, in partnership with Cleveland police, were awarded £114,200 for two schemes under round two of the CCTV initiative;
  497W
  Guisborough CCTV partnership scheme was awarded £43,700 for a five-camera project covering Guisborough town centre. The town centre has problems of alcohol-related violence, shoplifting and vehicle crime. The scheme aims to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over three years and other types of crime by 10 per cent. in that time.

  Saltburn CCTV partnership was awarded £70,500 for a six-camera project covering Saltburn town centre. The town centre has problems of alcohol-related crime, shoplifting and vehicle crime linked to drug dependency. The high level of anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime are recurring issues for the town. The scheme aims to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over three years and other types of crime by 10 per cent. in that time.

  Neighbourhood Warden schemes

  The William Sutton Trust was awarded £152,300 for a community wardens scheme in Middlesbrough South-West. The scheme will cover the Linthorpe estate in Saltersgill, and aims to reduce property crime, crimes against the person and car crime.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000;
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Dr. Ali Dizaei
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement he has had in the case of Dr. Ali Dizaei; [152396]

  (2) if ministers authorised telephone tapping of Dr. Ali Dizaei; [152389]

  (3) which Ministers were briefed on the surveillance of Dr. Ali Dizaei, indicating when they were told and what were they told. [152388]

  Mr. Straw
  The suspension of Dr. Dizaei is a matter for the Metropolitan police. It has been the longstanding practice of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny whether a warrant authorising interception of communications exists, or has existed, in any specific case.

  Police Deployment
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in(a) reducing administration in the police service and (b) ensuring police officers spend more time on operational duties. [151709]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Last year we issued a revised "Manual of Guidance for the Preparation, Processing and Submission of Files" designed to remove unnecessary 498W
  paperwork. Of 40 forms which officers may fill in before submitting Crown Prosecution Service files, we have removed 11 and are phasing out another six. This, combined with improved communications and new technologies, will ensure that officers maximise time spent on front-line policing.

  Crime and Disorder Audit
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that chief executives of local authorities and local police divisional commanders in England and Wales have agreed timetables and arrangements for completing the new crime and disorder audit, with the full participation of their local partners and the community, to have a fresh local strategy in place by April 2002. [151712]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The timetable for completion of local audits is a matter for individual crime and disorder reduction partnerships. We have provided an extensive programme of support over the past two years to assist partnerships in the audit and strategy process. This has been complemented by the appointment of crime reduction directors in the regions of England and in Wales. They are working with partnerships to ensure that they have the necessary support to complete the audit process and develop local strategies by April 2002.

  Burglary (Disadvantaged Communities)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce burglaries in disadvantaged communities. [151721]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the reducing burglary initiative, which is part of the crime reduction programme, we have to date granted a total of around £24 million to 246 projects in areas or communities with the highest burglary rates. These communities all have high rates of burglary, and many of them are also among the most deprived areas of the country.

  Extradition
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the review of extradition he announced on 2 March 2000. [153494]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today published a consultation document entitled "The Law on Extradition: A Review" and copies have been placed in the Library.

  I announced the review to Parliament in the course of my statement on Senator Pinochet on 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 571W. It is the outcome of an exercise started in 1997 to consider the legislative requirements of two European Union conventions on extradition. However, it developed into a much more extensive inquiry, following the adoption at Tampere in October 1999 of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions by the member states of the European Union.

  The consultation document makes far-reaching proposals in relation to all aspects of current extradition law and practice. The greatest changes are proposed in respect of the United Kingdom's procedures for dealing with extradition requests received from member states of the European Union and Schengen states. Our present

  499W
  procedures for dealing with extradition requests from these states contain cumbersome controls and outdated requirements, some of them derived from 19th century extradition legislation. Such procedures are no longer necessary, nor do they provide an efficient means to deal with the growing difficulties caused by organised and international crime. For these extradition partners a simple backing of warrants procedure is proposed. This would replace the current multi-staged system in which all extradition requests are examined by both the Secretary of State and the courts, with a single, streamlined hearing before a district judge (Sheriff in Scotland). The documentation required to support an extradition request would also be significantly simplified, to reduce the current burdens placed on our European partners in their efforts to bring fugitives to justice. The proposals retain a statutory right of appeal in order to ensure that fugitives' rights are protected, but also propose that the grounds for appeal be tightened to eliminate time-consuming delays where fugitives appeal on grounds which are not relevant, or are more properly for consideration by the court of trial.

  The simplified requirements of a backing of warrants scheme would put the mutual recognition principle into practice in the field of extradition. Mutual recognition may be defined as the judicial decisions of one jurisdiction being recognised as valid in another, with the minimum of formality.

  The review recognises that while major reforms are required to our extradition procedures in respect of our closest neighbours, there is also a clear operational need to reform the procedures for dealing with requests from our extradition partners outside the European Union. Here a final decision in the case by the Secretary of State would be retained, but there would be a significant reduction in the present duplication of my role and that of the courts in deciding cases, with the aim of making extradition quicker and simpler, while protecting fugitives' fundamental human rights.

  The consultation period for the review proposals is three months. Copies are being made widely available to people and organisations with a professional interest in the subject. Members of the public will be able to apply for a copy from the Home Office, or obtain one from the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/ jcu/jcu.htm.

  Many of the proposals in the document will require primary legislation to implement, which would take place when the legislative timetable allows.

  IT projects being undertaken in the current calender year 2001

  IT project

  Date/Expected date of commencement

  Expected date of completion

  Cost (as per approved proposal)

  Comments

  Probation Service—Phase 1 Contract Procurement Project

  15 January 2001

  31 January 2002

  Approximately £600,000

  Probation Service—Phase 2 Contract Procurement Project

  Late 2001

  31 January 2004

  Dependent upon options selected

  Because this project has not yet been initiated it is impossible to give any details about costs

  Probation Service—Offenders Assessment system (OASys)—joint prison/probation offender assessment system. Probation element

  April 2001

  Dependent on technical option selected. Earliest date April 2002

  Dependent on technical option selected.

  Business case to be completed March 2001.

  500W
  I welcome comments on the proposals.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151479]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The new information technology (IT) projects that are being undertaken in this calendar year within my Department and its agencies (excluding non-departmental public bodies) are listed in the table. The information in the table covers those IT projects where (a) the cost or value of the project exceeds £5 million or (b) the project is essential for the delivery of our core objectives or services. I also refer my right hon. Friend to the answer to him on the IT projects currently undertaken by my Department given on 6 March 2001, Official Report, column 130W, and the reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 30 January 2001, Official Report, column 165W.

  In addition to the projects listed in the table, the Fire Service College is undertaking a number of modernising projects in the current year addressing the shortcomings of the existing software applications. These projects are essential to the delivery of their business. They include an accounting system, library upgrade and a management system to upgrade the teaching facilities. The projects will be started and concluded in 2001 at an estimated total cost of £155,000.

  The Prison Service Quantum project is planning future work packages in the development of a strategy for an IT-based business change on a partnership basis. Future work packages are still in the planning stage although it is likely that the user specification for at least one of these will be developed in the forthcoming financial year.

  The Forensic Science Service is considering replacing their current work management system with an enhanced system based upon an enterprise resource planning model. The project will need approval by the Forensic Science Service Board once contract negotiation on time scales and cost have been finalised.

  The Home Office Sirius programme has identified a number of initial business change projects in the areas of finance, personnel and communications for the current year but these are presently at the scoping stage.

  Asylum Claimants System (Siemens)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) payments made since 1996 and (b) payments due to be made, by his Department to Siemens for the caseworking system for asylum claimants. [151482]

  Mrs. Roche
  The contract between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office and Siemens Business Services (SBS) contains a complex charging mechanism, details of which are commercially 502W
  confidential. Elements include a productivity-related charge linked to the achievement of reductions in the unit cost of all IND's caseworking activities (not merely of asylum casework) and a fixed monthly charge for a range of technical services specified in the contract. By the end of the current financial year, we would expect to have paid SBS about £25 million in total since the contract began in 1996. The basis of future payments is under discussion with SBS following the joint decision to discontinue the development of the full casework application.

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

NHS Trusts: Resources
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether National Health Service trusts have adequate resources in the current year to meet their targets and other obligations and still to break even.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the additional resources made available to the National Health Service in 2000–01 mean that overall the service is forecast to achieve financial balance and is on track to deliver the national priorities guidance targets.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He will have noted that in a letter from finance chiefs of NHS trusts to the NHS Chief Executive they stated:
"The level of ambition set out for next year is beyond the resources available".
They go on to state:
"We will not be able to deliver the key targets required. We are resolute in our belief that the financial gaps we are now facing cannot be closed by normal measures".
In view of the fact that last week the Chancellor failed to give additional current expenditure to NHS trusts, should not the Minister now admit that the targets and initiatives which he and his colleagues set for the NHS are over-ambitious and that some of the targets are unlikely to be achieved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is the time of year when finance directors of trusts negotiate with health authorities exactly what they will spend next year and the services which they will provide. It is not unusual for dire predictions to be forecast by finance directors, which often turn out to be less serious. I suggest we await the outcome of the negotiations before drawing hard conclusions. A real-terms increase of 6.2 per cent will be given to health authorities for next year. That is an extremely significant increase, which will go a long way towards enabling us to improve and increase services, as set out in the National Plan.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some busy hospitals are under immense pressure? Is he also aware that the chairman of the trust and half the board of the world-famous hospital, Stoke Mandeville, have just resigned?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the enormous contribution made to the NHS by the spinal injuries centre at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. The NHS comes under pressure and has always done so. However, I believe that the additional resources of 6.6 per cent in real terms over four years for health authorities are extremely significant and will enable us to meet the pressures now being placed upon the service.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will that significant increase of 6.6 per cent enable those community hospitals which were closed to be re-opened?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord would not expect me to comment on each individual community hospital. Community hospitals and other facilities have a role to play—particularly as regards intermediate care—in allowing people to be discharged from district general hospitals for rehabilitation and then to go back to their own homes. I see a strong case for such facilities.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that apart from the matter of adequate resources, there is another problem which concerns the announcement of further improvements in the National Health Service? Members of the general public, and in particular NHS staff, find it dispiriting to have announcements of more money, more consultants, more nurses and better services when such resources cannot be delivered overnight. Expectations are raised. It would be much more helpful if the Government were to announce improvements and place upon them a measurable and realistic timescale. I have been asked to put that point to the Minister by administrators in the local health service in Herefordshire who find that to be a particular problem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that it is much better that we are able to announce large increases rather than the small increases announced by the previous administration. It is right that we have a concerted plan to ensure that those resources are spent wisely and that there is a realistic timetable. That is what the NHS Plan is about: it sets out a realistic timetable for improving standards of services in the NHS and for increasing the number of staff available. I would be the first to accept that there is currently enormous pressure on staff in the health service, and the first to acknowledge the debt that we owe to them for the tremendous efforts that they make. However, at the end of the day the foundation for future improvement has to be the kind of resource increases which we have announced.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in view of the Minister's comments on the tendency of executives of trusts at this time of year to exaggerate their claims and woes, can he tell the House whether there are any signs of an underspend amid trusts this year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the forecast for the end of the current financial year made at the

509
half-way stage estimated that, overall, trusts in England forecast a deficit of approximately £9 million in total. At the same time, health authorities forecast a £45 million surplus. Essentially, based on those figures we would expect to end the financial year at a break-even position.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister consider it proper that the National Health Service should be subject to the very pressures to which she refers when there are many other sections of the community, notably the richer, which suffer no stress at all?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, at the end of the day the National Health Service is here to serve the whole of the population, and I believe that in so doing it does an excellent job. The NHS is under pressure. We want to make changes to improve services, and we are succeeding in that. I am convinced that the increases in revenue which have been given over the past few years and promised in the next few years will deliver the kinds of services that the public, quite rightly, expect.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, has it occurred to the Government that, given the generous increase of 6.6 per cent, trusts might well be able to put their affairs in order if they were allowed to do it in their own way, instead of having to meet all the centrally imposed targets on which they must concentrate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the very reason the Government have introduced the concept of earned autonomy which means, essentially, that those trusts which do well will be given much more freedom to decide their destiny, while those which do not do so well can look forward to increased intervention. Surely, that is the appropriate way to proceed.

Pensions: Minimum Income Guarantee
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburnasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for the take-up of MIG (minimum income guarantee) by eligible pensioners following the Government's take-up campaign; what are the Government's plans for the future of the campaign; and what has been its cost to date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Government's MIG take-up campaign has so far resulted in over 82,000 successful claims. A follow-up exercise started in the week of 5th March to encourage claims from pensioners who might become eligible due to this April's increase in the
510
MIG capital limits should again bring in more claims. To date, the campaign has cost approximately £9 million.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister really satisfied with a situation in which the Government, having launched a massive take-up campaign directed at half a million people, by this stage can report only that 80,000-odd people have responded? Can the Government explain why people do not like means testing? I hope that the Minister will not say that they are too rich to benefit. Does the Minister realise that as a result of the pensioner credit the number of those on means-tested benefits will rise dramatically and something like 5½million people whom the Government say will qualify for pensioner credit will become means tested? If the Minister cannot sell the present system to the potential recipients, can she hope to persuade 5½ million people to take up their due?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that that was a question, but I am not entirely sure. My noble friend pressed me on two points: first, the MIG take-up campaign; secondly, the implications of the pensions credit which is due to be implemented in 2003. I ask noble Lords to allow me to deal with both matters, although it may take a little while given the length of time taken by my noble friend in putting her questions.
First, I did not say that there had been 82,000 responses but that there had been 82,000 successful claims. There were 840,000 responses, approximately half a million of which were by telephone. Of those, 82,000 claims were successful. Claims were unsuccessful because the individuals had too much income or capital, which are issues that we seek to address in our subsequent developments. As for my noble friend's suggestion that this arises because of stigma, of the 470,000 people who replied to the MIG take-up campaign by telephone, only one-fifth knew that MIG was income support and of those the vast majority said that it did not matter. I do not accept my noble friend's argument that stigma deters people from claiming. People did not know that it was an income support benefit, and for the most part the reason they failed to be eligible was that they had too much income or capital.
Secondly, my noble friend referred to pensioner credit and the extension of means testing to 5½ million people. It is the case that under pension credit 5½ million people will enjoy both MIG and the protection of the modest occupational pensions that so many pensioners have in this country. My noble friend might have rejoiced with me that because MIG is earnings-related 55 per cent of all pensioners will in future effectively have their pensions earnings-related.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Why not the other 45 per cent?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, they are the richer pensioners.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, given the Government's increase in means testing and the complexity of the social security system, she may now be the only person in the country as a whole who understands it? Does the noble Baroness estimate that the total number of people who are now entitled to minimum income guarantee but have failed to take it up is now greater than when MIG was introduced?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as to the first point, my late husband used to say that one should be aware whether people like compliments to be forehand or backhand. I believe that the noble Lord's question counts as "backhand". I take the point about complexity. That is one of the reasons why we have, with some prodding by the journalist Peter Kehler, simplified our income support form. The current form for pensioners has been reduced from 40 to 10 pages and is in big print. I believe that that will help to overcome some of the complexity of claims. The basic point is that one can either give all pensioners the same money or target the poorest. As a result of the Government's policies, the younger, poorer pensioner couples—those on MIG—have seen their real income increase by 30 per cent—I repeat, 30 per cent. We take a great deal of pride in that.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absolutely intolerable that only one in six of those eligible for MIG have taken it up? Does she further accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, was correct in saying that the situation will get much worse when MIG is extended upward through pensioner credit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept neither of those points. On the first point, 840,000 pensioners—far more than we thought might be entitled—applied for information about the scheme. Most of those decided that they had income or capital which excluded them from eligibility for MIG. That is confirmed by our research. So, I do not accept the first point.
On the second point, given that we are seeking ways of delivering automaticity for MIG, which is earnings-related, of those pensioners who, from 2003, will enjoy pensioner credit, some 6 million will see a real increase in their standard of living that hitherto they have not enjoyed.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, what assumption has the Treasury given the Minister for the total expenditure in 2001 to 2002?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as a result of our proposals, additional expenditure on pensions is approximately £6.5 billion. However, one point that may interest my noble friend Lord Barnett is that when we came into government in 1997 the amount of GDP that went on pensioners was 5.32 per cent. Had we had
512
the earnings link that my noble friend would have pressed for, it would by now have fallen to 5.23 per cent. As a result of the increases in our proposals it will rise to 5.47 per cent. So not only have pensioners kept pace with the growing prosperity of the nation, they have done even better than that and surpassed it.

Sri Lanka: Terrorism Act Proposal
2.52 p.m
Lord Eden of Wintonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to assist the Government of Sri Lanka to bring an end to terrorist activity in that country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we remain fully committed to supporting Norway's efforts to help the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE end the tragic ethnic conflict through a peaceful, negotiated settlement. The Home Secretary recently included the LTTE in the list of foreign terrorist organisations intended for proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. We look to the LTTE to renounce terrorism and to commit itself to the search for peace.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their decision to place the LTTE on the list of proscribed organisations. Will the Government press ahead as quickly as possible and hold the required debate so that the necessary order can come into effect without delay? Is it not clear that there is diminishing sympathy for the terrorist organisation in Sri Lanka? Therefore, will the Minister pledge Her Majesty's Government to do everything thing possible—perhaps with the assistance of other Commonwealth countries—to support the Sri Lankan Government in their efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement? That settlement might include some form of devolved administration to meet the legitimate interests of the Tamils.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his compliment in relation to the work that we have done. The Terrorism Act came into effect on 19th February of this year. I can reassure the noble Lord that the order will be debated on the Floor of the House of Commons at 10 p.m. tomorrow. In the week beginning 19th March it is hoped that the order will be debated in this House. That date will be confirmed. So the noble Lord will have his wish in that regard.
I can reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to do all we can to support the negotiated settlement. Norway is working hard and doing very well. It is incumbent upon us all to do everything we can to make sure that such efforts succeed.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her announcement of the debate in the other place and the intended debate in this Chamber is greatly to be welcomed? But if the Act is to bite, as I suspect the Government, the Opposition parties, and the whole of this Parliament would wish, it has to be followed up by activity to ensure that the money taken under sufferance from people here who are Sri Lankans is stopped one way or the other. Are urgent discussions taking place to ensure that that extortion of money stops?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure noble Lords that once the order is passed, the police and the prosecuting authorities will have an opportunity to act where they find that there is evidence to support such action. So we have a realistic expectation of the mechanism being in place that can be utilised to make sure that terrorist organisations such as the LTTE do not prosper on these shores.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the LTTE has an office in this country, which will have to cease activities once the order comes into effect, there are other organisations which collect money, ostensibly for charitable purposes? The first investigation of those bodies is left to the Charity Commissioners. Does the Minister think that, in the light of repeated demands by the Sri Lankan Government for action to be taken against front organisations, it is satisfactory to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Charity Commissioners?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the matter will not be solely in the hands of the Charity Commissioners. We shall have the legislation on the statute book which will enable the police to investigate and the prosecution authorities to prosecute if they deem that to be appropriate having found the evidence upon which to found those prosecutions. So we are looking at the matter with increasing particularity. We have a realistic prospect of creatively bringing about change.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the comments of Charles Clarke that the make-up of the list of proscribed organisations since the Terrorism Act was,
"not driven by foreign policy considerations"?
In so far as that is true, at what level and to what extent did Home Office Ministers consult with their colleagues in the Foreign Office in relation to the decision to include the LTTE?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to know that although it may not have been driven by Foreign Office considerations, those considerations were properly taken into account. The fact that the LTTE is on the list is an indication that the Home Office took the matter fully into account.

Religious Discrimination
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ahmedasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce legislation on religious discrimination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government are committed to implementing Article 13 of the European Community employment directive, outlawing discrimination in employment and training on grounds which include religion, by autumn 2003. The Government will consult on this matter in due course, taking account of the two recently published research reports on religious discrimination. Both reports will help to raise awareness of people's experience of religious discrimination and of the sensitive and sometimes complex issues involved in the options for tackling it.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I congratulate the Government on commissioning the first-ever report on religious discrimination. Can the Minister say what were the main findings of the survey in the Derby University report? Can he further say whether there is any evidence of religious discrimination in the fields of justice, media, employment and service provision?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Derby University research report indicated that there was widespread concern among members of all faith groups about ignorance and indifference towards religion. People from visible minorities feel more vulnerable and there is much common ground with racial discrimination. Muslim organisations consistently reported a higher level of unfair treatment in education, employment and the media. They were key areas where people were more likely to suffer religious discrimination. The main concerns in education related to such matters as unfair treatment by pupils and, occasionally. teachers; the religious education curriculum; and collective worship. In employment, the main concerns were the attitudes and behaviour of managers and colleagues, including the key issue of harassment.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Race Relations Act already bans discrimination against certain religions that come under the title of ethnic minorities, which includes Jewish people, Rastafarians, gypsies and Sikhs but does not include Muslims, Christians or any other religion? Surely that is ludicrous and could be changed by a simple amendment to the Race Relations Act. We would not then have to wait for another two years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lord, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I agree with his interpretation of the legislation. However, we feel that it would be right to bring forward legislation in

515
response to Article 13 of the EC employment directive. We think that that will probably deal with some of the issues about which the noble Lord and others are concerned. The important research that has been commissioned, and now received, will inform that process and others where we may seek to make improvements and strengthen the law.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Christian Churches as well have already been addressing this issue and that the Churches' Commission for Inter-faith Relations, of which I am Moderator, has prepared a report in consultation with the Churches' Commission for Racial Justice? The report will be published later this year and will help to raise certain other issues. It is not a simple matter to define religion, but there are attempts to do so in the report. We hope that that will be useful to the Government in preparing legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are aware of those moves and the Churches are to be congratulated on the important steps forward they have taken. They have played a constructive role. That reflects the Churches' acceptance of the multi-faith nature of our society. The importance of the research for us is that it will enable us to review the way in which we interface with faith communities. We believe that to be very important.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I speak as a member of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee, where the Government have not shown quite sufficient vigour. How much are the Government prepared to resist European directives that stop religious organisations maintaining the articles of their faith in the appointment of members of staff, the standards they demand and so on? Are they prepared to support the integrity of religious institutions against European directives?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it must be the case that the Government act fairly and properly in these matters. We listen to the representations that we receive from all sides. But I do think that Article 13 is very important and will bring a measure of relief to those faiths which believe that they suffer from religious discrimination. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with that approach.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that respect for the views of others is essential in a multi-cultural society and that that is relevant to the debate we are to have on the Hunting Bill later today?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the profound answer to that has to be yes.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there have been a number of reports on this subject? I think in particular of the report of Professor Bob Hepple of Cambridge University and of the repeated reviews by the Commission for Racial
516
Equality recommending the need to outlaw discrimination on religious grounds. All the reports come from very authoritative sources. Can the noble Lord indicate when it is likely that the Home Office will take some steps to amend the Race Relations Act to include religious discrimination?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not for me to prejudge any legislative timetable. I am sure that the noble Lord accepts that that would be quite improper. However, as I said earlier, the two reports are important. They will inform our thinking and help us further to shape policy. No doubt the reports will be widely drawn on to improve practices within religious faiths and across the whole range of public policy.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Lord help me? I could not understand whether his answer to my noble friend Lord Pilkington was affirmative or negative. Will the Government take steps to ensure that European policy does not prevent religious foundations recruiting from people of their faith?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I suggested that we had to take account of a wide range of institutional views. No doubt that is an institutional view on which we shall need to reflect.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in a genuine spirit of inquiry, but also as a lawyer, perhaps I may ask the Government whether they really believe that the already Byzantine complexity of employment law can be—how shall I put it—kept within bounds as regards the extremely sophisticated and subtle elements that are now being contemplated in this field.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the answer to that has to be yes. We obviously need to take very careful account of those matters.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move to the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about time. Today's debate on the Hunting Bill is not time limited. It is, as always, open to noble Lords to speak for as long as they think appropriate. However, as I always do, I have made a calculation. I thought that the House might be interested to hear the result. If each of the Front Bench spokesmen were voluntarily to limit their speeches to about 12 minutes, and if the Back-Bench speakers were voluntarily to limit themselves to about seven minutes, there is a chance that we will finish the debate at a reasonable time, and even perhaps on the same day that we started.

Hunting Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill that is currently before your Lordships would have the effect of banning most hunting with dogs. I hasten to stress that in asking you to give the Bill a Second Reading I am not asking your Lordships to support a ban on hunting. Nor am I asking you to endorse either of the other two options which we shall be putting before your Lordships to consider. I am inviting your Lordships to help us resolve a difficult issue.
Let me put on record straight away the fact that the Government are neutral on the question of hunting with dogs. We do not have an outcome which we wish to see and no whip has been imposed in either House for this Bill. Our aim has been to facilitate discussion so that the very contentious issue of hunting with dogs can be resolved once and for all.
In a moment I shall explain why the Bill has been brought forward, but perhaps I may first say something about the current foot and mouth disease crisis. I know that all noble Lords share the Government's sense of concern about what is happening in the countryside at the moment and we all sympathise with those who are suffering as a consequence of the spread of foot and mouth disease. My noble friend Lady Hayman has explained to your Lordships the steps that we are taking to control and eradicate the virus and we will continue to take all necessary steps to contain the outbreak. But I reject any suggestion that, because of the current foot and mouth disease crisis, we should not be proceeding with the Bill.
Foot and mouth disease and hunting with dogs are two totally separate issues and it is quite wrong of those who oppose any change to the law on hunting to seek to exploit the current difficulties our livestock industry is facing to further their campaign against this legislation.
It has been suggested that now is not the right time to consider this legislation. Let me make two observations about that. First, as I have already said, every appropriate step is being taken to control and contain foot and mouth disease. The existing powers that are available to us are sufficient, so it is not as if by discussing hunting with dogs we are preventing Parliament from considering emergency legislation that might be needed to deal with the situation. Secondly, the Bill that is before the House will not come into force until one year after Royal Assent, by which time all of us hope fervently that the current foot and mouth disease crisis will be long in the past.
Hunting is an important subject and one that is of deep concern. The amount of press attention that it warrants is testament to that, as is the fact that well over 100,000 people have written to the Home Office on the subject since the last general election. Another indication is that, since 1979, Private Members' Bills on the subject of hunting and coursing have been
518
introduced in another place at the rate of more than one a year. I mention those Bills deliberately because they illustrate an important point.
The contentious nature of the subject is such that no Private Member's or Private Peer's Bill is likely to succeed. Those Bills generally did not fail because the majority of parliamentarians were opposed to them but simply because they could not command sufficient parliamentary time. Only a government Bill could provide the opportunity for this difficult issue to be resolved. That is why we have brought forward this Bill. It will enable Parliament to express its view and, we hope, to put this issue to bed.
In order to aid that process and to ensure that all of us have had access to all the facts surrounding hunting, before we brought forward this Bill we established a committee of inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The remit of the committee was not to consider whether hunting with dogs should be permitted—that is a matter for Parliament—but to try to establish exactly how and what hunting takes place.
There is one thing that unites all those involved in the hunting debate, whatever their views on hunting, and that is their admiration for the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team—which, of course, includes another Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. Members of another place were unstinting in their praise of what was invariably referred to as the Burns report. I am happy to add my tribute to the members of the inquiry team and to those who assisted them.
Perhaps I may now turn to the content of the Bill. In accordance with the Government's desire to facilitate debate, we decided to offer a multi-option Bill. This is a procedural device that worked well when it was employed by the previous government as a means of dealing with the difficult issue of Sunday trading. Indeed, it is an indication of how successful it was in resolving that issue once and for all that it is not generally remembered just how contentious Sunday trading once was. It was the issue which led to one of only two government defeats at Second Reading in another place in the past 75 years.
In 1993, the then government brought forward a Bill that was to become the Sunday Trading Act 1994. It contained three options from which Parliament was able to choose. I think it is fair to say that even those who favoured an option other than the one which Parliament ultimately chose have accepted that decision. It is our hope that a similar attitude will prevail in regard to hunting.
We invited three key interest groups each to suggest an option for inclusion in the Bill. The three interest groups were Deadline 2000, which is also known as the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, and is a consortium made up of the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the RSPCA; the Middle Way Group, which is a cross-party group of MPs; and the Countryside Alliance, a body which I am sure is well known to many noble Lords and which seeks to represent the interests of the countryside.

519
All three organisations responded positively and came forward with an option for inclusion in the Bill, and I am most grateful to them for that. The Bill was in fact drafted by parliamentary counsel to ensure that it properly gave effect to the desired policies and was also workable. The Bill, as it was introduced in another place, contained all three options. The three options are mutually exclusive and at Committee stage Members of another place made their choice between them. The result was decisive, as even those who disagreed with it were obliged to admit. By a vote of 387 to 174, the other place backed the Deadline 2000 option and it was that option that was subject to detailed scrutiny and, indeed, amendment.
I wish to say a little more about what is contained in each of the options; but, first, let me say something about procedure. It is the Government's wish to ensure that this House is given an opportunity to have a clean vote on the three options, as was given to another place. In order to achieve this, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has tabled a Motion to be taken at the start of business tomorrow afternoon. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I explain what the outcome would be if the House were to agree to tomorrow's Motion.
If the House agrees to the Motion, there will then follow a Committee stage, probably on 26th March, which will last for a single day and at the end of which there will be three votes, one on each option. We have consulted closely with the House authorities to ensure that the amendments can be drafted in such a way as to prevent either of the latter votes being pre-empted by an earlier decision. There is therefore a guarantee that, on all three options, there will be a vote.
The first vote will be a vote on the Deadline 2000 option; that is, the ban on hunting with dogs. As a result of that vote, the ban will either stay in the Bill or be deleted from it. The second vote will be a vote on the Countryside Alliance option; that is, self-regulation. If self-regulation is agreed to, it will go into the Bill and, if the ban has survived the first vote, it would at that stage be replaced by self-regulation. The third vote will take place regardless of the outcome of the first two votes. It will be a vote on the Middle Way Group option; that is, hunting under licence. If it is agreed to, then hunting under licence will go into the Bill in place of whichever of the other two options was, at that point, in the Bill. At the end of the whole process, the Bill will be reprinted and recommitted to a Committee of the whole House so that the chosen option can be considered in detail and noble Lords can table amendments to it.
This procedure has been worked out with the help and advice of the House authorities, to whom we should all be extremely grateful. My noble friend the Chief Whip—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that this has been done without the agreement of the usual channels?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can confirm that that is the case.
520
As I said, my noble friend the Chief Whip has also consulted extensively with as many of the interested parties as possible. I believe that the Motion will allow the House to proceed in the most straightforward way, and I hope that the House will accept it when it is moved tomorrow.
As promised, let me say a little more about the three options to be considered by your Lordships. I shall endeavour to do so as neutrally and as factually as possible. I believe that each of the three options has supporters in your Lordships' House and it is for the noble Lords concerned to make the case for those options.
Perhaps I may start with the option that is currently in the Bill; that is, the one that has been put forward by Deadline 2000. In many ways, it is the easiest one to describe since its purpose is simple. It seeks to ban the hunting of wild mammals with dogs and. if noble Lords will read paragraph 1 of the schedule. they will discover a provision to precisely that effect. However, the proponents of this option recognise that there are circumstances when it is necessary and desirable to hunt with dogs. The Bill thus provides for a number of exceptions; that is, circumstances in which it would remain legal to hunt with a dog, even if this option were to be passed into law. These cover those occasions when animals might be injured and the recovery of animals which may have escaped from captivity.
The scope of the exceptions probably attracted more discussion than anything else when they were debated in another place. As a consequence, amendments were made to the Bill. Accordingly, exceptions will now be made for rabbit hunting, rodent hunting and the stalking and flushing out of deer, so these activities will be able to continue.
Anyone who breaches the ban on hunting with dogs, if his activity is not covered by one of the exceptions, would commit an offence and be liable to fine of up to £5,000. This is broadly in line with related animal welfare legislation, although I should point out that most similar legislation provides for custodial penalties, so, in truth, these provisions are less severe than parallel legislation. The powers given to the police to enforce the ban on hunting are similarly based on those found in existing animal welfare legislation. The police have said that they do not believe that enforcing a ban would impose a significant additional burden on their resources.
Perhaps I may now turn to the option put forward by the Middle Way Group. It is based on the premise that hunting with dogs should be allowed to continue but that it should be a licensed activity. Anyone who wished to hunt would need to apply for a licence. Licences would be issued by a newly created non-departmental public body known as the hunting authority. The authority would consist of between seven and 11 members, some of whom would represent the main interests such as landowners, farmers and animal welfare representatives, although the majority will be selected precisely because they have no vested interest in the question. As well as issuing licences, the

521
authority would be required to draw up codes of practice to govern the main hunting activities and would be able to attach appropriate terms and conditions to licences.
The cost of the hunting authority would come from the income generated by licence fees. The intention is that it should be self-financing; that is, that in any year its income from licence fees should match its expenditure. The hunting authority would also be able to appoint inspectors to visit hunts. It would also be given the power to provide training courses and to set examinations for those who wish to apply for licences, although, as I understand it, the proponents of this option do not envisage that the authority would do that, at least initially.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with the option that has been put forward by the Countryside Alliance, which is based on the principle of self-regulation of hunting. The Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting, known as ISAH, was set up at the very end of 1999. Its members are the chairmen of the various hunting associations, such as the Master of Foxhounds Association, the National Coursing Club and the Master of Deerhounds Association. ISAH oversees its member organisations' rules and codes of conduct and has the power to impose disciplinary sanctions on hunts and clubs. It also has the power to visit and inspect hunts. The cost of ISAH is borne by the member organisations.
Membership of ISAH or of an organisation affiliated to it is completely voluntary and anyone who wants to hunt outside its auspices is free to do so. That would continue to be the case under the option in Schedule 1. However, the schedule contains provisions to encourage as much hunting as possible to be undertaken within the ISAH regulatory umbrella.
The Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 both contain a number of offences relating to cruelty to animals. At present, both Acts contain specific exemption in relation to hunting, so that a person cannot be prosecuted under those provisions if his actions took place in the course of lawful hunting or coursing. This schedule would provide that in future the exemption would apply only to "supervised" hunting; that is, hunting undertaken under the ISAH regulatory umbrella. That way, the Countryside Alliance believes, there would be an incentive for everyone who goes hunting to come within the auspices of ISAH and to be bound by its code of practice.
I should make clear one point straight away. The Countryside Alliance does not accept that those who undertake properly organised hunting are committing an act of cruelty that would be liable to prosecution under the two Acts to which I have just referred. The Countryside Alliance is fearful of people bringing malicious legal actions. Therefore, it believes that people will want to enjoy the continued benefit of the
522
statutory exemption and will seek to come within the ISAH umbrella. Those then are the options that your Lordships are invited to consider.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is it true that in recent weeks the Government have been actively seeking a compromise in order to avoid a total ban? If it is true, when will the Government make their position plain?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I explained at the outset that the Government are neutral on these matters.
The Bill provides that it should take effect one year after Royal Assent. We intend that to be the case whichever of the options is chosen. We believe that this will give those concerned sufficient time to prepare for the new regime, whatever it may be. Obviously if the Middle Way Group option is chosen, certain transitional provisions will be needed to ensure that the hunting authority is up and running and issuing licences before it becomes unlawful to hunt without a licence.
The Bill extends to England and Wales only, as the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly are responsible for the question of hunting with dogs in their respective jurisdictions. Indeed, as your Lordships may be aware, there is currently a Bill before the Scottish Parliament on this very subject which is being piloted by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie.
Hunting with dogs is a subject which excites considerable passions, and rightly so as it is an important issue. Nevertheless, I am confident that the tradition of your Lordships' House of civility and rational debate will mean that we can approach this Bill in a constructive fashion. We hope and believe that by offering a multi-option Bill the Government are helping this process.
The issue of hunting will not go away, but this Bill offers the chance to resolve it once and for all. All of the main interest groups came forward with an option for inclusion in the Bill, each of which would change the law to a greater or lesser extent. All of them recognise that the status quo can be improved upon. In that spirit, I invite your Lordships, wherever you may stand on this issue, to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton. )
3.25 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords—
The Earl of Longford: Whose turn is it?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Earl is seeking to intervene before I have started.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have tabled an amendment. When will that be called?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am looking at the speakers' list. I believe that my noble friend is due to speak—I cannot work it out—at number 58.
The Earl of Longford: I am sorry, my Lords; I am not putting up with that interpretation. It states on the Order Paper that I have tabled an amendment; when will that be taken?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am basing my position on advice. On the authority of that advice, I understand that the amendment can be taken at any time.
The Earl of Longford: Then it can be taken now, my Lords.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I was told that it would be taken now.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend and all Members of the House are aware that normally such matters are decided by the feeling of the House. I understand from the advice that I have been given that the amendment can be taken at any time. I also understand from the tone of the comments around the House that noble Lords would prefer to proceed as the speakers' list is laid out.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must make the strongest protest. I was told before I came into the Chamber that my amendment would be called next. I am now told that I shall have to wait until two o'clock in the morning. Is that the situation? I want to move an amendment in favour of drag hunting, which everyone agrees with.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I think we should proceed according to the list.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a horrible feeling that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is right. A Motion has been put down and he has tabled an amendment to that Motion, The normal form is that the amendment is taken immediately after the Motion is put.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I support the stance that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition has taken.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Leader of the House, my Lords.
Lord Strathclyde: That the Leader of the House has taken, my Lords. The election is almost upon us. The House will recognise that although it is the normal convention for the mover of an amendment to speak
524
second, it is by no means a precedent that has always been followed. Although it is unusual, I think that it is the feeling of the House that we should continue with our debate, and that the first speaker on behalf of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Cope, should now be allowed to deliver his speech.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the first thing I should say from the Dispatch Box is that everything concerning the Bill is for me and for my noble friends a free vote. Therefore, everything else that I say today is a personal view. However, before I come to the merits or demerits of the Bill, I wish to say a few words about mechanics.
At this time of the year, the Bill will not complete its passage if the general election is to be on 3rd May, as we have been led to believe by the media, inspired and encouraged no doubt by the Government's spin doctors. No Bill starting here now will have time to complete its passage if the intervals laid down in our procedures are followed, even if discussion is minimal, and regardless of whatever decision the House takes about the Bill.
I make this point partly because the Prime Minister, among others, has said on several occasions that the Private Member's Bill introduced by the honourable Member, Mr Foster, was killed by this House. That was not the fact; it never came to us. It may be that the Prime Minister made a mistake the first time he said it—after all, he has important things on his mind—but each time he repeated it, the untruth became apparently more deliberate on the part of those who briefed him or, perhaps, in this case, failed to brief him.
The Bill cannot complete its normal scrutiny in the time available before a 3rd May election. Other Bills, including another Home Office Bill, were introduced earlier and can complete their normal passage, but this one will fall. That will be the Government's choice, not the result of any action by this House.
However, the Bill requires careful scrutiny. The Minister said that the Government are offering your Lordships the three options. Only one—the option currently set out in the Bill—was discussed in detail in another place; that was subject to a guillotine Motion and was not discussed as a whole. What is more, the other place decided on the three options before discussing them in detail. In other circles it would be seen as more logical to discuss the available options in some detail before deciding between them. I shall not pursue the point now, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will confirm that the Government will not use the Parliament Act in relation to this measure. The noble and learned Lord is not in his place. No doubt he will be shortly, and that question and any others will be relayed to him.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me for intervening? It is extraordinary that someone who is to reply to his speech is not present to hear it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am modest enough not to wish to draw too much attention to that fact. The noble and learned Lord was present a few minutes ago. Perhaps he will return shortly.

525
As I am advancing my own opinion on the substance of the Bill, I shall be brief; I shall not try to be comprehensive in my remarks so as to allow the maximum time for other speakers. I begin with a proposition which I hope will command general agreement in this House; namely, that we should distinguish between what we may disapprove of and what should be made criminal. That point was expressed in more or less those terms by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in another context.
I have never made a secret of the fact that I approve of hunting. I respect the views of those who do not, but they should be very reluctant to criminalise so many of our fellow citizens. In particular, we should not criminalise an activity in ignorance of the facts.
I see that the noble and learned Lord is entering the Chamber. He will gather, if he is briefed on what has happened so far, that his appearance is very welcome.
It is because of the necessity to examine the facts that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to my noble friend Lord Soulsby and to their colleagues for their report on the practical aspects of hunting. As came out in the report, in this case the proposal is not simply to end particular pastimes but to stamp out a way of life. Some activities can take over people's whole lives, and hunting is one. That is part of the reason for the strength of opposition to the Bill. Therefore, we consider the matter carefully.
The proposition in the Bill as it stands is that hunting as defined is so cruel that the majority should criminalise a minority of our fellow citizens. I want to make two points about cruelty. First, I know many hunting people, and they are not cruel. I lived in Berkeley, the home of the Berkeley Hounds. I represented the area in another place. I also represented Badminton, and in the case of both hunts a large slice of the country over which the hunts take place, and the area of the Wick and District Beagles. I am not a hunting man, but I am a supporter of all three hunts. Over the years, I have known many of those involved.
When I took my seat in another place, there were two legendary huntsmen, Brian Gupwell and Tim Langley. The huntsman of the Beagles was for many years a milk roundsman. Every kind of person takes part in hunting in one form or another. When I was first a member of the government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, I used to say: "Two Whips live in Berkeley. Patrick Martin is one and I am the other. We do a similar job—keeping the pack together, looking out for trouble and looking after our flock". But I also knew the late Duke of Beaufort, who was one of my constituents. I was, like everyone else, appalled when so-called animal rights activists tried to dig up his grave when his widow was living in the house adjacent to the churchyard. Whatever our views, such excesses—like the current threats that we read about to Members of another place—are abominable.
526
As I say, I know many of the masters, the members and those who follow the hunt, whether on horseback, on foot, by car, by bicycle or in any other way. They are not cruel people. They are countrymen and countrywomen. They live and work with animals from early morning till late at night every day—with horses, dogs and livestock and every kind of wild animal and bird. Many are farmers. They live with, and understand, nature. The farmers among them are presently under appalling pressure—marooned on their farms, anxiously watching their stock every morning and wondering how to get their children to school without risk. Many spend their whole lives with animals—that is, when they are not filling in the everlasting forms and doing their best to keep up with the latest scientific and technical advice. They know animals; they know nature; and they are not cruel people.
Secondly in relation to cruelty, perhaps I may quote from evidence submitted to the Burns committee from 300 vets:
"Far from being cruel hunting is the most natural and humane method of controlling the populations of the fox, deer, hare and mink".
That quotation comes from practising vets all over the country, together with several professors and other academics, six fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists and so on. Their evidence to the Burns committee has been widely distributed and was published with the report; therefore, I need not labour the point. The important thing is that they, like the Burns committee, compare the welfare effects of hunting with what would happen if hunting did not take place. The Burns committee points out that the alternative methods of control—principally shooting and snaring—also have serious adverse implications in terms of welfare. Of course they do; and I do not believe that banning hunting will benefit foxes, hares, deer or mink. On Friday, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, put the matter succinctly and I echo his words;
"if I were a fox, I would vote against the Hunting Bill".—[Official Report, 9/9/01; col. 454.]
We need to examine some of the practical aspects. The Bill as drafted would criminalise someone whose single dog—it is not "dogs" in the plural, as the Minister suggested in his introductory remarks—chases a fox, but not someone whose dog chases a rat; someone whose dog chases a hare, but not someone whose dog chases a rabbit. I realise how some of these extraordinary provisions have come about and how they come before us. Nevertheless, they highlight the problems of enforcement. I do not mean the problems of enforcement against the formal, well managed, traditional hunts that we know today. They would have to stop and, mostly, kill their hounds, or send them abroad. I believe that that would be a cruel waste of literally hundreds of years of careful breeding and training—for the best hounds have pedigrees far longer in terms of generations than any Members of your Lordships' House. I am talking about enforcement against ordinary dog owners, or, for that matter, those who try to hunt in secret.

527
Those who can afford it will no doubt try to hunt in Ireland or somewhere else. I should point out that there is a convenient travel guide to get one started in Appendix 9 of the Burns report. In any case, whatever happens to the main question, everyone recognises the need these days to reassure the public that hunting is properly conducted. Hunting has itself set up the new Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, to which the Minister referred, and its work has started. One of the alternative schemes would put that on a statutory footing.
The second alternative scheme in the other schedule that is to be introduced would bring in a licensing system with a government licensing body, as explained by the Minister. For myself, I prefer the first of these alternatives. I believe that self-regulation, like self-discipline, is the most effective kind. It is the least bureaucratic and is likely to have the most support.
We have a long day before us. I have already gone slightly beyond the time limit suggested by the Chief Whip, but I have not taken as long as the Minister, who took a further five minutes. I do not want to misuse my position. If the election is to be on 3rd May, this Bill is nothing more than a Labour Party stunt: it cannot succeed. Alternatively, if the election is not to be on 3rd May—of course, only the Government know—I believe that the Bill as it stands is not justified in welfare terms. It will do no good for the fox or the other quarry; it will destroy a legitimate activity and way of life of an already-suffering group of our fellow citizens. In party terms, it is a free vote, but I trust that noble Lords from all sides of the House will not support the flawed and offensive Bill now before us.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House a question. I have tabled an amendment which appears on the Order Paper and should like to know when it will be taken. I repeat: when will it be taken?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, as I understand it, my noble friend the Leader of the House was quite clear in her earlier response. The amendment will be dealt with in due course, as per the order on the speakers' list.
3.43 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, a wise man said that the two subjects that really excite this House are badgers and buggery. I believe that the alliteration was meant to cover animal welfare and sexual mores. Certainly, if the length of the speakers' list is anything to go by, today is animal welfare's day. We have a long debate ahead, and the advice of the Government Chip Whip is ringing in my ears. I shall, therefore, try to be brief.
The position of the Liberal Democrat Party on the issue was set out in our policy statement A Matter of Conscience, which said:
"In our view, there is no prospect of reducing the suffering sufficiently to justify the continuing practice of hunting with hounds".
528
The statement went on to recognise the right of all Liberal Democrat MPs to vote on this issue according to individual judgment. Like those on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and those on the Government's side, Liberal Democrat Peers will have a free vote on the issue. Indeed, I expect from all sides of the House, and certainly from these Benches, strong individual views to be expressed. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer cannot be with us today, but she hopes to join in the proceedings in Committee. I know that there will be speakers for all three options from these Benches; indeed, knowing Liberal Democrats as I do, there would probably have been supporters for a fourth and fifth option had these been available.
I know that in expressing a personal view, that view will differ from those of some very old friends, both on these Benches and other parts of the House. My position is that this is an issue of animal cruelty on which Parliament has a right to legislate. When an opportunity presents itself in Committee, I shall vote for a total ban. Those who argue that this is matter of individual liberty will have to explain why we have any animal welfare legislation at all.
I understand that this debate is held against a background of crisis in the countryside. However, as the Minister pointed out, we are not talking about banning hunting by midnight tonight, even if we finish the debate. The discussion has to run in parallel with a response to the current crisis. Indeed, that response needs to be conducted with even more urgency—hence the pressure from these Benches for the debate on foot and mouth that will take place tomorrow. We seek a widespread set of measures sympathetic to the needs arising from the crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, talked a good deal about the judgment and knowledge of countrymen. I realise that people may consider my voice that of someone with an urban background. But I was brought up in the rural Fylde on the cusp between the seaside and the country. Although a factory worker, my father kept pigs and chickens. I sang, "D'ye ken John Peel", with gusto at my primary school. My attitude to animal welfare has never been dewy-eyed or emotional. I recognise that, for the farmer, the fox is a pest, albeit a pest with very good public relations.
But the debate is not about protecting some mythical bucolic idyll. Times change, and public attitudes change. What was acceptable to one generation is not acceptable to another. Over the years, Parliament has outlawed bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting, all because, at the time, Parliament judged those activities to be gratuitous and unwarranted cruelty and, therefore, unacceptable. It also judged at various times that setting one animal to kill another was not sport. Although I accept that there is a need to control the fox population and also, as a number of people who have written to me have pointed out, that the hunt, the pageantry and the dressing up are all great fun—goodness knows, this House is the last place to criticise people for dressing up—I oppose the linkage between pest control and entertainment.

