Lords Sitting of 7 June 1995

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

European Legislation and British Interests
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the exchanges involving the Earl Howe and Lord Peyton of Yeovil on 4th May (HL Deb., col. 1481), they agree that European legislation poses serious threats to a wide range of British interests including London buses, lettuce growers and fishermen; and that those threats cannot reasonably be described as "myths".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we do not share the view that every legislative proposal originating from Brussels threatens British interests. Action at Community level has created the single market, which is of huge benefit to both British businesses and consumers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that British interests, who may at least feel that damaging legislation from Brussels threatens them, have little choice but to rely on the Government to support them in their negotiations with the Commission? If she does agree, does she appreciate that those interests may be altogether more honest and less polite when talking to those of us who did not support the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty than they are when talking to the Government, who did support those Acts and who therefore bear heavy responsibility for the damaging legislation in question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend without any fear of contradiction that if those in business have a point to make, as they often do, and they do not put that point directly to government, they have nobody to blame but themselves if the resulting measure is not to their liking.
The point is this. Brussels is not out to destroy British institutions or practices. Many of its proposals reflect a desire to open markets and encourage free trade. If the proposals from Brussels affect British interests, then we will take them up. But it is in nobody's interest for business to say one thing to government and something else to people who would undo the benefit that we have had from the European Union.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister suggest to the Leader of the House that a special committee be established in which such questions, about square lettuces and round buses, can be raised by those who want to make a nuisance of themselves without imposing on the rest of the House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord puts forward a very interesting idea. I hope that he is offering himself as chairman of such a committee.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Baroness has used this occasion to emphasise twice what she describes as the benefits to European industry, and indeed to Britain, will she consider at some time, if necessary at leisure, the necessity for producing a White Paper or a detailed description for the benefit of the public as to precisely what the benefits are that she has so emphasised this afternoon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would have thought that some of the benefits are known to those who read unbiased reports of what is going on. Membership of the European Union has made Britain a magnet for inward investment. Since 1979, more than 635,000 well-paid jobs have come to the UK because of the investment that we have gained; that includes more than a quarter of a million jobs in the past five years alone. Britain attracts one-third of all inward investment that comes into the European Union: 43 per cent. from the US; 41 per cent. of Japanese investment; and 50 per cent. of Korean. That investment would not have come to this country if we were outside the European Union. There is a lot more like that. I am quite certain that we shall find a way to publish it to the noble Lord's liking.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how deeply I regret that anything I said may have led my noble friend who asked this Question to conclude that I lacked sympathy with the problems of fishermen, lettuce growers or London buses?
I sought in my supplementary question to raise the point as to whether my noble friend, in asking such persistently negative questions, might not achieve the very reverse of the result that he wants; namely, to reduce our influence to put these matters to rights. Will my noble friend comment on the fact that it seems rather odd persistently to leave out the benefits to British industry?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton in that I find it lacking in balance to leave out the benefits. In every society or organisation that one joins, one has a responsibility to make sure that it goes in the right direction. Based on a recent CBI survey I can tell my noble friend that, interestingly, only 2 per cent. of members interviewed believed that Britain would be better off outside the European Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, seems to have forgotten that the single market was a British initiative. It is that single market that has so greatly expanded the opportunities for British firms. Again, a recent CBI survey showed that 71 per cent. of firms were enjoying greater trading opportunities with Europe due to the single market. More trade means more jobs, and that is why we want it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we should like to congratulate her upon the robust common sense of her Answer and the forthright language

1349
in which she expressed it? May I assure her that, if the Government continue speaking in that vein, they will receive the support of the Opposition?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am delighted to respond to the noble Lord and say that I shall always speak as I find and that is the truth.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the benefits that she has just outlined are gratifying to most people who have the interests of this country at heart? But is she certain that, in attributing the list that she gave to the fact that we are members of the European Union, she is not overstating the case? Does she not feel that the fact that we have a common language and are not connected with the social conditions which add to costs are also reasons for the list that she outlined to us in her Answer?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was talking about the attraction of investment into Britain. Britain takes 41 per cent. of all Japanese investment into the European Union and 50 per cent. of the Korean investment. We do not have a common language with them. I do not believe that I am overstating the case. I came into politics from industry. I still keep links with industry to keep myself informed about what industry is thinking. I challenge my noble friend to find business people who would contradict the fact that 71 per cent. of firms say that they are enjoying greater trading opportunities with Europe owing to the single market.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, was the noble Baroness as surprised as I was to hear from the Liberal Benches a statement that people who ask questions in Parliament are a nuisance? Will she accept that I believe that that is what Parliament is all about; namely, we come to Parliament and ask questions? Is she aware that it is not a myth that at the present time the European Parliament, and indeed the European Commission, want to introduce qualified majority voting into defence and foreign affairs? Is she further aware that many of them now believe, and say, that what they want is a country called Europe? Is that the Government's policy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was going to say something rather nice about the noble Lord. He has an absolute right to ask questions, but the fact that he sometimes bases those questions on information that is a long way from the facts obviously worries people who want a debate on the facts. There is no way in which the Government will have a country other than Britain. There is no such country as Europe. There will not be such a country as Europe. Let me also say that we have made clear many times that Britain will not accept moves to abolish the national veto. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about that and I can give him comfort.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, as always, I am in the hands of the House; but we have three more Questions on the Order Paper.

Road Traffic Restrictions: Slow Vehicles
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a highway authority may ban certain vehicles from travelling on roads at particular hours of the day on the basis of the speeds at which they can travel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): Yes, my Lords. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empowers traffic authorities to make orders regulating the use that any particular class of traffic may make of any road.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer. Is he aware that Essex County Council is consulting on proposals to ban from certain roads at peak times vehicles that are not capable of travelling at more than 30 miles an hour? Such a ban would include milk floats, contractors' plant and farm vehicles, at which the ban is particularly aimed. Will he accept that the evidence that slow-moving traffic causes congestion at peak hours is tenuous, to say the least? Does he agree that in areas where many farms are divided by such roads, so that the only means of access is across or along those roads, such a ban would only be appropriate where an alternative means of access is available?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, those powers exist and have existed for some time. It is worth noting that they have been used extremely rarely. My noble friend is correct. Essex is looking into the possibility of introducing some restrictions. But I should emphasise that there are safeguards. Before introducing any kind of permanent traffic restrictions, the traffic authority must publish details of its proposals and consider any objections and representations received against them.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most frustrating experience on a motorway is to be following an abnormal load—a wide load—that cuts three lanes to one lane and causes tailbacks and occasionally accidents? In view of the fact that the Police Community Liaison Committee has suggested night-time movements only for such abnormal loads and the majority of hauliers support that suggestion, why is it not done?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are already restrictions on the types of vehicle that can use motorways. The safety considerations that the noble Lord highlights are important. The fact that people become frustrated when travelling behind a slow-moving vehicle can lead to unsafe situations. Our motorways are safe roads and we already take into consideration the kind of factors that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, one of the reasons for traffic congestion is that many contractors cone off sections of the road without any men working behind the cones. Would it not be a good idea to ban contractors from putting up cones unless there are men working on the road?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is why we introduced the cones hotline.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when I drove to the House this morning I found that on one stretch of the road I was travelling at over 40 mph. Was I breaking the law?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to inform me on which road he was travelling.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it was Kennington High Road.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, without notice I could not tell the noble Lord whether he was breaking the law. However, I suspect that it is a 30 mph zone and the noble Lord should report himself to the police.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not much more likely that my noble friend thought that he was driving at 40 mph, but in fact he was only driving at 30 mph or less?
The House is grateful to the Minister for pointing out that a very real problem exists, particularly on narrow roads. It is obvious that that is the situation which caused Essex County Council to consider its rather draconian action. Does the Minister agree that the activities undertaken by the National Farmers Union in issuing guidance notes and in undertaking consultations with police authorities in order to try to mitigate the problem is perhaps the right course to follow at this juncture? The guidance notes include the provision that farmers should avoid taking tractors on roads at busy times whenever possible. Would it not be a good idea to see what result that guidance from the NFU has had?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, these are important issues. Safety is a major concern and there is a great deal to be gained from the type of approach the noble Lord highlighted; namely, talking to the relevant authorities and keeping in touch with the police.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to the cones hotline. On a value-for-money basis, will he be good enough to tell the House what the estimated cost is for each call to the hotline?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that without notice. I shall endeavour to find out and let him know.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the whole question of road improvement is likely to become more difficult should a policy of restriction of this sort become more general? It is inevitable that landowners will demand and have to be supplied with expensive accommodation works to guarantee access across roads or along roads if they are not able to travel on highways at certain hours. Not only will that impose delay on the construction of improvements, but it will also add dramatically to costs.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is not a widespread policy. It is designed for use where specific problems are caused by slow-moving vehicles. There would also be enforcement problems with such a policy which may dissuade certain authorities from bringing it forward. Inevitably, where traffic restrictions are brought forward,
1352
that will inconvenience some members of the community. The inconvenience must be taken fully into account by councils in coming to their decisions.

