Lords Sitting of 4 May 1994

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

Lord Nickson
Sir David Wigley Nickson, KBE, having been created Baron Nickson, of Renagour in the District of Stirling, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden and the Lord Kingsdown.

Belize: EU Meeting, Athens
2.48 p.m.
Lord Finsbergasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the High Commissioner for Belize was invited to the recent "San Jose Ministerial".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, Belize was invited to attend San Jose X as an observer.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Can he confirm that the invitation was issued by the Greek Foreign Minister, who then despicably withdrew it in the face of opposition from Guatemala? Are we really wise to have withdrawn the Harrier Squadron from Belize, as the enmity between Guatemala and Belize clearly still exists on the part of the former?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. As I said, Belize was originally invited to attend San Jose X as an observer. The Greek presidency extended that invitation on behalf of all EU member states. Belize accepted the invitation and accordingly arrived in Athens.
Subsequently, it became clear that the arrangements for Belize's attendance had changed from what they and we had been told. The central American delegations to the meeting did not agree to the official presence of Belize and the presidency informed the Belizean representative that she could attend only in an unofficial capacity. She therefore decided, understandably, not to attend in the downgraded capacity that was suggested.
I can inform my noble friend that we have protested strongly to the Greek Government for the mishandling of the arrangements and made clear to the meeting our view that Belize should have been present.
As regards the withdrawal of the squadron, I should inform my noble friend that the changes are taking place to force levels in Belize against the background of the improved regional situation, in particular Guatemala's recognition, in both 1991 and reaffirmed in 1993, of Belize as a sovereign and independent state. We do not believe that the recent events have adversely affected the security of Belize.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, it is appropriate to declare that the High Commissioner is my wife and that I too was present when she left the ministerial meeting as part of an official protest.
Will the Minister confirm that the moral authority of the European Union to address matters relating to the rule of law, democracy and good manners has been severely compromised by Mr. Pangalos in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers, when he unilaterally withdrew the European Union's official invitation to Belize to participate as observers? Does the Minister agree that a public statement by the European Union, re-stating its 1991 and 1993 declarations of support for Belize's territorial integrity and independence, is now overdue, thereby creating desirable distance between European Union policy and the arbitrary actions of the Greek Minister?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his choice of wife. I would not like to go as far as the noble Lord in saying that it calls into question the moral authority of the European Union. What I said in response to my noble friend was that we were very disappointed at the events surrounding the Athens meeting. We think that the handling of those arrangements by the Greek presidency was not all that it should have been. Certainly we made the appropriate protest to the Greek authorities.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the Answer that he gave to me on the question of the presence in Belize of British troops, when he indicated that they were optimistic about the survival and progress of democracy in Guatemala? Does he still share that view?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I have answered the noble Lord on these matters before. I can say yes; we are optimistic about the survival and progress of democracy in Guatemala.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue a little further the second part of the supplementary question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. In replying, I believe the Minister said that he was quite satisfied about relations between Guatemala and Belize. Is it not the case, however, that the Guatemalan Government have recently written to the Secretary-General of the United Nations saying that they will not drop the pursuit of their territorial claims until there is a final treaty? Can the Minister comment on that? In the light of that situation, can he say whether the Government are satisfied that withdrawing the garrison was appropriate?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The Guatemalan Government have written to the United Nations Secretary-General. There is, obviously, still a territorial dispute between the two countries. The important point is that the Guatemalan Government recognised the independence of Belize in 1991. After a change of government in 1993, the new government in Guatemala also recognised that. We believe that the situation is such that it is appropriate, after consultation with the Belizean Government, to withdraw the

1123
garrison. I can say that I am pleased that a military presence will continue to be available in Belize in the form of a resident training team. We will continue to offer assistance to the Belizean defence force, which assumed responsibility for the defence of its own country on 1st January this year. We will continue to deploy regular company strength units as part of their jungle training in Belize.

Distance Selling: Draft Directive
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the draft directive on distance selling proposed by the European Commission and now under consideration.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have made clear their total opposition to the revised text of this directive as submitted to the Council of Ministers last October. Since that date a number of compromise proposals have been tabled by the presidency which meet some, but by no means all, of the UK's concerns. Negotiations in Brussels are continuing.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that it would be an unnecessary blow to hotels and tourist accommodation if requiring a deposit were to be made illegal since a deposit is regarded as part of a transaction and is also understood to be an earnest of intention?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The Government are fully aware of the damage that would be done to those industries and others by the measure. That is why we have made it clear that we will not accept such provision in the proposed directive.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount clarify what he means when he says that the Government are in negotiations with the presidency? Do the Government not have their own views on the matter? Why do they have to negotiate with the president of the Commission? I take it that that is what the Minister means by the presidency? Why do the Government not have a view and stick to it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do have a view and we are sticking to it. I did not say what the noble Lord claims I said. I said that the negotiations in Brussels are continuing.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in addition to the obvious example of hotel rooms, there are many events—exhibitions, agricultural shows and others—for which one has to pay in advance? This change would be a total disaster for many events and for the tourist trade as a whole.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We are pressing for the exclusion of all services from the measure.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I wonder if the Minister can help me. I have a letter from my MEP which suggests that hotel rooms no longer feature in the directive. I spoke recently to a member, no doubt, of the noble Viscount's staff in the DTI, who told me that the whole matter is in the melting-pot. Whom am I to believe; and whom does the Minister believe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord believes the Government's view on the matter.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Goschen: As I said, a number of compromise proposals have been put forward. The ban on prepayment is one of the sub-proposals that have been dropped in the latest compromise proposals. The Government's view is that services as a whole should be excluded from the directive.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, can the Minister explain why this matter does not fall within the ambit of national subsidiarity?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do not oppose the directive in this area on subsidiarity grounds. We are, however, very concerned at the retrograde effect of the Commission's latest proposed text.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate in summary what are the essential points of dispute that remain? Is he aware that the Opposition share the concern that he expressed about the scope of the draft directive as originally drafted? Can he therefore indicate what sort of timescale he envisages for some appropriate directive to emerge?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are particularly concerned at the enlarged scope of the proposal, which now covers all services including services with reservation. The provisions preventing suppliers from requiring payments in advance and allowing consumers to obtain instant refunds by challenging payment card transactions are equally unacceptable. These provisions threaten to place impossible burdens on tens of thousands of everyday transactions when there is no evidence that consumers are in need of additional protection. On the question of timescale, the UK Government continue to press their objections to the directive. It is not possible at the moment to pre-empt those discussions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the UK Government are supported by other member states in the objections they have made?
Viscount Goschen: Indeed, my Lords. There is support from other member states. It would not be appropriate for me to detail the views of individual member states but there is support for the Government's view. I mentioned that the Government still have significant difficulties with the latest text. Again, it would be inappropriate to speculate on how those discussions might go forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount remind the House whether this is a matter to be decided by qualified majority or whether the Government have a veto? If it is the latter, will the Government use it in the last analysis?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the directive is subject to the principle of qualified majority voting.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House about the attitude of France to paying deposits? Does he agree that without our deposits, some of us who booked into hotels in Normandy nearly two months ago might well have found ourselves out on the beaches and in the fields again?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I trust that should my noble friend find himself on the beach again, it will be with a bucket and spade. It is not for me to speak for the French Government but it would be fair to say that they are generally supportive of the directive.

Sheltered Housing Accommodation
3.1 p.m.
Lord Stallardasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many units of sheltered housing accommodation are currently under construction by (a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) private sector developers.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, during 1993, work started on 1,290 units of sheltered housing accommodation in England. Some 160 of those are being built for local authorities, 830 for housing associations and 300 for the private sector.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he agree that that is an abysmal record in housing for people who are waiting for sheltered accommodation? Does he share with me the commitment outlined in the community care White Paper? In it the Government quite clearly committed themselves to supporting the idea of sheltered and very sheltered housing for the elderly as an important part of community care. The record that he has just outlined seems to me far from meeting that commitment. Can he try to persuade the Government to make a definitive, up-to-date statement on the Government's policy for the future on all aspects of sheltered housing?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as at 1st April 1993 there were 486,000 sheltered housing units in England. Research conducted for the department by Ernst & Young management consultants shows that there is sufficient sheltered housing to meet current needs for elderly people. Indeed, the research shows some evidence of over-provision of ordinary sheltered housing in each region of England. Over the 10 years to 1993, compared with a rise of 9 per cent. in the total housing stock, there has been an increase of 45 per cent. in the number of units of sheltered housing available.
1126
Within that increase, the number of sheltered units provided by local authorities and housing associations has increased by 36 per cent.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. But does my noble friend on the Front Bench agree that, although there is a surplus of housing in this country, it is not in the places where people want to live? Can he therefore confine his last supplementary answer to rather more detail and say where there is a gap in provision for sheltered housing in places where people want to live?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the research undertaken by Ernst & Young has shown that there has been considerable change in recent years in the requirements of elderly people for sheltered housing. More elderly people now wish to remain in their existing houses which are then modified to provide sheltered accommodation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, the noble Viscount replies for the Government. Why does he only give the figures for England? Is there no problem of sheltered housing in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? Does he take the view that the hardy folk from those parts of the United Kingdom do not need that kind of attention?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall pass on the comments of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain the circumstances in which the Government have found it necessary to call in consultants on this matter? Are we to assume that the Government are without their own resources for knowing what is happening? Do they not have their own projections? Do they always have to go for consultants? How much are they paying them, anyway?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, to answer the first part of the question, the Ernst & Young research was commissioned by the Department of the Environment in order to take stock of existing provision of housing for elderly people. The findings from the research will inform future policy. That demonstrates the Government's interest and commitment to housing for elderly people. As to the cost of the research, I cannot answer the noble Lord.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that there are growing numbers of mentally and physically frail older people over 85 who need sheltered housing? Is it not the case that the number of new sheltered housing starts in the socially rented sector is less than one-third of that of a decade ago? Is he aware that the research commissioned last summer by the Joseph Rowntree Trust stated:
"New sheltered and very sheltered housing is badly needed. This is to meet the needs of the increasing numbers of physically and mentally frail people over 85"?
How does the Minister reconcile that statement with the research from his consultants?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the research for the department shows a national and regional shortfall in

1127
very sheltered housing—that is, accommodation for the most frail elderly people who require not just a resident warden but care assistants.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand that the cost of the research was in the region of £3 million. Can the noble Viscount say how many units of very sheltered accommodation could have been built for that money?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have an answer to the noble Countess's question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the noble Viscount perhaps answer my question? Will he tell us, in the light of care in the community policies, the Government's estimate of the need for sheltered and very sheltered housing units, so that the elderly may remain in the community?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I said earlier, present research shows that there is a surplus of sheltered accommodation and that the only shortfall is in very sheltered housing. The research also indicates that it may be possible to upgrade substantially some of the earlier stock—which is based on the concept of communal use—more in the direction of very sheltered housing.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that there is a wide gap between the Government's position and statistics on this issue, and the understanding of those who are closely involved with the provision of sheltered accommodation? Does he agree that there is therefore a need for up-to-date information from the Government about their exact policy? There is a great deal of doubt about the Government's policy on sheltered and very sheltered accommodation. Has it not been proven by the exchanges in the House today that there is a need for an urgent statement from the Government about their future policy on sheltered housing?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I return to the research undertaken by Ernst & Young, which will be available in full in the coming months. I suggest that noble Lords await that report. Then we can come back to this matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, if there are vacancies, it is because people cannot afford to go into sheltered housing, even though they may want to do so? I know of many people who need sheltered accommodation but cannot afford it.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, that is a matter which I shall refer to my right honourable friend.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how the Government select consultants to do such work? Is it by lowest competitive tender and, if so, do they get what they pay for?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I understand that the choice of consultants is done by competitive tender.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Clinton-Davis and the Lord Dean of Beswick set down for this day shall each be limited to 2½ hours—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Broadbridge and the Lord McColl of Dulwich be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport in London
3.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis rose to call attention to the state of transport in London; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate will enable the House to examine what purports to be the Government's transport policy and their strategy for London, and to consider some real alternatives. It would be nice to think of the Government embracing a suitable transport policy. In a sense it would be like crossing the Rubicon. The trouble is that they would not have the infrastructure or the transport to do it.
There has been no sign of any coherent strategy by the Government over the past 15 years to deal with the essential reasons for congestion and the geriatric infrastructure of our public transport networks in London and indeed elsewhere. There is a hopelessly misconceived and perverse order of priorities and, through our loyalty to petrified opinions, a refusal to acknowledge the clear need to transfer more financial provision from road programmes in order to improve London's public transport. So the Government go on with their hard-boiled and half-baked ideas about widening the M.25, and many roads like it. That is an extremely costly policy involving billions of pounds and it is a wrong order of priorities.
We constantly hear from Ministers the assertion that the Department of Transport spends 40 per cent. of its budget on public transport even though that accounts for only 10 per cent. of the travel in the United Kingdom. I am sure the Minister will say that again tonight. I sometimes have the uncharitable idea that what Ministers say exhausts all communication with the truth and reality. I suspect that, like other departments, the Department of Transport keeps three sets of statistics: one to deceive the public; one to deceive Parliament; and one to deceive itself.
Where do the Government derive their statistics from? They come from the annual report. They exclude expenditure by the Scottish and Welsh departments on roads; they include spending in a number of areas which would be difficult to define as public transport. I refer, for example, to the Royal train, payments to the National Freight Corporation pension fund and provision for the coastguard services. All those are included in the 40 per cent. If we strip out those items and take into account spending in Scotland and Wales, then the percentage of government expenditure on transport in the public sector is not 40 per cent. It is 26 per cent.
We can take another interesting comparison. There are 14,037 people employed by the Department of Transport. But of that number only 244—less than 2 per cent.—are actually employed in the public transport division. I obtained that information from the Department of Transport's annual report also. Does not that reflect the true order of priorities?
Rail transport in London is crucial to its economy, strength and viability. Over many years, not least the past 15—perhaps it has something to do with the former Prime Minister's hostility to public transport—we have seen chronic under-investment in London Underground, in Network SouthEast and in the bus system, coupled with a substantial increase in usage, particularly in the mid- 1980s. By any token the result is an unfavourable comparison between London's rail systems and those in other cities which compete with London, particularly on the continent. There is gross overcrowding, huge inconvenience and an unacceptable crime rate not unrelated to the de-staffing policies which have followed ineluctably from the uncertainty and changing government investment and other policies.
The importance of the rail systems is demonstrated by one simple fact: that 80 per cent. of peak hour travel to central London is provided, 34 per cent. by British Rail and 46 per cent. by London Underground. London Underground calculates that it will need investment of between £500 million and £600 million a year simply to maintain the existing system in its already unsatisfactory state. The average provision falls substantially short of that notwithstanding the fact that in a debate as recently as 21st April, Mr. Norris, the Minister for Transport in London, confirmed a statement he had made previously that it was perfectly obvious to a blind man that more money needs to be spent than is provided at the moment. He can say that again. The problem is that if we go on neglecting the infrastructure on the present scale, it will inevitably lead to a further spiral of deterioration which, in the long term, will cost infinitely more to put right.
The daily experience of passengers does not mirror what is revealed as a pretty complacent attitude on the part of the Government. Passengers are faced daily with disruption. In 1993 nearly 1,500 stations closed for more than 20 minutes and 100 stations for more than one month. On average in that year just under 10 per cent. of London Underground's escalators were out of action. Thirty per cent. of track is in an unacceptable state and speed reductions are constantly imposed in order to maintain reasonable safety standards.
1130
Embankment slips have doubled over the past five years; the incidence of broken rails has increased by 85 per cent.; and signalling is on average 30 years old arid registers a substantially higher failure rate than in virtually any other major city in Europe. Power failures, like the one on the Central Line in November 1993, which shut down the eastern section on that line for more than a week, are at least contributed to by the age of cabling. Those are serious matters. By failing to tackle them and the root problem of the need to change the whole pattern of transport investment policy, the Government are storing up a huge problem for the future.
In 1991 the Government conceded in the Autumn Statement that the requisite investment in the existing network was £700 million. They broke that promise pretty swiftly. There is nothing unusual about that. After all, this Government do not exactly observe a sterile attachment to consistency. In 1993, in their Annual Statement, the Government indicated that £541 million would be available for the "London Transport Core" in 1996–97. That was substantially less than the Government themselves thought was the basic minimum. Will even that amount be forthcoming ? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
London Transport's complaint is that the figures fluctuate so widely from year to year that it is virtually impossible to engage in any rational planning of the system. It is widely recognised by transport experts that what London needs is a new metro, what is called "A Decently Modern Metro". I do not know who devised that term—it could have stood some improvement—abut nonetheless that is what it is called. 'To achieve that, consistent investment over a decade will be required. I believe that it would be cheaper to undertake that expenditure over the longer term. It would prove an asset to London and to its international competitiveness.
Perhaps it was because the chairman-to-be of London Transport, Dr. Alan Watkins, had the effrontery to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was wrong in his attitude towards London Transport that the Government decided to take the rather disagreeable step of making sure that he would not become the chairman of London Transport. That was a discreditable episode in the Government's relations with London Transport, particularly as the man spoke out as he thought it was necessary to speak out and, of course, he had the support of the board members. It is a pity that the Government felt it necessary to dispense with a man of that quality and ability.
This year London Buses will purchase no new buses at all. Instead, in pursuit of the Government's fixation in preparing the bus operating companies for sale, which will not provide any new money to improve the operation of the buses, London Buses must depend on refurbishing old buses. That is not a sensible policy for the future. It is not good for passengers and it is not good for British manufacturers of buses. The only beneficiaries are likely to be the maintenance crews who will have increased work.
Crime and fear of crime remain at an unacceptably high level on London Underground and the railways. De-staffing has contributed to that, especially during the

1131
evenings and at weekends. Inadequate lighting and communications systems in areas awaiting modernisation undermine the confidence of travellers and potential travellers, especially women. I have never perceived that the Government have taken that criticism seriously. I should like to hear something more from the Minister about that. The Government posture a great deal about their anti-crime measures but it is usually posturing before a Conservative Party conference. When they actually come to deal with the practical measures, they are found to be wanting.
Fares are the highest in Europe and fare increases are substantially in excess of inflation. That, of course, is the essential prerequisite for privatisation. The travelcard, which has been a real London Transport success story, has not emerged unscathed, as Ministers had promised. It was Mr. Norris who on 3rd December 1993 asserted that the travelcard would continue in form and in substance in terms of price and in real terms. What happened was that a month later the cost of the travelcard was increased by more than 6 per cent., far more than the rate of inflation, and, indeed, on the lower bands, by more than 9 per cent. Northern Line passengers, through redesignation of the zones —a bit of sleight of hand—faced a rise of £168 a year. Those are stunning examples of breaches of faith by the Government which occurred virtually as soon as they had made their promises.
We take the view that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system operating in London for determining the strategy for London Transport. There is a view that the whole system needs to be changed. It is diffuse and inefficient at the present time. There are three railway systems, each with different operators and different Ministers. Twenty-four bodies are involved, together with all the London boroughs. New ways must be devised for raising resources for investment in London transport. It is time for the Treasury to contemplate abandoning its pretty inconsistent approach to the hypothecation of revenue. After all, the national non-domestic rate is a national tax hypothecated for local government. There is the Metropolitan Police precept, which is a form of hypothecation. I am sure that the Department of Transport, if it could admit it, would like that kind of thing to happen. The Treasury must reconsider its position, as indeed it did over the leasing of trains for British Rail. The idea of a bond system as is applied in the United States is worthy of consideration.
I turn to British Rail. What we have had here is doctrine applied, emanating from some of the craziest ideas of Right-wing think tanks, which has led the Government towards the fragmentation of the railways system at a time when the system required stability and coherence. Already rail privatisation has cost £664 million—£303 million on redundancies and early retirement; £146 million on the reorganisation of British Rail; £48 million on lawyers and consultants; and £52 million to set up the new track authority, Railtrack, and the Office of Passenger Franchising.
The costs of running the network have been rising as a result of the new charging system which has been
1132
brought in by Railtrack, much having to be picked up by the Government because they indicated that fares should not be allowed to rise too sharply in the wake of privatisation. InterCity, the most profitable of British Rail's old divisions, has indicated that the cost of running the east coast main line between London and Edinburgh had doubled to £170 million. The Government are perfectly happy to open up their cheque book for privatisation, which is hardly popular with the electorate, while the system is starved of essential investment. None of this expenditure has provided new rail tracks, new signals, new rolling stock or added security for passengers. What BR needs, as it said in evidence to the Select Committee on Transport of another place in May 1993, is £400 million a year, excluding CrossRail and the Channel Tunnel rail link, to maintain the present rail network in the South East in reasonable condition so as to meet the targets of the Passenger's Charter on a reasonable basis.
There is an alternative to the Government's ad hoc-ery, to their failure to observe the complete inconsistency of their policies, to their refusal to understand that the health and environment problems of the city are exacerbated by their wholly discredited policies, involving more and more road building which they believe will solve London's traffic and transport problems. They are wrong about that. They are also wrong in blindly refusing to examine what is likely to be Britain's and London's transport needs in the 21st century. Is the future simply to be an ever-increasing volume of cars on roads that can never deal with the ensuing congestion; or do we seek ways and means of discouraging unnecessary car use?
In answering that question public transport has to be the practical, efficient and safe alternative. That includes also better use of the River Thames; CrossRail, over which the Government haver and waver; and indeed undertaking the other changes to which I have alluded. London needs a programme of public and private investment in public transport. It needs a fares policy to encourage the use of public transport of high quality. It needs provision to enable London Underground to maintain the existing infrastructure and modernise the existing lines. Stations must have good access by lifts and escalators and adequate staff to provide passenger security and information. The East London line urgently requires improvement and early completion of the Docklands Light Railway extension to Lewisham should be assured.
What are the Government proposing to do about undertaking studies of the potential of light rail, tram and park-and-ride schemes to help reduce congestion? What plans have they for the purchase of new buses to replace London's ageing fleet and thereby reduce—or help to reduce—exhaust emissions and noise on the streets of London? What are they doing about providing a cycle network for the city, and will they abandon their disgraceful plans to meddle with the control of heavy lorries in London? Will they provide London boroughs with regulatory powers over off-street parking, moving traffic offences on bus lanes and bus priority schemes, and also powers to control vehicle emissions?
Let us not hear from the Government how much better they are doing than the Liberal Government of 1909. Let Ministers recall what the Prime Minister himself had to say in an interview with the Los Angeles Times in the summer of 1993. He said:
"We have been here for 14 years. There is no one else one can blame for anything that has gone wrong".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us this opportunity to debate transport in London. I say at the outset that I have a lot of sympathy with some of the things that he said, particularly in regard to the needs of both the railways and the Underground, to get the funds to stand still. I am also grateful for his brief mention of the river, to which I believe we have paid far too little attention in the context of transport. In addition, I thank the noble Lord for raising a subject which I also mentioned 10 years ago in this House; namely, the concept of the tax exempt bond, which I feel is particularly important in terms of attracting funding for what one might call the "big ticket" items. Towards the end of his speech the noble Lord mentioned the East London project and CrossRail. I believe that perhaps the tax exempt bond should be looked at again as a means of attracting private finance—particularly from the widows and orphans, because there is a tax exempt dimension—into our transport infrastructure.
I must begin by declaring, as usual, two interests; one in the railways and one in tourism. But I have a third interest—that of never having had a driver's licence. That may make me almost unique among today's speakers. It makes me particularly dependent on a public transport system which is efficient, reliable and which offers value for money. While transport in London is not perfect, I believe that British Rail, London Transport, taxis and other service providers meet my needs and meet them relatively well. Nonetheless, we are right today to look at where they are, so to speak, and where we should like them to be.
I turn first to the buses, which is one of our underused resources in that the load factors are low and there is a great deal of unused capacity on offer. It is perishable capacity because once a bus seat has gone from Piccadilly to Hounslow, it is dead and it can never be retrieved. It has been empty. I wonder whether marketing and a fares policy can improve that usage? I believe that there are still opportunities, especially in terms of the strip card or carnet which are widely available on the Continent. It is a system whereby one prepays for a number of units of travel and these units are cancelled by oneself or by the bus crew as one uses them. I believe that London Buses is just beginning to pilot project the smart card. That is another option. I believe that such ticketing systems contribute to customer loyalty and user friendliness. That does not take place on the bus itself. It is the time-consuming cash transaction which is one of the great negatives of getting on a bus.
My second proposal for increasing bus usage is that of integration with other modes in terms of connecting
1134
points and of scheduling. I was most impressed on a recent visit to Stockholm to travel to the end of a suburban line run by Swedish Rail on behalf of Stockholm County PTA. Five minutes after the train arrived some 10 buses departed the interchange in various directions. Co-ordinated timetables, guaranteed connections and through ticketing by means of travel card, carnet, or a single journey ticket made for a seamless operation of great appeal to the customer. If we brought such systems to London, or developed them here, they would not impose a correspondingly large outlay of funds.
The third way to improve bus usage is, of course, by means of congestion-reducing measures, red routes and bus lanes. For obvious reasons I am not qualified to comment very much on roads (I have already made that clear) or on roads policy, but I believe that there is much to be done—and again it is low cost—in terms of extending these concepts and, just as importantly, in terms of enforcing them.
I am glad that London is not to have totally free-for-all bus deregulation. One has seen the problems which that has posed in provincial cities. But as we proceed to overhaul the system I hope that we will not overlook the importance of the big red bus in terms of a brand—a marketing symbol which, like Big Ben, Tower Bridge, St. Paul's and, indeed, the Palace of Westminster is the envy of every other city in the world in tourism terms. May I make a plea that it be a condition of being allowed to operate buses in Central London that they be red buses? It has been done in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. It is not impossible.
I turn now to rail-borne transport, starting with the Underground. Of course I would like to see more investment, in particular that investment which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned, in order to give us a decent, modern Metro. I believe that the phrase was coined by the chairman of London Transport. But as long as funds are limited (and I fear that they always will be) and the demands on them will be many and varied, I wonder whether "big ticket" items like Chelsea-Hackney, the Jubilee Line extension, total route refurbishment and new fleets of rolling stock, should be the priority over making the most of what we have got and giving London Transport the funds to make the most of what we have got.
My own feeling is that London Underground has improved immeasurably in recent years. I know that that is not a totally shared view, but it is my feeling and, as I say, being a public transport dependant. I probably see it more than most. There should be a greater balance between small scale improvement and the big-spend highlights. Escalators and lifts are still a problem. Power supply problems are such as to hit the headlines while signal failures and track failures are so commonplace as not to do so. The situation is similar for rolling stock failures although I am greatly impressed by both the look and the performance of the refurbished stock which is appearing on more and more routes.
However, I wonder whether we are being bedazzled by route expansion at the expense of that day-to-day maintenance, humdrum though it is, which customers and repeat business rely on and which also serves to

