Westminster Hall Sitting of 21 March 2000

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Betts.]
10 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome this opportunity to debate the United Kingdom's policies and positions for the 11th conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna—CITES—which opens in Nairobi in Kenya on 10 April. I am indebted to the Environmental Investigation Agency, and especially to Claire Perry, for supplying me with such a detailed—and damning—briefing on this subject.
CITES is intended to prevent the extinction of wildlife and plant species threatened by international trade. The parties to CITES, which now number around 150, can ban international trade in species threatened with extinction by listing them in appendix 1. Species threatened by international trade but not in imminent danger of extinction can be listed in appendix 2, which requires countries to issue export and import permits that can be used to monitor the volume of trade. The listing does not provide meaningful conservation protection to most species, especially heavily traded species, because there are usually no limits to such trade.
CITES addresses only international trade in wildlife and plants listed in its appendices. With the exception of rhino products, it has never sought to control domestic trade in wildlife products, nor to involve itself in the management of wildlife within a nation's borders.
When used properly, CITES is the most effective multilateral environmental agreement available to save endangered species threatened by international trade. It is often seriously undermined by poor enforcement, but, without it, endangered species such as tigers and rhinos could well have disappeared from the wild. The elephant would now be wiped out in most of its remaining habitats in Africa and Asia if CITES had not voted in 1989 to list the African elephant in appendix 1.
At the April meeting, the parties to CITES will vote on a wide range of measures relating to the trade in wildlife, and will discuss and vote on the conservation of elephants, whales, tigers and numerous other species. I am pleased that there are many hon. Members present who wish to speak. I shall therefore relate my comments mainly to elephants. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) wishes to refer to a number of other species.
The United Kingdom is presently the chair of the CITES standing committee—its governing body—which oversees the implementation of decisions taken by the parties. It is a crucial position. The Chamber should be in no doubt that the fate of the African elephant may rest on what the UK does at CITES.
148WH
The UK has played a critical role in decisions that CITES has taken on elephants, which, tragically, have not always been good for elephants. For instance, when the parties voted overwhelmingly at the 1989 meeting to protect African elephants, the UK Government took formally a reservation to the international ivory ban for six months to allow the Hong Kong ivory barons to sell off their vast stockpiles of poached ivory.
Historically, progress has been slow. In 1975, Ghana first proposed listing African elephants in appendix 1. The proposal failed and they were placed in appendix 2. The result was the mass slaughter of elephants by poachers over the following 14 years. CITES was repeatedly urged by pro-trade interests to continue to try to regulate rather than ban the international ivory trade. In the 1980s, poaching became more organised, thriving on conflict in Africa, where the easy availability of arms, marauding armies and their rebel opponents and corrupt Government officials made ivory a highly valued alternative hard currency on the African continent. Instead of poisoned spears, poachers used AK47s to bring down large numbers of elephants. Military helicopters and trucks moved ivory to government camps, where its trade was legalised by officials. South Africa's apartheid regime was notorious for laundering ivory proached from Angola and Mozambique.
The CITES-approved, legal international trade in ivory was as porous as a sieve, and laundering poached ivory for the legal marketplace by acquiring CITES permits was easy. Vast quantities of poached ivory were laundered in that way. The legal trade provided the cover for poached ivory, just as protected whale species are killed and laundered for the Japanese market by being mixed with whale meat produced by the notorious commercial operations that pose as scientific researchers.
In 1979, there were approximately 1.3 million elephants in Africa. By 1988, only 624,000 were believed to have survived. According to a widely accepted estimate, 94 per cent. of all ivory sold legally throughout the world with CITES permits originated from poached elephants. Across Africa, 70,000 elephants were poached each year to provide ivory for the international market, and the continental African elephant population declined by 10 per cent. a year. In short, listing African elephants in appendix 2 of CITES has failed.
The 1989 listing of African elephants in appendix 1 was probably the most successful conservation action taken by CITES, and the most effective elephant conservation measure in history. The international ban led to a virtual overnight collapse in demand for ivory. Prices plummeted and poaching declined dramatically across much of Africa. The ban was enforced in many parts of Africa, and many elephant populations stabilised. Parks and wildlife staff were motivated and empowered by the ban, which simplified enforcement. The public, who supported the ban, knew that ivory came from poached elephants because the sale of ivory was illegal.
However, a small number of countries—Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa—opposed the ban. Poaching was not widespread in those countries,

149WH
except Zimbabwe, where it is believed that military officials and parks staff became involved in poaching in areas such as the Gonarezhou park. Those countries led a determined campaign to overturn the international ivory ban, on the basis that their elephant populations were stable or abundant.
A week before the CITES meeting in Harare in June 1997, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe hosted a meeting of the Organisation of African Unity and was elected its chairman. He made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the OAU to support a resumption in the ivory trade, but he succeeded in twisting the arms of other African presidents, who agreed to downlisting and muted their opposition to limited international ivory trade involving the southern African elephant.
After a week of secret ballots, intense pressure from the highest levels of southern African Governments, and manipulated proceedings in which many African state delegates were not allowed to speak, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana secured an experimental export of some 50 tonnes of ivory to Japan, and their elephant populations were transferred to appendix 2. Many African states adamantly opposed the measure, and feared the impact that the resumption of international trade would have on their smaller, more vulnerable elephant populations.
For the sake of completeness, I have outlined some of the history of this subject and the attitude of various Governments, and I turn now to the attitude of the United Kingdom Government and the European Union. Before the general election, the Labour party election leaflet, entitled "New Labour—New Life for Animals", made an unequivocal pledge to
oppose any resumption of the trade in ivory and elephant skins.
In fact, it was the European Union's decision to abstain on the key vote at the 1997 CITES meeting in Harare that allowed the international ivory and elephant skin trade to resume. The 14 EU member states that are parties to CITES seek to vote together as a block during conference, and many non-EU European states and other CITES parties follow the lead of the highly influential EU countries. It is therefore safe to say that Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia would not have been allowed to put their elephant populations on appendix 2 if the UK and the rest of the EU states opposed them.
Rigorous conditions were attached to the transfer of the elephant populations to appendix 2. The international sale of 50 tonnes of ivory was supposed to go ahead only if Japan, the only authorised ivory importing country, improved its domestic controls to prevent the on-going laundering of illegal ivory. A further three conditions were attached: that comprehensive international monitoring systems should be in place to establish a possible causal link between the sale of ivory to Japan and any detected increase in poaching levels or illegal ivory trade; that a mechanism should be established to allow the southern African elephant populations to be put back on appendix 1 immediately if poaching and illegal trade increased; and that Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia should join a multinational African enforcement body, such as the Lusaka agreement on co-operative wildlife enforcement, which can cross borders to investigate illegal wildlife trade and poaching.
150WH
It is worth noting that even the World Wildlife Fund, which believes that Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia deserve support and credit for conserving and managing their elephant populations, acccepts that the monitoring systems that I have just outlined are not in place. The UK had been elected chair of the powerful CITES standing committee, which was charged with deciding if those conditions were fulfilled before the ivory sale to Japan was allowed to go ahead. When the committee met in February 1999, the international system to monitor increased elephant poaching—MIKE—was not in place, and the £8 million to operate it for the first six years had not been found. Even worse, the system could not show causality between increased poaching and the ivory trade to Japan and it would take six years before useful data could be produced. None of the three southern African countries had joined the Lusaka agreement, nor had they produced a similar enforcement accord. Furthermore, despite some cosmetic changes, Japan had not enacted any meaningful enforcement measures to monitor trade in illegal ivory by the 50,000 or so shops that sell ivory hanko or name seals. In fact, there is virtually no domestic enforcement of ivory or other endangered species trade in Japan.
Seven African elephant range states appealed to the UK-chaired CITES standing committee to delay the ivory trade until the CITES-guaranteed safeguard of an international monitoring system was in place. The United States issued a similar caution. Will the Minister explain why the UK, as chair of the CITES standing committee, did not oppose the experimental international ivory sale, given that the critically important enforcement safeguards were not in place? That represents an early breaking of the pre-election pledge to
oppose any resumption of the trade in ivory and elephant skins.
Regrettably, the sale of 50 tonnes of ivory to Japan went ahead in April 1999. Since then, many African and Asian elephant range states have reported a dramatic resurgence of elephant poaching. Kenya has reported a disturbing increase in such incidents, which the director of the Kenyan Wildlife Service, Nehemiah Rotich, attributes directly to the reopening of the ivory trade. Zimbabwe has provided the most dramatic evidence of the emergence of a massive increase in elephant poaching. Last November, a WWF survey estimated that 1,378 elephant carcases had been found along Zimbabwe's Zambezi valley. The carcases were between one and two years old, which shows that poaching erupted not long after the 1997 CITES decision to remove the appendix 1 protection from Zimbabwe's elephants. That was hardly an example of a country conserving and managing its elephant population.
Poaching continued in 1999. Between 300 and 400 elephants had been poached in Zimbabwe by August of that year alone, according to sources who have seen official poaching data. Numerous press reports have claimed that Government officials in national parks or the military are implicated in the poaching spree. One report states:
Suspicions are growing that senior officials in the Zimbabwean government are involved in the recent upsurge of poaching.
Poachers have also been reported to be using radios identical to those used by wildlife scouts, probably obtainable only with the collusion of senior staff of the