Nuclear Power
2.54 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, according to The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK (Cm. 2860), they are not willing to fund the building of a third nuclear power station at Sizewell.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the question of funding for a new pressurised water reactor station at Sizewell C was examined extensively in the nuclear review. The Government would need to be convinced that there were compelling strategic reasons for using taxpayers' money to build another nuclear station when the private sector is unwilling to do so. The nuclear review found no such reasons.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that building a nuclear power station is extraordinarily expensive and unlikely to be funded by the private sector? Consequently, will he confirm also that in around 10 years' time there will be only one nuclear power station left, Sizewell B, and that will be producing only around 3 per cent. of our electricity, while the remaining 97 per cent. will have to come from fossil fuels plus a few windmills? Inevitably the damage to our environment will be much greater than if we had gone down the nuclear road.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that building nuclear power stations is an expensive exercise. However, if it is possible to find private finance to build the Channel Tunnel, then it is possible to find private finance to build a nuclear power station provided it is economical. The independent consultants looked at the development of fuel diversity since the electricity privatisation in 1990 and the likely future trends. They concluded that the mixture of different fuels for electricity generation was unlikely to fall below the levels of the 1980s during the period up to 2010. Providing public sector support for a nuclear power station would constitute a significant intervention in the electricity market. In the light of the consultants' report, Her Majesty's Government concluded that there was no case for public support for a nuclear build.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, are the Government aware that on this occasion they are to be congratulated on coming to the inevitable conclusion? Anybody who reads the report and is able to come to a contrary conclusion will do so because of a preconception that it is necessary to build the reactor. The report proves conclusively that private enterprise will not build it and the Government are well advised not to invest public money in a project which is unwanted and the end of which is unforeseeable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not quite know what to say. Congratulations from the noble Lord on anything that the Government have done is sometimes like the kiss of

1353
death. However, I shall not accept it as such, but merely as congratulations which he wishes to bestow and for which I am grateful.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend and the Government bear in mind that nuclear power stations do not cause air pollution or acid rain in the way that coal and oil-fired power stations do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Nuclear power stations do not produce greenhouse gases or acid rain gases. There are various environmental arguments in favour of them. But, the nuclear review looked at all that and concluded, nevertheless, that there was no case for public intervention, which would distort the market.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that estimates have been given by economists who are well-versed in the subject of nuclear power that Sizewell B is likely to produce a derisory amount from its sale in consequence of privatisation proposals? What do the Government say about that? Will the Minister also comment on assertions that have been made that part of the nuclear levy, which was designed to deal with the decommissioning of nuclear plants, has been used as a subsidy for Nuclear Electric's ongoing operations? Is that right?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the fossil fuel levy was due to end on 31st March 1998. It will now end in 1996 when the advanced gas-cooled reactors and the pressurised water reactors are privatised. It was used specifically for the purposes of decommissioning. I do not agree that the sale of the nuclear industry would produce derisory sums. The noble Lord will have to wait and see. But I merely advise him of what the chairman of Nuclear Electric said—that he welcomed the acceptance that privatisation was the first step in safeguarding the industry's future.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister saying that no part of the fossil fuel levy has ever been used for Nuclear Electric's ongoing commercial operations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was not saying that. I was saying that the purpose of the levy was to pay for the decommissioning of the nuclear power stations when that comes about.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I agree with the Government's conclusion that there is no economic case for another nuclear power station, and by past experience I have been competing with nuclear power. Nevertheless, it is important from this country's point of view that we should retain an expertise in nuclear power. Can the noble Earl say what measures can be taken to maintain that expertise?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the noble Lord's concern, which I believe many people share. Nuclear Electric is the operator of a pressurised water reactor and therefore there will be a United Kingdom capability to operate, maintain and upgrade those kinds of stations, so that expertise will remain. The skill base will help to provide the basis for re-establishing a reactor construction capability should that be required.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the money which has been paid by way of levy been retained in a special fund which cannot be touched by Nuclear Electric for any other purposes after privatisation? Can the Minister say to what extent liability which will fall on Nuclear Electric will be affected by variations in the expected life of nuclear reactors, which differ perhaps from the accounting life of 30 years which I believe has been assumed in the accounts of the corporation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the purpose of the levy was to provide funds for decommissioning the reactors. That money has been paid and is available for that purpose.

St. Pancras Chambers
3.1 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any estimate of the cost of restoring the St. Pancras Chambers to a state of repair appropriate to a Grade I listed building, when they expect to conclude their search for a proper long-term use, and what measures they have in mind to prevent further degradation of the building.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the cost of restoring the St. Pancras Chambers will depend upon the future use of the building and the timing and scale of any refurbishment scheme. These will be matters for the nominated undertaker of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, acting within a framework comprising: the normal legislative provisions; agreements with English Heritage and the local planning authority; and special requirements for St. Pancras imposed by the Government.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend seek an invitation to visit the chambers from the present custodians of this unique building; namely, the British Rail Property Board, which does not have the taste, inclination or the resources to put that building into the state of repair which would be proper? While he is there perhaps he would take the opportunity to visit the higher floors where he will find that pigeons have made a home. He can say "Hello" to them and satisfy himself that the building is in fact not suffering that degradation to which he referred last time I raised this matter.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for railways has recently visited the chambers. I shall certainly find it interesting to visit them myself.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the plans used by Gilbert Scott for this magnificent Grade I listed building, which must be preserved at all costs, were originally prepared for the Foreign Office building in Whitehall? Is the Minister further aware that that he used them for St. Pancras only because the government of the day did not accept those plans, their taste being for the neo-Palladian? Incidentally, I do not suppose that it would appeal to the Government to use the building for its original purpose and move part of the Foreign Office there—perhaps that part dealing with Europe—given that when the new line

1355
is built it will be necessary only to go downstairs to catch the train to Brussels. On a slightly more serious note, would not a private owner be likely to be landed in considerable trouble if he failed properly to maintain a building of this quality?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, indeed he would. That is part of the consideration that the bidders will be taking into account in putting forward their bids, which will have to include their plans for the proper use of St. Pancras Chambers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend at least join with me in congratulating my noble friend Lord Peyton on his stalwart efforts in helping to restore the fabric of St. Pancras? Will he go further and agree with me that those efforts have been much more successful this afternoon than his earlier ones at restoring the decaying fabric of the European Union?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I hate to intervene in a private argument, but I believe that it has been considerably to the advantage of the House for this Question to be aired this afternoon.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Gilbert Scott's Grand Midland Hotel was, and still is, under the dust and the scaffolding, a masterpiece of Gothic Romanticism and that it is quite inappropriate to pass this building to a private company, even within the constraints that he has announced? Do the Government agree with English Heritage that this treasure should be restored to its former glory and use as a great hotel at the gateway to the Continent?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is entirely proper that a private undertaker should be involved in this matter. Of course, the fabric of the chambers will be needed to a certain extent to provide the terminus. The parts of the building which are not required will be subject to the normal planning legislation. We believe that a proper long-term future needs to be established for this building. That will be achieved through a proper commercial environment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I was interested to hear from my noble friend that his honourable friend the Minister for road and rail, I think he said, had visited the building. Will he let me know whether his honourable friend reached any useful conclusions or made any judgments about the state of the building; or did he keep his eyes tight shut?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that my honourable friend, as a result of his visit, determined that the Government's policy and proposals were entirely appropriate for the building.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, while I obviously have no prejudice against such a building going into the private sector, nonetheless will my noble friend remember the tragic fate which Battersea Power Station suffered when it went into the hands of a wholly unsuitable private developer?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, and County Hall!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have put considerable safeguards in place. There is a special heritage agreement as regards this site.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: 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 Jenkins of Hillhead and the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood set down for this day shall each be limited to three hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Child Support Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 6,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 7 to 30,

Schedule 3.—(Lord Inglewood.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Political Parties: Funding
3.7 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the case for an independent inquiry into the present arrangements for the funding of political parties; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that there are few more disturbing aspects of our present-day national life than the low and falling esteem in which politicians are held. That was obviously a revelation which much struck Nolan—I say brusquely, "Nolan" rather than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, to indicate that I am referring to the collectivity rather than the individual—and to some considerable extent that thought infuses his committee's report.
This view may be exacerbated by the exceptional unpopularity of the present Government. But I believe that the causes go a good deal deeper than that. Ministers, despite—to put it at its most charitable—their recent run of ill luck, do not score in the Nolan table all that much worse than the rest of us. In any event, I have a strong feeling that self-righteousness is often as dangerous as it is always unattractive, and that we should all be careful to avoid,
"Compounding sins we are inclined to,
By condemning those we have no mind to".