1135
reduce congestion on the roads. It is too early to comment on the consequences of the Railways Act, although I have. Noble Lords know my reservations as regards fragmentation, which is a word which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also used. But if one looks to the future one must consider investment. CrossRail —especially if it connects easily with Heathrow Express —is attractive, but I wonder how necessary it would be if we got the Underground right, especially the Central and Circle lines. It is additionally difficult to discuss CrossRail, especially today, because one is in a state of limbo not knowing whether the CrossRail Bill will be allowed to proceed by the Committee in another place. I gather that a decision may be announced this afternoon.
On balance I am in favour, but again I feel that by being in favour we must balance the "big ticket" items with the less expensive day-to-day minor activities on signalling, lighting, platforms and so on. To make the most of existing assets must not be overlooked. I particularly welcome—partly because it is of benefit to me—such new journey opportunities as the Clapham-Olympia-Willesden service starting later this month and the increased frequencies, such as those on the Northern Line and between the City and Gatwick. Those are the instances of maximising the use of resources which I so favour.
If we were to have an expensive item, I would take a long and sympathetic look at Thameslink, the existing north-south BR route through central London, linking Gatwick and Luton airports, interchanging with the Underground at seven points and relieving the Northern Line. It is a north-south CrossRail on the cheap. However, there are constraints on Thameslink, especially in the London Bridge area and especially in rush hours. One must remember that the London Bridge area handles more passengers per day than London Heathrow. I would welcome a capital programme building on the existing infrastructure by adding two extra lines in the London Bridge area, by making sure that the eventual union rail development at St. Pancras also includes the planned, enhanced and resited Thameslink station which was part of the late lamented King's Cross Railways Bill, and with a new link north of an eventual St. Pancras with the east coast main line to open up a whole range of journey opportunities, both in the middle distance (such as to Cambridge and Peterborough) and to the east coast main line.
I believe that that investment, dear though it would be, can be done in stages, each of which would individually produce substantial benefits. I also believe that it would be attractive to what one might call "corporate private capital" as opposed to the tax exempt bond. I have already given my attitude to that. I also believe that in seeking to attract private capital, we should ensure that that private capital does not directly bear commercial risk. After all, aircraft manufacturers and shipyards supply the tools, they do not run the services.
Tourists, of course, pull all this together. Of our 9 million overseas visitors per annum, 90 per cent. use the underground; 53 per cent. use the buses and some 20 per
1136
cent., I understand, use British Rail. More than half of all those foreign users believe that public transport in London offers good value for money. To a certain extent, that contradicts what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about us having the highest fares in the world. I do not share that view on the basis of my recent experiences in Stockholm and Oslo, role models though they may be in other respects.
The other benefit that tourists bring is that few services are provided specifically for them. Being on holiday they tend not to put undue pressure on the rush hour and generate a considerable amount of income which one might say is unlooked for. Like Londoners, they look for reliability, user-friendliness and value for money. They also look for travelcards. It is essential that travelcards offer value for money because that is where we have a shortcoming compared with many continental operators. Tourists also look for information which is readily available, reliable and understandable.
Like Londoners, tourists would suffer if the systems available were fragmented. Hence, as we continue to change things I hope that my right honourable and honourable friends in the department, as well as others such as the franchise director, the regulator and the service providers, will continue to work towards the preservation of the travelcard and of a first-class information system. I should like to pay a tribute, en passant, to the anonymous people who serve us so well on the telephone line 222 1234. It is essential that we have a reliable information system, if necessary backed by statute, because it is essential that we avoid the problems that have been experienced by so many of the provincial passenger transport authorities. They have a statutory duty to provide inquiry services but cannot always get the information from the operators, which hop in and out of existence.
Tourists wonder why we do not make more use of one of our most under-utilised assets—the one which runs not very far behind me and which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned. I refer to the river. I very much hope that when he replies to the debate, my noble friend will be able to up-date us on the progress of the river working party.
My approach to today's debate has been one of looking at ways to make the best of the assets that we already have. Of course, investment—massive investment—has a role to play, but we must be careful that the list of big ticket projects does not blind us to day-to-day necessity.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for initiating a debate on this very important issue. I hope that we shall not dwell too much on either the past or the present in this debate, other than drawing lessons from both, as I feel sure that I am not alone among your Lordships in feeling that sometimes we spend far too much time raking over the past in a spirit of criticism with the aim of making political capital out of the obvious, and acknowledged, sins of omission and commission. Transport in London is far too important an issue to be hijacked by, or dealt with by, one political party or

1137
another. I hope that, as so frequently happens in the House, we can arrive at sensible suggestions which could be considered by the Executive when formulating policies in the future.
That there is a problem is obvious. Not only that—there is not just one problem, but many. I realise that trying to come to grips with such a number and variety of problems will be difficult and necessitates an impartial analysis of the roots of these problems before any sensible suggestions can be made as to how to overcome them.
I should like to give just a brief analysis of the problems as seen from two perspectives—that of the commuter and that of the employer. The commuter above all wants a safe, reliable, clean, efficient service which he or she perceives as good value for money. The employers require exactly the same as the commuter, but with the added assurance that a solution will be found to the current unacceptable level of difficulty which employers find in encouraging staff to take up jobs in central London. A recent survey of over 500 businesses showed that transport infrastructure is the third most important factor (after access to markets and the quality of telecommunications) in making location decisions. If the current situation over transport in London deteriorates further, I fear that long-term location decisions by large-scale enterprises will militate against London. I am aware that that would not be perceived as a problem by many of your Lordships, who feel that there is far too much in London anyway, but let us not forget that London is the most important financial centre in the world and from an international perspective is also regarded as one of the most important business and commercial centres of the world.
In the course of this speech I intend dealing only with public transport in London—for two reasons: first, over 90 per cent. of commuters use public transport, and, secondly, as a result of the large number of people involved, all interest in transport and practically all discussion about transport concentrate on transport by rail (mainline and underground) and bus. We all recognise that transport by car presents its own problems, from the point of view of the commuter, because of the continual decline in traffic speed and from the point of view of the congestion that is caused by transporting very few people in very many cars, taking up a great deal of road space at all times of the day. There are at least two ways of tackling that problem: either make public transport so efficient and attractive that the car user decides to leave his or her car at home or price the motorist out of London. Naturally, I would opt for the former, but I suggest that that is a topic for another debate.
Safety, reliability, cleanliness, efficiency of the service and value for money are all, as I said before, demanded by the commuter. The safety record in terms of accidents resulting in fatal or serious injury is, I am told, exceptionally good both for buses and trains. However, there is genuine concern among female passengers that there is a serious safety problem; the risk of harassment, and worse, is ever-present. Not every female has the presence of mind or coolness in a crisis to deal with these situations and something
1138
definitely needs to be done. I hope that future policy decisions will take serious account of this issue. We must protect all our people—at every hour of the day and/or night.
Despite what one reads in large headlines in the newspapers, the reliability of the Underground is definitely seen to be improving. There will probably not be too many compliments hurled in the direction of London Transport today, but many people have told me that it is definitely trying very hard to treat passengers as customers and as intelligent human beings. A Friend said only this morning, "They have improved so much; whenever there is a delay you are told the reason why and if they don't know the reason why, you are told that the information will be given to you as soon as possible". Please let us not knock London Transport too much. Constant complaining has a brutal demoralising effect on staff and management and is most dispiriting when they are trying to do their utmost.
Cleanliness is another matter. But who dirties the trains? It is not the staff. I fear that we have become a nation of litter louts. I am often appalled at the state of the inside of people's cars, particularly company cars —"The fault, dear Brutus'', and so on.
Sadly, public transport in London is not perceived as value for money. I use the word "perceived" as I know that the true cost of motoring—the cost of the alternative (with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is not in his place, who believes that cycling is the alternative)—is not admitted, or even calculated roughly. I have done some back-of-the-envelope calculations as to the true cost per mile of driving my car in London, taking into account items such as depreciation, petrol, maintenance, insurance, tax, parking fees and, indeed, parking fines, and the result is horrific. A train or bus ticket is probably one-tenth the price.
So the result of my analysis: we want and need a safe, reliable, clean and efficient public transport system in London. We are well on the way to having a good system, but it could and should be much better.
London is a world class city and needs a world class transportation system to match. The Victorians had the right idea: plan for a long time ahead, and thank Heavens that they did; otherwise where would we be now? Sadly, it appears to me that current thinking concerning the transportation system is very short-term and greatly influenced by the Treasury. Short-term troughs in the economy should not, and must not, be used as a "snapshot" upon which to base decisions on the need for investment in transport infrastructure, particularly in projects which by their very nature require a long gestation period.
All that has been brought home to me during the ongoing discussions on CrossRail. Let me here declare a tenuous interest. The Corporation of London, my employer, has been among the strongest supporters of CrossRail since the inception of the scheme. There are regional implications for the scheme. It is not only a London area scheme. The frustration of travellers through London, arriving at one mainline station and

1139
travelling through London to another mainline station, is well-known. It seems ludicrous that in the last decade of the 20th century that situation persists.
But that is only one problem that would be solved by CrossRail. Employment studies for London carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG Peat Marwick and Cambridge Econometrics show that employment in central London is linked directly to the concentration of skilled professional services in the area, and 90 per cent. of those jobs are carried out by commuters. Major recovery following the recession (one study suggests that employment in those sectors will increase from its current level of 3.4 million to 3.7 million by 2010 and to 4.6 million by 2025) will put enormous strains on an already strained system. That makes it imperative that additional public transport facilities are provided.
Those professional and skilled employees demand high standards of comfort. But, sadly, it appears that the current planning for CrossRail actually embraces lower comfort standards; the new 21st century carriages for CrossRail are planned on the basis of 80 standing passengers for every 100 seated! That compares with the current British Rail standard of 35 standing for every 100 seated. That will never be acceptable. Even more importantly, it is patent nonsense to be planning for a significant reduction in standards. What other business would ever do that?
I appeal to the powers that be to be as imaginative and far-sighted in their future planning for rail transport in London as were the Victorians. We truly cannot afford short-termism here. Much better to postpone the introduction of CrossRail than to do it on the cheap. Our recent experience, where the Channel Tunnel will not be as effective as it could be because of botched planning of the feeder route demands, must surely have taught us something.
An extension of Thameslink shows the best cost-benefit analysis of all rail schemes currently under examination as it would cost a relatively small amount of £400 million (compared with the estimate of £2 billion for CrossRail and the large investment of £1.7 billion to £2.1 billion in the Jubilee Line, which shows the worst cost-benefit). But all of the schemes, I am reliably informed, indicate that it is cheaper to encourage rail access to the centre rather than road-based schemes, without even taking into account the environmental superiority of such transport: fewer homes affected, fewer pollutants, less noise and better use of finite fossil fuels.
But hand in hand with further developments in rail transport, it is imperative that we improve, and make much better use of, the bus network potential. It is heartening to know that the London Bus Priority Network is being progressed actively by the London boroughs in conjunction with London Transport and is being funded by the Department of Transport. The network of 600 kilometres will complement the existing Red Routes network, which amounts to 12 kilometres only, and should be substantially in place within 6 to 10 years. I have to say that, having read quite a bit about deregulation of buses in Sheffield and Nottingham, which does not seem to have worked, I am delighted that
1140
the Government are not going to deregulate buses in London but are going to encourage greater efficiency by contracting out.
It is also a personal delight to know that the buses will still have the red livery (British Telecom, please bring back all the red telephone boxes and Post Office please do not remove our red post boxes !)
To summarise, transport in London is not up to the standard one expects of an international world class capital, but it is improving and is nothing like as bad as it has been. There are many aspects of rail transport that should be praised, not least the efforts being made to treat passengers as customers. Our safety record is enviable. But there is a serious danger that unless long-term visionary investment is made soon, London will lose its edge as a leading world capital. We cannot afford to be cheeseparing when looking at levels of standards for the 21st century. Great support should be given to the London Bus Priority Network. Finally, although I say it against myself, car travel in London should be restricted. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us an opportunity to air our hopes, fears and views on this most important subject.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for raising this still pressing issue. Londoners were relieved to hear a month ago that the Government had stopped blocking the purchase by London Underground of new trains for the Northern Line. I am glad to congratulate the Government on that rare burst of common sense. One would like to know whether there has been any further progress in the matter of the Northern Line. I understand that the manufacturing companies are to be asked to submit their proposals. After that a contract will presumably be signed. But what the public and the manufacturers will want to know is when the work of manufacturing those trains will begin and when they will go into service. It would be a further source of gratitude to the Government if they would answer that question.
Despite that welcome concession by the Government, investment in London Underground Limited is still desperately short. The company has long estimated that annual capital expenditure of £900 million is required to produce what the chairman has rightly called a "decent modern metro". Compared with that £900 million, the Government's allotment to London Transport this year will be only £475 million. Meanwhile, while the Government are making those still crippling cuts in railway infrastructure, one is astonished to find that they are apparently spending huge sums of public money on the mere mechanism of privatising the railways and not on improving the services.
According to detailed reports in the financial press —if these figures are wrong I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the correct ones—in 1992, some £303 million of public money was spent on staff redundancies and early retirement; a further £146 million was spent on "restructuring", whatever that means; £100 million on "integrating the new system", which is privatisation; £20 million on establishing the new quango, Opraf; £20

1141
million on another quango called Ofrail; and, most astonishing of all, £48 million on fees to legal, financial, public relations and other advisers. Will the Minister tell the House whether those figures are correct—they are all an expenditure of public money—and just what they mean? If they are correct, hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on paying people to stop working—that is, on forcible redundancies and early retirement—and to do nothing instead; on setting up absurd quangos which were never before necessary; and on handouts to public relations and other City friends of the Government rather than on improving services for the commuters.
Altogether, the privatisation of British Rail—that is, the bureaucratic juggling rather than the creation of real assets—is costing the taxpayer £649 million. If that figure is wrong, will the Minister give us the correct sum? But when it comes to the sums involved in privatisation, the Government's extravagance throws a different light on their refusal to assign to London Underground the funds that it needs for new trains, better signalling and so forth. These are what the London public want and they will not forgive a government who refuse the finance on the ground of a lack of resources but who meanwhile are handing over tens of millions of pounds for advice from organisations outside the railways.
Perhaps I may deal with the sum of £300-odd million for staff redundancies and early retirement. Everyone knows that London Underground and London suburban railways are acutely undermanned. Indeed, the undermanning and under-investment are mainly responsible for the deplorable conditions which followed the government takeover of London Underground in 1985 and 1986. I agree that as a result of great public protest there has been in the past year or two some improvement, but there has not been a return to the former conditions.
I shall give an example of undermanning. At Westminster Underground Station yesterday afternoon only one booking office was open and 30 or 40 people were queueing wearily to buy tickets. That kind of muddle causes extreme inconvenience and loses the enterprise revenue rather than helping its finances. In many London and suburban stations one cannot buy a ticket however much one wants to because there is no one there to sell tickets. Yet the Government are still spending millions of pounds not on paying people to do useful jobs but, in effect, on paying them to do nothing.
I turn now to the £48 million spent on fees to legal, financial and other advisers. I suppose that it may be wise to pay Messrs Rothschild, Saatchi & Saatchi or Ernst & Young, about whom we heard earlier today, £40,000 to tell the Government how to run a railway. But how can it be right to hand out a sum of £48 million for such advice? One would like to know whether that figure is correct and who received all that money. Will the Minister tell the House and say what kind of advice the Government have received in return?
Virtually no one outside the Government believes that rail privatisation will improve anything, least of all in London. But if the mere changeover is to cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in extravagant
1142
handouts to private interests, most people will regard it as an outrage. It certainly makes a mockery of the Government's excuse that they cannot afford to provide decent conditions on London Underground for the millions of commuters who need them most.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, had tabled this Motion I expected and hoped for a dynamic reappraisal of the Labour Party's policies for dealing with the difficulties of transport in London. Sadly, the noble Lord spent most of his time today cataloguing in some detail the entire downside of the Government's transport policies, whether in London or elsewhere in the country.
In his concluding remarks he said that there are alternatives. He said that we must have a better public transport system, a better fares policy, a better policy and more support for the Underground, and an improvement of park-and-ride systems. The noble Lord did not say how those aims were to be achieved, by whom and at what cost. The only part of his speech with which I found myself in total and absolute agreement was his belief that there must be a longer-term thinking and commitment to transport infrastructure.
That remark cannot be addressed only to the present Government—I have heard it said in your Lordships' House and elsewhere for the past 30 years. And still we do not regard transport infrastructure as part of the country's investment in the future. Successive governments have produced various and different plans, but financial restrictions have meant a cancellation or postponement. That is an indictment on governments of all persuasions.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans discussed some of the ways what we already have can be improved. I thought that was a useful approach because we do not have billions of pounds to spend. Claims on public expenditure are enormous and competitive, whether in health, education or anything else. Transport infrastructure must take its share and, sadly, I do not believe that is a big enough share. The ratio in road transport of road taxation revenue is 2.7:1 of spend on road infrastructure. When we talk about hypothecation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, we know that in truth that will never happen. Governments of all persuasions like to put the revenues in one pot and to dispose of them as they see fit from time to time. Therefore, such a situation is wishful thinking.
Perhaps I may look for a few moments at some of the successes in recent years. We know that rail provides the core of London's transport needs. Three-quarters of peak period arrivals in central London are by rail. There are over 3 million passenger trips daily made by train or Underground. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, London commuting has declined by 20 per cent. since 1989.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I said that in the mid-1980s there had been that enormous increase.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. My understanding is that there is a decline. And yet to the