529
Some can live with that and make a fine distinction. In an editorial of magisterial casuistry, the Observer said yesterday:
"There is a fine distinction which separates hunting from bear and badger baiting: hunting people do not take pleasure from the death of a fox. Indeed very few witness it. Their object is to pursue and kill the fox, not to watch its death".
That is too fine a distinction for me. As for the middle way—
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord McNally: No, my Lords. I shall not, and I shall tell the House why not. The noble Lord is bringing a habit from the other place, which is to intervene during someone else's speech. It is the second time he has done so in a speech of mine. In other words, you intervene in a debate where there is a long list and that way you get your name in Hansard. If the noble Lord is here at midnight, I shall be very surprised. Is the noble Lord on the speakers' list?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have never been in another place and I have seen people intervene. It is not a habit introduced from another place.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall be brief. While he is making these fine distinctions or arguing that they do not exist, does he believe that there is a distinction between hunting and hunting for rabbits, which are excluded from the Bill, and with fishing and shooting? What does he have to say about that?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord were one of the 70 speakers on the speakers' list. If we allow that other place gamesmanship, debates in this place will be wrecked, whether the noble Earl has been here 30 years or not. This is the second debate in which the noble Lord has intervened in that manner and not participated in the debate. There are 70 speakers on all sides of the House who will have a chance to respond to the noble Lord. I shall not play his game today. If others wish to respond to the noble Lord, they can.
In my view, the middle way is not a true compromise. The issue before us is whether killing in this way should be permitted or not. A compromise which leaves the cruelty intact is not a compromise. The middle way is only a variant on continuation. I ask those who support the middle way: why not separate the pest control from the sport by espousing other methods of hunting? Those were mentioned in the report.
As has already been demonstrated by my tetchiness to the noble Lord and by that of others, we have ahead 10 hours of high emotion and some technical argument. I conclude by making three points. We shall hear speeches in favour of a ban. I hope that the serried ranks will show a little more tolerance than they have done so far. This is not an attack on the country by the
530
town. I believe that there is a need for a new rural policy which benefits not only the 3 per cent involved in farming but also the 97 per cent who are not. It is dangerous politics to whip up town against country or vice versa. However, it is not in the countryside's interest to commit itself too closely to the hunting lobby if it wants a broader settlement of its needs. The wider issues must be addressed.
I refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I also believe that obeying the law is not optional. Parliament decides this matter, whichever way the debate goes. The same applies to the two other options. If hunting is to continue to be permitted, either through self-regulation or regulation by a statutory body, it is my belief that that right should be protected by the full weight of the law. But let us also be clear that if Parliament in its wisdom decides to ban hunting, it ill behoves anyone in this House or elsewhere to advocate that that law should not be obeyed.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it is unlikely that this issue will be settled in this Parliament. If the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, thinks that this exercise will put the issue to bed, I fear that he will be severely disappointed. According to a Downing Street briefing, this is,
"not high on the Prime Minister's list of priorities".
If it is not, this issue will drag on for years and years. Certainly, at some stage during the passage of the legislation the Minister should explain what the Government intend to do if the Bill is not enacted.
We have to take into account the significant majority in another place. That does not deny this House the right and the duty to scrutinise the legislation extremely carefully and to perform our usual advisory and revisory role. However, if there is an election and that election results in a House of Commons that again calls decisively for such legislation, I do not think that it is within the competence of this House to resist that legislation. If, on a free vote, the House of Commons again calls for such legislation, I think that on a free vote this House would be well advised to accept that. If we did not do so, we would be wandering into precedents that would have disturbing consequences.
However, during the next 10 to 12 hours there are only the following two tests for us to consider. Can we behave in a democratic and a civilised way? A democratic debate will comprise mutual tolerance. A civilised society will conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel and unacceptable and will legislate accordingly. Let the debate begin.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks that have been made about the work of the hunting inquiry. I pay tribute to the other members of the committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for their insight and contribution to the work of the committee. I am also grateful for their delightful and stimulating company as we conducted our many visits to hunting events around England and Wales.

531
On one occasion we even found ourselves in Scotland with the Border Hunt. However, I should emphasise that that did not happen by accident.
At the outset many people saw our task as a "poisoned chalice". I am relieved that it did not turn out that way. In part that was because both sides of the debate handled their relationships with the inquiry in a positive and constructive way. I am grateful to them also. I met some fascinating and committed people and learned a great deal from them both about animal welfare and animal behaviour. The process also went well because we had an outstanding secretary who brought together a small but very able team to help us.
I chaired the inquiry because, as the Minister mentioned, it was asked only to look at the facts about hunting. It was not asked to come to a decision on the basic question of whether or not there should be a ban. Nor were we asked to consider the moral and ethical aspects. As we were asked to establish facts and to inform the debate, we thought the job could be undertaken. I hope that we have helped people to deal with this extremely difficult issue.
In this debate I propose to stick to that role. I do not propose to give my view on the central question of whether or not there should be a ban on hunting. Having studiously avoided that question when undertaking the inquiry it would be wrong to express a view now. Today I shall touch on some of the matters that I learned during an enormously valuable experience.
The first point to make is that those who participate in hunting do so for a wide variety of reasons. Farmers in particular play a more central role than I realised before I undertook the inquiry. They participate in significant numbers as well as providing the land on which hunting takes place. They benefit from the pest control to the extent that it matters and they value highly the fallen stock service that is provided by many hunts. They believe that they know about animals, whether that involves breeding them, handling them or killing them. Of the other participants, some like riding horses; some like watching hounds work—we witnessed many people in that category—and some participate because they view it as an important way to support the local community.
As many have pointed out, the social life that surrounds hunting during the winter months is important to many people, particularly those who live in remote rural areas. At the same time, the committee was impressed by the strength of feeling of those we met, in particular in rural communities, who were opposed to hunting. They fell into a number of categories. Some disliked hunting and resent the hunt trespassing on their properties when it is told it is not welcome. There were several examples of that. Some worry about the safety of their pets and animals and are frustrated by the difficulty of moving around their nearby roads on hunt days. Many people have a deep concern about what they see as the inherent cruelty involved in hunting. I am sure we shall hear about that aspect today. Others were worried about the damage to the countryside and other animals, in particular badgers and otters.
532
So there are two important sides to the debate. Views are held strongly. There is a high degree of understanding by each side about the other's view. I hope that the work we undertook and the many seminars we held have helped to further that understanding. In many cases, it is a difference of view about some of the important aspects.
The committee spent some time considering the part that hunting plays in pest control. I shall not go through it in detail. I came to the view that hunting is essentially a recreational activity in most lowland areas and in practice plays only a small part in pest control. On the other hand, it is true that in some remote upland areas hunting plays a much bigger part in pest control. Farmers would have great difficulties without the help of some aspects of the subject we are debating.
At the same time we should also recognise that we are dealing with species where landowners believe that the population numbers must be managed. If hunting were subject to a ban, I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hares would be killed by other means. The number of deaths is not likely to be reduced by banning hunting. Instead we are talking about alternative means of killing and whether they are more or less humane.
Given my economics background, I was interested to learn that on average it costs £1,000 per fox killed to maintain the hunt infrastructure, including the kennels. In a dozen hunts the cost was more than £2,500 per fox; and for two hunts it was more than £5,000 per fox. This suggested to me evidence of a high recreational value. By contrast, for many of the hunts in Wales and the Lake District the figure was below £350 per fox and for six of the hunts it was below £100 per fox. That seemed more consistent with a greater role of the hunt in population management.
The impact of hunting on employment was an important part of our remit; we commissioned research on it. Our estimates and some of the uncertainties have been reported and I do not wish to add to them today. They are available for people to read if they wish to do so. The general conclusion was that the numbers are not huge but of course they matter greatly to those affected, particularly when they see the threat coming from Parliament rather than from adverse economic conditions.
We considered the potential for drag hunting and undertook a visit to Germany. One often hears the argument that drag hunting is a simple substitute. We came to the view that there is scope for a greater role for drag hunting in the event of a ban. It would probably be one of the ways in which people would continue to exercise their interest in horse activities. However, we also concluded that there are some important limitations, including the reluctance of farmers to make available sufficient land, and of laying an artificial scent other than in long, fairly straight lines which compounds the problem of access to land. Taken together, we concluded that it was unlikely that drag hunting would offset the effects of a ban to any great extent.

533
The animal welfare argument is the most difficult to evaluate and the area where I had most to learn. I realise that I might not easily escape the phrase, "seriously compromises the welfare of the fox". I suspect that it will pursue me for some time to come. It is incumbent upon me to explain why we used that phrase although I shall limit my remarks to deer and foxes in view of the time pressure. Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel but in true Sir Humphrey style were not prepared to say so clearly. The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area.
Instead, our terms of reference asked us to consider the implications for welfare. We turned for help to the emerging scientific discipline of animal welfare. Scientists have been struggling with the question of how to measure the welfare of animals. The discipline is distinct from ethical or moral judgments about the way in which the animal is treated. Essentially it is concerned with assessing the ability of an animal to cope with its environment. If an animal is having difficulty in coping, or fails to cope, its welfare is regarded as poor.
One cannot ask an animal about its welfare or know what is going on inside its head. Scientists have sought to use a range of indicators to try to make that judgment. Those indicators usually involve a mixture of physiological indicators such as muscle damage as well as behavioural indicators. Our first step was to consider evidence about the welfare effects of hunting defined by assessing some of those indicators.
There is some scientific evidence about the impact on welfare of hunting deer. Quite a lot of work has been undertaken. Inevitably, there are differences about the interpretation of that data but there seems to be broad agreement that deer suffer in the final stages of hunting. Indeed, the hunt comes to an end because there is insufficient fuel left in the muscles for the deer to continue to run. There remains some disagreement about when that becomes serious. The committee's view was that in the final stage it probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing and that there is a compromise of welfare.
With the fox, there is an almost total lack of similar scientific evidence about the effect on welfare of being hunted. I was surprised by that, given the intensity of the debate over many years. However, the evidence we collected in the form of post mortems convinced us that death is not always the result of a single bite to the back of the neck or shoulders by the leading hound as has sometimes been claimed. The post mortems indicated that death resulted from quite massive injuries to the chest and vital organs. Even so, we concluded that insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught. Although we would have liked more scientific evidence, on these grounds we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing.
534
The problem—it has been referred to by other noble Lords—is that that cannot be the end of the matter. As I argued previously, a ban on hunting is unlikely to reduce the number of foxes and deer killed as farmers would use other methods to manage the population of those animals. Therefore we have to consider the welfare effects of the alternatives. For foxes, that means considering methods such as shooting and snaring. None of them is entirely comfortable. Both snaring and shooting with shotguns can have serious adverse welfare effects. We were persuaded that "lamping" using rifles, if carried out properly, was better for welfare but it was only feasible in certain circumstances. For example, it is not feasible or safe to use lamping in many upland areas, including those with dense forestry. We concluded that if dogs could not be used at least to flush foxes from cover in those areas, it was likely that the welfare of foxes would be adversely affected.
For deer, there is a viable alternative. We came to the view that, if done well, stalking with the availability of a dog to deal with wounded deer is in principle a better method from an animal welfare perspective. Our difficulty was that there was insufficient evidence about wounding rates. We recognised that a ban on hunting would be likely to result in more shooting being done by inexperienced stalkers.
A ban on hunting would also make it vital to introduce an effective deer management strategy on Exmoor. At the moment, that is effectively done by the hunt. There is a real risk that farmers will not tolerate deer on their land to the extent that they currently do if there is a ban on hunting.
It is for noble Lords to come to their own view about the balancing of those factors. I simply offer the view that the balancing need not be the same for each of the hunted species or in all areas. I am persuaded that this is not a simple case and there is no simple answer. If we are interested in animal welfare, we need to balance the various factors.
Whereas I do not wish to express a view on the central question of whether to ban hunting, I feel less restrained about commenting on the choice between licensing and self-regulation, if Parliament decides against a ban on hunting. Between those two options, my preference is for the licensing regime. That is not because of any lack of confidence in the individuals at present on the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, but because of two strands of argument that came out of our deliberations.
First, the task of being in charge of a large pack of hounds is a considerable responsibility. I have watched at close hand the extent to which at times the hounds are not under the close control of huntsmen. Part of the time they are, but part of the time they are not. As a society, we insist on licensing many activities in which there is a need to show competence and responsibility. The punishment for failure to do so can be the withdrawal of the licence. The same requirements of competence and responsibility apply to hunting, as well as the question of what action should be taken if

535
conduct falls short of what is desired. I doubt that the non-hunting community would be satisfied by those decisions being taken by a self-regulatory body.
Secondly, we were concerned about the impact on animal welfare of a number of practices, including autumn or cub hunting, digging out, stopping up of earths and interfering with the flight of the quarry. We suggested ways in which action could be taken in the mean time to ban or curtail some of those activities even if Parliament decided against an overall ban on hunting with dogs.
The problem is that in each case it is difficult to impose rules that should apply in all circumstances and in all regions. There are clearly some cases that one would wish to deal with differently from others. A licensing authority could have an important role in judging the circumstances in which to grant licences and when to reject an application. That might include taking account of successful prosecutions brought against some of the activities.
I have already trespassed too long on your Lordships' time without giving a clear steer on how to deal with the Bill. I hope that I shall be forgiven for that. My aim has been to try to provide some thoughts from my six months of surprising and intensive immersion in the subject to help people to make their minds up. I look forward to hearing other people's perspectives, from the huge range of distinguished speakers on display today. I have already heard the views of a large number of people on the subject, hut, having been brought into the issue, I continue to find it enormously fascinating.
4.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burns, because it gives me an opportunity to thank him for listening so thoroughly and putting the background facts for the debate so clearly. I make this speech as humbly as I can, because I recognise that within the Church that I serve there are completely opposing views held by a large number of people. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I shall speak personally from my experience as best I can.
First, I declare an interest—my love of Somerset since childhood, including nearly 10 years as the Bishop there. I have also had 25 years in East London, including 13 years as Bishop of Stepney, which included Islington. I continue to be concerned by the increasing lack of understanding between the rural and the urban, in spite of the great deal of cross-fertilisation that is taking place. Prejudice and discrimination are growing. In some ways and in some places, it is as though we have two different cultures. If it were not for the present foot and mouth tragedy, a vast march would have expressed how deeply many country people feel about what they see as an assault on their values.
One of the sharpest distinctions is on the treatment of animals. On one side are those whose experience is mostly limited to dealing with domestic animals. On the other side, people in the country deal daily with
536
domestic, farm and wild animals. In a recent television programme called "Bare Necessities", some people on a survival course were asked to kill a chicken. They all had no difficulty in taking the prepared, gift-wrapped chicken from the supermarket shelf, but they were horrified by having to kill the bird themselves. In one way that is funny, but in another way it is a sort of alienation from the reality of how we live. The middle way offers a controlled opportunity to monitor and decide on some of those issues.
We have all been through lifelong exposure to the projection of human character and understanding onto animals. My first and favourite book that I was able to read and consciously remember was Black Beauty. "Bambi" had me under the seat in tears. In addition there are Mickey Mouse, Piglet and thousands of other examples of animals being portrayed as though they were human and had human consciousness. The good side of that—and there is a good side—is that it develops greater care and sensitivity for animals. The bad side is that it can create a dangerous prissiness about nature. I live surrounded by a moat on which nature constantly demonstrates to me what an unkind set of arrangements it is. Yet at the same time, nature has never been so brilliantly filmed or observed, or filmed so sharply, showing us how unkind it is. We see the most terrible, prolonged and teasing deaths and killings. So great is that anthropomorphic projection that we now have television programmes showing complex operations on cancers and other conditions in domestic animals, with medical staff striving to keep them unnaturally alive. I believe that that conveys cruelty to the animals in question.
The issue of hunting has become a serious conflict, partly because of those different perceptions. Some of the arguments on both sides seem little more than downright prejudice. On the one side is the use of words such as "barbaric" and the ignorance of thinking that hunting is largely a sport for the rich or for the upper classes—or even the comment of a professor yesterday that hunting was "practical atheism". On the other side there is a failure to tackle at a deep enough level the question of cruelty, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, so admirably set out, and the stereotyping of the urban response. I have stood for many years on both sides of that divide and I do not find the two sides describing each other accurately.
There are critics and supporters on both sides of the urban-rural divide. I have been on both sides of the argument. This is not just a cultural and economic question, vital though those aspects are for the countryside and for all the people who make their living there. It is shocking to travel across Somerset in any direction and see desolate fields—perhaps one field with sheep in every 10 miles—as all the animals are in their barns and farmers are living in fear of what might happen to them the next day.
In my view, the hunting question is a moral and a spiritual one. We often hear about the moral question; we rarely hear about the spiritual one. People say that it is not important. If it is not, then why do hundreds of thousands of people want to march and be heard,

537
and why do hundreds of thousands of other people take tremendously serious efforts to oppose it? I believe that it is an important question because it concerns the relationship between the human race and nature and, ultimately, God.
One of my colleagues—not in this House—briefly and tellingly put the case against hunting—that it is impossible to believe that the cruel killing of a sentient being for human pleasure can be pleasing to God. To me, that is the core of the argument which must be faced. At first sight, it is a telling and powerful remark. No doubt it is the view of many such good people. But there are serious weaknesses in that statement.
Let us look at the key word "cruel", which has already been mentioned several times as applied to the killing in a hunt. "Cruel" is defined in the dictionary that I use as:
"Disposed to inflict suffering; indifference or pleasure in another's pain."
Of course, in nature, wolves, jackals, hyenas, other groups of dogs, and so on, pursue other animals quite cruelly and persistently wherever nature is left to itself. It is a natural way of killing: the crocodile takes the wildebeest and the lion a deer. Their prey live in the wild in fear wherever there is a threat in the wind. Many creatures are eaten alive. Indeed, I am afraid to say—I find it deeply unpleasant—the sparrowhawk constantly eats pigeons alive on the lawn outside the place where I live.
Those who believe in God must come to terms with a creation of mutual hunting and eating. Everyone else does, but that is not such a problem if one does not have to believe in an almighty, loving Father and Creator. Those who believe sometimes think that perhaps He could have organised matters a little better. But we are unable to organise matters better. People say that we have now moved beyond the need to hunt, and what was our nature throughout the history of the human race is now thought of as unnatural for humans.
The hunting instinct is sublimated in many ways— some good, some bad: in athletics, which derived originally from hunting skills; in archery, obviously; packs on the rugger field hunt in their own way and get a lot out of their system; and, sadly, in racist pursuit. I have seen gangs in East London looking for, pursuing and hunting down people because they are of a different race. I have certainly witnessed gangs of football followers hunt other people.
My point is that hunting is within our being because it is part of our genetic history. The question is: how is that to be dealt with? Whether people like it or not, perhaps the hunt reminds us of what we have been and, in a sense, what we continue to be. I realise that it is no argument to say that we are just like nature. Although we are part of it, we have consciences to instruct us. However, in many ways we are confused and dysfunctional towards nature. As many of the big debates that we have show us, we do not have a great record in relating to nature. I believe that hunting is not only practical; it is also a reminder of that part of ourselves.
538
I turn to the subject of cruelty. Animals have predators. Some predators kill quickly and easily and some do not. If we possess, as we do, ways of killing which minimise suffering, those should be used whenever it is possible to do so successfully and properly. The deer is shot at bay but is usually otherwise unmarked. But, importantly, no animal escapes wounded. That is an important factor.
Reports on the relative cruelty of the chase often vary and, indeed, contradict each other. I, too, was moved when I heard of the number of vets who support hunting. A huge correspondence—admittedly, much of it from Somerset—suggests that a wide variety of people support it. I notice that many conservationists—I was particularly interested in David Attenborough's recent series on television— recognise that the survival of animals around the world often involves a compromise of some kind between we humans and the rest of nature which surrounds us. People may not like this fact, but, before hunting on Exmoor, the red deer population was almost lost. Its revival was due in part to the hunt and what Ted Hughes called "the strange agreement" between the farmers and the deer.
We must be sure that the degree of cruelty administered by the chase—now likely to be banned—is not abandoned in the name of greater cruelty, leaving the quarry in question to die in worse and more cruel ways. Deer which are shot by poachers, for example, are constantly having to be cleared up by the hunt when, wounded, they creep away to a ditch to die. One issue which is most misunderstood is the relationship between farmers and deer. Most hunting people whom I know are not indifferent to the suffering; they simply see it as a necessity for the good of the herd which is sustained on farmland. That fact must be recognised.
A noble Lord said that those are fine distinctions. I consider them to be very important distinctions. It is possible that, ultimately, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, the decision that must be made will go beyond the limit of what we should expect or the standards that we should have. However, I believe that the issues are very different to those involved in cock fighting or the bull fight. They come far more within a natural context and, therefore, are more acceptable. Hunting provides a way of limiting the number of animals which are free to do damage to crops and farm animals.
My final point concerns the question of human pleasure. As I said, sometimes I feel uncomfortable when I consider the Creation. However, one unjust criticism of the hunt is that people enjoy inflicting the pain, the suffering and the killing. There are sick people who enjoy it. That is why bad things sometimes occur and why there must be regulation. But most of the people who take part do not enjoy the killing; indeed, many go home long before the kill takes place.
As your Lordships know, many other issues arise in relation to the rural community. I have tried to look at the way in which we see man relating to nature—about which I believe there is deep confusion—and the

539
question of cruelty and pleasure. On an issue where opposing views, to which great thought has been given, are held with such passion, and in a society where there is such uncertainty, can it really be right at this time to introduce legislation to ban altogether something that is so much in question and so much part of the rural way of life?
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: As I have listened to this debate, I have been carried back to the 10 years which I spent in the European Parliament—from 1979 to 1989. One of the activities which I enjoyed most was my membership of the inter-group on animal welfare. That was an all-party, all-member state group. It was fascinating to listen to the people who came along as individuals, bringing a case which they felt we should examine if we were to cleanse the European Parliament of the smear of cruelty that lies over all our western civilisation.
Towards the end of my period there, I decided to organise an exhibition on animal welfare and on what was wrong in each individual member state. The officials of the inter-group came to my assistance and, of course, we had illustrations: the French torturing the goose to produce the pâté de foie gras; and the Belgians clinging on—the last state in Europe to do so—to the legalisation of the leg-hold trap, with its unmitigated cruelty to the trapped animal. As for Spain—how we all condemn Spain for her bullfighting and the habit she had of, I believe, dropping donkeys from the tops of roofs. When we produced the exhibition, they said to me, "What about Britain? What about your fox hunting and hare coursing?" Of course there was no way in which I could justify our being exempt from the general scrutiny.
What interested me was that at that time Henry Plumb was president of the European Parliament. He had just come into it following a period as president of the NFU. He spoke with some authority on the subject. He threw himself wholeheartedly behind our exhibition and agreed to open it with all of his official authority behind him. He was active in Compassion in World Farming and he once said to me, "You know, it is only economic common sense to mitigate cruelty to animals, particularly if you are in the farming world".
So we made quite a stir. I shall not bore you with the details about our campaign to criminalise the use of the leg-hold trap. We should not be afraid of that word. We do it all of the time. We criminalise things that we think are a blot on our society.
I approach this debate today not from a mushy point of view about animal welfare but with a concern for the development of our society. I happen to love animals passionately, and I live in the country, you know. To hear some people talk, you would think that none of us who supports a total ban on hunting with dogs had ever seen a blade of grass. That is of course an absolute farce.
I always remember in those years of the 1945 government after the war the unleashing of the passionate love of the countryside in industrial areas.
540
People in those areas demanded access to mountains and supported the Youth Hostel Association. They wanted above all to get into their inheritance, which was barred from them for as long as they lived in smoke-filled towns. They went all right—they walked further than most country people do.
As for myself, I live in the heart of the Chilterns in an area of outstanding natural beauty, about half a mile from Lady Mallalieu, who is of course the complete countrywoman. I have been in my six acres for 35 years and I claim the title as proudly as my noble friend does.
I can see wildlife in my field and my bit of wood. There was a muntjac at the bottom of my garden only the other day. I know what it was doing—it was eyeing my rose bushes to see how many of the little shoots it could nibble. Fortunately, I decided this year, having lost my status in the Ibstone flower show as the rose queen, to cover everything with netting to keep off the muntjacs. Good heavens, they are everywhere. The peasant-type chap who lived in the cottage opposite when we first went to our new home, said to us, "You will have to put some tinselly stuff or something at the entrance to your garden. Otherwise, the deer will have everything".
I know the realities of rural life. I defy anybody to rob me of the right to claim such a status. One of the things that irritates me about the hunting lobby's campaign is the suggestion that we are out to ruin the countryside and its values. As a previous speaker said, those values in traditional country sports would honestly have to include cock fighting, dog fighting, bear baiting and the rest of it. Those in the countryside were not gentlemen, I assure you, throughout our history. They were rough-and-tough types, just as the people who live in towns are rough-and-tough types, or a mixture of them. There is not a great gulf; it is just not there.
The campaign goes to such extremes. I wonder how many saw a few weeks ago on BBC television "Clarissa and the Countryman". Clarissa, you may remember, was one of the two fat ladies renowned for their cooking. Now she had gone into the country to be taken round, meekly led, by a punting propagandist, who said, "If they bar hunting they will ruin all of this". We ended up with a short scene of country dancing in a barn, and he said, "That will go!" I wonder how many in this Chamber have done as much country dancing as I have. I doubt whether anyone has done more.
I remember, late in my teens—we were living in the industrial north of Bradford at the time—when my brother enrolled me in an organisation called Woodcraft Chivalry. We used to go camping—oh gosh, those cold Easters!—in remote rural areas. The dampness struck up from the wet clay beneath. I know something about country life that I bet very few of you know! During the day, we used to go morris dancing in the villages.
I love, have been brought up in and will protect to the very end this lovely countryside but I do not include in its sacred values the right to pursue living mammals with a pack of hounds.

541
When people talk about country sports, I do not know where they get their values from. Is it a sport to set a dozen or so well-trained and well-heeled hounds after one isolated mammal? I could not do it. It makes me sick just to see it. I will tell you why huntsmen do not want to go drag hunting, even if that would employ their horses and hounds. One of them gave me an answer, although I shall not name the person. When I asked, "Why don't you do drag hunting?", the answer I got was, "No, the fox is so unpredictable". One does not need scientific assessments of what animals' feelings are or what the effect on them is. If you once see a pack of sleek, well-trained hounds in hot pursuit of one frightened animal, no wonder it is unpredictable. It reminds me of the panic of animals caught in a leg-hold trap: it would make anybody sick. People say: "We all know that foxes are vermin. You know what they do: they kill little lambs and they snap up chickens."
How many of those people who concentrate the limelight on fox hunting actually go in for stag hunting as well? There can be no doubt of the cruelty involved in stag hunting. The Burns report states that the stag is not adapted to the swift chase: it has small spurts of energy and then has to stop. The average hunt will take three hours and cover over 18 kilometres. That unadjusted deer has to cope as best it can. The report accepts that the overwhelming opinion is that in the later stages of the hunt, the deer suffers considerably. We see a picture of the deer at the end of the three-hour chase, turning because it cannot cope any longer, standing at bay, waiting for death at the hands of the hounds or their accompanying gunmen.
How can anybody do it? I know so many lovable and kindly people who hunt, but how can they do it? They say that a stag has to cope with the wolf in its natural habitat. I do not know how many wolves there are on Exmore, but the wolf is a short, sharp attacker and killer. If he does not kill immediately, then he turns away; he is not going to go for three hours and travel over 19 kilometres to get his prey. There is no parallel. What the stag hunter does is not natural.
I realise that there has to be culling and I am not against that; but, as the report shows, culling by hunting is the least efficient method of managing the deer population. The report states that 1,000 red deer have to be disposed of each year because they are surplus to requirements. What does hunting achieve, after the huntsmen have had their fill of seeing the animal at bay? The hunts account for 160 of those 1,000 deaths. The same pattern applies in relation to fox hunting. Hunting is the least efficacious method of managing the deer and fox populations.
I know that there can also be cruelties in stalking. I could never be silent as long as terriers were used to track the terrified animal to the earth. That is an area where there could be regulation. However, if this House is thinking about voting for regulation, it should think of the stag at bay, when it can no longer cope. No regulation can prevent its misery because it is endemic in the chase.
542
I ask this House to consider what is at issue in this matter. I am not soppy about animals, nor anthropomorphic, to repeat that long word used by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but I think that society is judged by the way it treats animals. We can either look upon our relationship to animals as one of trusteeship or we can indifferently turn to their exploitation for our own amusement and entertainment. I am concerned about the nature of our society. A compassionate society does not mean that you cannot break a chicken's neck or put the rabbit in the pot—I would invite anybody to have a go at the rabbits in my field any time they like because they eat up all my parsley—but it depends on the motive. I ask every supporter of the hunting fraternity seriously to examine their motives. If they cannot do that themselves, we had better do it for them, because society would be poisoned if it ever allowed the brutalisation of indifference to pervade our world.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, following that extraordinary speech, I should like to begin by declaring an interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance, which is a democratic organisation representing almost half a million people. The Countryside Alliance contributed one of the options that made up this extraordinary Bill. We will debate those options in more detail in two weeks' time, but I should now like to focus on the proposal to ban hunting, which is at the centre of the Bill.
In six days' time, half a million or more supporters of the alliance were due to converge on London to express their passionate opposition to the Bill. The crisis in our countryside compelled us to postpone that march, and I am sure I am not alone in saying how distasteful we find the decision to press ahead with the debate at this time in these circumstances. It does the supporters of a ban no credit that they insist on having their say, when the very people whose way of life is most at risk cannot speak.
One of the main reasons why so many people wanted to come to London was to impress upon noble Lords their sense of anger and injustice and to ask your Lordships to defend them against the prejudice and ignorance that the debate has generated among their elected representatives. I know that noble Lords will understand if I ask them to be the voice of the countryside and to speak for those who cannot make their voices heard today.
I should like to make another point about timing. What message does the debate send to our rural communities about priorities? When foot and mouth disease was debated in the other place a week or so ago, only 40 government Back-Benchers bothered to attend, while almost 400 of them crammed the Chamber to outlaw hunting. More parliamentary time has been spent discussing the Bill, which we all know will never reach the statute book, than any of the real problems devastating the countryside and causing more despair than I have ever known in my lifetime. However, we apparently have plenty of time to debate

543
measures that will cost many people their jobs and their houses and put increased pressure on rural policing, also putting police in conflict with their strongest supporters.
Two weeks ago Nick Brown was too busy to go to the House of Commons; but 48 hours later the entire MAFF ministerial team, with the exception of Mr Brown and the noble Baroness, attended the House of Commons and found time to ban hunting. While they were voting, their own officials were scurrying around the country asking hunt staff to help in the slaughter of livestock and the disposal of carcasses. This week hunt staff are a vital part of MAFF's strategy to beat foot and mouth. Next week they can draw the dole.
It is little wonder that the countryside feels betrayed, ignored, forgotten and excluded when it sees such an inversion of priorities. Only the other week the Prime Minister expressed concern about cynicism and apathy in our national life. Yet can one imagine a more blatant example of what he condemned than the Bill before us today?
The Bill, as we know from the excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will destroy thousands of jobs and many traditional skills and trades. Many people too stand to lose their homes and businesses. It will also hurt already fragile local economies and attack the social cohesion that so impressed the inquiry team. It will inevitably change, in part at least, the landscape that is part of our national heritage. That too is clear from the report. As we know, none of that apparently matters to the supporters of the ban option. Despite months of argument, the excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the volumes of evidence received by the inquiry, too many supporters of this ban seem to be cocooned in the same ignorance as when they began.
As the report makes clear, this is an extremely complex debate and I should like to focus on what I consider to be the three most important issues: cruelty, morality and liberty. Those issues are central to the whole debate. The most important is cruelty. There is no doubt that the reason why so many sensible people are concerned about hunting is because they believe it to be intrinsically cruel and unnecessary. Indeed, that is the linchpin of Deadline 2000's case.
The report recognises that and consequently addresses the issue at some length, as did the noble Lord, Lord Burns, when he spoke. But he looked at the issue not as one of cruelty, which is what people do, but as one of suffering, which is what the animals feel. The report makes a number of important general points.
First, the report seeks to measure suffering in terms of welfare. Secondly, it points out that welfare is relative rather than absolute. That means that comparisons must be made between the current available methods of killing animals and by comparing today's situation with what is likely to be the position following a ban. The report points out that the welfare of the quarry species must be assessed at different times throughout the animals' lives, during the hunt itself and at the moment of death. Lastly, the whole
544
question of welfare, which relates to individual animals, must be balanced against that of whole populations and species. That is wildlife management.
The argument put forward by Deadline 2000 is based on welfare and takes little account of wildlife management. That is only one area in which in my view it is deficient. Deadline 2000 made much of the statement in the report that hunting "severely compromises the welfare" of the quarry species—the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right that that phrase will probably follow him around for a long time—but it fails to point out that it is impossible to kill an animal without compromising its welfare. Of course hunting compromises the welfare of the quarry; the object is to kill the quarry. But other factors must be taken into account.
The report seeks to differentiate between two aspects of hunting; first, the welfare implications of what the report calls the "chase"; and, secondly, the implications of the actual kill. In the case of the death of the quarry, Deadline 2000 still pretends that hounds kill their quarry by tearing it limb from limb. That is not correct. The report concludes that in the vast majority of cases, insensibility or death occur, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns said, within a matter of seconds. It is only after the animal is dead that the hounds tear at the carcass.
Most people throughout the country do not realise how large and strong hounds are or how small the quarry species. One of the reasons why there is still room for a debate on the exact manner of the kill is that even when one sees it, it happens too fast to be able to take in exactly what happens. But it is correct that there is no possibility of wounding.
This part of the debate is of course irrelevant to deer hunting, because at the end of the deer hunt the quarry is shot at close range by a trained marksman using a specially designed weapon. There is no quicker or more efficient way of killing a deer. There is no possibility of a deer escaping wounded, as can and does happen when deer are shot at longer range with a rifle, which is the only other method available.
The second area of concern is the chase itself. Much has been made about the stress of being hunted But stress is normal and exists alongside good welfare. Welfare becomes compromised when stress turns to distress or when an animal is forced to operate outside its normal parameters. It is likely that deer become distressed in the closing stages of a hunt and that their welfare can therefore be compromised. But that stage is reached in only a minority of cases and only for a few minutes.
Deadline 2000 makes much of the picture of an animal hunted for mile after mile and hour after hour to the point of exhaustion, whereupon it is torn limb from limb. That is not what happens. Most fox and hare hunts take place within the time, distance and pace parameters which the quarry encounter in their normal lives. Hunts are not continuous but, as the report suggests, comprise short bursts of speed interspersed with longer periods of slow progress. It is

545
unlikely therefore that the quarry become distressed until the closing stages, and that may be for a few minutes at worst. That is also likely to be true of mink.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out, we clearly cannot ask the quarry what it feels. But most animal welfarists believe that animals do not contemplate death as we do; that they run not out of fear but as a result of an in-built response to danger and that flight is one of their natural defence mechanisms. Whether or not that is correct, I am not qualified to say, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Lastly, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, we must balance the assessments of welfare against the requirements of wildlife management. All the four relevant animals need to be culled and that will continue to be so following a ban. The red deer of Exmoor, widely regarded as one of the best herds in the world, will cease to be what the report describes as a "community resource" and will become a pest, valued only for their meat. Farmers, who currently accept small numbers of deer on their farms because they support hunting, will not accept the larger herds that will form and the damage that they will do. It is therefore far more likely than at present that they will be shot, including by the use of shotguns. That is likely to lead to a sharp decrease in overall numbers and an equal increase in wounding rates. The deer as a whole will suffer, and there will be an increase in individual suffering.
There is very strong case for eradicating mink altogether. But a ban will lead to greater concentrations and greater damage, and the removal of one method of control, albeit not the most efficient by any means, for no valid reason.
The report emphasises that the hare survives best in areas where hare hunting and coursing take place, because hunters do an enormous amount of work to protect habitats. Indeed, it is the hare hunters who do the annual count for the Government. The likelihood is, therefore, that with no hare hunting and hare coursing, a direct and possibly terminal reduction in hare numbers will occur. The report also raises concern about the welfare of hares in the event of a ban because the only alternative—shooting—has relatively high wounding rates.
In the case of foxes, a ban on hunting will lead to an increase in the alternative methods of control. The report's view is that the best alternative is shooting using a lamp, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, suggested. He pointed out to us that that is not viable on moorland and hill country. I would add that it may not be desirable to encourage the use of high velocity rifles near roads and houses, and I suggest that the mix of rifles and increased rights of access, particularly at night, is not to me an obvious one.
The report also suggests that a ban would lead to an increase in snaring and the use of shotguns, and states that both can have serious welfare implications. We must remember that we have the healthiest and most stable fox population in Europe and, regardless of
546
welfare questions, the existing regime of management should not be compromised. The report draws attention to the fact that it is impossible to predict the effect a ban would have on the fox population.
I suggest that the question of welfare is central but it is not quite as simple as some people would have your Lordships believe. Properly conducted hunting raises fewer welfare concerns than some of the methods of control that would be used increasingly in the event of a ban. The existing evidence on which a judgment must be made does not show that hunting with dogs is crueller than other methods, and it is likely that the welfare of the quarry species would suffer rather than benefit from a ban. It is also clear that the existing regime of wildlife management would be put severely at risk by a ban, which would therefore constitute a huge and irresponsible step into the unknown.
Regardless of the strength or weakness of their argument, supporters of a ban claim that public opinion demands it. It is true that, historically, the polls have indicated a majority in favour of a ban although, as the report confirms, in the countryside there is widespread support for hunting, particularly among farmers. Since 1989 the polls have shown a steady decline in the number favouring an outright ban. In the past three months, however, there has been a marked shift in public opinion which has been sustained. Independent polls now clearly show a substantial majority of people in this country are opposed to a ban. That is an extraordinary change in public opinion.
Opinion polls also show that this is not "an important issue". When pollsters ask people what they consider to be the most important political issues, hunting invariably comes, as it always has, at the bottom of the list. People are not interested in hunting. One matter that has become evident over the past couple of months is that people are sick to death of this debate. Perhaps the other place does not therefore speak for Britain as much as it assumes.
Supporters of a ban also claim that hunting is offensive, repugnant and incompatible with a civilised society. Most other countries in the European Union permit hunting. It is enjoyed in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and throughout the United States. Does that mean that all those countries are uncivilised and that Nazi Germany, which did ban hunting, is an example of a civilised country? Hunting takes place on 80 per cent of British farms. Are we really saying that 80 per cent of farmers allow cruelty, permit cruelty, are indifferent to cruelty? Supporters of a ban claim that people who hunt do so because they enjoy killing animals. There is no evidence to support that slander whatsoever. Anyone who knows the countryside also knows that such claims are not only untrue but deeply offensive.
I have hunted for over 35 years with over 30 packs of hounds in this country, Ireland, France and America. During all that time I have never seen, or ever heard of, anyone deriving pleasure from seeing the quarry killed and I, and my many hunting friends, would be repulsed by such a thing. People hunt for many

547
different reasons, but sadism is not one of them. I use those words deliberately because it is a truism that most of us find many things offensive, but we do not presume that our distaste is grounds to impose a criminal sanction.
This Bill goes further than merely banning a sport. It intends to criminalise an activity that is not a sport in the way that football or snooker is. Hunting is a central part of many people's lives, from childhood through to old age. For tens of thousands of people hunting is symbolic of their way of life and it gives their lives an added purpose and meaning.
I suggest that a ban would be an illiberal, intolerant abuse of power. As Nick Brown said in the House of Commons on 26th February,
"laws work best when they have consent behind them".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/01; col. 605.]
A ban would have no such consent. Instead it threatens to divert police efforts and to divide rural communities, branding an entire class of people, who are often stalwarts of their communities, criminal if they do what they have always done, and which no independent inquiry has ever found should be outlawed. To ban hunting with dogs, which is the central issue of this Bill, would be an affront to the civil liberties of a large, law-abiding minority within our community.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, confirmed that hunting does not demonstrably and clearly lead to greater suffering than the other methods of control. I suggest that it is likely that a ban would lead to more suffering, not less. There is no widespread public demand for a ban and the debate over the past few months seems to indicate that a majority, as I have said, now oppose a ban.
The countryside has enough problems without this Bill. Rural communities need our support, not new attacks. Our police forces have enough challenges catching real criminals without being distracted by new and unnecessary laws. Hunting is not cruel. No case for a ban has been made. Thousands of jobs and livelihoods are at risk. A ban would be illiberal and unjustified. What most people want is for Parliament to tackle the priorities we share in common. This Bill does not solve problems; it creates them. It is unjust and intolerant. In June last year, the Prime Minister told the nation,
"I am resolutely in favour of a society of tolerance, without prejudice or discrimination".
So am I, Prime Minister, and so, I believe, is this House.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, for me this Bill is overwhelmingly a matter of civil liberties, human rights, tolerance, democracy and freedom itself. Every countryman knows that the Commons' vote seeks to destroy not only a country pursuit—a disciplined and historic form of fox and deer control—but also a part of the very culture of the countryside.
548
In the other place reference was repeatedly made to the,
"declared will of the majority'',
to be respected by country people and, remarkably enough, by this elected House. Of course, the rural population is a minority and the hunting community is a substantial part of that minority, which comprises decent, civilised, caring people who live, protect and understand, as the majority do not, animals in the wild and who preserve and manage their habitat.
There are men, women and, yes, children—the hunting fraternity and the followers—who are bewildered, shocked and now deeply angry that an ignorant, uninformed and urban and surburban majority should now demonise their community and seek to make their historic way of life criminal; their families open to arrest on suspicion; their premises open to search without warrant and their dogs liable to destruction.
What is democracy about if it is not respect and tolerance for the beliefs and way of life of minorities in one's midst and, indeed, respect for the views of this second Chamber under our constitution? Since the 17th century hunting has been an integral part of country life. From steeplechasing has come horse racing and so the industry of horse breeding, point-to-points, pony clubs, gymkhanas, eventing, showjumping and the whole infrastructure of dependent jobs.
Hunting has given rise to a great literary and artistic tradition—to Stubbs, Wootton and Tillemans and on to Munnings and Elizabeth Frink; and also to the great sporting art collections of Mellon in America and of the Tate and the National 'Trust over here. In addition, there is a host of children's tales and songs. How many noble Lords have not been entranced by Peter Beckford, Surtees and by the inimitable Mr Sponge and Mr Jorrocks? I remind the class-conscious members of old Labour opposite that Mr Jorrocks was a sporting grocer—no toff there! The literature continued to Seigfried Sassoon.
All that is now equated, in ridiculous ignorance, with the wanton cruelty of bear-baiting and cockfighting. I say to my noble friend Lord McNally: who introduced a Bill into this House to ban cockfighting? It was none other than a famous Master of Hounds, the Duke of Beaufort, who has already been referred to and whose descendant still fills the same role today.
What has inspired all that over three centuries? It is the beauty of the hunt; the horses; the hounds; the Fox; the mystery of the scent; the sound of the horn; the pure guts, courage and skill of riding to hounds, and a fascination of working the hounds. That is all shared in a wholly democratic community; the camaraderie of the fields. That is now described in the other place and here today as brutalising, demeaning and, as we have heard, barbaric. Perhaps I may quote from another area of Mr Straw's libertarian domain, the prison inspector's last report. He writes:
"Young people continue to be warehoused in barbaric conditions".