1357
Nevertheless, it is clear that strenuous efforts have to be made to retrieve the desperately low current standing of the political class, and indeed of the political process, because if that cannot be done, there are grave national and social dangers there involved. The key to such retrieval is thought, hopefully and probably rightly, to be transparency. When the Prime Minister appeared to stand against that current of opinion for a few brief days after the publication of Nolan, he found the wind distinctly uncomfortable, and, like a sensitive feather, quickly moved in response.
The first Nolan Report did not cover the financing of political parties, although it, and associated pronouncements from its members, managed to leave the strong impression that the committee's inability to deal with it left it with a deep hole in the middle. That is my strong view.
The recent actions of a number of Members of Parliament who have provoked the excitement, are squalid and wholly unacceptable if there is to be any chance of the public again looking up to their legislators and representatives. But the events which provoked the excitement have not been likely seriously to pervert the course of government. Parliamentary Questions asked for gain, or even amendments tabled in someone else's name, are offensive peccadillos, but the answers to one are unlikely to divert the course of administration, and the amendments would probably not be carried.
Any malfeasance as a result of the corrupt financing of political parties could be of an altogether different order of magnitude. I hope and think that it is rare that Ministers ever alter their decisions in accordance with an awareness of those who subscribe and those who do not. If there is a danger, it will be more subtle than that. Where a decision is marginal, a desire to please those whom it is helpful to please is a natural human reaction. Beyond that, there are other dangers and disadvantages in the present semi-secret arrangements for the financing of political parties and, above all, of one of them—the Conservative Party—because it is, or at any rate has been until recently, overwhelmingly the greatest beneficiary of company and large individual donations.
There are some undesirable aspects—if I may say so—to Labour Party finance. The dependence upon trade union subventions and those of two or three large unions are proportionately bigger than any individual contributions which the Conservative Party receives. Set against that there is the fact that the Labour Party shows considerable signs of being anxious to get away from such dependence, and that even if undesirable, it is at any rate open and not secret. There are also one or two small pools of obscurity in Labour Party private financing, and indeed in Liberal Democrat financing also.
We have offered to clear them fully up on a reciprocal basis. We might be wise—Labour and Liberal Democrats alike—to do so even on a unilateral or, I should more accurately say, a bilateral basis. So we come back to the Conservative Party. Two features stand out from the reading on this issue that I have done in the past week or so. First, the Conservative Party remains dedicated to secrecy. Secondly, it is mostly uncomfortable and defensive about it.
I had not until recently studied at all closely the proceedings and report on the funding of political parties of the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, which sat in 1993–94. The proceedings were frankly a revelation to me. There was none of that spirit of cross-party objective inquiry which so often characterises the work of Select Committees.
Every contested decision was taken on a strict party basis and went to the casting vote of the Conservative chairman. Furthermore, the taking of evidence—it is impossible to read it without seeing this—was done much more on a point-scoring than on an information-seeking basis. It was adversarial politics at their worst. It was a striking example of what produces Nolan's starting point—the low esteem for politicians.
I hope therefore that there will be no question of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, or anyone else, arguing that this Motion is otiose because the matter was fully investigated last year. You cannot dispose of a serious issue of national importance on the casting vote of a chairman after a straight party vote. You can bring the proceedings to a close by that means, but that is different. You cannot settle it.
However, the reason that I brought in the Select Committee of the other place at this stage was to illustrate the point I was making about the defensive uneasiness which sits alongside the Conservative devotion to concealment on this issue. That was splendidly illustrated when there was a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, as a former treasurer, should be invited to give evidence, particularly as Sir Norman Fowler had several times said that he could speak only for the previous 12 months, because his period of office had only then begun. That proposition for an invitation to the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, was defeated—again, only on the casting vote of the chairman—with all Conservatives voting unanimously no, which indicated either a great respect for the time of the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, or a considerable lack of confidence in his discretion if he appeared before the committee.
Apart from that lack of frankness, there are other worrying features to the issue. There is inherent unfairness. It is far from that over-used cliché—as I think—of a level playing field. There is the difficult issue—and it is a difficult issue—of overseas gifts. There is the fact that there have undoubtedly been several big donations from those who have turned out to be very unsavoury figures. There is the entanglement of the issue with honours lists.
I do not want to make too much of that last point which has a certain tradition, although not a high one—in British politics.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that comes well from a member of the Liberal Party!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, no, there is a common misapprehension about that. I believe that at the time when Lloyd George was Prime Minister certain issues of that sort arose. But that was not when he was Prime Minister of a Liberal Government; it was when he was Prime Minister of an overwhelmingly Conservative coalition, with the Conservative Chief Whip being every bit as much involved in those arrangements as anyone

1359
else. However, we are not debating 1921 to 1922. I shall leave that aspect of the matter, but not the matter itself, there.
I said that I do not want to make too much of it. There is thought to be the safeguard of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. But there is a considerable coincidence between the generosity of companies and the advancement in rank of their chairmen or managing directors. There are also the striking, the memorable, words of the late Lord Shackleton. He was a member of that small committee for many years, and, as I think will be generally agreed, a notably unabrasive, and, in a slightly different sense of the word, generous Member of your Lordships' House.
He, in 1993—quite recently—was worried about roundabout donations through Conservative-front organisations, not to the party itself. He said:
"There is an obvious gap here. It is highly likely that these secret donations are by-passing the scrutiny system and that honours are effectively being bought".
So, there are a lot of complicated and difficult issues here. There is plenty to inquire into.
No doubt the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will seek to hold the line and will do so rumbustiously and maybe ingeniously as well. But I would ask him and his supporters to take one thought away from the debate. They are defending a perimeter which will not hold even over the next five years. It will clearly not survive a change of government. But even without such a change, and everything is possible, I have sufficient faith—just—in the eventual responsiveness of the Conservative Party to an overwhelming current of opinion to believe that, nonetheless, there will be an inquiry; there will be a change; there will be a reform.
The question is: how and when? The Prime Minister is one of the most experienced evacuators of untenable positions. The trouble is that he often evacuates tenable ones as well. But how much better it would be for him, and maybe ultimately for his party, if for once, instead of waiting to be pushed by the eruption of some new scandal into a panic setting up of an ill-thought-out inquiry, he were to be ahead of the game and with proper deliberation either, preferably, let Nolan look into this field or, if he preferred, set up another appropriate body. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate today. Clearly, the funding of political parties is an important issue and it is most relevant in a democratic society; therefore, I welcome the fact that he has raised the issue today. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with the purpose of his Motion, which is, of course, to set up yet another inquiry on the subject.
When I first looked at the Motion and considered what the noble Lord might say, I believed in my innocence that he would offer alternatives to the present situation. Having listened to the noble Lord, I realise that he has made a good party political speech designed to do down the Conservatives. Now that we all know exactly where we stand we can have a good go at the subject.
1360
I was delighted that the noble Lord complained about the present Government because, after all, at the time of the last Liberal Government everyone knew the old adage, "Lloyd George knew my father and my father knew Lloyd George", and what fell from that. However, people then lived in a much more fortunate society because, although I am the first to say that, as Prime Minister, Lloyd George did many good things for the country, no one would believe that he had an impeccable private life. Before we start criticising everyone we should recognise that everyone is human and is prone to sin. We might all remember that.
I was most surprised that the noble Lord's speech boiled down to a criticism of the Select Committee which reported in March last year. In preparation for the debate, I read that report, as I am sure have all noble Lords who are to speak in the debate. It goes into a great deal of detail about the funding of political parties, including the possible state funding of parties, and makes a series of recommendations. All of them have been accepted by my party. If the committee behaved as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, described I cannot imagine why those who did not agree with the result did not provide a minority report, which they have not done—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I allowed the noble Baroness to go on with her fantasies about Lloyd George presiding over a Liberal Government when it was 80 per cent. Conservative supported, but I cannot allow the last comment. There was a minority report, which appears in the report of the Select Committee. That was voted upon and defeated by the casting vote of the chairman—and only by the casting vote of the chairman—as was every single decision of that non-partisan committee.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the minority report was not from a Liberal member of the committee—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, there was no Liberal member on the committee.
Baroness Young: My Lords, there is nothing undemocratic about exercising a casting vote; it is done frequently in committees. If we are going to pick and choose which aspects of constitutional procedure can be used, we can criticise any report at any time.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that politics and politicians have been denigrated generally. He is right about that and makes a serious point. It is a very serious situation. Democracy is being downgraded the whole time and I believe that the result of the Nolan Report will be a worsening effect on political life because we shall increasingly find that people will not want to stand for Parliament. That will be a most serious outcome, but I hope that I shall be proved to be wrong. It is certainly a possible conclusion to draw.
One must ask oneself why Parliament is being denigrated—and it is not just Parliament and politicians. When one looks around society one can see that it applies to the Royal Family, the Church and so forth. Every British institution is now subject to denigration of one kind or another. It is a serious matter for this country that all those well-established institutions are held in such disregard.