151WH
national parks department. The Zimbabwean Government have admitted that there is an increase, but press reports quote a senior park official as saying:
The Department is under-reporting case numbers because they fear the publicity will affect ivory trade.
In my view, such a cover-up qualifies as an abuse of the downlisting process, and the Zimbabwean elephants should immediately be put back in appendix 1. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in due course.
In addition to an upsurge of poaching since the decision was made to allow the sales, numerous large seizures of illegal ivory have taken place, showing the revival of ivory smuggling networks. For example, in April 1998 ivory valued at $3 million was seized in Taiwan; in October 1998, 600 kg were seized in Paris; in China, 1.6 tonnes were seized in November 1998, and a further 2 tonnes in January 1999; 500 kg were seized in Moscow in April 1999; in Kenya, 350 kg were seized in July last year, and 700 kg in August. Seizures continue to be made in countries as diverse as Dubai, Portugal and China.
In a few weeks' time, the parties to CITES will vote on proposals by Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and now South Africa to sell more ivory to Japan and other consuming countries. An alternative proposal from Kenya and India would, if accepted, return all elephants to appendix 1, totally banning international trade. At a recent meeting of 21 elephant range states in Africa, the Kenyan proposal received the backing of most countries present. South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe declined to attend that meeting. The proposal is also supported by a broad coalition of most—but, I accept, not all—of the world's major conservation groups.
Last Thursday, a resolution was passed in the European Parliament with the backing of members of all the major political groups. It strongly urged all CITES parties to support Kenya and India's proposal to maximise international protection for elephants by putting them all back on appendix 1. In the United Kingdom yesterday, a MORI poll was released showing that 82 per cent. of the public believe that the UK Government should support the Kenyan proposal. More than 120 Members of Parliament have signed an early-day motion calling for a full ban on the international ivory trade, which can be achieved only by supporting the Kenyan proposal to protect all elephants by putting them back on appendix 1.
The current position is that the United Kingdom is calling for all proposals to be withdrawn. Let us be clear about what that would mean in practice. Poaching would continue and would be likely to intensify during the two or three years before the next CITES meeting. That would be unacceptable. The Government argue that, because the funds from these sales are, theoretically at least, going back into elephant conservation and community projects, they meet their objective to conserve elephants. However, receipts from experimental sales were less than $5 million, whereas the estimated cost of providing the monitoring systems is about $13 million. Many elephant range states argue that the money would be better spent on keeping elephants alive, rather than on counting them once they have been killed by poachers.
In The Guardian on 6 March 2000, an article entitled "Ivory Towers" stated:
152WH
As elephant poaching rises again, Kenya fears that the UK will make things worse.
In the article, Nehemiah Rotich, director of the Kenya Wildlife Service, stated:
We are very unhappy with the UK position on the ivory trade … It is a major point of concern for us. Britain has such a key presence in Kenya as a development partner that I would have expected them to better understand what opening up ivory trade would mean for us … The tourist industry which funds the wildlife service would be badly hit and we would risk a return to the poaching holocaust of the 1980s.
I understand that the Government have not yet decided how to vote, but if they openly oppose Kenya's proposal, they will give implicit support to the southern African position. Failure by the Government to back Kenya and India will horrify the 82 per cent. of the British public who support Kenya and India's proposal. There is a clear duty to ensure that a precautionary approach is taken and the only precautionary approach on the table is that proposed by Kenya and India.
The Government have said that they remain unconvinced that the recent ivory sales have had an impact on poaching or the illegal trade. Given that the 10 largest seizures of illegal ivory in a decade have occurred since the decision was taken to allow the sale of ivory to Japan, to what does the Minister attribute such a clear-cut sign of increased trade and poaching, if not to that decision? Do the Government accept that poaching has increased in Kenya, or do they think that the Kenya Wildlife Service is lying?
Will the Minister investigate the evidence of increased poaching in Zimbabwe and the alleged cover-up by Zimbabwean Government officials of such increased poaching? I remind the Minister of the near reign of terror that the Zimbabwean Government have effected on their citizens, many of whom are terrified to report increased elephant poaching.
Despite the overwhelmingly clear view of the British public, our Governments have not always been as proactive as they should have been in pursuing a global ban on the ivory trade. In the next couple of weeks, the Government will have the opportunity to honour their pledge and to use their influence in the European Union and internationally to push for a full ban on the international ivory trade, and I hope that they will do so. We cannot risk
a return to the poaching holocaust of the 1980's.
10.21 am
Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate on an issue about which many of us have strongly held views. Speaking in Westminster Hall has an added attraction to Labour Members: it is the only time that we can see Ministers' faces during debate—we normally sit behind Ministers in the Chamber. I hope that we shall see the Minister showing strong support for the issues that we are raising today.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, discussions at CITES are vital for a variety of wildlife, including turtles, sharks and whales, but given the limited time available and that several hon. Members wish to speak, like the hon. Gentleman I shall concentrate on elephants and the ivory trade. I confess that my interest in elephants goes back many years to my time at primary

153WH
school. My primary school teacher was clearly responsible for my interest because he taught me how to tell the difference between an African elephant and an Indian elephant. I have not seen many African or Indian elephants in the flesh, not wanting to go to zoos to see them, but he told me that an African elephant's ears are the shape of Africa and an Indian elephant's ears are the shape of India. I do not know whether that is true, but it has stimulated my interest in elephants and their protection for many years.
I have asked several parliamentary questions about the ivory trade. I attended the International Fund for Animal Welfare press conference on the issue yesterday. The answers that I have received and that press conference have brought home to me how important it is that we take urgent action. In response to the questions that I asked on 10 February, the Paymaster General told me how much ivory had been seized in the United Kingdom. In 1998, Customs and Excise seized 387 items of ivory and a further 15 items were seized in the first nine months of 1999. Several of those seizures involved direct imports from central and southern African states and from India.
However, the problem with those figures is that, unlike other countries, the United Kingdom reports seizures not by weight but by the number of items, so the figures cannot be translated into how many elephants have been killed to produce that ivory because we do not know the weight of ivory involved. It would be helpful if the Minister would examine that matter and perhaps write to me. We should consider recording ivory seizures, as other countries do, by weight rather than by item, because worked ivory and carved ivory items can range from small, artistic, delicately carved pieces to large pieces, although those are less popular now because of problems with illegal trade. We must consider recording seizures not only by number, but by weight.
The importance of recording is shown by experience in France, where two major seizures of more than 1,000 kg were recorded in 1998 and 1999. In addition, about 1.5 tonnes have been seized in both India and Portugal. The worldwide total of seizures is horrific and shows the level of the problem.
I am grateful to have worked on campaigns with the Born Free Foundation in my constituency and nationally. Along with other organisations, it has expressed its wish for a positive outcome from the CITES talks. Born Free told me that only between five and 20 elephants, from an original estimate of 320, remain alive at a major national park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the area surrounding that park, up to 3,000 elephants are reported to have been killed. There lies one of our problems, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington touched on that. It is obvious that further relaxation in ivory trade laws will lead to an increase in poaching. If there is a legal trade in ivory, how can illegal trade be monitored? How can we tell the difference between the two? Enforcement is made extremely difficult.
The Kenyan Government have reported an increase in poaching, but in some war-torn areas of Africa, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we must establish scientifically that it is the change in the
154WH
international trade laws that has led to an increase in poaching, rather than issues connected with war, natural disasters or the abject poverty facing people in those countries, all of which we have a duty to take action on. That challenge faces our Ministers at the CITES talks. It would be wrong for the countries pushing for relaxation in the laws to use their widespread problems as a cover or excuse to argue for measures that would lead to immeasurable suffering and the killing of elephants. I do not dismiss the problems of those countries, but there can be no argument about the fact that since CITES sanctioned the resumption of the legal ivory trade, seizures of illegal ivory items have increased. It is difficult to argue that there is no relationship of cause and effect between those two events.
Hon. Members attended the launch yesterday of the report entitled "The Ivory Markets of Africa" with representatives of the International Fund for Animal Welfare in the Jubilee Room, and that is reported on in BBC Wildlife Magazine this month. Those hon. Members will have heard of the continuing problem of this trade in death since the partial reopening of the ivory trade in 1997. The debate on what is responsible for its increase will continue, but we must make clear our views to the Minister this morning. We should listen to those who have exposed the effects of the relaxation in the ivory trade, on which the report is damning. We should also listen to the Kenyan Government, who are arguing for greater protection for the elephant, and to the 82 per cent. of British people who, in a MORI poll this week, urged the Government to support the Kenyan and Indian proposals. We should implement our preelection promise to support protection for the African elephant and oppose any resumption of the trade in ivory and elephant skins.
Conservation and animal protection are international issues on which we need to take firm action, and I hope that the Government will help by persuading the European Union to use its block vote at the CITES talks. As a Labour MP, I am somewhat reluctant to get into the argument about the block vote and I use the term with caution. Rather than abstaining as it did in 1997, the EU should be persuaded to use its block vote for good and to take action for animal protection.
I want to make some strong representations on behalf of my constituents, who are concerned about the possible resumption of international trading in whale meat. I have received several letters on that subject, which I would like to be taken into account. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Cuba, I see no conflict in using my position to make strong representations to the Cuban Government against their proposal to reopen the trade in hawksbill turtle shells. Closer to home, there is a need for much greater protection of the basking shark. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) will speak about that. The basking shark is one of the most spectacular sights to be seen off the British coast. That species should be protected internationally, as action by just one Government will have little effect.
Now that we are in 2000, we should be moving forward on worldwide protection issues, not fighting a rearguard action to maintain protection for animals such as turtles and whales. I have strong hopes that representatives of our Government will be in the

155WH
forefront of positive moves at the CITES talks in Nairobi in April, and will recognise that any trade in ivory will lead to an increase in slaughter and the international trade. The internal trade is for countries to deal with themselves.
The debate about CITES and about trade and seizures is, in a sense, a sterile one, but we must recognise that this issue and that of the suffering of animals, at home and abroad—raises great emotion and passion. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as it is not the only issue about which we feel passionately. It is right to be passionate about suffering, whether it happens at home or abroad, to people or to animals. While we talk dispassionately about illegal trade, customs, seizures and the tonnage of worked or raw ivory, elephants are being poached and killed. My attention was drawn this morning to a leaflet that I received from the Born Free Foundation, and I shall quote from it:
Every hour of every day another elephant is illegally killed for its "bloody" ivory tusks.
There is a photograph of a female elephant killed in Kenya. Her ivory has been removed:
She was a nursing female, and her orphaned calf has little chance of survival … The slaughter is horrifying, poachers are shooting elephants with automatic weapons and hacking off their tusks with axes and chainsaws.
None of us wants that to continue.
We have heard the argument that elephant numbers are very low. I am not motivated by the lowness of the numbers—in some ways, that is a red herring. What motivates me is the suffering of the elephants whose ivory is poached. Suffering and justice are crucial to the debate. The ivory trade is thousands of years old, but we know better today, and justice demands that we do much more.
10.32 am
Mr. David Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate at exactly the appropriate time: there are just weeks to go before the next CITES discussions in east Africa. He has painted a vivid picture of the background to the debate and the problems that confront the nations that will be represented at Nairobi.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), the hon. Gentleman concentrated on the plight of the African elephant. I turn to the plight of the Cetorhinus maximus, known to its friends—that incudes me, I hope— as the basking shark. I shall set out the facts that make that species vulnerable, before moving on briefly to the international position and the case for its inclusion in appendix 2. I am pleased and proud that our nation is proposing inclusion. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that inclusion in appendix 2 was no guarantee that the species concerned would be strongly and successfully defended, but it is, at least, a first step.
Basking sharks are, without doubt, a vulnerable species and are recognised as such in the red list of threatened species drawn up by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, also known as the World Conservation Union. The sharks are protected in Great Britain, the Isle of Man, Guernsey, in the waters off New Zealand, in parts of the
156WH
United States and in the Mediterranean sea. However, they migrate extensively and, although they may be protected in one country, are extremely vulnerable to unmanaged and unsustainable fisheries elsewhere.
Commercial fishing of fins and oil for international trade has seriously depleted shark stocks. Fins continue to increase in value as an ingredient in shark fin soup. Indeed, in China last year, one large fin was sold for the equivalent of £10,000, which suggests the economic value of the shark to those who prey on it. Sharks accidentally caught outside the limited protected waters that I mentioned earlier are much more likely to have their large fin removed than they are to be released because the fin is valued so highly. That damages the shark population and is immensely wasteful as killing sharks for fins results in meat being discarded in the ocean.
If unrestricted and unregulated fishing continues, basking shark numbers will probably decrease to a point at which local extinction is highly likely. Most documented basking shark fisheries have collapsed after relatively short periods of exploitation. Reports on the species show a consistent pattern of rapid decline followed by a long period of low population numbers in the past 50 years or so. Indeed, that phenomenon is observed in other large shark populations in many parts of the world, including Europe, north America, Japan and China.
Basking sharks are especially vulnerable to targeted fisheries because they grow slowly, mature late, and bear few young after a long gestation. Estimates show that, at best, the basking shark population may grow by 1 to 2 per cent. per annum. We should consider that carefully, as experience shows that some basking shark populations have not recovered decades after being exploitatively fished. I hope that the member nations of CITES in Nairobi will consider that carefully.
I am delighted that our Government have proposed that the basking shark be listed in appendix 2. Indeed, they have done some active lobbying and, with the support of the wildlife and countryside link, distributed leaflets to all CITES secretariats. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in congratulating them on that.
The proposal is strong and environmentally attractive and undoubtedly appeals to us in the Chamber. However, those states that are adamantly against any form of marine fish listing are sure to oppose it in Nairobi, along with their camp followers. Those countries in the main, Norway and Japan—will argue that no marine fish should be listed until all the marine fish listings have been reviewed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and National Resources, CITES and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. They will argue that the FAO plan of action for shark conservation and management will give sharks sufficient protection.
Our Government are aware of that and the International Fund for Animal Welfare has discussed the issue with the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is extremely worried about the matter. My hon. Friend is not optimistic that the necessary two thirds majority for the proposal will be achieved. It will be a struggle; the Minister has a good understanding of related issues and