549
Would it not be infinitely preferable if 70 noble Lords had put down their names to debate the barbarity which is being practised officially in our own institutions in this country today?
To those who anthropomorphize the fox, I suggest that they should ask him which he would prefer: to be blinded by lights at night and shot in the head by a rifle or, more likely, blasted and wounded by a shotgun; enmeshed in a snare; imprisoned in a trap or poisoned in agony; or would he prefer to be free in his own natural habitat, chased in daylight by animals of his own species, pitting his wits against those of his pursuers with a 50 per cent chance of escape, and, if caught suffering death instantaneously or, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, found, within seconds; a death similar to that which he inflicts on his prey and which involves no more than those immortal words "his welfare being seriously compromised"? It is said that Parliament should represent the interests and welfare of animals. The RSPCA states that to cause fear or pain to any sentient being is unacceptable.
I am afraid that I say, "Come off it, RSPCA". Are rats, mice, cockroaches, slugs, cattle, pigs, poultry, fish and gamebirds never to be caused fear or pain in any circumstance? Are rats to be represented in this House? No doubt the noble and learned Lord could make a beautiful and emotional speech about a squashed cockroach. Winding up in the other place the Minister stated:
"The Government support shooting and fishing".
He added:
"I support the Bill … Killing for fun is wrong".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/02/01; col. 843.]
Can hypocrisy go further? Are coarse fishing, pheasant shooting and wild fowling not killing for fun? Of course not. Shooters and fishermen, as all "townies" know, include good working-class Labour supporters.
On deerhunting I say only this. Sir Robin Dunn, one of the most humane and much-loved Lord Justices of Appeal, well known to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, that great rider, gave his evidence to the Burns committee. As a hunter of deer and foxes on Exmoor for 40 years, he stated that to ban hunting there would be the equivalent of banning football in Liverpool. It would tear out the heart of the community. He stated that in all those years he had never seen a deer killed by hounds. Perhaps I may emphasise that to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, who I see is not in her place. In every case such a deer was humanely destroyed.
His arguments for that form of culling deer were, in his opinion, stronger than those for fox hunting. That evidence is good enough for me. That is evidence, not emotion. I shall vote against a ban and listen sympathetically to those who make the case for the middle way.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, one issue on which all Front Benches are agreed is that an important contribution which each of us can bring to
550
the debate is brevity. I propose to address only three of the issues which arise, confident that on matters on which I am silent, others will rectify my deficiencies.
I agree with all noble Lords who have said that the first issue which falls to be decided is whether hunting with dogs can cause suffering and distress to the quarry or, as some letters I have received seem to suggest, that the fox or the hare rather enjoy the game. I agree that that issue is crucial to this debate. If the quarry does not suffer, the whole argument for the Bill must fall. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I do not suggest that all who hunt are cruel people. That would be as silly as to suggest that all those who support the Bill are ignorant, prejudiced and ill informed or that they are human rights activists.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who, for the moment, is not in his place. The question is whether the activity causes suffering and distress. Crocodiles, foxes and cats cannot reflect on that issue; human beings can. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is a danger of approaching the question from too anthropomorphic a stand. Clearly, a fox does not calculate the prospect of impending death and the effects on his family as some of us may do. I have seen what has been presented as a philosophical argument: that animals do not feel pain and fear as we do, and that flight is a Pavlovian reaction. Whether they feel it as we do, whether a fox's pain feels like my pain, is a matter we cannot resolve. There is no procedure which would count as resolving it. I do not know whether another noble Lord's pain feels like my pain, as, by definition, only I can feel my pain and only he can feel his pain.
We do not need to involve ourselves in such metaphysical disputations. We can observe the behaviour of animals and compare it with our own behaviour under similar circumstances. With respect, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right. That is not an ethical or moral judgment; it is a factual judgment. Any noble Lord seeking to argue that animals do not have feelings, that a hare screaming as it is torn apart by dogs or a fox shrieking as it is disembowelled by the lead dog is not really feeling pain, or that an animal running before a pack of hounds to the point of exhaustion is not motivated by fear or suffering distress, will no doubt deploy the case for that proposition.
I am content to begin with the premise that common sense is a fair guide. I am fortified by the unemotional assessment of the Burns committee in paragraph 6.49 that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed seriously compromises the welfare of the fox—that is all the argument requires; the wickedness of those who perpetrate it is rather beside the point—and seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. That is hardly the over-dramatised judgment of a committee of fanatics, but I agree that it is not the end of the argument. I do not seek to deny that some culling may be necessary, although I note the comment in the Burns report that in some areas it appears that

551
hares are introduced and released in order that they can be chased, which hardly suggests that culling is the main objective.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene. The absolute rule of the National Coursing Club is that six months should elapse between the hare population having increased and a coursing meeting.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord whose judgment on these matters I greatly respect. He is better informed than I am. I do not suggest for a moment that there is any deliberate cruelty to hares, but that this takes place in some areas appears to be the consequence of the evidence. I accept that that does not take place within the National Coursing Club.
It is not easy to find our way through the massive accumulation of evidence, often conflicting. In what I regard as a highly commendable and fair presentation of the evidence and arguments, the Burns committee reaches a number of significant conclusions in paragraph 5.36: first, that shooting has a much greater capacity to reduce the fox population than killing with dogs; and, secondly, that the overall contribution of traditional fox hunting is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole. I accept that there are differences between different localities.
The discussion by the Burns committee as to the most humane method of culling is complicated. I say only that if those who perceive a need for culling sat down and discussed carefully the most humane method in their local circumstances, and then gave effect to their considered conclusions, I would be content. Alas, I do not believe that that is what happens. I believe that their principal concern is with what affords most pleasure to human beings.
I turn to the mischievous consequences which, it is said, will arise from a ban on hunting and which must be balanced against the consequences of allowing it to continue. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I propose to address only two. I am aware that other noble Lords intend to debate, for example, the effects on employment. I deal first with the question of freedom and tolerance which was raised initially by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am delighted that that subject is to be debated in this debate with so many noble Lords present. So often when freedom is debated in this Chamber it attracts rather less attention. In one or two recent debates the question of tolerance has been a little less in evidence. Of course, I exclude from that comment the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Freedom is an important issue in any debate about controlling and regulating human conduct. No one should be restricted in doing whatever he or she pleases, unless it causes suffering to others. If it does, the restriction on freedom must be balanced against that suffering. It is true that freedom has been invoked in some unworthy causes. The debates on the abolition of slavery prior to 1833 and restricting the working hours of children are scattered with indignant protests
552
about freedom. Animal welfare has been resisted time and again by arguments about freedom. In 1800 a Bill to ban bull and bear-baiting attracted virtually word for word arguments which have been invoked in the course of this Bill. The Bill of 1835 which reached the statute book and criminalised those activities was denounced as the end of freedom.
Freedom is not about everyone being permitted to do whatever pleases them irrespective of the consequences. That is not freedom but anarchy. The issue in this Bill remains whether hunting causes avoidable suffering and distress to the animals hunted. If it does not, there is no need for an argument about freedom because the case for the Bill fails; if it does, the arguments against the Bill are not enhanced by invoking freedom to cause suffering.
The next argument to be encountered in letters that I have received is the effect on the countryside if hunting is abolished. I strongly support those who argue that the countryside has more than its share of problems: animal disease, rural bus services and rural post offices. It is not for me to tell the Countryside Alliance how to present its case, but I believe that it has sacrificed some of its effectiveness by appearing to be obsessed with only one issue.
I do not propose to discuss the question of employment today. I am puzzled to be told that in many areas social life will wither and die. "It is not only without the local hunt", I am told, "but the hunt ball and hunt fund-raising, such as musical events". I understand that if there is no hunt there cannot be a hunt ball, but it does not seem to follow that there will be no more dancing. If people wish to organise a ball they will be perfectly free to do so. The fact that there is no hunt will not prevent that. Unless there are areas in which the only reason people wish to meet their neighbours is to chase foxes, it is difficult to understand why this Bill should reduce the countryside to eremitical silence.
Again, I believe that the Burns committee dealt kindly with the argument. In paragraph 4.41 it concluded:
"It is plain, therefore, that any claim, even in respect of strongly rural areas where support for hunting is high, that hunting is the main source of social activity is exaggerated".
This Bill has been portrayed as an assault on all rural communities by those in the towns who have no sympathy with and understanding of rural life. We can all bandy statistics. There have been innumerable opinion polls among residents in the countryside, and we can all use them subjectively to suit our arguments. The Burns committee, which was obviously anxious to be fair, pointed out that opinions differed in different locations. Among those who responded to the MORI survey of rural areas, which is cited in chapter 4, views vary from Devon and Somerset where two-thirds favoured hunting to Leicestershire where two-thirds did not. In any event, majorities are not always right, but we can at least infer that those who oppose the Bill do not speak for the countryside in any meaningful sense but for those who agree with them.

553
I was tempted to discuss the three options but, first, time is against me.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, of course how long one wishes to hear an argument depends on whether one agrees with it. But I accept that I have overrun the time that I intended to spend on the subject. Secondly, I understand that my noble friend Lord Tomlinson proposes to address the subject.
If the Bill receives its Second Reading today we shall have opportunities to debate the options, and that is something which unites this House. It is clear from the list of speakers that, whatever other issues await our attention, we all desire an opportunity to debate the options. Whether or not we should have that opportunity is the only issue before us today.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the careful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. In one respect only I hope to do better than him. He dealt with three issues and I hope to deal with only one. I should perhaps begin by declaring an interest. I am a supporter of the Bolebroke Beagles, I follow foxhounds when I can and I am a paid-up member of the Countryside Alliance.
Those who support the Bill as it comes to this House from another place regard it as likely that I have an already closed mind. I hope that I shall be able to reassure them, if not today at least at later stages of the Bill, that my mind is not closed. I am not among those who regard hunting as black and white. It is, I believe, an issue where there are recognised pros and cons on each side which must be fairly weighed. It is perfectly possible to hold honourable passions on either side of the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, memorably demonstrated the truth of that.
For my part, I believe that when your Lordships have finished dealing with this Bill the option of self-regulation under independent supervision will be seen to be best. I am fairly confident that I shall continue to think it very wrong that hunting should be banned outright. What leads me to trouble your Lordships tonight, notwithstanding the enormous length of the speakers' list, is an experience I had in Cumbria just after Christmas which prompts me to make a plea for an understanding of what hunting means for so many people who live there. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, dealt with the point, but I shall reach a different conclusion.
I was some way up Mungrisedale, at the foot of a fell called Saddleback to the north of the road from Keswick to Penrith. It was a meet of the Blencathra Hunt. It was early morning; notwithstanding that, there were about 90 followers present.
Most of the country there is wild, steep and craggy. Accordingly, the Blencathra Hunt, like all fell hunts, proceeds on foot. It plays an important part in
554
controlling the foxes that kill the Herdwick lambs, the mainstay and provider of the greater part of the meagre income of most farms in the area. To say that the hunt has the support of the countryside is to be guilty of a serious understatement.
The Chancellor in his recent Budget statement referred to more than one institution lying at the centre of our communities. He singled them out accordingly for special help. I am sure that that was very welcome. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells especially will agree. But in the fells of Cumbria it can truthfully be said that the centre of their communities is the hunt. To the Blencathra one can add the Ullswater, the Eskdale and Ennerdale, the Melbreak and the Coniston. They are all of a kind; hunts with long traditions. I have known the Blencathra for more than 40 years. I have seen the hound books kept by John Peel two centuries or so ago.
What are these communities like? Some of your Lordships will know them far better than I, and perhaps none better than the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who follows me. I have known some of them for quite a time. They are farming communities. They have romantic names. There is no doubt about that. But at the best of times they are lonely places in which to try to sustain a living for one's family from the land. Apart from one's sheep and sometimes one's cattle, there is not that much company. There is not much scope for socialising. It is a fact of life that one is on one's own to a great extent. People do not complain, but in these desperate times for farmers, loneliness is, I fear, increasingly, a fact of death as well as of life.
What these communities have, cherish and depend upon is the hunt and all the social activities associated with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, went to some entertaining length to diminish the importance of those activities. The noble Baroness asked which noble Lords had taken part in country dances and so forth. I cannot claim to have taken part in a country dance up there. At least I cannot remember it; if I had, other people certainly would remember it. But many is the time that I have sat in village pubs and sang songs like "Joe Bowman". It would seriously compromise your Lordships' welfare if I were to try to do so today. Joe Bowman was the legendary huntsman of the Ullswater hounds. He is commemorated in a marvellous song which is sung all over the Lakes with huge enthusiasm.
I would describe hunting as a lifeline for that countryside. I certainly do not diminish the hound trails, the puppy walking, the puppy shows, the dances—yes, there are dances—and the fund-raising suppers. To say, "Oh, well, you can do all those things without hunting" is simply, I fear, to ignore the facts. It is a lifeline that is passionately grasped. One has to go there to gauge the grief—yes, the grief—as well as the anger and the sheer incomprehension that is occasioned by the threatened ban on hunting. It comes when they feel so much has already been lost to them. They are not some privileged elite; they are certainly not a bunch of sadists, people who take pleasure from cruelty. They are everyday people of our own kindly country. In material terms, they do not ask for much.

555
They are inured to hard lives and low incomes. They stick it because their fathers were rooted there before them and because it is a way of life that they love. But what they ask for is the understanding of their distant Parliament. This speech is an inadequate plea simply for that. They ask that the hunts which are at the centres of their communities should not be singled out for extinction.
I go back to those 90 or so followers I was with a couple of months ago. The talk was of little but the Bill. One man, as we prepared to set forth, after a glass, or perhaps even two, to set us up for the day, said, "Leave aside what will happen to our lambs, what else could bring this number of us together from this dale and around about and create this good company, this good cheer, this shared pride and interest in our hounds? That is what they don't understand down in London. They just don't understand what it means to us when we have already lost so much." He said to me, "Will you tell them?"
What it means to those people cannot, of course, be decisive. But I do entreat the House not to hold that their feelings are other than important. I promised that I would recount them to your Lordships, and I trust I have not broken faith.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I shall not immediately follow on the admirable remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, although the picture he painted is one which ís very familiar to me. A number of the hunts he mentioned are in my former constituency.
I have been much taken with the speeches we have heard, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. As a rather flippant start he mentioned Soapy Sponge. I have always said of Soapy Sponge that I could have turned him into one of the greatest government Chief Whips of all time.
I am a farmer I do not hunt. I have never owned a horse. I have never seen a fox killed by hounds. I have never seen a coursing match or a deer hunt. But I remain totally perplexed as to why it is that the Government see fit to give time and effort to this issue. I cannot over-emphasise the resentment I have heard expressed over the past two or three weeks by country people in the north of England. With agriculture in desperate recession, with farmers in deepest despair, with herds and flocks of animals threatened with slaughter, they cannot imagine anything so insensitive and so insulting at the moment as Parliament spending its time debating this particular matter.
I ask myself: why is this happening to us? Is it really worth all this bother because of the cruelty which is alleged towards the fox. It is easy to forget—this was referred to by the right reverend Prelate—that the wild is a very rough place. Death often comes in a violent and highly vicious way. Foxes themselves are notorious killers for killing's sake. But that does not justify unnecessary cruelty on the part of man.
556
I was glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who repeated, helpfully, the key phrase from his report that, while the killing of a fox by hounds is not always instantaneous,
"insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught".
Of course, the welfare of the fox is put under pressure as it is being chased. We have all seen animals being chased, sheep being chased by sheepdogs and nipped in the leg or dogs chasing each other— big dogs chasing little dogs or sometimes the other way round. The real trauma is surely the trauma of death itself after the fox has been caught. However, it is not a more protracted death, following the catching of a fox by hounds, than other methods of controlling foxes. I have seen foxes shot at and wounded and being found hundreds of yards away, presumably having gone through tremendous agonies in that time. I have seen snaring and trapping. I have never seen a fox caught in a snare but I have seen rabbits. Few things can be more agonising. With hounds, one never finds a wounded fox. Death follows, as we are told, within a matter of seconds. Alternative ways of controlling foxes—shooting in particular—can often be downright dangerous, especially when carried out at night.
I ask myself a question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, referred to this point. Do foxes really need to be controlled at all? I do not think that noble Lords have thought about that point during the debate. I refer to a sentence in the Burns report:
"In most areas of England and Wales, farmers, landowners and gamekeepers consider that it is necessary to manage fox populations".
What really should be understood is that in some parts of the country sheep farming crucially depends on the control of foxes.
The speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew leads me to the principal point I want to make. My noble and learned friend referred to the life that surrounds the hunt and hunting in the Lake District and similar areas. In areas like the Lake District, upland Wales and parts of Yorkshire, the only way to control foxes is by hunting. As my noble and learned friend said, these packs are hunted on foot. There are no horses or mounted followers. There are no toffs here. There is no killing for fun here. But there is striking evidence here of what will happen if hunting is stopped.
I came across an extraordinary case that occurred in west Wales during the Second World War. One Mr Harry Roberts, the huntsman of the Plas Machynlleth Hunt in west Wales, was called up into the Army at the beginning of the war. As a consequence, hunting was totally suspended Within two years, the fox population had grown to such an extent that farmers were suffering severe losses. The local War Agriculture Executive Committee in Meirionnydd, with the support of local MPs, including Mr Clement Davies, who, either then or certainly later, was the leader of the Liberal Party, petitioned the Government to release Mr Roberts. He was released in 1941 for six months in the interests of essential food production. Hunting was resumed in that part of

557
Wales and Mr Roberts promptly killed 149 foxes. If any noble Lord wants a reference for that story, Picture Post picked it up in November 1941.
The Government must tell us today what they would do to control foxes in the upland areas if fox hunting was totally banned. I had hoped that someone from the Ministry of Agriculture would be present to tell us how foxes will be dealt with in the upland areas if we are to have a ban on hunting. I was given the totally nonsensical reply to that question—not by government but by one of the anti-hunting organizations—that the control of foxes in the uplands would be possible by surrounding woods with people armed with guns so that they could shoot foxes flushed out by beaters and dogs. Bearing in mind the massive areas and expanses in our uplands, and bearing in mind especially the fact that in the Lake District there is an agreement that trees are not planted on the mountains in order to maintain the historic and unique beauty of the area, it seems to me that that solution comes straight out of the madhouse.
I repeat my question: why are the Government pursuing this unnecessary and highly controversial legislation? I cannot resist the conclusion that it is much more an attack on those who hunt rather than a defence of those that are hunted. The final part of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, when she could not resist a stab at people who follow hunting, gave the game away. Do we really want to offend a massive body of country people, the majority of whom have never hunted and are never likely to hunt? Are we really prepared to throw out of work, as the Burns report says, between 8,500 and 11,000 people—that is between four and five times the number of people who are currently under threat in the Vauxhall motor works at Luton? Are we really prepared to condemn around 20,000 hounds if hunting is suspended?
We hear continuous stories that the Government are seeking to negotiate some kind of compromise over this issue. If so, we ought to be told what it is. If the Government are negotiating a compromise, it is fatuous to pursue discussion of the Bill at this time. We should be told, If some kind of compromise is being negotiated, the Bill should be withdrawn. I believe that it should be withdrawn anyway.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I have several interests to declare. My wife is a master of foxhounds and eight members of my family appear in the 2001 edition of Baily's Hunting Directory, including my son. I am also the landlord of kennels which house 40 couple of hounds and eight horses.
The irony here is that this Bill will not save the life of one single fox. Indeed, as was noted by my noble friend Lord Burns, some farmers and landowners tolerate foxes because of their own support for hunting. I have followed hunting all my life and have only once seen a fox killed. I remember vividly remarking to the huntsman how instantaneous it was. As other noble Lords have mentioned, one must not forget that
558
hunting, and all that is associated with it, is a way of life for thousands of people. It must be wrong to jeopardise that legal way of life.
I have several key fears about the Bill. First, I am greatly concerned about the direct and indirect effects of a ban on employment in rural communities which, as we all know, are already suffering from the broader countryside crisis. Other noble Lords have already mentioned the British Equestrian Trade Association's estimate that up to almost 14,000 jobs are directly at risk. I am also concerned that a ban will harm conservation, both in the management and control of a healthy population of quarry species and also in the upkeep by hunts of woodland, hedges, walls and grassland. I, too, share the concern expressed by the National Canine Defence League regarding the 20,000 or so hounds which will be rendered unemployed and homeless by this Bill. As was mentioned by my noble friend, in his report a switch to drag hunting was ruled out as an alternative to hunting.
I am also worried about the loss to farmers of the valuable service of the collection of fallen stock; that is, diseased, injured or infirm animals which are removed and disposed of by hunts. I shall cite one small example. Our hunt in the Scottish Borders last year collected 234 cattle and 162 sheep. I dread to think what will happen to those animals in the future.
Like other noble Lords, I find it incredible that, while this Bill has been making its passage through Parliament, MAFF officials have been contacting hunt servants to assist with the slaughter of livestock affected by foot and mouth disease.
However, perhaps my biggest fear is that the Bill gives in to mob rule. As sure as night follows day, shooting and fishing will be the next targets for animal rights activists, whose direct action is on the increase, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Hunt Saboteurs Association will be able to target more of its activities against game shooting. Already, cases have been reported of anglers being physically attacked by animal rights activists. To reward these terrorists with a hunting ban, thereby penalising the law-abiding minority, would be a deplorable precedent for law and order, demonstrating that violence pays. Surely that must be wrong.
I have heard the concerns expressed by ACPO, which is worried about the pressures on police resources in rural areas, which are already under enormous pressure to deal with crimes such as burglary and drug-related offences. The association has noted that,
"without additional resources, hard decisions will have to be made on policing priorities".
As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has already mentioned, I am also worried that this Bill represents a gross abuse of civil liberties by allowing the majority to impose its views on a minority. I hope sincerely that this Chamber will fulfil its constitutional duty in holding the other place to account.
As an example, I have an aunt who loathes hunting, but she feels passionately that, if people want to hunt, they should be allowed to do so. Banning something

559
on the grounds that you simply do not like it, with no objective evidence, is a draconian and illiberal move. I am also horrified that the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, is taking part in this debate today, especially as he has openly admitted that his Bill, currently before the Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament, is being introduced purely to "test the system".
Noble Lords will have seen the adverts placed in today's newspapers by the RSPCA. I estimate that the conservative cost of placing those adverts is in the region of a quarter of a million pounds. The RSPCA has roped in out of date and one-sided figures for its advert and has then pretended that those are still valid. This simply will not wash. Noble Lords are fully aware that over the past few years, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, there has been a profound swing away from support for a ban. The most recent major independent polls suggest that such support is now in the minority.
In conclusion, I believe that the Government have got their priorities wrong in expediting legislation to ban hunting. We must not forget that Damilola Taylor's murderers are still at large. Surely the Home Office should be using its parliamentary time to implement the recently announced 10-year plan for crime rather than trying to criminalise a law-abiding sector of the population. Hunt supporters genuinely believe that what they do is good for the countryside and good in terms of animal welfare.
I have often supported this Government, in particular when they were in opposition. But this Bill encapsulates how truly out of touch they are with the issues that really matter to this country.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, like many of your Lordships, I am fully aware that much of what I say has been said already and will be said again, but I believe that it is important for a range of voices to be heard in this matter, even if many are singing the same song. I do not hunt; in that strict sense, I declare no interest. Nor does it give me any pleasure to oppose the massed and sincere opinions of fellow Labour Party Members in the other place and those concurring pro-banning voices in your Lordships' House, but oppose I do.
Background has something to do with it. I grew up next door—or rather, next field—to John Peel country in a country town steeped in country pursuits, one of which was hunting, and a welcomed, colourful pursuit it was thought to be, even by many, like myself, who did not hunt. Indeed, we were rather proud in that town, Wigton, that it bred the man, John Woodcock Graves, who wrote the words to the song "John Peel", which has urged on many Cumbrians to pleasure and, indeed, to battle.
Hunting was not only a spectacle followed by scores who could never afford a horse; it was the begetter of singable songs, great paintings—Stubbs, to name but one—marvellous books from Surtees to Sassoon—brilliantly listed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson
560
of Lullington—long nights of pub and story; community in rural areas. It has been a sporting preparation for wars, a place of derring-do, bridled skills and unbridled spirits, and all without harm intentionally brought on a single human being. It looped around the outer circuit of my north Cumbrian boyhood, and that of others, romanticised further by epic tales of the foot packs in the fells—referred to so movingly in the excellent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—as something ordinary but exotic, a dab of our history. Had not Alfred the Great, Henry VIII and James I hunted? A harmless but vivid slash back, traditions galloping across a tradition-soaked country; a living reminder of the continuity and unity of our lives—all our lives— our history. That is no small matter, however remotely—as I was—you were connected to the sport itself.
The objection that hunting is now considered cruel is one that is sincerely held and has to be addressed. As to the final kill—quick, decisive and often more final than any of the kills inflicted by the fox itself—in those moments there will be cruelty. But it has been widely asserted, by the aforementioned 300 vets, for instance, and it deserves to be mentioned again, that this death is not as cruel as death by the gun, which can often result in the long pain of severe wounding; it is not as cruel as death by snaring, which is horrible; indeed, it is not as cruel as any other manner of culling of what indisputably is a pest which has to be culled, for that is not in question. I say again, hunting with dogs is the least cruel way to end the life of that hunting and rather cruel animal, the fox. Surely this has to be faced by those who assert this argument as their primary objection.
It is curious that some of the more strident objectors confess to, or even boast of, their devotion to fishing, even that form of fishing where the fish is hooked— and a vicious little hook rips through its mouth. It is then "played"—I think that that is the word—and, when landed, chucked back. Lucky fish; or not. For such legitimate sportsmen to condemn the alleged cruelty of the final few moments of a fox could be called humbug, at least, and a touch hypocritical. What of those who shoot? Ban the lot if you would ban the one and take on the full consequences, which would be, I suspect, outrage at such an assault on private pleasures and public liberties.
For banning hunting to those who are dedicated to the elimination of all kinds of harm to all animals will be only the first step; a victory here could be a vital breaching of the wall. In that sense, you could say that we who oppose the banning are holding a thin red line.
The redness—or, rather, the scarlet—has somehow become part of it. Most people in these islands love dressing up—all in white for cricket and tennis; mostly in black, the men, for dinner and celebrations of a superior kind; fancy dress balls; carnivals; and amateur theatricals, which partly exist for the dressing up. Scarlet against the green is a surprisingly effective composition, although to bring aesthetics to bear here is possibly a mistake because the scarlet itself seems to make opponents see red and, as ever in anger, argument becomes prejudice.

561
There are those who detest the rather informal wear of football supporters and their contorted faces when their teams are at full stretch and losing, but that is hardly reason enough to ban football. There are those who deplore the costume demanded by Glyndebourne in the afternoons, but there are no moves to ban opera down in Sussex. Hating the scarlet is a threadbare cloak of disagreement and conceals other matters.
But red is a factor, I believe—red as in tooth and claw. The great quiet revolution of the 20th century, the mass movement from the land to the city, has left fewer and fewer people with any direct and educated experience of how the countryside actually works. It can be the killing fields out there. What do those who wish to protect foxes want to do about killer cats—the birds, the mice—or about terriers—the rats, the squirrels—or about the licensed mass killing for food?
The "Disneyfication" of nature is fun. But it is also fantasy, and those fed only on fantasy can see pests—such as deer, foxes, rabbits; all charming without question—merely as playthings or pets. They are not. Squeamishness has now become sanctified as tolerance. The brute truth is that, despite Peter Rabbit, thousands of farmers welcomed myxomatosis—and we do no favours to young people to tell them half truths about anything.
It is most unfortunate that terrorist groups have become involved in this issue. It has brought to it a degree of criminality and illegality which has clouded the matter. The vast majority of those opposed to hunting are equally opposed to saboteurs and terrorists, I am sure, and when they can give voice to their concern, they do so. But for the rest of us—every bit as concerned about issues of cruelty—the association is a deeply unhappy one because it is undoubtedly true that a victory for banning would also be seen as a victory for illegal violence, and that also must weigh heavily in the balance of things.
Timing is all; so is bad timing. The travails of the moment emphasise how irrelevant, even disgraceful, it seems to fiddle about with this petty ban while the countryside burns in so many ways. Many of us have read reports, especially the Burns report, which at the very least question and at the most challenge the arguments of the banners, all of them. Yet it is the strange character of this matter that logic and facts seem to count for so little. We have every right to be uncomfortable with that; for what replaces logic and facts? Hunting is the least cruel way to kill a fox. We who maintain that want to minimise cruelty and yet, perversely it seems, we are accused of wanting to maximise it. It is worrying when untutored emotion demands supremacy in any argument. It can be dangerous, as even a brief reading of recent history tells us.
Is it so very terrible that people enjoy hunting—not the killing; the hunting? People enjoy boxing, smoking, drinking; enjoy grand prix, gambling and the Grand National; enjoy all manner of rare and peculiar pleasures which have no intention of harming others. Frankly, I would put hunting low on the list of socially
562
harmful pleasures. We should all be free in our society to follow the scent of our pleasure provided that we do not break the law or hurt others.
Other noble Lords will speak of the economic and social benefits of hunting. Perhaps I may conclude with this. A law which seeks to ban a traditionally accepted sport, the preoccupation and delight, the life and soul of a minority, which reaches across all class barriers, cannot be a good law—especially not in a country such as ours, which is making such progress elsewhere to enfranchise minorities, to let minorities live and let live, to understand and tolerate and enjoy the multiplicity of minorities. Let us find a way here. Banning this minority would be unjust and, in the scheme of things, a mean and unnecessary act. I shall vote against the ban.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, I must declare an interest. I do so with a certain amount of trepidation having heard the sincere and moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn. However, I get a certain amount of encouragement from that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and his outstanding survey of the morals and his experience of the issue.
I have been lucky enough to have hunted, shot and fished for most of my life. For four years I was joint-master of a pack of foxhounds. For 16 years, I was chairman of the same hunt—a job, incidentally, that I found considerably more taxing than that of being a Chief Whip in your Lordships' House.
All my family, past and present, together with a large proportion of my friends and neighbours, have been involved to a greater or lesser extent with an activity that for centuries was regarded as law-abiding but which is now, so to speak, standing in the dock and at grave risk of being branded as criminal overnight.
With regard to the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made the point for an isolated community, but it is not only an average of, say, 15 or 20 winter days out in the countryside per person—on a horse, on foot, on a bicycle or in a car—that are under threat, but a whole year-round way of life; puppy walking, puppy shows, pony clubs, point-to-points, hunter trials, hunt-supporter club events, both fund-raising and social, and friendships that traverse boundaries of generation, occupation and class, as well as those of county and hunting country. All of these form strands—among many diverse ones, it is true, but none the less important for that—that go to make up the fabric of life in the country.
I plead these, not as a reason for hunting to continue to be allowed if it were to be proved to be cruel, but as a measure of the importance, particularly for Members of both Houses of Parliament, of being absolutely certain of the facts before putting such legislation through.
I have often heard people say that they do not have to see hunting take place, or even to inquire into it very closely, to know that it is wrong. That is tantamount to suggesting that hunting people should be deemed to

563
be guilty of cruelty until they are proved innocent, which is contrary to the first rule of justice. It is my belief that there is at least as much informed concern for the welfare of wild animals among those who hunt as there is in any other group of people in this country.
It is also claimed that fox-hunting enthusiasts are illogical in that sometimes they say that the fox is an integral part of biodiversity that must be preserved and, at others, that it is a pest that needs to be culled. In fact, both are true. In reasonable numbers, foxes keep down rabbits and other vermin but, when they become too many in relation to their natural food supply, they start taking poultry and lambs instead.
The Attlee administration just after the war set up the Scott-Henderson committee, which produced in its report what I believe to be the best definition of cruelty in relation to field sports that has ever been made:
"If in pursuing or destroying a particular animal in the course of a sporting activity the degree of suffering reasonably necessary is not more than would be involved in the use of other methods likely to achieve control or provide food with the infliction of the least amount of suffering, that particular sporting activity should not be regarded as cruel".
I know that the corollary to that, which immediately follows it, would be accepted by everyone who hunts:
"But, however justifiable a particular activity which involves some degree of suffering may be, the infliction of more suffering than is necessary in the pursuit of that activity should be regarded as cruel".
Although it made some suggestions of detail, after applying this formula to each form of hunting, the Scott-Henderson report recommended that each should be allowed to continue. Some 50 years later, the committee of inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with a different set of criteria, and allowing for the limits set by its terms of reference, seemed to produce much the same result.
Her Majesty's Government say—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, repeated it today—that they are neutral on the Bill, and of course I accept that. But they have still singled out hunting with dogs from other field sports, in two ways: by making available parliamentary time and facilities for the Bill which it might otherwise not have been possible to obtain for it; and by giving an undertaking that, even if the Bill should go through, similar bans on shooting and fishing would not be allowed to follow it. To this last, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has added his personal guarantee.
It is therefore fair to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to answer this one question, if he answers no others, when he comes to reply—and I will pass a copy of it in writing to the noble and learned Lord when I sit down. What are the precise criteria that make killing with a pack of hounds unacceptable, while killing with a shotgun or with a rod and line is not?
It is vital for Her Majesty's Government to find an answer to that question now that is unassailable both in fact and in logic. If they cannot, the animal rights lobby, who have set no such limits to their ambitions, will in course of time put the question the other way round: "Now that hunting has been declared by the
564
law of the land to be so unacceptable as to be made a criminal offence, what is it about the sports of shooting and of fishing that make them acceptable?"
If Her Majesty's Government are not able to answer that far harder question then, they may find that they have precipitated a train of events, to an extent that neither they, nor the right honourable gentleman who leads them, will find themselves able to honour their pledge.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, first, I "re-declare" my interest as a member of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the noble Lord's skilled chairmanship in dealing with a contentious and difficult subject. The noble Lord was admired by all members of the committee and by the individuals who gave evidence. It is proper to say that we admired those from the two sides who frequently came to put their case to us. They were well prepared, and, as a result, our report was welcomed; it dealt with the issue very well, and firmly.
Sadly, all members of the committee were subject to a certain amount of vilification by the press. We were misrepresented on a number of occasions. However, none of us had hunted—except possibly one person, and that was as a child. So we were, I hope, quite independent of hunting when discussing the issues.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Burns, shares my disappointment at the misrepresentation of certain statements in the report, which were taken out of context. One example appeared in a major newspaper today, giving entirely the wrong impression of our conclusions. It is important to recognise that the inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, was not asked to recommend whether hunting should be banned; nor was the committee asked to consider moral or ethical issues—for example, whether hunting was cruel. At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously—I repeat the word "erroneously"—quoted the Burns report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that. It mentioned a severe compromise of animal welfare towards the end of a hunt when a fox or a deer was killed; but it did not, as would appear from the quotation, imply that the whole of the procedure of chasing an animal with hounds was cruel. The report uses the phrase "compromise of welfare" deliberately. A compromise of animal welfare was found only in the terminal stages of the hunt—where we mentioned that welfare was seriously compromised and fell short of best welfare practice.
The scientific evidence on animal welfare is very weak. "Animal welfare" is the measure of the ability of an animal to compensate physiologically to cope with its environment. Evidence is very slight. In almost every form of hunting, with the exception of the hunting of deer—an exception identified in the report—the report recognises that the evidence is

565
weak. Even in relation to deer there is debate on the interpretation of such data by physiological scientists. As has been mentioned, at the point when a deer confronts the hounds in standing at bay, it is dispatched quickly by the huntsmen and the hounds never attack the deer in the way many people imagine happens. Hence, it is important that judgments based on the Burns report should reflect accurately what the report says. They should not misinterpret such statements.
Some will conclude on moral or ethical grounds that hunting is cruel. We all recognise that no scientific evidence in the world will move such individuals from that stance, and one should respect a person holding that opinion. It became clear, however, during the committee's consideration of the subject that some practices cause distress to many people when they hear about them, or cause distress to the general public. I refer, for example, to trespass on private land, dwellings and gardens, and to the digging out of foxes that have gone to earth—many people feel that if a fox has escaped the hounds and gone to earth, it has won the day and perhaps it should be allowed to go. I know there are reasons why farmers would wish that not to be the case, but many people believe that it should be so. Then there is the issue of cubbing—training young hounds to follow the hunt properly.
These and other issues have raised the profile of hunting with dogs. To allow it to go on without any change whatsoever is probably unacceptable. On the other hand, there is major concern that, were there to be a ban on hunting, there is strong evidence that the alternatives to control in many cases are certainly less "welfare positive" than hunting. Shooting has been mentioned by a number of speakers; and poisoning, trapping and other means of control are much more insensitive in terms of welfare than the death of the prey at the end of a hunt. Not all individuals are good shots: animals may escape wounded and die in a degree of agony.
Towards the end of our inquiry we were informed of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, the body that was set up recently following the Phelps review of hunting with hounds in 1997 and the earlier Scott-Henderson report. En passant, had action been taken earlier as a result of those two reports, I believe that we might not be in this Chamber tonight debating the hunting situation.
The Burns inquiry offers a strong case for a supervisory authority, such as the one that has now been established. It seems to me that this may be a way forward as regards attending to the hunting controversy. However, I suggest not only that that authority should become a statutory body with nominations from the Government, but also that it should attend to another matter; namely, the welfare of wild animals in our environment. Indeed, the fox, the hare and the deer, and others, are all wild animals in our environment. If the authority could accomplish those two tasks it would serve a very useful purpose. That is what many people have called "the middle way". I believe that such a move would address the
566
concerns of both sides of the debate—that is, the protection and preservation of the countryside and the acceptance of hunting as a method of control of foxes, deer and hare.
There is, perhaps, another interest that I should declare. As a very young veterinary surgeon I, too, sang with the Lakeland people, "Joe Bowman and his Ullswater Pack", as mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. I know these people very well. They have a marginal life on their marginal farms, but the one thing that they enjoy is the conviviality of what is built round a sport that they have practised for many years. If we could have a regulatory authority serving both sides of the argument—I do not believe that this would be difficult or impossible to achieve—I believe that that would be the way ahead.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, when I rose to speak in the debate on the great House of Lords Bill on the reform of the House, I started by remarking that I began my speech at 1.45 a.m. and spoke 179th in a list of 186. I also said that I would rejoice when I went into the "Content" Lobby. Therefore, 16th out of a list of 69, which is my position today in the list of speakers, is some sort of progress. However, I shall still rejoice when I eventually have the great opportunity to vote for a ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs.
I join those who deplore violence from whatever quarter it comes because rather than enhancing their case, those who use violence do the opposite. I condemn violence and terrorism unreservedly. I begin by pleading guilty to two charges that have been thrown across the Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. Yes, I am one of the ignorant, urban majority; and yes, I am one of the class-conscious old Labour. If we are to declare our interests, I cannot possibly compete with the experiences of other people. My noble friend Lord Bragg referred to the colour red. Anyone who knows me will be aware that I am taken as red in more ways than one.
I should like to tell the House of the reasons why I have come to a certain conclusion. There are those who regard this as a matter of freedom; I do not. It is a matter of cruelty. It is a question of whether or not we live in a civilised society. The practice of fox hunting is as wrong as cock fighting, dog fighting, bear baiting and bull baiting. When it is abolished, fox hunting will go the same way as those that I have mentioned.
I share the view of others; namely, that, by voting for this Bill and then for a ban, I shall be voting for a cleaner, more moral and more civilised society. I should remind the House that many years ago Thomas Hardy said:
"The prevalence of those sports that exist for the pleasure of watching a fellow creature, weaker and less favoured than ourselves, in its struggles to escape the death agony we mean to inflict in treacherous contrivance, seems to me one of the many convincing proofs that we have not yet emerged from barbarism".
I say that we have made very little progress since Thomas Hardy uttered those words.

567
It was Ann Widdecombe, a Member of another place with a high position, who said that the town versus country claim was irresponsible because it attempted to divide Britain. She went on to say that her constituency—that is, Maidstone—covered both town and country, and that she found plenty of rural opposition to hunting.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, whom I deeply respect, said that there is no compromise. I agree with him. To those of my friends on this side of the Chamber who believe that by voting for the middle way there will be a compromise, I say that there is no compromise: you either support hunting with all that that implies, or you oppose it. However you tinker along the margins—possibly to salve your conscience that you are not completely against a ban, but only a little against it—there is no compromise.
I wonder how any decent, humane individual can condone the practice of setting greyhounds to rip apart a live hare. I cannot condone it; I condemn it. I have received a report from an RSPCA inspector which states that if both dogs catch the hare, one gets hold of the head and the other grabs the back end. They play tug of war with it. The officials run as fast as they can to get hold of the injured hare and kill it, so as to prevent any further suffering. However, they can take up to 30 seconds to do so. That may not sound a lot of time, but it is when you are being torn to pieces. That is the kind of practice that would be tolerated unencumbered by anything that the middle way or option number one will bring forward. I respect the people involved. I do not criticise any of my friends both on this and the other side of the Chamber and say that the practice that they support makes them cruel individuals. But the practice is cruel in its own right.
In a modern world I believe that civil liberties do not give us the liberty to do everything that we want to do. They give us the liberty to do certain things, constrained by our responsibilities for our actions. Liberty is for ever constrained; it is surrounded and hedged in by our potential liability for what we do. To those who argue that we are interfering with the liberty of the individual to do what he wants, I say that if we believe that what he wants to do is wrong, we are entitled to interfere with his liberty to do it.
Every time that this House makes a decision on a major matter that calls for restraint or penalty if you commit certain actions, we are said to be interfering with the liberty of the individual. There are also those who say that when we pass this legislation we shall be criminalising individuals. I simply say to them that when they take their decision, if the law is changed, they will be making themselves criminals if they decide to break the law. I am in favour of keeping the law; and I am in favour of helping to try to change the law.
Time is not on our side. I should have loved to describe to the House the illustrations that have been sent to me by individuals from all communities who have witnessed the manner in which the hunt goes about its business. People have been terrorised, intimidated and victimised because they have taken an
568
opposite view. There is a raft of evidence that will perhaps be put forward at some time during the Committee stage.
We now have an opportunity given by the Government, which I applaud, to express a view. Indeed, as my noble friend the Minister said. 20 times since 1979 an attempt has been made to give this House an opportunity to express a view. In the main, that has been denied by parliamentary procedures. Tonight we have the opportunity to express a view.
I wish to say a few words about suffering communities in the countryside and elsewhere. They are not alone. Nine years ago I took part in a great march with thousands of individuals from communities I supported and from which I sprang. I refer to mining communities. We marched because a government whom we thought were uncaring were hell bent on destroying those communities. Therefore, I have much sympathy with communities who decide that the only thing they can do is to march. Hunting is not at the top of everyone's priorities in those communities. Speakers have mentioned polls and MORI. I cannot speak on behalf of a community on this matter. I cannot even speak on behalf of a class. I declare my class as the working class, the members of which are as heavily involved in their communities as are members of other classes. Tonight we have the opportunity to move the debate forward. I welcome the opportunity that has been given. If in future there is an opportunity to vote, I shall vote wholeheartedly for a ban on the hunting of wild mammals with dogs.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I should declare some interests as president of the Countryside Alliance, as chairman of the Labour Leave Country Sports Alone Campaign and also as a member of the RSPCA.
It is sometimes only when one looks back on events that the defining moments stand out. At the age of 10 I went to a meet of the South Oxfordshire Hounds on a small black pony which had cost £25 in Thame cattle market. I had no family connections with hunting; I was just a child with a love of horses and kind neighbouring farmers who took me with them. From that moment hunting has been one of the great and enduring passions of my life. It has taken me into some of the most beautiful and secret places in England. It has introduced me to another country within our country and to people whose world I might so easily never have known. It has taught me only a little of the ways of wild animals but it has also taught me how vital man's role is in the management both of wildlife populations and of our countryside.
Following, or trying to follow, hounds on a horse has brought me excitement, exhilaration, exhaustion, not a little fear and a pleasure which defies words. But, above all, the hunting community has taught me, as a lifelong member of the Labour Party, the true meaning of the word "comradeship".
I am not sure that those who would pass a law to criminalise those who hunt even now begin to understand what they take on. If the foot and mouth

569
epidemic had not intervened, next Sunday this capital city would have seen the biggest civil rights demonstration in our history. It takes a great deal to rouse quiet, hard-working, decent people with busy lives and families and to turn them into political activists for the first time in their lives. The sense of injustice generated as a result of this miserable Bill, hurled by the elected Chamber in the face of a countryside already in deep crisis has done just that. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, that march would have been an appeal to your Lordships from the countryside of Britain to protect its people against prejudice, perversity and intolerance.
If any noble Lords wonder whether they have the right to oppose the views of the other place, I must ask what on earth is the point of a second Chamber if it will not rise up and say so when the other place goes badly wrong? The countryside is looking to us to give that signal and to do so before a general election takes place. I have friends both in this House and outside who dislike hunting and I have others who love it as I do. Their views cross party political divisions. What distinguishes the two sides is not any greater affection for animals, or any greater imagination, or any greater degree of humanity, it is quite simply a different set of experiences, or, often, no experience whatsoever of the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made an impassioned speech. I greatly respect his views. I count him—I hope that I shall still do so later—as a friend. He admitted on Friday that he has never been out hunting. I venture to suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, one of my best friends in this House, is in a similar position.
If I had not gone out with those hounds all those years ago, I, too, might have disliked hunting from al] that I would have read and heard from the pressure groups with large chequebooks who have placed a steady stream of propaganda, much of it wholly inaccurate, before the nation. But even if I had disliked hunting as a result of that, I still do not believe that I would have been prepared to vote to criminalise my noble friends Lord Graham and Lady Castle for something they did but which I disliked, particularly when an independent inquiry had not found either the practices they enjoyed to be intrinsically cruel or otherwise damaging to the national interest. I might argue with them and try to dissuade them, but I would not try to pass criminal laws to impose my personal morality on them. During the long journeys to and from this House late at night driving the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, back to the village in which we both live, I may have failed to convince her but I take some comfort from the knowledge that her spaniel, Bertie, who specialises in muntjac, totally agrees with my views.
The main objection which opponents of hunting have put forward is that they believe it to be cruel. I do not. If I did, I would not dream of doing it and nor should others. Cruelty is the deliberate infliction of unnecessary suffering. I accept that hunting involves suffering—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, mentioned this—but the death of any
570
wild animal almost invariably does. Let us remember that foxes die violently mainly in road accidents, or as a result of the actions of man, or from sickness, disease or starvation. The fortunate few—they are a few—die in seconds when they are hit by a vehicle and killed outright, or are killed in seconds by hounds, as the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, found to be the case. But the vast majority die slowly and often painfully over hours, days and weeks.
There is no perfect way to kill a fox or any other wild animal. But what this Bill would do is to take away from the farmer the option of getting the local hunt in to disperse the fox population and to control fox numbers. Yet that is the only option which both respects a closed breeding season, which is selective in that the old, the weak and the sick are most likely to be culled, and costs the farmer nothing. As other noble Lords have said, if one bans hunting—I shall cut this short—one leaves effectively three legal alternatives, which are snaring, using shotguns or, in those places where it is safe, where animals, people and the terrain allow it, the use of a rifle. I do not think that anyone in this House has suggested that either foxes shot with shotguns or those caught in snares die less unpleasantly than those who die at the hands of hounds. If anyone suggests that in today's crisis farmers should start to employ skilled marksmen to patrol their hills and fields to shoot foxes by night, he or she has no understanding of either the depth of the current farming crisis or of farmers.
It is no use making fine speeches—we have heard a number in the Chamber today—about the cruelty of hunting and calling for a ban when the result will be to leave available only methods likely to cause an increase in animal suffering. But that is the reality which supporters of the ban often find hard to confront. They say that it is morally wrong to kill animals for sport; yet in the same breath they also say that shooting and fishing are fine. That must be illogical and, in my book, takes the biscuit for hypocrisy.
The premise on which their argument is based is also wrong. No one out hunting kills anything for fun. The huntsman, and his assistant if he has one, have a job to do. Farmers give permission for hounds to disperse the foxes on their land, and to reduce the numbers—I stress, not to exterminate them but to keep the numbers manageable. The huntsman's job with his hounds is to carry out that task. But those who follow, whether on horses, in cars, on bikes or on foot. are observers only. Their reasons for being there are many and varied. Some like to gallop and jump. Some like to watch the hounds and huntsmen and some to ride in places to which they would otherwise have no access. But if any one of them went hunting to enjoy killing, he would have a very lean time of it. Hunting is conducted in public. In 40 years I have never seen anyone take such pleasure and anyone who did so would be out "quicker than that".
We tread a dangerous path once we in Parliament start to pass criminal laws based on what one person thinks is going on in the head of another. That is the path surely towards thought police. Few people