1361
Much of it stems from the media. As regards Parliament, one of the great tragedies is that within living memory—I cannot remember the exact time—Parliament was reported fully in what was then called the "quality press". The House of Lords was reported fully. What do we get now? We get at most some clever political correspondent giving us about 10 inches of column saying, "Wasn't it clever that so and so knocked off the Minister and the Minister knocked off the Back-Bencher?". The whole thing is reduced to the level of farce. Therefore, is it surprising that politicians are denigrated? It is a most serious matter. On that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
I turn to the setting up of the Nolan Committee. The reason that it came about was that two Conservative MPs were, in fact, set up. All right, they behaved foolishly, unwisely and, quite possibly, very wrongly. I accept all of that and I do not intend to defend it. But what is equally wrong is to set people up. I well recall that when I became a Minister one of the first things that happened to me was a visit from members of MI5 warning me of the dangers of talking to communists. There was a little more to it than that but that was the purport of the visit.
It so happened that at that time my husband was about to attend a conference in East Germany and I was told to warn him about the dangers too. People were set up, which was regarded as despicable. Why it should suddenly become less despicable because the press does it I simply do not know, but it is a good example of today's double standards. No wonder that young people in particular see Parliament and politicians as appearing to be endlessly arguing with one another, self-seeking and usually self-righteous. The only people to gain from all that are those who want to do down democracy. The point of today's debate is to discuss the funding of political parties.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Young: Noble Lords may well say, "Hear, hear!", because it is important. The alternative way to fund parties will be some form of state funding because nobody has reached any other conclusion. Of course, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in 1976 recommended that there should be a certain amount of state funding but that was not taken up by the then Labour Government. There was a subsequent report in 1981 by the Hansard Society which took a slightly different line but, again, that was not accepted. The Nolan Committee is not looking into that matter because it is outside its terms of reference. There is now the latest report from the Home Affairs Select Committee which makes various recommendations about the funding of political parties.
It is just as well to rehearse the reasons why people are concerned about state funding of political parties. It seems to me that the most important reason is that it will undermine the voluntary principle in British politics. That is an extremely important matter. Voluntary organisations of any sort function when individuals contribute to them. Although it is useful to have some state money, once there is too much, the organisation ceases to be voluntary and becomes something quite different.
1362
It is very important that the thousands of people who contribute to different political parties should do so. That is the measure of the strength of democracy and it is one of the few measures which shows that democracy is still strong in this country.
Quite apart from that, many taxpayers would resent deeply paying taxes to parties with which they do not agree. Some would even feel that it was a waste of taxpayers' money to be spending it on political parties rather than on policies which they wished to see implemented. But there is no evidence that I can find that either controls on political contributions or state financing of political parties prevents political corruption. Indeed, in some countries where there have been elaborate systems of control and state funding, widespread allegations of political corruption have occurred. Therefore, there is no evidence that such measures improve matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, very unfairly and unkindly attacked the Conservative Party and what it is doing. Therefore, it may be just as well to remind the House that in the financial year 1992–93, which is the last year for which there are full accounts, 70 per cent. of all Conservative Party income was raised in the constituencies. I am quite certain there is no one sitting on this side of the House who has not been involved in that activity many times over. Of the remaining 30 per cent., 60 per cent. came from companies. Those donations are subject to statutory disclosure under the Companies Act 1985 and it falls to the company, not to the party, to make that disclosure. Individual donations and direct mail make up the remainder. The fact that individuals choose to support a party is, after all, a matter of private choice.
I have been involved, as I am sure have all your Lordships, in a great deal of fundraising for many causes. No matter what the cause, there are always many individuals who wish to remain anonymous; and why should they not do so? We are free to give our money to the causes of our choice, but we do not necessarily want everyone to know that. I see no reason why that should not apply in party politics as in other areas of life.
It is extremely important to note that the Conservative Party has accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee, including its code of practice. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships of that because there seems to be some doubt about it. First, it provides that money does not buy or influence honours; illegally obtained money should not be acceptable and, if discovered to be so obtained, should be returned; substantial anonymous donations should be refused; donations from foreign governments and rulers should be refused; and benefits received in kind and income over which the party has control, such as sales and fund-raising events, should be itemised; and there should be published accounts and an independent audit.
Anybody who has been involved, as I have, for a long time in the Conservative Party, knows that at local level, where most of the money is raised, accounts are published and audited independently. Anybody is welcome to go to an annual general meeting and wade through them. There is nothing secret about that.