157WH
his colleague is especially well placed to handle the negotiations and campaigning on the issue. That is not intended as a criticism of the Minister who is responsible for aviation and countryside access and a rich, wide and astonishing variety of other matters. I hope that my hon. Friend the Fisheries Minister can be encouraged to attend the conference in a few weeks' time.
There are two ways to combat the argument that will be advanced by Norway and Japan, who will oppose the inclusion of the basking shark in appendix 2. They should be told, first, that sharks are not marine fish in the commonly understood definition of that species. A classic example is that of the cod, with its huge reproductive potential; there are other, similar species. The biology and life history of sharks have far more in common with cetaceans; shark populations are slower to recover from harvesting than whales and they are, therefore, much more vulnerable to unregulated exploitation. A significant drop in the numbers of sharks will always be worrying, whatever the outcome of criteria reviews.
Secondly—this matter should be tackled head on—it should be stated that the FAO international plan of action on sharks is a wholly voluntary and untried management tool. It will never carry as much weight as CITES, an established agreement on international trade in species, which is far more appropriate as the monitoring tool for the basking shark. How will the Government counter the arguments that Norway and Japan put before CITES? The nations in Nairobi next month should support the Government's proposal that basking sharks should meet the criteria listed in conference resolution 924, which states:
it is known, inferred and projected that harvesting of specimens from the wild for international trade has, or may have, a detrimental impact on the species by exceeding, over an extended period, the level that can be continued in perpetuity
Appendix 2 listing is necessary to ensure that the international trade in basking shark parts or derivatives is conducted in a sustainable manner and is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Inclusion in appendix 2 would encourage international cooperation, which is not always evident in matters of this kind, for the successful management of basking shark stocks. Sharks that are managed or protected in one country may continue to be highly vulnerable to unmanaged, unsustainable fisheries elsewhere in their range.
A CITES listing would help to monitor the numbers of sharks that are harvested after accidental capture and could help to regulate their significant and sad mortality. It would encourage the introduction of effective fisheries management and research to ensure that future catches are sustainable. Finally, it would help parties to meet the recommendations of the FAO's newly agreed plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks.
I am confident that a strong case can be made for the listing of the basking shark in appendix 2. I am even more confident that the Fisheries Minister should be encouraged to blank out three or four days of his diary, which is not insignificant for a busy Minister, for something that is crucial to the future of the basking shark. The mental image of a basking shark is of a
158WH
Conservative Member bathing off the south coast of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Conservative Members are, of course, an endangered species, but the threat to the basking shark is much more serious. I urge the Minister to take these points on board, and discuss them with his hon. Friend the Fisheries Minister as quickly as possible and obtain tickets tomorrow for the flight to Nairobi.
10.45 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate, during which he has eloquently and comprehensively outlined the predicament of elephants and the general issues relating to the CITES conference in Nairobi next month. The timing is appropriate, not only because of the imminence of the CITES conference—I believe that it is the 11 th convention of the parties—but because of last night's Second Reading debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. This should tell us that, however admirable the attempts by Governments to secure protection for wildlife and conserve their natural resources, ultimately it remains a matter for international negotiation and agreement. The CITES conference is a classic example of the way in which Governments, if they have the political will, can work together to secure international agreement.
When something scandalous, disgraceful or disturbing happens in another country, for whatever reason, there is always a risk of our thinking that our Government should automatically respond. I am as conscious as any other hon. Member that there are limits to the powers of individual Governments. However, on the trade in ivory, the shells of hawksbill turtles or whale meat, our Government can make a difference, depending on the position that they adopt or persuade our European Union partners to adopt at the CITES conference. I want to put one or two powerful arguments for taking a strong line at the conference.
In recent years there has been a huge increase in public interest in matters of animal welfare, the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity. There are now more members of animal welfare and conservation groups than of all the political parties together. There are more members of conservation groups than of trade unions and certainly more than there are active churchgoers. The animal welfare conservation lobby is becoming increasingly powerful, and is especially influential among young people. I wish to draw attention to our ongoing concerns about the involvement of young people in the political process, the apparently growing alienation of young people from the process and their cynicism about politics and what it can and cannot achieve. The Nairobi conference presents an ideal opportunity for the Government to reconnect with young voters and show them that they share an interest that is dear to their hearts by taking firm action on the international trade in animals.
The ban on, and close regulation of, this international trade is crucial for maintaining biodiversity. In last night's Second Reading debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, there was a brief but interesting reference to the status of the United Kingdom's biodiversity action plan and whether it should have full

159WH
legal status. CITES is an international convention that does have legal powers. It is critical that we use that status to maintain global biodiversity. I argue that on not only the abstract ground that it is important to maintain a wide variety of species, but because the maintenance of a wide variety of species is crucial to the fragile ecology on which we all depend. The environment that supports that wide variety of species is the same as that in which human beings exist.
I do not necessarily accept that western countries should tell people in other parts of the world how to conduct their business and trade. On some occasions, there is a tendency to a form of neo-imperialism; we can be accused of lecturing countries and peoples who have earned their living and constructed their economies for many years through the trade in animals. Nevertheless, we must engage in constructive argument with them. We must raise their awareness of the wider global implications of the threats to biodiversity posed by some of the traditional economic practices. I urge the Government to use their influence with the European Union to take a strong line on any attempts to downgrade particular animals from appendix 1 to appendix 2. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take on board very carefully the representations that have been made by all hon. Members.
10.51 am
Mr. David Lepper: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on the early-day motion on the ivory trade, which has secured the support of a number of hon. Members across the parties. I hope also that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of the number of Labour Members who want to take part in today's debate; it is a sign of our strong feeling, which is shared throughout the House. The information that has been provided by organisations such as the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, the Environment Information Agency, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Born Free Foundation has been of a high quality. It has ensured that we are all better informed about these vital issues.
I hope that the Ministers will take note of the comments that have been made about the importance of CITES for a number of species. I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) about the importance of having a ministerial presence at CITES. I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, suggesting that he might find time to attend, but following the events yesterday, I suspect that he will be busy on more domestic matters over the next few weeks.
In view of the important role played by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the international whaling convention a year or so ago, perhaps he might find time to attend. I suggest that not for the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire has given, but because if the vote goes the wrong way on certain proposals on whaling, it could severely affect the balance that exists between CITES and the international whaling convention. The
160WH
internaitonal whaling convention is recognised as the governing body for whaling matters and some of the proposals from Japan and Norway could upset that balance. My hon. Friend the Fisheries Minister is well respected internationally and he would have a valuable contribution to make to those discussions.
A number of species have been referred to. With the exception of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), I am the only Member with a coastal constituency. I shall perhaps concentrate on Eretmochelys imbricata, the Cuban hawksbill turtle, which is not native to the Sussex coast, as far as we know. One of the problems with the proposal to downlist the Cuban hawksbill turtle to appendix 2 is that its migratory habits are not fully known. I do not think that it has been sighted off the coast of Newhaven or Brighton, but anything is possible. Doubts exist about its habits, which is one reason why it should not be downlisted as Cuba proposes.
Many of us are worried about the way in which alliances have been formed on a number of separate issues in the run-up to the talks. Clearly, Japan and Norway have used their influence in terms of trade agreements and support through aid to try to ensure that their proposals on whaling receive support. We do not know what discussions the Cuban Government may have had with those countries to stitch up a deal on whaling, which might include the downlisting of the hawksbill turtle.
Why is the hawksbill turtle so important? It is the smallest of the six species of marine turtles and is currently on the CITES appendix 1 listing. It is also listed as critically endangered on the red list of threatened animals. The threats to it include illegal trade in its shells, harvesting of eggs, loss of habitat and entanglement in nets. Globally, the species has declined by 80 per cent. in the past 60 years, and approximately half the nesting population is known or suspected to be in decline. The best estimate of the sexual maturity of hawksbills is 20 to 40 years. Only one egg in 500 to 1,000 is likely to survive to adulthood. The species suffers from high early mortality, and its delayed maturity requires large populations to maintain a small but stable adult population.
The danger of removing mature animals from a slowly declining population is severe, although the consequences may not be visible for decades. Decisions taken in a month's time—even though they can be reversed in three years at the next CITES conference—could have severe repercussions. The hawksbills play a critical role in coral reef conservation. Their diet of toxic and armoured sponges creates gaps for the settlement of reef-building species and provides foraging access for fish that cannot penetrate the sponge's armour. It is not only the turtles that are at risk but the ecological system in which they live.
I hope that the parties to the convention, and certainly the EU delegation, will be persuaded by a strong line taken by the United Kingdom Government and representatives on this issue. If the threat to the species were not enough to convince people of the need to retain the appendix 1 listing, the Chamber should be aware of the description given by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of the method used to slaughter the hawksbill turtle. Turtles are difficult to kill humanely—certain drugs are recommended, but