571
outside the world of hunting know how much the practices and the organisation have changed in the past 10 years. There are now strict rules and codes of practice, a strict disciplinary procedure to enforce them, training and licensing of terrier men, inspectors and the independent regulatory body to which reference has already been made.
I accept that the situation is not perfect. Improvements have still to be made—as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, indicated; I welcome the suggestions they made in their excellent report—and aspects which should be re-examined. However, at the end of the day that report—it was provided to inform both Houses of Parliament—found hunting neither to be intrinsically cruel (and I am grateful that that has been spelt out this evening once and for all to nail what has been, I am afraid I cannot mince my words, a lie) nor any other overwhelming reason for a ban in the public interest.
The debate will take some time. I shall draw the remarks I should otherwise have made to a close. However, I simply say this. There will be little opportunity today to talk about the work that hunting does undertake. A large amount of our countryside is either owned by hunts or managed by them for hunting. With the benefits from looking after woodland to encourage wildlife come benefits for the whole of our population. Many in this House with no connection with the countryside none the less enjoy walking around it. But do they ever stop to look around and wonder who has maintained the woodland drives, put in the bridges and small gates and coppiced the woods, because more often than not that work will have been done by volunteers or employees of the local hunt.
For 24 hours a day, seven days a week hunt kennels provide a casualty service for injured animals and the disposal of carcasses. There is no alternative. It will be no good telephoning my noble friends Lady Castle or Lord Graham, or even Deadline 2000, to ask them to take away the cow with a broken leg, having first dispatched that cow humanely. The costs of that service to the hunts are astronomic. They involve wages of employees, vehicles for collection, fuel, and the oil costs which the hunts of this country pay for incinerators to burn the offal that cannot be used. For many packs it is far cheaper to buy food for their hounds but they continue to provide that service because no one else will do so. My local pack, the Bicester, last year spent £36,000 out of its subscriptions to provide that service to its local farming community.
On Exmoor the hunt is the only casualty service for the wild red deer. Even the National Trust, which refused to grant licences for deer hunting on its estate, cannot provide an alternative. It still calls in the stag hounds to find and dispatch injured deer which would otherwise face profound suffering. For all the rhetoric we have heard, there is no alternative and none is being suggested by those who support the Bill.
I find it deeply ironic that people who are now threatened with the loss of their jobs, homes and livelihoods which they greatly cherish, and who read
572
descriptions of themselves particularly from another place as barbaric and inhumane, are now being called in by MAFF to help with the humane slaughter of livestock in the foot and mouth disease epidemic. We are, I think, living in mad times. We had hoped that we had a Government who would unite our country. It is to no little extent the fault of this miserable Bill that we are dividing our countryside and our nation. This madness must stop. Noble Lords on all sides of this House who value fairness, tolerance and liberty must by their opposition ensure that it does so.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the brilliant and powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, enables me to shorten my speech to a considerable extent.
I should confess that having been MP for Huntingdonshire for 34 years, and having hunted regularly there and elsewhere until I was 70, I naturally have some interest in this matter. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has just left the Chamber because I would have pointed out to him that there would be less cruelty to foxes if hunting continued than if it were abolished. I shah refer to that later.
I am an animal lover, but we have to bear in mind, as has been pointed out, that some animals do a vast amount of destruction to wildlife, and to domestic animals and birds. That is especially true of foxes. Foxes love killing poultry and game. I remember being shown a chicken run which had housed about 30 hens and several cockerels. A fox had got in overnight and had killed 12 of them—but only for fun. The fox did not eat any of the poultry; it just loved killing. So foxes have to be controlled; their numbers have to be kept down.
Various methods have been mentioned by the noble Baroness and others. Perhaps I may comment on each of those methods. Snaring and poisoning are unlawful but a great deal of snaring has been done where there is no proper control. The trapping and caging of foxes was attempted but it was utterly unsuccessful. Shooting foxes with shotguns is the most frequently tried method, but it is only partly effective, as I know from experience. A fox that has been wounded by shotgun pellets but is still mobile and gets away often dies a horrible death from gangrene. Shooting with rifles is much more certain, especially at night using strong spotlights, but it is not completely effective. The only certain way to cull foxes is hunting them with hounds. It has the great advantage of providing the quickest death.
Being a lightweight, when allegations of cruelty were made against fox hunting some years ago I got into the habit of keeping up with hounds and being there when they closed in on the fox. I used to count the seconds before there was no more fox. I never counted more than four seconds. It is virtually sudden death.
Of the various ways of culling foxes, hunting is the least cruel. We cannot get away from that fact. People say that the fox may have been chased a long way beforehand and that that is not good. It is true that the

573
fox is not killed until it has been chased. I have seen a worried look on the faces of old foxes, but they have not been chased for long because they are on the way out anyway. I hope that your Lordships will agree—I am not just inventing this point for fun or for the debate—that some young foxes seem to have a grin on their face. They give a longer run; but when the hounds close in, they are killed at once.
As foxes must not become too numerous anywhere in the countryside, their numbers must be controlled. Hunting them causes less suffering than other methods. Of course, one has come across people—alas, there are a great many in the other place—who have no experience or knowledge of hunting and are guided by prejudice. That is regrettable. Their prejudice may be based on ignorance. It has been very refreshing to hear your Lordships make constructive suggestions about the need to keep hunting. I hope that the compromise suggestion will be followed.
This is a Home Office Bill. I do not complain about that, but it is regrettable that none of the members of the Government Front Bench who are responsible for agriculture or for the countryside in any way have yet appeared in the debate. I hope that that may be rectified in due course.
I conclude by saying that it is in the interests of foxes that hunting should continue.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on 25th February 1949, the Second Reading of the Protection of Animals Bill took place in the House of Commons. The government at that time were Labour. The Prime Minister was Mr Attlee and the Minister of Agriculture speaking from the Dispatch Box was Mr Tom Williams, whom many hold as the most popular and successful Minister of Agriculture of all time. I make no apology for giving his speech, which I have shortened for your Lordships' convenience, but in no way have I altered its sentiment.
Mr Williams opened his speech:
"Before the House reaches a decision on this Bill it is necessary for me to express the view of the Government. and to give what guidance we can, whether it is accepted or not, on what we believe is in the national interest".
He continued:
"It is only after very patient and meticulous examination of all the facts that I am certainly satisfied myself that to abolish hunting without providing an effective alternative—and the Bill does not provide one: that is where the promoters have failed—would mean there certainly would be more rather than less cruelty in this country. …
While not every farmer or landowner or worker supports hunting—I have had letters from N.U.A branches against it and for it—any more than, for instance, every townsman supports greyhound racing, horse racing, fishing, football or boxing, it is obvious from my contacts and correspondence that a very large number of them do.…
It is not only the rural people who are asking Parliament for an early assurance that very long-established sports and recreations shall not be interfered with. There is no doubt about it, that all my contacts go to show that they hotly resent being singled out for special limitations and being charged with inflicting unnecessary cruelty. Nevertheless, high sentiment,
574
emotion and humanitarianism must not be condemned by any of us, but high pressure propaganda inevitably leads to exaggeration and this is no exception to the general rule. …
What are the facts about cruelty, so far as one is able to collect them? One must face the fact that in the destroying of life and in particular wild life some pain is inevitable. Whether the purpose is to maintain a balanced wild life or to exterminate undesirable species of pests, life has to be taken, and all the evidence available to me shows that humanitarian interests are better served by an organised effort, under the control of responsible. experienced people who are all animal lovers themselves. Certainly, there is in that way much less chance of cruelty than by indiscriminate trapping or snaring or, indeed, inexpert shooting. I have seen traps which have caught animals, which have then escaped leaving a leg behind, and it is beyond my understanding to appreciate how much suffering that must have entailed. I know also about snaring, which means slowly choking the animal to death; and I know something about shooting, which cripples but does not kill and certainly produces a much higher rate of prolonged suffering than does the instantaneous kill of the hunt".
Mr Williams continued:
"I am not for one moment suggesting that these sports are the only practical means of achieving the destruction of pests. I am suggesting, however, that as wild life must be controlled to abolish hunting would not necessarily abolish cruelty. Indeed, the alternative of unregulated action may lead to infinitely more cruelty. Moreover, the preservation of wild life would definitely be imperilled if controlled limitation as practised by hunts gives place to freedom of attack by persons with fewer scruples regarding wanton cruelty.
Neither would I defend hunts on the ground that they are designed primarily as a measure of pest control. Their primary purpose is recreation and the joy of the chase, and the killing is merely incidental …
After very careful consideration by the Government of the whole situation, we have reached the decision that this Bill cannot have the Government's support, and I advise the House to refuse it at a Second Reading on the following major grounds: first, that it is based on the false premise that its provisions would lessen cruelty; second, that the suppression of these sports without effective and efficient alternatives would lead to much less satisfactory activities …
Finally, I ask Members to consider carefully whether the supporters of this Bill have really justified this interference with the liberties of the rural population …
In my view, the prohibitions in this Bill have no economic foundation and the humanitarian aspects are greatly exaggerated, if not wholly misconceived. Since this party have been given the power to govern the nation, I believe we have a record of achievement of which we ought to be proud. and I hope that at this moment we are not going to forfeit the good will we have so rightly earned, and go down to history as a party anxious to abolish the pleasures of others".—[Official Report. Commons, 25/2/49; cols. 2226–34.]
Your Lordships have now heard the wise words which the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr Tom Williams, spoke all those years ago. I agree with almost every word he said. I only wish that copies of his speech had been available to all Members of another place during the passage of this Bill in that House. I simply cannot see how the Minister can contradict those sentiments expressed in 1949; they are as relevant today as they were then.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for referring to a man who was one of my boyhood heroes. For many years, he lived in Wath upon Dearne and

575
was the Member of Parliament for the constituency next door to the one that I represented. I also recall having heard him referred to as a superb Minister.
When I was a young candidate for the Scarborough and Whitby constituency, Tom Williams intended to address a meeting for me. Unfortunately, he was by then very old and his health was deteriorating, but he wrote a speech for me in longhand. The meeting was attended by many farmers, none of whom I believed to be politically sympathetic. They seemed rather restive as I developed the speech. I pointed out that they could shut up. It was not my speech. It was written by Tom Williams, and they deserved to recognise the contribution that he had made. I rather think that he would make the same speech today.
I am contributing to this debate basically because I am concerned, as I have always been, with nature conservation and the need to reduce the amount of cruelty inflicted on animals. On that basis, I am critical of the Bill. I am also critical of it for a number of other, related reasons. We tend to forget that the landscape of this country was designed for agriculture and field sports. If we destroy or end field sports, we shall see even more harm and damage caused to our landscape.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bragg, made reference to the importance of our landscape. It has provided inspiration in music, art and literature, and has uplifted the souls of country and town dwellers alike. However, if we decide to allow field sports to end, people will say, "Why should we keep that copse or that hedgerow? Why should we not drain that pond or remove that spinney?" Then the habitat of wildlife will disappear, and our country will be the poorer for it because it enriches life.
I do not want to detain the House for long, but it may be as well to say where I stand and from where I come. When I entered the House of Commons in 1970, I had no wish to allow my private interests to obtrude upon my public activity. However, due to the actions of the people who dug out badgers during the part of the season when the cubs were underground, placed gin traps by badger setts, caught badgers for the purpose of baiting and maimed them in the process to give the dogs a better chance, I took the badger Bill through the House of Commons. The Bill was intended to ensure that badger-baiting, which had not been abolished in the 19th century, was legally prohibited.
In 1974. I was fortunate in drawing first place in the ballot for Private Member's Bills. I put together the Bill which became the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act. It provided the mechanism by which endangered species could be protected. A year or two later, the Nature Conservancy Council recommended to the Secretary of State for the Environment that the otter should be protected. That ended otter hunting.
However, I recognised, and said, then that the reason for the decline in otter numbers was not only persecution; it was due also to disturbance, loss of habitat and pollution. Unfortunately (or fortunately at that time) an animal welfare body took out a series
576
of advertisements—I was reminded of that this morning when I saw the national press—which said, "Please send us a donation and help us in our campaign to save the otter". That organisation had had very little to do with the matter. The success of the attempts on behalf of the otter was due entirely to the scientific and professional assessment of the Nature Conservancy Council. I was fortunate in that a number of Conservative Members of Parliament in the Commons—we were in a fairly tight situation from the point of view of party numbers—recognised that the case was a good one. They could have blocked the legislation very easily, and that particular animal welfare lobby almost destroyed our chances.
A year or two later, I met people from the Forestry Commission who were responsible for deer. We have already heard a little on that subject. The stories that I heard from some of the deer conservators were absolutely disgusting. In the Forest of Dean every deer culled that year had already been injured. One had been blinded in one eye by an airgun pellet; another carried a crossbow bolt embedded in its hind quarters. Those deer were culled.
Therefore, I put before the House the Deer Bill, which would have improved matters considerably. It would have provided a closed season for roe deer and would have stopped a number of brutal practices. It would also have specified the type of weaponry which could be used but which rarely was. Air guns, light shot guns and crossbows seemed the preferred instruments of barbarism.
Unfortunately, one of my colleagues—an able and good man—said to me, "I am going to block your Bill". I asked him why. He said, "Because it will still allow deer to be killed. Deer are lovely creatures which should not be killed. They should be there for everyone to enjoy". I pointed out that the number of deer in Britain was rising rapidly and was already higher than it was in the Middle Ages; that deer had no natural predators; and that culling was in the interests of the deer as it enabled them to survive starvation and disease. However, my colleague would not have it and he blocked the Bill. It needed only one person to do so.
Another Deer Bill went through a few years later but it was not quite as good as the one that had been blocked. That colleague meant well. He was a good man. He cared, but he was not adequately informed. That is the case with too many people in this country, as we see from the advertisements.
My position in relation to this Bill was finally determined by that type of advertisement and by a letter which I received from the Campaign for Hunted Animals. It said that the fox may not die instantly when the hounds catch it. It may suffer, while the fox that is wounded—the council accepted that foxes are wounded—will quietly go to its own environment and die there in peace. As one of my noble friends pointed out, septicaemia is not a pleasant thing for any animal to die from. It would probably be in agony for up to two weeks. That is not a suitable alternative to the one sensible approach.

577
Other noble Lords have already raised several of the points to which I have referred, but I believe that I must be the first to speak in favour of the fox. Most people see the fox as a villain, but it is a predator, a scavenger and an essential part of our natural fauna. It kills lambs, but I believe that sometimes when a fox is blamed for killing a lamb, the lamb has been stillborn. The people who really do not like the fox are the shooting fraternity.
The logic has already been suggested that if we were to tackle cruelty inflicted upon our wildlife, criticism would be directed at the shooting fraternity rather than at the hunters. In my case, the criticism would be directed at the people who have been shooting close to my home every Saturday almost since Christmas. They have done so even on days when wildlife has faced a difficult time because the ground has been frozen. They did so even until last Saturday, when there was very little left for them to shoot. They do not like foxes; they do not like any of the predators because they represent a challenge to their prey; that is, the game bird in particular.
We need predators in nature. If noble Lords considered the population of the brown rat in their area, they would find that its population is increasing in many areas of Britain at the rate of about 20 or 30 per cent a year. If people shoot, trap or poison foxes—they will do so if they do not have to tolerate foxes for the hunt—what will happen to the rat and rodent populations? Those animals cause considerable economic damage to our agricultural industry. We need foxes. When there has to be control, the most humane method is hunting. That is why we need to be careful.
I shall finish with another illustrative experience of mine. Forty-five years ago, as a young man, I—or a bitch of mine—saved the lives of three or four beagle puppies. The mother of those puppies had no milk, and a man asked me whether I knew of a bitch that had milk. I said, "I have a bitch with several puppies and a great deal of milk". She raised the beagles, and I was asked whether I would like to go on a hunt. I went—I did so several times. But we did not catch anything. In fact, the hares did not seem to be terribly worried. On one occasion—my last occasion, after which I ceased to be involved forthwith—an incident occurred in which the hare should not have been caught. After that, I wanted nothing more to do with the practice. I certainly do not claim to be a practitioner of field sports.
I am attracted by the fact that if the middle way and practices that avoided unnecessary cruelty were introduced, we should make a powerful contribution to the solution of the problem. We should certainly not allow the House to accept that which can be obscenely cruel—that is what would happen if the will of the House of Commons were to prevail—merely because this House may feel that it should be subordinate.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, when I had the privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House almost 12 years ago, I vowed that as a matter of personal policy I would normally speak only on medicine, science and education.
Why, therefore, have I chosen to speak in this debate? Throughout my professional life I have been a city dweller, first in Newcastle upon Tyne and later in Oxford. However, I have been privileged to have homes in the countryside—in north Northumberland and in the Cotswolds—and have become increasingly aware of the crucial importance to country life of the continuation of hunting in some form. If the Bill imposed a total ban on hunting, that would have a devastating effect upon life in the countryside. It would also constitute, as other noble Lords have said, a massive and unacceptable infringement of civil liberties.
At the outset, I must declare an interest. My son is a farmer in the Scottish Borders and his wife is the co-ordinator of an organisation called the Borders Foundation for Rural Sustainability. That organisation has produced two comprehensive reports on the effects that a ban on hunting would have on the rural economy. I confess that I find it extraordinary that so much valuable parliamentary time is being taken up debating this Bill at a time when farming is in such deep crisis, not simply because of the recent epidemic of foot and mouth disease but also because of the savage reduction in farm incomes, which happened during the past few years.
Many years ago, as a youngster, I confess that I had some sense of distaste at the prospect of a fox being pursued and killed by a pack of ravening hounds. That distaste was based on profound ignorance on my part. That ignorance has been totally assuaged by what I have learnt about hunting in recent years and by reading the excellent report by my noble friend Lord Burns and his colleagues. That report requires the most careful attention.
In the course of my professional career, I have been concerned with the assessment of evidence in science and medicine. I have studied with great care the evidence presented by all sides of the argument. As many other noble Lords have said today, I am totally satisfied that the hunting of foxes with hounds is the most humane means of culling and controlling the fox population. As we have heard, foxes are responsible for the death of much farm livestock and poultry.
Much opposition to the practice is based on ignorance and prejudice. That was encapsulated many years ago in the famous quote by Oscar Wilde, who referred to the English country gentleman on a horse hunting a fox as,
"the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable".
In my view, "unspeakable" refers to the unfortunate and intolerable violent behaviour of many hunt saboteurs and, more so, to the appalling behaviour of those terrorists who recently laid siege to Huntingdon Life Sciences. That is unspeakable.

579
I fully appreciate the sincerity with which noble Lords and many Members of another place have suggested that hunting with hounds is intolerable on the grounds of cruelty. I am satisfied that the evidence does not support that conclusion.
As many other noble Lords have said, hunting is carried out not just by the landed gentry but by many farm workers and country dwellers. As the Borders Foundation for Rural Sustainability made clear, hunting is enjoyed by those who ride with the hounds and by many non-mounted followers, who follow in cars, on foot, on cycles and on quads. The foundation produced evidence that showed that seven hunts in the Scottish Borders and in north Northumberland in 1998–99 were followed by 14,380 non-mounted followers. If that is true of seven hunts, how many non-mounted followers follow hunts throughout the length and breadth of the country? As I have already said, the foundation's reports showed that the proposal would have a devastating effect on the rural economy in financial and other terms.
I shall give one or two quotations from some non-mounted followers. One said:
"Hunting gets me outside to enjoy good hound-work, meeting company, seeing and enjoying the countryside. Otherwise, I should be an arm-chair pensioner".
Another said:
"If hunting were banned it would leave a big hole in my life. I would be cut off from people and a marvellous opportunity to see and know the countryside".
A third said:
"Hunting keeps me socially alive. Many of the foot-followers are retired farmers and shepherds. It is my only social life. My friends and I would be bereft without hunting".
I could give many more quotes. I fully appreciate that they are anecdotal comments and that they do not constitute scientific evidence. However, the burden of evidence regarding the effect that a ban on hunting would have on the rural economy and on social life in rural communities is extremely powerful.
Is more regulation needed? I have been very impressed by the work of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, which is chaired by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, whom I heard speak last week. It is an excellent voluntary regulatory body. What effective sanctions can we impose on unregulated hunts or on individual hunters who may break its rules and conventions? The answer is none. They would be allowed to continue although the well-organised hunts would continue to follow the guidelines that that body has laid down. In much of my professional life, I have been concerned with issues of professional self-regulation of doctors, dentists, vets, nurses and other professions. Many people argue that hunting is a sport and not a profession, but, in my view, many of those involved in organising and administering hunting are highly professional individuals, and I believe that the principles involved are similar.
We require an authority with statutory powers, but it should not be a totally Government controlled or Government appointed authority. It should be a free-standing regulatory body, with a membership that is
580
drawn from many different walks of life, not just rural-dwellers, vets and farmers; it should be given powers to license and to inspect; and it should be able to withhold licences, where appropriate, or withdraw them where there is evidence of misconduct. As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, stated, such a body could be built around the existing independent supervisory authority and given statutory powers, without involving too much bureaucracy.
We should not allow this long-hallowed traditional activity of the countryside to be banned. I fervently believe that proper regulation is the only reasonable way forward.
7.22 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have listened to some amazing speeches this afternoon, and to some fascinating speeches, into which category I regret the one that your Lordships are about to hear will not fall. I greatly enjoyed listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who is renowned for making the most trenchant and articulate speeches on these matters. As the noble Baroness said, the small things in life often stand out when you are young. She was introduced to a pony when she was 10 years old, and from there went on to hunt, which she has enjoyed ever since.
My experience was rather different from hers. I was given a pony at the age of eight, and the pony succeeded in throwing me off. I got winded and thought I was dying; and it was the most disagreeable experience I had ever had. When I was older, because I was rather large, in those days in height as opposed to girth, I was always given the largest horse. I would clamber on top of this thing and promptly get vertigo. When somebody asked me today whether, when I lived in Leicestershire, I went hunting, I practically fell off my chair with laughter. I have always regarded the horse as a beautiful animal, but dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle. I have not, therefore, been involved in hunting at all.
Hunting is a fine sight; it is part of the spectacle of the countryside and part of the life of the countryside. It is also part of the lives of people. It would be a great disaster if that were to go, still worse if it were to be made a criminal offence. Governments are supposed to protect minority interests. Although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton said that the Government are neutral about the issue, all I can say is that they have not told that to the marines, because that is not the impression that they give at all. Everyone feels that the Government are setting the pace. They can have a free vote in another place when they know perfectly well that the majority of the Members are Labour-oriented and therefore will vote for a ban. The fact is that the Government have given the impression that they are in favour of banning hunting. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detch ant, stated, it is extraordinary that the Government have given so much time to the Bill, given the disastrous plight of the countryside. No parliamentary time or thought appears to have been given to the total

581
disaster, which includes not just foot and mouth, but swine fever and the whole position of the countryside, before one even starts to think about the weather which has done nothing but pour with rain. On top of that, along come the Government with a Bill to dispose of hunting, to dispose of the hounds and to do away with jobs in a part of the country that is already deeply depressed. I believe that it would be a great error.
Had it not been for the foot and mouth outbreak, a huge rally would have been held this weekend. It would have been huge because the people of the countryside feel that Westminster is alienated from them, and that members of Parliament at Westminster do not understand the problems of the countryside. I regret to say that I believe that they are right to hold that view.
We have heard widely differing views this afternoon as to whether fox hunting is right or wrong. People are entitled to hold the view that it is wrong, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant said, it is a terrible thing when the animal liberation movement takes up its cudgels and threatens people, including two Labour Members of Parliament for voting against hunting. Look at what happened at Huntingdon Life Sciences. The balaclava and the baseball bat are not part of democratic life; they are an offence to it. It is terrorism; they are terrorising people. I gave the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, notice that I would ask this question. What do the Government intend to do about this terrorism? It is just as bad to terrorise people like that as it is to terrorise people in an aeroplane or anywhere else. It is the use of illegal fear to try to get your own way.
Hunting has always been part of the social fabric of the countryside. I have no particular views about cruelty, but I am deeply persuaded by what people have said about the speed of the death. If a fox is left to be shot, that would be infinitely more cruel. Perhaps some noble Lords have tried shooting hares, and may have been more successful than I have been, but a hare is a difficult thing to shoot, and if that is difficult to shoot, a fox is far worse.
Why do people go out to hunt? It is not really just for the fun of the kill. As I understand it, only two people do the hunting, the master of the foxhounds and the huntsman. Everyone else goes out for a day out with their friends, a day out on the horses, a day out in the countryside. They like to try and jump the fences, ditches and gates, and hope to goodness that they manage to hang on and not end up on the ground. That is why they go out hunting, and that is why it is so valuable. If people who commit urban crime were to go out and exercise themselves in that way during the day, they might be too exhausted to carry out some of their more felonious deeds at night.
Some people are paranoid about the killing of foxes. I always find it odd that, politically, we are quite content to see 170,000 babies a year killed by abortion, and yet we worry about killing a fox, which is, after all, a pest. What will happen to all the hounds that will be
582
slaughtered? Where are all the protests from the animal rights organisations about that? Those hounds have as much right to live as the foxes.
At a time when the countryside is suffering such devastation, it is extraordinary that the only contribution the Government can apparently make is to say that they will criminalise hunting, remove people's jobs and greatly alter the sight and shape of the countryside. I believe that it would be a great mistake and would not do the Government any good whatsoever.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I have hunted all my life, having started very much like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, but I have perhaps been more successful than my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I hunted all my life, until three years ago, when a combination of my wife and my doctor persuaded me to stop. I have never seen any cruelty to the fox in the hunting field. Had it happened, I am quite sure that the masters, the followers and the hunt servants would not have tolerated it, and it has not been so.
I have been fortunate in having some good horses and on occasions have been in at the kill. And I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that when the hounds catch the fox, they snap back the neck and kill it straightaway. I have never seen a fox killed otherwise than instantaneously in that way. Nonsense is spoken of hounds tearing a fox to pieces while it is still alive. Such sentiments appear in the press from some of the more difficult anti-hunting bodies—including the RSPCA—with pictures purporting to show hounds tearing a fox to pieces while it is still alive. That is nonsense. I am sure that anyone who says such things has never been hunting and has never seen a fox killed, otherwise they would know it could not be right.
Control of hunting is the responsibility of the masters. In my experience, and I have been fortunate enough to hunt most of my life with the Pytchley, all the masters of all the packs I have known have shown consideration, discipline and a firmness which ensured compliance with all the rules and ethics of hunting. That is the practice of a pack of established fox hounds and the practice of a good master. I cannot believe that a statutory body can provide more effective supervision and control of the conduct of hunting than such masters.
No doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss that point in Committee. At the moment this Bill refers only to banning hunting. No amendments have yet been tabled and cannot be debated as to their merits. But to deprive the country of fox hunting will be to deprive vast numbers of people of a tradition and sport which they consider to be part of their lives, especially those who live in the countryside. Scores of people wrote to me to say that, although they do not hunt, to ban hunting will deprive them of something they value as an essential part of rural life. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke movingly in that regard and I endorse what she said. Others will speak and may have spoken already on what the Bill will do to our freedom,

583
our liberty and the rights of minorities. I agree with them, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke effectively on that point a few moments ago.
Finally, this Bill has been given priority over many other Bills which wait to be debated in this place, such as the Health and Social Care Bill. That has been put aside so that this Bill can take its place on the statute book. The Government will then be able to say that they attempted to get this Bill through, but could not. To give this Bill priority over those other Bills is proof of the Government's abdication of their responsibility and of their yielding to noisy cries of hunt saboteurs and "upsetters".
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, while listening to this debate I have been reflecting on the nature of cruelty. I have lived in the countryside for most of my life and was brought up on a farm. Our farm being family owned, it was interesting that we were anti-hunt. That was rather because my mother, who was a great radical, regarded the hunt in the Vale of Clwyd as "Tories on horseback" and therefore to be banned from her land. I farmed in the foothills of Snowdonia and then moved to Montgomeryshire. It was there I realised that the hunt was at least 50–50 "Liberals on horseback".
I farmed for most of my life until two years ago and enjoyed it enormously. But I have never hunted. However, I have always subscribed to our local foot pack in mid-Wales. Without the foot pack economic farming would be extremely difficult in our part of the world. I live in a mountainous area. Noble Lords have already referred to the problems in that type of country, as did the Burns report.
However, although I have farmed for most of my life I am a rather squeamish fellow. In her remarkable and most impressive speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the fact that our attitude towards these problems is so much conditioned by our experience. I have shot; I have fished. I always felt squeamish about it. But I have never felt as squeamish as I felt as a farmer with the domestic animals. I reared a herd of Welsh black cattle and a flock of Texel sheep, and I loved them greatly. I enjoyed them, as did the farm workers and staff. It was always with a sense of doing something cruel that I either delivered them to the slaughterhouse or the market. They were all squeezed together, not knowing where they were going. And all that happens in agriculture.
I suppose when people in the cities buy their meat in the supermarkets, they never think of that. But the stress on the domestic farm animal, especially in these days of travelling long distances to slaughterhouses or being transferred here and there between dealers before they eventually reach the slaughterhouse, must be far greater than for any hunted fox.
The fox is by nature a predator. I love the fox. I have seen a number of them over the years, because of the nature of my farm, as I am sure have many people. Two memories stick in my mind. When I started farming, around 35 to 40 years ago, I remember going
584
into a field one morning during lambing time and, to my horror, finding 17 dead lambs. Each had been killed in the same way. Their tails had been bitten off and they had been killed by being bitten under the neck. It was a pattern. I did not realise then, in my ignorance, until my neighbours explained, that it was probably done by a rogue fox. They suck the blood out of the lamb, which explains their method of killing.
That scene stayed indelibly in my mind. I realised how important our foot pack was to the community. Every farmer supported the foot pack. In fact those that did not pay a subscription kept a hound for the non-hunting season on their farm or smallholding. Nowadays, the hounds are already back on the farms because hunting has stopped due to foot and mouth disease.
The other memorable scene I remember happened a few years ago when I was driving round my farm and saw two of the mangiest-looking foxes I have ever seen in my life. Also, it was the first time I had ever seen foxes in close vicinity to one another. In my experience they had always been lone animals. I stopped my four-wheel drive car and looked at the foxes. They looked at me. I drove round and later saw another one. They seemed to be almost entirely tame. I spoke to my farm bailiff about what I considered a strange phenomenon. He said that they were Wolverhampton foxes. I was unaware of a habit whereby people, with the best of intentions, caught urban foxes in Wolverhampton, put them in the back of their vans, delivered them to an area like Montgomeryshire and released them on the hills intending that they should return to the wild. They were in fact destined for certain death because for them life outside their urban environment was impossible.
I do not believe for a moment that the perceived cruelty in foxhunting is anything like sufficient to justify a ban. No doubt there should be some change in practices and some regulation, but that is about all. Far worse things are taking place in our country than hunting. There have been references to the Lake District and other areas. En districts like mine, hunting with dogs is absolutely essential if we are to keep the fox population down. Our local hunt, to which I subscribe, kills on average about 150 foxes a year, sometimes more. There is also a "proper" hunt—the David Davies Hunt. There are about 15 horses and ponies which meet on a Saturday morning to go hunting. For the rest of the week they hunt as a foot pack.
Another hunt in mid-Wales hunts properly on a Wednesday, but on Saturdays goes out as a shooting foot pack. My particular foot pack is also a shooting pack. The hunt covers parts of Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and Cardiganshire and is known as the Plynlimon Hunt. It covers terrain where only shooting will clear the foxes. The dogs are required to go into the forestry areas and drive out the foxes. If it were not for the animal culling there would be absolute slaughter at lambing time.
During the lambing season the huntsman is informed immediately a farmer believes that a fox is stealing lambs. This year I took a statement from our

585
huntsman. He had no complaints at all in March last year, but April proved a very inclement month. For the first time in his 20 years' experience he had a number of complaints in April.
One complaint in particular has remained in my mind because I followed it up. There was a complaint that about 20 lambs were missing. It was thought that a fox had taken them because they had completely disappeared. After the complaint the hunt went off at 6.30 in the morning. The dogs followed the scent and found the fox's lair about 200 yards away. The dogs were put down. A vixen came out and was shot. She had nine cubs. I am no expert, but I was told that this was an unusually high number. Within the den there were a number of dead lambs. The fox had killed because she had nine cubs to feed. It was inclement weather and she simply went to the nearest possible supply.
That kind of thing can happen all the time at lambing but not to the same extent. Foot packs are essential in what is an afforested area with probably the greatest density of sheep in the whole of the United Kingdom.
I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would be in his place. There are two kinds of foot packs, the shooting foot pack and the non-shooting one. It is arguable which is the most effective because the hounds kill the foxes in suitable terrain as quickly as any gun can in very difficult terrain.
In House of Commons Standing Committee B on 6th February, Mrs Jane Kennedy, who, I believe, is a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, said:
"The hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Montgomeryshire asked about Welsh gun packs. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked if we intend to outlaw them. and the straight answer is no: gun packs can fall within the exceptions".
This is very important. Does the noble and learned Lord repeat that undertaking on behalf of the Government? Foot packs not being outlawed means that hunting by dogs can be justified. Yet when one looks at the Bill, which is badly drawn, its wording does not suggest to me that a foot pack working in this way would come within one of the exceptions, although it is clearly the Government's intention that it should. Surely, if the exception is extended to the gun foot pack it should also apply to the other foot packs because they operate on different terrain without guns.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, during the many years that the question of hunting, particularly fox hunting, has been raging, I have heard opponents of hunting claim that hunting is a class issue, and if for no other reason, it should be banned because they believe that it is a relic of this country's historic class structure.
Other opponents of hunting are fanatical animal rights activists whose fanaticism seems rather twisted. On the one hand they claim a love of animals and yet on the other their actions display no concern whatsoever for human life. Of course, not everyone
586
opposed to hunting comes into these categories in the same way that not everyone supporting hunting takes the view of many in the Countryside Alliance, which claims that it should be allowed to carry on hunting in its own way without what it describes as government interference.
Nevertheless, those who hold the views to which I have referred are making clear, political statements in support of their position. Therefore, I shall make a political statement in defence of my position which I believe reflects the voice of tolerance and moderation. It is my view that, while considering the question of fox hunting, we should look at the issue with a sense of proportion and understanding.
In a democracy such as ours it is of course necessary to observe the wishes of the majority. But it is equally important that if we are to apply our democracy in a civilised manner, it is essential that we protect the interests of the minority. After all, our society is not made up of constant and fixed majorities and minorities but by a multiplicity of minorities which split and divide into majorities and minorities on different issues.
As regards hunting, it is regrettable that a clear division has been drawn between those who live and work in the country and those who live and work in the towns and cities of this nation. I know that it is often said that that division is not so clear cut. But it would be very foolish not to recognise that as regards hunting and some other areas of lifestyle cultural differences exist between the two groups. We know that media reporting misses no opportunity to exaggerate the differences between countryfolk and urban dwellers and portraying the issue of hunting as the biggest division between the two groups in living memory.
There is a great deal I could say about the impact on jobs and what would happen to horses and hounds if hunting were to be banned. But in this Second Reading of the Bill I shall limit my arguments to what I consider to be three fundamental areas: namely, culture, control and cruelty.
I turn first to culture. In our towns and cities, people mainly keep cats and dogs as pets. However, in the country and among the farming community, cats are kept to control the rodent population and dogs are kept for working with cattle and sheep. So, it is not surprising that the attitude and approach of the two groups towards animals in general is different, arising from environmental differences and the development of different cultures which have evolved over hundreds of years. What about cows, sheep and pigs, from which comes the meat that most of us eat? For centuries country folk have been directly associated with the breeding, slaughtering and butchering of those animals so that all of us, mainly living in urban areas, can enjoy our Sunday roast and lamb lunches without having to experience or, indeed, think about, the breeding and slaughtering process which takes place on our behalf.

587
Over the many years that I was required to visit slaughterhouses in order to represent the interests of workers employed there, many of my friends and acquaintances who ate meat, as I do, confessed that they could never stomach going into a slaughterhouse to see those animals being killed. They also said that they could not bear the thought of an animal they may have tended in a field being taken away and slaughtered. But that is what the farming community have always lived with. I do not complain about those differences; I express them to demonstrate the difference in culture between those who live and work in the rural countryside and those who live and work in urban areas, which for me is inescapable.
I read recently that the number of animals on farms in this country—the vast majority being bred for slaughter and eating—is 70 million. Here, we are dealing with the hunting and killing of 17,000 wild foxes each year. I mention those figures to draw attention to the relative proportion of killing, although I hasten to add that I fully appreciate the difference between killing for food and killing that arises from a sporting activity. The point I make is to emphasise the clear distinction between the attitude and approach of country folk towards animals as compared to that of town dwellers. We must understand that that exists because of the environmental differences in which the two groups have been brought up and in which they now live. That is what created the cultural differences. I believe that it would be wrong of anyone to ignore the culture of those who live in the country when we are expected to make laws which directly affect them.
On a slightly different note, but one which I believe shows how ignorance of the full picture can often lead people to mistaken conclusions, animal rights activists are conscious opponents of animal experimentation. But when most people are confronted with a simple, straightforward proposition that using animals for experiments is cruel, they will mostly agree. However, they do not normally think about the fact that each time they go to the doctor, to a chemist or into hospital and receive medication which removes pain and suffering and is often life-saving, none of that would have been possible if experiments on animals had not previously taken place. I say that simply to show how unwise it is to jump to conclusions without understanding the full extent of all the circumstances involved. I fear that that is the case with many who oppose hunting.
I turn to the question of control of the fox population. The fox is an animal which is an effective predator but which suffers from no natural predator other than man. I understand that the fox population in this country is normally about half a million. In the spring it rises to about 1 million. Without control, the fox population would get out of hand. I have heard few, if any, express the view that controlling the fox population is unnecessary or unjustified, including most, if not all, opponents of hunting. When one considers the number of foxes which are killed each year, the 17,000 killed through hunting is a small proportion. What other methods can be and are employed in the control of the fox population:
588
shooting, snaring, trapping, poisoning, gassing and, perhaps, smoking out. I shall come to those again when I deal with cruelty.
If it is universally recognised that the fox population must be controlled, what is wrong with one such means of control arising from a sporting activity, particularly if such activity results in the killing of the fox being a lot quicker and the pain and suffering involved much less than by the alternative method? I find no reason to legitimately justify the banning of fox hunting simply because it is a sport which results in the killing of a fox when everyone accepts that the fox population has to be controlled.
I turn to the argument of cruelty, upon which I have already touched. As I have indicated, there is a largely universal acceptance that the fox population needs to be controlled. Therefore, if we take away hunting, what are we left with? Again, I repeat the alternatives: shooting, snaring, trapping, poisoning, gassing and, perhaps, smoking out. All those methods are probably more efficient than hunting and would undoubtedly mean the killing of a great number of foxes. The first question I ask is whether we want the killing of a great number of foxes. I do not think so. The second question is whether the alternative methods to hunting are any less cruel. I think not. Indeed, in most if not all cases I believe that the alternatives are more cruel. Perhaps I may say to all those who strongly argue for the banning of hunting to think of the consequences that will arise if they get their way. It does not seem to me that they will be doing the fox any favours.
In conclusion, although I am opposed to the banning of hunting because I can see no justification for such a ban, I am not opposed to statutory regulation. However, my voting pattern will depend upon the way that the voting options are put, ensuring as far as I can that the option for a ban on hunting does not succeed. I urge others who share my views to do the same. For the record, and to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in your Lordships' House, I have never hunted, fished or been to a shoot, but I have spent most of my life directly safeguarding and representing the employment interests of my fellow human beings.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, with whose every word I agree. Some five hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, reminded us of the words of the Attorney-General. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—I am sorry that he is not in his place—reminded us that the only other subjects last year which filled your Lordships' Chamber as fully as it has been filled today were the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the Local Government Bill.
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I have only two points to make. One concerns the argument for liberty and tolerance and the pastimes of the minority. The other concerns the knock-on effect on other field sports were the Bill to be enacted. First, I should

589
declare a non-interest. To my great regret, I have never seen or been present at a fox hunt or a day's hare coursing, so I speak with limited knowledge. But I live in a non-hunting, highland region of Scotland and I am deeply familiar with the fox and its predation and the other methods of control which have been discussed; that is, snaring, lamping and shooting. I have been part of that and instrumental in it. I can tell noble Lords that, hard as one tries, that is often not a kind or humane way to kill foxes.
My interest, which I also declare, is that all my life I have been a passionate countryman, passionate fisherman and passionate shooter. It is in those capacities that for some four or five years I was a member of the board of the Countryside Alliance. I retired by rotation in May this year. As I am no longer a member of the board, perhaps I may pay a tribute to the president who has spoken tonight with such passion and wonderful eloquence. I also pay tribute to the tremendously healing speech—it was an attempt to reach some kind of agreement on this difficult issue—of the chairman, John Jackson, and the director, Richard Burge, who I am sure have listened to our debate today.
The two points that I wish to make are simple. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to the words of the Attorney-General. I should like to quote the Attorney-General's words on 11th April of last year. Whenever I am here I listen to the Welsh eloquence and charm of the noble and learned Lord. At that time the Attorney-General was introducing the Second Reading debate on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. He said:
"It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised. There is, after all. a libertarian thread that runs through our public life … It is one of the most attractive features of this country. It is worth remembering it and protecting it".—[Official Report, 11/4/00; col. 92.]
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will remind the Attorney-General of those words when he next sees him.
My second witness for the defence also comes from the Government Front Bench. I refer to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at consideration of Commons amendments to the Local Government Bill on 24th July 2000. In responding to a question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, he said:
"It is very strange of this House, because normally it is a well recognised role of this House to defend the position of minorities. It may very well be that the majority of people out there, fed by slightly misleading information in our media and elsewhere, support the retention of Section 28 … but it still remains the responsibility of this House—it is one of the great constitutional checks and balances of our system—to respect and protect the interests of minorities against a populist majority".—[Official Report, 24/7/00; col. 124.]
From the Government Front Bench on two separate occasions on other issues similar arguments to those debated tonight were expressed with great clarity. I hope that both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord will be reminded of their words—I do not know their stance on this matter—in the context of this debate.
590
My third witness comes from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I refer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who I notice is not in his place today. In his response to the gracious Speech, the noble Earl said:
"I should also like to allow myself the luxury of one sentence on hunting. I expect it to be the last on the issue that I speak this Session. I have no intention of casting any vote on that Bill. Should I be made to come down off that high horse, I should vote against whichever side proved itself to be more intolerant".— [Official Report, 7/12/00; col. 44.]
I hope that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench will remind the noble Earl of those words and ask him whom he believes is more intolerant: those who advocate the preservation of a very important activity and recreation within the countryside, who organised what would have been on Sunday the largest and most peaceful demonstration and march, and who try to be reasonable about what is happening in the countryside, or the people who threaten those in the other place who advocate the middle way in hunting? Who is being more tolerant at the moment? That is all I say about tolerance and liberty.
I deal with one other point: the knock-on effect. I suggest that those noble Lords who access the Internet should look at the website of an organisation called "Pisces", which is related to fishing, and at the totally misleading and virulent information that is put out against that activity and which goes into the curricula of primary schools.
As far as concerns shooting, to my knowledge, based on a very good source, those people who oppose field sports already have all the evidence in the can. The moment that this Bill is passed the whole of that will be diverted against shooting and fishing. It is all very well for the Home Office Minister Mr Mike O'Brien to say in another place that so long as the Prime Minister is in No. 10—who can tell how long that may be?—shooting and fishing are safe. Public opinion and all the activities of the "antis" will then be focused on other field sports.
When it comes to a vote, I shall vote with profound conviction against the Bill and for one of the alternatives. I shall perhaps vote for the regulation of hunting because I believe that hunting must go on and that that is the best way to ensure that it does.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I should declare a non-interest in that I neither hunt nor fish. I have a fear of horses, and I am not particularly fond of dogs either. As an orthodox Jew I come from a religious and moral perspective which holds as a key aspect to its philosophy the sacredness of human life. Round that is based so much of our practice. In Judaism there is also the notion that the world is given to us as a mandate. We look after the environment and in particular have regard to the welfare of animals. We look after the ecology and we do not unnecessarily mix species in the field or animals in the barn to their detriment.
There is a notion that goes right through that tradition. For example, there is the clear instruction not to muzzle the ox in a particular way while it grinds