1363
I deeply resent the purport of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was saying; namely, that there are many people who are somehow conniving to defeat the system and who are taking bribes of one sort or another. There is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. The noble Lord has not produced a shred of evidence, but has just made a lot of unpleasant allegations which I think he should withdraw. I think that they are a disgrace.
One of the most dangerous aspects of politics now-a-days is that such allegations are made unsubstantiated by any evidence whatever and they are then assumed to be true. In my view, that is one of the most dangerous things that is happening today.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying something about what I personally believe to be very important. One of the most significant statements made by the committee is:
"We accordingly conclude that trust in the integrity of the party concerned must suffice and that there is no need for precise and binding rules to be laid down for the contents of a party's accounts".
Once there ceases to be a measure of trust in people, society becomes involved in a very dangerous position. Individual responsibility is undermined by suggestions that everybody is on the make in a way that I do not believe they are. If such unnecessary suggestions are accepted, they further damage democracy.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating the debate. On these Benches we fully support the need for an independent inquiry into the funding of political parties.
Democracy depends crucially on the vitality and real and perceived integrity of political parties. The principle of transparency in the financial affairs of politicians and political parties should not be controversial in a mature democracy, and it is a great shame that it is necessary to have this debate today.
The Government argue that politics is a private affair; that donating to a political party is a personal matter; that disclosure of corporate or individual donations is not necessary. Politics can never be a private affair. Political parties are vehicles for political and social action and are for people who wish to effect change. A representative democracy cannot function well without political parties and political parties cannot survive well without money.
The aim of any independent inquiry would not be to prevent political parties raising money; it would be to ensure that it is raised in an open and democratic way. The Labour Party has made it clear that the Nolan Inquiry should have had the opportunity to look at how political parties raise their funds and there should not have been left the hole that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. But we should not be surprised that that was resisted by the Government, considering that the Prime Minister, in response to a Question for Written Answer on 31st October on whether the Nolan Committee should look at political funding, gave a categorical "No", referring rather to the investigation by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
What was important and what worries me about the findings of the Select Committee is that the committee had to accept that there was a lack of openness and that
1364
that lack of openness feeds suspicion; that the current legal position is both unsatisfactory and unfair; that the electorate is entitled to expect accountability by political parties for their sources of funding; and that all parties should have an adequate level of funding consistent with their level of popular support.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, it would appear that it did not identify areas of cross-party agreement and rejected a number of key and fundamental factors which would have satisfied those anxieties. The committee's terms of reference included the question of state funding. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Houghton will elaborate on the detail of the 1976 Houghton Report, which is still the definitive work on state funding.
I shall confine my remarks to indicating that the Labour Party believes that there should be an extension of state funding, particularly in the area of political education. That might assist with some of the problems that the public currently experiences in understanding politics and politicians. It would not in any way detract from the voluntary principles mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which are absolutely crucial.
The principle of state provision was introduced by the decision to draw up electoral registers, to fund political party broadcasts, to build into election law the production and distribution of polling cards, free post and the free use of public halls.
There is also financial assistance to Opposition parties in order to help them pursue their parliamentary functions; and the state provides an estimated £1.2 million to political advisers of Ministers. The question has been asked as to how far we wish to push that principle. An independent inquiry would help to solve that problem. There are questions that need to be asked and answered, which is why an independent inquiry is so important.
In 1989 your Lordships' House passed an amendment to equate the position of company donations with that of trade unions. That was unfortunately rejected in the other place. The Select Committee also saw no reason to change the rules. I should like to compare that situation with the accusations that are levelled at trade union support of the Labour Party. Those accusations have not been made, I hasten to add, by any noble Lord who has spoken today.
Pejorative and misleading statements have been made and they are used as a political ploy. The reality of the situation is that the affiliated trade unions are an integral part of the federal nature of the Labour Party. The monies that are received are subject to the established rules and are disclosed by the unions in their accounts and by the Labour Party. The often deliberate attempt to mislead ignores the fact that every delegate to conference—I am referring to 70 per cent. of the trade unions—must be an individual member of the Labour Party. Under the new rules every delegate will vote individually.
The open and above-board relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions contrasts sharply with the obscurity of Conservative Party finances and the very limited regulations of company donations as compared with those applying to trade unions.
The political involvement of trade unions is more highly regulated than any other institution and is strictly supervised by the certification officer. The unions are

1365
required to hold a ballot to create a political fund, which is reviewed every 10 years, and members can opt out of that fund. They are required to have separate accounting. Union donations derive from decisions made by their members.
Company donations are subject to no such restrictions and, therefore, that is something that should be looked at. The only requirement under the Companies Act 1985 is that donations are post facto reported in the directors' report if they are over £200. There is no political fund; there is no reference to shareholders; there is no ballot; they do not have an opt-out facility and the donations are not recorded in Tory Party accounts.
Lord Chelmer: My Lords, I should have made a speech but I am not well. Directors refer the donation to the shareholders and that appears on the agenda of the meeting. I gave evidence to the committee to which the noble Baroness referred as producing the standard work on this subject. With two exceptions that Committee consisted either of Labour Party members or trade union members.
I was a treasurer of the Conservative Party for 17 years. During that time no one person gave me any money in connection with some benefit that he or she might receive. One man—and it is greatly to his dishonour—entered into a deed to give me £1 million under certain circumstances, which I was not able to fulfil. When he died, on his gravestone he was still "Mr".
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. It is correct to say that directors report to their shareholders, but that is after the event and not before it; therefore they are not taking the decision. It was a matter of humour in the newspapers recently that the Labour Party turned down a proposed donation of £5 million because there were strings attached to it, and the Labour Party is not prepared in any way to allow strings to be attached to a donation in the way that has been mentioned.
There is no political fund and no reference to shareholders, no ballot and no opt-out facility.
Even this minimal requirement is rendered ineffectual by the provision that company accounts can take up to two years before they are lodged at Companies House. If shareholders were to challenge the decision of the directors, they would no doubt be defeated by the block proxy votes of the institutions.
Occasionally, however, voices can be heard. A donation by Thames Water of £5,000 to the Conservative Party before the last general election caused a major outcry and a considerable negative response from customers and shareholders alike. That raises the issue of whether or not there should be a period of time between privatisation and the ability to make donations.
A survey in the Sunday Telegraph of 7th May indicates that the boards of many of Britain's top companies are providing cash to alleviate the Conservative Party's overdraft, ignoring calls from active investors that donations be subject to shareholder approval. In the past five years that money has amounted to £10.85 million, with virtually all of it going to the Conservative Party or organisations that channel funds to it.
1366
However, there are indications of change. The Local Authority Pension Funds Forum, which covers 15 schemes, is stepping up pressure to make donations by boards subject to a shareholders vote. Local council funds are now drawing up a hit list of companies that make big donations but refuse to allow them to be put to the vote. The latest move comes from the GMB union which has launched a campaign to challenge that abuse of democracy.
Although I suspect that I know the reason, I should like to ask why the Government cannot accept that trade unions and companies should operate to democratic parallel positions. Why should there not be ballots of shareholders? Why should companies not have to establish a political fund?
The Labour Party has made it absolutely clear that all donations over £5,000 will be disclosed and that political parties should refuse any donations from individuals who are neither British residents nor British nationals. We shall take unilateral or bilateral action to achieve that aim.
The Conservative Party takes a different view, as did the Select Committee, which did not believe that a case had been made out for requiring disclosure of the identity of donors or see any reason for refusing foreign donations.
Labour Research, a trade union research organisation, in an analysis of Conservative Party funding, found that the fall in corporate donations to the Tory Party means that an ever increasing proportion of the party's funds come from undisclosed sources. The £2.5 million traced as donations represents only 27 per cent. of those shown in Conservative Central Office accounts.
Where do those mysterious donations come from? Some of them will be from foreign countries. Some have been identified as coming from individual supporters of the party. However, there must be many more that remain anonymous. Those donations certainly do not come from cheese and wine mornings.
It is interesting to note that the figure of £7 million that the Labour Party received from trade unions is exactly the amount which foreign bankers are reported to have donated to the Conservative Party before the last general election.
Another matter of particular interest are those areas raised by witnesses to the Home Affairs Committee, but which were not followed through in either the conclusions or the recommendations. They include, for example, the question of offshore accounts, donations from privatised utilities, the role of Ministers as fundraisers while on ministerial visits abroad, or the use of Downing Street for fundraising events. If the allegations raised are correct, surely there should be rules governing such ministerial conduct. If they are not, then we really ought to have an independent inquiry to prove that that is the case.
It is also surprising that the Select Committee failed to address the question of a national, maximum expenditure for elections—first, because it is the time of increased activity in fundraising and expenditure by the political parties; and, secondly, because it has been the subject of a considerable number of studies.
In 1991, following a consultation initiated by the then Home Secretary, of which I was part, the Home Office said that all parties, with the exception of the