161WH
even with the correct lethal dose and administration the animal can take many hours to die. That is especially true if pentobarbitone sodium is used. In practice, it is likely that the animals will have their shells ripped off while still alive—which I hope that all hon. Members would agree is totally unacceptable—or be decapitated. The only way in which that method can be slightly improved is by administering drugs beforehand and pithing the brain and the spinal cord after decapitation. It is doubted whether turtle poachers would take the time to use even this partly humane method.
There is a strong case for the standpoint of our delegation and the Government can influence it. If there were more time I would have argued the case for Tersiops truncatus ponticus—the Black sea bottlenose dolphin. My interest in dolphins dates back to when I worked with what became the Born Free Foundation to ensure the return to the wild of the dolphins that were once on display in the Brighton dolphinarium. Times have changed, I am pleased to say, and in this country we now think differently about those creatures. Perhaps other hon. Members will talk further about the risks to that species.
Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will have much food for thought as a result of it.
11 am
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to all those hon. Members who are attempting to influence the outcome of the CITES talks next month.
We have heard some effective and passionate speeches—for example, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), whose interest in these matters was sparked off by a fascination for elephant ears when she was at school. I am sure that her teachers must feel proud of what she is doing now. We have also heard the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), whose work is well known. His description of the death of the turtle—I do not know the Latin name—should be enough to convince us, if we need any more convincing, that this terrible practice has to be stopped.
Labour Members are not criticising the United Kingdom Government staff, but seeking to strengthen commitments by a display of Back-Bencher opinion. I hope that the debate will be reported nationally and internationally. Only 11 hon. Members may be present today, but interest in this matter is increasing—both within and outside the House of Commons. A total of 125 Members from all parties have so far signed early-day motion 342, which relates to the ivory trade.
At the talks, the UK voice will be heard throughout the European Union, so it is vital that our representatives at Nairobi should ensure a united front in line with the best European Union traditions. In 1997, the EU regulations on wildlife trade were enthusiastically welcomed by key organisations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature. Unsurprisingly, implementation is much more difficult in certain member states.
162WH
This good and encouraging news is in complete contrast to the EU position adopted at the last conference of the parties to CITES, in which the EU disgraced itself by abstaining on a crucial vote, which would have transferred certain elephant populations from appendix 1, thereby allowing and promoting the sale of nearly 60 tonnes of raw ivory from elephant populations in Botswana, Namibia and, as we have heard today, Zimbabwe. South Africa has now joined those countries to propose yet further obscene sales of ivory, while Kenya and India propose a total ban by listing all elephant populations in appendix 1.
I am delighted to join my colleagues of all parties in urging the Minister to persuade the EU to support the Indian and Kenyan position. I hope that he will find time, notwithstanding his busy diary, to attend the conference for those four days, as he has been urged to do today. I understand that the Indian and Kenyan position was generally supported at a recent meeting of 21 elephant range states.
As we have heard, the other major proposed downlistings concern whales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion has talked passionately about the basking whale. Japan and Norway are behind the proposals to remove protected status from certain whale populations. Japan in particular has exploited legal exceptions to continue whaling for so-called scientific purposes. It also wants to sever the links between CITES and the International Whaling Commission, the recognised body for the conservation and management of whales stocks and the regulation of whaling activities. Even worse, Japan is in effect using aid to bribe smaller and developing countries to support its position at the talks. If those moves are successful, other countries, such as Russia and Iceland, are likely to resume whaling.
As time is tight and we are looking forward to hearing the Minister's response, I shall cut short my remarks and end on this point. We must use the instruments and organisations that we have to tackle the most pressing issues. The preservation of whales and elephants is just such an issue, and I urge the Minister to give it his most forceful consideration.
11.5 am
Mr. Damian Green: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) not just, in conventional terms, on securing the debate but also on what he said. He not only gave us a fascinating and important history of the operation of CITES since its formation and of other protection measures, but gave a compelling analysis of the problems that the Government face and, in particular, revealed that they are in the throes of betraying their pre-election promise, which he read out.
I hope that the multi-portfolioed and multi-talented Minister, as we have discovered him to be in the past 24 hours or so, will be able to explain what the Government's position will be and how that squares with what they promised before the election. He will recognise the importance not only of the intrinsic issues but of the tone that the Government adopt.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who used the phrase "neo-imperialism". There are two great dangers in the debate. The first is that the House thinks that it should urge the

163WH
Government to find a solution to problems that essentially belong to other countries; the second, more serious, danger is that this country will adopt a tone of imperialism or moral superiority. The Government should avoid such a tone, simply because it will be less effective in the long run in obtaining the animal and species protection that Members on both sides of the House want.
I hope that the Government will continue many of the CITES policies that the UK has adopted for a number of years. The Minister will be aware that at the 1992 CITES conference the previous Government were instrumental in persuading many other countries to maintain the ban on the sale of ivory. There was then, as there is today, a group of countries that wished to change the situation and the UK was successful in persuading them not to do so. Similarly, under the previous Government the UK supported the decision to stamp out the illegal trade in rhino horn and tiger parts. We welcome the Government's recent initiatives to give the remaining tiger population extra protection. To revert to the subject that has dominated most of our debate this morning—the protection of elephants—the previous Government contributed considerable sums of taxpayers' money to elephant conservation projects.
Clearly, what is of most interest today is the forthcoming Nairobi conference. There is a great disparity between what, on paper, appears to be a good and efficient regime and what is actually happening, so how does the Minister propose to help CITES enforce its own rules? Even if Kenya and India are successful in their bid to maintain the bans on trade in appendix 1, countries can seek a reservation allowing them to continue with ivory sales. Under existing CITES rules, proceeds from ivory sales must be spent on elephant conservation. For countries such as Zimbabwe, which faces a worrying political position and considerable economic hardship, funding for such essential conservation work is not easily come by. None of us would want the position on conservation to become even worse than it is. I therefore accept that the Minister's position is not easy.
The most worrying aspect of the debate about the sale of ivory concerns its direct effect on the level of illegal poaching. The position was rather bad in the 1970s, became extremely bad in the 1980s and improved slightly after international limits were imposed, but the thrust of evidence shows that it is now worsening again. We can only conclude that the new monitoring system—the MIKE system mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—and the related elephant trade information system are not yet effective. Until they are effective and generate information leading to enforcement, parties to CITES will not be able to take appropriate remedial action.
The interim system is not adequate to perform the systematic role that the long-term monitoring system is expected to have and which was proposed by the 10th conference of parties to CITES. Indeed, the parties have not yet agreed the thresholds and precautionary criteria needed to trigger remedial action. So the Minister, along with fellow Ministers attending the Nairobi meeting, is in a rather dangerous position. I echo suggestions that having a ministerial presence in Nairobi would be symbolically significant for this country, but I accept that the Minister and I will discuss wildlife protection in
164WH
a more domestic forum during the period in which the conference takes place. However, I accept what hon. Members on all sides of the House have said about the expertise in such matters demonstrated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Long-term enforcement is the key to a return to a gradual improvement in the condition of elephants and an increase in the number that can thrive and survive in the wild. Clearly, that will be one of the most important issues to be considered at Nairobi. However, as hon. Members have said, the elephant will not be the only species to be affected by ministerial decisions at Nairobi.
The whale population is another matter of deep concern; the World Wide Fund for Nature regards the position on whaling as the most important decision to be taken at Nairobi. I have some sympathy with that view. We know how strongly Norway and Japan feel about the matter and that they are trying to assemble a coalition to relax the proposals on whaling. That would be damaging and I urge the Government to stand firm. No country should move back to damaging large-scale commercial whaling and countries that follow the lead of Norway and Japan are likely to have even fewer domestic controls than those two countries, so the situation may become worse than it was before.
The World Wide Fund for Nature rightly said that there is no information on proposals for domestic controls in any other potential whaling nations. Any country that started taking whales in international waters, whether or not that country was a member of the IWC, could issue itself with an introduction from the sea certificate, or a state ship could transport its catch directly to an importing country under such a certificate and bypass the international security arrangements currently in place. That would be an extremely dangerous development that would make the position more damaging than it was before. Any attempt to introduce annotations to the proposals, such as zero quota for commercial whaling purposes, would create a major loophole because, under the CITES terms, a party that is also a party to the international convention on the regulation of whaling, which includes Norway and Japan, would be exempt from CITES restrictions for whale species listed in appendix 2; thus, a zero quota would be inoperative, and there would not be an adequate safeguard. As in so many international agreements on whaling, the devil may be in the detail and I urge the Government to stand firm on the issue.
The Government will also have to answer to the House and to CITES on our domestic record. Last October it was reported that the Government were permitting illegal wildlife trade in some of our overseas territories in the Caribbean. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the Chamber what action the Government have taken since then.
On a final note of optimism in a debate that, rightly, has mostly been pessimistic, it is a pleasure to read newspaper headlines such as "Tigers surge back from the brink", showing that the action taken on tigers in the past few years is working. I hope that the Minister will take that as inspiration. Some international agreements

165WH
can achieve their objectives. Positions are not irreversible and any decent action that he can take will be worth while.
11.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made a powerful speech and asked some sensible questions. I say to him, gently, that it would be helpful to know in advance what is on his mind. My office attempted to contact him last Thursday, again on Friday and again yesterday, but we succeeded in establishing contact only when I passed him a note during the debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill yesterday. The title of his debate is wide-ranging, but his speech was specific. If detailed answers are required, it helps to give as much notice as possible.
Mr. Brake: I apologise for not giving the Minister more advance notice. It was not intentional; I am not trying to catch him out in any way. 1 would welcome a written response from the Minister in the near future.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful. I shall certainly follow up in writing any outstanding matters from today's debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said that we had to be wary of becoming neo-imperialists lecturing poor countries on animal welfare issues when there is sometimes a mote in our own eye. His point was taken up by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). I agree: there are some motes in our own eye. I am a member of Compassion in World Farming, which takes an interest in factory farming in this country. Many questions certainly need to be answered about the way in which we treat animals. However, a debate about that is for another day, and perhaps another Minister.
The CITES conference in April will consider more than 100 proposals, ranging from technical issues such as how the convention should treat operations that ranch and harvest animals, to high-profile proposals involving elephants, whales, turtles and sharks. I shall not go into great detail, but we shall be majoring on three issues: the listing of the basking shark; a paper on bush meat; and, together with colleagues in Germany and Switzerland, a proposal on DNA, which will help to preserve biodiversity sources by speeding up the diagnosis and treatment of wildlife disease.
Let me first deal with elephants, which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington spoke about in his opening speech. He asked why the UK and other EU states abstained in the 1997 vote. We did so after securing significant safeguards, including the new monitoring system and agreement on a mechanism, however inadequate, to return elephants to appendix 1 if there were signs of increased poaching. The system now in place in Japan to monitor trade in ivory is, I am advised, the most comprehensive in the world. I will, however, reflect further on the hon. Gentleman's points about it.
We shall oppose all proposals to open up the trade in ivory, and will continue to do so until the monitoring system, which we worked so hard to achieve, provides
166WH
proper results. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's points but, as I said, the monitoring system is the most extensive and comprehensive ever developed and should continue to be supported.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we accepted that elephant poaching in Kenya had risen. We accept that there has been a small increase in poaching incidents this year. The figures are lower than in 1993—but only just—and are a long way short of the terrible situation in the 1980s. We also accept the view of the CITES secretariat that the increase is not statistically significant, and that there is no evidence to link it to the experimental one-off sale in ivory. Our knowledge of poaching in Kenya is based on information supplied to CITES by the Kenya Wildlife Service. To put the figures in context, the 1999 elephant population in Kenya was approximately 28,000. In the 1980s, about 2,000 a year were killed. According to figures given to us, 57 have been killed so far this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) quoted the Born Free Foundation. I understand that the CITES secretariat has written to complain about the statistics quoted on the Born Free website. Members of the secretariat reviewed all available information and visited Kenya to follow up reports of increased poaching, and they consider the figures to be a gross distortion of the true picture. The Save the Elephants report stresses the importance of not exaggerating the amount of poaching that is taking place because doing so can help to fuel demand.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to what he called the terror in Zimbabwe. I cannot quite subscribe to that because one must be careful about commenting on another country's internal political situation. However, the vigorous political debate that is taking place in that country recently resulted in its Government losing in a referendum, so all the signs are that freedom of speech and thought are still alive and well in Zimbabwe, whatever other problems it faces.
I was asked whether we shall send a Minister to the CITES conference. I do not think that there were any votes for my attending. For reasons that I understand perfectly, my hon. Friend the Fisheries Minister has been mentioned frequently. As far as I know, there are no plans for a Minister to attend the conference: Ministers do not usually attend CITES conferences. However, strong representations have been made and I shall draw them to my hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: No. I have only four minutes left and I want to comment on a couple of other subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) referred to turtles. We have already made clear our objection to the Cuban proposal to harvest hawksbill turtles for Japan. However, there are mixed views within the EU on a secondary proposal to allow a one-off sale of stockpiled shells. Cuba devotes significant resources to managing its fishery. Its protection of nesting sites and breeding areas has resulted in increases in the local hawksbill population. However, although we are

167WH
supportive of Cuban efforts to improve the conservation status of the species, we are aware that their biology remains complex. They range widely, and Cuba has yet to produce convincing evidence that its proposals will not have an impact on turtle populations elsewhere in the Caribbean. Our feeling is that there should be no international trade in hawksbill products other than as part of a wider initiative, possibly under the convention on migratory species, to protect nesting sites and breeding areas and to tackle accidental by-catch.
My hon. Friends the Members for Basildon and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) spoke about whales. There is agreement among EU countries to oppose Norwegian and Japanese proposals to allow international trade in minke and grey whales. We also oppose proposals to change the existing relationship between the CITES convention and the International Whaling Commission. Under agreements that they have backed since the early days, CITES parties have accepted that the IWC should be the lead body in determining issues relating to whaling. CITES has long respected the moratorium on catching whales by putting great whales in appendix 1 of the convention, thereby preventing international trade in whales and their products. We see no reason to change that, and we shall continue to work hard to persuade the CITES parties that are unfamiliar with the IWC that opposition to the proposals is the only way of preventing an upsurge in commercial whaling.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) mentioned basking sharks. He will be glad to hear that the United Kingdom has proposed to list the basking shark in appendix 2, which would regulate the worldwide trade in the sharks.
I have only one minute left before I turn into the Minister responsible for aviation but, before doing so, I will say something about elephants. We and other EU states are disappointed that several African countries submitted proposals that may have a further impact on the conservation status of elephants. We have urged those countries to withdraw their proposals until monitoring and control systems have had time to bed down and produce meaningful results. There are encouraging signs that some countries are preparing to withdraw their proposals.