591
the corn so that it can nourish itself rather than look at the corn without being able to eat it. The basic premise behind the use of Jewish methods of slaughter of animals is that they are not killed in the sight of each other. Animals are killed with the sharpest possible knife so that they suffer no pain; and the slightest nick on a knife, however small, found after the act of slaughter renders that animal unfit for use or eating in our practices. That is a very strict rule which is widely observed by a large number of Jews in this country.
Coming from that perspective gives me a certain clear view of this particular Bill, which I believe is a thoroughly wrong measure. When I consider all the available evidence that I have read and heard today and have carefully studied for some time, I am totally convinced by the argument that hunting is the most humane method to kill the fox. I have no idea about deer; I find that a more difficult problem. However, with regard to fox hunting I have absolute clarity. I have never seen a hunt, but I have spoken to many people among my friends who are hunters. I see very clearly from their perspective that the hunt results in a kill which is virtually instantaneous. I leave aside the issue of digging out the fox. That may or may not be justified after thought about its regulation.
We heard a very powerful speech by my noble friend Lady Castle which sounded extraordinarily attractive. I am sorry that she is not in her place now. I believe that that was a wrong and inappropriate speech. The notion that somehow hunting threatens the moral fabric of our society is simply not true. Those arguments would carry far more weight if we were not standing passive while there is the massive slaughter of tens of thousands of animals in this country, often within sight of each other; animals which are often given names by the farmers; and animals which are often household pets, even though they are cows. It is a shocking threat for what is ultimately a commercial purpose because we could no longer trade outside this country. I believe that is a far greater moral dilemma. It is a cruel dilemma. I do not know what the answer is, but one hopes that science might find a better solution than vaccines which last only a few months, so that vaccines could be accepted and we can eliminate these viruses from herds in this country and elsewhere.
All available evidence argues that hunting is the most humane alternative. We have heard, and we know that with regulation nowadays, virtually the only weapon that the farmer has to hand is the shotgun. Whether it is a 12-bore, which is clearly ridiculous, or one which is slightly heavier, it means that one will maim the fox more often than kill it. I have maimed a fox, not with a gun but in a motor car. I live in Hampstead Garden Suburb where the heath extension is plagued by foxes. I have seen what carnage they do. One by one my children's rabbits were killed completely wantonly. They were not taken for food, but destroyed by the fox after it dug through their cage. It was a horrible experience.
In spite of the speed and the power of my motor car when I hit the fox, I certainly did not kill it: I maimed it. One felt sickened at the prospect of a suffering
592
animal, but there was nothing in the best human circumstances that one could do. It was far worse than the almost instantaneous killing that occurs as a result of the hunt.
This is a frightening Bill for a very serious reason indeed. I believe that it is, as my noble friend Lord Bragg said, the thin end of a wedge. We start with hunting and move on to shooting and fishing. We then look, for example, perhaps at various methods of Muslim or Jewish slaughter of meat for perfectly respectable religious purposes. We then move on to the use of animals in research.
I have been in a house on the Sabbath—my Saturday—when my entire street has been cordoned off by the police with mobile units while they examined parcels that were delivered to my house. I have had threatening mail. In our democracy, a number of my colleagues have also had these kinds of' threats, notably a much more distinguished scientist than myself, Professor Colin Blakemore of Oxford. He is an extraordinarily brave man who has continued with his conviction of the need for humanely conducted research using animals but in proper circumstances and under proper regulation. That is surely what this House should be looking at with regard to any aspect of the handling of animals.
We should not underestimate the inordinate power of pressure groups. These groups can give a disproportionate sense of the feeling in the population. That has happened again and again. For example, it happened a few weeks ago with the stem cell debate. We were besieged with correspondence which suggested that this was one of the most iniquitous procedures. Once this House agreed that we could do that under careful regulation, I, for one, have not had a single letter or e-mail and no further objection. It is extraordinary how these perceived public issues sometimes return to some sense of proper proportion.
I am troubled by a letter I received this afternoon from the Labour Animal Welfare Society. It states:
"We strongly believe that the Labour Party's interests require a clear demonstration of opposition to hunting with hounds, particularly when the House of Lords debates and votes on the Hunting Bill."
Notice that it is "the Labour Party's interests", not the interests of the fox, the farming community or of what is just and proper and properly regulated. It continues:
"The Labour Party's victory at the general election depends crucially on voter turnout, which depends on the Party being seen to keep trust with its supporters".
I make no apologies for being a Labour supporter and a long-time member of the Labour Party, but I want no truck with this kind of special pleading.
My friends who hunt, people like my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, who gave that extraordinarily powerful speech, one of the best speeches I have heard in this House—I am sorry if I embarrass her; it was a fantastic speech—are not barbarians. They are not cruel. This is not a Bill which is rightly placed. This is not a Bill for which I can vote. I feel at the very least we must look for some regulation but certainly not vote in favour of the banning of hunting.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. The noble Lord, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has not had the opportunity to experience the hunt for himself. Therefore, he has reached his own conclusions from reading and listening to people.
I was born and brought up in the countryside. As a child, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I rode ponies from an early age. I lived in Quorn country and hunted with the Quorn. I only ever hunted with the Quorn, one of seven packs in Leicestershire. I have not ridden for some eight years. Sadly, last year, our last horse was put down.
Perhaps I should also declare an interest in that we are members of the Countryside Alliance, the CLA and the NFU.
After leaving school I became a poultry farmer. So I saw foxes from the other end. Like many other noble Lords, I had the soul-destroying experience of going to lock up the hens at night only to find that occasionally the fox had beaten me to it. As other noble Lords have rightly said, the fox does not kill to eat; it kills for sheer pleasure. I would find that out of a hut of 50 chickens about 12 had been killed and probably another 15 had been smothered because in their flight to get away from the fox they could not get through the narrow opening. It is not a nice sight.
I was lucky enough to be brought up with that background. I believe that it has a bearing and stays with us. I, too, agree with other noble Lords who say that on both sides of the argument views are held very strongly. But I have been much encouraged recently, if the opinion polls are right, by the number of people who have changed their mind on their perception of the cruelty attached to fox hunting.
I have only been in your Lordships' House for four years, but often we have had debates where very differing views have come together to realise that there are other sides to the argument. Today we are seeing just that process.
Before I deal with the main part of my speech, I pay tribute, although he is not in his place at the moment, to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby, who is in his place, for their extremely good research and the time that they took in weighing up the evidence put before them. That has provided us with an important, unbiased and clear background against which to consider the Hunting Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for restating the matter again for us today.
Over the past three weeks I have received many written submissions from organisations and individuals, only three of which seek my support for a total ban. In addition, I have had communications with individual police members. I quote from the letter of one policeman. He said:
"Should law-abiding people have to give way to rural terrorist campaigns and attacks on their person and property? What will happen to liberty, freedom of choice and tolerance?"
Today many noble Lords have referred to that matter.
594
From medieval times until the invention of the motor car, the horse was used to transport people and goods, to till the ground, to hunt for animals and game and to provide recreation through tournaments, hunting, sport and, later, racing. The internal combustion engine virtually banished the horse from urban environments and did so at a speed possibly greater than that of the recent microchip revolution.
In the countryside, however, many of the old ways survived. Plough horses lasted until after the Second World War but are rare now. Falconry is popular but not normally from horseback. But trekking, hacking, show jumping, dressage, cross-country and hunting are, if anything, growing in popularity. All told, the "horse" industry—including those employed in hunting, racing, livery and saddlery, vets, farriers, feed manufacturers, those who rent paddocks and so on—makes at least as big a contribution to our national income as does agriculture. In addition, the hunt makes a great contribution with regard to fallen stock, as happens on our farms today. It is sad that our hunt servants are out helping to put down some of the animals with foot and mouth disease.
Horses—the love of horses and the ownership of horses—are largely a rural preoccupation. In a real sense, they are a mark of the countryside, just as football matches represent an important recreation in towns. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and one or two other noble Lords referred to that point. Hunting is an important way of rural life. It is not partaken of by all that many, but it represents history, tradition, excitement and danger for some, and the right of a minority to continue its preferred existence. It is carried out in a responsible way. The Burns report did not class the killing of foxes as cruel. The death, if not instantaneous, happens in a matter of seconds. The unregulated control alternatives are more cruel, as other noble Lords have stated.
I wonder what would happen if the rural community set up a lobby to stop professional football matches. Reasons would not be difficult to find—hooliganism, vandalism, noise, litter, traffic jams and bad behaviour on and off the field. Reasons are a plenty; but imagine the outcry: the accusation of bigotry and narrow mindedness. I agree that any such suggestion would be unreasonable and totally out of order; just as I believe that the call to ban hunting with dogs is unreasonable. It represents an unacceptable attempt by those of one opinion to impose their will on those of a different opinion. I fear that underlying this is a feeling that a majority has some right to dictate to a minority.
Our history is bound up with support for the underdog and in standing up for the right of the minority to continue its legal occupations. My fear is that the Hunting Bill represents a move away from that liberality to a position of, "Might is right and the end justifies the means". The Bill before us will not save one fox, but it will increase their suffering. Is that really what people wish to achieve?
I think that all noble Lords agree that foxes have to be controlled. The question is: how? Some noble Lords have mentioned lamping. It is one option mentioned

595
by the Burns report. But with the passing of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill last autumn and the opening up of the countryside to all, lamping will not be a safe option. During the proceedings on the Bill we tried desperately to ban night-time access. Lamping is conducted at night. How can one lamp if people are freely walking over the land? What alternative is left if hunting is banned?
There are many issues which the Government have not considered fully, as I am sure our debate today will reflect. Your Lordships should be taking time to debate this matter. I very much agree with those who have said that. I am concerned about the way in which some legislation is rushed through another place and then we in your Lordships' House are told that it is not for us to alter its decisions. But if another place does not have the time or ability to look at these matters properly, it is up to your Lordships to look at them in detail.
I am dismayed—I shall say it again tomorrow—that we are devoting so much time to the Bill when the countryside is in crisis. The Bill will divide communities even further. It is yet another blow to the country way of life. The countryside rally that was due to take place next Sunday, in which many noble Lords would have taken part, has been postponed. It would have shown the degree of frustration felt by the people who live and work in the countryside. They are coping with extremely difficult circumstances. The Bill will only add to their frustration. As other noble Lords have said, the Bill is yet another wedge between us.
I have spoken from the Back Benches. My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to the fact that no one speaking from the Front Benches has a role in agriculture. I should like to record the fact that I do, and that the country way of life is extremely important to me. I hope that the debate will persuade anyone who is in doubt of the need to reject and oppose the Bill. If it has to be, we must find some middle ground. But at the moment the question before us is whether we support or oppose the Bill. I strongly oppose it.
8.27 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford, I must declare an interest. I am a farmer; I benefit from the hunt; I allow the hunt to go over my land; but I have never myself hunted. I believe quite strongly that it is our responsibility in this House to weigh the evidence carefully and to make sure that we bring our individual expertise—what a breadth of expertise we have heard today—to bear on the issues, which have been well presented.
I congratulate the Government on just one thing in respect of the Bill. I congratulate them on commissioning the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues to produce their report. That was a sensible way to set the scene, and their terms of reference were highly appropriate. The purpose was not to give a recommendation but to try to marshal the evidence in a way that all of us would then be able to take account of and then make our decision based on moral and ethical considerations and on an evaluation of the science and other factors set out in the report.
596
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, I want to look at the issue from the point of view of nature conservation. By accident, I found myself chairing the Joint Nature Conservation Committee some seven or eight years ago when the Nature Conservancy Council was abolished. I give credit to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who I see in his place— not that he intended me to be the chairman; far from it; but that is how it fell out in the event. As a result, I found myself looking carefully at policies for protecting and conserving British mammals.
It is indeed the case that the fortunes of British mammals—the species we are discussing are British mammals—have ebbed and flowed quite dramatically. When we look at the reasons why the fortunes of those British mammals have ebbed and flowed, it is clear that often it is due to change of land use and the incidence of pollution in our streams and rivers. In large part, that was the cause of the decline in the otter population, although in some quarters they may have been over-hunted. Nevertheless, I suspect that the decline was mainly due to environmental considerations. Other species, such as the polecat and the pinemarten, have needed careful management to encourage their fortunes to flow rather than to ebb. Indeed, close though the otter, polecat and pinemarten were at one time to eradication, I believe that we can say that now their fortunes are recovering from a very low base.
Other mammals, such as the water vole and the red squirrel, are examples of species which have suffered devastation due to competition from other alien species. For that, man is also responsible, because we introduced those alien species. Again, however, we must recognise the dynamics which are quite rapidly changing the situation for those species. Badger numbers are now expanding enormously but, again, some 20 to 30 years ago they were suffering. The Badgers Act has had a favourable influence on badger populations.
Fox and deer are both hunted species. The evidence suggests that their numbers are presently increasing and that they have been doing so for a number of years. Hare numbers have been rather more inconsistent. In some areas, hare populations are increasing and remain high, but where I farm in my corner of Hampshire, that is not the case. Hare populations are lower now than they were some 10 to 20 years ago.
From this welter of information, I can deduce a point which is quite clear; namely, all species, whether they are expanding and becoming something of a pest species or whether they are close to the brink of extinction, need active management. We need to introduce policies to help to determine the status of all species. We need to be able to determine whether they need to be culled for their own good, perhaps because of ill health resulting from over-population or because of their impact on farm species such as lambs, as may be the case with foxes in upland areas. It may be that for other reasons we need a clear policy on how to protect these species.

597
Having recognised the fact that, in the distant past, our ancestors did no good whatever for the wolf and a number of other species—having hunted them to extinction for reasons which probably made good sense to those people at the time—in the context of today's debate, I must ask how the hunting of the species we are discussing in this debate—fox, deer and hare—makes a contribution to the conservation of habitats. What contribution have hunts made to that? I would say that, certainly in the case of foxes and, to a lesser extent, with hare, the contribution has been positively favourable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, pointed out earlier in the debate, that is because those who are interested in hunting will wish to ensure that the hunted species remain in good health. I believe that it is clearly the case that hunting has helped to keep the populations of hunted species in a healthy state. This may be an anachronism which some people may not be able to get their minds around; namely, that when several individuals in a population are culled, the wider population is in fact helped. That, however, is the case and I do not believe that anyone who has paused to think about it would quarrel with that as a concept.
However, it must recognised that one cannot attribute to hunting the benefits of conservation and therefore give it a clean bill of health if, at the same time, it conducts itself in ways that are considered to be less than humane. The Burns report helps us enormously in this area. We have to satisfy ourselves that hunting does adopt the most humane method of killing where that killing is required. It was helpful to hear my noble friend Lord Soulsby, who was a member of the Burns committee, confirm the fact that the welfare of animals being hunted should be compared with their welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from legal—I stress the word "legal" because we are not discussing illegal methods here—methods used by farmers and others to manage their populations.
Those arguments have been rehearsed on a number of occasions. All I can say is that, having read and considered carefully the balance of the Burns report, which I have found to be astonishingly helpful, I am clear in my mind that it is perfectly reasonable to deduce from the information we have been given that hunting presents the most humane method of control of the species. Certainly, of the alternatives considered by the committee, lamping was the only one it was prepared to countenance. Even then, it was quick to recognise that that method would not be appropriate in a number of different conditions. I can certainly vouch for that, for the reasons just touched on by my noble friend Lady Byford.
For those reasons, I find myself in total disagreement with the Bill as it stands. I recognise the need for regulation, but whether it should be self-regulation or regulation by statute is something that we shall debate on another occasion. However, my instinct—at least for the moment, because I am not prepared to die in a ditch for it—is to give self-regulation a try.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. As a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I have introduced a Member's Bill entitled the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill which, if passed by that parliament, will have the effect of introducing measures similar to Part 3 of the Bill being discussed this evening by noble Lords.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is no longer in his place—
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am in my place.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, I apologise. It should be noted that the noble Lord is in his place. He made a rather serious allegation in his contribution earlier in the debate which I do not propose to go into. I simply refer the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to the minutes of a meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament in November 2000. My motives for introducing the Bill were clarified in the Official Report.
I am firmly of the belief that the decision as to whether to ban hunting with dogs should be reached on moral grounds. I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Winston on that point. I am unable to accept that it can be morally right to pursue a mammal—in the case of foxes and deer—often for a period of some hours when the animal is clearly in an agitated state. The animal's instincts will demonstrably tell it that it is fighting for its very life.
It has been demonstrated by many noble Lords in the debate today—at least by those who are in favour of hunting—that those who participate in hunt activities do so predominantly for pleasure, however that pleasure might be defined. It is argued that most of those who follow mounted hunts do not relish or derive satisfaction from cruelty or from the kill. Indeed, I am well aware of the fact that few ever witness the kill, if for no other reason than that it would be physically impossible for many hunt participants to be present at the kill when it takes place. However, while I accept that they are not physically present at what must be a profoundly unpleasant—I suggest even barbaric—event, I do not absolve those who participate in mounted hunts, whatever the extent of their involvement, of complicity in a pursuit which has cruelty at its core. In many cases they may well be social events, but the conclusion of the chase cannot be airbrushed from the argument.
I shall return to the question of cruelty in a moment, but it is not simply that aspect of hunting which turns my stomach. Those feelings, which polls show are shared by a clear majority of people living in both urban and rural communities in Britain, are compounded by the fact that hunting is carried out primarily for pleasure. The inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, demonstrated that the traditional, organised hunting of deer, mink, hare and

599
foxes is principally conducted for sport rather than utility. In its report, the noble Lord's committee was in no doubt that mounted fox hunting makes an insignificant contribution to fox control and, indeed, in addressing the debate this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made it clear that he felt that a ban would have no particular effect on the number of foxes killed.
Those who advocate a ban do not do so to protect foxes. For my part, there has never been any attempt to deny the need to control the fox population; it is how it is done that matters. I have heard many compelling arguments as regards what is the most humane method of control and I shall speak on that in a few moments. That is why I began by stating that I believe this issue to be a moral one; namely, whether it is acceptable to inflict suffering on animals by setting dogs on them in the name of sport.
I turn now to the question of cruelty. It is self-evident to point out that, until some method is found to enable animals to communicate and express themselves in a clear manner, there can be no absolute certainty of the extent to which animals suffer in the chase. Many noble Lords have referred to the now famous conclusion made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the welfare of foxes chased and killed by hounds above ground is seriously compromised. I suggest that we should not be in any doubt as regards the import of those words. It means that the fox does suffer. Can any rational thinking person seriously argue that the fox, the deer, the hare, when seeking to escape its pursuers in a desperate attempt to reach safety and preserve its life, does not suffer great stress and anxiety; that it does not fear that if it were not to strain its every sinew in an attempt to keep its attackers at bay it would die; that it regards it as all in a day's sport, a bit of fun, a challenge, from which it might derive satisfaction if it were ultimately successful in putting one over on its pursuers, both animal and human? I think not. It is, quite frankly, insulting to invite those who oppose hunting to accept that being hunted, far less being caught, can ever be anything other than a terrifying experience for the animal concerned.
No one can determine the emotional or mental suffering which the pursued animal experiences. That argument can never be conclusive. I accept that. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his statement, was convinced that hunted animals suffer. I have no doubt about that use of the term "seriously compromised".
The kill has to be seen in the context of being the end point of a deteriorating welfare for the animal. The kill is not necessarily instantaneous, but the key point is that at the point of capture, having endured the inexorable approach of the hounds, the animal, surely, by any logical consideration, could not be more distressed.
No doubt, all noble Lords have received a communication, as I did—we all receive communications from a great many organisations—from an organisation called Vets for Hunting, which I
600
read with great interest. In that is a quote from a letter from a Dr L.H. Thomas, which I understand appeared in The Times, which states:
"It is important to appreciate that we are considering here wild animals which are used to hunting and being hunted, not domestic pets … It is only in the short final stages of a hunt that the quarry comes under any serious stress and that no more, in physiological terms, than the extended athlete or racehorse".
I find it astonishing that the racehorse could he adopted in support of the case put forward by the Vets for Hunting. It is a totally spurious argument. After all, a racehorse is trained, as is an athlete. Racehorses may make a supreme effort, either through choice or training, but they are not running ahead of a pack or running through any sense of fear. That analogy is rather false.
I should like to pray in aid a letter I received from Mr David Main, of Coupar Angus in Perthshire. He refers to the same aspect. He states:
"Most predators will abandon an attack if not successful within a relatively short chase"—
he was referring to the fact that the Vets for Hunting have stated that this is all part of what animals expect——
"preferring to depend upon overhauling the victim by a relatively short and violent burst of athletic superiority rather than beating the victim by exhaustion. One reason for this could he that a prolonged chase would leave the predator drained of energy and vulnerable to attack itself, or loss of its prey by conflict with its own competitors".
The comparison is very much spurious. While I am not dismissing the experience of Vets for Hunting, they tend to have rather a vested interest in this matter. I wonder how many of the Vets for Hunting have looked at the equine-based practices in the hunting heartlands and are coming at the situation from a slightly different perspective to many others.
I prefer to take the view of an organisation which is widely respected throughout the length and breadth of the country; that is, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. If that organisation is not in the business of arguing cogent cases on behalf of animals, I do not know which is. It has been in existence since 1824. In a letter, which I understand has been circulated to other noble Lords, it states:
"The government's bill, currently in the Commons, is an urgent matter since, without new legislation, thousands of wild animals will continue to suffer. It is, therefore, very important that the bill achieves a ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs. It is our view, that only schedule 3 will achieve this".
The RSPCA is a widely respected organisation and we should give considerable weight to its arguments.
The RSPCA has suggested that this is an urgent matter. I am slightly bemused by the regularity with which noble Lords have referred to the use of parliamentary time on the Bill and questioned our priorities. They invoke the current crisis in the farming community, as if abandoning this Bill and replacing it with something else, which they have not specified, will somehow alleviate the pressures on those who live in our rural communities. Like everyone else. I have great sympathy for those caught up in the dreadful foot and mouth outbreak, but I would ask those who suggest that we suspend this debate as a response: when should

601
it be introduced or reintroduced? I suspect that when I ask that question I will be met with a deafening silence, because there will never be a correct and appropriate time for it to be introduced.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is not the answer when the countryside is not in crisis?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, that is not necessarily what has been said in the debate today. The priority of discussing this Bill in your Lordships' House and in another place has been questioned. I am suggesting that, whatever the state of the countryside, there will never be an appropriate time for those who oppose the Bill. They oppose it for a different reason, not on the ground of priorities.
I am not at all sympathetic to the charge that seeking a ban on hunting represents the majority imposing its will on the minority, as has been stated. Apart from the fact that for that to happen represents no more than a definition of democratic government, I do not recall those same noble Lords making those statements and springing to the defence of the minority in the debate on Section 28 of the Local Government Act or, indeed, in this House's consideration of the lowering of the age of consent for homosexual men. I suggest that consistency would lend greater force to the arguments of those who wish to preserve hunting in its present form.
The interests of minorities of course have to be respected and given due weight. But those interests, I suggest, cannot be allowed—irrespective of the cause or situation of those minorities—to prevail in all circumstances. A broader view requires to be taken.
I turn now to the options which will face your Lordships when the Bill eventually comes to be voted upon. It has been called the "three options" Bill. I suggest that that is misleading and that there are only two options with a consequential decision. The first decision is whether or not you want hunting to continue; the second decision is, if you do want it to continue, do you want it to be subject to licensing.
I would argue that all forms of hunting with dogs are cruel and that licensing would not prevent that cruelty as the suffering caused by the chase and kill, to which I referred earlier, would continue. It is that aspect which sets it apart in terms of the most humane method of killing foxes. If a fox is killed after a long chase, it seems to me much less humane than simply being shot after being flushed from wherever it may have been. I suggest that there is no middle way and that it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
As I said earlier, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who said that morality should not be—
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider it cruel for a fox to be shot and take two weeks to die through being infected by that shot?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, of course I do not. I am not suggesting that there are any
602
absolutes in this argument. Of course such situations will arise. However, I suggest that they will arise less often than the noble Lord would have us believe. In addition, the trauma and distress caused by a chase of two hours or more must be profoundly unpleasant for the animal, and that should be borne in mind as well. I cannot understand how that is described as a humane method of culling foxes.
In conclusion, I return to my starting point on the question of morality. We have to ask questions about the kind of society in which we live and, more importantly, the kind of society which we are hoping to create. I do not think those can be simply cast aside. I hope that noble Lords will decide in due course that we want a caring and compassionate society, which includes our attitude towards animals; that we want a society with an attitude which is suited more to the 21st century than to the 19th century. For that reason, I hope that eventually option three will be supported in your Lordships' House.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, when he said to my noble friend that he thinks that the incidence of wounded foxes will be comparatively rare, can he tell the House how many foxes he has shot?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, I am being asked to shoot a few foxes in the argument today as no one else seems to have been subjected to interventions apart from myself. Of course, the answer is none—but, in terms of the information with which I have been supplied for the debate, I am as well informed as other noble Lords. In respect of the Bill that I am promoting in the Scottish Parliament, I have heard a great deal of evidence and seen filmed evidence from both sides of the argument. On that basis I have formed the contribution which I have made in your Lordships' House today.
8.49 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I have an extremely hard act to follow, speaking as I do immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—a village that is high in my estimation, as I regularly get my hair done there. I have heard so many splendid, true, right, impassioned and brilliant speeches in favour of hunting, that there is very little that I can say that is different. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu made one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House. She said it all. I shall, therefore, speak briefly of the joys of hunting.
Many years ago, my husband had a very small pack of basset hounds, only three couple, known as the Kilspindie Basset Hounds, with which we hunted hares—not, I may add, very successfully: in all the four years that we hunted we caught only one hare, which was a day that I fortunately missed. But we had such fun. My husband used to get up early every morning to take hounds out for a five-mile run over the hill; and on Saturday we hunted with them.
I helped with the mucking out and the feeding. Being a pack, the hounds all had to be fed in the right order, or there was trouble. The leader of the pack was

603
Rambler, a splendid, brave, rather rough hound. He always had to be fed first. Then there was Grecian, a lady of a certain age. Grayling was a rather aloof hound. Lamport was the stupidest hound; he was always falling over his own feet or his ears, and was always fed last. Garnish had a most unmusical cracked voice, and Comfort was everyone's favourite.
The hounds were kennelled next door to the church. During morning prayers on Sundays our hearts always fell as we heard them starting to join in the singing. They all sang lustily, particularly Garnish, with her high. cracked voice. We always hoped that the rest of the congregation would put it down to the wind or to supernatural forces.
Saturday was hunting day—not with a very good field, because those who came knew that basset hounds are not very good at getting over walls or fences and have to be carried. They are not light either—but they have a lovely cry.
Eventually the hounds had to return to other packs of basset hounds, but we could not bear to part with Comfort. She was averse to being house-trained, she was a thief, and spent much of her time asleep in our best armchair. We found a newspaper headline which suited her perfectly:
"Little Comfort in the lull".
We always felt that the armchair was her "lull".
Perhaps the point of this rather discursive speech is to give some of the special flavour of hunting and the love of hounds to those who have not had the good fortune to share it. When we introduced Comfort to an old nun called Mother McKee, she was charmed with her and said that she was "just like our Lady's dog", and demanded a picture of her. So we gave her a picture of Comfort sitting in the daffodils. We said that we were not aware that our Lady had had a dog. "If she had", said Mother McKee, "she would have been like this one—a great comfort".
So I hope that there will, one day, be not "little comfort in the lull", but great comfort, for all of us who live in the country and love horses, hounds and hunting and who derive great health and happiness from them.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, some people oppose hunting with passion. Some people support hunting with passion. I do neither.
One of my nieces, for whom I have an abiding respect, is horrified by cruelty to any animal. She is a vegetarian, and in addition refuses to wear anything made of leather. She detests hunting and for years has been eloquent in championing a ban.
My mother as a young woman hunted with the Wheatland Hunt in Shropshire. Riding side-saddle, she took her fences with such spirited freedom that onlookers said that she had no self-preservation instinct. Today, she brings that same spirit to her advocacy of hunting.
604
With those voices clashing in my ears, I turned to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Several passages are especially noteworthy. Some of the practices that argue for a ban include autumn or cub hunting; digging out and bolting foxes; and the use of artificial earths with a view to hunting. Some of the features that argue against a ban include the employment that hunting provides; the reasons for culling foxes; and the drawbacks to culling by snaring, trapping and shooting.
The Burns inquiry was not asked to make a formal recommendation on whether to ban hunting, and does not do so. However, one word calls out to me from page after page of the report, stilling those voices of passion. That word is "licensing". A study of the Burns report drives me to the conclusion that statutory licensing is the least bad way ahead. Accordingly, I shall vote for the "middle way" option.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I live, and hunt, in one of the most remote parts of the British Isles, the English side of the Scottish Borders where there are indeed more sheep than people. I make no real apology for being slightly repetitive in my remarks. Never have I been approached so many times by so many different people to speak up for their interests. I particularly want to reiterate the points that they have made to me, because they are extraordinarily powerful.
Hunting in my area not only serves the important purpose of culling foxes; the social cohesion that it engenders lies at the heart of the life of the people in that community. In those remote parts, it is the one activity that they share in winter and plan for in summer. Its abolition would be like saying to football fans that they could no longer watch or take part in their sport. To many people, the whole reason for their social life would be destroyed. Regrettably, too few people who live in urban areas understand that aspect of hunting. All meet on equal terms to share the same experience. The social bond that it creates is of huge significance in rural areas.
Much has been said about cruelty. Country people understand about cruelty. They know that in nature a lion killing a zebra is not cruel. They know that a fox de-heading 20 chickens for the fun of it is not cruel. They know that the way in which a cat plays with a mouse or a heron eats a frog alive are in the natural order of things. Cruelty in nature is in the eye of the beholder. It is all part of the balance of nature. Nor is it any more cruel when a fox is killed through a bite in the neck in exactly the same way as it kills its own prey. There is no question in my mind that the fox would undoubtedly vote for the continuation of hunting rather than for the alternative of being shot and possibly wounded, to die a lingering death.
No, my Lords. The real motive behind many of those who would criminalise this ancient sport Ls deep prejudice masquerading as animal welfare. If they are really concerned about animals, why do they not do something about the caging of wild animals in zoos,

605
the caging of small birds, the keeping of large dogs in small flats where they can never be adequately exercised? These are real, man-made cruelties.
All of us are entitled to our prejudices, but we are not entitled to use them to destroy the preferences of others. Hunting both preserves and controls foxes, and we have in this country the healthiest and best fox population in the whole of Europe.
It is not the death of the fox that hunts rejoice in: it is actually the thrill of the chase, the unexpected—something that drag hunting can never substitute. We are talking about the chance to live dangerously and to share that relationship on totally equal terms with one's neighbour; to share the exhilaration in harmony with another animal, the horse; and to watch hounds doing what comes naturally to dogs in the wild—tracking their quarry.
Hitler abolished hunting in Germany. Its abolition in this country would be contrary to all our libertarian traditions and contrary to freedom of expression and freedom of choice, which are the essence of a liberal democracy. However, I respect the views of others with whom I do not necessarily agree. We should recognise the political realities. I believe that the NFU's compromise position to license hunting is the right one. It should be regulated, acknowledging in particular the problems of those areas where it is necessary to cull foxes that wreak such havoc to lambs and wildlife generally. This compromise would be the right way to interpret what democracy is all about and, at the same time, ought to be acceptable to the other place.
Democracy is not about the implementation of majority rule, because most interests are in fact minority interests. Democracy is about the protection of minority rights. When voting on this Bill, we have a chance to demonstrate that we understand this and that we understand the true meaning of a democratic society.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Vinson who has done so much for rural development in this country; and, indeed, for the countryside.
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is still in his place. The noble Lord must have had a very uncomfortable evening because, with one or two exceptions, all the speeches have been illustrating just how draconian the Bill is and how out of touch it is with reality. Yet the noble Lord is pressing ahead with his Bill in Scotland. I know that it is undergoing careful scrutiny in various committees in the Scottish Parliament, but the noble Lord must realise that he has been listening tonight to courageous speeches from Back-Benchers on the Government's side, all of which have said that a ban on hunting is not the right way forward. I hope that he will take that message back to Edinburgh with him and perhaps withdraw his Bill. I also hope that he will see a bit of common sense.
606
Although the Scottish Members of Parliament are quite entitled to vote on this Bill in another place, it is worth putting on record that they must also be prepared to accept some criticism for their actions in supporting the Bill until the West Lothian question is resolved and the Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster cease to vote on purely English Bills.
The arguments have been fully aired and brilliantly put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his report. We are also grateful to the Countryside Alliance and to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, both of whom added most important information to the debate over the past few weeks. There is no reason for me to go into the detail of what we are discussing, but I should like to express my view that the Bill must represent a middle-way forward for all country sports.
I hope that I am putting forward a balanced view. I have been involved in conservation in Parliament for most of my parliamentary career. I was lucky enough to be rural affairs Minister in England, looking after the country parks, conservation, the NCC, and so on. I was also responsible for rural affairs in Scotland. looking after the SNH and our beautiful countryside there. But at the same time as being so involved with conservation, I was also very pro-country sports in every possible way. Indeed, I was the chairman of the council for country sports in the 1990s and did my best then to foresee what is happening now with a government Bill to ban hunting.
The Government's attitude is supposed to be one of neutrality. But any of us who have been at Westminster for any length of time know perfectly well that it is not a neutral Bill. If it was a Private Member's Bill, it would not have received government time. This is a government Bill overtaking a Private Member's Bill. Time has been given for a subject that the Government want discussed; it has not been left entirely to private Members.
We have listened to the Prime Minister making attacks on hunting. More seriously, we have heard his comments that Bills on hunting have been delayed in this House, despite the fact that this is the first time we have discussed the subject during this Parliament. In any event, he, as Prime Minister, forced through the legislation on the reconstitution of this House and is responsible for the composition of this Chamber. He must, therefore, accept the decisions that it makes. I hope that that is more democratic than what went on in the Scottish Parliament last week. The Scottish Executive were defeated on compensation for fishermen, yet Ministers seemed to be casting that aside and saying, "When Parliament votes we are not particularly worried; we'll carry on with our policy". I trust that that will not be the attitude of the present Government in London when this House makes a decision.
Noble Lords have rightly made severe criticism of the Government relative to their priorities. Here we are debating hunting when the countryside is in real crisis. I know that we shall debate foot and mouth disease tomorrow, but that debate has been tabled at the last

607
minute as an after-thought in order to prevent the criticism that we have heard today. Besides the problem of foot and mouth, which we shall discuss tomorrow, the countryside is in real crisis. If there is any significant change made to the common agricultural policy, any farmer knows that there will be less money for agriculture. Moreover, we gained nothing from the Budget, except the removal of the tax on farm tractors.
One cannot help thinking that the Bill has been brought forward for political expediency before an election, rather than considering what needs to be done in the countryside at the present time. In fact, this wretched Bill has done more to unite the countryside against the Government than anything else. The march that would have taken place on Sunday would have been the most tremendous display of comradeship of the countryside. It is a tragedy that the spread of foot and mouth has prevented that taking place. It has denied the countryside the opportunity to bring home to the Government just why they are going down the wrong road at the present time.
Comments have been made on the other side of the Chamber and on this side to the effect that the next attack will be launched on firearms and then on angling. That anti-countryside attitude is bitterly resented in the countryside. The immediate impact of the Bill, if enacted, would be extremely serious from the point of view of the rural economy. We have heard of its knock-on effects. They have been well explained by the British Equestrian Trade Association with regard to the income people make from saddlery and other horse equipment and the income of farriers, vets and those who breed horses.
Yet in the middle of this economic and social strife we have a Hunting Bill. The Government must be blind to their priorities or have just run out of "spin" to think up something else. I represented a rural constituency for many years. Hunting, shooting, coursing and angling brought many benefits and offended few. If this Bill is enacted, all that will go. This will be the beginning of the end for other country sports. My former constituents should know that their present Member of Parliament, my successor, the Labour MP, Mr Russell Brown, voted for the Bill on Report, on Third Reading and on the timetable Motion which certainly curtailed debate. I have no doubt at all that the Scottish Member of Parliament for Dumfries also supported the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, in the Scottish Parliament. The people of Dumfries ought to know that their elected Members are going against the views of the vast majority of those who live there. I am glad that we have MSPs, David Mundell and Alex Fergusson, who will do all they can to resist the Bill. When John Charteris is elected to succeed Russell Brown, he will play his part at Westminster.
One great issue to which the Government must respond tonight is that of fallen stock and hunt kennels and their facility to deal with dead stock on farms.
608
They have collected dead stock for years for nothing. That has been an effective way to help to clear dead stock from farms. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has ever considered digging a grave for a cow. The Clerks' Table is six feet deep but that depth would hardly cover a fully grown cow. It is harder to dispose of a cow than the Dome. The noble and learned Lord must realise that if all these kennel abattoirs disappear, there will be an enormous problem in the countryside as regards disposing of fallen stock. The Government must do something about that. Other speakers have said that it is odd that kennel huntsmen have been approached to kill stock in the foot and mouth epidemic.
On 22nd November, an agriculture Minister, the right honourable Joyce Quin, stated in a Written Answer that hunt kennels provide a valued service to farmers. However, on 27th February she voted against an amendment which would have helped the situation. Many noble Lords have rightly highlighted the community spirit surrounding hunting in the countryside. They have mentioned events such as point-to-point races, and their importance to steeplechasing, puppy walking and local shows. Others have mentioned the hill and fell packs in England and, indeed, in Scotland. I do not want to omit the Liddesdale which hunts from Newcastleton. Those packs hunt on foot.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, should bear in mind the importance of hunting in Scotland. When I was in the Scottish Office the then government provided grants to foot-hunt packs in Argyllshire to enable them to control foxes as there was no alternative way to deal with them. One cannot go lamping up a steep mountainside. One can do that only in relatively easy countryside where one can take a four-wheeled vehicle. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act opened the countryside to everyone at night. That has made lamping extremely dangerous. The Government have committed a double whammy as regards dealing with foxes at night. The situation should be controlled by the hill packs of England and Scotland.
The Government must think again carefully. It would be better for the countryside if the Government withdrew the Bill rather than forcing through some amendment over the coming weeks which will inevitably be lost due to the general election. It is to be hoped that that would be the end of the matter for good.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has put forward some options which we have discussed today. I believe that the way forward is through an independent supervisory authority—by voluntary means if we can; if not, by statutory regulation. The Government have not made out the case for a ban. The alternative methods of killing foxes are more painful and cruel. The Government must try to bring some harmony to the countryside, distance themselves from hunt saboteurs and Labour MPs who are so in favour of the Bill, and bring some reason to the countryside, otherwise they will reap the consequences.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I have sometimes wished that we in this House knew more about the experience of those who live in our inner cities who cannot find a footing in life. I think particularly of all those young men who grow up without the presence of a father in areas where schools, housing and healthcare leave much to be desired. The experience of many country people has been overlooked in a similar way. So even though I am not a countryman, merely a landowner whose uncle was a farmer, I speak in the debate today.
Two facts stand out from the report of my noble friend Lord Burns. First, the benefit to the welfare of the fox of the abolition of hunting with dogs is doubtful. Vermin will be controlled in other ways which may cause prolonged and painful death. Secondly, farmers living in dispersed rural communities will be hit hardest by a ban. According to the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, hunting is a highly co-operative social activity. It acts as a significant cohesive force encouraging a system of mutual support. It brings people together. If a ban is accepted, many farmers may have little to think about in the long winter months except the collapse of their businesses. In January, average net farming incomes had fallen by another 10 per cent to £5,200. If hunting with dogs continues, those farmers can still look forward to joining regularly with the communities over the winter period, taking exercise, catching up on news and enjoying the excitement of the chase.
I spoke with an individual who delivers the Government's New Deal for communities to housing estates in south London. He had been shocked at the entrenched demoralisation of the communities he served. If the intention of the Government is for thinly spread rural communities to taste the demoralisation of some of the communities in our inner cities then a ban on hunting with dogs would be the way to proceed.
Urbanites have a wide choice of cultural activities which involve close co-operation with others. We can sing in a different choir every night of the week, row in an eight or attend an evening class on the history of art. That scope is not available to the rural people we are considering. Their traditional form of collective enjoyment—apart from the pub and the church—is hunting with their neighbours. Banning hunting will weaken those communities and make small farmers in remote areas less resilient in the face of the farming crisis.
If I had to choose between the welfare of people and the welfare of animals I would choose people every time. But that is not the choice before us. The choice is between the welfare of people and a legislative ban of questionable value to animal welfare. I hope that those noble Lords who support a ban will think again.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I want to reflect for a few moments on the concept of cruelty. We have used the word constantly throughout the debate, but it is a tricky word, because it can have different meanings in
610
different contexts. For example, we can talk about cruel events or circumstances, cruel practices or cruel intentions. The meanings can slip between those three or four in ways that distort the word's ethical content. All the meanings can gradually be pulled in a direction that makes cruel intent central to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—I am sorry that he is not still in his seat—said that hunting was an event with cruelty at its core. That is a remarkably slippy statement. We need to tease out exactly what he meant by using the word in that all-embracing way.
Let us analyse the meanings of the word for a moment. Cruel events or circumstances may be just facts of life. A cruel fate—death—awaits us all. Countless animals die every day. Millions are deliberately killed by human beings: we wage war on vermin; we slaughter animals for food; we sacrifice them in laboratories; we destroy them when they are diseased. Death is cruel, yet we justify it on the grounds of necessity. Our way of life as human beings depends on keeping other animals under control and, when necessary, using them for our own purposes. In that sense of the word, the world is full of cruel events, some of which are caused by us. That is the way the world is.
The second meaning of the word is cruel practices. To employ cruel practices in exploiting or killing animals raises a different set of questions, separate from those concerning death itself and distinguishable from intentional cruelty. I am talking about the way we do things. Nobody who puts down rat poison intends the rats to suffer, but they probably do. Nobody who brings farm animals to slaughter intends it to be an occasion of terror, pain and distress, yet, in view of all that leads up to the final moment, it probably is. Animal experimenters do not mean to be cruel, but to achieve their ends they sometimes have to use cruel methods.
What about hunting with dogs? We have been amply reminded throughout the debate that all methods of destroying animals, particularly wild ones, have the potential to cause distress. The Burns report made that clear. In the light of all that we have heard this evening, the case against hunting as a cruel practice is not proven. We do not know where the balance of suffering lies and we certainly do not know enough to base socially divisive legislation on what must necessarily be conjecture.
That brings me to the third and most significant meaning of cruelty—namely, intentional cruelty. To be intentionally cruel is to find pleasure in the infliction of suffering. It is morally abhorrent and there is every reason for legislating against it. But is hunting with dogs intentionally cruel in that sense? Some of its opponents clearly believe that it is, which is why they draw comparisons with such morally repellent practices as bear baiting, cock fighting, badger baiting and so on, in all of which suffering and the cruelty that produces suffering are the name of the game. I believe that we have already heard enough this evening to show that such comparisons totally misrepresent what hunting with dogs is about and why people do it.

611
Why, then, do people hunt, apart from the exercise, the good rides, the new scenery and the camaraderie, and so on? This evening we have received many answers, and, although it is 55 years since I hunted, I want to add another one. I believe that part of the answer as to why people are fascinated lies in the kind of competitive encounter that one has with a wild animal. It is an encounter which must entail both knowledge of the animal and respect for it as a wild thing. That is why drag hunting can never be a substitute for hunting in the wild.
The competitive encounter with a wild animal is not about blood lust and it is certainly not about pleasure in causing suffering. Perhaps it is about a deeply embedded mental residue from the time when we all had to live by hunting—at least, our ancestors did. But, however we understand and evaluate it, the crucial point that I want to make this evening is that it shares the same fundamental motive with all other traditional blood sports.
In rough shooting or stalking, the pleasure lies in tracking and finding one's quarry and in the quickness of one's response to it. I cannot say the same about driven shoots. It seems to me that there is something morally dubious about breeding birds and then sitting in a hide to shoot at them. Perhaps some people will disagree.
Fishermen enjoy their competition with a wily fish. They, too, know and respect their quarry. They talk about the pleasure of playing a fish which puts up a good fight. The fact that so many fish are thrown back again is proof that it is the catching and not the necessity for food which is important in that type of fishing. I know that the standard answer to such a comparison with hunting is that fish do not feel as foxes do. The truth is that no one has the remotest idea what fish feel, but we know that they resist being caught and are not likely to enjoy being suffocated.
My point, however, is not to compare fishes', birds' or foxes' emotions but to compare our human emotions in these differing sporting contexts. I believe that they are all broadly the same. They all involve excitement, but I believe that only in rare individuals do they involve intentional cruelty. Because of that, it would be both hypocritical and discriminatory to single out just one of those sports for special condemnation.
It is important not to be complacent about the possibilities for cruelty, but I do not think that the case has been made that hunting with dogs is inherently cruel. I shall therefore vote in favour of control of one sort of another rather than for an outright ban, which would be grossly unfair to the many good people for whom hunting is important.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, fox hunting is cruel. That is not just my view but the confession of Dr L. H. Thomas, who wrote to all of us on behalf of Vets for Hunting. In The Times last December, he conceded that foxes in the final 10 per cent of the hunt are,
"fleeing in terror of their lives".
612
Moreover, he said that they suffer "serious stress", albeit that of an "extended athlete or racehorse". Dr Thomas forgets that an athlete runs of his own volition and that a racehorse is not pursued by anything more terrifying than disappointed punters.
Thomas's assertion that "death is almost instantaneous" acknowledges that death can be both delayed and agonising for the individual fox. The conclusions reached by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, may indeed be "ambiguous"—that is Thomas's comment—but to most of us the report's declaration that the fox's welfare is "seriously compromised" translates into cruelty.
Fox hunting inflicts unnecessary cruelty. Only one in six foxes is killed by the hunt. Thus, if hunting were banned, other methods of culling, such as shooting, would still be necessary to effect the cull. Killing one extra fox in six will hardly extend the shooters. In terms of numbers, hunting is simply not necessary to maintain pest control. That, too, is asserted by Burns. Hunting, moreover, is an expensive form of pest control, at £1,000 for each fox that is culled through hunting with hounds. Moreover, hunting is lamentably inefficient. Again, I am indebted to the pro-hunting vet, Dr Thomas, who gave the game away. His letter to The Times confides that "hunting is selective". It kills,
"the weak, the sick and the aged".
Well, if hunting is aimed at keeping the fox population down, what is the point of eliminating those foxes that will shortly die anyway and of ignoring the foxes that will live to propagate? Logically, a hunt whose purpose is solely to cull would target the young, healthy and strong. Dr Thomas is clearly a latter-day Darwinian in his belief that the fittest should be conserved at the expense of the fattest.
Fox hunting is an unnecessary and cruel sport and it is unworthy of Britain in the 21st century. That is the butt of my case for supporting option three of the Bill. It is a moral case and it is an argument that states that fox hunting should be abated in the same way that bear baiting and cock fighting have been abandoned—because they were practised as sports. Taking pleasure in murder should be confined to reading detective novels, not killing wild animals for pleasure.
Our opponents argue that the alternative forms of culling also compromise the welfare of the fox. According to Burns, they do. However, the salient difference is that fox hunting, unlike shooting, is done for sport.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that shooting is also done for sport?
Lord Harrison: My Lords, with regard to culling, shooting relates to the desire to get rid of certain foxes to reduce a population. In that regard, it is distinct from fox hunting, which involves pleasure and sport.
I support the cull but not the kill. I abhor the desire to gain pleasure from such a sport in the killing fields of rural Britain. It is just not British.