1367
Conservative Party, agreed that consideration should be given to a system of controls on national expenditure. The arguments against are that it would be difficult to monitor and difficult to control; it would also be unavoidable to give political parties statutory existence which they at present lack. However, I would ask: what have the Government to fear from the registration of political parties? Is it that it would be easier to introduce financial controls and procedures for disclosure of both income and expenditure?
Finally, all those issues remain outstanding, are a source of concern and need to be addressed; and addressed by an independent inquiry unfettered by ideological interests. The lack of transparency and unequal distribution of party funding undermines the democratic process and it reduces the confidence and trust of the electorate in the political system. Is it not in the best interests of all political parties, and perhaps especially those of the Government and the Conservative Party, to support an independent inquiry and some further form or measure of state funding?
3.52 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the Motion before your Lordships' House is quite explicit: it calls for an independent inquiry, neither more nor less. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to rehearse the convictions held by some of us that a strong case has already been made out for such funding; nor, for that matter, to endorse the strictures, elegant and balanced though they were, of my noble friend about the present position. The only need—and I thought that it was put very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in her closing remarks—is to recognise that there are issues to be discussed and examined. I should have thought that enough has been said already in today's debate, and certainly more will be said before it is closed, to justify the argument that something should be done. My noble friend said that there is plenty to inquire into. Moreover, whether it was said in the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or in that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, or, indeed, whether it will be said in the following speeches, the issue is there. It will not go away. Therefore, why not examine it now?
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, started her speech with a very spirited and partisan attack on my noble friend, which she was entirely free to do. At the end of her remarks, she returned to a rather partisan defence of the status quo. However, in between those two stages, the noble Baroness referred to a consensus and used the word "denigration". I have to say that I do not believe that there is a consensus, unless, of course, the noble Baroness would like to explain herself further.
I believe that the noble Baroness was arguing that the problem with which those in public life are faced today is entirely external to performance. In other words, it is something thought up by the press: it is a deep worm in the wood of society which makes people sceptical about all institutions. Of course, we recognise that social change means that institutions must be examined. If Parliament cannot accept that fact then who can? In my view—and this is where I certainly depart from the noble Baroness, Lady Young—we have brought that, at least in part, upon
1368
ourselves. Therefore, to pretend that no problem exists is simply a form of self-deceit. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am much obliged. I entirely agree with the noble Lord's interpretation of much of what I said. However, the serious point that I was making is that, so far as concerns the public perception of Parliament, what actually goes on—the real work of Parliament, the hard slog on legislation in Committee, and so on—never gets reported and is not heard of. Therefore, the picture which people have of parliamentary life is neither a complete nor a full one.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not wish to argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Young; indeed, I can certainly meet her halfway in that respect. I believe that there are matters about which we should complain. However, if they are beyond our control, then surely we should at least look at those matters with which we are able to deal. That is the context within which we should discuss the Motion before the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that an "unfettered" independent committee would surely be able to look into such matters. I suggest that only those who are afraid of what such an inquiry might discover and recommend can be worried about the appointment of such a committee. We heard my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead refer to the view of the Select Committee in another place. I would strongly support the idea of a committee made up of men and women who have not previously expressed a view on the matter; and, indeed, men and women who are not Members, nor have been, of either House of Parliament. It would still be for Parliament itself—that is, the House of Commons and the House of Lords—to decide, but the inquiry would be independent, unfettered and free from any ideological influences.
We are not discussing a radical new departure; we are discussing a further step in what is an incremental process designed to enable political parties within a parliamentary democracy to function more effectively. That is the main point that I should like to make to your Lordships today. In 1937, for the first time we had payment for the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. In 1975—and I shall return to that later—we had the payment of what is now called the "Short money" which amounts to some £2 million in the current year. In that same year, additional allowances for Members of Parliament were introduced which led to what is now called the "Members' office costs allowance" and by which MPs in the current year receive something over £42,000. Then, 20 years ago, we had the referendum on Britain's membership of the Common Market when the sum of £ 125,000 was paid to either side in that debate. Moreover, as has already been mentioned in our discussions this afternoon, at general election time there are free postal deliveries on behalf of the political parties and of candidates and free television time.
Therefore, it is a fiction to say that what we are suggesting such a committee might look into is something entirely new rather than an extension of a principle which has previously been accepted. The fact is that for political parties, as indeed for individual Members—and, more obviously, Members of another place—parliamentary

1369
work and wider political activity are seamless. A research assistant paid out of public funds prepares speeches for an MP to deliver in Parliament and speeches to be delivered outside in the political campaigning. A secretary paid out of public funds sends letters on behalf of a Member of Parliament to his constituency party, to Smith Square, Walworth Road or Cowley Street.
As we all know—and there is no reason to be embarrassed about it—telephones in the Palace of Westminster are used by MPs and their staff, and no doubt by Members of your Lordships' House, to make calls which are essentially of a political rather than a parliamentary character. All that is inescapable. There is no way of avoiding it and there is no point in pretending that it does not happen. Similarly—I refer to the Short money—financial aid to the political parties that is designed to help them in their parliamentary activities seeps out into the wider political arena. It may be used directly to employ more staff in parliamentary work, working for the leaders of opposition parties, but there is no way of segregating strictly parliamentary business from political activities outside. To put it at its least, state funding for opposition parties in Parliament recognises that if those funds are available other funds can be released for activity elsewhere.
Reference has been made to the Select Committee. However, I must say that my own text—because I think it is a most serious text—is that of the Houghton Report published in 1976. I am sure that the whole House is anxious to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has to say through the perspective of time. There was another report—again that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—of the Hansard Society in 1981. But a great deal has happened, certainly since the Houghton Report, although it is fair to ask whether there is anything new to be said or discovered. The very passage of time, taking the Houghton Report as the text, suggests that there are new facts to be discovered and new arguments to be rehearsed.
I shall give your Lordships one example. The key question of the report—I hesitate to interpret the Houghton Report in advance of the remarks of the noble Lord, but this is from the text of the report itself—on state aid was as follows:
"assuming that the parties needed money, would you be prepared for some of it to be provided by the state from public funds"?
That was a question asked in a survey conducted on behalf of the Houghton Committee. The result was an almost equal division of opinion. Some 45 per cent. said "Yes" and 44 per cent. said "No". Given the question that was asked, 45 per cent. seems to me to be a high figure of people saying "Yes". That question included the words,
"assuming that the parties needed money".
There was no reference to the public interest or to our parliamentary democracy. There was no reference to the problems which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. What if the question were different? What if the question were,
"If it would reduce the financial dependence of political parties on business and the trade unions, thus helping to raise standards in public life, would you be prepared to see an increase in the funding currently available to political parties"?
1370
If that were the question, I think we would see a much more positive response, not only to the original question of 20 years ago but also a more positive response than the present question would have elicited that long ago. I make that point because I believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this would be acceptable to public opinion. What I am seeking to put before your Lordships is: given the issue we are facing surely there is at least a very good chance that the public might be persuaded that this was one way of safeguarding our democracy and was a worthwhile route to follow, given that it would only be an incremental stage in the funding of our parliamentary democracy.
I do not believe that we should expect or should contrive to bring about an absolute equality of resources available to parties. My own view is that they should bear a relationship to the ability of the parties themselves to win members and attract electoral support. It is also the case—which all of us know—that there is a diminishing return from expenditure over a certain limit. Therefore an absolute equality is not, I think, what we should be looking for. What we should be saying is that the funding of political parties prima facie, and subject to the work of the independent inquiry, would free political parties from an unhealthy dependence on corporate donors and a handful of rich people with, as a result, the public interest substantially safeguarded.
I was looking the other day at the defence estimates. We spend £21,720 million on defending Britain and our democracy from those who might endanger it. We spend a large sum trying to restore peace and perhaps a democratic way of life in Bosnia. Surely it would be a small price indeed to spend £10 million more of public money to continue strengthening the processes of our own parliamentary democracy.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accompany the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing this subject. I think, frankly, it is a pity that he decided to do so, not least from the point of view of the very sensitive issue of our relations with another place. Another place is much more concerned with this matter than we are. After all, election expenses are directly in this category and they are, of course, of direct and continuing concern to every Member of another place. This is therefore a subject which it is natural that another place should be concerned about.
Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, told us, another place has already had a committee of inquiry into this issue and has had a perfectly clear and comprehensive report. Therefore I find it difficult to see that there is any argument why we should go further and set up yet another independent committee to inquire into this matter. I start, I must admit, with some bias against the setting up of more and more committees of inquiry. They are of course enormously expensive. When one sees the actual figures of their cost, one is generally quite horrified. Therefore I would suggest to your Lordships that unless there is an overwhelming case on merit for setting up a committee of inquiry on a subject, we should not do so. Is there such