Aircraft Emissions
11.30 am
Mr. Tony Colman: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for agreeing to this Adjournment debate on aircraft emissions and the Kyoto protocol. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Minister is as pleased as I am; he is dealing with at least three Adjournment debates, following the work that he did in winding up the debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill last night. I am pleased that he is here as the Aviation Minister.
The recently pubished draft United Kingdom programme for dealing with climate change has a thermometer on the front cover, with the red of the mercury going up to, but not reaching, a pictogram of an aircraft, clearly depicting that as yet the Government have a limited programme for dealing with aircraft emissions, as shown on pages 91 and 92. Furthermore, we are still waiting for the civil aviation daughter paper to the main White Paper on integrated transport, published by the Government in early 1999. The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government to flesh out the options for action.
The Minister will know of the Adjournment debate that I secured on the need to remove all night flights from Heathrow, the need for strict controls on noise and the lack of a need for terminal 5. Those concerns form the backdrop to this debate.
The intergovernmental panel on climate change in 1999 estimated that aircraft might be responsible for 5 to 6 per cent. of the warming caused by greenhouse gases. However, some of the study's authors believe that the figure could be 10 per cent. or more—that is, amounting to more than half the global warming potential emissions from road transport. Emissions from aircraft are alleged to be doubling every 10 years. The Kyoto protocol excludes aircraft because the negotiators could not agree on how to allocate responsibility for emissions made during international flights.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation prepared its own special report on aviation and the global atmosphere, in which it confirmed those figures. The Kyoto negotiators at last put aircraft emissions back on the agenda at the fifth conference of the parties—COPS—in Bonn last October. However, emission reductions of 60 to 80 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2050 are needed to stabilise the earth's climate systems, according to the IPCC. Clearly, a world agreement is needed and I look forward to the Government taking a strong line at COP6 in the Netherlands this autumn.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his successful advocacy earlier this month to his European Union colleagues, securing agreement to the basis for an aircraft fuel kerosene tax. The discussions now move to the ICAO meeting next week. It is important that a worldwide agreement is reached. If such a tax were imposed only in the EU, avoidance tactics might be used elsewhere. I should like a commitment that the proceeds of such a tax will be used to commence work on the zero-emission engines and aircraft that will be needed in the next 50 years; only a zero-emission aircraft requirement will ensure that the availability of flying to the people of the world is not restricted.

169WH
At an excellent display in the mind zone of the dome, the audience is asked questions on the impact of emissions from aircraft, and it is stated that 99 per cent. of the people of the world have never flown and should do so only if their flying does not harm the atmosphere. Furthermore, such an expansion in the availability of flights requires an airports policy for the 21st century, with new airports well away from conurbations with high-speed train links. Terminal 5, with its supposed 8 per cent. ceiling on more flights, and no second runway at Heathrow, of which we are assured, will not provide the answer.
I have mentioned EU agreement on aviation fuel taxation. The EU research programmes on such matters are accelerating and, as with the auto-oil proposals, the European Parliament is likely to force changes in aircraft design and acceptability before 2010. The United Kingdom should not wait for Europe or the ICAO to agree a regional or world way forward; we have shown leadership in such matters and we should do so again. Voluntary agreements are being reached, industry by industry, to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the United Kingdom, and there are reductions in the climate change levy for industries that do so. The airline industry has an equivalent to a climate change levy in its consumer tax—air passenger duty, which could be significantly reduced, perhaps by 50 to 80 per cent.
Mr. David Chaytor: On air passenger duty, does my hon. Friend agree with the chief executive of easyJet, who said that the existing air passenger duty structure is unfair and simplistic? It penalises passengers who take short-haul flights, but fails to levy an appropriate charge on intercontinental flights, which by and large are made by affluent individuals and those on corporate business. Does he think that there is scope for a fairer structure?
Mr. Colman: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention. Certainly, my speech is about equity and enabling people to fly, but my concern is that easyJet's aircraft should have low or zero emissions. We must recognise that short-haul journeys are often better made on high-speed train links such as Eurostar than on flights. Having said that, I admire the attempt to lower the cost of flying for the people of Europe. In introducing air passenger duty, Nigel Lawson described it as a replacement for tax on air fuel, and we regard it in the same way as climate change levies. As I have said, a significant reduction in air passenger duty 50 per cent. to 80 per cent., say—will be available to airlines that commit to stretching targets for emissions reduction. As the APD reduction could be made in lieu of compliance costs associated with stretching fuel efficiency targets in other ways, the scheme should not distort competition.
The Association of European Airlines has, I am told, secured agreement from its members to an efficiency improvement target of 22.4 per cent. for 1990–2012. Of that figure, 14.1 per cent. resulted from fleet renewal and an improvement in load factor and the remaining 8.3 per cent. is predicated on fleet replacement. I am pleased to say that British Airways has committed to a 30 per cent.
170WH
improvement on its 1990 fuel efficiency figures by 2010. However, those are assertions; there is no formal check. The Minister should make, if you like, binding agreements, so that UK and, if you like, European regulations can nail down the voluntary arrangements.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Whether I like binding agreements or European regulations has nothing to do with the debate. The hon. Gentleman should remember that, in using the word "you", he is referring to me and no one else.
Mr. Colman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The airline industry also claims that a further 10 per cent. saving could be made if the Government agree to operational efficiency in air traffic control and air traffic management. I am sure that the matter will arise again in discussions on public-private partnership and National Air Traffic Services. Will the proposals, which would make a start on taking aircraft emissions seriously, be taken up by the Government and discussed at next week's meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation?
I have five key questions for the Government. First, do they support the inclusion of aviation emissions in their national greenhouse gas inventories in time for this year's climate change treaty conference of the parties? Secondly, will they make the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions an explicit objective of the new White Paper on airports? Thirdly, in developing that White Paper, will they introduce explicit demand management measures in respect of airports if there is no way forward for zero-emission aircraft? Fourthly, do they support measures for a Europewide charge on aircraft emissions to help to reduce the contribution of aviation to climate change? Fifthly, will they enter into an agreement—as they have done elsewhere—with the airline industry and use the air passenger duties as an equivalent to the climate change levy to negotiate binding agreements in the UK?
In addition to those questions, I should like to take up the cause of manufacturing industry, which has been much in the news in the past two weeks. Earlier this month, everyone was delighted to hear the announcement of the £500 million Government loan guarantee to BAE Systems to enable it to start work on the wings for the new Airbus A3XX, which was dubbed the "green giant" by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He said that it will use
20 per cent. less fuel per passenger
and will be
quieter and cleaner than comparable planes.
Clearly, airframe improvements can deliver fuel efficiencies, but the key to lower aircraft emissions is the motor power source—the engines. Where was an announcement about support to Rolls-Royce for the development of a new generation of zero-emission non-fossil-fuel engines—the sort of quantum leap that the RB211, which was supported by the previous Labour Government, represented in the 1970s?
I am told that current technology on hydrogen and fuel cells is not practical at present—hydrogen is bulky to transport and fuel cells are not light enough for air travel. Similar objections were recently made about the feasibility of land-based transport using that

171WH
technology, but those were overcome. I was disappointed to discover that none of the current foresight panels is working on that. Other programmes are going ahead. The work on "Air Travel— Greener by Design" by the Society of British Aerospace Companies seems to take a more general approach. The foresight link award for the work on fuel control sensors to help reduce aircraft pollution that is being carried out by Cranfield university, the university of Sheffield, Rolls-Royce and Lucas Aerospace sounds promising, and I hope that it will be incorporated in the A3XX. Proper enforcement of the Kyoto protocol should mean more jobs and prosperity for the new technological industries, and new aircraft design is part of that change.
In addition to a response to those points, I hope to hear from my hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry about the good news for manufacturing industry at Rolls-Royce in the midlands and Scotland.
Aircraft emissions are not on the agenda for the subsidiary body for implementation, which is meeting in Bonn on 12 to 16 June, prior to the sixth conference of the parties. Yesterday, I spent two hours ploughing through 44 pages of text on the internet to discover that. I look forward to faster engines in those systems as well. The UK must be proactive—there is still time before June. That proactivity is needed to establish solutions, some of which I have suggested in my speech. The key must be to ensure that everyone on earth who could fly, can. Without new technology, they will not be able to do so, and without control on aircraft emissions, the advent of global warming will inevitably accelerate.
Last month, Michael Zammit Cutajar, the executive secretary-general of the United Nations framework convention on climate change, said at the 10th UN conference on trade and development:
The ultimate objective of the strategy is to halt the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before it becomes dangerous. Efficiency in limiting further emissions of these gases is vital for success. Equity in distributing responsibility for these limitations is vital for political engagements. Visions of the economic opportunities of a climate-friendly future would transform the language of negotiation from "burden sharing" to "win-win".
It is this linkage with the economy that relates the climate change scenario to that of globalisation. Climate change is a by-product of two centuries of economic growth, so action to address it must pass through the economy of the 21st century. Greater efficiency and cleaner technologies are needed in the energy, transport and industrial sectors, among others. This can be a driver of technological change, "green jobs" and "green profits". The international response can also generate a new push in favour of the transfer of technology and know-how to developing countries and capacity building.
Aircraft building and design is a perfect example of the clean development mechanism—the CDM. The UK leads the world in that, and it could be our gift to the world to solve the problem of aircraft emissions and lead to effective implementation of the Kyoto protocol, which is not happening at present.
11.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has raised an important issue, which I
172WH
know is of great interest to him and his constituents, who have many noisy planes flying over them. He asked me several detailed questions.
Mr. Colman: It is not only the problem of aircraft noise that I am concerned about, but that of the pollution and emissions coming from those aeroplanes.
Mr. Mullin: Indeed. Those emissions are the main subject of our discussions today. No doubt we shall discuss noise another day.
My hon. Friend asked me a number of detailed questions. May I gently say to him what I said to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—that it is helpful to have advance notice of such questions? I shall do my best to answer them, but if I do so inadequately we shall follow up the matter with correspendence.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation meeting next week will be a working group that the United Kingdom and the United States will chair jointly. The decisions will be made at the ICAO assembly in September and October 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is no longer in the Chamber, made a point about air passenger duty, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have noted the point and will draw it to the Chancellor's attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked a question about the inclusion of international emissions. I am advised that that is a matter for discussion at the conference of the parties, not for the ICAO. The agenda for the working party has not yet been settled, but all the options will be considered. Demand measures are unlikely to be one of the Government's objectives.
The use of air passenger duty to negotiate binding agreements is only one option. The Association of European Airlines efficiency targets are proposals for voluntary agreements, and the ICAO is considering a range of market-based options.
The United Kingdom played a key part in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, in which developed countries agreed to cut their combined emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 per cent. between 2008 and 2012. The European Community agreed a larger reduction of 8 per cent. and that target was subsequently shared out, with the UK agreeing to a 12.5 per cent. cut. We are developing our programme to deliver that target and to meet our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010.
On 9 March, the Government published their draft UK climate change programme. This will form the basis for action to fulfil our obligations. The final UK programme will be prepared by the autumn, and the UK will then be in a position to rafity the Kyoto protocol. Many issues remain to be settled and we are working closely with our European partners and other countries to ensure that the protocol comes into force as soon as possible. In November, the sixth conference of the parties will be held in The Hague and countries will need to reach agreement on a range of outstanding issues.
Aviation is an important issue in relation to the Kyoto protocol and plays an important part in our lives. It is vital for trade and makes a significant contribution to our economy. It is a major growth industry and air