1143
year ending in March of this year the railway system has not paid any compensation money in terms of failing to meet its charter. There may be difficulties and uncomfortable journeys, but that is a significant piece of progress. I have no doubt that will improve as we go along.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans and others have mentioned CrossRail and, in particular, Thameslink. In my view, and certainly in the view of the railway undertakings, those projects have a real chance of success and we should compliment them on that.
Some noble Lords have discussed signalling and track failures. And yet Railtrack's brief, which noble Lords will have seen, describes its current developments: £100 million has been invested in resignalling for London, Tilbury and Southend; the South East resignalling scheme and so on. One cannot look at London transport in isolation from other parts of the country: the Great Eastern line is going ahead. Significant progress is being made in those areas. I think it would be unfair to deny that is taking place.
As your Lordships may have expected, I turn to roads. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that she had some reservations about the use of cars coming into London because they bring few people and cause congestion and pollution. She suggested that there were two ways to deal with that: first, to provide better public transport—and one can agree with that—or to price motor cars out of London. That will never happen. Any significant increase in motor vehicle taxation has not produced any lessening of motor vehicle use over the long term. The car pricing schemes in Oslo, Bergen, the Netherlands and Hong Kong have all been abandoned as being ineffective. There is only one scheme which is half working; and that is the supplementary licensing system in Singapore.
It is no good pushing away the inevitable. As my noble friend Lord Mountevans said, we must make the best use of the motor vehicle for those who need it, or think they do, and accommodate that. The Minister in another place, Mr. Norris, has said time and time again that we need to provide better parking facilities in those areas where they are needed—not on the streets, for sure. One might then be able to use the short-term park and ride, or, indeed, Shanks' pony, from those parking areas. For example, it is no good having a fairly miserable car park under Hyde Park for people who wish to come to Westminster. We really should encourage boroughs to use the revenue that is received from car parking to provide such facilities which direct the motorist.
On the wider front, on 30th March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the outcome of the review programme. Sadly, but inevitably, the whole of the programme which was contained in the consultative document Roads for Prosperity has had to be abandoned. A kind of priority system has now been re-enacted and re-evolved. My right honourable friend has re-prioritised the road building programme into four categories. There are only two which really matter: first, the active category which comprises some 80 schemes—22 per cent. of the
1144
programme or 25 per cent. by value—and the active/firm programme, to be completed within the 10-year planning period, which comprises some 173 schemes. Therefore some 120 schemes have now been set aside.
The road programme must continue with both upgrading and extension if our manufacturing industries, trade and commerce are to succeed. Whether one puts 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. more traffic on to rail, it will not make a great deal of difference to the use of commercial vehicles. We should understand that and make use of what we have. That includes improving road infrastructure outside London, so to direct heavy traffic out of London. I agree with those who stand in Parliament Square and wonder why some of the cross-Channel TIR traffic trundles over Westminster Bridge, through Parliament Square and down through the park. That is probably the shortest and easiest distance, which has to be discouraged.
Lastly, I must declare an interest in that I am, as some of your Lordships will recall, a member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC. I understand that the Standing Joint Committee of the RAC, the AA and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club wrote recently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what the general policy was to be on excise duty on fuel. It has been declared that is to increase by 5 per cent. per annum, but we do not know for how many years it will be increased per annum. I have a copy of that letter. HM Treasury's Ministerial Correspondence Unit replied:
"Thank you for your letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer … about Excise Duty on Petrol.
After consideration, it appears that the matters raised are the responsibility of the Department of Transport, so I have sent your letter to John MacGregor's Office with a request that a reply be sent to you direct".
I do not know how my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport can undertake his tasks if there is no policy in the Treasury as to excise duty on transport—whether it is a matter of road fund licences, road pricing or raising money from transportation.
I should like to urge my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench today to respond to the letter. However, he cannot do so. Nevertheless, I urge him to draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that as regards transport infrastructure—that is, rail, road and in manufacturing industry—users need to know what is the long-term policy of the Treasury towards the transport problem in the United Kingdom, and especially in London. Without that knowledge we shall not be able to solve any of the problems.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the title of today's debate is not "Buses in London", "The Underground in London", or "Air Transport in London": quite rightly, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis chose to refer to "transport in London" which rightly reflects what Londoners want; namely, an integrated system. I, too, live and work in London and use public transport daily, so I can speak with the authority of personal experience.
It is obvious why Londoners want an integrated system. It is so they can get to and from work

1145
conveniently and so that they can make shopping and social journeys easily. That will make their city a more pleasant place in which to live and work by virtue of getting rid of congestion and pollution.
We have been here before. London Transport came about in 1933 when a Conservative Government reluctantly took over Herbert Morrison's Bill to provide a unified public service from the chaos of the competing trams, tubes and buses. As Herbert Morrison said, the purpose of the Bill was,
"to eliminate the present wasteful competition and bring about a co-ordinated system of public transport".
To get an integrated system, we need a strategy and regulation. For many years London had both. Then the Government abandoned them, but last year they changed their mind and decided that London Transport should keep responsibility for fares, routes, timetables and for looking after passengers on the buses. That was announced in November 1993 and greeted with much surprise because in March 1993 the Department of Transport issued a consultation paper about bus services outside London and reported that deregulation of buses had been a success.
The paper spoke of the reduced costs of operation and reduced subsidy. It mentioned an increase in innovation, particularly the use of small vehicles, and an increase in bus mileage. However, what the paper did not mention was the decline in the number of passengers, which is surely the acid test of the success of any bus service. It also failed to report the low levels of profitability and the lack of investment either in buses or in passenger facilities.
I am indebted to Bill Bradshaw, Senior Research Fellow at Wolfson College Oxford, for that analysis. The main reasons that he gives for the decline in patronage is frequent changes of registration and the resulting unreliability. The consultation paper makes much of the needs of the operators, but hardly refers to the passengers' needs. It sounds like the bad old days of eastern Europe when priority was given to the producers rather than the customers.
It is difficult to detect any vision or strategy for transport in London, but what is clear is that the Government believe that there will be savings from competition. Competition between bus companies and competition between different forms of transport, both overground and underground. That is a misapprehension about where the competition lies. The competition is not between one operator and another or one form of transport or another. The real competitor is the private car and to compete with that public transport has to offer the same advantages of convenience, comfort and reliability. Integration, not competition, will provide the convenience and efficiency. Investment and management will provide the comfort and reliability. For years that has been apparent to all Londoners who use public transport but it is perhaps not so apparent to those who travel in cars, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, indicated.
If the objective is to get people out of their cars and on to public transport then public transport has to be made reliable, comfortable and efficient. There is also crime. It is becoming safer to travel on the trains, but the
1146
risk of assault when you get off at stations is increasing. That is largely because fewer staff are being employed at the stations, ticket offices and car parks.
The Government may pay lip service to reducing congestion by getting people to use public transport, but their actions indicate otherwise. Fares have risen far faster than inflation on all forms of public transport. Certainly, to justify that, there are some new buses, some new tube trains and some new rolling stock on the railways. Moreover, some stations have been re-modelled and redecorated. But that contrasts with the increasing unreliability of the system, and that unreliability will only get worse as the equipment becomes older. That is particularly relevant to the Underground. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis reminded us of the escalators that do not work, of the lifts that break down and of the large number of station closures, together with other incidents which cause waits of over 20 minutes. As major breakdowns become more and more frequent due to the unreliability of the equipment, so fewer and fewer people will rely on the system.
How do we get people off the roads and on to public transport? I do not suggest that we use consultants because most of us in industry would probably do a little benchmarking to find out what the best practice is elsewhere to see whether we can learn something from it. That is cheaper than consultants and has shown to be far more effective! To be helpful to the Minister, I have done a little benchmarking for him by having a look at what has been done in two major capital cities faced with the same problems; namely, Zurich arid Washington DC.
The first thing to note is that in each of those cities there has been political accountability, so that the interests and wishes of the citizens have been paramount. The industrial and commercial structures of Zurich and London are not too different. Zurich is an affluent city, and during the time that we have seen a decrease in users of public transport, Zurich has seen a 30 per cent. increase, and that from a higher base. Those concerned carried out a strategic plan and their success or failure is not so much judged by profit signals but from the achievement of those strategic objectives. Public transport has been given a good image so that it is used by all income groups. The integration of a public transport system, and the preservation of a civilised environment, has become an agreed political objective. The city's trams, trollies and buses are integrated with the railway system, which are in turn integrated with the federal railway system.
All transport runs to a strict timetable and interconnects to the maximum possible degree. That is achieved by giving public transport priority through congested areas and privileged access to certain streets using a priority system. There is complete integration of tickets and a determined effort to keep cars out of the city centre by giving priority to public transport, removing parking spaces and introducing traffic calming systems. Much of that is justified by an air pollution map of the city. As a result, the local economy and land values have improved. Incidentally, road pricing is not taken at all seriously. Fares revenues cover

1147
some two-thirds of the city's costs and the city gains benefits from the increased land values by a taxation system.
Many of the same principles apply in Washington DC. Here an underground metro system has been built specifically to reduce road congestion. It is still being developed and, to encourage use, it is integrated with a free bus service at the end of the lines. The system is reliable and simple to use with fare cards similar to our phone cards. The stations and trains are kept spotlessly clean for the simple reason that a clean environment makes many passengers feel a lot safer. There is an awareness programme so that the system can be seen as belonging to the community and something of which residents can feel proud. Interestingly, whereas Washington in general is considered one of the most dangerous cities in North America, the underground system remains relatively crime free. The irony is that much of this has been done with the advice of consultants from London Transport. They have simply told the mayor what they would like to do, but are unable to do in London. Now there is a useful bit of benchmarking !
It is obvious to the people of London, as it is to the citizens of Washington, that one way to get people off the roads is to get them onto the Underground. This should be a first priority and two years ago many people thought that London had an agreed plan called "A Decently Modern Metro", to which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred. This would give London a modern Underground system which would be financially self-supporting after 10 years, and of which we could all be proud. However, already in this first year funding has been cut by nearly half, as other noble Lords have said. Instead of a strategy we get a piecemeal approach, such as deciding to extend the Jubilee Line to bail out Canary Wharf because a small contribution is being made to the cost. The main benefit to Londoners was to have been the station at North Greenwich, but even that seems to have disappeared. Then there is the Heathrow Link which links Heathrow to Paddington, probably London's least accessible main line station. And there is CrossRail, a good idea but we do not know whether it will be connected to the Channel Tunnel Link or the Heathrow Link. So much for integration !
Another way of getting cars off the road is to get drivers on to their bicycles. Endless surveys have shown that most journeys are under five miles and many drivers would prefer to cycle because of the exercise and the convenience, but are afraid to do so because of the traffic. Painting a white line on the road to provide cycle tracks is just not enough because many drivers ignore them and park their cars in the cycle track, and buses block them at bus stops. What does work is a dedicated cycle path separated from motor traffic by a kerb and often shared with pedestrians. As pollution decreases, more cyclists will ride instead of using their cars, but at present it is just too unpleasant and dangerous to tempt cyclists on to the roads. I know—I used to cycle to work in London.
London is suffering from the inability of the Government to plan and deliver an integrated transport
1148
system, to recognise that the real competition is the car and not other public transport companies, and their failure to carry out a 10 year investment plan. The Government also seem to be unable to learn from experiences in other cities. Therefore, let them hand the responsibility to an elected London authority with public accountability, dedicated to making London a better place in which to live and work and dedicated to providing a public transport system, which would be a significant contribution to London's economy and not a drawback as it is today.
4.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am a little surprised, however, that there are so few speakers. Perhaps I should start by declaring my interest. Like many noble Lords I regularly commute to your Lordships' House and I currently use the park-and-ride system. That is, I park my car in north London and come in on the London Underground Northern Line. It is not too bad. However, I have several observations to make.
London Underground's old 1970s dull silver rolling stock is nearly always covered in graffiti. However, the Northern Line runs at least one set of carriages still painted in the old, tasteful cream and maroon livery. It is interesting that the old rolling stock is never vandalised. There is hope for the vandals yet. Even more interesting is the fact that some enterprising person from London Underground has ground away the date of manufacture on the tread plate of each door. When I was a little boy they were marked, I think, "Metro Cammell 1938". However, the old stock seems to go just as well as the 1970s stock. I have not known one to break down yet.
The reliability of the equipment on the Underground is not acceptable. Why is it that about once a fortnight the driver tells the passengers, "This train is defective —all change"? We all dismount with long faces, the doors are closed and the train moves away perfectly. What makes a train defective so that it can move away? How often does it happen, and what is being done about it?
There are physical and safety limits on how close trains can run together—the headway. It seems to be about three minutes. This, coupled with the maximum length of the platforms, limits the rush hour capacity of the line to carry passengers. I say "rush hour" although it lasts a lot longer than one hour. Why, at about 7.30 in the evening, is the headway increased to about eight minutes so that when the train comes in it is usually already packed and there is no chance of a seat? I am a reasonably fit young man. But how uncomfortable it must be for older passengers. It seems to me that London Underground plans the headway to ensure that no one is left standing on the platform rather than that no one is left without a seat.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Mountevans, referred to power failure on London Underground. The national grid criss-crosses London. I was amazed to read that London Underground has its own power station. Is it economic? Or is it just an interesting piece of industrial archaeology that is too

1149
expensive to replace with sub-stations drawing off the grid ? The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, suggested refurbishment and overhaul, and I support him. What I cannot understand is why it is not possible to maintain and overhaul the rolling stock so that it is reliable. I can understand that it might not be economic compared to buying new equipment. I appreciate that these are somewhat technical -points and I do not expect the Minister to answer them today. I look forward to his reply later.
I have spent a little time complaining; I shall now concentrate on the positive. The Underground is an ideal way of getting into town. Subject to the comments I have already made, the service is frequent and safe. I draw your Lordships' attention to safety. We all, sadly, know someone who has come to grief in a motor car accident. But how many of us know someone who has come to grief using public transport, especially the Underground?
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the cleanliness of Underground trains. The improvement after smoking was banned is noticeable and the Government are to be applauded for not reversing that policy. The managers of a commuter railway always bemoan the fact that they have a morning and an evening peak and that they must have the capacity to match it. But how many other businesses are able to predict their demand years ahead with reasonable certainty? The market is also price elastic. For instance, in the case of Network SouthEast it would not be difficult, in sales terms, to raise the cost of travel so that the business makes a profit. There would, of course, be howls of protest from commuters who feel that they already pay too much for a poor service. They are right. But if the business was profitable it could far more easily finance the new rolling stock and infrastructure improvements that are required. Subsidised commuter transport allows more money to be spent on housing in the commuter belt.
While dealing with the revenue side, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fare dodgers incentive scheme. I refer to the £10 fixed penalty system on London Underground. A travelcard can cost £3.70, so if a fare dodger avoids detection for two days he will save £1.10 if caught on the third day and £3.70 per day thereafter. Regular fare dodgers clearly have a modus operandi which reduces the chances of being detected to an acceptable level. That presumably means being detected less than about once a week. As a fare paying passenger, it is extremely galling to see fare dodgers being apprehended by a ticket inspector but without any embarrassment or imposition of effective penalty. Are the Government satisfied that there is a realistic deterrent to fare dodging?
We all know that the Treasury will starve a public enterprise of capital expenditure even if it means increased maintenance costs and reduced liability over subsequent years. I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as I am sure that he will not approve of London Underground moving to the private sector. But the private sector can raise capital for long-term transport projects. One need look no further than the Channel Tunnel, a project that may not show
1150
substantial profit for a decade or even more. it is a project involving many uncertainties, riot the least being the demand for its use. There were also significant cost overruns. Despite all that, the finance was still forthcoming eventually.
We should accept that the Treasury of any government will never provide sufficient long-term finance for public transport. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to that. That is why I would support the privatisation of London Underground on the basis of vertical integration.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, towards the end of last year, the Government published through the agency of the Department of the Environment a glossy marketing brochure. It was of the kind which is all too often a substitute for policy or achievement. It was described as a prospectus for the future of London and was called London: Making the Best Better. We often complain about the Treasury for containing public expenditure. However, on this occasion I should like to complain about the Treasury allowing that publication. It was a total waste of money; I shall be surprised if any of your Lordships dissents from that statement. Whether the brochure has persuaded Londoners of the case that it makes we shall see.
In the preface to the document, the Secretary of State for the Environment stated:
"London is the world's choice of a city in which to live arid do business".
However much we may love London and be loyal to it, the evidence is lacking when most of the world lives and works elsewhere. In the preface, Mr. Gummer states:
"This document celebrates London".
But it does nothing of the sort. In fact it is a public relations exercise by a Government who have neglected London so that there is less to celebrate than was once the case.
The clue to the document—it is worth devoting a little attention to it—comes in the next half-complaining sentence, which states:
"London's successes far outweigh its problems arid it is time to redress the balance".
That is what the Secretary of State for the Environment said in his preface. So we have this uneasy mixture of hyperbole and defensiveness. Quite soon after the preface and the few opening words, we read the confession that of course there are problems. There is too much crime. Education standards are too low. Housing is poor. The streets are dirty.
Then there is reference to the transport system itself, which is inadequate for the needs of London. Therefore the admission comes early, even in a document which is meant to redress the balance against those who always complain of London's shortcomings.
I do not wish to earn the disapproval of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. She stated that transport was too important to be hijacked by one political party. But that is the way in which we govern ourselves. No one in this Chamber or in another place who has not been a member or supporter of the present Government for the

1151
past 15 years can claim any responsibility for the decisions which have been made—or, more often, not made.
I am ready to predict that there are problems in dealing with transport in London. It is certainly difficult to predict the ebb and flow of public travelling habits; we have seen that. There was a time when we thought that there would be less demand for London transport. The demand then increased and has declined since. The public are unpredictable. Changes in working habits and technology make it difficult to see what travelling pattern there may be 15 or 20 years ahead. That is a fair point to concede.
I also concede that no great, exciting city in the world is entirely free of transport and traffic problems. Cities have grown naturally, and muddle and congestion is part of them. If we were to design and implement a new transport system for London we might find ourselves demolishing a great deal of the London that we love and care for. We do not want to see the comprehensive development of the whole of London even to improve the transport system. Too much deserves to be conserved.
The House has been critical, as I wish to be this afternoon, of the Government for their failures. One has to acknowledge that London requires and deserves a great deal of care and attention. However much we think about the transport problems in other parts of the United Kingdom, London is special; it is the capital of the United Kingdom; and being a great and ancient city, it deserves attention from successive governments.
Why has the problem arisen? I do not wish to make a narrow party political point. It is easy for any Government to despair of London. This Government may have found it difficult to work with local authorities. They believe that somehow the market will solve all the problems in the end. After all, if congestion becomes too acute, then people will cease to travel; a new equilibrium will be found. There has been a good deal of such thinking in the absence of planning. There has been the assumption that traffic, like water, would seep through the streets and find its own level. But that is not the way in which transport can be organised in a great city. It is not the way in which traffic in fact finds its way about.
I agree with noble Lords who have said that one cannot run a great city without adequate public transport. In that respect I endorse also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to whom we owe a debt for arranging this debate about what he calls the geriatric infrastructure of London. The tragedy is that we are not considering only the problem of neglect today. We all know that the time span for planning and execution is immensely long. So, even if this or any successive Government made a decision to remedy the problems of infrastructure, it would be 10, 15 or even 20 years before we achieved the full benefits.
That having been said, the failure of the present Government over 15 years to support major capital projects, and their extraordinary changes of mind, have been most destructive. I think of the sudden switch from King's Cross to St. Pancras as the terminal of the
1152
Channel Tunnel rail link, after vast expenditure, a great deal of it in the private sector, on planning for the terminal at King's Cross. Then we have the delay in proceeding with the high speed link. Again I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about quality and high standards. But it is not as though it would have been impossible to build the high-speed link to a high standard by this time or soon after. There was hesitation, dithering, uncertainty—something I believe we should be thoroughly ashamed of when we consider the way the French dealt with the matter once the decision had been made to go ahead with the tunnel. Then there were delays in proceeding with the Jubilee Line and finally delays in proceeding with CrossRail.
The other day I came across a discussion document published by the British Railways board on a cross-London rail link. That was in 1980, 14 years ago. Yet we are nowhere near beginning and there is still a great deal of uncertainty about whether we will proceed with the CrossRail link, to which everyone attaches importance. It is an unhappy story of procrastination and delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to upgrading and extending our roads in London. There has been no policy about roads in London since the abandonment of the London motorway box 20 years ago. I remember the important part played in that by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I took the view at the time that it was the right way to proceed. Having abandoned the London motorway box, there has been no policy at all about those improvements which are essential if we are to have a balanced transport policy for London. However much emphasis we put on public transport and the Underground and other rail systems, we must have an adequate road system, which means that there must be improvements, carefully chosen, which can improve the environment for living and working.
Even if we make some well-chosen improvements to the roads, even if we all make more journeys by public transport, it is still necessary to look at how the traffic should move in London, traffic management and especially our system of parking. I have to say that our system of parking in London is one of which many visitors and residents must surely despair. There is no coherent policy that I can detect for the use either of traffic wardens or of police, who often play a cat-and-mouse game with motorists which is not the way to deal with them, however much we may wish to exclude many of them from London.
Parking policy in London should be simple—by which I mean easy to understand; consistent over the whole of London and not different from one borough to another; and transparent —meaning that it is easy for the traveller to discover what the policy actually is. It is quite wrong to play a cat-and-mouse game with motorists and the policy should be enforced firmly and fairly. The aims should be explicit: to keep traffic moving, to allow space for pedestrians and cyclists and to put safety first. But the present policy results in confusion and resentment and in many unanswered questions.
May I just ask one question of the Minister for him to deal with when he comes to reply? Are parking

1153
meters in London part of the system of traffic management or are they a means of local taxation? Increasingly, it seems to me that they are becoming the second, while there is a proper role, which I have always strongly supported, if they are part of a traffic management scheme.
We all have our own anecdotes on these matters and perhaps I may tell one of my own. A few weeks ago I was in Bedford Square in the centre of London at 8 p.m. There were two young policemen helping someone who was employed to clamp vehicles. At that time they were clamping a car which was in a parking bay and which had been parked there half an hour longer than was allowed in an area where parking meters were in operation until 8.30. The clamping vehicle itself was parked half on the pavement and over double yellow lines. When I pointed it out to the two policemen concerned, they hurriedly moved it elsewhere. In that part of Bedford Square, there were empty parking spaces. So there were two constables concerned with parking one vehicle, so far as I could judge, belonging to someone who was a visitor to London, while a few yards away on Gower Street there was traffic travelling southwards at well over the speed limit and in some cases passing through red lights. One hundred yards away, cars could be freely parked behind the British Museum and were parked in every available space, sometimes dangerously on a corner.
When I said that to the two policemen who, I felt, were slightly self-conscious about their duties, they said: "We are working under the instructions of Camden Borough Council". It may well be that noble Lords are familiar with those procedures and that the Metropolitan Police are working under the instructions of London boroughs, but the policemen could offer me no explanation or defence of their priorities. I put it to the House that this is not the only example of a quite wrong use of police manpower, and that it is a waste of resources for police to be employed in traffic management where there are no considerations of the kind I suggested, either involving the free movement of traffic or of safety. That is not a way in which we should use manpower: it only causes resentment without contributing in any way to a solution to the problems which we have been discussing today.
We now have a Minister for Transport in London. I am afraid, rather like the document to which I referred earlier, it is a cosmetic appointment. Decisions about transport in London are made by the Secretary of State, by the Cabinet or by the Treasury or a combination of all of those. I hope that the Government will now concern themselves with the real issues which have been touched on today and not look for a cosmetic escape from problems in London which are not getting easier and will be most acute within another five years.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I have noticed throughout the debate the tendency for contributors to place before your Lordships their credentials for speaking. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has never held a driving licence. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, uses public transport regularly. Therefore, I
1154
thought that I would begin my comments by placing before your Lordships my credentials for contributing to the debate.
I have to confess, as a Scot, that when I was asked to wind up the debate my natural reaction was: "Why me?" My own credentials go back to when I first came to London, to the other place, in 1971. I have been here now for 23 years, and have used public transport in London for many of those years. The only four years when I did not use public transport was when I had the luxury—and luxury it was—of a ministerial car, after which I had to go back to using public transport. Fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind; I see the Minister nodding in agreement. Back I went to using public transport. Like all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, I have a fairly wide experience of using public transport in and around London.
My first comment is one of gratitude to the staff of all forms of London transport who, in my view, work tirelessly, sometimes without thanks, to keep transport in London moving, often under difficult circumstances. It is as true today as when the saying was coined that serving the public is possibly the most difficult task that anyone can undertake. Serving the public in terms of transportation is, in my view, important because of the contacts that take place between those who drive the buses and trains and sell tickets and their customers. In my view, serving that public is an even more difficult task and therefore I express my gratitude to the staff of London transport in all its forms for the job they do on behalf of the people of London.
The only noble Lord to mention tomorrow's elections was the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I am quite pleased that he did so. It gives me the opportunity to say— and I suspect that I may be taking a risk in doing so— that I hope that those who throughout the election campaigns have pedalled their prejudices against ethnic communities throughout London understand fully that the London transport system, and indeed many of our other public services in London, simply could not function without the part played by those of our people who have the privilege to be coloured. I hope that those who pedal such prejudices will pay a heavy price tomorrow at the ballot box.
I return to the question that is under discussion. My noble friend Lord Haskel, in an excellent speech, mentioned the city of Zurich and the way in which public transport is conducted there. One of the advantages that Zurich has, and London does not, is that at the railway station at Zurich airport one can get train connections to almost any other part of that area of Europe to which one wants to travel. That is not true here in London and it causes great congestion. Passengers arriving at Heathrow who want to continue their journeys by rail to any other part of the United Kingdom have to come into central London. There is a proposal to build a link between Heathrow and Paddington, but in my view when forward planning to deal with the problems of traffic in London most serious consideration must be given to providing a railhead at Heathrow airport (there is already one at Gatwick) at which passengers who wish to continue their journey by train can join a train to make their way to the various