1371
an overwhelming case here? What useful purpose in fact would be served by so doing other than meeting some of the political prejudices of certain noble Lords opposite?
I hope that we shall decide that we do not want to set up such an inquiry and that we regard it as unnecessary. What is it in fact to do? Is it intended that it should recommend public expenditure in support of election expenditure? I do not know whether it would do that. I profoundly hope it would not. I think it is essential that the funds of political parties should in general be raised by public subscription, by people who believe in the views that that party is expressing and who therefore desire to subscribe to it. Surely that is the wholesome democratic basis for the financing of political parties in our democracy. That approach is entirely inconsistent with the approach of one or two noble Lords opposite who seem to think that this is the sort of matter that should be raked over by a public committee of inquiry, which will of course take a year or two, will spend a lot of public money and at the end of the day is very unlikely to produce anything of real public value. I therefore hope that your Lordships will not be convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, although of course I am the first to admit—
Noble Lords: Lord Jenkins of Hillhead!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, because of course mention of Hillhead may be rather a sensitive matter for him. I certainly beg his pardon. It is indeed Hillhead, with all that did involve for him. I am therefore all the happier that we should reject his proposal quite firmly.
It think these contributions should be essentially voluntary and that those of us who want to should subscribe to the support of the political party of our choice, give it the full financial support which we can afford and see to it that it succeeds as a result of that and, perhaps still more, as a result of the work that we put in. Therefore the idea of a formal inquiry, with all the public expense, all the trouble and all the fuss which is involved, seems to me to be one which we should reject. Is it likely in fact that such an inquiry would get at any real facts which are not normally available anyhow to any of us with any public or political experience? What is it intended to discover? What is it intended to do which would be of any real practical help to the working of our democracy?
If there is a doubt about that—and I suggest to your Lordships that there is at least a doubt about it—then surely to goodness in this day and age, when so many committees of inquiry have been sitting and spending public money in a very substantial way in the course of their work, it really would be the greatest mistake for us to take this step and to suggest to the Government that they should appoint a committee of inquiry.
These political contributions are essentially voluntary. They are given because the individual concerned wants to see the party to whom he is subscribing effective and victorious, because he or she believes that it is in the national interest that that party should gain strength and should obtain a majority. That is the whole basis on which our democracy works; and to go setting up further inquiries of this sort where there is no real subject matter of essential public importance to investigate seems to me
1372
not only a waste of time but also a waste of money. Therefore, it seems to me that we in this House should not, particularly in view of what I have already said about our relations with another place, spend a great deal of time discussing or considering this proposal, but we should say politely to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, "No, thank you".
4.13 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I will begin with two propositions. One is that far too high a proportion of the funding of political parties in Britain today is tarnished money coming from sources which are serving a self interest, sectional or collective, of one kind or another. I will also assert that the undue dependence of the two major political parties in Britain upon the traditional sources of support for funds has done them both a great deal of harm in the estimation of the public about the purity of their intentions and the disinterested approach to political affairs that is desirable.
There is not the slightest doubt about it—I speak from personal knowledge of 30 years—that the Labour Party has suffered from being tied too closely to the trade unions and being dependent upon the political levy for 80 per cent. of its funds. I believe Labour would have come to office years ago had it been freer of dependence on the trade unions. I am glad of the references that have been made to the report of a committee of which I was chairman. I should have liked to hear more about the committees, both of them in their way an important addition to this inquiry made in 1975–76. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, is in his place. Surely he was chairman of a committee that went into this matter at great length on behalf of voluntary organisations.
Why am I so far in advance of my time? Here it all is. Why are we worried about a further inquiry? All the spadework has been done and the basic facts and philosophy of the matter under discussion were fully examined in this report. What do you think is in this?— 18 months of very hard work and study, interviews with people, travel abroad, looking at the effect of the funding of political parties in other countries. I can tell your Lordships a few things about the evidence we heard on this committee. Some of it was from representatives of the Conservative agents in the Conservative movement. They were tired of the amount of time they had to spend in money raising. That was the note they struck when they came to see us, and they were very much in favour of some degree of public funds going into the working of our parliamentary and democratic system.
However, we are not proposing to fund politics; we are not proposing to fund political parties for their party political purpose. We are funding the system to enable the democratic process to function properly and to give those engaged in active work the opportunity, free from some of the worries of their present activities, to look at national and political issues from a more detached point of view.
This report had one simple aim—a modest aim indeed: to reduce the dependence of the two major political parties upon their traditional sources of money. That is what it started with, and it finished with that. There was, however, special aid for parliamentary candidates, for those of any political party or of none, standing for

1373
Parliament so that they should get reimbursement of some part of their expenses if their poll was a respectable one and they saved their deposit.
When we first published our report in August 1976, the Labour Party was a bit afraid of that suggestion because it feared that the candidates of the British Union might arrive at Westminster having been funded in part by state money. When we went to Sweden as a committee to look at what was happening there, we found an extraordinary phenomenon: that 19 members of the Communist Party were members of the Swedish Riksdag. We asked, "What are you doing in this galley?" They said, "We are here because we are working the system; we are prepared to work the system and we are going to use what facilities are offered for us to come into parliament". That was how they saw it there, but apparently we were still afraid of British Union candidates in this country.
What does it matter? If they go to the electorate, they will do the sorting out, and if the candidates get a certain minimum measure of public support at the ballot box, then I think we are entitled to reimburse them for part of the expenditure in order that politics shall not be a rich man's playground. However, the report made little impression, as is the case with many reports. I have been chairman of other committees and a member of other committees which have helped to frame reports. Usually those committees are appointed at a time of rising public interest; but by the time the committee reports, that interest has passed. Something else has caught the public ear or interest and the report is neglected.
All that is now required is to consider what the authoritative reports which have already been produced look like in the context of the current situation. Is what we proposed relevant today? Is it desirable to study the matter further having regard to the fact that 20 years have passed since that report and that there is no reason why that experience should not guide us for the future? That is the proposition that I put forward on the Motion today. Noble Lords will be surprised how relevant much of the report is today. That is my message to your Lordships' House. All noble Lords have to do is read the report. If they cannot be bothered to read the evidence, just look at the summary of recommendations. I think that our decisions and recommendations are wise.
I conclude on this note. We travelled throughout Europe and Scandinavia, and sent representatives to Canada and the United States, to see what other people were doing about state aid to political parties. They were all providing it. I submit that, irrefutably, ours is the only country still relying on what we call the voluntary effort. I may be wrong. However, some curious forms of corruption were replaced by state aid in some of the countries we visited. We found in Austria, for instance, that it had long been the tradition that the ruling party in Parliament should have a rake off on all government contracts. That was the way political parties were helped. In Germany, gifts to political parties were tax free. That was the way the parties were helped in Germany. However, all the countries came round to the view that it was better to have the injection of a reasonable amount of public funds in order to enable the party political and parliamentary process to be continued free of any
1374
suggestion of corruption by money. That is the proposition that I leave with noble Lords. I have left a few minutes for other people to take it up.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in view of the sternness of the instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to read his report, I hasten to say that I have read it. The reason for that will become apparent in a moment. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord and to hear in this House the clear, principled voice of youthful radicalism coming from him which we all so much appreciate.
I was struck by the robust debating speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She made an extremely important point on the disrepute into which public organisations and institutions have fallen. It is a matter to which my noble friend Lord Rodgers, referred. However, I put this point to her. Is not one of the reasons that public institutions have fallen into disrepute in this country that we find it peculiarly difficult to find a position of public interest as opposed to partisan interest on which to advance some of those great issues? Although the issue has partisan implications for each party, it should be accepted that in the end it is a matter of the public interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, reminded us. It is a sensitive issue throughout the world, not particularly in Britain. Democratic parliaments are elected everywhere. Wherever there are democratic institutions, sensitive issues arise as to whether people seek to use money to acquire special influence or special access to those democratic institutions. We should not be defensive about that; we should recognise that it is a proper sensitivity. As parliamentarians, we are bound to take the issue seriously.
The reason that I read the Houghton Report—although not alone, I suspect that I am among a select number to have done so—is that I was a member of the Hansard Society to which several noble Lords have referred. That body looked into the matter in 1981. I note with interest the vigour with which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, considered that inquiries of this kind were a waste of time. I recall the outstandingly valuable contribution that his daughter, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, made to that commission, and how much pleasure we had in her contribution to the unanimous report that we were able to achieve on that occasion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I believe that he has misunderstood me. It was simply because that report was so full and excellent that I regarded it as a waste of time to have another.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord said that because I shall remind the House of a few conclusions of that report and ask why nothing has been done.
One of the best ways of approaching these tricky matters is to consider what principles are involved. One of the conclusions of the Hansard Society report, and its successor report—it was a joint report between the Constitutional Reform Centre and the Hansard Society—