173WH
traffic is forecast to double in the next 15 years. However, that growth will not be without problems of both noise and emissions. Aviation contributes to climate change with worldwide emissions constituting some 2 per cent. of all man-made carbon dioxide. Aviation also produces other emissions, many of them going directly into the sensitive upper atmosphere. They include oxides of nitrogen—which lead to the formation of ozone—particulates and water vapour, which lead to the formation of contrails. There are uncertainties about their exact effects of climate change, but they could be as great as those of carbon dioxide alone.
Globally, aviation emissions are expected to increase from 115 million tonnes of carbon in 1992 to between 245 and 265 million tonnes in 2015. Of those emissions, international aviation accounts for approximately half. Emissions from domestic aviation are already included in the Kyoto targets and United Kingdom domestic aviation accounts for only about 10 per cent. of the 9 million tonnes of aviation fuel sold annually. The remainder is international. Emissions from international aviation are not included in the targets agreed by Kyoto.
Mr. Colman: My hon. Friend seemed to imply that while international aviation emissions are not within the Kyoto targets, domestic aviation emissions are. Will he confirm that that is so and that they will be included in the final proposals on climate change, because they are not included in the draft document?
Mr. Mullin: I said that emissions from domestic aviation are already included and that emissions from international aviation are not, which also applies to international shipping. To date, there has been no agreement on how or whether to allocate them to individual countries—the subject is very complex. Instead, the Kyoto protocol requires developed countries to limit or reduce emissions by working through the ICAO.
In 1996, the ICAO invited the intergovernmental panel on climate change to prepare a report on the effects of aviation and the steps needed to be taken to address them. The result was the special report on aviation and the global atmosphere published last June. It was the first panel report on a single sector and represents an authoritative and policy-neutral assessment of the science and technology of the effects of aviation on the atmosphere and the measures that have been taken and need to be taken to mitigate them.
The ICAO is also working, through its committee on aviation environmental protection, to develop policies and measures to encourage development of aircraft and engine technology so that it is less polluting. In the United Kingdom, Rolls-Royce and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency are at the forefront of research into improved engine technology. The Department of Trade and Industry is also sponsoring research on how the environmental impact of air travel
174WH
can be reduced. The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions works closely with my Department on that research.
The ICAO is also considering how market-based options such as an aviation fuel tax, emissions trading or voluntary agreements might be developed. They could provide fiscal incentives to use and develop more efficient aircraft. It is considering how aircraft could be flown on more direct routes and how less fuel might be wasted, for example, in holding stacks of aircraft waiting to land. In Europe, Eurocontrol is also involved. On 28 January this year, European Ministers issued a statement identifying the need to take account of environmental impact in future strategy.
Improved aircraft and engine design is leading to reductions in emissions and improvements are constantly being researched, but it should be recognised that it is unlikely that the industry will ever reach a point at which aircraft emit no noxious gases or water vapour. Even hydrogen would produce water vapour. That does not mean that no improvement can be made and, in the light of our goals under the Kyoto protocol, emissions reduction will remain very much on our agenda.
The committee on aviation environmental protection has been asked to report to the next ICAO assembly, which will be held in September next year, and the United Kingdom is playing a leading role in developing policy options ahead of the assembly.
Action is also being taken in the European Union. The Commission published a communication on air transport and the environment, which suggested a coherent strategy within the EU. In particular, it addressed how the EU could maximise its influence at the ICAO assembly, where the United Kingdom is one of the key players. Ministers will consider their response at the Transport Council on 28 March, but we expect it to be supportive.
The EU published a communication on its policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also published a document on the environmental, economic and legal implications of taxing aviation fuel. It recommends that the EU allows member states to impose taxes on aviation fuel domestically and permits bilateral agreements to tax fuel. However, it notes that for environmental and economic reasons it would not be practicable or desirable for the Community as a whole to introduce taxation targeting only intra-Community services. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the logic of that. One concern is that fuel would be tankered in by airlines to avoid high taxes, leading to a net increase in fuel emissions.
My hon. Friend raised an important issue that will undoubtedly occupy everyone concerned with the aviation industry for years to come. It is also important in dealing with the survival of the planet and reducing overall levels of pollution. I am grateful to him for raising the subject and I hope that he is reassured that we are at least on the case, even if we do not have all the solutions.
11.56 am
Sitting suspended.

Housing (Hampshire)
12 noon
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcome this short debate on the implications for Hampshire of the Government's housing policies. I also welcome the presence of my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). During nearly 17 years as a Hampshire Member, no other issue has so consistently generated so much concern among my constituents as new house building. We acknowledge that there are legitimate pressures for new housing, but not to the extent accepted by the Government. We also know that the vibrant economy demands a vibrant work force, but we do not accept the reasons that have so far been given for the urbanisation of so much of our countryside.
I am concerned about the number of houses to be built up to 2016. The south-east regional planning committee—Serplan—originally envisaged an annual average of 5,212 new houses in the county. The Crow report proposed a preposterous 8,450 houses each year. Subject to five-year monitoring, and based on previously proposed distribution, the Government now appear to be thinking in terms of approximately 6,500 new houses each year. It is not surprising that the county council dismissed that proposal as unjustified in a recent brief for Members of Parliament.
The situation is even worse in the north of the county. On 7 March, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) sought an assurance from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that Berkshire would be able to say no to any new settlement south of the M4. In Basingstoke, we have nightmares about what we have dubbed "Readingstoke"—urban development devouring much of the remaining countryside between Basingstoke and Reading. My right hon. Friend was given no assurance, so we fear the worst.
The Secretary of State claims to have abandoned what he calls the old predict and provide system. In reality, he has done no such thing. He pretends, and asks us to accept, that he has introduced a new approach—plan, monitor and manage. There is no significant difference whatever between the two approaches. The planning process cannot be other than a combination of predicting, planning, monitoring and managing.
The Government have introduced a change that undermines strategic planning. On 7 March, the Secretary of State told the House:
Local authorities should plan to provide 43,000 additional dwellings a year outside London, subject to regular review … every five years.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 865.]
However, the services that accompany housing development—education, health care, transport and roads—cannot be planned effectively and efficiently on the basis of a succession of five-year reviews, each of which is itself subject to review.
The planning of key infrastructure services requires greater certainty over a longer time span than five years. Five-year monitoring, of which the Government boast, is a fundamental flaw in their housing policy, from which Hampshire and other counties will inevitably suffer.
176WH
The Secretary of State told the House that the Government have
set a national target that 60 per cent. of new homes should use recycled land or buildings.
He added:
planning authorities must in future give preference to recycling previously developed sites and empty properties—brownfield first, greenfield last.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863–64.]
I fear, and I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with me, that the Secretary of State's words are virtually meaningless for Hampshire and are certainly meaningless for the borough of Basingstoke and Deane.
The overwhelming consensus of informed opinion maintains that 60 per cent. of the likely new housing requirement cannot be achieved in the county by previously developed sites and empty premises. The cities of Southampton and Portsmouth are the only parts of the county where that figure could remotely be achieved. The paradox is that that is not where the bulk of the county's development is likely to take place.
In the parliamentary constituency of Basingstoke and the borough of Basingstoke and Deane, which is partly in my constituency and partly in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, we expect an absolute minimum of 7,500 houses over the next few years. The land has already been earmarked; some of it is being prepared for development. It is not being alarmist to say that that number of new starts could easily rise to more than 10,000 and the environmental implications of that are horrendous.
Local planners tell me that, with the currently agreed density of about 16 to 18 houses per acre, only 20 per cent. of the required new homes will be constructed on brownfield sites. If one reverses that, 80 per cent. of the house building requirement in the borough of Basingstoke and Deane has to take place on greenfield sites. Even with the higher density, to which the Government are so far only paying lip service, it is impossible to see how anything approaching their 60 per cent. target of brownfield new housing can be achieved. Even if it could be, the implications from such a concentration of habitation for the provision of health care, education, transport and roads are so enormous that there would be public consternation.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the available brownfield sites in locations such as Gosport were to be developed, the road infrastructure and the other matters to which he has referred simply could not cope with the additional population?
Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. I do not know his constituency as well as I know my part of the county, but what he says about it marries with our interpretation and our concerns in the north of the county, so I thank him for that contribution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I ask all hon. Members to address the Chair when they speak, not because I feel touchy about it, but because it means that the Hansard transcribers can hear what is being said and report it accurately.
Mr. Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise. I shall enjoy addressing you from now on.