613
The apologists for fox hunting suggest that it is a traditional sport, practised by generations of our countrymen for hundreds of years. It is not: there is no mention of fox hunting in Chaucer or Shakespeare.
Apologists aver that fox hunting is the glue that holds the countryside together, that its abolition would disembowel those ties of community which are so vital for us all, whether we live in town or country. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, tells us that hunting is the main topic of conversation in the village shop, post office and pub. I do not believe it. Is it a greater topic of conversation than the state of schools, the health service, the local bus service, foot and mouth disease and BSE, not to mention the lives and loves of our local Ambridge? If it is true, then I have to say: get a life. Indeed, the fox himself would be astonished to learn that his absence had the capacity to make grown men weep, as the hunters claim. If the fox can be absent from the hunt ball, then it can also be absent from the hunt.
I have greater confidence in the people of rural Britain to maintain and develop loving and supportive communities. It does not need the tokenism of killing a passing fox. It is people, not foxes, who make living communities.
The apologists repeatedly tell us that the fox hunting community is law-abiding and that a ban would encourage defiance of the law on a scale difficult to predict. Those words are unacceptable: you cannot run with the fox and hunt with the hounds when it comes to respect for the law, democratically conceived and popularly supported. It is incumbent on all those who speak up for fox hunting to show true leadership and encourage hunt followers to follow the law of the land.
I reject the balaclava'd intimidation of some of the hunt saboteurs as hotly as I condemn the few bad apples found among the hunt. It is our arguments that should be forceful and compelling, not our deeds towards opponents.
Those of us who are townies are repeatedly told that the country is none of our business, despite the fact that we visit it and pay taxes to farmers to look after it. I find this irksome. When I was a member of Cheshire County Council, I am afraid that I became fed up at being told that only country folk could decide country issues. I notice that these same rural councillors happily voted to close inner city schools that I represented, despite their patent unfamiliarity with urban poverty and its problems. We all have a duty to understand each other's problems, which are often the same problem of root. Solely to sacrifice all for the countryside is to isolate and cut oneself off from the concerns of society as a whole. After all, what do they of the countryside know who only the countryside know? What indeed do they of hunting know who only hunting know?
Karl Marx, who was a real townie, occasionally came to our part of the world to visit his comrade, Friedrich Engels, a distinguished member of the Cheshire Hunt. A century later, I was pleased to be
614
chair of Cheshire County Council's Countryside Committee and to lead the campaign to ban hunting across county council land. Later, as MEP for Cheshire, I tried, pre-Burns report, to convene a meeting of the local hunt to discuss the possible impact on jobs in Cheshire were hunting to be outlawed. My purpose was that we should make a common presentation to the European Commission for a programme to mitigate the effect of job losses resulting from action across Europe to eliminate cruel animal sports. Regrettably, the masters shunned my approach in the 1980s: they lacked the foresight to look ahead to today.
I tell that story not only to underline the poor leadership that has characterised the countryside in recent years, but also to make the point that as MEPs trying to improve animal welfare throughout Europe, our criticism of bull-fighting was habitually greeted with accusations of hypocrisy. The habitual comment made to myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, was: "Get rid of fox hunting and then we will listen to your concerns about continental barbaric practices". I had no answer then, but today I do. By removing the beam of fox hunting from our eyes, we can today ask our continental cousins, with confidence, to remove the mote of bull-fighting and donkey defenestration from theirs.
I am all the more encouraged about enacting this ban because there is a viable and acceptable alternative to fox hunting; namely, drag hunting. Yes, I know the usual response from hunters is, "What a bore!"; indeed, "What a drag!". But let us examine the case more closely.
Drag hunting preserves all the pageantry and indeed the fun of the hunt while eliminating the cruel pursuit and killing of a wild animal. It also saves the hounds who are slaughtered each year as a result of pursuing the fox, fleeing in terror across dangerous country roads and railway lines. One engine driver friend of mine, now retired, tells me of how once he had to violently slam on the brakes to protect his train passengers as the fox and then the hunt crossed the Chester to Crewe track.
Laying a trail in the drag hunt avoids those needless threats and dangers. Drag hunting avoids hunt havoc. On one occasion, at Byley in Middlewich in Cheshire, local schoolchildren were forced to walk in the middle of the road as the jostling hounds pursued a scent on a highway near the school. Some of the children became hysterical when surrounded by those loose hounds. And there have been other instances where schoolchildren have been forced to witness the hounds killing the fox right in front of their eyes. As a parent, I find such violence in front of children unacceptable, and it does not need to happen. The slaughter of domestic cats by hounds happened in the Cheshire village of Ashton during my time as MEP. That too can be stopped.
The introduction of drag hunting will also reduce unwarranted trespass on people's private property. Such intrusions themselves trespass on the human rights of those who wish to live peaceably in the

615
countryside. Some apologists—and they have much to apologise about—claim that severing the kill from the hunt neutralises its attraction. Why then does the Countryside Alliance quote the football commentator, Jimmy Hill—a supporter of the hunt—who suggested that the majority of those who ride with the hunt never witness the final tortured moments of the fox? If the vast majority simply enjoy the ride and the companionship of the hunt, why not replace the hunt with the drag hunt, the bloodlust with the wanderlust of riding with the wind in their hair across the open fields?
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that replacing hunting with drag hunting would be like replacing tennis with ping-pong?
Lord Harrison: My Lords, many of us enjoy ping-pong, as we are doing tonight in this Chamber.
The next excuse is that drag hunting lacks the unpredictability of the traditional hunt. But that lies in the hands of the drag hunt trail blazers who can lay an imaginative and interesting scent without recourse to endangering train passengers, blocking up rural roads or killing domestic pets resulting from hounds straying to the fox's unpredictable flight of terror.
We are told that drag hunts satisfy only experienced riders. who otherwise leave slower riders in their wake. But that is not the experience of the North-East Cheshire Drag Hunt, which fashions both pace and line direction for the benefit of all its riders. Indeed, that particular drag hunt is a fine example of how drag hunting could be developed as an alternative to the hunt. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, encourages such steps in his report. It is noteworthy that the North-East Cheshire Drag Hunt provides a fallen stock service as well as employing three staff to mind its 52 hounds. What Cheshire does today, Britain can do tomorrow. It is time our opponents stopped being a "drag" on the drag hunt.
After all that, our opponents tell us that, were hunting banned, pro-hunting farmers would, in pique, refuse to allow drag hunts across their land. Frankly, I do not believe it. Are those farmers, who so cherish the spirit of the community and the countryside, going to be so mean as to deprive their fellow countrymen of the enjoyment of the ride across open country just because ignorant townies like me have taken away their ball?
I am reminded that 100 years ago pigeon shooting was outlawed in our country. But its adherents did not sit back and bemoan their unfair fate. They got up off their backsides and instituted clay pigeon shooting as an alternative. It is a sport at which Britain excels in the Olympics and which gives pleasure to many. But in all this the requirement is the exercise of good leadership by those who seek to represent countryfolk. For too long such leadership has been lacking, with a fatal concentration on the past and not the present. In Britain in all walks of life people have to change as the world changes around them. The pigeon shooters change, the miners change, the shipbuilders in my euro
616
constituency change, and so too can the hunters. Drag hunting is an alternative, which retains the pageantry, comradeship and the employment formerly associated with fox hunting. It is time to turn a new leaf in the memoirs of fox hunting men. The eternal fascination of a changing countryside is that it always offers new horizons. It is time to be cruel to cruelty; it is time to blow the horn on the hunt.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have an interest to declare. I am a farmer: I do not hunt. For the past 20 years I have been deeply involved in the conservation and protection of the English countryside. For 10 of those 20 years I sat on. the Countryside Commission under the remark able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury. I am sorry that he is not well enough to be with us today because I believe we would have greatly benefited from his views.
One of the things that he achieved during that 10 years was to unite people. When he first took over as chairman of the Countryside Commission the English tribes were warring: the conservationists against the farmers. He did a most remarkable job in bringing together those warring tribes so that they were able to see a common purpose and to work together. That was a tremendous achievement. I believe that it is relevant to the dangers of dividing the country which would result from this Bill.
We have had a number of remarkable speeches and some interesting and important themes have emerged. One is the thread through our history of the British fascination with hunting in its various forms. This theme came out in the very powerful speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells and also in the equally fascinating speech from the noble Lord. Lord Bragg.
That made me wonder how far back it goes. There was an echo in my mind of something that I read many years ago in G M Trevelyan's History of England. So I went into the Library and looked it up. It is wonderfully written. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to read a brief paragraph from that book:
"For many centuries after Britain became an island the untamed forest was king. Its moist and mossy floor was hidden from heaven's eye by a close-drawn curtain woven of innumerable tree-tops, which shivered in the breezes of summer dawn and broke into wild music of millions upon millions of wakening birds,… unheard by man save where, at rarest intervals, a troop of skin-clad hunters, stone-axe in hand, moved furtively over the ground beneath, ignorant that they lived upon an island, not dreaming that there could be other parts of the world besides this damp green woodland with its meres and marshes wherein they hunted, a terror to its four-footed inhabitants and themselves afraid".
That gives us a feel for the tradition which has grown in Britain over the millennia.
I want to talk about the politics of hunting. It seems to me that the Bill is essentially a political exercise. The hunting interest has shown that it is prepared to compromise. It has recognised that there is a public perception of misbehaviour. One of the rules of politics is that perception, however unfairly, is reality.

617
That is why the hunting interest has set up the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, ISAH, which would be a form of self-regulation. There are various forms of self-regulation which are possible. There is the Press Council. I said the other day to my noble friend Lord Wakeham that the Press Council does not really have any teeth, "You cannot fine the press, close them down or anything like that". He said, "Don't you believe it. We have very real effect". However, I am not sure whether that sort of regulation would be adequate.
I would prefer to move more towards the way in which the medical and legal professions self-regulate; that is, by a body which has statutory authority to ensure that if individuals misbehave they cannot continue to practice. That is the way in which I would hope self-regulation could be explored.
The width of the anti-hunting spectrum, Deadline 2000, is broad. In a sense it is rather like Islam. It spans the rational and compassionate, through the fundamentalists who will not compromise on anything, on to the terrorist fringe who will use any method, however violent, to impose its solution. Even this morning, when I heard Tony Banks on Radio 4's "Today" programme, it seemed to me that he was totally unreceptive to any argument which would allow hunting to continue. Indeed, I think that I would have had as much chance of changing his mind as Mr Kofi Annan had of persuading the Taliban not to destroy the buddhas in Afghanistan.
Mr Banks explained that although he realised that the election would prevent the Bill from becoming law, his objective was that the Labour Party should introduce a pledge in its manifesto to produce fresh legislation after the election. Perhaps I may say, more as a commentator than a participant in politics, that in my opinion that would make little difference to the result of this election, but I believe that it could make all the difference to the result of the following election.
To divide and alienate deliberately the great majority of the people of rural England and Wales would be hugely divisive. We must remember that there is a multiplier. It is not just the people who are directly or even indirectly involved in hunting who mind about this; it is the people with whom they come into contact. It is hard to exaggerate the extent to which there will become a growing support for hunting in the rural areas of England and Wales if it is felt that that interest is being unfairly persecuted.
I remember that in her amazing speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the comradeship of hunting. Comradeship is an important characteristic. When I was a lobby correspondent, from 1974 to 1990, I went to the Labour Party conferences for 16 consecutive years. One of the most fascinating parts of those conferences was the fringe when the hard Left indulged itself in what in many ways were fantasies. On the fringe, not the main platform, the Trotskyist, Marxist, anarchist and republican movements preached every kind of disturbance. They disagreed among themselves on most policy issues, but they had a tremendous sense of
618
comradeship, and that was what held together the hard Left, including people like Gerry Adams in his "Marxist Ireland" phase. Any government would have been crazy to seek to suppress the views of that comradeship.
If the Government still had their focus groups they would be told that a ban on hunting would divide the country in a way which would not only remove any chance of a third term—that would not worry me particularly—but also create a huge distraction from most of the other things that they might seek to do after this election, if they are re-elected.
To save her blushes, I should like to quote some words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, at the Hyde Park rally:
"Hunting is our music. It is our poetry. It is our art. It is our pleasure. It is where many of our best friendships are made. It is our community. It is our whole way of life".
For a political party to defy such deep feelings is so unwise.
I have one final footnote relating to a current matter. It was the decision and right of the Government to put this Bill before Parliament. With their majority in the Commons, if they can get the Bill through with as little debate as they can that is up to them. But they do not have the right to decide how the Bill is considered in this House. As long as I am a Member of this House I shall seek to defend its right and duty to consider in detail any legislation which could become the law of the land. That is why tomorrow I shall oppose the Government's proposal to short-circuit that process.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, like many noble Lords I declare an interest as someone who lives and works in the countryside but no longer hunts or rides. My local hunt meets a couple of times at my home, and that is a time when all members of the public are welcomed to my home and have access to all parts of my land. It is a time when the lowliest can speak to the highest. That is not something which one finds at many community gatherings.
We have heard arguments about the right to hunt. I believe they show that hunting is justified. Hunting is practised worldwide in such countries as the USA, France and Ireland which are proud of their tradition and do not find it unworthy.
We have heard about the impact of a ban on hunting and the irony that it will probably not save a single hunted species. We have heard that a ban will result in a loss of nearly 100,000 jobs, in addition to approximately 20,000 to 25,000 job losses in farming at the present time. The British Equestrian Trade Association believes that that figure is low. The Prime Minister stated that he would work night and day when important jobs were at risk in the car industry. Do the Government intend to address the loss of jobs caused by this legislation? I note that the Bill remains silent on the subject of compensation. I am somewhat

619
ashamed that in this day and age the country can legislate to deprive its citizens of their livelihoods but offer them nothing by way of recompense.
We have heard that a ban on hunting will result in great cruelty. It will probably result in the destruction of about 20,000 hounds. To ban hunting will result in horses suffering. About 50,000 horses would have to be found new homes, and most would probably be destroyed in knacker's yards. I should be ashamed to be part of a country whose ideology resulted in the destruction of dogs and horses.
Banning hunting would stop much work being carried out in the lowland parts of England. Hunting not only encourages enhancement of the countryside but also was greatly responsible for sculpting it.
We are told that banning hunting would stop around 360,000 carcasses being collected by experienced local hunt staff—hunt staff who are at this time aiding MAFF in destroying livestock infected by foot and mouth disease.
Banning hunting, we are told, would terminate around 4,000 hunt events attended by 1.3 million people. The Burns report said that generally,
"the impact would be felt most strongly in the more isolated rural areas".
Do the Government really want to see this kind of social exclusion occurring as the result of their legislation? Furthermore, tonight we have been advised that banning hunting would not improve the management of any of the hunted species.
Is it right for the Government to make time for a Bill that will result in restricting the liberties of a significant minority? I believe that it is wrong to do so. It will be ruinous for people. It is immoral to do so at a time when this country is beset with foot and mouth disease, and especially when the countryside as a whole is in deep and serious crisis. The countryside is in debilitating pain. Last week telephone calls on farming help lines increased tenfold—I repeat, tenfold. If that is so, I fear to think what the rise in the number of farmers committing suicide might be.
How much do the Government care for these country folk? One has only to look at last week's Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to judge how much care the Government have for the countryside. The spending for next year on agriculture, fisheries and food is due to remain unchanged from last year at £1.3 billion, while there are to be healthy increases in other areas.
Worse still, one might perceive that the Government seems more interested in politics. The expected general election means that the Hunting Bill will probably not become law this Session. So the question must be why the Government are so committed to using up precious government time with such a damaging Bill, which has little chance of success. Why not use the time on business that will benefit a demoralised countryside, such as the rural White Paper? Could it be that the Government are using the countryside that they care and know little about to placate their Back-Benchers in another place? Could it be that they would not have received funding by animal rights organisations to
620
bring forward legislation? One could say "cash for legislation". Can the Minister declare—I shall ask later on if he does not—what donations have been given to his party last year and this year by animal rights organisations in Deadline 2000? Can he further tell us whether these organisations were charities or commercial entities? I shall vote against restrictions on the liberties of a minority.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I first apologise to the House and to the first 12 speakers for having missed their speeches. My wife and I set out in excellent time to drive south for the debate. Unfortunately, continental left-hand drive HGVs piloted—if that is the word—at 70 miles per hour by individuals who evidently have little or no experience of driving on the left-hand side, are perhaps not the best recipe for road safety on our busy dual-carriageways. I suppose that I am lucky to be here at all.
However, I arrived in time for the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. He made many of the points I should have liked to make and expressed them very much better than I could have done. There have been many other excellent speeches since then, many of them from the government Back Benches.
In a free society—our society has always been considered exceptionally free by international standards—it has been taken for granted that no activity should be criminalised unless it is either harmful to non-consenting humans, directly or indirectly, or cruel to other species over and above the normal mild cruelty inherent in most human interaction with animals, be they wild or domesticated. Hunting with dogs falls into neither category. as many noble Lords have pointed out; not least those two most eminent medical Peers, the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Winston. It is therefore an outrage that a ban should be proposed in what still purports to be a free society.
Noble Lords would not be surprised, of course, if people's traditional sports and pastimes were to be outlawed in a dictatorship. When Saigon fell to the communists approximately 25 years ago, one of the first things the victors did was to ban bridge, which they deemed to be a bourgeois capitalist game. Anyone caught playing bridge faced six months in prison. About 40 years before that, as the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, pointed out, the Nazis in Germany—mainly urban and small-town sentimentalists with an unrealistic and romanticised view of the animal kingdom—banned hunting: just what you might expect from them. It is no coincidence that people with an evident neo-Nazi ideology are threatening the lives of those brave Labour honourable Members, Kate Hoey and Llin Golding, who have been calling for toleration in this matter.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, for an animal the size of a fox, hunting is not more cruel than other methods of pest control—indeed, it is less cruel—with the possible exception of lamping. However, in our overcrowded island, lamping is very

621
rarely safe or feasible. It is no good using a 22 rifle, which will wound rather than kill unless the bullet hits a vital organ. Only a larger calibre rifle will do the trick; and large calibre firearms of any kind are anathema to this Government, as I am sure they will concede. Nor is hunting more cruel than other field sports. Indeed, of the three main ones—I exclude falconry—hunting is almost certainly the least cruel.
Many supporters of a ban, one suspects, have not read the Scott-Henderson report, initiated by Mr Attlee, as he then was, and I suspect that even fewer have read the Cranbrook report, which was actually commissioned by the RSPCA. As Lord Cranbrook once explained to me, he and his committee were very surprised to discover after meticulous research that fishing was more cruel than shooting. But such were the committee's findings. In turn, I have no doubt whatever that shooting is, on balance, more cruel than hunting—for the very simple reason that in hunting the fox is either killed within four seconds, according to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with his 34 years of experience of hunting, or gets away unscathed. With shooting, alas, very large numbers of birds, hares and rabbits are not killed outright but are wounded. Those that are picked up by the guns, beaters or others at the shoot are quickly dispatched, to the great indignation of some of the city-based tabloids, many of whose readers doubtless imagine that steaks and hamburgers grow on trees. But, unhappily, a great many are never picked up and run, limp or flutter away to die slowly over hours or even days.
Despite that, Mr Blair has, somewhat illogically I have to say, rejected a shooting ban out of hand while declaring himself in favour of a hunting ban. However, a future Labour Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, pointed out, will not feel himself bound by Mr Blair's promise. He or she may well rate intellectual consistency above the opinion of focus groups. So shooters should beware, they are bound to be next in the firing line. Incidentally, the "antis" who have become so indignant at the idea of "killing for pleasure" should be reminded that it is the shooter for whom killing is virtually essential in order to enjoy a day out, not the rider to hounds or other hunt followers.
Is everything in the garden perfect as far as hunting is concerned? Most probably not, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. On occasion, too little sensitivity and courtesy is shown to householders and other members of the public who unexpectedly come up against the hunt, although one senses that the younger generation of masters have developed rather more tact and public relations skills than some of their elders. But hunting's minor faults, which can after all be rectified fairly easily, are no justification for an authoritarian assault on a great British tradition, immortalised on canvas, in prose and in poetry. This is equally an assault on the chief pleasure and the livelihood of tens of thousands of decent people.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I decided to speak in this debate because I want to help to show people living in the countryside that there is a substantial body of opinion existing in the Labour Party—I am glad to say that it has been expressed by many contributors from this side of the House today—which understands and has sympathy with their problems and certainly does not want to rob them of their traditional pastimes which they have enjoyed over a very long period of time; in fact, for centuries. That is especially the case when those pastimes also help the rural economy and the farming community, without whose efforts the countryside that urban dwellers like myself so enjoy would fall into rack and ruin. I am really very sorry indeed that the Countryside March had to be postponed until May. I would have loved to join that march. I would have participated in it with great alacrity, to demonstrate my solidarity with the countryside which I so love.
I believe that this Bill is more about class hatred than about the welfare of animals. If it were not, its provisions would be cast far more widely to cover many other kinds of field sports and activities involving the killing of animals for sport. The very fact that animals such as rabbits and rats have been exempted helps to prove my point. Do they not also feel the pain of death that foxes are alleged to feel?
The detailed arguments have already been made by those who have recent experience and first-hand knowledge of this issue, but I want to emphasise that there are still those in the Labour Party who believe in personal liberty as well as the improvement of economic life for the many. We want to fight the increasing tendency of government and, indeed, of Parliament itself, which is supposed to be the guardian of our individual liberty, to intervene in all kinds of ways in every nook and cranny of our lives. I sometimes get the impression that some top politicians will not be satisfied until the only things we are allowed to do will be to get drunk, to fornicate and to stab each other in the back. That is the way they sometimes carry on.
For most of my life I have lived in an urban setting, but at the beginning of the Second World War, I was evacuated from Shepherd's Bush in London to a fairly large farm in Mapledurham near Reading. It was there that I learnt about the pleasures and the difficulties of the countryside, and of the kindness and the consideration of the people living there. The family who adopted me as one of their own were so great; they altered my life completely, quite frankly. It was from them that I learnt my love of animals and the need to nurture them and to treat them with kindness and consideration. Certainly, all the animals on the farm were properly fed before anyone else was fed; they were properly housed and certainly were not ill treated in any way.
The farmer also hunted. He did so because he believed that the foxes, which devastated the chicken run and killed young lambs in the field, were vermin which had to be controlled to protect the domestic

623
animals. To describe these people, as they have been described, as cruel and barbaric, is a libel and a slander against decent people.
Anyone who has seen the wanton destruction of a flock of chickens— not for food but for the sheer hell of it—does not have any illusions about foxes being little cuddly creatures which do no harm. I believe that hunting foxes with dogs is no more cruel—it is probably less cruel—than any other form of culling. So why are we persecuting huntsmen and huntswomen?
Where will the banning stop? We have heard about that from many noble Lords, but I shall repeat it because the message has to get home to other people who enjoy field sports. Where will it stop? Noble Lords and others should not imagine that hunting with dogs is the end of the road. The increasingly powerful and increasingly extreme animal rights and welfare organisations, once they have tasted blood, if I can put it that way, will lust for further prey. That lust will be heightened and they will not be satisfied only with fox hunting, the next target will be game shooting; after that, non-food fishing; and perhaps eventually the Grand National itself.
Indeed, as we have heard, some river fishermen have already been harassed by masked animal rights extremists and it has been made clear that angling is a legitimate target for a ban. Shooters and anglers may feel that they are safe because of assurances given by the Government. Let us examine the assurance. During the Committee stage of the Bill, the Home Office Minister, Mr Mike O'Brien, said:
"Let me reassure those who may be concerned that, whatever happens tonight, there will be no ban on fishing or shooting under a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister".— [Official Report, Commons, 17/1/01; col. 452.]
Listen to those qualifying words:
"led by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister".
That really is a very weak and limited assurance. The present Prime Minister may be with us for a year or two yet, but he could be gone in weeks or months.
A noble Lord: You'll be lucky!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, some people may be lucky. I do not think that I will necessarily be lucky.
The assurance is very short term, whichever way one looks at it. Of course, we were given similar assurances about the introduction of university tuition fees. Noble Lords will remember that we were told that a Labour government would not introduce university tuition fees, and yet they were introduced. We were assured that there would be no part-privatisation of air traffic control if Labour came to power. Look what happened to that assurance. We are now to have part-privatisation. I am glad to say that I voted against it. At least I held to my belief.
Therefore, I want to give anglers and shooters a bit of advice. We are apparently going to have a general election in a few weeks' time, possibly on 3rd May. I advise them to be careful what they do. Before voting for any MP who voted for this Bill or for any candidate
624
who expresses support for this Bill and its ban on hunting with dogs, I advise them to obtain from him or her a signed declaration witnessed by two electors and sworn before a commissioner for oaths, that he or she will not promote or vote for any Bill to ban shooting and fishing. Then perhaps the matter can be sorted out in the courts if the candidate, when elected, reneges on the agreement. Simple assurances will not do. I advise people to make sure that those whom they elect will not vote to ban their sports of hunting and shooting.
I hope that noble Lords have gathered from my remarks that I am totally opposed to the Bill. Even at this late stage I wish that the Government would drop it. That is the best thing that they could do, for themselves and for everyone else. However, I fear that they will not do so. At later stages, like other noble Lords, I shall have to decide how to deal with the various alternatives which I hope that we shall have the opportunity to consider.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin with an admission. In our family 'we keep two lurchers as pets. I suspect that, apart from anything else, if this piece of legislation gets on to the statute book, it will—not through any wilfulness on my part but simply thanks to the dogs' nature—make me a criminal.
I am a farmer in Cumbria and part of my farm is an upland sheep farm in the Lake District. I am also a subscriber to the Melbreak and the Blencathra Hounds and I follow them from time to time. l want to restrict my comments to the Cumbrian fell packs, which have been mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who was out with the Blencathra when I was out on New Year's Day, and by my noble friend Lord Jopling and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I know practically nothing about any other form of hunting, so (as is not always the case in this House) I do not propose to say anything about it.
The fell packs hunt the wide open spaces of the fells. It is all done on foot and they are supported by many small subscribers. One of the obvious features of the Bill is that, as a matter of principle, it has no difficulty with killing animals, and in particular pests which threaten livestock. It goes beyond that. It also accepts that mammals may be killed for sport. I refer, for example, to falconry and an argument might be made for Welsh gun packs. With that background, it seems to me both extraordinary and inconsistent that the Bill as drafted will finish off the Cumbrian fell packs.
In the Lake District, as in many other places, the fox is a pest, especially as it takes hill lambs. Over the past couple of hundred years or so, fell hunting has developed in this difficult terrain as a means of controlling and curtailing the number of foxes, thereby preserving livestock. Rather than wait for the foxes to become too numerous, their numbers are kept in check. I believe that it is called "the application of the precautionary principle".

625
The opponents of fell hunting will say, "Oh, well, you can shoot them". I do not believe that that is quite what we want in the United Kingdom's premier area for recreational walking and our leading national park, much of which will very shortly be subject to the statutory right to roam and much more of which has had for many years de facto general public access. If that approach is accepted, it will follow that every fell farmer will need a rifle. The experience of a Caldbeck GP, and joint master of the Blencathra Hounds, might be interesting in this respect. He returned to his land-rover after visiting a patient to find it drilled with a rifle bullet—not doubt a ricochet from a lamping shot. Such an experience is bound to become much more common place. Incidentally, the GP offered to lend me the windscreen so that I could show it to your Lordships this evening, but, on balance, I thought that that was unnecessary. Equally, and very much to the point, I have in my time shot foxes. More importantly, I am ashamed to say, I have wounded them. It is no fun for the fox and, similarly, it is not much fun for the person involved.
Farming in the fells is a hard and solitary business. The hunts are one of the few social networks in the Dales. In a community that has relatively few of the amenities and opportunities so easily and widely available in most places today, quite honestly I think that it is rather patronising to dismiss the point, as people matter just as animals matter.
Many Cumbrians, and, for that matter, what we call "off-comers" as well, enjoy the hunt. Of course, it is much more than merely the chase. I believe that to be a major point in its favour. After all, we have over recent months in this House discussed various types of what to some are somewhat exotic personal practices, which some enjoy and others find repellent, and worse. As far as I am concerned, as long as all those involved are of mature judgment and are conducting themselves so as not to intrude into the lives of others, I do not believe that it is for us to legislate against them. The same applies in this instance.
In the Cumbrian Fells a balance has been struck among the fox, sheep and man. The fox may be a pest, but he is not mere vermin. Quite rightly he has a place in the ecological balance of the fells. I do not believe that any fell farmer wants the animal exterminated. The sheep also has a place—mowing the grass—and man has his, looking after the sheep and the landscape. What man has done is to contain, but not exterminate, the fox. In my view, fell hunting is the best way, the most efficient, safest and most satisfactory way, of achieving that. It has evolved with the grain of nature over the many years.
Nature is red in tooth and claw. As we know, all life involves death, with all that that entails—be it an old fox starving to death in his lair, being killed by hounds, or run over by a car. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that hunting as practised in the Cumbrian Fells is entirely consistent with the principles on which the Bill that we are discussing this evening is drafted. As such, it seems to me that it must logically follow that it should be permitted; indeed, I would go further,
626
and say that it should be encouraged, as it is probably the most ecologically satisfactory way of keeping a check on fox numbers in the Lake District.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I must begin by making clear my personal interest in fox hunting. I have hunted every Saturday of this season when hunting has been on and not frozen off. I have hunted mainly with my local pack in south Northamptonshire. I have also enjoyed some wonderful days visiting. I hope to have the opportunity to hunt for many years to come, having hunted for some 30 years with the same pack in respect of which I am now a member.
It is a strong measure to impose a legal ban to prevent the continuance of an activity that provides great enjoyment to thousands of people. The fact that it provides such enjoyment for those people is not, by itself, a reason why a ban cannot be imposed; it plainly can be. However, it requires a careful, long and analytical look at the objections to the activity before the extreme of a legal prohibition can be justified. I therefore invite your Lordships for a moment to consider the case that is made against fox hunting. I shall confine my remarks mainly to fox hunting because that is what I do and what I know about. I do not know much about the other forms of hunting which would be covered by the proposed ban.
The case against fox hunting is put in two ways. They are usually intertwined with one another by the opponents of hunting. First, it is said that the activity is cruel. Your Lordships have heard that from a number of speakers today. It is an argument which must be addressed. It is mainly an argument that must be looked at on the facts. If it has justification at all, it is as a factual objection. The second argument is more morally based. It is said that it is wrong for people to enjoy hunting. That is a quite different argument which has nothing to do with the facts. It is an emotional and a moral argument. It is possible and quite proper for opponents of hunting to run these two arguments together so that it is never clear which one is being put forward. However, in my view those who support hunting as I do need to take them apart to give a separate answer to each as they are quite different objections.
I start with the factual objection, the cruelty argument. It is said that hunting is cruel. It is said that it is cruel because it involves unnecessary suffering to the hunted fox. The fox would undoubtedly rather not be hunted; there can be no question of that. The invaluable report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has, I suggest, given the factual answer to the complaints about fox hunting on the cruelty ground. It is common ground that whether fox hunting continues or not the number of foxes in the country must be controlled. It is also common ground that the number of foxes killed by the hunt in any season is not, as a proportion of the total number of foxes killed, very large. But if those foxes were not killed by the hunt, they would have to be dealt with—or a similar number would have to be dealt with—by some other means. Normally speaking,

627
the number of foxes killed every year would be roughly the same, but more would be killed by the other means rather than by the hunt.
So what is the cruelty case? Is it that it is less cruel and preferable for the fox to be killed by the other means? I suggest that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has given a complete answer to that charge. Of course he said that hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. Of course it does; the object of fox hunting is to kill foxes. But that is also the object of every other means of controlling the numbers of foxes; that is, killing by snaring, by trapping, by poisoning, or by shooting either in the daylight with the fox flushed out of cover by dogs or at night with a lamp. How is that preferable to the fox? How is that a less cruel way to deal with foxes? I suggest that, looked at purely from the cruelty point of view, measuring what is done to the fox in relative terms—that is what it amounts to—there is no case against fox hunting on the ground of cruelty, not because the fox does not endure discomfort and wish it was not being hunted, but because fox numbers need to be controlled—that is common ground—and there is no other means of killing foxes that is any better.
It is not to the point, I suggest, to say, "Oh, but the reason you hunt is not to control foxes". Indeed, so far as I am concerned, it is not. But that leads to the second way of putting the case—the complaint that people who hunt enjoy it. I enjoy hunting, as do the thousands and thousands of people who every hunting day take part in the sport. What is the matter with enjoyment? On the one level it might be asked how one can enjoy an activity which has as its object the death of an animal. That argument has been addressed today. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, nods. If that is a sufficient argument, one must ban all field sports. All field sports involve an attempt to bring about the death of the hunted or pursued animal, fish or bird. That is the objective of the sport. No one suggests that all field sports should be banned. If they are not to be banned, it must be accepted that those who engage in them enjoy what they are doing; otherwise they would not do it.
Rabbits are exempt from the Bill's proposed controls. Young men with ferrets may, therefore, go ferreting. No one goes ferreting in order to control the rabbit population. People who have ferrets and go out ferreting do so for fun. They enjoy the competition between ferret and rabbit. It is a field sport like any other but it is not covered by the Bill, and rightly so. Rabbit numbers are excessive and need to be controlled. Ferreting is a way of controlling rabbits and people enjoy themselves while doing so.
I believe that the same argument applies to hunting. There is nothing the matter per se with enjoying the sport of hunting. There is no glorification in the kill. The fun in hunting is the amalgam of a number of factors: it is in part the excitement; the spice of danger; and the competition between the fox on the one hand and the hounds and huntsmen on the other. The field take part as spectators, participators, in this competition. It matters not that the vast majority of the field do not really understand what the huntsman
628
is doing. They know that he is trying to hunt the fox. They are not sure whether they are hunting a fox or moving to another cover. They hope that they are hunting the fox and every now and then they know that they are. They may or may not be near enough to see the kill. I have seen a number of kills. It is over in an instant. The hounds run into the fox and within seconds, as the Burns report made clear, the fox is dead. The competition is over.
The percentage of foxes that escape is high. Those that escape are almost bound to be fit and healthy. On the last two Saturdays on which I went hunting this season, before the foot and mouth epidemic stopped it, the hounds killed a fox which had been maimed, probably by a car accident. One had no shoulder left; it was lying in a drain where it would have died in pain if the hounds had not found it and put it out of its misery. Hounds will kill diseased and maimed foxes although there is not the enjoyment of the chase. But the function of the hounds is to kill foxes. If the foxes are maimed or diseased they will be killed. Other forms of hunting probably would not find those foxes. They will not be flushed out of cover. They will not come out at night hunting, to be identified with a lamp, their eyes shining in the dark.
The enjoyment of hunting is the enjoyment of competition and the chase. If at the end of the hunt the fox has escaped no one minds except the huntsman. He thinks that his job is to kill foxes. He hopes that he will kill every fox he chases. But the field are enjoying themselves and they do not mind. The objective is to kill foxes but if at the end of the chase the fox escapes, there is no diminution in enjoyment.
What goes into the balance when deciding whether a sport with these characteristics should be banned? There is a balance to be struck. Not every activity to which moral objection is taken by some is properly made the subject of a legal prohibition. The objective of the law is to maintain order; it is not to support the moral views of a part of the population even if it is a majority. There must be more to it than that. What is the addition to the moral repulsion that some people feel—I accept that they genuinely feel it—about the spectacle of people such as myself enjoying fox hunting? Is there a public order issue? The only public order problems are caused by the anti-fox hunting enthusiasts who try to disturb the hunt. No public order problems are caused by the hunt. It is plain that hunting needs control. We live in a crowded island and an activity such as hunting needs regulation. I leave that issue aside.
The principle of not using the law except when its use is justified is highly important if respect for the law is to be observed. We all know of examples from the recent past of what happens when public opinion does not regard a legal prohibition as justified, even though it may accord with moral views. The Victorians imposed a prohibition on homosexuality, but over time, particularly in the past decade or so, the view has come to be held that whatever the moral arguments, the law has no business there. The same is true of abortion. Many people have strong moral objections

629
to abortion, but that does not, by itself, justify a ban. The object of the law is to keep order, not to select moral precepts for enforcement.
Other systems of law, such as the Sharia, I believe, do not distinguish between morality and the law, but our system does. We must observe that distinction if we want to retain respect for the law in a country where there are many divided views about moral principles and culture. We would not dream of outlawing Halal methods of butchery of animals, although I have heard objections raised to them on the grounds of cruelty. We would not dream of outlawing the circumcision of male children, although some doctors believe that there is no medical justification for it. We must respect the culture of people who support such practices. The law and legal prohibition should be kept in their proper place.
It has been suggested that drag hunting would be a satisfactory substitute for hunting. I have enjoyed myself hunting on many occasions, mainly with the Mid-Surrey drag, but also with others. It is great fun, but it is not the same as fox hunting. It is simply another equestrian sport. It lacks the competition between wild animal and hound. It lacks the natural element of fox hunting, to which other speakers have referred. I have an association with my local pack of bloodhounds. Their hunting is nearer to natural hunting, because at least they hunt a natural scent. There is no artificial hyena urine or anything like that laid down for them to follow. However, even in that case, the runner goes along a pre-ordained line and there is no unpredictability or competition as there is between fox and hound. Both are valuable equestrian sports in their own right, but they are no substitute for fox hunting.
The case for a ban on fox hunting has not been made. To impose the ban would be a misuse of law. It would bring the law into disrespect and a vast section of the community would think it unfair. Moreover, it would be profoundly undemocratic. Democracy is not just something that happens at general elections, when a majority is put into the House of Commons with the power to pass Bills. Democracy requires respect for the rights, beliefs and traditions of the minority. That would be offended if the Bill became law.
10.44 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have the honour to be the first name on the back of the hymn sheet. Perhaps we are now in the final straight.
I shall not dwell on the technicalities of hunting or on arguments about whether it is right or wrong. Many of your Lordships have already done so and others will continue to examine such arguments and carefully consider the economic, conservation and animal welfare issues, which are all of huge consequential importance.
Instead, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the impact that a ban on hunting would have on communities and, in particular, on those that I know best in the West Country, in Devon and on Exmoor.
630
I make no apology for returning to the community aspect because I believe it to be such an important part of the Bill.
With regard to the impact on communities of a ban, it was rightly said in another place that in principle it is irrelevant whether one job or many thousands of jobs are at stake if there is no justification for a ban. If something is unjustifiable, no one should lose their job or way or life.
Hunting in the West Country is a way of life. It is a way of life very similar to that in Cumbria, described so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. It is a crucial part of the fabric of our communities; it brings people together from all walks of life; and it binds communities together. It is a recreation that involves people of all ages, all sexes, all classes and all incomes. In a typical hunting field one might find a Peer and a plumber, an eight year-old and an 80 year-old, and probably more females than males, all meeting on equal terms with a common interest in the same activity. They are not barbarians filled with bloodlust; they are people devoted to animals with high standards of care for their horses and dogs.
Sir Robin Dunn, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said:
"Hunting on Exmoor is like Premier Division Football in a large industrial town. To ban it would be to tear the heart out of the community just as would a ban on football in Liverpool".
People there would simply not put up with it. I fear that the same reaction would apply to a ban on hunting on Exmoor.
In his submission to the Burns inquiry, the rector of Exford, near Minehead, said,
"seven different packs will, at some time during the year. hunt over the area in which I am Rector. This not only provides a common unifying thread throughout the Exmoor area (and beyond). but also generates most of the social activities that are vital to the wellbeing of any rural community. In addition, those who support the hunts have a strong and justifiable sense of being the traditional guardians of Exmoor's wildlife. Should hunting with hounds be banned it will be a body-blow to these knowledgeable people and would severely diminish the unity of these remote Exmoor communities".
A medical practice at Dulverton, which covers some 300 square miles on Exmoor, said in its submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs:
"All partners in the practice endorse the importance of this Inquiry and are in no doubt that a ban on hunting would result in substantial and critical economic deprivation and a substantial increase in stress, depression and suicide in this community, already under pressure from agriculture policies. This would he comparable with studies showing increased morbidity and mortality in mining communities following the economically necessary closure of coal mines. A ban on hunting heralds no such … benefit, in fact would be detrimental to the Exmoor economy and would critically damage this community, without any alternative provision for social support or access to cultural sports or leisure facilities".
Now, of course, we have the current bitter irony. With hunting disallowed due to foot and mouth disease, we already have a foretaste of what might come to pass. With no hunting taking place on Exmoor during this month or next month, when so many hunt supporters would have come from all over

631
the British Isles, the economic draught is being felt in the hotels, in the bed and breakfasts and in the livery yards. Already the knock-on effect is pervasive. Their winter incomes sustain a way of life which, if eradicated, will be unsustainable. With the well known decline in summer tourism, villages within the parish of Exmoor will become ghost towns. They will die on their feet instead of being the vibrant source of economic benefit to their area.
Nearly 60 per cent of respondents in the four study areas in the Burns report were opposed to a ban on hunting. The report states:
"Many feel too that there is a culture associated with hunting that will be lost to the equestrian industry and to the countryside in general in the event of a ban. In particular, they feel that there is a set of social mores and body of knowledge and understanding associated with hunting which has ramifications extending beyond the hunting field. linked with the proper care of horses, the countryside and other riders and users of the countryside".
Nowhere is that more true than on Exmoor. It is those communities' way of life and freedom that are at stake and we would do well to listen to them.
I do not say that there will be civil war if hunting is banned, but those who live on Exmoor and in other rural areas of the West Country were already seething with discontent at the Government's treatment of rural issues well before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and were becoming increasingly angry and bitter at the prospect of a ban. With the new background of the fearful and dire consequences of foot and mouth disease, a ban on hunting is more than they can be expected to bear. I genuinely feel that there would be increased hostility to government and the police, increased non-co-operation, civil unrest and perhaps even civil disobedience.
While I have restricted my remarks to the West Country and the impact of the Bill on those communities, what I have said applies to no less an extent to large parts of this country. The appalling damage that a ban on hunting would inflict cannot be underestimated or brushed aside.
In conclusion, unless there is overwhelming evidence against hunting, Parliament simply does not have the right to take away people's freedoms, jobs or homes or to destroy hundreds of families and communities on the grounds of prejudice alone. To do so would herald the beginning of the end of all our freedoms and liberties in a tolerant and liberal society. It would be profoundly wicked and it must be resisted.
Well before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, wrote in a recent article in The Times,
"now the Government is responding to the sharpening, worsening countryside crisis by introducing as a measure the Bill to allow hunting with dogs to be abolished. Hunting is in no way the central issue but this does rub salt into the wound".
He continued:
"It is as though the Good Samaritan had spotted a traveller in the ditch, gone across and given him a hefty kick in the teeth. The trouble is"—
he concluded—
"that Labour is an almost entirely urban party—and it shows".
10.53 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, during my two-and-a-half years in the House, I do not think that I have been party to a debate in which speech after speech has acted like so many nails in the coffin of, in this case, the abolitionist's case. As the 45th speaker this evening, it would be a mercy if I resisted the temptation to give the full-blown speech that I had prepared and confined myself to a few reflections on some aspects of the debate.
Although I have never hunted, I was born and bred in Suffolk, where I still live, and I think I understand the passions that this issue raises in all country areas of these islands. If I did not naturally understand that, I certainly understood it from my French master at school. A hero of the First World War and long bored with the teaching of French, he arrived in the autumn with a light raincoat over his full riding kit. He would set us dictation and flee the classroom, never to be seen.
I remember too, when I was a young prospective candidate in the Saffron Walden constituency, that one of my main supporters was the rector of Steeple Bumpstead, who conducted morning prayer midweek, with a cassock over a full riding outfit. When God was done, the fox was followed.
The issue really boils down to cruelty against liberty. Everything else is consequential. We have heard some distinguished and perceptive speeches tonight and I should like to appropriate verbatim particularly the speeches made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and by the former Archbishop of York. The simple point that was reinforced by the Burns report, which is crucial to this debate, is that, after the hunt, the fox is entirely alive and unharmed, or entirely dead, and quickly dead. There is no other way of controlling foxes that has that supreme advantage.
This very morning, as I left home, a Suffolk man who is building a wall for me, when I asked him for his view of this subject, said that he did not much like hunting, but, on the other hand, you have to control foxes. On Wednesday last he had found a wounded, maimed fox under his van, and had to call the RSPCA from Ipswich to have it put down, which, somewhat grudgingly, they did.
Lord Renton: My Lords, presumably that fox had not been hunted but had been shot.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, he believed that it had been trapped. Trapping is permissible under our law and is extremely indiscriminate in terms of the animal that is caught and the time of year. It can involve a vixen that is carrying cubs.
In relation to liberty, we do not start with a clean sheet. We start with centuries of history and the entrenched liberty in this country for country people to hunt. To criminalise what has been normal, conventional and fully accepted, not only in the country but also in the towns, would, as my noble friend Lord Hutchinson stated so clearly, be an

633
offence. I, for one, would not contemplate being party to it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, stated, democracy is all well and good, but simple majoritarianism is not enough when dealing with the removal of an entrenched, basic liberty. It is, surely, good parliamentary understanding and conduct to realise when an issue coming before Parliament requires more than a simple majority.
I should like to say a few words about public opinion. There is a danger in this Chamber that our nexus with the hunting fraternity is so close and natural, and their access to us so privileged, that we are apt to underestimate the strength of feeling of those who want to see hunting abolished. I hope that in the future stages of the Bill we will avoid the caricature of what I call "snobs and yobs". The numbers of old unregenerate snobs in the hunting fraternity, who look down on everybody, and of yobs who disregard the law and seek to bust up hunting, are minuscule minorities.
We must concentrate on the fact that many people, largely because they do not understand the issues as we do, feel passionately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, showed so wonderfully today, that hunting is cruel and wrong. Those of us who think that abolition is wrong are in the business of hearts and minds, trying to win them over. That is difficult to do, but we have to try a good deal harder than we have to date. I hope that the hunting fraternity will show more leadership and imagination in the way that it reaches out to that body of ordinary, decent citizens, who do not understand all the things that Burns has beyond doubt shown us.
I commend the middle way, precisely because it ministers to public concerns and assuages natural hostility to the notion of digging out, of blocking up earths so that the fox cannot get back in, of cubbing in a way that all good huntsmen would not accept, of trespassing, and of the various excesses that inevitably occasionally disfigure some hunts.
To have licensed regulation rather than the alternative—voluntary self-supervision—will be more effective in winning over that part of the public (quite a large part) which is there to be won over. It is too late for the voluntary self-supervision alternative.
Perhaps I may say a word on sovereignty. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it was I who did battle this morning with the redoubtable Tony Banks. Perhaps I did not punch hard enough. But this issue should not be subject to the Salisbury convention. We need to think carefully, as do the Government, about the state of the Bill. Frankly, unless it is part and parcel of their manifesto, those of us who believe strongly that abolition is wrong must stick to our guns.
Finally, hunting stimulates an intense pride in farming and the countryside. A competitive spirit of emulation proceeds from hunting. It is partly because of hunting that agri-business has not made even greater swathes into our countryside. The countryside is there to be enjoyed by the townsmen and women no less than by the country people.
634
Hunting is an antidote for the decommunalisation which has afflicted not just the towns and cities, but also the countryside itself. With the aggregation of farms, and the reduction in the numbers of farming families and of farm labourers, hunting has become a crucial social network that has huge benefits for the country. In an urbanised, deracinated and impersonal world, many from the cities find solace and refreshment in hunting, a nearness to nature so absent from their normal lives that to cut it out in the mistaken belief that it will eliminate cruelty will be seriously misconceived.
11.2 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, the hour is late so I shall not detain your Lordships for too long and will confine my remarks, I hope, to some fresh evidence.
Sadly, I no longer hunt or ride, but my happiest memories are of hunting and competitive riding. I can honestly say that I never rejoiced in seeing a single fox killed. But the death, in my experience, was always instantaneous. Hunting in many forms has been and still is the driving force which makes this country the pre-eminent equestrian nation of the world.
Like others who have spoken, I feel strongly that this Bill is truly misplaced, divisive of our nation and a waste of parliamentary time. In addition, it is an unwarranted attack on liberty, livelihood and tolerance in our countryside. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose wonderful speech we were honoured to hear today and who has done so much as president for the Countryside Alliance, said in a newspaper article, this is a,
"vicious outbreak of metropolitan bigotry".
I could not have put it more aptly. The Bill must not be allowed to succeed in its present form, otherwise shooting and fishing will follow suit, despite the many assurances to the contrary, including those from the Prime Minister.
Animal welfare and cruelty are the most widely-cited reasons for the banning of hunting with dogs. But in his report my noble friend Lord Burns did not conclude that hunting was cruel, as has already been said. The report recognised, quite rightly, that farmers, landowners and gamekeepers consider hunting to be necessary to manage the fox population correctly. Those who have seen lambs killed by foxes or a chicken house raided by a fox, will be under no illusion whatever: foxes are vicious vermin in need of proper control.
A ban on hunting will do nothing for animal welfare; in fact the reverse is true. Other forms of control will be necessary. It has already been estimated that some 75,000 foxes are shot each year. Trapping, snaring and gassing all lead to a lingering death. In his report the noble Lord, Lord Burns, concludes that,
"None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective".
We as the people of this country have a moral responsibility to manage wildlife and habitats for several reasons—the control of disease, the balanced

635
preservation of other species and the maintenance of human food supplies, to name just a few. It is wishful thinking to believe that wild animals and humans could achieve sustainable equilibrium without management of our countryside.
It is reasonably well established that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time jobs would be lost as well as many part-time voluntary jobs and those of associated tradespeople who rely on hunting for their livelihood. Estimates of between 14,000 and 18,000 have been well reported. That is serious enough. We cannot rely on diversification, particularly in remote areas. The loss of hunt kennels would mean the loss to farmers of disposal of their fallen stock. Hunts play a dominant role in both the rural economy and in the social and cultural life of the rural community. Farriers, saddlers, feed merchants, vicars, publicans and vets, to name a few, all interact one with the other. Hunting forms what is aptly described as "social glue" in many communities and in times of stress hunting people come to the aid of others who are in trouble. It is estimated that it would take up to 10 years for the countryside to readjust itself following a ban. Not one single fox would benefit. As someone said earlier in the debate, the only ones who would probably welcome a ban would be the foxes themselves.
As some noble Lords may have noticed, tomorrow we shall be faced with three options to decide how we proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill. First, we have independent supervision. If we had implemented the Scott-Henderson report we would not be here today discussing this Bill, but that is history.
Currently, 10 bodies control hunting with hounds in all its forms. The lead is shown by the Master of Foxhounds Association, which does an excellent job. Currently it is looking at all foxhounds. It and the other nine bodies answerable to the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting are working closely together. One wonders whether they are a little late off the starting blocks.
Measures which should be strictly in place to control hunting in the future, if a ban is not imposed, must include a code of conduct for digging out, bolting and earth stopping. Then arises the cost of the future independent body, ISAH. It is variously reported as being £500,000. The money will have to come from the hunts themselves. One wonders who is going to bite the hand that feeds it. There is the question of whether there should be some form of regional control.
Throughout this debate we have heard about the differences between the various regions and the importance of local authorities for hunting. Statutory regulation is both expensive and complex. It lacks clarity and a definition of the offences, which in turn will lead to difficulties of enforcement. No case has been made out in law for a total ban. It would do nothing for the welfare of the quarry and it would lead to serious economic, agricultural and cultural consequences.
In his report the noble Lord, Lord Burns, states that in the past hunting has clearly played a very significant role in the formation of the rural landscape and the
636
creation and management of areas of nature conservation. Surely, whatever one feels about the aspect of killing and cruelty, our rural landscape and nature are worthy of preservation, not destruction.
Enforcement. This is an intolerant and antidemocratic measure based not on fact but on prejudicial dislike of an activity by a significant minority of ordinary law-abiding people from all walks of life. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), as is right and proper, has made it absolutely clear that police forces across the country will enforce any new law, but, at a time when resources are fully stretched and there is much adverse comment about the police presence, or lack of it, in rural areas, this additional burden may well be one too many. At a time when magistrates are desperately trying to come to terms with human rights legislation—itself a cause of much extra work and uncertainty— the ambiguities and difficulties of prosecution created by a total ban would be as unwelcome as a fox in a henhouse.
If this Bill becomes law and there is a total ban on hunting with hounds, it will do irreparable damage to our countryside. There will be a loss of jobs and even more damage to an already struggling rural economy—all to no benefit to the fox. A major part of our heritage will be lost; and, even more important, thousands of decent and law-abiding citizens will become potential criminals without a single fox deriving any benefit whatever. I totally reject a ban on hunting.
11.12 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, my first instinct following the Queen's Speech was to wish that this Bill had not been included. I believed, as I wrote in the House magazine—even before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease—that there were many other issues of greater importance to the vast majority of those who lived in the countryside: rural schools, hospitals, employment, transport, shops and post offices, to name but a few. The last three were virtually decimated under previous administrations. However, this debate is with us and we must face our responsibility in relation to it.
I have been lucky enough to live most of my life in rural communities. I was born and brought up in Lincolnshire where I lived for the first 21 years. I then moved to Suffolk where I lived for 23 years, and I now live in rural Essex. To listen to some noble Lords one might be led to believe that almost every person who lives and works in the countryside is involved in, and supports, hunting. That is patently not the case, and the postbags of many of my friends in the other place show me that.
In each of the geographical areas I have experienced warm and loving friendships and social patterns which have sustained and developed me. But, unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I have not had, or felt that I needed, the hunting community to supply that. In each area my social patterns have tended to be woven among those who have, at the strongest, opposed the hunting of foxes and hares with dogs or, at the weakest, been indifferent to it.