1155
parts of Great Britain. That would make a contribution, however minimal, towards solving some of the problems.
I have to say that in the 23 years that I have been in London there were times when I thought that the city would come to a standstill and the Underground would come to a full stop. The skies above were congested before Terminal 4 was built at Heathrow and they are still congested. At times on the roadway between the Underground and the sky there has been almost nothing moving because of traffic problems. I am quite prepared, and quite happy, to concede that there has been a marked improvement. That is why I paid my tribute to the staff. They have played a major part in bringing about that marked improvement in London's transport.
We shall not solve these problems on the basis of the short-term view that is taken by the Government. I greatly look forward to the Minister's speech. With £48 million worth of advice available to him, I am absolutely certain that his brief must be the best that noble Lords will ever have heard read in this House. It is certainly the most expensive. I am looking forward to hearing answers to the problems that have been posed throughout our debate.
I am worried from two standpoints about London Transport not buying any new buses during this coming year. I am worried from the same standpoint as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, in terms of the bus manufacturers and the effect that it will have on those companies, one of which is in my former constituency of Falkirk, which manufacture buses and which in the past have received substantial contracts from London Transport. I am also worried about the opting out of the development of buses which disabled people can board with greater ease. Throughout the rest of the country a development is taking place on certain routes whereby there are buses which disabled people can board with relative ease. It would be sad indeed for London if the result of not buying any new buses is to opt out of that development.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I realise that the noble Lord has an interest in the motor trade and therefore in roads and all the associated items that relate to the motor car. But like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I believe that we have to get a balance between road development and the need to get traffic out of the city and stop it coming in. I accept that we need sensible road development in London. But I also accept that there is a need to look at policies and programmes that will stop traffic coming into the city. Sooner rather than later government will have to face up to the whole question of the amount of traffic that comes into London on a daily basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that she was not in favour of pricing the motorist out of London. I strongly suspect that at the end of the day—unpopular though it may be—that may well be the conclusion that will have to be reached by the government in power at the time. I am a motorist myself and I know that motorists are by nature lazy. We look for parking spaces and drive our cars to the nearest possible convenient point to suit our needs. Unless we discipline ourselves
1156
and other motorists and stop them coming into London the problem that we have in this city will get worse instead of better.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made another point, about the contact between the RAC, the AA and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club with the Treasury on the question of taxation policy on motor fuels. I admired the noble Lord's naivety. If the noble Lord honestly believes that taxation on fuel has anything to do with transport policy, he really ought to have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Taxation on fuel is a Budget question. It has to do with balancing the books and nothing to do with transport policy. I am not surprised that the Department of Transport, the Treasury, or any other government department, would not give the noble Lord the kind of definitive answer for which the associations to which he referred were looking.
Hypothecation was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and also by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There is no question of hypothecation. As the noble Lord said, funds go in to the central Exchequer to be disbursed. That has always been the case. There is a famous story about Winston Churchill. He was asked about hypothecation when vehicle excise duty was being increased in the days when that duty was paid on the size of the engine of the car. Winston Churchill is on record as saying, "I'm away to have a drink now from the road fund licence fund"—although, of course, there is no such thing as the road fund licence fund. There is no question of hypothecation. We have to deal with these matters on a much more universal basis.
London needs a special programme for a special problem. It needs a long-term programme. We cannot devise a system that will last only until the end of the present century. We need a system that will take us well into the next century. Part of that system must be to move people freely about London and get them to and from work in comfort, and that is very important on long journeys. One of my noble friends told me that earlier today it took him an hour to get from Chelsea to this House. That is a disgrace in 1994.
These problems have to be addressed. I hope that I have been constructive and given the Minister an opportunity to respond to the debate in a constructive way that will hold out hope to the travelling public in the city of London.
My final words are in the form of a question. There has been much talk of CrossRail. In his reply, can the Minister tell the House exactly what is the position regarding CrossRail? Will it go ahead? There are many doubts as to whether CrossRail will ever be built. I hope that the Minister will give more detail on that issue. I conclude by saying that I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, this is the first occasion that I have had since I joined the Department of Transport to set out in a general way to the House the Government's policies and programmes for transport in London. It is

1157
not the first time that I have stood at the Dispatch Box. I have stood here at Question Time and answered questions about transport in London, a subject which seems to come up fairly regularly. It gives me the chance to have a little regular spot with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the subject of London transport and other transport.
It may seem ironic to some of your Lordships that the debate should be concluded by two people whose accents clearly show that they do not live in London. However, London is full of expatriate Scots with accents just like those of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and myself. If it were not thus, it would not be nearly such a successful city.
There is no denying that transport is central to the quality of Londoners' lives. In considering the state of transport in London, I suggest that at the beginning of my remarks I can do no better than report what Londoners, visitors to London, and businessmen say when asked what is their view on transport in London.
First, let me tell the House what Londoners and visitors said in response to the Secretary of State for the Environment's consultation document, Making the Best Better. That document did not seem to meet with the unqualified approval of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. But, needless to say, most respondents had something to say about transport. London's Underground, buses and international air connections featured among the 20 most appreciated features—yes, the word was "appreciated"—of the capital. At the same time, just to be fair and to show balance in these matters, 60 per cent. of people commented that there should be an investment in public transport to make it reliable. Of course, there is that investment, as I shall show your Lordships. Much of London's transport is excellent. We should be proud of it and thankful to those who have gone before us for the foresight and investment they put into it. That investment and that work has to continue. One cannot stand still on these matters.
Let me turn to the dreary picture of transport in London painted by most speakers from the Opposition Benches. It was a kind of message to the rest of the world, "Visitor or businessman, avoid this city". That is not the kind of message that I should want to put out if I were batting for Britain or London and encouraging jobs and prosperity to come to the city and to the country. But, I am afraid, it is the kind of message that all too often we hear from the parties opposite. It must have been somewhat worrying for them when they looked at the report mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about the survey by KPMG Peat Marwick of foreign owned companies operating in the UK. It found that the United Kingdom's infrastructure and transport were highly rated, with closeness to key markets and road, rail and air access all exceeding expectations. A Harris research survey of European senior executives conducted for Healey and Baker designated London the top location for existing and future investment. The main factor which counted with those businessmen was the quality of transport infrastructure. It was a survey of the people who really count when it comes to bringing business, commerce and employment to the capital. The businessmen did not
1158
score London first in that regard, although I should love to be able to tell the House that they had. They scored London second out of 27 cities. That rather contradicts the gloomy view of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about transport in the city.
Those consultation exercises reaffirm the fact that transport affects most people nearly all the time. London's transport system, as the surveys show, is a positive asset. Great use and provision of transport are the signs of an economy and a capital working and providing great opportunities to further the quality of life, business and also—let us not forget, when we hear people knocking the motor car—personal freedom.
Conversely, heavy traffic and pollution in London are seen as major disadvantages to urban life. New transport schemes for rail and road which have clear economic benefits also bring with them noise and blight for local people. We cannot afford to ignore either side of that equation. The debate is all about balance. We take these issues seriously. We are playing a full part in developing London's transport system for the future.
Our strategy covers three main issues. First, we need to invest in order to improve the efficiency of all transport networks, and the attractiveness of public transport in particular, shifting the balance away from the private car. Secondly, we want those who are delivering public transport to adopt a more commercial approach so that services are delivered according to what customers—not the bureaucrats —want. Thirdly, we want the planning system at the local and strategic levels to provide the right framework so that decisions on land use and transport are more closely integrated.
I start with investment and the relative levels of public investment over different transport modes. We clearly favour public transport over transport by road, investing, as we do, roughly two and a half times as much money in London's public transport system as in its roads. Investment in public transport is at a substantial level. Over the next three years London Transport will be able to invest something like £3 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, invited me not to go back to the 1909 Liberal Government. I do not need to do so. I need go back only to the 1974 Labour Government where I see figures that I mentioned the last time I answered questions on this matter a couple of weeks ago in this House. Over the next three years the planned investment by London Transport in total will be between £900 million and £1 billion at 1993–94 prices.
I brought out my calculator. I barely needed it because the addition sums were quite small. I decided to add up the total investment by London Transport in the years of the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government—again, at the same 1993–94 prices—so that it would be directly comparable with the figure of just under £1 billion a year that I have just mentioned. I found that I got £807 million. Before noble Lords say that that seems reasonably close to the £900 million to £1 billion a year that I mentioned for our in vestment over the next three years, I must say that I needed the calculator because that £807 million was for all the five years of the last

1159
Labour Government. So I do not feel that we can take any lectures from the party opposite when it comes to the investment we have made in London.
There are, however, limits to what the taxpayer can reasonably be expected to contribute, in view of the other pressing needs that we hear about in this Chamber and the other place day after day. That is one of the reasons why we want to harness the resources of the private sector, spelt out by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, through the Government's private finance initiative.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I sit here today, having something of an interest in London but with more of an interest in the northern parts of the country. I was interested to hear the vast figures of investment over the years. The other day the Prime Minister said—and we were very pleased about it in Leeds, where we make engines—that the Jubilee Line is to kick-start the economy. Does the Department of Transport have any say in letting contracts to make sure that the money is spent in this country, as the Prime Minister said, to kick-start the economy. We are faced with 300 redundancies in the Hunslet Engine Company, which has supplied 15,000 engines to all parts of the world. I have seen them. Will that money be applied to British firms?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to the Jubilee Line in a few minutes. I appreciate, as do the Government and the Prime Minister, by the remarks he made in Leeds, the importance of this kind of investment. But on the question of public investment the noble Lord known that one cannot completely control the whereabouts of the investment in relation to the European Union. However, I and my colleagues are confident that United Kingdom companies—perhaps the one mentioned by the noble Lord—will win that contract and will build the engines and trains. I shall come to the Jubilee Line in a few moments when I reach the appropriate place in my remarks.
Several major public transport infrastructure projects are now being taken forward as joint ventures, with substantial financial contributions from the private sector. Last year we gave the go-ahead for the Jubilee Line extension. There is a private sector contribution of £400 million to its construction. We have also the £300 million Heathrow Express rail link being constructed under joint venture arrangements between BAA and British Rail. That will connect people who land at Heathrow with the rail network, although I suspect that many of them will have to come into central London in order to radiate out. It would be unrealistic to pretend that in the south east of England we could possibly re-design all the rail network so that it started its radiation at Heathrow or perhaps at both Heathrow and central London. We know how difficult it is to find a second link to the Channel Tunnel that does not offend almost everybody without trying to re-route all rail lines into Heathrow. The £300 million investment in the Heathrow Express will help those people who wish to transfer from air to rail.
1160
In addition, we recently announced the invitation by London Underground to various firms for proposals for the new, privately financed train for the Northern Line. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked what progress we were making. It is the intention of London Underground Limited to progress the competition for the scheme as quickly as possible with a view to making an award, assuming a suitable deal can be struck before the end of the year. Timing for delivery of new trains would depend on the supplier and of course on the deal struck. But we believe it could be within two or three years. We must wait to see what kind of interest comes forward for that project.
CrossRail is also a prime candidate as a joint venture. We believe it will have significant potential benefit to passengers and is likely to be attractive to the private sector. I was asked by one or two noble Lords where we are with CrossRail. Everybody knows that it is in Committee in the other place. As a government-we have given the project our full support. If I understand correctly what noble Lords opposite said, they too give it their full support. We can only hope that it overcomes the legislative hurdles in the other place and this place and starts on its way into the proper design and construction phase. The Croydon Tramlink is another private sector development which we believe is a potential runner—it will greatly help the traffic management in Croydon—as are a number of other projects, looking perhaps more into the future, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mountevans.
In general, our investment in London Underground is considerable. A number of projects are actually under construction—new carriages, new engineering on lines, replacement of old equipment and refurbishing of trains. All those are under way; on some lines the improvements are already in existence. The plans in hand will keep London Underground right at the forefront as one of the key factors in transporting people around the city.
The same is true of rail. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned the importance of rail and the number of people it brings into central London every single day of the week. It is by far the greatest carrier. There is considerable investment taking place in the South East in order to improve rail connections. Over the two years 1991–92 and 1992–93, British Rail invested around £895 million in the South East rail network. New vehicles have been delivered and are under order; electrification has taken place; and projects of route modernisation have continued. There are many projects which I could easily list. However, I would quickly run out of time if I gave your Lordships a geography lesson around the rail networks of the south where improvements are taking place.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth made his case for roads. We all recognise that the scope for major road building on the M.25 is constrained. Central London is well served by public transport; only 14 per cent. of commuters travel in by car in the morning period. The position in other parts of London is different. Two-thirds of London's jobs are outside the central area. It is less easy to serve the outer areas with public transport. So we need to improve orbital routes,

1161
including the M.25. We need also to cater for the creation of employment and housing in East London, where regeneration is a priority. As far as possible that should be done through public transport with schemes such as the extension of the Docklands Light Railway arid the Jubilee Line. But there will still be increased traffic and the planned improvements in our roads programme for London concentrate on tackling that growth.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, appeared to agree with me that roads, motor cars and so forth have a part to play, although he asked an interesting question. He asked whether parking meters were a system of traffic management or a system of local taxation. I shall not be tempted into that debate. It is the potential subject of a splendid university essay, depending from which side one comes. That is what matters. If one has just been fined for parking one probably looks upon it as a system of taxation. However, if one discovers that one can park readily for the half-hour or so that one needs, then it becomes a system of traffic management.
Our roads policies and programmes focus on how to make better use of existing networks through traffic management measures such as red routes, parking controls and traffic control systems. As your Lordships know, red routes are an idea that is just beginning. Some work has already been done. There have been some excellent benefits from the red routes already in existence. For example, traffic journeys along the red route are 20 per cent. faster and their reliability 40 per cent. better; bus journeys are 20 per cent. faster and their reliability is 33 per cent. better. Since the start of the pilot project in 1991 on the 43 and X43 routes, the passengers using buses have increased by 11,000 a week. That is a 10 per cent. increase in comparison with an overall decline in bus patronage in London over the same period. Clearly the red routes offer a way for improved traffic management and give the surrounding housing areas the benefit of concentrating that through traffic on the red route and taking it out of the suburban streets. That must be an important aspect.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked about red buses. I can assure him that red buses will remain in the centre of London. That will be one of the conditions of purchase of any of the LBL companies. My noble friend asked also about the River Thames. The working group received evidence from over 100 organisations in response to a questionnaire about the transport potential of the Thames and the constraints that inhibit that realisation. Important environmental planning and leisure issues were raised. The group commissioned a detailed analysis of the responses and plans to complete the report and publish its conclusion later this summer.
Noble Lords asked a number of other questions to which I probably cannot detail an answer in the time available. In regard to fare dodging I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that London Underground is optimistic that it will be able to reduce the amount of fare dodging going on, which is to the detriment of all the paying passengers. London Underground estimates that it loses around £30 million. It hopes to be able to recover at least some of that and reduce the amount of
1162
fare dodging. It would be a foolish and totally unrealistic person who suggested to your Lordships that we could stop fare dodging entirely.
Some people seem to think that the Government's privatisation programme implies a weakening of our commitment to the future of public transport. But as our record on investment shows, the opposite is true. Our aim is to establish a framework which allows maximum freedom to those involved in providing and using transport, consistent with protection for those affected adversely by transport, for the environment, and for safety. We are putting the customer centre stage. We are seeking to revitalise public transport as a means of travel. It is central to our approach that government cannot dictate how people travel. Customers should have a say in transport provision, through the operation of the market.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord some questions about the cost of privatisation. I asked whether a number of figures concerning what the Government have been spending on privatisation are correct. Is it possible for the noble Lord either to say that those figures are correct or to let us know when the Government will give us the true figures?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do riot recognise the figures that the noble Lord mentioned. I would not deny that there are costs of privatisation but I do not recognise the figures mentioned. The costs of privatisation that we have identified are very small compared with the total amount of turnover which the railway system has in any given year. We would expect the benefits to be considerably greater over the shorter term—over the years ahead—than any costs of privatisation. However, I shall look into the points that the noble Lord made, source the article he quoted and write to him about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised a nice debating point when he mentioned the fact that the Department of Transport employs 14,000 people and only 244 of them are employed in the public transport division. Earlier in his speech he accused the Government—why he should have thought so I cannot say—of deceiving the public, of deceiving Parliament and of deceiving themselves. The statistic he used has made possible all three deceptions. The reason is simple. Out in the public services involved are where the people who run the railway, who run the Underground and who run the aviation system work. That is where they are, not sitting in the Department of Transport in Marsham Street. The noble Lord's nice little debating point looks good, but when one peels off the outer skin of it one sees that a lot more people are employed in managing, running and predicting the patterns of public transport than just those employed by the Government in Marsham Street.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the reliability of our public services in London. The Citizen's Charter initiative has the objective of encouraging London Transport and the railways in the south-east to meet demanding standards of service for their passengers. The Underground met or bettered all 'the service performance targets set by the Government for 1992–93.

1163
Tougher targets were set for 1993–94. According to current figures, London Underground is meeting nine of the 12 quality of service targets, which is a little different from the dismal picture of London Underground painted by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Over the two years since the introduction of the Passenger's Charter for rail services, performance on lines in the south-east has improved. On average, over the past year 13 out of the 15 commuter lines in the south-east achieved their charter targets for punctuality and 11 achieved their target for reliability. That is a great tribute to the people who work on the service and are reacting to customer demand.
In conclusion, the Government's strategy for London's transport is to fulfil the goal of an efficient transport system for the capital. We have been spending a considerable amount of public money in investing in London transport. We heard today, if we heard anything, calls for additional public expenditure on London transport. I wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ewing, cleared with their colleague, Mr. Brown, who rejoices in the title of Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, these extra commitments. Mr. Brown said on the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme on 28th January this year:
"These commitments, or so-called commitments, about public spending simply do not exist … We will spend what we can afford to spend and only as growth allows. We've made that absolutely clear. I have said there are no manifesto commitments at this stage to public spending".
He went on to say:
"unless you can quote me chapter and verse about commitments made in the House of Commons then those were not made".
I notice that he did not mention the House of Lords, so perhaps commitments made in the House of Lords have a different status about them. I suggest that they do not.
We, as the Government, have put considerable money and planning into having a properly maintained and properly managed system of public transport in London. London's transport has had a great history and it will have a great future. With all the investment plans in hand and programmes for the future we believe that the capital will have a public transport system which will enhance its status as a capital city, encourage more people to bring their employment to this city and improve the quality of life of all those who have to live and work in the city.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset of my very brief remarks in conclusion I wish to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short but interesting debate, not least the Minister for making his maiden speech in a debate on transport. He was characteristically extremely engaging, missing most of the points. There was a remarkable lack of harmony between what the Minister had to say about the needs of London transport and the views that are expressed to me and other noble Lords by London Transport and by British Rail. There is a clear need for them to get together.
Many of the speeches produced some extremely interesting points. Those should not be thrown out of the
1164
window. As my noble friend Lord Haskel said, it is necessary to learn from the experiences of others. Perhaps in some respects they can also learn from us, but there are many benefits which those who travel abroad, particularly on the Continent of Europe, will have perceived in terms of public transport which would be to our advantage overall.
On the question of public expenditure, the Minister kept on insisting that I had not cleared my remarks with my right honourable friend Mr. Gordon Brown. The fact of the matter is that I said in my speech and have said in other speeches I have made that it is a question of reorganising priorities. The Government are spending far too much on the road programme and we believe that that point needs to be tackled urgently.
The Minister spoke to what my noble friend described as the most expensive brief in history—a £48 million golden brief. But like so much of what we hear from the Government, although the noble Lord spoke very engagingly and eloquently, I have heard it all before. As with so many of the expenses incurred by the Government on consultants, I fear that this £48 million has been thrown away as well. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting and good-humoured debate. I thank noble Lords for participating. Many of the ideas that have been brought forward are certainly worth pondering on. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sport in Schools
5.39 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to sport in schools; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in the debate. I think it is an important subject for those of us who are concerned with children and their sports and recreational opportunities. Although I differ from the Minister in a political sense, I know that she has the care of children as much in her heart as anyone in your Lordships' house. This matter has nothing to do with the election tomorrow, because I believe that people have already decided which way they are going to vote and this little debate will not alter anyone's point of view. That is as good a reason as I can give.
Although the debate is specifically targeted at sport in schools, I have no doubt that it will possibly range a little wider, but I shall do my best to keep it within the parameters which I have set down on the Order Paper. The Minister will know that periodically I and other Members of your Lordships' House have questioned the availability of sport or recreational facilities in schools in the hope that they can be expanded instead of what appears to be a continuing contraction. That is why I am pleased that I have been able to have this debate on the situation.
My concern with sport has always been with the children at the base of the pyramid. I am not referring to the Olympic performers, because they have made it and