177WH
In addition to the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned, there would have to be a total rethink of the provision of all service infrastructure if the Government's required housing density were to be achieved.
Derelict brownfield sites do not exist in the greater part of Hampshire, where new housing development is effectively synonymous with greenfield development. The emphasis of the Government's policy is wrong. With regard to the regeneration and investment that is associated with housebuilding, the needs of other parts of the United Kingdom are greater than those in Hampshire. We also need to consider the scandalous fact that there are 700,000 empty houses in Britain. The Chancellor could start putting things right today by reducing VAT on refurbishing empty buildings—the rate is currently 17.5 per cent. but it should be changed to the 5 per cent. rate that is charged on new house construction.
Mr. Mark Oates: Does the hon Gentleman agree that the Chancellor could also introduce a greenfield levy, which would dissuade builders from building on greenfield sites? That positive step would help, especially in Hampshire.
Mr. Hunter: I do not know—or care very much—whether we should introduce deterrents in relation to greenfield sites or offer incentives in relation to brownfield sites, but we need a fiscal balance to tempt developers into the urban environment.
The Environment Committee recommended two years ago that the 60 per cent. figure for brownfield development should be a requirement, not a guideline or an aspiraton. That figure would determine the amount of development in each planning authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is introducing a private Member's Bill that would require local authorities to undertake urban capacity studies and to publish audits of derelict, vacant or underused sites.
When the Secretary of State made his statement on 7 March, he sought to reassure, but he failed to do so in relation to Hampshire. He gave the figure of 43,000 houses a year in the south-east outside London. Previously proposed distribution means that the associated provisions will increase the requirement for Hampshire by more than 1,200 houses a year, compared with the original Serplan proposals. The Secretary of State's plan, monitor and manage concept is nothing new and his five-year strategy will undermine the planning and development of key service infrastructure. From Hampshire's point of view, his objective of 60 per cent. brownfield site development is a confidence trick. It is small wonder that the people of Hampshire are angry and disillusioned with the Government.
12.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am hesitating because the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) informed me before this debate that two other hon. Members wanted to speak, but that does not appear to be the case. No matter.
178WH
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He raised an important subject that is of concern to the Government and to local people, wherever they live. Housing provision in structure plans is always likely to be contentious with regard to the amount of provision to be made and to the location of new houses. Those who seek to ensure that housing needs can be met—the Government and those at local level—and those who live in areas where future development may take place usually have competing views.
The hon. Gentleman outlined some of his constituents' anxieties, which arise predominantly in relation to the proposals in the review of the county structure plan, which is due to be adopted later this month. The document identifies four major development areas. The proposal is that they will be the principal locations for new housing development in the period up to 2011. One of those areas, as he acknowledges, is Basingstoke.
I know that progress on the review plan has not been straightforward. It was introduced by the county council in 1996 and initially made some progress through the early stages, including its examination in public that year. The panel report followed in 1997, when two new authorities were created in Hampshire, as a result of which the review plan became the joint responsibility of Portsmouth and Southampton councils, together with the county council.
The authorities reached substantial agreement early on how they might deal with the recommendations made by the examination in public panel. However, as I said, the conclusions on housing provision provoked contention between the authorities, and there followed a long period during which they failed to reach agreement on the overall level of housing provision. I mention that because there is a history of contention at local level about some of the issues covered in the plan. Later, I shall challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the issues faced by his constituents in Basingstoke are solely the result of a top-down approach by the Government to what the response to housing need in his county should be—they are not.
Central to consideration of the plan is the extent to which it conforms to regional planning guidance, as outlined in RPG9. The current guidance, which the review plan must take into account, was published in 1994. It covers the period from 1991 to 2006 and sets out indicative figures for housing provision for the region, down to county level. The housing requirement for Hampshire is given as 6,133 new homes a year over that period.
At the outset, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State lodged an objection to the review plan. He considered that the proposed provision, which was substantially below that suggested in the regional guidance, needed full justification. The first modifications introduced by the three structure plan authorities in May 1999 proposed a base-line figure of 80,290 dwellings for the plan period from 1996 to 2011. Those were to be distributed among the districts, including the major development areas. A reserve figure of 10,000 dwellings was also proposed for land that would be released, if needed. My right hon. Friend objected to the proposals because he considered that the arguments put by the authorities were not sufficiently strong to justify a level of provision that was 14,000

179WH
dwellings lower than that indicated by the regional guidance. He also objected to the fact that the reserve provision of 10,000, which should have been allocated on an indicative basis, had not been allocated on that basis in the development plans.
The structure plan authorities responded positively to the objection and produced further modifications in October 1999. Those modifications proposed an overall provision of 94,290 dwellings and, within that, a reserve provision of 14,000 dwellings distributed around the districts, as required by the guidance. My right hon. Friend considered that that met his earlier objection and did not oppose the new policy, which was designed to allow the release of the reserve provision. I emphasise that use of the reserve would be justified only when there was a compelling argument for it. In other words, it is headroom and not necessarily part of the core provision.
The distribution of the reserve allocation has meant that some authorities in Hampshire now have an additional requirement that was not present when the structure plan authorities produced their first modifications in May 1999; Basingstoke is one such authority. Within its allocation of 12,060 dwellings for the period from April 1996 to March 2011, provision is made for a major development area of 4,000 dwellings in the period from 2001 to 2011.
In welcoming the further modifications by the structure plan authorities, my right hon. Friend made it clear that he did not oppose the objective of the new reserve allocations policy; he did not comment either way on the distribution proposed. It is for the structure plan authorities, with their local knowledge, to distribute structure plan provisions in the district, and they are best placed to undertake the task. They must take into account the principles of sustainable development as set out in the policy guidance and consider where major development is to be located in relation to existing or proposed public transport infrastructure, so as to minimise reliance on the car.
In future, development plans will be reviewed in the light of the new regional planning guidance, which the Secretary of State will issue for consultation. It was announced that the proposed annual rate of new dwellings in the south-east outside London will be 43,000 houses a year. Better use of land and better layout will reduce the land take so that new allocations of land will not be needed. It will be for the authorities, supported by their new powers, to plan the mix and location of housing to meet the need for a wider variety of dwellings and to reduce land take at the same time. I hope that Opposition Members will support the authorities in that task and not propose a return to past policies.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke made some political points about the expected regional planning guidance and the 43,000 houses. As he knows, the regional planning guidance process is expected to lead to an agreed regional target for net additional dwellings, subject to review. The Serplan estimate was discussed in examination in public, but in the panel's view it was an underestimate of need and capacity. We agreed, but not to the extent that the panel suggested.
I reject the hon. Gentleman's contention that plan, monitor and manage is not new or that it is a subterfuge. It is a fundamentally new approach and, in
180WH
implementing it, we propose a rate of growth for the south-east outside London of the rate to which he alluded. It is an on-going rate of development and it will be reviewed every five years.
I take issue, too, with the hon. Gentleman's contention that incorporating a review process creates uncertainty. It does not; it means that we can respond flexibly to the real world. We can say not that we must have X number of houses, come what may, by 2016, but that at present our assessment of local need and of the gap between need and provision is that 43,000 dwellings a year for the first five years will meet the need but circumstances may change and we will review the situation. That is planning with flexibility, not with uncertainty.
I want to dispel the myth that we are planning only for the next five years and abandoning any responsibility for the longer term. The regional planning guidance will not be a five-year plan; it will show the rate of building to be applied through the plan period, which will be reviewed at least every five years and sooner if circumstances warrant it. The annual rate represents a benchmark that is monitored continuously and reviewed every five years. It is regrettable that the Opposition cannot accommodate an approach that, on account of its potential for flexibility and responsiveness on the part of the Government and local planning authorities, deals with a big issue—a situation of genuine need. Opposition Members appear to want a completely rigid approach.
Let us consider the Opposition's approach. It does not seem to admit that X number of houses will be needed by 2016. It is an approach that says, "We do not want any more housing in our area. Let parochial interests alone determine the amount of provision." They claim that it is a more responsive, bottom-up process, but in practice it is little more than a NIMBYists' charter. It battens down the hatches, saying, "Sorry, we are full up in Hampshire. We do not want to recognise the needs of local people."
Mr. Hunter: The Minister has entirely misunderstood the point that I made. The service infrastructure has to be planned in advance and I point no further than to the provision of primary schools. The problem in Hampshire is that planning and delivering a new primary school takes a number of years and I dare say that that applies all over the country. If a local education authority does not know what the demand for primary school places will be, how can it decide in advance to invest the money in building primary schools?
Ms Hughes: The recently published planning policy guidance PPG3 makes clear the extent to which the infrastructure of all kinds that will be needed to support further housing development in all parts of the country must be a material consideration at all levels of the development planning process. We recognise that, but the fact that the infrastructure does not exist to such an extent at present does not mean that our response should be not to plan for more housing. Instead, we must consider how to accommodate those difficult issues and competing imperatives, and consider ways to plan flexibly and responsively for housing need and the need for consequential planning.
Mr. Viggers: The Government came to power prating about integrated transport. The Minister's speech

181WH
would have carried more conviction if she had mentioned the contribution that integrated transport could make to ameliorating the housing situation in Hampshire.
Ms Hughes: That is an extremely important issue, which the Government have pressed strongly. It is dealt with in PPG3 and has been anticipated by the planning authorities. They have tried to accommodate it in the plans that we are discussing. They propose that 30 per cent. of the anticipated housing need be met mainly around the four areas designated for major development. They are located on major transport modal corridors and were selected precisely because they reduce travel by private transport and maximise the potential for using the existing transport infrastructure.
On the brownfield issue, when the proposed changes to Serplan's draft regional planning guidance are published next week, it will be seen that areas such as the Thames gateway and other areas for economic regeneration will be given priority. That will apply in Hampshire, too. There is also the unrealised potential for Hampshire to reconsider the designation of land in its current plan and further to increase the provision for housing on previously used land. The 60 per cent. brownfield target is a national target. We have always acknowledged that the figure will not necessarily be achieved in every county and perhaps not in every region. It is a national target and there will be local variants in the extent to which the contribution to that national target is reached. These are complex issues, but unlike the previous Government we are not ducking them. We are proposing a thorough, robust but flexible approach to some of the most difficult problems that face people in the hon. Gentleman's area and nationally in the next 10 to 15 years.

Parish and Town Councils
12.30 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to have a second opportunity to talk about the future of parish and town councils following a debate that I initiated just over a year ago. I shall not speak for long because 1 know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) would also like to speak. We should like to respond to a campaign launched by the official Opposition to say that the Government are attempting to abolish parish and town councils. As we are both councillors, we hope to put across the authentic voice of local councillors today. I should also like to put a positive slant on what these councils do and can do.
It first came to my notice some weeks ago that it was being suggested that the Government were considering abolishing these councils. That came as a shock to me as someone who continues to sit on Stonehouse town council in my constituency. The Stroud Conservative association has organised a conference this weekend to consider local government and the environment. I have no problem with that, but it has sent out a letter, which starts:
Government Threat to Abolish Parish Councils and Town Councils
As you may know the Government is currently considering whether to abolish Parish Councils. It has been suggested that 'neighbourhood forums' will replace them.
'Neighbourhood forums' are meetings where any resident can attend to talk about local issues and make comments and suggestions about any council service. This would be the end of representative democracy and accountability at this most local level. Furthermore, too many—indeed most—might not feel able or willing to attend such meetings and they would therefore lose their democratic voice.
That is an example of some of the nonsense that is being put abroad. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is not the case and that we can look forward to enhanced powers at this, the first, not the lowest, level of democracy.
The campaign may emanate from some of the press coverage given to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment at the last Labour party conference. I went to all the conference gatherings that he attended and he made three speeches that related to this area. Unless I was at different meetings, on no occasion did I hear him talk about abolishing parish councils. He talked about some of the problems, such as getting people to stand and to take their due responsibility and the ways in which parish councils could be more effective by working together. That is something with which I would totally concur. On no occasion did I hear him say, "We intend to abolish parish councils." Again, I wonder where the idea came from.
I am not against the idea of neighbourhood forums as they may have their place. In urban areas, where there is under-representation because of the lack of local councils, it may be a way forward, but I see this as an enhancement, not a denigration, of local councils. Everyone from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister downwards has said that there is no truth in the story. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has commented on the Government's views on