637
I have no sentimentality about animals. My paternal grandfather, father and a number of uncles were butchers. They and our farmer friends bred and killed animals for one reason only—for consumption. At an early age I learnt that a special pretty pink piglet, or a pet woolly lamb, was for a time only. When it grew to the required size it would, like all the rest, be transformed into pork or lamb chops.
I understand well that the fox is a wild animal and that it kills. Anyone who has seen a chicken run after a fox has visited knows that in graphic detail. I learnt at an early age that my chickens were eaten because, as my father told me, I had not penned them properly. I well understand that the number of foxes must be curtailed and that no method of killing them is perfect. Despite everything I have heard, I still prefer shooting. I believe that the House slightly underestimates those who shoot in the countryside. I have witnessed many pheasant shoots. If the farmers involved in the shoots were poor shots, as has been claimed tonight, those who organised the shoots would never do so again. Those shoots continue, as does the shooting of hares and rabbits. I am assured by those that I know in Suffolk, who still take part in those shoots, that they can, and do, shoot and kill foxes. But I can of course only take their word for that.
The banning of hunting may not save a single fox's life. However, it would concentrate minds on alternative forms of hunting. Before I expand on that argument, I want to turn briefly to the proposal described as "the middle way". As currently written, I remain unconvinced that much would change. A way which still allows hunting with dogs, as now, is a strange form of compromise to me.
As some noble Lords may know, I am a keen supporter of codes of practice, which the middle way advocates. However, the very point of a code of practice is that it is guidance only and not a legal requirement. However tough, it stops short of being a legal requirement. I believe that we need more than that. Most importantly, the middle way does not consider a limit on the time that wild animals can be chased. If we are serious about having a middle way, that matter has to be considered.
I turn to the repercussions that a ban on hunting would have. As a former trade union official I immediately considered the consequences for those employed, in whatever way, in hunting. As we have heard, the statistics for employment vary widely. I am not particularly interested in playing the numbers game with jobs. I start from the premise that every job is important, especially to the man or woman who is likely to lose theirs. That applies as much in the rural areas as in the steel works, the coal mines or in manufacturing industry.
I therefore spoke directly to those involved on a daily basis with the organised workers in rural areas. I found that the annual conference of the agricultural workers section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, had voted to oppose hunting, despite a goodly number of those voting being involved in
638
hunting. The TGWU believes that in the long term jobs lost would be recovered and that other forms of hunting could not only retain the current jobs of those involved with the horses, the dogs and the hunt generally, but that additional jobs could be created. In addition, if alternative hunting is provided, those currently living in tied accommodation, about which we have heard today, would retain their housing.
Having seen the Brocklesby Hunt in Lincolnshire on many occasions, I can well understand the magic for those who hunt with dogs, but I do not believe that that magic extends to the fox. I, too, looked up the word "cruelty". In my dictionary the definition is to produce pain and distress. I believe that the hunt causes both to the fox.
At this point I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The noble Lord explained to me why, as currently envisaged, hunting a drag for many would not be a replacement for hunting with dogs. I appreciated that. However, having made inquiries of others with knowledge of hunting a drag, I support my noble friend Lord Harrison in sincerely believing that it could become an equally exciting alternative to hunting with dogs if the will is there to properly introduce it.
As well as drag hunts already mentioned, between September and December 2000 hunting with drag trials were carried out successfully in the New Forest. Phase B of those trials is now taking place. In this country hunting a drag has evolved as a sport possibly more akin to a point-to-point than a hunt and has tended to be on a set course. However, this form of hunt a drag could be substantially developed. I am assured by those who hunt a drag that it could be whatever those involved want it to be. There is no reason why the drag scent could not be made unpredictable on non-set tracks. It could certainly be developed on a much wider geographical basis than has been practised so far. The only need would be to provide landmarks around which the drag is taken. Additionally, there is no reason for a drag hunt to disrupt a farmer's work or crops, as it is sometimes claimed it would. Indeed, it is not unknown for hunts to disrupt working farms and cause damage to crops and fences. The track of the drag need no more disrupt than the best hunt would.
The old adage of where there is a will, there is a way, applies. A phasing out period of hunting with dogs would give time for adaptation. Hounds can be trained to follow the drag scent, and for the hunter and horse there would be little difference if some imagination was applied. Because I firmly believe that, despite all the protestations to the contrary, hunting with dogs is cruel and that there is a viable alternative, I believe that we should listen to and follow the vast majority of voices and votes from the other place. After all, they are elected by the people and answer democratically to that electorate.
If hunting with dogs is banned, minds will concentrate on alternative hunting forms. I repeat: where there is a will, there is a way. If hunting with

639
dogs is banned, that will must be developed. And to try to ensure that it is, when the vote is taken I shall vote for a complete ban on hunting with dogs.
11.21 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised that the Government are still persisting with this Bill, which is widely recognised to have little or no chance of becoming law. In view of the new crisis that foot and mouth disease has brought to the farming community, I should have thought that any government, particularly on the eve of a general election, would have wished to spare it this additional persecution. I had hoped that the Government might show the same degree of consideration for farmers as did the Countryside Alliance when it postponed its march on London. At least in the past week some signs have appeared that the Government may be interested in a compromise. I shall come back to that in a moment.
Some of those who call most vociferously for a ban on hunting like to represent it as marking a stage in the evolution of man's moral progress, one which would follow on naturally from earlier bans on bear-baiting and cock fighting. In so doing, they claim to occupy a superior moral position to their opponents. I think that that claim should be questioned.
I have never myself hunted, although there have been members of my family who have done so for at least the past 100 years. Indeed, there are those who continue to do so. I greatly admire the equestrian skills and the physical courage required from those who hunt. These attributes have linked hunting to other activities, which have brought fame, and on occasion glory, to this country—flat racing and steeplechasing, show jumping and three-day event riding, and in former days mounted prowess on the battlefield.
Hunting of course has figured prominently in English literature and art, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pointed out. Stubbs and Wootton, Sartorius, Sargeant and Munnings—some of the greatest pictures by these and other great names in English painting were devoted to hunting subjects. And in literature you have the subject treated by Surtees and Trollope, Siegfried Sassoon and others. Hunting prints are ever popular and figure in homes and public places up and down the land. Hunting is woven into the artistic and cultural history of this country.
Another reason for treating hunting with respect is for the sense of community it fosters. To its credit, this was something fully appreciated by the Burns committee. Paragraph 28 of the summary puts it well. It states that,
"especially for participants in more isolated rural communities, hunting acts as a significant cohesive force, encouraging a system of mutual support".
The fallen stock service benefits farmers throughout the country wherever there is hunting, and hunting brings its social benefits throughout the country wherever there is hunting. But what Burns says there is outstandingly true of the part of the world about which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, speaks so
640
eloquently and movingly and which I have got to know well, although not as well as other noble Lords. I refer to Devon and Somerset. Stag hunting there attracts followers from all over the world and it is widely popular locally. As my noble friend Lord Arran made plain, it is of huge economic and emotional importance to the area. It is for that reason that large herds of deer survive, tolerated by foresters and farmers, despite the great damage they do to trees and crops.
If hunting was banned, and with it any incentive to protect those deer, they would risk being wiped out, as appears to have happened once before in the 19th century when there was an interruption in hunting. As the Burns report makes clear, those deer that survived would bury themselves in the woods and no longer present the visible and sometimes audible attraction for visitors to the area. The RSPCA might achieve its aim of eliminating the debatable degree of suffering caused by hunting, but at what cost, even to the deer themselves? Is the elimination of suffering through the elimination of life a goal worth striving for?
The Burns report did a great service when it insisted on comparing any suffering caused by hunting with any that might be involved in alternative means of control, but I am not sure that it went far enough. If one is to prepare policy on the basis of reducing the suffering of wild animals, then why ignore the suffering caused by one animal to another? Hunting may seriously compromise the welfare of the hunted animal, but in a phrase that will surely result in a part of the Burns report gaining at least one entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations one day, the fox itself is a serial compromiser of the welfare of other living creatures. Should not any analysis which claims to provide an audit of animal suffering acknowledge that?
I can understand that there are those who have a conscientious objection to hunting. How many there may be, one cannot be sure, but it is significant that Burns was able to show that, in those areas in which it conducted a study where hunting took place, the majority of the population supported the continuation of hunting. Those who have a conscientious objection need not take part in hunting and should be protected, as far as is reasonable, from its incursion into their lives. But it is tyrannical to seek to ban the legitimate traditional activities of a minority when its members do no harm to others except, purportedly, to offend the conscience of what is almost certainly only another minority. There is no end to where that process may be carried once it has been embarked on. Indeed, each of us could compile our own list of legitimate activities that we would rather never see practised again.
However, one position adopted by the Countryside Alliance with which I do not find myself in agreement is in its support for the Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 by removing the exemption granted to hunting from the provisions of that Act. If that was done and the protection for hunting was removed, I think that it would be naive to suppose that

641
a legal challenge would not be mounted on each form of hunting in turn, perhaps repeatedly, in an attempt to secure a verdict that hunting involved the infliction of unnecessary suffering on a wild mammal and therefore would amount to an offence under the Act. Furthermore, I think it would be naïve to suppose that no court would ever give such a verdict. I believe that this would be a concession too far and would be a recipe for uncertainty and litigation. My inclination is to agree with what was said last Friday by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in winding up the debate on the Second Reading; namely, that whether hunting involves unnecessary cruelty is a matter that should be decided by Parliament.
On the other hand, I believe that the Countryside Alliance is entirely justified in its stated willingness to listen to any proposal for compromise on the question of regulation. If I understand the position correctly, it believes, rightly in my opinion, that self-regulation, perhaps in a more transparent and well-publicised form than has existed in the past, would be the best system of control for the future. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that to win public confidence it may be necessary for such self-regulation to have statutory backing. I would not quarrel with that. Provided that such a solution preserved the essentials of the sport as practised today, introduced the very minimum of bureaucracy and sought only to see applied more generally the highest of standards in current practice today, then I think that regulation should be accepted—not because I believe it is necessary on animal welfare grounds but for political reasons.
For political reasons—facing a large Commons majority in favour of a ban, one which is not likely to disappear overnight—those who wish to see hunting continue may have to accept compromise. Circumstances may well now favour compromise. If that is the way that the Government see it too, I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that they should tell us about it tonight.
11.31 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests. I am chairman (unpaid) and shareholder (dividend free) of St Martins Magazines, which publishes two magazines, Country Illustrated and Hunting. I also should say that my father, grandfather and great- grandfather were all masters of the Warwickshire Hunt. I have no ambitions in that direction because I can remember looking in my grandfather's scrapbook, where I saw a rhyme which went:
"There was a young fellow called Broke
Who was broke when the foxhounds he took
For while he was Master the money flew faster
Than he could tear cheques from his book".
None the less, I do hunt with the Warwickshire Hunt; I enjoy it enormously.
Like the tens of thousands of people in this country who hunt, I have asked myself why the Bill has been brought forward. It seems to me that there are three principal reasons. One reason is that the Member for
642
Pendle, Mr Gordon Prentice, put down a wrecking amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill which made the Home Secretary think twice. Mr Prentice, in effect, held a gun to the Government's head; Mr Straw blinked; and on the very same day that the Burns report was published, Mr Straw announced that this Bill would be brought forward.
The second reason was the infamous interview at Question Time when the Prime Minister fell into a "heffalump" trap.
The third reason, to which my noble friend Lord Rotherwick referred, is that the Labour Party, I believe, was given £1 million by the Political Animal Lobby (PAL) before the last election. The PAL is the political wing of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), which, by some extraordinary coincidence, is one of the bodies that have come together to form Deadline 2000. When the Minister responds to the debate, I should be grateful if he would tell me whether I have got my facts wrong and, if I am wrong, what was the sum donated to the Labour Party by the Political Animal Lobby and when it was received.
We seem to have come a very long way from animal welfare with this Bill, as many noble Lords have pointed out. I was very pleased to see in this context that the Home Secretary had the good sense to vote for the continuation of hunting under regulation. We should hardly be surprised. When one looks at the Bill, there seems no justification whatever for a ban or for supporting one. It is a complete dog's breakfast. It is full of exceptions, anomalies and contradictions.
To give your Lordships a flavour of one or two of the main absurdities, deer may still be hunted with dogs and shot provided that the person doing so is doing it as part of his job as a professional and not for sport. If he enjoys his job—which he probably does, otherwise he would not be doing it at all—that is okay as long as he is paid for it. But if you do exactly the same thing and are unpaid—and you perhaps smile or enjoy what you are doing—you are criminalised under the provisions of the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for reminding me that Welsh gun packs which hunt with dogs will be legal; they will be allowed to hunt. But if the very same packs which hunt with guns and dogs on a Saturday—the very same people, the very same hounds—hunt on a Wednesday but with horses, they will be criminalised. "Stands the clock at ten to three. Is the Mad Hatter coming to tea?". This is absolutely crazy.
Under the Bill, chasing a hare with a dog will become a criminal offence, but chasing a rabbit will not. If the Bill progresses, I intend to table an amendment that will require all dogs and owners to undergo a rabbit recognition course; otherwise, where are we? The Explanatory Notes state helpfully that,
"A person who uses his dog in the context of one of the exceptions will not be guilty of an offence if his dog has other ideas and acts outside the scope of the exception".
But most dogs have "other ideas" all the time! It is their raison d'être.

643
And so the Bill goes on in its ludicrous way. But it is ludicrous only in that context. Its provisions will turn into criminals tens of thousands of people for carrying on what until now has been a perfectly legal pursuit. That is what is so galling for all of us who oppose this measure. All these are decent, hard-working, law-abiding people, the very people who help to make the countryside tick. Yet they will be subject to the draconian powers contained in the Bill. The burden of proof will be reversed; they will be subject, without a warrant, to stop-and-search provisions, and to the confiscation and destruction of their property and their animals, to swingeing fines and presumably, if they are unable to pay the fines, to imprisonment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said, none of us who hunt believes that what we are doing is cruel, or we would not be doing it at all. I strongly resent being told by Members of another place that my chosen sport is unacceptable in some way, but theirs is not. Mr Tony Banks, for example, said at Second Reading on 20th December:
"I used to fish a great deal; I used to love fishing … but in politics there are lines to be drawn. I would not choose to fish or to shoot, but equally. I would not choose to ban others from doing so. That is where I have drawn my line".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/2000; col. 411.]
In the same debate, at col. 430, Mr Salter, the Member for Reading West, said:
"I and other hon. Members who fish know the truth: either we take and kill our fish humanely for the pot … or, in the case of coarse fishermen such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and myself, we may catch our fish, we may photograph our fish—I even confess to occasionally kissing my fish … but we put them back unharmed".
He, too, then went on to draw his line, which not surprisingly managed to include coarse fishing.
Quite apart from the fact that MPs should confine their kissing activities to babies and not adversely affect the welfare of the fish by playing them for a long time, pulling them out of the water, photographing them, weighing them, and then kissing them, surely it is cruel if they are then put back to endure more of the same. It is absurd. Mr Salter said that he caught the same fish three times. How did he know? Did he ask it? If he is right, is not that cruel in the extreme? On what possible grounds do these line-drawers, these fish-kissers tell us how to lead our lives?
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made clear in his excellent speech, what makes it acceptable for them to decide that what they are doing is right and that what we are doing is wrong? Why is their moral compass so accurately set and ours so obviously wrong? I really do not understand the difference. I am very much looking forward to the Minister's reply to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Denham on the acceptability and justice of a division. Where is the dividing line to be drawn between hunting, fishing and shooting? Who are these people, cloaked in a little brief authority, to tell us how we should lead our lives, to deprive rural communities of their jobs and their livelihood? Who are they to tiptoe around drawing their little moral
644
conclusions and telling us that we should obey what they think, to kill off ordinary people's livelihoods to suit the convenience of their own conscience?
Perhaps I may conclude my brief remarks by quoting from a letter that I received. I had a large number of letters on the subject—none, I may say, from those who would abolish hunting. It is from a young lady in Oxfordshire. She writes:
"I look after horses, run a hunter livery yard
Get up nice and early and work very hard,
Employ two others, on me they depend
For their income, livelihood, money to spend.
Pray, what would happen if hunting were banned.
Who would employ them, where would they stand?
These are not office girls with manicured nails
Neither typists, receptionists nor those tele-sales.
We are country people, it runs in our blood
Usually cold, wet and tired or covered in mud,
But hunting's our passion, it governs our year
Please don't let them ban it. we'll fight. do you hear?"
If we have to fight, I shall fight with her.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, living in mid-Wales, where we are desperately anxious about the survival of our small herd of Welsh Blacks, I am all too well aware that rural Britain is in deep crisis and that most country people find it incomprehensible that Parliament should, at this time, be spending time debating the future of what is curiously described as, "hunting with dogs".
I do not know whether this Bill was allowed to go forward as a sop to old Labour, who have taken so many knocks from the Government, but the other day I heard a broadcast by Alistair Cooke in which he said that the founding fathers of the United States were determined to prevent the "tyranny of the mob". That seems to me a not inaccurate description of a vote by 387 Members of the other place to ban hunting. That vote included many Scottish Members who felt free to vote to ban hunting in England and Wales, although Englishmen and Welshrnen are denied any voice in decisions on hunting in Scotland. By contrast, I listened with great interest to the impressive speeches made in this debate from the Labour Benches by the noble Lords, Lord Bragg, Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
I do not hunt myself, but I am appalled by the attempt to demonise and criminalise decent, law-abiding people in the country. This is an intolerant assault on a small minority—an assault based. I am afraid, for many people on ignorance, prejudice and a dislike of toffs. Above all, it is a denial of people's freedom to take part in an activity that does no harm to their fellows. The ostensible heart of the dispute is the question of cruelty. But if that were really the issue, why is nothing said, for example, about the practice of halal?
Fifty years ago the Scott-Henderson report, commissioned by a Labour government and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, concluded that foxes had to be controlled and that there was less cruelty in hunting than in most other methods of control. That is still true. In hunting, the lox either

645
escapes or is swiftly killed, as many noble Lords have said. There are no wounded survivors, as there often are when foxes are shot. Snaring too can be very cruel.
The favoured option of the Burns committee of lamping is not practicable on the Welsh hills and the use of high-velocity rifles at night is not a very safe practice. I do not find the new and questionable concept of animal welfare science helpful. It led the excellent Burns committee into making perplexing statements, such as, for example, that the experience of being closely pursued caught and killed by hounds seriously comprises the welfare of the hare.
Fox hunting is part of our heritage and tradition, going back for many years. In mid-Wales, hunting has real practical value in controlling foxes. Farmers engaged in backbreaking and ill-rewarded toil cannot afford to employ someone to keep down fox numbers. The hunts do this. At the same time, a day's hunting is a community activity which is a social occasion for people who are cut off from most of the forms of entertainment available to those living in towns. In our part of the world, hunts are definitely not smart. Circumstances are simply different in Wales, but, despite devolution, the Welsh have not been allowed to decide for themselves, as they wish to do, on the future of hunting in the Principality. Why not, I wonder?
Hunting is important for conservation. Small woods and patches of gorse and thorn were often planted for hunting and shooting and kept for that reason. They are invaluable for all sorts of animals, birds, insects and plants. If hunting were banned, they might be done away with so that the land could be used more profitably. If field sports go, the effect on the British countryside will be profound. Also, a ban would have unpleasant consequences—some thousands thrown out of work, and probably a mass slaughter of hounds. Its implementation would be extremely difficult. It would create great bitterness and it might lead to defiance of the law by some people who would normally never dream of acting illegally. The effect could be like prohibition in America. The police are already hard pressed to cover rural areas and to deal with burglary, drugs and other problems, not to mention endless paperwork on firearms and gun licences. They would have a difficult job in enforcing a ban and would find that their good relations with country people were hard to maintain.
Why does the Bill include an unprecedented power to arrest someone who has done nothing wrong but whom a constable suspects may be about to commit an offence as well as a provision that an offender can be prevented from keeping a dog for life? All field sports are now under threat. If hunting is banned, who can doubt that there will be pressure to put an end to shooting and fishing? The wealthy organisations opposed to field sports will redouble their efforts and the rural terrorists with their balaclavas and baseball bats will continue their violent attacks. Only last week an elderly disabled angler had to call the police when he was threatened by 20 such thugs.
646
It seems utterly wrong to try to make a harmless traditional country activity a criminal offence. The great numbers who took part in the countryside rally in 1997 and the even larger numbers who would have marched in London the day after tomorrow ask only to be let alone. We are faced with an urban move to dictate to a rural minority, an attack on freedom that runs counter to what one believed was the Labour Party's toleration of minorities and a drive to upset the whole pattern of country life. I believe that government should try to govern with a light hand and to promote a feeling of unity among the people of this country. This Government will not, however, let people alone and are once more acting in a way that is extremely divisive.
I am inclined to think that the so-called "middle way" would not be practicable or satisfactory, but we shall discuss that in Committee. I was sorry also not to be able to take part in the debate last week on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. But like the noble Lord, Lord Reay, I do not believe that that Bill would satisfactorily resolve the problem we face. The wealthy organisations opposed to field sports would surely employ top notch barristers to argue that hunting did inflict unnecessary suffering on foxes and other quarry and no doubt they could persuade some courts to agree with them.
I conclude that a compromise is probably not attainable and that this House should in due course vote to allow hunting to continue, policed by the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Ronald Waterhouse.
11.47 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I speak tonight as someone who has always believed that hunting with hounds is cruel and causes unnecessary suffering to animals. I support the total ban on hunting with hounds and therefore support the Bill as it stands. Although that is a minority view in your Lordships' House—I am the 54th speaker tonight and I believe that I am about the fifth or sixth to support the total ban—I believe that it is a majority view in the country.
I should declare an interest. I am vice-chair of the Labour Animal Welfare Society and vice-chair of the All Party Group on Animal Welfare. As a longstanding member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society I received a letter from the organisation, as did my noble friend Lord Winston. The organisation is made up of Labour Party members and acts as a highly respected pressure group within the Labour Party. Its aim is to ensure that animal welfare issues are on the agenda. It is not surprising that it should write to Labour Peers to express its views and to encourage those Peers to support the ban on hunting with hounds.
Animal rights extremists have been mentioned many times tonight. Most people—I would say all— who are interested in animal welfare would totally condemn any extremist who threatened violence

647
against people because they held different views. I certainly condemn the actions of animal rights extremists.
Much has been said about fox hunting. But the Hunting Bill is not just about fox huntin: it is about hunting with hounds relating to wild animals such as deer, mink and foxes. There has been debate about whether the methods used in the hunting and killing of wild animals can be tolerated in today's society.
If there has to be a cull of wild mammals, is there a better and more efficient way than hunting with hounds? I can accept that there are circumstances where the culling of wild mammals may be necessary. For example, there is a strong argument that fox control is necessary in some Welsh upland areas. There has always been a strong tradition of co-operative fox control among Welsh farmers. Some claims about fox damage could seem exaggerated. Most lamb losses on the hills are attributed to adverse weather, mis-mothering or lack of maternal milk, and diseases.
A major study in a comparable area of upland Scotland showed that fox predation was responsible for less than 2 per cent of all lambs lost. However, fox predation can be significant on particular farms in some seasons. The Burns report considered that gun packs represented the only demonstrably effective method of fox control using dogs. Furthermore, the noble Lord clearly believed that they were necessary in upland Wales. Deadline 2000 also believes that that is an acceptable method. I have given that example to illustrate that although I oppose hunting with hounds I, and many who share my views, can also accept that there are occasions when there has to be the control and culling of wild mammals. There is no objection to the controlling of the number of animals.
In conclusion, the Minister, Mr Mike O'Brien, said in another place:
"The Bill will … ban the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, except in specific circumstances … it will remain legal to hunt rabbits and rats with dogs and to use dogs for deer stalking. The Bill is now more clearly focused on fox hunting, deer hunting, mink hunting … and coursing. It is probably fair to say that those activities cause the greatest concern in this country, and the Bill reflects that".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/01; col. 843.]
I fully support the Bill as it stands. The Bill has the support of many people in the country. It is something that Labour Party has supported for many years. It is good that the Government have found time to debate this measure. I look forward to the day when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
11.53 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, perhaps I am one of the few in your Lordships' House who cannot understand what we are debating today or why we are debating the subject. Part of me says that perhaps we have the most divisive Government in history. The other part says that people do not know what they are talking about.
We were once a rural environment. As noble Lords will know, only 10 per cent of our population now live in rural areas. Of the 210 countries of which the United Nations list the population, we are one of the least rural. The Western Sahara is less rural than we are; and
648
some of the Arab states. The people who work in the country are a major minority. I will support them to the hilt and to the bitter end.
This legislation is not about hunting; it is about a divided nation. It is about the haves or have-nots, or whatever we may call it. I should like to go back in history further than anyone can remember. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth will correct me if I am wrong. At about this time every year the Pope, recalling San Giuseppe, the patron saint of the worker, makes a speech in one of the Vatican states about the role of man: that man works to live but does not live to work.
In about the eighth century, long before the Norman conquest, the great Saint Hubert, the patron saint of the hunter, was out hunting. He saw a stag and was about to shoot. Suddenly a vision of our Lord came before him. The stag asked, "Why are you killing me? Are you killing me to eat, in which case it is okay? If not, it is not okay". Saint Hubert later became rather European—he became the Bishop of Maastricht. My contribution will relate to the Labour Party's desire to rush headlong into European legislation on hunting and the harmonisation of everything. Not only was he Bishop of Maastricht, but recently a wild boar held up the whole airport at Nice.
I am not sure what that may have to do with hunting, but there is a division between what we Normans call the écologiste de ville and the paysan. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that I am now a peasant farmer. As of last week, I am a legal paysan exploitant juridique viticole vinicole of the European Union, entitled to grants in great quantity, because my colleagues in the countryside are not getting enough grants from the European Union.
We Normans—or we Celts, as I am—have been told that the British have exported a large number of very dangerous agricultural things, such as E.coli, foot and mouth disease and now the lunacy of dealing with the nuisibles. Your Lordships will know that nuisibles are nuisances—they are effectively vermin. The greatest vermin are the red deer, the badger, the fox and some of the smaller animals such as the pie and the jay. None of them is very edible, but they destroy other creatures on God's earth. The term, "nuisible" is now being used to describe the écologistes de ville. They are becoming a nuisance because they do not understand, the countryside.
I shall deal first and foremost with the fox. We know that it is a serial killer. My experience came at the end of the war when I had to look after the chickens and came down one day to find that they were all gone or their heads had been chopped off. That was my fault and I was blamed. I went out to look for the fox. Not long after, I found one in a gin trap and I felt sorry for it. Gin traps are now banned. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever seen a fox caught by one leg in a gin trap. I had been told that it would gnaw its leg off to escape, but I somehow wanted to release it because it was not fair, yet I did not know how to. I was a Pharisee and walked by on the other side. I was told that I should have reported it, because even then gin traps were not desirable.

649
I was then told that we must shoot foxes, but I was also reminded that we must leave them to the hunt, because the chance of shooting them accurately was very remote. Your Lordships can imagine that I am standing here with a 12-bore with maybe four shot and my maximum range is probably the length of your Lordships' House. At this time of night, in the twilight, when the fox would be out, I would be bound only to wound it.
I declare a small interest in that to some extent I was forced to hunt as a child. The pony was too fat, my legs were too short, my hard hat was a large bowler and I did not really know what I was doing, but I did it for a few years with various hunts. The pony always wanted to go back to Dartmoor where it came from. This would include running over hounds and being shouted at. I felt very insecure and I decided to move into my own hunting realm. I tried to train the pony so that I could ride it with a shotgun, because I found that on a horse I could creep up on pheasants in a way that I never could if I was walking. I have realised that that form of sport might well be allowable under the Bill.
I come back to my peasant farming world. As your Lordships will know, in some European countries it is possible to hunt on anybody's land if you have a licence, as long as you keep your back to their house and are not within 150 metres. You can hunt in packs of hounds, often with two or three four-wheel drive cars. Some of the most exciting and important hounds are called les beagles anglais—English beagles. The beagles anglais are rather small, whereas the beagles francais are effectively foxhounds. A good English beagle can fetch as much as £4,000 if it is trained to hunt the predator of all time and the greatest nuisible—the sanglier sauvage, which we wiped out about 200 years ago because it was a danger to our society.
In continental Europe there is now almost a plague of wild boar, which weigh up to 150 kilos. But they, like the fox, can be protected to a certain extent. The hunters, who are so keen to keep the wild boar and the fox out of the vineyards because both animals like grapes, will give a grant. They will pay 50 per cent of the cost of an electric fence to keep the wild boar and the fox out of the vineyards.
In addition, one finds that other forms of grant are available. However, the punishment for breaking the law, which bans hunting between twilight and dawn, is very serious. First, one's car may be confiscated and one must buy it back at its "new" value. One's gun will be taken and, again, one must buy it back at the "new" value. One will be fined heavily and may end up in prison for a period of time. There is only one gardien de chasse for miles around. Therefore, it is probably better to take on the gardien de chasse and to do him some harm rather than take the risk of ending up in gaol. However, in the background we have Saint Hubert.
At the beginning of every hunting season in every church through continental Europe there is the feast, or rather, not the feast, because that takes place in May, but the meeting of Saint Hubert. Horse after
650
horse, hound after hound, gun after gun, and every conceivable animal turns up outside the church to celebrate the start of the hunting season. One enters the church fully armed. Suddenly one sees four or five men in hunting uniform, with their enormous horns or euphoniums, walk up to the altar. They face the altar and then fire away because the music comes out of the back. In the area in which I am based I have been surprised to find that two British vicars have now adopted that habit. It is a happy day but, with it, there is always the desire to get rid of the nuisibles, which are the vermin. It has long been accepted—
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I have been listening to his speech with great interest. Is he aware that Chapter 4, paragraph 30 of the Companion, states that:
"Languages other than English should not be used in debate, except where necessary"?
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. As he is aware, Saint Hubert was in 1799 the Bishop of Maastricht. The Normans came over here and, with the Bayeux Tapestry—
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I believe that the year was 799.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I believe that when Her Majesty the Queen passes legislation and gives Royal Assent, she does so in Norman French. I take the rebuke fully. I meant merely to say that some people are making too much of a nuisance about this matter. I stand firmly behind the tiny minority in the country who effectively are being persecuted by a majority of what we would call the "ecologists of the time". That division needs to be healed if this legislation is dropped.
12.3 a.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I greatly enjoyed everything that my noble friend Lord Selsdon said. It rang with truth throughout, except perhaps when he described himself as "a peasant farmer". I wish to light on three points: on cruelty, on minorities and on terrorism connected with so-called animal liberationism. In doing so, I consider it proper that I declare my interest—or rather, lack of interest. I do not fish; I do not shoot; and I do not hunt. I do eat meat and fish and I sometimes benefit from the medicines which have been proved by animal experimentation.
That leads me to the first of my three points on the subject of cruelty. I find myself in great difficulty as to why hunting with hounds is judged to be uniquely cruel compared. for example, with the fate of a fish being played at the end of a line, or gasping or dying on a bank, or the fate of a fox, deer or wild or reared bird being shot, but poorly shot, and crawling, flapping or flying off to die in agony—sometimes an agony that lasts for many days and, on occasions, for weeks. I simply do not see the qualitative difference in cruelty.

651
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, discussed her butchering forebears. Anyone who has been to an abattoir will know that beasts queuing up to be dealt with in even the most humane conditions sense that something rather unusual is about to happen to them. They feel stressed and some of them feel pain. Dare I be so incorrect as to say that it happens in abattoirs, that it probably happens rather more in the ritual killing that is connected with kosher slaughter and that it happens very much more in the ritual slaughter connected with halal meat? Those largely unsung matters are often thought of as not being "correct"; however, it is correct to mention them in the context of trying to judge what is and what is not cruel and what should be banned by this House and another place.
At the moment in the United Kingdom animals are being experimented on for human good under carefully controlled conditions in laboratories. That is licensed by the Home Office and the animals experience not just discomfort but extreme pain on occasion in order to benefit human beings. The noble Baroness's definition of cruelty involved pain and suffering; however, pain and suffering are all around. I simply do not understand why one form should be judged uniquely to need to be dealt with in legislation—as may well happen with hunting with hounds.
That leads me to my second point, which is about minorities. The keeping of dogs of any size—large, medium or small—in flats in tower blocks is pretty disgusting and I do not like it. I caught myself once in conversation when I was about to say—luckily, I stopped myself—that someone should do something to ban the practice. Then I realised that there is a minority who find comfort in having an animal with them—they live in what could be called typical inner city conditions. We should not seek to ban what a minority does. Likewise, I think that it is repugnant for people to keep birds in cages. When I raise that point, I am told that pensioners find great comfort in having a budgerigar or a canary, so I draw back from seeking to introduce into your Lordships' House a Bill to ban the keeping of dogs in tower blocks or of canaries and budgerigars in cages. In the end, I have to respect the rights of minorities because I place humankind above "animalkind".
Thirdly and lastly, whatever happens to the three options in the Bill, it is important for the Government to look to the protection of those who are involved in any form of work with or sport or experimentation on animals because I feel that the risk of a growth in animal terrorism is substantial. If the Bill is voted on in such a way that hunting continues, the activities of those who seek to promote animal welfare through direct terrorism, threats, bombing and all the rest, will continue. Equally, should hunting be banned at some stage, those selfsame people will turn their attentions to those who fish, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out or to those who shoot. There will be a succession of terrorist activities by those claiming to protect animals.
652
Once such terrorist activity begins, it becomes endemic in society. I should like to say to the Minister, who has borne this lengthy session so stoically, as a loyal old boy of the Home Office and a loyal old boy before that of the Northern Ireland Office—I say that in a bipartisan way—that once one allows terrorism of any kind to creep into a nation's culture, it is very difficult to eradicate it. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, circulated a very helpful note to noble Lords on the terrorist organisations worldwide which the Government seek to proscribe. Many of those organisations have never done anything damaging in this country, but we proscribe them because we wish to help other governments to stamp out terrorism. There is a yawning gap in that list. There is no mention of terrorist activities by those who purport to promote animal welfare in this country. I ask the Minister to draw that matter to the attention of the Home Office.
Hunting should not be subject to peculiar legislation, because it has not been proven that the cruelty involved in hunting is any different from the other cruelties to which I have referred. I believe that this House should respect minorities, and protect, through the law, those who lawfully carry out lawful activities.
12.12 a.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I have hunted with harriers, North and South of the Border in Ireland, and several times with fox hounds in England, but I have not hunted since 1970. Suffice to say, we killed very few hares, and I was only ever once close to such an occurrence. It was extremely fast.
I am the only speaker who comes from Northern Ireland. I share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about terrorism being introduced in to a culture. Noble Lords may ask why I am speaking at all when the Bill will not at this stage affect the Province. You could say that it is none of my business. However, the horse breeding, training and competition industry in Ireland is vital to its rural economy. Most noble Lords will know that Irish hunters are best, and some may even own them, and will know what Irish breeding and the upbringing of animals on the tremendous grass in Ireland has done for the remainder of the United Kingdom and its equine industry.
If the Bill becomes law, it will have a devastating effect on our rural economy. I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and other noble Lords who have spoken against the Bill, for reasons that they have expressed more eloquently than I could ever do.
We have heard on a number of occasions that hunting with dogs equates to bear baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting. That fallacy must be corrected. When speaking of hunting, we are talking about the control and management of several wild species, some of which are classed as pests. As we know, the bears used for baiting and the dogs and bantam cocks used for fighting, were already under control and managed

653
for those so-called "sports". Hunting, therefore, cannot and should not be compared with those two "sports", and should not be included with them.
We all agree that killing anything causes suffering—and hunting is no exception—but we must look at the alternatives and any suffering that they cause when compared to hunting, and at the problems associated with those methods.
We have already heard a great deal about snaring, and the Burns report questions its future. Few countries in Europe permit snaring, and I would not be surprised if Brussels managed to get its talons into that too.
Snares cause immense suffering, not only to foxes, but also to other animals such as badgers and occasionally deer. I have found foxes in snares—not my snares; I do not use them—where they have obviously taken a long time to die. I have also released two badgers. They become extremely angry when ensnared and it is a dangerous operation to release them. In one case I had to employ a pitchfork, jam it over the badger's neck and into the ground, and take the wire cutters to the snare. By the mess around, one could tell that that badger had been there for some time. Small deer of the type that we have in Northern Ireland are also sometimes caught in snares. I found a dead deer with a snare around its middle. So we must not forget about that suffering.
We have already heard about the animals that are wounded with shotguns and die days or weeks later. Also, foxes are often shot close to the head and are blinded. That can be worse than simply being physically wounded; they just cannot see.
Perhaps the preferred option is lamping and shooting with high-powered rifles. At present it takes place in more open spaces with a low density of rural population. However, much of the hunting takes place in lowland areas and in the Home Counties, where there are many roads and a great deal of rural housing. Many of the areas in which hunting currently occurs would be quite unsuitable for the use of high-powered weapons.
My business at home and my personal day-to-day use of high-powered rifles justifies my saying something about lamping with such weapons. A 22 rifle with a 38-grain bullet is dangerous for up to one mile. But it is considered underpowered and unsuitable for the shooting of foxes. So high-powered rifles have to be used. However, most are dangerous for more than three miles, with bullet weights of between 80 and 150 grains. It is increasingly difficult to obtain licences for such rifles in Great Britain, let alone Northern Ireland. Police forces inspect the land where they may be used more often, primarily for safety and justification of requirement.
Therefore, lamping will not be a permissible alternative in all areas to control by hunting. Where it does take place, lamping is and has to be done currently with great skill and care for human safety. Even after going through a fox, parts of the bullet travel a long way at extraordinary angles. I shot a fox
654
last week or the week before. It was standing two feet in front of a bank. On the entry side of the fox's chest was a little hole the size of a pencil—it was a 270 bullet. On the exit side there was a spread of two inches, and that is within the width of a fox's body. On the bank there was a spread of seven inches. It was not just a lateral spread; the spread was up and down as well. The danger zone surprised me. It being so wide and extending for hundreds of yards behind the target means that it would be too dangerous to shoot in many areas.
The suffering caused by wounding has been dealt with. Suffice to say that wounding will always be a possibility, especially when shooting at night. I hope that I have shown that the alternatives to hunting as methods of controlling foxes are not always viable and, if viable, frequently cause even more suffering. Snaring and shooting will always contribute to control; but they cannot provide complete control in all areas. I believe in freedom of choice and civil liberties, and I most certainly oppose this Bill.
12.19 a.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, whereas I deplore the prospect of a ban on hunting, I actually welcome the attention that hunting has been given through the debates which we have been having over the past year or so. I say that for the simple reason that I believe it is about time our fellow citizens began to understand the truth about hunting. Much of that truth has been swept under the carpet and much of that truth has been distorted. I believe that the debate we have had this evening in your Lordships' House is an example of what the truth is about hunting. I hope and pray that it will contribute to people's genuine thoughts on this difficult subject.
I believe that perhaps the most interesting development that has taken place through the media is how strong is the libertarian argument that has come through in virtually every single newspaper in this country. I for one welcome that enormously.
I do not hunt. Sadly, I can claim no relationship to John Peel although I have followed foxhounds on a number of occasions. All I can say is that from firsthand evidence I regard hunting as a truly great community activity embracing a genuine synergy with nature, the countryside and its people. It is quite incomprehensible that we should be contemplating legislation to criminalise an activity that has grown out of rural life over many generations, honed and shaped through need and through experience and conducted, by and large, by thoroughly honourable, well-balanced and caring individuals.
Can they all be condemned as cruel, immoral criminals without a care for the animal kingdom or the well-being of the countryside in which they live? Of course they cannot. It is a perfectly ridiculous notion. Can anyone think for one moment that they do not consider the actions of their ways? To condemn them and their successors would be wholly wrong. I am bound to say that particularly when one considers the appalling antics of some of their more vociferous opponents.