1165
they perform reasonably to very well. My concern is for children at the bottom of the pyramid, beginning with those at primary school.
A few weeks ago I attended in one of your Lordships' committee rooms the launch of a document entitled A Charter for School Sport launched by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. That is the umbrella organisation for nearly 300 bodies dealing with sport across the widest spectrum other than the professional sports. One man encapsulated in his few remarks what I consider the issue to be about. That was Roger Utley, who was at one time a top-class Rugby Union player. He captained England with distinction. After that, I believe that he was manager of the union team.
He cut through all the other discussion which was taking place. He said that if children were to succeed and be happy at sport and achieve anything, they have to start when they are very young. He cited his own lifestyle and said that in his very early teens he bought a bicycle. He spent most of his spare time riding up and down the hills in the North of England. In doing so he built himself a strong pair of legs and he also developed, in his term, his "engine room"—his heart and lungs. When he decided that his objective was to play rugby at the highest level, he had the equipment to do so. But he could never have made that possible unless he had done what he did in his younger years. That is the point that I am making—we are talking about our seedcorn. Whoever is in government and whoever is trying to look after the interests of children, we owe it to them to give them the maximum chance to develop their talents.
I have had numerous messages of support from the British Olympic Association, the London Federation of Boys' Clubs, the Sports Council and the Royal College of Physicians. They are all in complete agreement that something has to be done to deal with the situation. As an aside, perhaps I may say at this point that I feel, as I am sure most of your Lordships do, as a former inner city boy for the children who are not the achievers in the education system. All children will not finish up with a clutch of O-levels and A-levels. Disappointment takes place and if they have nothing else to do because of their academic failure, even at an early stage we should be in a position where we are giving them an alternative to which they may apply their talents. They may be very talented in other than an academic way.
For example, I read a report at the weekend that dyslexia has now been identified in one out of 15 children. I have had dyslexia in my family, but luckily, with the advice of friends in this House and because I have some resources, I have been able to deal with that problem pretty well. But what about the child who does not have someone to support him? He sits in the classroom and everything is going over his head. He is unhappy. Sadly, the resources are not there in depth to deal with the problem. However, some of these children are very highly intelligent but they have this flaw. Some of them are very good achievers in sport, given the chance. All I am asking is that, whatever comes of this debate, we look at making a happier time for children at school outside the curriculum of hard and fast academic lessons.
I know that there has been disagreement between Mr.
1166
Sproat, the Minister responsible for sport, and John Patten, the Secretary of State for Education. But I do not want to dwell on that because that is a matter for them. No doubt that disagreement will be resolved. However, I take issue with Mr. Sproat on one point. I believe that he referred in a statement to compulsion. I do not believe that there is any joy in sport if you are compelled to do it. Happiness comes from doing what you want to do and being happy when doing it, even if the element of competition is introduced. I come from that body of people who believe that competition is a damned good thing anyway and most children I know—certainly in my own family and those from my own background —would support that.
It has been said that the National Union of Teachers reacted badly to government statements on this subject. I do not want to become political but to state facts. Teachers have been bitterly disappointed at some of the Government's arbitrary actions against them. In my time in local government local authorities never became involved in deciding teachers' salaries, although the educational costs amounted to 50 per cent. of any local authority budget. That matter was always decided by the Burnham Committee which was an independent body. Quite stupidly, Kenneth Baker decided almost overnight to wipe out the Burnham Committee, without any consultation. I believe that he was warned by Members on the other side of your Lardships' House that he was treading on dangerous ground, but he still went ahead. There has been disenchantment in the teaching profession since then, but good will has to be re-established.
I do not believe that it is the job of ordinary teachers to deal with the kind of activity we are talking about because I do not believe that they are equipped for it in a general sense. If we are to have children involved in sport who will not be hurt by doing so and who will attain a reasonable level, the opportunity has to be provided by teachers with a special talent who love to take part in sport. Such provision should not be carried out in the form of 10 to 12 hours overtime each week just when it suits a particular organisation.
The Central Council of Physical Recreation has made some recommendations and it is only fair that I put them before your Lordships as quickly as I can. The first is:
"The need for co-ordination of sport and recreation at the local level in order that Schools, Leisure Departments, the Youth Service and the Voluntary Sports Clubs work on a collective basis".
It is unfortunate that at present these organisations are working in isolation and very often they duplicate each other's work, which is a waste of time and sometimes of talent. Another recommendation is:
"The repeal of DES Regulations 909 and the halt of the sale of playing fields".
I am not going into statistics as to how many playing fields have been sold off. Somebody else who speaks after me may do that. But there is no doubt that there are cases where schools which are in a dilapidated condition and which have the benefit of being in large grounds have sold off quite substantial parts of that land in order to carry out major repairs to the school or to keep the school running. That land is lost for ever to the school.
The worst places affected are the inner cities. I never saw or played football in Manchester on a blade of grass until I was in my late teens. We always played on shale because there was no space available. We have to halt that situation as quickly as we can.
Another recommendation is for:
"Mandatory rate relief for voluntary sports clubs and exemption from corporation tax for national governing bodies of sport and associations".
I believe I am right in saying that charitable sports organisations in this country are the most heavily taxed, or are the only ones taxed, in Europe at present. So we are not dealing with a level playing field. We are treating them more harshly than our colleagues in Europe.
Another recommendation of the CCPR is:
"A minimum of two hours of physical education each week for school children".
That should cover a variety of activities.
Another recommendation is:
"Grant aid to national governing bodies of sport from the Sports Council to be inflation-indexed".
We do not want the money that is now being donated or accorded to those bodies to be reduced on the basis that a comparable amount will be found from the national lottery fund. We believe that any money from the national lottery fund should be additional and should provide further incentives for people to become involved.
A further recommendation is:
"A secure guarantee that access to recreational activities will be maintained under any consideration being given to the privatisation of the Forestry Commission".
There is a danger of losing such access if the commission is privatised.
Further recommendations are:
"All private and local authority sports centres who employ individuals to instruct in hazardous activities must appoint staff who hold appropriate national governing body coaching awards. The money to be distributed from the National Lottery for sport must be additional and not a replacement of existing money for sport.
To seek Treasury support for the harmonisation of the EC Sixth Directive within the United Kingdom so that voluntary sports clubs are exempted from VAT".
It appears that only voluntary sports clubs in this country are charged that tax. Those are some of the ideas of the CCPR.
It is not true that only organised bodies are willing to help. People in the private sector are willing, able and ready to help our youngsters to develop and to give them the chance to do so as early as possible in their lives so as to enable them to look forward to a wholesome future.
Only today I had the privilege of meeting in your Lordships' House some representatives of the Butlins holiday and hotel company. At present it is running a scheme in conjunction with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, called the National Pentathlon Award Scheme. It starts with children in primary school. It is a marvellous scheme. That is just one company that is prepared to give money and to help. I do not expect the Minister to reply on that point today because it is a fresh point, but I hope that she will consider asking someone in her department to talk to
1168
those people because what they are doing and what they are prepared to do could be seen as a role model for others who are interested.
It is not just a case of involving large sponsors. I do not see why Olympic athletes should be the only athletes to be sponsored. What is wrong with sponsoring some of our future Olympic athletes from the age of five upwards? I believe that there are people who are ready to show good will and to do that. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond on that point.
I close on this note: this is a very interesting subject, but unless we start to deal with it now the situation can only deteriorate. I have tried to make an objective, non-political speech on behalf of the children who are our future. I want to see them develop. Finally, I thank those Members of your Lordships' House who have been good enough to put down their names to speak. They are doing an enormous service to the youngsters of this country and I thank them.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject this afternoon. I am also very grateful to those who drew up the list of noble Lords who are to speak this evening because I am placed between two very eminent Members of your Lordships' House, who are both well known for their interest in sport at all levels.
I find that a number of adults are very worried about the situation and take the line that we must encourage young people to take part in sports of all kinds. It was many light years ago that my father, an excellent all-round sportsman, encouraged all his five children to play games. As the eldest, I remember the fun of playing rugger at fly half and wing three-quarters, usually being shouted at to, "Pass the ball" just as I was going to score a try. That was a long time ago.
As with everything else in life, it is enormously important to start young. The encouragement which children receive at school will last them all their lives. Sport, in this context, means all competitive games, played both indoors and out on the playing fields. It includes swimming, athletics and physical education. All are included in our interest this evening.
It is becoming vitally important for the future of sport in this country that no more playing fields shall be sold off by local education committees. I understand that there are a considerable number of such sales in the pipeline, and I would urge the Minister responsible for sport to call in all such applications in the future and to give the plans his personal attention.
We cannot expect another Linford Christie or Sally Gunnell to be in all our schools, but we must give our children the opportunity to try to be as brilliant as they are. Competition, which is vital in adult life, can be instilled in the young, and pride in partaking in teams and occasionally winning is, I believe, part of being a successful adult.
We have heard recently that teachers in schools are unwilling to coach at games. That is understandable if they have no aptitude in that direction. I do not know how widespread that is, but I do know that at least five

1169
universities—four of which are Bedford, Birmingham, Brighton and Liverpool—have courses in PE and sport. Coaches can surely be found among the graduates. There are also many recently retired men and women who would, I am sure, help to relive their youth by teaching the young how to play.
I would urge the Minister responsible for sport to appoint some interested dynamic people who could use their initiative and imagination to get school sports back on the fields, tracks and in the baths. It must be done at government, regional and club level. Without this, we might be doomed to never winning the Ashes, never winning the Triple Crown, never winning at Wimbledon, never winning the Ryder Cup or even having the excitement of seeing one's club win the FA Cup. How awful a prospect it is. We must do something about it.
Finally, there is another side to my interest in this debate. As chairman of a juvenile court for many years, I knew that the main reason for the young offenders coming before me was boredom. They needed some excitement and they needed to go to bed exhausted by exercise. I am so glad that the Minister is in her place this evening and I hope that she will use her considerable influence to see that her ministerial colleagues, and principally the Prime Minister, are aware of our deep concerns this evening.
6 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Dean and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, in this interesting debate. Sport, as has already been stated, is of vital importance to the future of the country and is not, or should not be, related to party political differences. We should all be united in our purpose here. I am glad to say that there are signs of the Government being increasingly willing to listen and to deal with these matters.
As has been said. school sport is vitally important to the health of the nation. That should perhaps be our first consideration. It is of great importance because it provides enjoyment for millions of young people. They learn to enjoy the challenges of sport and recreation. They obtain great personal satisfaction, and it enables them to extend their capacity for enjoyment in their own private lives. It is also of great importance to the future well-being of national sport, as the noble Baroness has just said. She mentioned Wimbledon. If we ask ourselves why we seem to have little hope of finding a British player to win at Wimbledon for some time, we need only look at the paucity of tennis being played in our schools and the lack of teachers able to coach tennis. We then get the matter into some sort of perspective.
No one can doubt the serious decline in school sports that we see today. The Secondary Heads Association has done us a service by carrying out a survey. It shows that in 1987 38 per cent. of all pupils aged 14 and under spent less than two hours per week involved in PE and sport. In 1990, that 38 per cent. had deteriorated dramatically to 71 per cent. That is a serious situation.
I shall say a word about swimming. I regard it as an essential subject to be taught and enjoyed in schools. Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who
1170
I am delighted to see will be responding to the debate, that at the last election both parties' manifestos contained a commitment to the effect that it was essential that every child up to the age of 11 should have the right to learn to swim and be able to enjoy swimming. But in 1990, the Secondary Heads Association tells us that 44 per cent. of 11 year-olds; 59 per cent. of 14 year-olds; and 54 per cent. of 15 year-olds enjoyed no swimming. Between 1980 and 1990 there was a steep decline in swimming for 11 year-olds in state schools. That is the extent of the problem which both parties are committed to put right.
If we look at the PE timetable, we see that in 1987 38 per cent. of 14 year-olds had less than two hours' PE or sport per week in their school curriculum; but in 1991 that figure had deteriorated to 71 per cent. Likewise, there has been an appalling deterioration in the state of playing fields. We should contemplate the state of our cricket. Perhaps I should draw attention to the fact that it is impossible teach boys or girls to play cricket properly if they are not playing on proper wickets—if the wickets are not maintained, rolled and kept properly. As a result of the alterations introduced into local government, we have had gang mowing. One cannot play cricket on a gang-mown playing field. There is therefore a deterioration in school cricket. There are also great difficulties in obtaining properly qualified PE staff.
As I have said, the Government's new thinking., as evidenced by statements from the Minister with responsibility for sport and the Prime Minister, is much to be welcomed, whatever we think about them and whatever criticisms we may have of them. I have some, but that does not detract from the fact that it is to be welcomed that the Prime Minister, the Minister with responsibility for sport and the Department of National Heritage are now beginning to get to grips with the subject.
In the leaked document from the Minister with responsibility for sport—or the letter that he has to write to the Prime Minister—he put forward some proposals which I shall mention in passing. I believe that he should rethink them. The first was a £500 additional payment to teachers for teaching sport or taking sport voluntarily, which he considered to be adequate. I do not believe that it will be adequate. Secondly, he wants to redefine certain sports as core subjects. He suggests that every teacher should be required to take a sport in addition to their traditional subjects. That is totally unrealistic, as some of us know who suffered from the supervision of school sports by teachers who did not have the faintest idea of what they were doing. I suffered cartilage damage playing football at school. It is an injury from which I never recovered, because I had an art teacher who did not have the faintest idea what to do about a sports injury. That teacher allowed me to writhe in pain and to go home instead of having the matter treated. That caused me to become a football referee, so it may have done me a service—I do not know —as I found difficulty in kicking a ball thereafter.
Then we have the proposal from the Prime Minister, I regret to say, that all the playing fields that have been sold at the behest of the Government should be bought

1171
back out of National Lottery money. I can only describe that as a futile proposal, having regard, as I said on a Question the other day, to the enhanced value planning permission gives to those playing fields immediately they are sold. It is unrealistic to think that anyone can buy them back.
We must think about the national curriculum. This is not a debate on the national curriculum. The Minister is probably much better able to deal with that subject than I. As an amateur in educational matters, the national curriculum seems to me to be far too big. We are trying to cram far too much into it. I hope that we shall have more flexibility in it. The CCPR and the NAHT have called for a minimum of two hours' sport, plus changing time. If pupils have to travel, as most of those in inner city schools have to do, to a playing field on the outskirts, then two hours including travelling time is grossly inadequate. But two hours is double what I understand Sir Ron Dearing is proposing. He is proposing about one hour. I am glad to hear that he might be rethinking that matter. I hope that that point is confirmed.
If one-half day a week for sport is good enough for the public schools—I have always admired the fact that they make one-half day a week available to their pupils —it should be good enough for the state system also. One cannot encourage school sport, and coach team games especially, unless one has that amount of time in which to do it. That is in addition to playing competitive matches against other schools—something which I regard as important.
We must introduce youngsters to a whole range of sports in schools. At the end of their school life they will then be enabled to choose which of the sports or recreations they want to follow. I accept, as has been said, that they will not necessarily want to follow team sports. I have to make the point, in view of what I have heard from some PE colleges, that there is no contradiction between those who want to play team sports and those who want to enjoy individual recreation in the countryside. There is no contradiction, because most people like to do both.
How can we go forward? I support the action plan of the CCPR/NAHT, which has been mentioned. I have consulted the National Association of School Sports. I am surprised that it does not receive more support from the Government and the Sports Council. It is responsible for drawing up all the fixtures, generally overseeing school sports, and arranging all these matters. It should receive much more positive support from the Sports Council. I am pleased that my city of Birmingham recently held a schools sports conference. All those bodies have produced excellent proposals.
My first priority relates to the machinery of government. I had the privilege of serving in the departments involved, which are now the Departments of National Heritage, Environment and Education. We must have vision and imagination. However, we shall not achieve the necessary co-ordination unless the Prime Minister sets up a ministerial committee. It should include Ministers from all those departments and include those from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern
1172
Ireland Offices, and it should probably be chaired by the Minister for Sport. There should be a co-ordinated government plan for sport and the committee should pursue and monitor it month in and month out. That can only be done at ministerial level. It is no good expecting sports councils to do it because they might be in conflict with education departments and local authorities. The lead must come from the top.
I am glad to say that the All-Party Parliamentary Sports Group, of which I am privileged to be chairman, met the National Association for School Sports and issued a plea of priorities which was sent to Ministers. The all-party group wants a government circular to be sent out, again as a priority, asking all schools to state in their brochures their programmes for school sport and recreation. That must be followed up year on year. We need an annual report from every school showing what is being done in respect of sport and recreation. We must ask governors of schools, in particular in light of their new freedoms and responsibilities, to take up the challenge and to provide proper facilities and resources. There is some evidence that some of the headmasters of grant-maintained schools are jealously hanging on to what they have but are not making proper provision.
It all starts in the teacher training colleges. If we do not produce teachers who are taught how to teach sport in schools, we shall get nowhere. Nothing like enough concern and supervision is being given to that. Sport in primary schools is also important. Many primary schools do not have a qualified PE teacher—in fact, I doubt whether there is a qualified PE teacher in any primary school in this country. That is where qualified people should be providing the basic skills.
We must also assist teachers to take sport outside school hours. That is the key to competitive sport. We must pay their expenses and, if we want them to turn out every Saturday morning or afternoon, we must consider giving them time off. If as a nation we recognise that that is a desirable teaching activity we must provide compensating time off. We cannot escape the need for more teachers and there is no doubt that that will cost more money. However, we can reorganise our education expenditure to provide for the priorities that I have listed.
I turn to children's play, on which the National Playing Fields Association is keen. We must provide open spaces and proper playing fields and therefore we must ensure the proper design of school buildings. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, are keen on the use of school buildings for community purposes. That means that we must have proper design and the Departments of National Heritage and Education must be brought together to provide for that. Not only will the school be provided for but also the surrounding community which it seeks to serve.
I trust that the debate will help to focus attention on the main sporting needs of our schools, which means the main sporting needs of our country in the long term. If it does that, we shall have served sport well.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when we debate sport in schools we are effectively debating education in sport. The fact that we are debating sport in schools shows that there is a problem. The simple fact of the matter is that schools are not the sole educators in sport, and that is increasingly the case. For many years there has been a trend to take away from schools the basic education in sport. That has happened for one simple reason: school sport has become more popular and diverse. People are channelling their energies through clubs, which are more effectively training young people who want to take part in sport. That is a well-established trend.
In researching for the debate I came across an FA report on soccer in schools. It showed that, although in 1984 more soccer was being played, less was being played in schools. That trend has been accentuated by the changes resulting from the Education Act 1988. For whatever good or bad reason—I make no judgment—teachers suddenly found themselves with greater commitments on their time; they had to fill out test forms, reports and so forth. We are not debating whether that is good or bad, but as their time was taken up it had to be clearly accounted for. It meant that the extra-curricular activities in sport became squeezed. We must remember that it was not the games lesson that was the foundation of team sport in schools but the extra-curricular activity.
We must look closely at the role of school sport. Are we going to turn back the clock and return to the days when sport was taught in schools in a certain way? I do not believe we can because the same cultural background for sport does not exist now. We did not always get the best out of our pupils when certain sports dominated in schools. How many people were put off sport for ever by sitting in the middle of a muddy football pitch, with horizontal rain hitting them in the back of the neck, while a crowd of people merged round occasionally kicking them and the ball? Those who were slightly less active or less keen would sit in a crowd around the goal wishing that they could die or that the bell would go for the next period. The film "Kes" shows a wonderful example of what many people remember about their school sports fields. Bearing that in mind, we should not be too keen on returning to the good old days. For every good player who had a wonderful time in a good school team dozens did not enjoy school sports. Dozens of people happily played football in a playground with a tennis ball but hated the school game. We must bear everything in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has gone into a great deal of detail on the subject. I do not disagree with him on ally particular point, which may be dull for the debate but it shows a general degree of consensus. We should be looking at schools as a sampling ground for all sports. Dozens of different sports are played in this country: there are two codes of rugby, there is association football, basketball, cricket, softball and so forth. If we develop the sporting culture of our country we must look upon schools as being the sampling ground for all sports. Schools will then carry out a
1174
function for which they are well placed. It is not necessary to have a wonderful schoolboy team at a junior level. Whether school or non-school, all that. matters is that there are under-18 teams or under-16 teams. Indeed, within the 16 to 18 year-old bracket it is common to find two competing teams. I suggest that the pursuit of excellence is no real bonus because there is a. divergence of talent. We must stop looking at sport as being contained within tight parameters.
It is all very well to say that we should have universal competitive team games, but we shall not achieve anything if that is at the cost of other types of sporting activities. If people are pushed into playing games that they do not like, especially when they are in no position even to register a protest, a great deal of resentment will be created. I can think of several people with me at university who were great athletes and who represented their schools at virtually every sport. Let us be honest, anybody who has a reasonable turn of pace and reasonable hand/eye co-ordination who is given some degree of tuition can play most sports to a reasonably competent level. However, my friends at university who owned a variety of exotic blazers and scarves refused point blank to take part again in sport for at least one or two years, and often for ever. They had had enough. Sports must be sampled and people must be attracted to sport on their own terms.
Team games teach people how to co-operate with others, to work for a common goal and to take on certain tasks. However, one ultimately plays for a team for oneself as part of a team and not for some mythical beast —the greater good of the team or the greater good of the school. One may take pride in one's achievements and wish to represent one's school, but first arid foremost one becomes involved on one's own terms. We should not lose sight of that. Anyone who is a voluntary member of a team is there because he wants to be there. Generally, he is not a member of that team for the greater good of those around him. We must bear that in mind as we try to instil into young people enthusiasm for sport.
I suggest that the Government have a wonderful opportunity to build on much of the good work that has been done by outside sporting bodies in co-operation with schools. Indeed, the schools can give back to those outside bodies one very important asset which has already been mentioned—playing fields and sports facilities. It is extremely expensive to acquire a sports ground. Most countries in Europe do not require teams to own their own grounds. In France many towns have a municipal stadium, where teams can play soccer and rugby. Changing rooms are provided, as are bars so that social functions can take place too. Coaching is provided for the juniors.
I do not expect the Government to build new stadia. I merely ask them to allow easier interaction between clubs and schools. I know that that interaction takes place now, but I ask the Government to build on and encourage that as it is surely the obvious way forward. That system also provides a selection of qualified coaches. As has already been mentioned, it is difficult to find qualified coaches. I suggest that it is almost impossible to guarantee a sufficient number of qualified