183WH
local councils and I am sure that she will speak for herself later. I am using this Adjournment debate to set the record straight and to look positively at the issue.
For good or ill, the Government have created an additional 50 parish councils since coming to power in 1997, which demonstrates their interest in this area and suggests that they want to increase the number rather than reduce it. I will now deal with the positive agenda. During my 13 years as a parish councillor, I have realised that parish councils can be a source of considerable local activity and continual local good. We await the rural White Paper, which I hope will cover local government in rural areas—not only parish councils, but representation in general. It would be good if the Minister could tease out some of the themes that will be in the White Paper.
In my previous Adjournment debate on this topic, we discussed planning and village blueprints as ways for local people to take responsibility for how their communities evolve. There is no better way to achieve that than through the operation of local councils. I am eternally grateful to my good friend Stephen Wright, from the Gloucestershire rural community council, who has frequently suggested countryside stewardship to me as a way of examining how parish councils can enhance their powers and integrate their activities. By providing a parish blueprint, councils can ensure that they maximise their powers. In my previous speech, I made the argument—in which I still strongly believe—that parish councils often do not appreciate the full value of the powers available to them, whether through section 137 and the so-called penny rate or through training and education, by means of which they can lead their communities. Countryside stewardship has now been taken up by the Countryside Agency, so I flag it up as relevant.
It is important to consider enhancing the roles of clerks and councillors to ensure that they can perform the full range of tasks available to them. I wholeheartedly congratulate the Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education on its courses for new parish clerks and councillors, which inform them of the opportunities of which they may take advantage. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can set out additional ways in which we can offer training to new and existing parish clerks and councillors, so that they can tackle the challenges that face them.
I would like to identify the relationship between neighbourhood forums and parish councils, because it is clear that those are different bodies and not alternatives. It would be good to know what ideas the Government have for neighbourhood forums and how they may further enhance the first rung of local democracy. I do not see those bodies as a challenge, because they could work in some places by helping parish councils to operate in an integrated manner.
Problems clearly affect this local rung of democracy. I have mentioned that there may be unwillingness to use the powers that exist in statute, and that using such powers should perhaps be encouraged or made the subject of review. I have talked about auditing arrangements at length and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has responded. They are still a cause for concern, but I gather that there has been some progress. The same applies to best value and how it is bedding down in this first rung of democracy.
184WH
There is a debate about how we should situate parish and town councils in the wider reform of local government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will mention that and that the Government will state categorically that they see an important role for those councils, as those of us who are involved in them do. The more that can be done to make that view apparent, the better.
I should like to put on record how important I found my involvement with local councils. All Labour Members have always welcomed the opportunity to talk to parish councils and many of us who represent constituencies with many such councils try to get out and about to do so. I commend Stroud town council for the work that it has done on its local plan analysis, which has been important in drafting the district's overall local plan, and Dursley town council for the work that it has done in setting up its town centre partnership. Those are examples of the good work that town councils can do. Leonard Stanley parish council has led the attempts to reopen the village post office. I could cite many other similar examples.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position and confirm that parish councils have not only a past and a present but a strong future and that they will be developed in many different ways.
12.40 pm
Mr. David Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend—and fellow parish councillor—the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who was elected on the same day as me in May 1997, on securing this debate. I am immensely encouraged because my hon. Friend the Minister has replied positively to the questions on the future of parish and town councils that I have asked her, and now is the appropriate time to underline the current position.
I was lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the first of this morning's debates on protecting endangered species. I believe that there is no link between that debate and this one, because parish councils still have much to offer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that I am the link.
Mr. Taylor: There is no link between the two debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My fact-finding visits to all but two of the 25 parish councils in North-West Leicestershire have convinced me that, as my hon. Friend has said, they are not the lowest tier of democracy; they are its front line in rural areas. At their best, they can respond quickly, as they have done in rundown mining areas, where they have initiated economic regeneration and environmental restoration projects and tackled problems of social cohesion.
Parish councils can do an awful lot and have much to offer. They are the starting point for citizenship and political inclusion in areas that sometimes feel remote from the county halls or the local council offices of this world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, and that the rural White Paper will make it clear, that community councils will not become mere consultative

185WH
groups. I welcome the possibility of creating rural forums, but they should be complementary to parish councils, which should continue to be independent and elected and have real powers. I suggest an additional power: a right of appeal against certain contentious planning permissions granted by planning authorities. Such a power is long overdue.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that it is a great pity that the countryside lobby has attempted to hijack parish councils; it has falsely claimed that our policies threaten parish councils. It is not Panglossian to suggest that most parish councils do an exceptionally good job and are responsible, accountable and efficient. There are problems, but we can tackle them and revive democracy in those areas where it has perhaps lapsed in recent times. At their best, parish councils are active and self-confident community leaders. Their role and influence could, and should, be extended.
I am sufficiently confident about the Government's priorities in such matters to expect a positive view of the role of parish councils in my hon. Friend the Minister's reply and in the rural White Paper. The Government have ideas about how parish councils' powers might be extended and how to transfer best practice to other parts of the country. I am proud to be a parish councillor and hope that I shall long have that role, perhaps in parallel with my role as a Member of Parliament—but that remains to be seen. Parish councillors such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I, as well as others who are interested in the Minister's comments, look forward to some reassurance. I hope that we can lay to rest the canard that has sprung up—if that is not mixing three metaphors.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): In replying to an Adjournment debate, it is customary to thank the hon. Member who secured it. I always give such thanks sincerely, but on this occasion I do so with particular sincerity because my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has not only enabled this important issue to be aired but, in the light of certain press reports and the use in recent months of parish councils as a political football by various bodies, including the Conservative party, enabled us to make clear our record on and proposals for parish and town councils and scotch completely the wholly unfounded rumours that have been circulated for political ends.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment at various fringe meetings. My hon. Friend was in attendance and can testify that subsequent press reports were inaccurate, to say the least. That is extremely helpful and reflects my right hon. Friend's repeated comments on what was said at those meetings.
In some ways, I am a little surprised that the media and various lobbies continue to suggest that the Government are planning to abolish parish councils. As my hon. Friends have noted, my colleagues and I have stated in Parliament and in numerous items of ministerial correspondence that the Government have
186WH
no plans to abolish town and parish councils. My right hon. Friend has made the same point in the national press. I hesitate to say, "Read my lips", although I could, because the statement is absolutely true. My hon. Friends speak from considerable personal experience, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is a parish councillor and vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils, an organisation with which the Government have a good relationship, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) is also a parish councillor of long standing.
Our policy on parish and town councils was set out in the White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch With the People". It stated that parish councils are
an essential part of the structure of local democracy in this country
and
will continue to play a key role in many of our towns and villages.
That is our policy.
In setting the record straight on that policy, we should explain our record and our intentions. Our commitment to the parish tier of local government is demonstrated by the creation of 62 parish councils since we came to power. In the past nine months, it has been my pleasure to sign many orders that created those parish councils. Moreover, we propose to create a further 22 parishes in the next few months. In the first three years of this Government, we expect to have created between 80 and 85 new parish councils. That record speaks for itself, in terms of our commitment to existing parish councils and the future of parish and town councils. I should make it clear that, as far as the Government are concerned, dynamic parish and town councils have a key role in the democratic constitution of this country.
My hon. Friends raised our local government modernisation agenda and I shall make a few comments on how parish councils will fit into that. They represent the tier of government closest to the citizen. They are in touch with people and with how they live their lives. I take the point that this is not an issue for rural areas only. There is a town council in my very metropolitan urban constituency in Manchester.
However, the pattern of life in rural areas is changing rapidly and parish councils must be flexible to cope with that change. They must be free of old-fashioned, rigid working practices; they must put people first. They have many strengths and traditional values on which we need to build, but there is scope for development. There is no room for complacency at any level of local government. Too many local councillors are elected unopposed and too few people vote in local elections.
Our response is not that we see no future role for parish and town councils but that their role will be very important. We need to develop and strengthen their potential because of their position in the democratic structure as a voice for local people. We must strengthen the democratic link between parish councillors and the people who elect them. That is why the White Paper on local government is so relevant to town and parish councils.
Many other provisions that we have introduced, as well as those in proposed new legislation, are relevant to parish councils. The duty of best value will apply only to the larger parish and town councils, but we want all councils to adopt its spirit because they also play an important role in delivering local services. That spirit is

187WH
embodied in the drive for continual improvement in local services and is a way in which councils at all levels—especially parish councils—can demonstrate to local people their ability to provide services and to strengthen that democratic link.
There are provisions in the new Local Government Bill for a new ethical framework for parish councils. We have listened carefully to parish councils while drawing up those provisions. The councils will be subject to a uniform national code of conduct that all councillors must endorse. That will not demand more, unnecessarily, from parish councillors, but will tell them that they are as important as the other elements of the democratic local government structure. The issues about transparency and demonstrating ethical standards must therefore apply equally to them. We want parish councils to embrace those new ethical standards.
My hon. Friends wanted me to comment on neighbourhood forums, because of the way in which the possibility of their introduction has been used to argue that the Government intend to abolish parish councils. We have no such intention. We are keen to increase community participation in decision making at all levels. That is the core of our aim in strengthening local democracy. Neighbourhood forums may be a way of achieving that in some areas, but we do not intend them to take the place of parish councils.
Parish councils should be at the forefront of identifying their local community's needs and priorities, working in partnership with other bodies in helping to implement innovative, locally determined solutions to local problems. A parish council that is modern in outook, involving local people, will be impossible to ignore. Modern district and county councils need to work with modern partners. Neighbourhood forums may be an option for areas that do not have that layer of local governance. However, in areas that have parish and town councils, those councils fulfil that function more than satisfactorily.
It is not our policy to bring in something new to replace parish councils. Rather, we are considering whether a different forum might provide people living in areas that do not have that level of governance with what those with parish councils already have. It is an addition, an extension, an enhancement, not a replacement.
My hon. Friends particularly wanted me to comment on the rural White Paper. We have consulted widely with parish councils and their representatives on how parish councils can be a focus, particularly for rural communities, and play their part in every aspect of rural governance.
We want the preparation of the rural White Paper to be an inclusive process. In February 1999, we issued a consultation document on rural England, which posed questions on a wide range of rural issues. More than 100 parishes or parish associations responded to that document, and many other responses referred to the role of parish and town councils in developing our policy. It was a consistent view that local people should be
188WH
consulted on policy development and be more closely involved in decision making and in implementing decisions. Many saw parish councils as a neglected resource and felt that they could play a bigger part in representing local interests. They also thought that there was scope for councils to work more closely with other bodies, to take on more service delivery and to have greater powers and bigger budgets.
Concerns were expressed about the accountability of parish councils. This goes back to my point about bringing all parish councils up to the standard of the best to strengthen local democracy. There were also queries about the competence of parish councils and to what extent they were representative of their communities. Some of the responses touched on the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud about the need for training and development for councillors, as well as for clerks and other officers.
We are considering the responses. In preparing the rural White Paper, we are actively considering how we can build into those proposals not only the issues raised during the consultation exercise but the enhanced role that parish councils can play in meeting the White Paper's overall objectives—rural regeneration and improving the quality of life.
I was interested in my hon. Friend's concept of community stewardship, which is something that we are considering and trying to unpack. However, we believe that parishes have now, and will have, a key role to play in many towns and villages as part of the framework to improve the quality of life and achieve regeneration, together with other agents and councils.
An important strength of parish councils is their ability to be a voice for local people. As I have said, this issue runs through the foundation of our modernisation agenda for local government and will be a theme of the rural and urban White Papers. They will set out the building blocks that local areas will need to develop their own priorities and regeneration plans, starting with local views on the problems in their areas and carrying through to implementing the solutions to those problems.
I hope that I have satisfactorily addressed the core issue of this debate, which has clarified the Government's long-stated and often-repeated commitment to the future of parish town councils. We see them as not only playing a general role in future but as a key agent in implementing some of the changes that the Government are trying to introduce to strengthen local governance and to regenerate rural and urban areas. The content of the rural White Paper will become clearer in the summer. I cannot give my hon. Friends detailed proposals on the roles for town and parish councils or other councils, but they are under active consideration and the White Paper will deal with them in detail.
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friends for providing the opportunity to debate this matter. I hope that I have reassured them and the wider audience of our commitment to parish and town councils.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.