655
Like other noble Lords, I appreciate the views of those who find it difficult to come to terms with killing in this way. But as is so often the case—and we are all guilty of if —judgments are too frequently based on those well-used words "prejudice" and "ignorance". As regards hunting, that is often compounded by the increasingly stark divide that now exists between urban and rural lifestyles and culture. I regret that enormously, hut, sadly, the opponents of hunting have exploited that divide very effectively.
However, democracy should surely be big enough to embrace such differences. I believe that it is incumbent on all those who take part in the legislative process to discover the facts before passing judgment that will seriously compromise the activities and well-being of others even if they are a minority. It is a sad fact that even now, after the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns—and I commend him and his committee on all their work—there are still members of the legislature of this country who have not even read the noble Lord's report. I believe that that is a disgrace.
Hypocrisy, selectivity—call it what one likes—abounds in all of us: I accept that. But to hear the likes of the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, condemn hunting on the basis that foxes are attractive and intelligent is typical, particularly when I imagine that implies that if they were ugly and stupid it would be perfectly all right to hunt them.
However, I have noticed recently that the poor London pigeons have been condemned by their mayor as winged vermin. I have noticed too, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke pointed out, that one junior Minister has conceded that ratcatchers should be al lowed to continue under the Bill and that he will be allowed to chase a rabbit but not a hare. I love the idea of calling back one's dog and saying, "You can't chase that, it's a leveret". Quite a number of other concessions have been made which I believe simply draw attention to the real reasons behind this Bill.
To date I believe that the most far-fetched and irrational statement is that made by a spokesman of the League Against Cruel Sports who said:
"We have no objection to the controlling of numbers—we object to the hunting of animals for fun".
On that basis, hunting would be acceptable if everybody was prepared to sign an affidavit beforehand to state that he had no intention whatever of enjoying himself. What a complete nonsense.
That foxes need to be controlled is, I believe, beyond doubt. What is more, fox numbers are increasing. In the absence of any natural predator, the job of control falls to man. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee concluded that hunting with hounds was no more cruel than any other form of fox control. That has been said many times for good reason, because it is an absolutely essential part of the debate.
656
I believe that we must consider hunting in the widest context. A ban on hunting would not save the life of a single fox, hare or deer, or improve the welfare of those populations. In the case of the deer populations of the south-west of England, it would almost certainly have an adverse effect.
The Game Conservancy Trust, of which I have the great honour to be president, concluded in a recent piece of scientific research that,
"Probably few foxes die in their sleep. quietly from old age: most arc killed, starve to death, or die from disease".
Nature's way, therefore, is not the ideal that many believe. The trust goes on to say:
"Relative to other methods. the killing of a fox by a pack of hounds is likely to be fairly quick—and probably much faster than many forms of natural predation".
Having just returned from Tanzania, where I witnessed a wildebeest calf being killed by three hyenas, all I can say is that it was a deeply unpleasant experience. The creature was disembowelled in front of us and took a considerable time to die. I also watched a lion playing with a Thomson's gazelle, which was also a fairly unpleasant experience. The lion played with it as a cat plays with a mouse. Incidentally, I wonder how many cat owners consider what their pets do when they get hold of a mouse, rat or bird. I am sure that the animal experiences fairly prolonged suffering. Will the Government consider introducing legislation against cats? It would be a brave Minister who made such a suggestion.
Another important point in the whole debate is that it is quite wrong to assume that animals, despite having a natural instinct to survive, perceive fear or death in the same way as the human mind. One often hears the argument that hunting has had its day in modern society and should be consigned to history, in the same way as cockfighting and bear-baiting. I find that an extraordinary argument born out of the same ignorance that suggests that hunting is all about satisfying a blood lust. Cockfighting and bear-baiting were outlawed through lack of support and need and the revulsion of those who witnessed them at first hand. Hunting, on the other hand, is a culture and way of life supported by folklore, literature, music and art in all its forms.
Perhaps the greatest argument for hunting, apart from the jobs that it creates and the fact that it helps to conserve the countryside at no expense to the taxpayer, is that it is a community activity and, in many parts of the country, a religion. Hunting provides sport in the purest sense and friendship, and transcends creed and class. Hunting is a way of life that derives its soul from the countryside itself; it is an extension of nature. There would need to be a mighty strong reason to pluck that lifeline from society. It may be a society which is alien to many, but there is no reason to undermine the very democracy in which this country has its roots.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I regret the need to spend so much parliamentary time on the Bill when there are so many other pressing problems in the countryside that I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, would far rather have debated. I refer to the problem of rural poverty, the pressures on small rural schools, the closure of rural post offices and the inadequacy of rural transport. They are matters about which I would have preferred to speak, even to march on. However, the Countryside Alliance has been hijacked by the pro-hunting lobby. That has made it difficult for people like me to support it.
The theme of my contribution to the debate is "drawing the line". My position is that I am convinced that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs is cruel and unnecessary, both in the chase and in the kill. I therefore wish to see it banned altogether.
I have had to sit through this debate to hear myself called "ignorant, hypocritical, illiberal, prejudiced" and "fanatical". I forgive you all and do not intend to return the compliment.
Those noble Lords who think me ignorant and hypocritical are probably not interested in the reasons why I take my position. However, I intend to tell them. It has nothing to do with where I live. This is not about town or country. I speak with the voice of the country, but I also speak with the voice of the town, having spent half my life in each.
Thirty years ago I lived on a farm on the edge of a national park. I kept free-range chickens. Although there were plenty of foxes around, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I never lost one to a fox. There was a local hunt, but the vast majority of the foxes culled were shot by the farmers. I believe that all over the country that is the case. I was then, and have continued to be, familiar with the issues relating to hunting and the views of the hunting fraternity.
In coming to my conclusions about the Bill I have taken a cool, calm look at the issues. I do not romanticise the hunt, neither do I take an overemotional view of animal welfare. I read the Burns report. I asked myself three questions: first, is the hunting of wild animals with dogs wrong? In other words, is it cruel and unnecessary? Secondly, should I, as a Liberal Democrat, seek to stop people doing it? Thirdly, do any of the arguments of the opponents of the ban overturn the answers to the first two questions? My answers to those three questions are "yes", "yes" and "no".
Is the kill humane? The RSPCA and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, think not. I do not quote his report but what he said in the debate. I wrote it down verbatim. He said that he feels that the kill in the hunt falls short of standards we would expect for a humane kill. I agree. Since there are other more humane ways of culling foxes that endanger livestock, particularly with
658
the special provisions for flushing out with dogs in certain terrain provided for in option 3 of the Bill, I believe that hunting with dogs is not necessary to control the population of foxes. It certainly is not necessary to control the population of hares and deer. Therefore, it is mainly done for sport.
I have no objection to people enjoying the countryside on horseback. It is a wonderful pastime and to be encouraged. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose speech I admired and whose views I respect, can continue to enjoy her perspective of the countryside from the back of a horse for many years to come. But I do not believe that she needs to cause the inhumane death of wild animals in order to do so.
At this stage, I would not expect the hunting fraternity to show willing to convert to new versions of drag hunting. They are taking a position. But I am convinced that if hunting with hounds is banned, that is what many of them will do. Therefore, the loss of jobs will be negligible and easily absorbable into the countryside economy. I do not minimise the matter of job losses. Every job matters. But most of the jobs in hunting are associated with horse ownership, and most of those will not be affected by an outright ban.
Society has a right to draw the line somewhere. As we become more enlightened, we move the position of that line. A century ago little boys were sent up chimneys. It is because we stopped tolerating that that it is now illegal. A century ago people could treat their domestic pets with great cruelty without any sanction. A century ago women could not even vote. Today, two of the most brilliant speeches in this debate have been made by women. Nowadays, there are laws about cruelty to animals, and quite right too. But I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, that there is a cruel event at the core of hunting with dogs. That makes it quite inconsistent with our other laws on animal welfare.
Good law is consistent law. I am a liberal and I believe that, on the whole, people should be allowed to behave as they please unless they are hurting other people or another living thing in a way that is unnecessary. However, I believe that society has the right to make laws to prevent unnecessary cruelty, especially to sentient mammals with highly developed nervous systems. That is where I draw my line. That is why I support our laws on animal welfare that criminalise people who badly mistreat animals, either domestic or otherwise. By the way, there are many regulations about how one treats rats and other laboratory animals.
I very much regret the need to disagree with many Members of your Lordships' House for whom I have the most enormous respect and admiration. However, I do so sincerely on my own moral and ethical principles. I ask that they hold my views in the same respect as I do theirs. I do not think it illiberal to seek to stop something I believe to be wrong. However, I believe that killing other living animals for sport is not a thing that dignifies humanity. Options one and two

659
are licensed cruelty in my view and not worthy of a civilised, enlightened society. I therefore recommend a total ban to your Lordships.
12.38 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I must first explain that although I am a member of the Green Party, what I am about to say does not represent Green Party policy. My party is in favour of the abolition of hunting with dogs and that policy will be included in its manifesto for the forthcoming election.
Secondly, I should like to explain why I feel qualified to differ from my party and from the elected majority of the House of Commons on this issue. Quite simply, I spent the first third of my life hunting and the last two-thirds thinking about the ethics of it.
I was fortunate enough to be the son of a master of foxhounds in two countries and therefore was able to hunt four days a week during the winter holidays. That was one of the happiest times of my life. I was also an honorary whip to the beagles at both Oxford and Cambridge, joint-master of the draghounds at Oxford and a whip to the drag at Cambridge, thus completing what I think must be an unparalleled quartet of positions.
That period of my life reached a terminus, so to speak, when my father died. His coffin went down the avenue from his house to the church, of which he was a church warden, preceded by the hounds that he had bred, and at his burial, after the Protestant clergyman had consigned him to his grave, the Roman Catholic huntsman blew "Gone to Ground".
The next hunting day afterwards, hounds met at the kennels, put up a fox at the first cover they drew and ran four miles straight to my father's grave. I was out walking that day and saw them pour over the wall into the graveyard before losing the scent some 100 yards further on. This story has been documented and the obvious criticisms which could be attracted to it have been refuted. That was the last time I saw hounds hunting.
In the meantime, I had been ordained and had studied moral theology and I have been thinking about the ethics of fox hunting on and off ever since. I have come to two firm conclusions. First, I would not now willingly take part in a hunt. That is not just because I am old and decrepit. I am 72 and my maternal grandfather was 84 when he died in your Lordships' House, having ridden a five-mile point to hounds barely six weeks before. Why I will not do it is because hunting is not part of the good life to which I believe that I am personally called.
During the time that I have been in your Lordships' House, I believe that I can say accurately that I have been the foremost proponent of animal welfare since the death of Douglas Houghton. I have introduced three Bills concerning the protection of animals, of which two completed their passage through this
660
House. But they were concerned with the protection of farmed animals, who are in our power and whom we treat abominably, far more than we ill treat any wild animal. Our relationship to wild animals is far more complex.
In the case of an animal like the fox, a predator himself but with no natural predators except for man, I believe that our duty, as far as we can, is to establish a regime which controls population numbers while keeping the population healthy. That is best done by a complex approach which includes fox hunting. If you abolish fox hunting, there would be a virtual extinction of foxes in some parts of the country, combined with a large but very unhealthy population elsewhere.
That is why I shall not vote for abolition. As for the other two options, as a liberal by nature I dislike over-regimentation. Nevertheless I see no real harm and some virtues in a system of licensing hunts and will, God willing, vote for that at Committee stage.
12.42 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to claim credit for giving the shortest speech in this Second Reading debate. It will be a short and personal speech. My grandfather on my mother's side was a member of the Labour Party for all of his life. He was also a hill farmer on Dartmoor. He had 45 acres and he ran his cattle and sheep up on the moor. As a boy and a young man, I spent many of my holidays on Dartmoor, so I think that I understand well the integral part played by hunting in farming life in the Dartmoor area.
On my grandfather's farm we regularly undertook puppy walking; fallen animals were regularly collected by the local hunt; my grandmother's turkey house was regularly raided and on occasion we had to call in the terriermen to take care of the foxes. I know that I am right to say that that rhythm of farming life continues today in a very active form.
However, it would be quite wrong for me to give an impression that my grandfather hunted because he supported rural traditions or some form of rural social services. That is not the case at all. He hunted because he enjoyed it. He enjoyed the thrill of the chase and he liked to see the hounds working. In fact, he enjoyed it so much that he hunted until he was well into his 80s. The question for me, therefore, is a question of motivation. That is the nub of the issue.
Certainly, what my noble friends who have spoken tonight and many friends in the Labour Party find distasteful, if not disgusting, is the enjoyment which people derive when they go out to hunt. My noble friend Lord Watson called this a question of morality. I agree that it is a question of morality, and it is that point which I wish to address.
I have been a Member of the House for 10 years now and there have been a number of issues on which I have voted to liberalise the law in relation to human activities in which I have never participated myself and which, in an emotional sense, I do not really

661
understand. I voted to liberalise the law because I think it is right, particularly for this House, to be tolerant of minority groups which choose to live a way of life that the majority does not understand. That is a libertarian point—I hate to use that word because it has been so much adopted by the party opposite—which I understand.
I find it much more difficult to explain my second reason for wishing to address the issue of motivation. It concerns the way I felt as a young man on that farm in Dartmoor, where I did not hunt myself but I knew a lot of people who did go out to hunt. I simply do not accept that they were acting in any kind of inhuman way. I do not believe that their hunting diminished them in any way at all. I would say quite the contrary. People who spend their whole working lives caring for animals, breeding animals, occasionally killing animals and hunting animals, show animals a proper respect. I use that word in an urban sense, in the way in which many of our urban minorities use it; that is, treating people with respect; treating them as they should be treated.
In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord McNally—who is about to sit down in his place—spoke about the editorial in the Observer in which a distinction was drawn between the thrill of the chase and the cruelty of the kill. He said that that distinction was too fine a line to draw in this day and age. I understand that distinction very clearly having seen the people who engage in hunting activities. I do not think that it is too fine a line. It is something which is clearly understood by those who are active in the hunting world.
I shall not vote for a ban on fox hunting. I shall listen sympathetically to the arguments for a middle way. I would say to members of my own Front Bench that it is for Parliament as a whole to decide when a simple majority is not enough. I believe that this is one case where a majority will not do.
12.47 a.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was not sure whether or not to speak at this late hour but, having listened to nearly all of this fascinating debate, I feel that there are two brief points which should be made in a way in which they have not quite been made already. They concern the balance of pain which may be endured by foxes when they are hunted, on the one hand, or when they are shot, on the other.
My first point is that people who have done little or no shooting—they include most of the people who support a ban on hunting—generally believe that shooting accurately is much easier than it really is. I suspect that one of the reasons for this unhelpful belief is the way that shooting has been represented over many years on television and in films, which is all that most opponents of hunting ever see of shooting. I fear that they may remember the countless occasions when the Lone Ranger, or some similar hero, casually raised his rifle, fired, and some hapless Red Indian dropped stone dead off the top of a ridge several hundred yards
662
away. Our cinema culture has even made it look fairly easy for James Bond and others of his ilk to kill people stone dead with a pistol, which is in fact extremely difficult, even after an awful lot of practice and at close range.
I make this point against the background that most opponents of hunting, including all of your Lordships who have spoken today, agree that foxes will still need to be killed even if hunting is banned. I assume that we need not go into the pain caused by snaring, gassing and so on; the alternative appears to be shooting.
The question is whether foxes will suffer more pain being shot than being hunted. Here I must bring in my personal experience. In doing so, I fear that I may alienate the hunting fraternity as well as its opponents because hunting folk do not approve of shooting foxes.
I gave up riding on my ninth birthday, largely, like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, out of fear. My pony was too large for me and it had an awkward habit of biting me when the grown-ups were not looking. I have never been hunting. Indeed, the terrain of Rannoch Moor where I have since lived is altogether too boggy and difficult to ride over at all, let alone to hunt. I have to say that, having heard this debate, I regret that we do not have a foot pack. I am sure that it would have been a better way to control our foxes than shooting them. I also see that a foot pack would be a tremendous help to our somewhat dispersed and difficult social fabric.
But we do not have a foot pack, so I have to confess that I have shot, or stood next to someone who has shot, several dozen foxes over the years. I have shot them, and I have seen them shot, with both shotguns and rifles. I have to tell your Lordships that very few have died instantaneously, and some have escaped wounded. Foxes are very tough, wiry creatures. When shot with a shotgun, even at close quarters, they nearly always require a second barrel, and often a dog will even then get to them before they die.
So the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who I regret is not in his place—he may have gone to bed—of foxes being driven out of woods to waiting "trained marksmen" who dispatch them instantaneously, like that mythical Red Indian in the Lone Ranger film, is simply not realistic. It will not be like that. There will be many deaths lasting several minutes, and there will be many foxes which get away wounded, to die in circumstances at which one can only guess. That is where the balance of pain seems to me to shift inevitably in favour of hunting. If the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and his supporters think that his "trained marksmen", whoever they will be, will be better shots than most of the people I have seen shooting foxes, then, with the greatest respect, I have to say to him that he is likely to be wrong.
So a fox's death by shooting is seldom instantaneous. Even lamping at night with a rifle, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said that he favoured, produces its wounded animals, which are then more difficult to find at night than they are during the day.

663
It therefore seems to me that the balance of pain in the death of a fox lies clearly in favour of hunting and against shooting; so I very much hope that this Government will not allow it to be banned.
12.53 a.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, to say the least. Those of us who are speaking against hunting understand what a fox must feel like when it is being pursued. So many noble Lords have expressed the opposite opinion.
One thing that I disliked from the beginning was the attempt to portray the Bill as an urban-versus-village measure. I have never lived in an urban area, except when in London. I have always resided in a village at the foot of the Pennines. I say to noble Lords that their description of life in a village does not match my conception of life in a village. The people in my village and all the other villages in the area are, as has been said. more concerned about the quality of schools, rural transport, jobs and the bus service. Indeed, one of the last great debates we had related to an attempt to save a bank that was being closed. That is what concerns people in villages, not hunting. Listening to noble Lords, one would think—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Henley: My Lords—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, if the noble Lord desires to intervene, I do not mind. I already have two noble Lords attempting to intervene.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not actually want to get up and speak. However, if the noble Lord wants to pose such questions, why are we not discussing those matters rather than the Bill that is now before the House?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we shall be doing that tomorrow!
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we have had the opportunity to discuss these matters in the past. All I am telling noble Lords is what people in my village perceive as being the important subjects. Indeed, I should go further and say that, if we relied on the hunt to keep the number of foxes down in the area where I live, we would be over-run by them. In fact, that conclusion was reached by the Burns report. From a pest control point of view, the report also found that fox hunting does not keep the numbers down in the lowland areas. That is not my view; that was the conclusion reached by the report.
Earl Peel: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Hoyle: No, my Lords. I really do not want to give way. I have given way twice. I do not mind giving way. Indeed, if noble Lords want to stay a bit longer, I shall certainly give way.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I intervene only because I believe that we are all trying to seek the facts here. I am sorry, but I have to tell the noble Lord that the independent research carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust, as part of the Burns inquiry, showed clearly that hunting does have an impact on fox populations in certain parts of lowland Britain.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the noble Earl is entitled to say that. Of course, evidence was given to the Burns committee to that effect. However, I am saying that the conclusion reached by the Burns report—and he tells me that he has read it—is that as a form of pest control hunting is not an effective method in lowland areas. Whether or not the noble Earl likes that is neither here nor there. He is quite entitled to his opinions. I have listened with great diligence to many of the opinions expressed in the debate. All I ask is that noble Lords listen to those who may be opposed to their views.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby said that hunting is about pleasure. I take the opposite view. In my opinion, hunting is a cruel sport. When talking about this, many noble Lords do not compare it with bear baiting, cock fighting, and so on. Nearly all of the views expressed tonight about human liberties and about taking away people's rights were expressed in relation to those sports when such matters were debated in this and in the other place. I want to put that on record.
Much of the debate has been about foxes. Not so much has been said about deer and, indeed, a little less has been said about hares which, in many instances, mainly because of farming methods, are an endangered species. I believe it needs to be said that some of us do not arrive at the same position in this place.
I am very pleased about the number of libertarians that we have discovered in this House. I hope that those views will be expressed on other matters, not just on fox hunting, stag hunting or, perhaps, hare coursing. As a libertarian myself, I should just like to say—indeed, it has already been said—that I can go along with whatever a person engages in, provided that it does not affect other human beings or living creatures. I believe that hunting does affect living creatures. That is why I cannot go along with it.
I turn now to the middle-way option. I do not believe that there is a middle way in this matter. I admire those who favour hunting, and I understand! where they are coming from. But the middle way will not get rid of the cruelty inherent in hunting. The chase will still continue. Little has been said about terrier work—that is, digging up foxes—which the Burns report found causes injury not only to the foxes but also to the terriers. That is yet another fault.
There is also the issue of the class divide. The argument is not about that at all. Yes, many noble Lords from the other side of the House have spoken on the issue. However, when one looks at hare coursing, it will be seen that that is mainly carried out by the working class. So that difference does not exist. It is a question of whether or not one believes that it is cruel.

665
I cannot agree that the middle way is a solution. It still has the element of the chase and the animal is killed at the end of the day.
I say to my noble friends who may support the middle way that there is one thing which ought to be borne in mind when we compare the views of the massive majority in the other place and those of this Chamber. This is not an elected House. I do not mind my noble friend behind me muttering but I should say that what we do here is to examine and reform Bills that come before us. I remind my noble friend who was formerly a Member of the other place that at the end of the day those in another place who have taken certain decisions have to face the electorate and gain another mandate. I accept that the Bill will not make much further progress as it will be overtaken by a general election. However, whether or not it makes progress, the matter will come back again and again until hunting is banned.
1.1 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many speakers in this debate I am conscious of the ways in which complex social divisions in our nation affect and even determine the way people respond to the question before us.
I was brought up in the Scottish countryside where for many hunting is a way of life and has been for many centuries. I worked in urban Manchester where for many it is at best an irrelevance. I have also worked in suburban Surrey where animal rights activists are, if I may say so, rampant and roaring.
When I look at the Portsmouth diocese I see in many ways a microcosm of the United Kingdom, urban, suburban and rural including, in Idsworth, a church dedicated to St Hubert. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for writing my next St Hubert's Day sermon for me. However, I know that the real picture is more complex still, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out earlier this morning.
I know farmers who are keen on regulation and I know city dwellers like the cab driver I recently met who would heartily welcome fox hunting in their backyards. On a broader picture, however, the reality is that life is even more complex and interrelated. Cities are dependent upon the agriculture industry for many products; farming communities depend upon urban areas for the markets they represent. In between lie areas of rural suburbia where tensions often lie hidden because of differing expectations. The plain truth is that we are enmeshed one with another whether we like it or not in just the same way as we are enmeshed with global markets and resources. What concerns me is that there is an increasing polarisation between these twin aspects of our society in a way which is proving damaging to the nation as a whole. For that reason I support the so-called "middle way" which I believe will in some degree promote a sense of understanding and level-headedness in this whole matter.
666
That leads me to the second of two points that I wish to raise which is rarely touched upon in open debate. It is the philosophical one—which some would say is also spiritual—of how we understand sentient beings. The matter was touched upon in some speeches earlier but it has not really had a full hearing. This too is an area where it is possible to perceive that there are sharp divisions where under the surface there is a great deal more complexity. I believe that this is something which deserves more attention than it has so far received.
There will be those who argue—as they have in the course of this debate—that human society in terms of employment as well as culture should not be held to ransom by what is regarded as a pest, or at least as an animal to be culled among many in the countryside. Equally, others will argue, as they have in this debate, that if human beings are truly a civilised and civilising force there should be no need to engage in such activities as hunting for pleasure.
All this seems to me to conceal the fact that we have not yet had a full and informed debate here and elsewhere about whether all animals, including human beings, have the same rights to life and liberty, or whether there are genuine or de facto differences which preclude that. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I know that the Judaeo-Christian tradition has some important resources to bring to this discussion, particularly in the Hebrew scriptures, Ezekiel, and in Revelations where one has the vision of the four living creatures—the human being, the lion, the ox and the eagle—which emphasises our unity with the rest of the created order and our distinctiveness from it.
I believe that it is precisely because that kind of debate has not been held that the question over fox hunting has aroused such emotions. The different groups involved are speaking different languages. We are divided by a common tongue; and until we face those wider questions about human nature and our relationship with the rest of the created order, I do not believe that there will be any lasting resolution of the question before us.
1.6 a.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports. My first hunting experience was when, returning from the war, I was invited by my commanding officer to have a day's hunting with the Pytchley. At the end of the day I wondered whether it was more frightening to be in Italy or hunting with the Pytchley, following my commanding officer who was a great rider.
Several references to Exmoor and stag hunting by other noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, remind me of my report in 1977 which was commissioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, when Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture. Red deer were a major factor in the conservation of the

667
moor. Against the advice of my two assessors, both senior civil servants, I decided to include the Devon and Somerset Stag Hounds in my report to the Government. On page 19, that report states:
"Stag hunting and fox hunting are both notable features of the Exmoor way of life. Whilst it may come as a surprise to some and prompt the wrath of others, it is undeniable that stag hunting on Exmoor operates as a force for conservation. The stag hunt is supported by almost every member of the farming community and this guarantees the deer's continuing existence. In the normal run of things, they can do considerable damage to crops and, without the active participation of the farmers in the hunts, their days would be numbered. Moreover, such is the local interest in stag hunting that substantial areas of land within the Critical Amenity Area are corporately owned with a view to securing the deer's habitat. So long as stag hunting continues it is unlikely that such land will be substantially altered by conversion or enclosure".
My report received an unopposed Second Reading but never reached the statute book because the Labour government fell. The people of Exmoor whom I met then and know now are not interested in cricket and football, and other forms of sport. For 11 months of the year, their lives are involved with hunting either foxes or stags.
Last week I was very impressed with a teach-in by the chairman of ISAH, Sir Ronald Waterhouse. ISAH is a possible way ahead, but I strongly recommend that two new commissioners be appointed by the Home Secretary to make ISAH efficient and official. The noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Soulsby, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would support such a move.
Finally, there has been much talk in the Chamber about the liberty of the individual. I shall quote a statement by John Stuart Mill, philosopher and Member of Parliament in the late 19th century. He said:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would he justified in silencing mankind".
1.11 a.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I do not know how it happened that I find myself at the end of this very long list of distinguished speakers—perhaps it is because I am the most ignorant on the subject. I also regret that I have to rob the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, of the prize for the shortest speech, because what I have to say is very simple and consists of five sentences.
I am one of those who find the deliberate killing of any living creature painful and hunting with dogs distasteful. I am also one who profoundly believes that only actions that harm other people and infringe their rights require the force of the law, whereas activities that are merely disagreeable or distasteful to some do not. When it comes to legislation, as a matter of principle I would rather err on the side of restraint than on that of interference. This is what liberty means and to me liberty matters above all other values. For that reason, I prefer the option of self-regulation of hunting with dogs and am strongly opposed to the idea of a ban.
1.13 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, next Sunday, had it not been for the recent tragic outbreaks of foot and mouth, London would have been full of at least half a million people marching under the banner, "Liberty and Livelihood". The countryside would have been able to have its say against a ban on hunting. I am against a ban on hunting. I declare an interest. I have hunted all my life. I have been master of my local hunt, the Old Berks, and I am now chairman of the hunt.
There are four myths about hunting that shall try to expose this evening: first, the myth that hunting is not an integral part of the countryside; then the myth of cruelty; then the myth that foxes would he better off without hunting; and finally the myth that there is a moral case against hunting.
I shall not refer to any noble Lord by name—it would take too long even to read out the names of the 60 or so noble Lords who have spoken this evening—but I shall try to pick up the various strands of the debate.
Like the Countryside March, this debate is about liberty and livelihood. I start by quoting from the editorial of the Farmers Weekly on 26th January:
"Only a mass peaceful protest thronging the streets of London on March 18th will be enough to make government listen to what the countryside has to say. It will be a march neither solely in defence of hunting, nor dedicated to the promotion of other country pursuits. Its relevance is broader. Its significance deeper. Its need for success outweighs any special interest group".
The editorial went on to say:
"At stake lies not just the freedom of individuals to choose whether to support country traditions, important though they are. At the heart of this march is the survival of our farming industry, the beautiful countryside within its care and thousands of rural communities".
Hunting is part of rural communities. There are 178 hunts in this country that average 74 days' hunting each. That amounts to 13,172 days in total. That does not mean that one cannot live in a rural community without being involved in hunting or other field sports. Many people are not, and they pursue other interests. However, last year 4,000 hunt functions took place, with an overall attendance of 1.3 million people. Millions more attended events associated with shooting and fishing.
We all benefit from the richness and diversity of our countryside, which has evolved over many years. ft is a largely man-made countryside, tended by those who live in it and care for it. To quote the Burns report:
"Hunting has clearly played a very significant role in he past in the formation of the rural landscape and in the creation and management of areas of nature conservation".
I believe that the English countryside is a common possession. It is, after all, criss-crossed by ancient rights of way, footpaths, byways and bridle paths. It is our common inheritance and it occupies a favourite place in every English person's image of his homeland.

669
This Bill is intolerant and anti-democratic. It threatens all those rights and the English countryside by attacking those who live in it and work in it, whether on farms, in villages or in towns.
Animals are not moral beings. They have neither rights nor duties. They are not sovereign over their own lives and they can commit no crimes. If they were moral beings, how could we justify killing them for food, capturing or confining them? It would follow that lions would be murderers, magpies would be thieves and mice would be burglars. The fox would be the worst of all living criminals, killing not only for food but for wanton pleasure.
The reality is that there is a cycle of life and death in the animal world. Those who promote Utopian animal rights promote ecological anarchism. Some people believe that animals have similar rights to humans. In his book Unfettered Kingdom, John Bryant of the League Against Cruel Sports writes on pets:
"Pet animals should be completely phased out of existence … Pet animals are slaves and prisoners".
He goes on to say that he wants,
"to watch a herd of domestic horses freed of the trappings of slavery".
The consequences of letting pets and horses roam free would be an ecological disaster in this country.
If there is one issue from the Burns report that has caused more debate than any other it is that relating to cruelty. Opponents of hunting claim that the Burns report says that hunting is cruel. I cannot find any reference in the report to back up that claim. As my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior said, the Burns report did not conclude that hunting is cruel.
In chapter 6, paragraph 49, the report states that hunting,
"seriously compromises the welfare of the fox".
However, it states that,
"insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught".
It goes on to say:
"None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective".
That is not the same as cruelty. Sending an animal to a slaughterhouse compromises its welfare: it comes out dead. Shooting a pheasant compromises its welfare. Catching a trout in a river and netting cod in the sea compromises the fishes' welfare—they end up on a plate.
What about the domestic cat which is let out at night when small birds are on their nests? And what about animal experiments? Do not they, too, compromise the animal's welfare? All those actions compromise the welfare of animals, but that does not necessarily make them all cruel. If angling involved lifting a fish out of the water to cause it pain rather than returning it or dispatching it quickly, we might have a different view of angling, although little might differ in the fish's perception.
670
Would foxes be better off in the world if they were not hunted? Would they enjoy a happier and easier life and an easier death? The fox would gain nothing from the abolition of hunting. Faced with that evidence, two former directors of the League Against Cruel Sports abandoned their advocacy of a ban on hunting.
Hunting a fox discriminates against the old and the diseased. It is not easy to catch a healthy fox. Shooting foxes, while necessary in some parts of England, discriminates against bold and healthy animals. Hunting involves the pursuit of the quarry in its wild and natural state and the quarry encounters nothing outside its natural repertoire of defences.
As we heard, hunting, like many sports, brings together people from all walks of life. Just come hunting and have a look. It is old Labour cant to suggest otherwise. John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, is old Labour and he is fighting old battles. He recently said on Radio 4:
"Every time I see the Countryside Alliance's contorted faces. I redouble my determination to abolish foxhunting".
The only contorted face I see is his when confronted by farmers at the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth.
Those who are against hunting seem to object most not to hunting with hounds but to the followers. Let us remember that it is the hounds that do the hunting and that the followers follow the hounds on foot, horse, bicycle or car. It is that pleasure—of following the hounds—that seems to cause more bitterness than anything else to those who are against hunting.
Before I deal with the Bill in a bit more detail I should commend the Government on setting up the Burns inquiry. I do not often commend the Government so I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that commendation. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee on their extremely fine report.
The Bill as it stands has much wrong with it. Anyone who puts an injured animal out of its misery could be branded a criminal. The Bill reverses the normal burden of proof, which is contrary to a recent ruling of the European Court of Justice. The Bill offers us three options: a ban, independent supervision and regulation. This House must have the opportunity to consider and to vote on all three options.
The second option involves the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting and is my preferred option. It was set up following the Phelps review of hunting and had been recommended as far back as the Scott-Henderson inquiry. Since its creation, hunting has shown that it conducts its sport in a responsible manner. The ISAH has had no complaints since its inception, even from the "antis". That is a record that other sports would find hard to match.

671
Licensing is seen as the middle way. It does not satisfy the "banners" of this world. It is anathema to the likes of Tony Banks, a Member of another place, who recently said in an article in the Independent:
"I am convinced that in years to come we will regard eating animal flesh in the same light as we now regard cannibalism".
One can see why he chooses to fight an urban seat.
The Government brought forward the Bill for one reason: because they received a donation of £1.1 million from the political animal lobby. A large donation can get one a lot from the Government: a ban on tobacco advertising lifted, a passport and an awful lot of tickets to the Dome. That is new Labour showing itself at its most cynical. The Government have allowed a Bill to be introduced so late in the parliamentary timetable that it cannot succeed. They knew that when they started this process.
In short, they want more money from the political animal lobby, more donations to fight the next election. Look at those groups that are lobbying the Government. Deadline 2000 is made up of three organisations. The International Fund for Animal Welfare is not a charity; it is a lobbying group. It has no membership, and therefore none of the accountability that a membership organisation would have, and it has been accused, in America, of misusing its funds. The League Against Cruel Sports is an organisation that is dedicated to the disruption of hunting. Its press officer, Andrew Walsley, the public face of the League, pleaded guilty to taking part in a riot at Hillgrove Farm in 1998. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for violent disorder. When leaders deny the role of their extremist members and violent acts, they sound less convincing than the most fervent IRA Sinn Fein apologist.
The RSPCA is the third part of this triumvirate. It will be judged by the company it keeps, and it will be judged harshly. Sadly, now it is an organisation that is more obsessed with animal rights than animal welfare.
There are other extremist groups, including the Animal Rights Militia, which openly promote violence. Only yesterday, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front refused to condemn the extremists among its ranks who have targeted MPs who are pro-hunting.
A ban on hunting would lead to pressure on shooting and fishing. The Prime Minister says that he is not against shooting and fishing, but the political animal lobby and its friends, the people who are in favour of ethical treatment of animals, do not agree. They want to start a national campaign against anglers. Their spokesman, Andrew Butler, stated recently:
"We are planning demonstrations at fish and chip shops across the country."
We therefore have to ask the Government, should they win the next election, which I doubt: if £1.1 million was all it took to ban hunting, how much will it take to ban shooting—£2 million or £4 million? How much will it take to ban angling—£5 million or £10 million?
672
The Government ought to be concentrating on the crisis in British agriculture, a crisis that is affecting all those involved in farming and rural industries. Rural tourism is also in crisis: hotels, holiday lets, bed and breakfast establishments are all facing economic disaster, but no compensation will be offered to them. The Government should be dealing with the crises in rural schools, rural hospitals, and the cuts in police numbers in rural areas.
I agree with the right reverend Prelates. The moral objection to hunting is not one that I can accept, however honestly or deeply it is felt; nor can I accept the gesture politics of those who vote for a ban just after finishing their steak for dinner.
Many people disapprove of religious slaughter of animals, but it does not follow that this practice, which is central to the lives of Jews and Muslims, should be banned. Tolerance of minorities is one of the traditional English virtues, but it does not seem to be one of new Labour's.
I conclude with a warning to the Government: to allow a ban would be a cynical use of the tyranny of the majority to settle the question without regard to the rights of a minority. A large majority of noble Lords who have spoken this evening spoke against a ban. The Minister is very patient, and we look forward to his response.
1.30 a.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, since 1979, 22 Private Members' Bills have been promoted in another place to ban hunting. Since the election, 100,000 letters have been received by the Home Secretary in relation to the hunting issue, some for and some against abolition. In those circumstances there cannot be any doubt that it is a significantly controversial issue in this country.
As my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton stated, there is absolutely no prospect of a Bill getting time for a full debate in both Houses of Parliament, unless government time is given to such a Bill. That is what the Government have decided to do. They are neutral on the issue of whether or not hunting should be abolished. The Bill contains three options: one has been drafted by the Middle Way Group, one by the Countryside Alliance, of which my noble friend Lady Mallalieu is the president, and a proposal to abolish drafted by Deadline 2000.
The approach of a multi-option Bill gives the House and the other place the option to consider what should happen to hunting in the long term. We believe it right for Parliament to decide what happens. In the light of the history of this matter, we feel that Parliament should have a proper opportunity to consider what should happen to hunting. It is well known in this House that there was a majority in excess of 200 in the other place to adopt the Deadline 2000 approach. No doubt noble Lords will bear that in mind in their consideration of this Bill and the options contained in it.

673
It is not for the Government, taking a neutral stance as they do, to answer the impressive issues raised in the course of this debate on both sides of the argument. We are facilitating Parliament making a decision on this controversial issue. Other members of the Government made clear that other issues have a higher priority than the issue of hunting—health, education and crime. But this is a controversial issue that has been around for a long time and it is right that Parliament should have a proper debate on it.
That is our approach to the matter. That approach was made clear in the last manifesto when we said that Parliament would have a free vote. It was made clear when the Bill was introduced in another place. That is the reason it was introduced. There is no sinister reason. It is perfectly clear and perfectly sensible. I note that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, welcomed the opportunity for this debate so that greater light could be shone on the issues relating to hunting. So the Government have taken a perfectly responsible stance.
Today in this House we have had a good and clear debate. On both sides of the issue views have been expressed with great clarity, passion and persuasiveness. There is obviously more to come.
Perhaps I may mention two specific points in relation to procedure and hunting generally. First, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cope—sadly in my absence, but it was passed straight on to me—whether the Parliament Act will be used in relation to the Bill. It is much too early a stage, only half-way through the process, to give any indication in that regard. Let us get through the process before we start talking about the end game.
Secondly, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave me notice before the debate that he intended to raise the issue of unlawful and criminal threats posed by animal rights extremists, both to people engaged in the hunting debate and also engaged in animal experimentation. Like the noble Earl, I utterly and unreservedly condemn such activity and join with all noble Lords who made that point. We utterly condemn anybody who resorts to that sort of action in relation to this issue.
The noble Earl asked what the Government are doing about it. We are doing four things. First, we included in a recent Bill police power to disperse protesters more easily than before; secondly, we increased the penalties for malicious communications; thirdly, we removed the obligation on directors of certain companies to provide their home addresses in publications to avoid their being attacked, as we all know one of the directors of Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked. In addition, we made a special grant available to the Cambridgeshire Police Authority to meet the costs of policing at Huntingdon Life Sciences.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and a number of other noble Lords, raised the issue of a number of Labour
674
MPs who had been threatened because of their opposition to a ban. They reported the matter to police who gave them certain advice in relation to how to deal with it. But it is an important issue and requires unreserved condemnation and proper support for those who are threatened by it. I know that the whole House will join me in that view.
I join with everyone in expressing the Government's gratitude for the depth of the study and the information contained in it. The report was entirely fit for its purpose; namely, providing the basis on which an informed debate could take place on this important issue. There is absolutely no doubt that the right course was taken in asking the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team to make the report. It has made for a much more informed debate than it would otherwise have been.
Perhaps I may try to deal with only the important points. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, it would be wrong to read out everybody's name. That would lead to my speech being longer, which would not be acceptable at twenty-five minutes to two in the morning.
An important issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. In effect it was to ask what is the difference in the criteria that apply to shooting and fishing to that applying to hunting which require it to be banned. Fearful that I might forget the matter, the noble Lord handed me the question in writing after he delivered his speech, which was very helpful. I hope that I have accurately expressed the question. It has been expressed by others also throughout the debate.
We are putting this matter before Parliament for it to decide what it wishes to do. We have done that because of the constant interest in the hunting issue over the past 20 years and before. There is huge public interest in it. There is no such public interest or support in relation to any sort of ban on fishing or shooting. We have absolutely no intention of bringing forward a similar Bill in that regard. It is quite wrong to say that public interest in the hunting issue is the same as that in relation to angling and shooting. They are different and one should recognise that. That is why this Bill has been brought forward.
The distinction between shooting and fishing on the one hand and hunting on the other will no doubt inform the debate. What we have done as a government is allow Parliament to properly debate the issues.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Her Majesty's Government have not only chosen hunting for attack. They have firmly promised not to attack shooting or fishing. That must mean that they have in their own mind the criteria that make hunting unacceptable whereas fishing and shooting are acceptable. What we have all been asking for a very long time is: what are those criteria? We have been asking for them, but they have never been given.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a totally unfair summary of the Government's position. They have not put forward hunting for attack. They have put forward a multi-option Bill, one of which, drafted by I SAH, is self-regulation. We have done that and the reasons for it were made clear in the Commons and here. It is because it is an issue of great controversy. There have been 20 Bills in 22 years or 22 Bills in 20 years. There have been 100,000 letters. It is a huge controversy and proper parliamentary time has been made available for the debate to take place. Such controversy does not attend on either fishing or shooting. The extent to which that argument plays a part in the debate is a matter for Parliament to decide. We have always made our position clear on that matter. So, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, he is wrong when he says that we attack one and not the other. We provide Parliament with a multi-option Bill and Parliament must then make the decision.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not want to keep noble Lords at this late hour. It is not only the fact that they have provided the facilities for the one; the Government have also guaranteed that, if the Hunting Bill goes through, they will not similarly attack shooting or fishing. They have not said this, but they have guaranteed, fullstop, not to attack shooting or fishing if the Hunting Bill goes through.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know whether the word "guarantee" has been used, but it is absolutely right to say that we have no intention to produce a Bill in relation to shooting and fishing, for the reason that there is not the controversy surrounding those activities that exists in relation to hunting. In the past 20 years there have not been 22 Bills in the Commons or 100,000 letters relating to fishing or shooting.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord makes much of the controversy surrounding hunting. If he says that the Home Office has received 100,000 letters, I am sure that that is right, but it is not very difficult for a lobbying group like Deadline 2000 to organise matters so that the Home Office receives 100,000 letters. That is not a sign of major controversy. The reality is that every public opinion poll today, and for some years past, indicates that if people are asked about their priorities, they list health, education, crime and every one of the important issues; hunting always comes at the bottom. The reason why there have been 20 Private Members' Bills is not that the general public are interested in hunting—they could not give a damn about it—but because a large and effective lobbying group has imprisoned one particular political party. There is no interest in hunting on the part of the general public.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, some of the 100,000 letters were in favour of hunting and some against it. In the other place there was a majority in
676
favour of the measure well in excess of the majority which the Labour Party enjoys in the House of Commons. The fact that there have been 22 Bills is nothing to do with "imprisonment"; it indicates that there is an issue here which needs to be resolved. We believe that this issue requires debate and consideration. Although it is absolutely clear that opinions on hunting are held very strongly not just in this place but outside it, that is not a reason for failing to debate it properly. That does not mean that the views expressed by a number of noble Lords in this House will not prevail, but it is a sufficiently important issue for it to be properly debated in the context of a Bill that has time.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand that the Government have brought this Bill before Parliament because of the controversy that surrounds this matter. Having debated it and recognised that the degree of cruelty does not differ widely as between hunting, fishing and shooting, does my noble friend concede that the argument has now been addressed and we should treat all of them in the same way, or not deal with the matter at all?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that if the basis on which the Bill is introduced is the public controversy that surrounds hunting, it should be treated differently, and that is how it has been done. It is then for Members of the legislature to decide whether they wish to draw a distinction between hunting on the one side and shooting and fishing on the other. The Government's role in this is to facilitate proper debate.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for interrupting once again. The Minister keeps returning to the 22 Bills. Can the noble and learned Lord remind the House how many of those Bills dealt with fox hunting? My memory is that a very small number dealt with fox hunting. Some dealt with hare coursing and some with stag hunting, but very few touched fox hunting at all.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the briefing that I have is that 22 of them dealt with hunting with dogs, but perhaps I may write to the noble Lord to tell him how many concerned hare coursing, how many concerned fox hunting, and how many covered all.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Prime Minister has courteously given the undertaking that if this Bill is passed, fishing and shooting will not be attacked while he is Prime Minister. He is of course Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Is it not a fact that if Scotland wishes to introduce measures against shooting and fishing, the Scottish Parliament can do so and, therefore, the diktat of the Prime Minister does not prevail in Scotland?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl is right. I cannot guarantee the position

677
in relation to devolution. I speak for the Government's position in relation to this matter. I deal in this House with legislation that relates to hunting with dogs. The Government have made it absolutely clear that they have no intention whatever of producing a Bill in relation to shooting or fishing.
Although that is very much at the heart of the Government's position, because the Government are facilitators, it is worth making a number of other points. The debate began to revolve against cruelty on the one hand versus liberty on the other. It is for this House to decide what view it takes on how cruel hunting is. It is worth drawing attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said. I am dealing only with fox hunting. We do not have time to deal with anything else this evening. The noble Lord described the effect of fox hunting on the foxes. He concluded:
"There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox".
He went on to make the point that one could not tell whether more or fewer foxes would be killed if fox hunting was banned. That was left as an open question. He continued:
"It is likely that in the event of a ban on hunting, many farmers or landowners would resort to a greater degree than at present to other methods to control the number of foxes. We cannot say if this would lead to more, or fewer, foxes being killed than at present. None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. … Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances. has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern".
That was the conclusion reached in relation to the matter. Therefore, he is saying that if fox hunting is banned, lamping is probably less cruel but one cannot tell whether it is useable in every place.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In my short contribution earlier I mentioned the problem of open access being granted to everyone in the country, which will come into effect later. Obviously, that covers millions of acres of land. If that is so, and the other methods that the noble and learned Lord has just said are not as acceptable, what is his solution to the problem on those acres which will need to be controlled?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for the House to weigh up all the evidence given in the Burns report and make a decision. I seek to draw to the House's attention what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said on the cruelty issue. There were a whole variety of accounts of what the noble Lord had said and it seemed sensible to identify precisely what he said.
678
I should try to get on before the day after tomorrow has been reached. There are two other issues to deal with. First, the question of fallen stock. It is clearly the case that if hunts cease to exist they will not be able to provide a fallen stock service to farmers. But it is worth pointing out that the disposal of fallen stock is an issue that goes far wider than the fate of hunt kennels. As a result of BSE controls, farmers have faced increased costs in disposing of their fallen stock and there has been a decline in the number of disposal outlets.
Furthermore, the European Commission has proposed a new animal by-products regulation which is expected to come into force in 2003. As currently drafted, the regulation would ban the burial of ruminant animals that die on a farm; it would introduce environmental standards for small incinerators; and it would require all premises that collect fallen stock to meet certain standards.
The consequence of that is that some hunts may be unable or unwilling to provide a fallen stock service to farmers even if hunting is not banned as a consequence of this legislation. That is why the Government are keen, irrespective, of the Hunting Bill, to address the issue of fallen stock in its broader sense.
There are two final points. If there are any further issues that require an answer from the Government, I shall write to the appropriate noble Lords.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, in an excellent speech, said that there are pros and cons both ways and that it is a matter for understanding on both sides. I earnestly ask the House, in continuing the debate on this issue, that both sides seek to understand the point of view of the other and that the debate is conducted in a civilised and sensible way and in a way that does not seek to increase division but rather to decrease it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he tell me why he is right and Mr Tom Williams, whom I quoted, is wrong?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is a matter for the House to decide. What I am saying is that the Bill presents three options and that the House and Parliament as a whole must decide.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether he is in favour of a ban?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am here only to facilitate the House to decide which of the three options it likes.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he answer the question posed by my noble friends Lord Rotherwick and Lord Astor about the donation from PAL to the Labour Party? How much was it and when was it received? Is the noble and learned Lord able to answer those questions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of a donation some years ago. It was a very large donation. I understand that PAL also made a six-figure donation to the Conservative Party.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nine minutes before two o' clock.

  Workforce Skills
  Workforce Skills
  University Teaching: Quality Assurance Assessment
  University Teaching: Quality Assurance Assessment
  Acoustic Shock
  Acoustic Shock
  Speedometer Accuracy
  Speedometer Accuracy
  Road Bridges over Railways
  Road Bridges over Railways
  Chinook ZD576
  Chinook ZD576
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations
  Neo-natal Hearing Screening
  Neo-natal Hearing Screening
  Variant CJD: Location of Clusters
  Variant CJD: Location of Clusters
  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Enbrel
  Enbrel
  Rheumatoid Arthritis: Therapies
  Rheumatoid Arthritis: Therapies
  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Draft Investigation Protocol
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Draft Investigation Protocol
  Sheep Dippers: Surveillance Study
  Sheep Dippers: Surveillance Study
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Angola: Oil Revenue
  Angola: Oil Revenue
  Mr Alpha Conde MP
  Mr Alpha Conde MP
  Iraq and Iran: Prisoners of War
  Iraq and Iran: Prisoners of War
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War
  Liberia
  Liberia
  House of Lords: Smoking and Insurance
  House of Lords: Smoking and Insurance
  Customs and Excise: Prosecuting Authority Role
  Customs and Excise: Prosecuting Authority Role
  Agricultural Census 2000
  Agricultural Census 2000
  Religious Discrimination
  Religious Discrimination
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Gaming and Lottery Fees
  Gaming and Lottery Fees
  Museums and Galleries: VAT
  Museums and Galleries: VAT
  Council of Ministers: Recommendation by QMV
  Council of Ministers: Recommendation by QMV
  Airports: BTA Recommendations
  Airports: BTA Recommendations
  Irish Republic: National Lottery Grants
  Irish Republic: National Lottery Grants