1175
coaches in any one school, especially if it is decided that we wish to provide the ability to sample many different sports. If we do not do that, many pupils will be forced to play sports for which they are temperamentally unsuited.
I have already mentioned unpleasant experiences with regard to soccer. A friend of mine told me that he was forced to play rugby and he did not like it. He described the same experiences—the driving rain, mud and waiting for the whistle to go—but he added that in rugby somebody also runs at you and tries to knock you over. Looked at from that angle, I can understand why people regard the game that I play with a degree of dread and contempt.
Finally, I suggest that the Government must take a look at the fundamental role which schools can play in the sporting life of their students. Such a role can only be the base for further sporting careers. It would be very sad if the end of school life was regarded as the end of sporting activity. The advantages of sport for health reasons are self-evident. If one is reasonably fit, fewer things go wrong with one's body, and that provides a ground of investment in itself. It is an investment in the health of our nation and provides an insurance against heavier costs to be borne by the National Health Service in the future. We should encourage schools to play a constructive role in the sporting life of this country.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Dean has initiated this debate today, because sport in schools is very important. There has been a great deal of discussion about it in the newspapers in the past few months. I think that we want to know from the Minister whether the Sproat/heritage side of the argument, or the Patten/education on the other side, have come amicably together to a conclusion or no. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Government's up to date position from the Minister and I hope that she will not say that we have got to wait for Dearing.
On the Sproat side, as one article put it, we have:
"Flexing their muscles and running on the spot, health freaks who are all in favour of compulsory games, believing that they are a cure for delinquency, rounded shoulders, pimples and under-age sex".
On the other side, we have those who hated games at school and would forbid all compulsory games. But there is of course a middle way.
But there does now seem to be a nostalgia for Victorian times and Victorian values. We are reminded of the Royal Commission on Public Schools 1864, which said:
"Cricket and football are not merely places of exercise and amusement; they help to form some of the most valuable social qualities and manly virtues".
In 1908 Baden-Powell said:
"Football is a grand game for developing a lad physically as well as morally, for he learns to play with good temper and unselfishness".
And now we have Mr. Sproat saying:
"If we had more organised sport in schools, we'd have fewer little thugs like those who murdered James Bulger".
1176
One does somehow query that a bit when one sees some of the TV pictures of professionals tackling each other in a pretty brutal manner. However, the connection between sport and moral fibre does seem to be fairly embedded in our national psyche. I do wonder how much the present enthusiasts for team games are influenced in their opinions by our very poor performance in international cricket, football and tennis. But should sport be designed to produce cricket teams that can beat the West Indies or should it be an enjoyable activity, designed to improve the personal fitness of teenage Billy (or Bessie) Bunters? I am for the second.
Iain Sproat, in his 8,000-word report, asks that all pupils over 11 are offered five core sports: soccer, cricket, rugby, hockey and netball, to promote the supposed character-building qualities of competitive sport. He advocates the virtues of winning modestly and losing gracefully. But he also hopes to contribute to a revival in the dismal fortunes of our national teams. He is willing to offer more pay for teachers if they work after school hours and talks of National Lottery money bringing back school playing fields.
Let us look at the facts. There are far fewer schools sports fixtures at weekends and after school than there were. We expect sport and PE to be cut to 80 minutes a week. In the public sector, the average spent on a pupil's PE is £11 per annum; at Eton, it is £111. Since 1982, 5,000 playing fields have been sold, the land being used for anything from supermarkets to housing estates and roads. The National Playing Fields Association says that a further 200 school fields and 200 council-owned estates also have, or are seeking, planning permission for developments, so that, even if the National Lottery money emerges, it will not be possible to buy back many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. It was DES Regulation 909 which resulted in local authorities selling off playing fields deemed to be surplus to requirements.
As yet, there is no national register of playing fields or sports facilities throughout the UK, although the Government ring-fenced £½ million of its grant-in-aid in 1989 to the British Sports Council for this purpose. Can the Minister tell us about the progress of that register and whether the Government are monitoring the loss of sports sites?
The Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR) indicates that every day for the past two years £100,000-worth of sports fields have been sold for development. Surely it would make good sense for schools and the community to get together and organise joint use of many of the facilities so that they can be used all day and every day, as recommended by the CCPR, whose Charter for Schools Sport, published in March of this year, is, I should like to say, an excellent document. I believe that the council's recommendations should be supported.
And what about the teachers? There is no doubt that the goodwill which resulted in many committing themselves to out-of-school hours and weekend sport has gone. In a 1991 survey, it was found that 92 per cent. of primary teachers who had some responsibility for PE had no formal qualifications. Moreover, 56 per cent. of all schools said that they could not deliver the new

1177
curriculum for PE. That is serious. I think that the national curriculum for primary schools is very good, but, if the qualified staff and adequate time are not there, what then? There is inadequate provision of INSET; and some further PE training should be included in all initial teacher training.
HMI reporting in 1993 was critical of the lack of knowledge and expertise of those teaching Key Stages 1 and 2. Many of the poor lessons—and that was about one-third of the total—suffered from weak planning, inadequate organisation of pupils and equipment and inefficient use of pupils' time.
Of course, there are also other problems. In one article that I read, a teacher was quoted as saying:
"I am keen on sport. The difficulty is getting children to take part. The highest rate of truancy is during PE. Compulsory extra games would cause a stampede for the school gates".
There is also the question of health. The Sports and Health lobby says that at least two hours' PE a week is needed to keep pupils fit. The sort of activity does not matter. The Honorary Secretary of the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges said:
"We are not in a position to say whether it should be football rather than rugby. What we are saying is that PE in its broadest sense does contribute to the fitness of the child and, therefore, to that of the young adult".
Sadly, over 10 per cent. of children between the ages of seven and 10 are overweight and a similar percentage of service applicants in their mid-teens fail their entry fitness test. I cannot help wondering how much children being overweight is due to lack of exercise and how much to having chips with everything. The unhealthy diet that so many have, particularly now that the well-balanced diet of the school meal is available to so few children, must have quite a lot to do with it.
The medical colleges went on to say:
"The sensible attitude of some schools in emphasising fitness over competition has meant sports menus are offered so that children can mix activities, which might include aerobics or dance".
But Mr. Sproat would argue that aerobics is not as character-building as traditional competitive games. However, the Physical Education Association, representing teachers, lecturers and advisers, argues that PE is far more than competitive games. Schools must find a niche for every child and not just those with a talent for sport. What about the aquatic sports, gymnastics, athletics and dance?
I should like to say a special word about dance. It is very good for girls and for boys. It encourages listening to music, which I believe to be a very good thing. It also encourages the aesthetic and the creative sense. What is more, it is cheap and I am told that there are plenty of teachers around.
I want to tell your Lordships about Hare Hill Middle School in Leeds. In the 1980s, it had a very comprehensive dance programme. It was inspirational for the kids as they had a brilliant teacher. The whole school danced. There were two consequences. First, professional dance in Britain had more graduates from Hare Hill than any other school except the Royal Ballet school; secondly, while the dance programme was in full swing, Hare Hill moved from a mediocre
1178
performance to top of its league in soccer, cricket and other team sports because of its high level of fitness. So., I put in that special plug for dance.
My own attitude is that team games should not be compulsory, although I do not deny that they have some value. Working as a team with a commitment to others, and taking pride in doing well, is not to be despised. I believe that some physical activity should be compulsory and I have spoken of the special advantages of dance.
However, what I do think should be compulsory is swimming —and my noble friend Lord Howell spoke on the subject—for both safety and health reasons. It is one of the best forms of exercise and something that you can go on doing for the rest of your life, It is shocking that 25 per cent. of primary schools have no access to a pool. The cost of transport should not be an impediment. I ask the Minister to tell us whether her department is saying that every child should be able to swim by the age of 11 and whether they are going to make that possible? Indeed, we heard that they made a manifesto commitment so to do.
My final word is on boxing. It should be banned—most certainly in schools. I know that my noble friend Lord Howell does not agree with me, but I believe that it is a barbaric sport. The damage to sight and brain can be horrific, and we know about that from what happened last week. Some 40 years ago, an ophthalmologist gave me some pamphlets that he had written telling of the conditions of patients he had to deal with following blows to the head. Ever since, I have been a passionate anti-boxer.
To conclude, sport in schools is not in a satisfactory state. There is not enough time for it; there are not enough people adequately qualified to teach it; and acres of sports fields have been sold off so that there are not enough facilities for it. For 15 years—and that is the whole of a child's educational life from the age of four to 18—this Government have been in control of our education and our schools. They are responsible. Are they happy with the state of affairs in sport at present? Are they happy that, in fact, the UK provides less time for sport in schools than do other countries in Europe? I understand that France, Switzerland and Portugal provide twice the hours for PE in secondary school education. I see that the Minister is shaking her her head. Well, she will have time to contradict me when she replies. I look forward to hearing her response.
6.37 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, "It is only a game" is the phrase which is heard when the discussion turns to sport. The implication is that there are more serious educational issues with which we should be concerned. Such a view has often prompted complacency. That complacency, in my opinion, has contributed, as many speakers have already mentioned this afternoon, to a serious decline in both the standard and the quantity of sport being played in our schools.
If it is only a game, the fact is that there are certainly plenty of runs required. I suspect that the last man has already reached the crease. When I say, "the last man", perhaps that individual is Mr. Iain Sproat, the Minister

1179
with responsibility for sport. It is certainly encouraging to see that he has started, as it were, to swing the bat. I welcome his recently announced blueprint for the revival of sports in schools, although in certain state schools "resurrection" may be a better word. I very much hope that many of his proposals will be accepted. His views have certainly found firm support among the All-Party Parliamentary Sports Group, of which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is chairman. I am pleased that the debate has again been re-opened and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for pressing the Motion once again.
As most noble Lords have already said, it is important for sport to be an enjoyable exercise. Many speakers have already discussed the importance of sport in a balanced education. Surely it is preferable to have our younger generation exerting and enjoying themselves on the sports fields rather than aimlessly hanging around video arcades or, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, eating chips in their spare time. Fit bodies make fit minds, they once said. That certainly is still true. By sport I do not mean stepping on and off benches or walking around the countryside. I am referring to football, cricket, rugby, athletics, swimming and the like: real, competitive, constructive sport with a clear purpose. Clearly, effective school sport improves general health and instills discipline. I was interested to learn from a senior teacher at a state school yesterday how some of his children who were unruly in the classroom could often be reined in and reformed on the playing field.
In the longer term a sound school sports discipline can only enhance the prospects of British sporting teams in the international arena. A tree is only as strong as its roots. We cannot pretend that the decline in schools sport is totally unconnected with the fact that the England cricket team has lost 11 out of the past 15 Tests, or that not one of the four home countries has qualified for football's World Cup finals later this year. This does matter. There is little in British life which arouses more public passion and interest than sport and there is little which unites the British people across all barriers like a national sporting triumph. There was a time, not long ago, when such valuable boosts to national prestige were common—when the England football team was unbeaten at Wembley, when Roger Bannister became the first man to run the mile in under four minutes, when England occasionally won the Ashes. Those were the days when schools, I believe, were far more committed to sport.
To expand on a few of the statistics already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. In 1974, British schools allotted four-and-a-half hours each week to sport, quite apart from evenings and Saturday mornings set aside for practice and matches. In 1984 just over three-quarters of pupils were still getting two hours of sport a week. But today I understand that less than a third of pupils spend two hours a week on physical education. This decline is most pronounced in the state sector, in contrast to the vast majority of independent schools which have continued to promote sport; incidentally, with the result that Britain continues
1180
to excel at those codes such as rowing, sailing and rugby which are traditionally pursued in the public schools. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already said, in the state sector the amount spent on each pupil's physical education is only £11 a year, whereas at Eton the corresponding figure is £111.
I have little doubt that this steady decline of sport in state schools is of concern to many, and it powerfully begs the question: what can be done? The Government have, of course, included physical education in the national curriculum and this is to be welcomed, but I believe the central challenge is to reverse the trend that grew from the teachers' strikes in the 1980s, when disaffected teachers refused to coach sport after hours as a form of industrial action.
As time passed the teachers' protest has seemed to become a habit, and the infrastructure of schools sport, in my opinion, has begun to decay. The combination of shrinking fixture lists due to fewer schools fielding fewer teams, inadequate equipment and facilities and, above all, many teachers, unenthusiastic about sport, started to transmit a clear message to pupils, many of whom began to conclude that, "If the teacher cannot be bothered with sport, why should I?" A decade ago, it was widely regarded as an honour and a privilege to represent your school at sport. Regrettably, in many schools this is no longer the case.
I believe that government action should seek, first, to raise the general status of sport in state schools, and then, specifically, to revive enthusiasm—a point that has already been made by many noble Lords—among more of the teaching profession to get out there and start teaching sport once again. The first aim could be achieved, in part, by a decision to cease the sale of school playing fields. As a result of an unholy alliance between ideologies—on the left, those teachers and local authorities who did not believe in competitive sport and, on the right, the marketeers who rushed to buy land for new developments—no fewer than 5,000 sports fields have been sold during the past decade. This is particularly alarming in view of the Department for Education's figures which predict that, in some 10 years, there will be almost 17 per cent. more children in school.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted that a healthy acreage of playing fields in a given area is six acres per 1,000 children over the age of eight. It seems obvious that we cannot afford to be selling these assets.
Secondly, I believe provision could be made for greater use of specialist coaches and in-service organisers. I am aware that some insurance policies require a member of staff to be present at all school sporting events. But it remains true to say that sport, like anything else, is most effectively taught by those who truly care about sport and, most importantly, by people with a profound knowledge of sport. This past week we have been harshly reminded how dangerous sport can be and, within schools, safety and high standards of professionalism should be paramount. In this respect, the sports Minister's proposal that each and every teacher should coach at least two sports may be a bit

1181
impractical. Forcing disinterested academics to pull on track suits would probably prove counter-productive for many concerned.
Some teachers, and indeed the national teachers' unions, have argued that "after-hours" sports coaching should be properly remunerated, and this point has been rightly addressed by the sports Minister. Certain teachers have also suggested that recently introduced administrative duties leave no time for pursuing sport. This may be true to a degree, but the ongoing review of the national curriculum will, I believe, reduce the teachers' workload—and it often seems the case, that where there is a will, time will be found. For example, I am sure there are relatively few teachers who cannot find the time to supervise a skiing trip to the Alps during the school term. However, coaching the under-15 Bs on a wet and windy afternoon might seem a less glamorous prospect, but it is no less worthwhile.
In conclusion, the sports Minister has set out boldly on the path towards restoring sport in our schools. I dare say there are a number of seasoned campaigners in both this House and the other place who reckon that his initial enthusiasm will eventually be ground down by the slow march of the educational establishment. But I hope that the Minister is successful in his aims. School sport is something well worth fighting for. It is much more than just a game.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I join everyone else in thanking my noble friend Lord Dean for giving us this opportunity. Unlike other speakers this evening I bring to the debate absolutely no expertise in sport at all, having managed, I am ashamed to say, to avoid all organised sport in my extreme youth and having been brought up in a rural district where the only place to swim was an icy mountain river. I managed to avoid that as well. Therefore I know what I have missed because I can see now, from observing my own children and indeed my grandchildren, what a great benefit school sport can be.
A report from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, to which others have referred, opens by saying,
"that it is every child's entitlement to learn the pleasures of sport and the fundamentals of lifelong good health through physical activity while at school".
That statement appears to have unanimous support. It will also have the support of most parents and, no doubt, of many members of the public who are not parents but who have a firm belief that the inclusion of sport and physical education in the list of school activities solves all the problems of health, happiness and juvenile delinquency. That belief has been subscribed to by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and my noble friend Lady David.
It is true that the decline in school sports seems to have run in parallel with a general deterioration in the health of young people and with an increase in juvenile offences. But we should beware of linking those factors too closely. Life as lived by young people today is much
1182
more complex than it used to be. They are subjected to many outside influences and pressures which were unknown a generation ago.
I think we agree that sport and physical education are important for health, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, and, I would add, for social and mental development too. School is the obvious place in which to start the process. However, it is essential that the community as a whole must be involved in the exercise. Through local authorities and parental encouragement it should support and develop the school initiative. Here, it is important that there should be co-operation among all those involved. I understand that at present local authorities and voluntary sports clubs work in complete isolation from each other. I am afraid to suggest that they may work in competition; but I believe that that may be so too. In some, probably most, areas, the supply of sports facilities and playing fields is inadequate to meet expanding needs. As we heard, the Central Council of Physical Recreation paints a depressing picture of declining provision both in facilities and in the availability of trained staff.
Others have drawn attention to the deterioration in the number of playing fields available. Local authorities have been selling them off, as we have heard, since 1981. The factor that I find most worrying is that in 1990–91 just under £65 million was raised on those sales. That indicates to me an accelerating disposal rate rather than a slowing down process. The Minister shakes her head; I shall be delighted to be told that I am wrong.
We have heard about the adequacy of numbers of staff, not only trained in the proper skills but also willing to give their time and take on extra duties which may well spill over into their free time and weekends. My noble friend Lady David said that goodwill has gone; certainly, morale is already low in some sections of the teaching profession. I do not propose to go into the possible reasons for that, but it is a fact. I have talked enough to teachers in various areas to know that they feel undervalued and in many cases overworked. Any proposals to add to their burdens are unlikely to be received with enthusiasm. And enthusiasm is absolutely essential in the teaching of sport and physical education if we are ever to persuade the present generation of young people away from the computer keyboard.
In company with almost every speaker, I do not favour making team games compulsory. The keen will play them willingly; the less keen can be encouraged to take part. But in every school there is usually a small group of young people who lack co-ordination and an aptitude for games. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, painted a graphic picture of miserable children sitting in the rain on sports pitches. I know that that occurs. The marks that such experience can inflict on a child's character are not funny. They can persist into adulthood. Those children need to be able to exercise in different ways. I would not excuse them the need to exercise. However, the situation has to be approached in a different way, as my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. Those children must be given the same degree of consideration and

1183
encouragement as would be applied by a good teacher in any other class subject. Sport is just as important and needs to be raised to that level.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said that sport is to be enjoyed. He is absolutely right. If children are not enjoying sport, something is wrong either with the teaching or with the fields of activity into which that child is being pushed.
I welcome the renewed interest everyone now shows in sport and PE as desirable school activities. It will need considerable effort from everyone to bring us back from our present low state. I admit that there are schools where that is not so. I know that there are good schools where sport is being taught and the PE is good. But so many schools have little going on.
I believe that with the right policies, with investment in facilities and in the training of staff and with co-operation between central and local government—it is important that they work together—together with the active involvement of local communities, the rewards can be great. Perhaps in future even our international image may be improved, as others have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that the debate was not aimed at achieving Olympic standard. However, I believe that if the right action is taken now, Olympic standards come more easily within our reach. I hope that the Government will continue along the lines that we see emerging from the department and that from now on sport in schools will have a much higher profile.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Nicol, I, too, come new and inexperienced to the subject. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for introducing the debate. It has been one of the most interesting debates in which I have taken part. I am one of the last to speak before the reply from the Government, but I hesitate to call it that because I do not believe that the subject needs a reply. I do not believe that it requires a contest between the Opposition, Government and the Cross-Benches. I cannot detect any difference of opinion in this Chamber about the importance of sport in schools. That leads me to the conclusion that there is no difference between noble Lords on sport in school.
Perhaps I may introduce what might be a slight difference. I apologise since that is the last thing that I intend to do. The last time I debated the question of sport in school, and sport for schools, was when I was responsible for an expansion of Liverpool at a place called Speke which shared its authority with a place called Widnes. We had built several new houses. We had moved people from slums. The only recreational field those people had was a building site. I became involved because of the delinquent problems that occurred in Speke. I suggested that it might be better to give the children something to do rather than to provide them with the ready ammunition which they had been used to in the blitzed sites in Liverpool. With new buildings and new windows we were having about 250 windows broken each day, which cost a great deal of money.
1184
The only time that I took part in sport at school was when I entered the sports gala. I had only just learnt to swim. I was left with hardly a sport to take up, so I entered the competition for diving. It was good, the teacher was pleased, he was a nice man and he said: "Sefton, you have picked diving, you will dive". So I went to the high diving board; in my eyes it seemed to be about 300 feet high when in fact it was about six feet. I went to dive, slipped on the board and did a big belly flop. The whole of the baths laughed and when I got out the teacher realised that I might have hurt myself. He immediately came to me and inquired after my health, I was stinging all over. What did it teach me? First, to take part in sport even if you can only do a belly flop. Secondly, it taught me that if the right sporting attitude is exhibited in your performance you feel pleased about it. I was pleased that the teacher came to me and while everyone else was laughing he inquired after my health. To me that symbolised real sportsmanship.
My contribution tonight is along those lines. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, about what happened in public schools and how 20 or 30 years ago there seemed to be a different attitude to sport. We were doing well nationally and internationally and everyone seemed to be united in sport, even on the field. But something happened. Dare I suggest that it coincided with the time when professional football was getting into its stride? When I see games on television with the players racing down near the goal and suddenly someone goes "head over tip", as we used to call it, and a goal is scored, I wonder. I say to myself, "I wonder why he did that, it wasn't a nice thing to do". But then I realise that when there is a nice fat bonus for every goal scored, the motive to score becomes stronger.
Because I am idle person, I am a fan of snooker. Ray Reardon and the other old players were my heroes but even when they were playing in the finals of the world championship they could both have a laugh and make it an amusing experience for everyone. Do we get that today? We see two young people at the snooker table and it takes all their time to crack their faces and even to relax for a moment. Why? Because there is £180,000 at stake.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I think that in defence of modern day snooker players, we should draw my noble friend's attention to the magnificent gesture shown in the recent world snooker championship.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I was going to mention that, you have spoilt my line now !
Lord Howell: You're snookered!
Lord Sefton of Garston: We realise that that was a great gesture and it has always been one, but no longer. Why? Because people have only recently become addicted to money being the prize. My noble friend Lady Nicol said that she did not particularly agree with competition in sport. It depends on what the competition is for. I believe in competition, but the aim should not be to amass a large amount of money; it should be to prove that your team is the best and you are the best sportsman in the game. If that is what people are competing for, to get that title, I have no objection. I am

1185
a working class lad, I hate giving compliments to the ruling classes under which I was born, but I learnt this from school because of a good teacher: if you are playing a game, there is the saying:
"Not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame".
I think that is true.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must correct my noble friend. I did not say that I did not believe in competition, I said that I did not believe in compulsory sports. It is slightly different.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise. I said at the beginning that I did not want to introduce any differences of opinion but there have already been two. I conclude on this note. I have heard in the debate indications that someone expects the Government to declare a policy. It was even suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that perhaps we could have a ministerial committee to consider the question of sport in schools. I go much further than that. I say, perhaps in the frame of mind of Kennedy when he said to the people, after being elected President of the United States:
"Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country".
We can do something for sport in schools. I believe that if we get the proper emphasis on sport in schools, the right intellectual and cultural approach, it will make a tremendous difference to all in our society. We are breeding the next population and we must get away from the idea that daily is being instilled in young people that success is measured by the amount of money they get at the end of the day. They are drinking in that philosophy to such an extent that when I refer to the pursuit of a goal for the sake of money, there they are behind the terraces, punching away, expecting their favourite player to achieve that goal. They do not realise what they are doing. Why is it that a team like Liverpool, with all the support it has, can punish the young people in Liverpool by blithely accepting the sponsor's desire to change the strip every two years and to put a levy on the young kids? Why do we not do something about that?
I can remember the days in Liverpool when we could see dozens of football matches going on in one sports ground. We cannot see it now. What we must do is—and I hate to use the phrase "back to basics"—take two steps back. We must get over the problem that so-called sport is related to the amount of money that goes through the tills and to the medium of television. I am sick and tired of hearing loyal Liverpool and Everton fans in Liverpool complaining about—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I regret interrupting the noble Lord but long live Everton! I am delighted.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I did not quite hear that.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord knows well enough that I have a blue pen.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I do not know anything about that. The point I was trying to make is that I am sick and tired of hearing supporters complain that they
1186
buy a season ticket in the expectation that the games will be played at regular intervals. Then they find suddenly that television has decided that the game should be played on another night. That is wrong. Sport is now being dictated to by money in the pocket, and how much it is. We must stop it. I would not object to a levy on the sponsorship that is paid to the major sporting events with that levy being devoted to the provision of sport in schools and elsewhere. My own preference would be not to devote the money to schools for the provision of sport, but to school arenas which can be used by everyone anywhere at any reasonable time. That is the best way.
I was telling the story of Speke and juvenile delinquency. I finally managed to get baths built in Speke and during the first week in which the baths were open I had a conference with the chief constable. I asked: "How are things?" He told me that they had not had one single case of juvenile delinquency all the week. That started a decline in juvenile delinquency which practically transformed the housing estate. It was all because the kids were so tired after they had been to the baths that they did not have enough energy to get into trouble!
I have a whole list of points I could have referred to, but I had better not. I conclude on that note. believe that it is not a ministerial conference that we need, it is not a ministerial job. It is a job for all of us. I put to the Government a proposal which may be revolutionary in this House. A committee should be set up to look at the whole question of sport in schools. There should be no political division about it; we should be able to get on pretty well. The Minister should invite every party and the Cross-Benches to nominate representatives to that committee. Then we shall stop talking about what someone else will do for school sport. That committee should make itself responsible for examining the problems and finding solutions for sport in schools.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: I am most grateful to noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for giving me an opportunity to speak in the gap. I hope that noble Lords will not be too cross with me for taking this opportunity. I thought that I would be involved with Guy's Hospital this afternoon. In fact I got through things more quickly there than I had expected. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, will be very pleased to know that that hospital, which has the oldest rugby football club in the world, is proudly proclaiming that it has just won the women's rugby cup for the hospitals. I do not know who played stand-off half. I shall try to find out.
I have one or two points that I should like to read quickly into the record. One relates to the national curriculum and physical education in primary schools. We spoke to the now president of the Rugby Football Union, Ian Beer, and discovered from him that there were shortages of learning material for primary teachers. That was discovered by the Health Promotion Research Trust. I hope to be able to bring the Minister and the Secretary of State a very nice video that we want to make on the start of primary school physical education classes. We feel that, if boys and girls in the

1187
primary schools are not really confident in physical education, that will have an adverse effect on the enthusiasm which we all know is very important in school.
Secondly, I should like to mention some research that the Health Promotion Research Trust did among students. This is a very important health point. It was shown that those students who took just a little exercise— usually kick-about football, or whatever it might be— for about an hour a week had far less mental breakdown during the examination period. I am sure that the Greeks—"healthy mind in healthy body"—knew something about this. We need to pick up that old adage and use it to help us to re-establish sport in schools.
Other research by the Health Promotion Research Trust has shown that, if people do not get interested in sport when they are at school and follow it up when they are at college and university, unless they are from a family of sports people the chance that they will go on playing some kind of games into middle life is not high. Again, I feel that maintaining a continuum right through from the primary school teachers, through school, into universities and colleges—and almost all will end up going to college—and into middle life will bring a major bonus for health. Not least it will encourage people to keep the tone of their thigh muscles. That is terribly important when you get to be a bit older than I am, into their 80s. It is the people who cannot do what I am doing, stooping a little bit, who are most likely to become disabled.
I should also mention that the, as it will become, British University Sports Association, with which I am associated, is very concerned that afternoon time for games—which means the opportunities for competitive matches—is under threat in our tertiary education system. To me the importance of competitive games is that they just give people that little bit of "needle". Noble Lords must probably all have felt that for their maiden speeches. In my case it is true even this afternoon, when I am bursting into the gap. That is a good part of our general health programme.
I should like to conclude with some all-embracing remarks. How much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about people sampling games. Of course, unless you know that you want to swim, if there are no games at all the chances that you will sample swimming are very remote unless you have a sporting family. People enjoy games according to their aptitudes. Give them a big, wide menu at school and we shall find that many more people are keeping fit into their later life. The remarks that were made about swimming are terribly important. It is frightful that children face the possibility of drowning because they have no swimming experience.
Lastly, I have a remark for those who are well off. Please consider leaving some money to your school for astroturf. It changes the business of sitting in mud which we heard about. I am so strongly in favour of sport in schools that I found this whole debate very moving and inspiring.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Dean for providing this occasion and for opening the debate so well. It has provoked a series of first-class contributions from noble Lords and noble Baronesses—especially, I would say, from the noble Baronesses. It is excellent and very encouraging that one-third of the speakers in this debate have been female. That is significant because school sports need to involve girl pupils as well as boys and women teachers as well as men. Without that, sport will never recover. So I say a particular thank you to them.
School sports matter very much to very many. I believe that they matter especially to the underprivileged children in our inner cities. It was a long time ago, but I know that in my youth it mattered more to me in those kinds of circumstances than anything else. It provided the bright spots in many otherwise dreary Northamptonshire weeks.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, that sport has to some extent moved from the schools to the clubs. I say to the noble Lord that the inner-city under-privileged are less likely to join clubs. In my view schools should remain the central focus for children's sports. They will do that if the facilities and the sports teachers are there.
During this debate two undisputed facts emerged: first, the belief that sports are good; and, secondly, that sports in schools have been in decline. The value of sports has been stated by all noble Lords, and was well endorsed in the 1991 Commons committee on education, science and arts.
Sport, apart from being at the root of our national sporting successes or failures, benefits a number of aspects of life. It benefits health. We know the problems of our young being overweight and of adults doing little exercise. It has educational value in the training of the body, as the Greeks taught us. It improves the morale of the school. It improves the relationship of teachers with pupils. It helps develop sporting interests which are very valuable in adult life. And it does, I believe, improve social behaviour. We had that from two impeccable sources: there is research in Canada; and there was the contribution of my noble friend Lord Sefton. I believe that sport leads to less delinquency. I wonder whether the behaviour of several younger Ministers in the Government somehow reflects the fact that there is now less sport in schools. The good of school sport is unquestioned, even if it leaves some individuals a little unhappy when they are cold and muddy. But I have a feeling that that may not be too bad for them in the long term.
The decline in school sports is equally well documented, especially in the CCPR's impressive charter for school sports. Nearly a third of schools fail to provide the mandatory two hours physical education. Some 60 per cent. have cut spending on PE and 70 per cent. have reduced sporting activity in the recent decade. Many children, like my own, have recently emerged from an inner-city comprehensive school with no sporting ability whatsoever. In my view, as they know, they are the worse for that.

1189
The reasons for the decline are intriguing. I believe that it is a mixture of recent social and political fashion and government policies. In terms of social philosophy, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the Far Left of the political spectrum held beliefs hostile towards school sports. It was hostile to competition and therefore to competitive games. It appeared hostile to excellence or elitism and was therefore against winning. Perhaps it was hoped that if there were no winners, there would be no losers. Its influence on the public service unions was one of hostility to unpaid, extra work, and that rubbed off on teachers, while the women's movement may have hated team games because men appeared to enjoy them.
The Tory Right was equally reprehensible. I believe that Mrs. Thatcher's materialism, which argued implicitly that only money mattered, devalued unpaid public service. The same source of excessive individualism, with the stress on individual choice, tends to devalue team games in schools. I notice that a teacher wrote about the dangers. One of his students was pressed to play rugger and answered that he preferred cycling. Certainly he preferred cycling to football. When he was asked where he intended to cycle, he honestly replied, "Home". Mrs. Thatcher's assault on teachers' remuneration and morale also assisted in destroying the teachers' willingness to give the extra after-hours service that is needed to monitor sports.
So the Left and the Right of the political spectrum provided a lethal cocktail which, I believe, damaged sport in schools. Much of that trendy nonsense of the Left and Far Right is, we hope, behind us. This debate certainly encourages that hope. But we are still left with the same government. The fact is that the Government's policies have been equally damaging in practice and not just in theory. In a generally non-partisan—in my view a welcomely non-partisan—debate, I hope that it is permitted to remind the House of a few political facts.
The sale of 5,000 playing grounds was mentioned more than once. I shall not repeat those observations. I ask how the Government hope to increase school sports when there are fewer facilities and we expect more children in schools. Certainly, that dilemma makes the issue of dual use of school and local authority facilities very important. The importance of such co-operation was well stressed by my noble friend Lady Nicol.
But cuts in local authority spending also mean fewer local authority sports facilities to share. The pressure to impose full pricing on local authority sports facilities especially affects swimming pools and their use for schools' competitions. Swimming, above all, needs expensive facilities; yet one third of our primary schools have no access to a pool.
The new national curriculum itself has brought problems, with its emphasis on examination success and the consequential bureaucratic pressure on teachers' time, which leaves less time available for sports and physical education. I notice that the Minister shook her head when my noble friend Lady David mentioned how we provide less physical education than elsewhere in Europe and that she had seen a graph—I imagine that it is the same graph and the Minister is welcome to it—which showed Britain's position in Europe.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. On that specific point, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was talking about French schools versus English schools and not about sport in France as opposed to sport in England.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may just interrupt and say that I think that the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I was not speaking in that way.
Lord Donoughue: Perhaps we are getting a little entangled. I thought it was about physical education. I shall provide the Minister with the graph in which Britain comes bottom—as it does, sadly, in most graphs these days.
We are waiting for the Dearing proposals for the curriculum. I should like to ask when the Minister thinks that Parliament will have them. We certainly trust that they will restore the status and morale of physical education teachers. We hope that they will set a minimum of two hours a week for PE and will also improve teacher training for sports and PE, as my noble friend Lord Howell said. Above all, what is needed to restore school sports—which is at the heart of the matter and without which the proposals will not work—as several of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Howell, Lord Dean, Lady Nicol and Lady David, stressed, is the restoration of teachers' morale. There cannot be satisfactory school sports without the willing and wholehearted support of the teaching profession.
Whether that requires incentive payments for evening or weekend sports is a tricky question. The Government cannot complain if the teachers insist that all work should be paid, because that has been part of the recent philosophy. But it is a difficult matter and it is hard to see that applying only to sport. One wonders about drama, dance, music and so on. So we await with interest, and even impatience, the Government's proposals for improving school sports. As has been demonstrated already tonight, on this side of the House we shall respond positively, given the opportunity. On this Front Bench officially we are against compulsion in sports. My noble friend Lady David mentioned the possible exception of swimming. I can see the case for that. She also mentioned banning boxing. I have to say that, whereas in principle I sympathise with her, in practice I watch every boxing match on television even until two o'clock in the morning. What she said about brain damage is worrying and may be helpful. I was captain of boxing at school, which may explain a few things.
We are against compulsion but in favour of competitive sports. Above all, we support the provision of more sporting options and more PE teaching. There need to be more teaching, more facilities and more sporting options for the pupils to sample. Team sports illustrate our view—or certainly my view—of society. Team games have been defined as,
"Exercises in structured co-operation and the sublimation of individual ambitions for the good of the team".
For "team" read "society".

1191
Like my noble friend Lord Howell, I welcome the Prime Minister's genuine support for that view. The efforts of Mr. Sproat—I mean on sport and not on D-Day—should also be supported. That is encouraging. We ought to be able, as my noble friend Lord Sefton said, to reach a consensus on this important question. I look forward tonight to the Minister's contribution to that consensus. She speaks to a House in which the support for more school sports has been unanimous.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is usual on these occasions to welcome a debate in your Lordships' House. In doing so I make a particular point. This has not only been a valuable and informed debate, as one would expect, but very well timed. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for the opportunity to discuss this important subject. Not only have we heard from experts in the subject, but enthusiasts too. Unless it escaped your Lordships' notice, the Deputy Speaker, who was sitting on the Woolsack for a good part of the debate and who has now taken his place behind me on the Benches, is a stalwart supporter of Everton football club. I hope that is not fighting talk in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. I understand that the motto is, "Nil satis nisi optimum"—"Nothing but the best".
I say also to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who made a marvellous speech, that his sporting activities after Lords and Commons ski meetings are legendary. However, I shall not go into the detail of that now. The other joy for me is that ageism has not crept into our debate today. Again, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who is not in his place this evening, skis competitively at the age of 80, which is absolutely wonderful.
The Government are considering the question of young people and sport. We are open and receptive to ideas and contributions. The House can be assured that this debate will be studied carefully. To set the scene, let me refer to the position in schools today. Doom and gloom, and many of the statistics that I heard tonight, are misplaced. Physical education continues to command the fifth highest time allocation in secondary schools behind only English, mathematics, science and modern foreign languages. The lion's share of that time is devoted to traditional team games. The independent schools inspectorate reports that the quality of 70 per cent. of the physical education inspected last year was satisfactory or better. That is not a picture of decline in our schools.
Many school pupils also play sport at school outside the formal curriculum thanks to the voluntary commitment of dedicated teachers. That voluntary commitment to sport is especially healthy in grant-maintained schools which characteristically attach importance to sport as part of the corporate life of their schools. Our schoolboy and schoolgirl national teams do outstandingly well in international competition in soccer, rugby, hockey and netball. Sadly, that success is
1192
not always replicated by their elders—or at least not in men's competition. Our women cricketers and rugby players are, of course, the reigning world champions.
I am not saying that all is well. But we do a great disservice to hardworking teachers and schools if we denigrate their work. The Government are determined to enhance physical education and sport in schools. Physical education makes a vital contribution to physical fitness and the health of the nation. Sports and team games in particular help to instil discipline and collective endeavour and teach our children to come to terms with both victory and defeat: to display magnanimity when they win and good grace when they lose.
The Government have given ample proof of that commitment. With the establishment of the national curriculum, physical education is now compulsory for all five to 16 year-olds for the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, says that he is against compulsion in sport. If so, he must take PE out of the national curriculum because what goes into the national curriculum is a requirement for all children—I prefer to say a right for all children—to have sport in school. But that right means also that it is a requirement.
The national curriculum sets demanding targets for physical activity for all pupils whether they are star athletes or computer addicts. All pupils must be taught to swim by the age of 11. We have established training courses to ensure that primary teachers have access to physical education expertise. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister launched his initiative to look at ways of promoting team sports in schools. We must now build on that solid foundation. But in doing so we need to be clear what we want to achieve and what levers are available. As is apparent from this debate there are apparent distinctions to be made, too often confused in the popular press. We need to distinguish between the formal physical education curriculum in timetabled hours; sport in schools as part of the formal PE curriculum; school sport outside that time; and young people engaging in sport outside school. All those points were well made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and all of those aspects are very important.
Sport or games are part of physical education but not the whole of it. Physical education goes wider than that. It is to do with awareness of, care for and respect for the body. It concerns the development of the body and motor skills. It embraces activities such as swimming, athletics, outdoor games, and gymnastics. Equally important are the opportunities for sport in schools. They are not confined to and do not depend exclusively on the formal PE curriculum. Many pupils play sports and team games as part of school teams at lunchtimes, in the evenings and sometimes at weekends.
It is against that background that the Government approached the review of the physical education national curriculum. The national curriculum cannot bear the full brunt of reviving sport in our schools—a point well made in the debate. The objective of the review is to free time for teachers to use at their own discretion. It would be a perverse response to that

1193
objective to make physical education alone of the national curriculum subjects more prescriptive or to add to the physical education requirements.
But the Government are determined that the review of the physical education curriculum should achieve two things: first, to ensure that physical education retains its place within the mandatory curriculum for all pupils of compulsory school age; secondly, to strengthen the place of team sports within the physical education curriculum. Consultations on proposals for the revision of the national curriculum will be launched later this month. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I believe it will be around the 9th. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot therefore anticipate the detail of those proposals now. However, I hope that noble Lords contributing to this debate today will also quite separately contribute to the discussions about the revision of the physical education curriculum once the proposals are published.
Manipulating the physical education national curriculum is not enough on its own. Much sport is necessarily played outside school time, thanks to voluntary commitment of teachers. That is where the opportunity lies to increase and improve opportunities for sport and participation in team games. If sport is to be promoted we must also reinvigorate that voluntary commitment—again a point well made in the debate.
The Government cannot act alone in that regard. Governing bodies and head teachers must give the lead within their schools by demonstrating the importance which they attach to sport as an integral part of the life of the school. Sports bodies and associations should actively form links with schools to offer expert coaching and promote interest in their sports. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, emphasised that point. Sponsors must come forward for local, regional and inter-school competitions. Professional clubs must help to foster games in local schools by involving themselves actively in coaching as many professional football clubs now do. It is heartening to see how many professional clubs are making a contribution to the life of children both in school and in the community.
Turning to some of the individual points raised in the course of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who opened the debate so well, talked of developing the talents of children. As an example, he spoke of a child with dyslexia. That was a point well taken because education is about developing all the talents of young people and that includes the sporting talents. But with regard to the child with learning difficulties, whether dyslexia or some other form, one must not be concentrated on to the exclusion of the other. It is important to address the learning difficulty just as it is to make sure that sporting opportunities are available for all children.
The noble Lord went on to mention the Burnham Committee and how it should have stayed in existence for longer. I have some pretty painful memories of the Burnham Committee. It is my view that the Burnham Committee and the way it worked did much to show teachers in a poor light to the general public and to parents. It is so much better to have a proper pay review body and I hope that that will continue to be so.
1194
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, also made an important point regarding the co-ordination of local facilities which was echoed by many other noble Lords, We must go on increasing the co-ordination and making it more effective at a local level. The noble Lord also referred to the lottery funds and to the issue of additionality. The point is well taken. The intention is that the lottery should complement, not substitute for, sports funding either from grant-in-aid by the sports councils or from local authorities' own expenditure.
My noble friend Lady Macleod brought to our attention the problem of children who are bored and who suffer from a surfeit of unspent energy. That is a very important point. If we can not only introduce young people to sport but help and encourage them to enjoy the sport, a point made by all noble Lords, that will use up that energy in a productive way rather than seeing it being spent in a negative way, perhaps on our streets.
The vexed issue of the disposal of playing fields was mentioned. There is a great misconception here. It is important to get the disposal of playing fields into perspective. The government funded Register of Recreational Land shows that the proportion of playing field sites which are under threat is very small indeed. Outside London, planning permission has been granted or is being sought for under 2 per cent. of the existing sites. That is 2 per cent. of 24,000 sites. Nor is it right to assume that disposals automatically curtail opportunities for schools to play sports. Schools have a duty to ensure that they have appropriate facilities available to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. That, of course, includes facilities for providing physical education, both indoor and outdoor.
Inevitably, there will be some schools and local authorities which have land which is surplus to requirements even after they have met their obligations. Often this land incurs significant maintenance costs and can be a drain on precious resources. Where that is the case, it is only common sense for the surplus land to be, sold off, especially when the proceeds are used to improve existing facilities. The sale of surplus land can be used to finance the installation of good quality, all-weather pitches which enable round the clock use during daylight hours and, if floodlit, in the evenings, too. Compared with the recommended seven hours per week maximum usage of a well drained grass pitch, this represents a huge increase in efficiency.
There are so many examples up and clown the land of enterprising schools and local authorities. I want to give two examples. I understand that a school in Bolton has allowed the local authority to build indoor tennis courts on its land in return for free use of that facility during school hours. A school in my local authority area and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—Cambridgeshire—sold one of its two separate playing field sites. The proceeds from the sale were used by the school to build a new sports hall which is used principally for indoor football and for cricket. I could give many more examples.
There has, I know, been local concern about the proposed development of Central Cricket Club in Hastings. As it was not mentioned in the debate, I

1195
simply use it as an example of the kind of concern we are talking about. The local authority has provided a fully adequate alternative site for cricket on the outskirts of the town. That site offers easier access and is closer to a number of schools. There are also plans for an artificial pitch at the new site, a development for which there was no scope at the old one. That is another example of where land has been sold but the alternative provision has been an improvement for the children of that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, called for annual reports from schools and suggested that they should refer to sport. I am happy to say that it is a requirement now for all schools not only to produce an annual report referring to all the activities that go on in schools but also to have an annual meeting with parents where these matters can be discussed as well. The noble Lord went on to say, quite rightly, that the national curriculum was far too big and that something should be done about it. The noble Lord will now know that Sir Ron Dearing has done a sterling jot- He has addressed that very issue and in a few days' time Sir Ron Dearing's proposals will show that he has fulfilled a promise—to free up the equivalent of a day a week for key stages 1, 2 and 3, and the equivalent of two days a week for key stage 4, to allow professional judgment to reign, for them to make judgments at local level as to how that time should be used and also to allow vocational options to come in for children post-14.
The noble Lord said that public schools set aside half a day and he suggested that, if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for our own schools. I shall be able to tell him in a moment or two, using a statistic, that we go a long way down the road to achieving that. I must also say that the public school day is longer, as indeed is the week, because they invariably work on Saturday mornings, too.
The noble Lord made an important point about using schools for community purposes. The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Nicol, and myself all come from a local authority that pioneered the use of schools by the community. That is well established and is now common practice throughout the country. It is also worth recording that, according to the two surveys carried out so far in each of the previous two years, the involvement of grant-maintained schools with the community has increased rather than diminished.
The noble Lord talked about the incentives available to encourage teachers to become involved with extra-curricular sport, a point echoed by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, not only referred to it as an issue but also referred to some of the difficulties that arise from it. Why should we consider the extra commitment of the teacher to sport any differently from the extra commitment of the teacher to other school activities? Under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, schools have flexibility, if they wish, to recognise teachers' involvement in extra-curricular sport through the award of additional spine points for responsibility. Many schools do that for teachers who co-ordinate drama and/or sports activities within the school.
1196
The issue of swimming and the national curriculum was brought up by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howell, my noble friend Lady Macleod and the noble Baroness, Lady David. Swimming is recognised universally as an essential life-saving skill. The Government believe firmly in the importance of children receiving swimming tuition as part of PE at school. The national curriculum for PE requires that by the age of 11 children should be taught to swim at least 25 metres unaided and to demonstrate an understanding of water safety. The great majority of schools are already in a position to meet that requirement.
Evidence from surveys conducted by the department in all local authorities and in a sample of primary schools at the end of 1991 showed that extensive swimming provision was already being made by schools and education authorities, particularly at primary level, before the introduction of the national curriculum. Of the schools responding, more than 80 per cent. from the LEAs themselves indicated that they already provided swimming as part of the PE curriculum. Of those not providing swimming, only 28 schools in the country said that they were more than five miles from the nearest swimming pool. The Government have nevertheless taken steps to give this small minority of schools time to prepare.
Implementation of the national curriculum for PE began in August 1992 and the provisions relating to swimming were deferred until August 1994. That should allow local authorities and schools time in which to make whatever arrangements are necessary before implementation. The Government believe that they should be able to meet the overall costs involved from within the existing budget, given the time for preparation.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave figures for swimming. I do not want to take issue with them but they conflict with the figures we have in the department. There are many statistics. I have used some of my own and others have used them during the course of the debate. I should be pleased to look at the noble Lord's figures if he could possibly provide the source of his information.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that a third of primary schools do not have access to a pool. I have just given the figures. The survey conducted by the department showed that 80 per cent. of schools already provide swimming as part of the national curriculum. Only 28 schools were more than five miles away from a pool. We have recognised that factor in giving time to achieve the requirements of the national curriculum.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked about mandatory relief for voluntary sports clubs. We are not absolutely convinced that a mandatory rate relief policy would be the most effective way to maximise sporting benefit to the wider community. Sports clubs vary so very much, from small clubs fulfilling a genuine social need to large commercial organisations which may have little financial need of rate relief.
The noble Lord went on to talk about the taxation of sports bodies. Although we welcome the valuable contribution made by sporting bodies, it would not be

1197
right to single them out for special tax privileges which other equally worthy bodies do not enjoy. As it is, many sports bodies are incorporated associations, which means that they pay no tax on income from subscriptions and many fund-raising activities, nor do they pay any tax on gratis donations. The Paymaster General announced in July 1993 that non-profit organisations would be exempt from VAT on their supply of certain sports and physical education services. A Treasury order to give effect to that was laid before Parliament on 10th March and came into effect on 1st April.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have some difficulty about figures. My quotation was from the survey carried out in 1991 by the National Association of Head Teachers. It was one-quarter and not one-third of primary schools which had no access to a swimming pool.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if it is a quarter, it is 5,000 schools. The local authorities would certainly have given that information and reflected it. It is the local education authorities which have given the returns to my department. If the noble Lord would like to furnish us with the statistics, we shall check them and I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was concerned about other statistics. I have a survey here from the Secondary Heads Association which again has been referred to in the course of the debate. It was also referred to by the noble Lord. It is only one source of evidence. The most reliable evidence is provided by the regular secondary schools' staffing survey, which is an annual event. That shows that the time allocated to PE has remained broadly stable between 1988 and 1992. PE had the fifth highest allocation of time, behind English, maths, science and modern foreign languages, as I said earlier. The average amount of time spent on games was three to four periods a week, which is about two to two-and-a-half hours and in the second half of every school day.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a very interesting point about compulsion versus voluntary sport We all have some sympathy and some of us even identify with the little body in the mud on a cold, wet, rainy day. I believe that we have got the balance right. The prescribed physical education in the national curriculum is the minimum. It is important that it should be the experience of all children to be exposed to physical education. I have mentioned that time will be freed up in the curriculum for either more PE or more of other things, depending on the school. But what is important are the other aspects and benefits from physical education—physical activity, a healthy body leading, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, to a healthy mind. So it is a healthy body, and a healthy lifestyle. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the end of school should not be the end of sport.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I briefly intervene. The main point I was making was that school sport has a function as a sampler for the whole range of sports. That was the main point and not the level of sport and thus
1198
becoming a trial area. That was the main point I was trying to make and not the actual amount of time involved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we do not prescribe time in the national curriculum which has to be a matter for local determination. The range of sports involved in the national curriculum will at least have an attraction for the noble Lord. I invite him to read the new order when it is published in May. The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that she hoped that I would not say that we must wait for Dearing. I have had to say that we shall have to wait for Dearing. It would be wrong and quite inappropriate for me to pre-empt in public debate the details of Dearing in advance of publication.
The noble Baroness also referred to the issue between Mr. Sproat and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport is naturally very much involved in the review initiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He has expressed typically forthright views about how the Government's objective of promoting school sport can be achieved. Those views will feed into the Government's collective consideration of the best way forward. I prefer to accept what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said; namely, to make the distinction between what is compulsory within the national curriculum and all sport which takes place both within the freed-up time in the curriculum in the school day and all the extra-curricular sport which goes on too.
The Government are committed to promoting sport in schools. To that end my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for National Heritage to conduct a review of the current state of school sport in consultation with other interested colleagues. The work initiated by the Prime Minister will go well beyond the current review of PE in the national curriculum. It will consider how best to rekindle the commitment of schools to sport outside the curriculum. It will consider how the sporting bodies and the associations can best be mobilised to support sport in schools. My right honourable friend will be reporting to the Prime Minister shortly. I have no doubt again that the outcome of the review will be announced in due course.
An important point was made about teacher training. In the secondary school over 90 per cent. of PE lessons are taught by teachers with a post A-level qualification in physical education. Quite naturally, primary school teachers are generalists. They most often cover the full curriculum with their pupils. Nevertheless, the Government have acted to enhance access to PE expertise in schools. We are funding, with specific grant from this year, 56 courses of between five days and 20 days which are designed to equip serving primary school teachers with PE experience and expertise. The teachers who attend these courses will act as PE consultants for their own colleagues at school, so it will be a cascading system.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether we are happy with the past 15 years of government. I would say that yes, we are. First, there is more sport; there are

1199
more facilities; and there is better co-ordination all the time between schools and the community. The national curriculum has sport within it as a compulsory subject for the first time by any government. It is the right of all children to receive a sports curriculum. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has shown personally a special interest in this issue. We shall be able to read Hansard tomorrow where there is a difference between us. But, as regards the French issue, France does not timetable sport into its curriculum. Sport happens outside the school curriculum and therefore it is very difficult to compare a country where sport is timetabled inside the curriculum.
As regards the register of recreational land, the Government's sponsored register was launched in October 1993. It identified 23,380 sites in England and has data on over 73,000 playing pitches. The register is currently being updated by Coopers & Lybrand. That is funded by the Sports Council and it should be completed by the end of this month. It is said that 200 sites are being lost to development each year. That figure is pure speculation. The point is that we do not actually know and the register will be very helpful to that end. The Central Council of Physical Recreation says that playing fields to the value of £100,000 per day are being sold off. That figure is grossly exaggerated. The register of recreational land, of which the CCPR is a co-sponsor, shows that only 1.66 per cent. of the 24,380 sites it identifies are the subject of any possible development.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, talked about the importance of dance. I can give her an absolute assurance that under the current physical education national curriculum, dance, gymnastics and athletics are compulsory for all pupils from the ages of five to 11. They continue to be options for pupils aged 11 to 16. The proposal for the revision of the PE national curriculum will be published shortly and I do not believe that she will be disappointed when she reads it.
The noble Baroness also spoke about the inclusion of PE in initial teacher' training. That is again a very important point. Initial teacher training courses for generalist primary school teachers must provide a grounding in all national curriculum subjects including physical education. But recent changes in the criteria governing these courses will allow for the development of courses with a particular specialism which could include PE.
The opening up of school facilities for wider community use was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the need for clubs and schools to work together. I believe that we all agree that that is very important. The Government have a longstanding policy of encouraging the community to use school facilities with the community. Only last year we included changes in the 1993 Act to facilitate joint management by different partners involved with school-community use of facilities. New partnerships at local level are also being encouraged by Champion Coaching, a quality after-school coaching scheme run by the National Coaching Foundation. Through the scheme, local youth sports advisory groups have been established to bring
1200
together local youth sports organisations and to enable them to work more closely together. Champion Coaching was initiated by my honourable friend, Mr. Robert Atkins, when he was the sports Minister, and it receives funding from the Sports Council. I understand that there is some concern about continuing its funding. My information is that that is being discussed at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, talked about the voluntary commitment of teachers. The picture is not as bleak as he portrayed it. The independent schools inspectorate, Ofsted, reported that in 1992–93 a great deal of sport was being played in the evenings and at weekends. That extra-curricular sport rested on the voluntary commitment of teachers. It is a disservice to teachers if we do not recognise their important commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, was right to make a distinction between the aim of sport in schools and the level of professional sport where very large amounts of money are involved. School sport is about a healthy body leading to a healthy mind and, wherever possible, cultivating an enjoyment of sport, as my noble friend said.
My noble friend Lord Butterfield talked about the Health Promotion Research Trust. I shall look at the video that he mentioned. However, even if a pupil or student takes only modest physical exercise, he will usually be more relaxed, less stressed and less mentally anguished. I also take my noble friend's point about astro-turf.
I understand that I am out of time, but I must say that there remains much to be done in building on the foundations which the Government have laid. That is why the Government are actively looking at these matters and that is why this debate has been timely. As always, I shall convey all the points that have been made in the debate to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I conclude by thanking again the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like briefly to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It has been surprising that there has been no repetition. Most noble Lords have covered different points. During the 10 years in which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have taken part in quite a number of debates and when I started this debate I did not know what would happen in it. However, I have to say that, because of its objectivity, it has been the most rewarding debate in which I have participated. It has pulled together different strands and united noble Lords from all parts of the House who are concerned about the future of the children of this country. I hope that such co-operation will continue in your Lordships' House.
Once again, I should like to thank all noble Lords and particularly the Minister. She made a long speech in reply. Nevertheless it contained much valuable information, although her figures may conflict with some of ours. I am not inviting her to respond now, but I ask her to take on board the last point that I made in

1201
my speech. I refer to those outside people who are waiting to try to help, such as those from Butlins with their national scheme for youngsters. As I said earlier, perhaps she or someone in her department could talk to those people. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the National Parks Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it is my duty and pleasure to bring the National Parks Bill before your Lordships for its Third Reading. I believe that the passage of the Bill has demonstrated the interest and support of Members of this House—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understood that the Question had been put. I hope that the noble Lord is now moving, That the Bill do now pass.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, if it is of any help to the House, my paper suggests that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, should move, That a privilege amendment be now agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
I shall start again. It is my duty and pleasure to bring the National Parks Bill before your Lordships for its Third Reading. I believe that the passage of this Bill has demonstrated—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again at this early stage, but is the noble Lord moving, That the Bill do now pass?
Lord Norrie: My Lords, yes. As I said at the unopposed Second Reading, the origins of this Bill lie in the report of the National Parks Review Panel. I am most grateful to the panel for its work, which has consistently informed and assisted your Lordships in your considerations.
I should like to thank the 24 speakers from all sides of the House who spoke in support of the Bill and those who assisted at Second Reading, Committee and Report stages in clarifying those positions. My noble friend Lord Arran, who is unfortunately absent today, has been most helpful in providing assurances of the Government's intentions not only in regard to this Bill but also about future legislation. I am grateful to him for playing such an active role.
I am also indebted to a fellow vice-president of the Council for National Parks, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her active involvement. She has joined me on
1202
fact-finding missions to the parks and has worked tirelessly with me in gaining support for the Bill. That is a further illustration of the fact that the Bill transcends party political boundaries.
As your Lordships are aware, I am most anxious that the Bill, which fulfils a government manifesto commitment, should succeed in this parliamentary Session. It was never my intention that the Bill should be viewed as a stalking horse. The timetable for local government reorganisation could produce a situation where the administration of the national parks is left in limbo or it could require interim arrangements for the administration of the parks which would be far more complex than acting on my Bill. Those scenarios are in no one's interest and could damage the parks themselves. The success of the Bill in this Session will ensure that that does not happen.
The Government have promised to legislate on several of the recommendations of the National Parks, Review Panel. It has been agreed that that other legislation would include the national park statutory purposes and associated duty. Many noble Lords who spoke on Report agreed that revision of purposes and duty would not be appropriate in a Private Member's Bill, and therefore. that debate on that subject should be deferred until a government Bill is introduced.
My Bill is a narrow Bill with one simple objective: to set up new authorities to run all national parks. As a Private Member's Bill, it has to be precise in its focus. That strategy has won the support of your Lordships. Only by maintaining that clear and narrow focus will the Bill succeed. The National Parks Bill is a first step towards the introduction of those other measures by the Government, but it is a first step that must make a clear and lasting imprint. With the support of the Government and of the other parties and with the backing of many organisations outside this House, including those from the local government sector, there is every reason why this popular measure should now succeed. It goes to another place having had the full scrutiny of this House.
The Bill benefits the parks. It has advantages for those who live, work and have other interests in them. It will be welcomed by those who make the 100 million visits to the parks each year. The time is right for the Bill to become law. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Norrie.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may have my word. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for what he has said this evening and for his conduct during the passage of the Bill. He has conducted himself, if I may say so, with great dignity and expertise. We are grateful to him. I imagine that the Government will also be grateful to him for producing the Bill in the first place.
I wish the Bill well. As I said on Second Reading, it has my personal support. It also has the support of my noble friends in this House; and it has the support of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, as far as I can tell. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is well aware, I can speak only for the Front Bench in another place, and the other place has its own procedures.

1203
The problem, as I see it, is that this is really a government Bill. I said so, I think as clearly as I could, in accusing the noble Earl, Lord Arran, of being disingenuous in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, raised the problem of whether this should not be properly adopted as a government Bill, produced in the normal manner that government Bills are produced. The rest of my speech assumes that there is a government in place, which is by no means certain after the events of recent days.
There are, as I understand it, those in another place who dislike the Bill, and, if it is a government Bill, then it is a government responsibility to ensure that the Bill is not killed in another place. Now I accept that the Government have not produced it from the Front Bench, but I have been party, if I may say so, to discussions at an early stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, knows, and, as the noble Lord quite properly said, it is a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. Therefore I assume that the Government will take responsibility for the Bill.
Unfortunately, the Government refused to introduce this Bill, or indeed many other Bills on environmental matters, as their own Bills. So it is a curious arrangement that it is farmed out to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who, as I say, has conducted himself with exemplary discipline and skill; but, nevertheless, the Bill has been drafted by parliamentary draftsmen and it is essentially a government Bill. So the Government must ensure that it goes through. That has been clear from the start. Otherwise—there is an otherwise—if that does not happen, then I am afraid that I have to say that the Government have been wasting the time of this House. Because, if there is a commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto and if a Bill is produced to meet that manifesto commitment and if the Government cannot in one way or another ensure that that manifesto commitment is met, if we have a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House which we discuss, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said, in some detail, and the Government do not ensure that that manifesto commitment is met, then I can only say to noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that they have been wasting the time of the House.
Not only will they have been wasting the time of the House, but they have also been wasting the money of the taxpayer, because it takes money to keep this House going, and, if the Bill does not go through, we will be noting how much money has been spent in keeping this House sitting, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, well knows, well into the night: on Second Reading, and, indeed in Committee. We shall be noting what the Government are doing to make sure that the taxpayer gets a proper reward for his or her investment. So the ball, to my mind, is very firmly in the Government's court.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has done his best, and his best has been extremely good. I support the Bill. As I have said, my noble friends in this House support the Bill. The Front Bench in another place of my party and, I believe, of the Liberal Democrats—we shall hear later from them—support the Bill. The question is whether
1204
the Government can get the Bill on to the statute book. That is the real question. Are they prepared to meet their manifesto commitment?
I can only conclude by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that the national parks require the Bill, particularly, if I may say so, in Wales, and that the sooner the Bill is on the statute book the happier a lot of us will be. There it is. So I look to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who will reply for the Government to give us an absolute, guaranteed assurance that the Bill will go through and get on to the statute book.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I shall not weary the House by repeating a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, with which I agree almost entirely. It would however be discourteous not to repeat the tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and those who have assisted him in bringing the Bill to the House. They have worked extremely hard. They have dealt with all the problems with great courtesy, and as a result we have a Bill with which we can be pleased.
But the fact remains that this should have been a government Bill. In fact I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, say in his first couple of sentences that the Bill fulfils a pledge made by the Government. It does absolutely no such thing. It is the only thing that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said which was not quite so: it fulfils the pledge of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, to do what the Government have found themselves unable to do, and which they should have done, instead of putting through the House, and sometimes not entirely through the House, Bills of much less worth upon which your Lordships have had to spend a great deal of time taking to pieces and sending back again.
This is a good Bill. It is a Bill upon which there is wide agreement. Both the Front Bench and the Back Benches of my party in another place will support it. I only hope that the Government will find some way of fulfilling the pledges which they owe and which they have not yet shown any sign of paying. We wish the Bill well, and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I wish to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for the way in which he has brought forward the Bill, and to make two points briefly in congratulating him on his success so far tonight. Perhaps I may first reply to some of the criticisms made outside the House as we have been progressing through the Bill, that this is somehow an attempt to take the national parks out of local government. On the contrary, the Bill creates a statutory framework for national park authorities consisting of local government representatives. It also ensures that a financial basis of national park funding from local government will be secure. That is a point which needs repeating as the Bill goes to another place.
The second point relates to what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said. I was present at the national park authorities' conference in Brecon where the commitment to legislate on the Edwards

1205
recommendations for independent park authorities was made by the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, Sir Wyn Roberts. That same commitment was made simultaneously that day for the national parks in England. Therefore, this is a clear government commitment. I endorse all that has been said from both sides of the House; that it is up to the Government's managers in another place to ensure that the Bill goes through.
There are those of us who see this as a test of the Government's willingness to do something in the area of environmental legislation. If we cannot have other more major environmental legislation, which we have been promised, at least we can have this Bill. All that it does is to place our national parks on a secure footing at a time of local government change. That is the least the Government can do for the environment in this Session of Parliament.
Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for the way that he has conducted the Bill. I also thank those advisers in the voluntary national park organisations and the Council for National Parks and others who have supported the noble Lord. In particular, I thank him for the excellent letters in Welsh which he sent out recently.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, enough has been said about the difficulties facing the Bill and about the purpose of it. I shall confine myself to saying a few thank you's, which are necessary. Obviously, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who has worked extremely hard, As my noble friend Lord Williams said, he conducted himself with great dignity and much credit is due to him.
Many people have been involved in work on the Bill. I wish to thank members of the Council for National Parks, who put a great deal of work into the measure. They collaborated with the Department of the Environment. Although it is unusual, I wish to thank those in that department who worked hard on drafting what proved to be a difficult and tricky Bill. I suspect that their work is not finished.
I wish to thank in particular the staff of the parks we visited last year. They gave up a tremendous amount of their time at a busy time of year in order to show us the work they had done. I thank the farmers and the residents of the parks who were willing to talk to us and put forward their points of view. They proved by their comments that it is possible to have good relations between the national park authorities and residents and farmers. Special thanks are due to them.
Finally, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who had a difficult. part in this little play. He spoke for the Government but not for the Government, and he did so most skilfully. I hope that his noble friend Lord St. Davids will manage with equal skill. I wish the Bill every success in another place and I remind the Government that there is urgency in getting it through.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for what he has done. On Second Reading I said that I considered myself to be a midwife to the
1206
Broads authority Bill. I suppose that the few of us who are in the Chamber tonight may consider ourselves midwives to this Bill. I hope that the birth will be happy and fairly imminent.
I wish to make one comment—and bother the politics! That is why I sit on the Cross Benches. important that the Bill will have benefits. It will benefit those who in future run the parks and those who live and work in them. If the other authorities work as well as the Broads authority, they will do very well indeed.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Arran, I wish to begin by apologising for his absence tonight. As we speak, he is in attendance at the UN Global Conference on Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. I know that he would have liked to have been here to congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie for the way in which he has handled the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. But instead that pleasure has been left to me.
We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie for the way that he has presided over the Bill and we admire the support which has been demonstrated for the establishment of independent national park authorities.
The Government are committed to safeguarding the future of the 10 national parks in England and Wales. In reply to the work of the National Parks Review Panel, we set out our proposals for the future of the parks in our January 1992 policy statement. In it, we accepted the central recommendation that we should introduce legislation to establish independent authorities for all the parks as soon as there 'was a suitable opportunity to do so.
I know that there is much disappointment that because of pressure on the parliamentary timetable we were unable to bring forward a government Bill this Session, but I congratulate my noble friend on promoting a Bill which addresses this central issue of establishing a new and common administration for all the parks. As my noble friend Lord Arran indicated at the Bill's Second Reading, the Government are pleased to offer their full support.
We recognise that this Bill fulfils only part of the commitments that we made in response to the review panel. However, we believe it to be the most important and urgent part. As my noble friend Lord Arran made clear when we debated the Bill at Second Reading, and as he reiterated at Report stage, it remains our firm intention to introduce further legislation to meet the rest of our commitments as soon as there is the opportunity to do so.
This Bill places the national park authorities on a sound footing and ensures that the framework within which they will operate will enable the parks to be managed more effectively. The founding national parks legislation is now over 40 years old and no longer adequately reflects the need for the parks' administration to reflect up-to-date practice. Furthermore, I believe that the Bill will form the basis of a better relationship between the parks and those who live and work in them.

1207
Your Lordships will appreciate that the need for independence for the park authorities is seen as urgent in the light of the unknown outcome of the review of local government. The timing for local government reorganisation in areas affecting the parks will depend on the Local Government Commission's recommendations and Parliament's decisions on them. However, whatever the outcome of reorganisation, this Bill will secure the future administration of the national parks.
There has been much discussion during the passage of this Bill about the membership of the new authorities. Indeed, the Bill has emerged from your Lordships' House with three amendments all of which relate to this issue. My noble friend Lord Arran made it clear at each stage of the Bill that it is our intention that the current balance of representation between local authority and Secretary of State members will be maintained so that two-thirds of the total will be appointed by the local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State. And, indeed, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent, which was agreed in Committee, sets out beyond any possible doubt that there will always be a clear majority of local authority members on each national park authority.
My noble friend Lord Norrie's amendment, which was agreed at Report stage and which developed the intention underlying the earlier amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, will ensure that the composition of the committees and sub-committees of national park authorities will reflect the proportions of local authority and Secretary of State members on the authority itself.
Debate on this Bill has also drawn attention to the important role which parish and community councils play in the affairs of the national parks. Arising from this discussion, my noble friend the Minister assured your Lordships that in due course we intend to issue guidance through a departmental circular to the new authorities which will strongly recommend that they should make formal provision to ensure that the parish and community councils in their areas are given the fullest opportunity to make their views known.
During the passage of this Bill we have also touched on a number of issues which merit wider debate and discussion; for instance, the economic and social responsibilities of the national park authorities. My noble friend Lord Arran listened very carefully to the arguments put forward on this issue during discussion of
1208
my noble friend Lord Peel's amendment tabled on Report and expressed his sympathy with the arguments surrounding my noble friend's amendment. I am happy to reiterate our commitment that the Government's legislation to update national park purposes will clarify the need for national park authorities to take full account of the economic and social needs of local communities. This Bill addresses the central issue of the status of the authorities responsible for managing these most precious areas. We are committed to implementing its provisions at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the long-term administration of the parks is secured.
During its passage through this House your Lordships will have become aware of the almost universal support for the Bill and the amount of goodwill which my noble friend Lord Norrie has generated by its introduction. I have been especially aware of, and heartened by, the full and constructive contribution which my noble friend has been offered by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Beaumont, and the continuing support which they have demonstrated for this Bill.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has apprehensions for the future of this Bill in another place. The noble Lord will be aware that the Government cannot guarantee this Bill a safe passage but I can give him our assurance that we shall do all that is within our power to assist its progress. We shall continue to work as closely with its sponsors in another place as we have with my noble friend in this House. I wish the Bill well and hope that it enjoys continued success.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. If I were to summarise the Bill I would say that it has a narrow focus and aims solely to set up new authorities to run all the national parks. There is widespread support both inside and outside Parliament for the principles of the Bill. It is a first step towards the package of measures recommended by the National Parks Review Panel, which it is expected the Government will introduce at the earliest opportunity.
My Private Member's Bill is a timely opportunity to provide the national parks with the best level of administrative arrangements for the future and to enable them to withstand the rigours of local government reorganisation. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.