1375
was that large companies should seek the positive approval of their shareholders on a basis comparable with that which now exists for donations for trade unions.
It is interesting to note in parenthesis that most large companies are now giving up political donations. The arrangement is becoming less common; the trend is not to do so. Large international companies with headquarters in Britain increasingly do no make political donations. The reason sometimes appears in their statement of corporate ethics. Sometimes they do not do so because they do not wish to establish a precedent by donations in this country whereby every politician in every country in which the companies operate will solicit for funds. That is one of the reasons why multinationals on the whole do not make political donations.
Perhaps I may refer to the scheme that I should like to adopt, and outline the general principles. First, I shall refer to what an economist might call the supply side, then the demand side, and the process. By supply side I mean income donations. Let us consider what is involved in the supply side of the equation and what principles might be desirable. Perhaps some of those issues will find agreement across the House.
The first principle reiterates what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said. It would be in the interest of our parliamentary democracy at least to reduce institutional dependence. The second principle—I believe that it will find agreement—is that on the whole British people and British institutions should pay for British politics rather than foreign people and foreign institutions. The third principle is that democracy is healthier if there are many small donations rather than a few large donations. There are ways of securing that. In Canada, for instance, matching tax relief is given to gear up the donation of the small donor. Incidentally, if we go down the route of state funding—I have great reservations about that; I shall say a word on it in a moment—matching tax relief to small donors is surely an intelligent way to achieve that. It accelerates something that is desirable: participation in the process.
I believe that the massive subventions, for instance, in the Federal Republic of Germany have done great damage to its political system where virtually the whole of the political class is sucking off the teat of the state. If there were to be some state funding "in the mix", it would be far better for that to be achieved through the tax system. It would be an expansion of the principle of Short money: that money is applied, and meant to be applied, for parliamentary purposes.
Those are a few thoughts on the supply side. Let me now move to the demand side. What is the money needed for? We must not assume that the political parties necessarily should have vast sums of money. Why should they? What will they do with it? It is a striking paradox that we limit expenditure for constituencies, for good reasons. Those were introduced in Victorian times to stop the basic corruption and sleaze of people buying beer for everyone in the constituencies. Therefore we have constituency expenditure limits but no national expenditure limits. There is a very interesting book written about the Conservative campaign, I believe two elections ago, by a Mr. Tyler discussing the decision whether at the last moment to spend vast sums of money
1376
on advertising. The conclusion was that the money was spent but did no good at all. One of the questions that parties ought to ask themselves is whether they really need to spend tens of millions of pounds on general elections. That is what the money is raised for.
In this country we have one great boon and blessing compared to the United States, where every political office has a price tag on it and all those who stand for office know that they have to raise massive sums of money and are indebted for the whole of the time that they serve as a senator or congressman. The boon that we have is the inability of people to buy television and radio time. That boon is inestimable. It is one of the great merits of the British system. I have one question for the noble Viscount who will reply, one which I believe will interest him. It is whether in the new liberal and deregulated era of television, and extra-terrestrial television of one sort and another, he sees it possible to hold the line on the very important principle that people cannot buy radio and television time to fight elections.
To return to the nub of my thinking, we should have limits on national election campaign expenditure. There is no logical reason not to have it. People will object in this way. They will say, "What about the period running up to the election? In our system, where the Prime Minister can choose the date of the election and nobody else knows what it is, would not the governing party spend money in the period before the campaign, and therefore how could you limit it?". It would be perfectly easy to deal with that difficulty. It could be stated that expenditure during the campaign, and for three months or six months before, would be caught by whatever the limit was.
Finally, I said that I would talk for a moment about the process rather than the supply and demand equation. The key issue on process, one that the Hansard Society recommended and which I believe is unanswerable on democratic grounds, is that parties should declare the source and uses of their funds. It is an extraordinary anomaly that a party can organise itself to become the Government of this country, and is yet not subject to the basic reporting requirements to which every club, association and company is subject. I do not think that the voters, the people of this country, understand why it is that political parties are somehow special and should not have to present accounts which declare in full where they received their money and how they spent it.
I suppose that a case could be made that there are shy, shrinking violets who do not want their goodness revealed to the public. Then in that case, let us say that the report would relate to donations over £5,000. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is right and people are giving because they believe—not because they hope for influence or access but because they believe in the cause of the party—then why on earth should they be ashamed of having their names revealed in the accounts? What is there to be ashamed of? Why should the issue of secrecy be allowed to outweigh the public interest; namely, for people to see in an open way where the money comes from, and what it is spent on?
Having tried, at great strain, to be relatively non-partisan—because I believe the issue of public interest to be important—I would mention one aspect that causes particular problems. As I understand it, one of the

1377
difficulties for the Conservative Party is that it is not in the fullest sense an identifiable organisation. There is the national union, there are Conservative MPs and there is the Leader. But the party itself is slightly difficult to get hold of. Is there a party? And if we were to say that accounts should be produced every year, what would be the party that produced them? I find myself thinking about this issue in the context of the most regrettable overdraft which I understand company opposite hold with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I understand that the sum is not unadjacent to £16 million. It is an extraordinary thing that a government committed to fiscal prudence should allow themselves to get into debt to the tune of £16 million. They must have an exceptionally friendly bank manager. The first thing that any bank manager I have ever come across says is, "I'd like to see your article of memorandum, your constitution and who the accountable officers are"; and that is quite apart from trivial matters such as security. So we must assume that the Government are very blessed in their banking relationships to be able to have such a massive overdraft.
In summary, three points are important if we want to keep our eye on the ball of public interest. First, there must be more small supporters of our political system, more individuals of modest means, fewer companies and fewer millionaires. Secondly, it is in the public interest that we reduce the limits on expenditure at elections. Thirdly, it is incontestable, particularly in the present atmosphere of reduced confidence, that we should open the system up to the light of day and to fresh air.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a great deal that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I shall have to read Hansard to make sure that I got it right. That agreement does not, however, extend to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I agreed only with his first sentence; namely, that there was a declining respect in the public at large in our political institutions, and particularly our Parliament. The trouble is that I could find no relation between that statement and any concentration on the subject of the financing of political parties.
On the contrary, I should think that one would have to look at other matters, unsusceptible to committees of inquiry, however powerful, such as the observed decline in the calibre of many Members of another place. Those who remember the Parliaments of the inter-war years know that they made many errors. But one has only to occupy one's seat in the Peer's Gallery in another place to see that they were a great deal better than much that is on offer now. Many reasons could be adduced for that. But the one that has not been referred to, although it is relevant in broad terms to the subject of our debate, is the growing influence and importance of political parties themselves—and in particular of their central organisations.
The Parliament that we knew, which grew out of changes in the 19th century, was a locally based Parliament. Members of Parliament either had their own financial resources or—and many great statesmen owe their origins to this—were in receipt of private patronage.
1378
It was possible to make one's way without the assent of whatever then corresponded to Smith Square, Walworth Road or Cowley Street.
On the contrary, it seems to me now that we have come to a pass in which political careers are largely dictated and determined by service to central political parties. There is a sort of apprenticeship, a ladder towards office and leadership, which is political in the narrowest sense. That would seem to me to be the case whether or not the political parties are supported financially in one way or another. My own hope would be that if there were to be changes—this is where I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme—they would be concentrated on assisting in the constituencies and on assisting individual Members of Parliament or those who wished to become Members of Parliament; that any change would not go to fill the coffers of the central organisations. Once they have power, the officials, executives, or whatever name they may go by in different parties—our three parties are so different in character and composition that it is very hard to talk about them in a single context—begin to feel the need to exert their authority.
We have at the moment a prime example of this in the Labour Party. It may or may not be a good idea that there should be more women in another place. But the idea that that should be achieved by forcing constituencies to nominate only women for winnable seats is a departure from democratic principle of any kind which would have horrified politicians a generation ago.
It must be enormously galling for someone who has fought his way up through active politics, let us say in a trade union or a local council—a genuine horny handed son of toil, which is what the Labour Party was meant to be about—to be replaced by one of the perfumed denizens of the salons of Islington. It is that kind of thing which makes me feel that we should be discussing not how we should get more money to political parties but how they should be deprived of it.
As for the way in which political parties raise their funds, in this case I do not share the strictures against the Labour Party. It is perfectly natural and sensible that the Labour Party should receive the bulk of its finance from trade unions. After all, it came into existence as the political arm of the trade union movement. It has no other rationale. It is impossible, and ought to be impossible, to distinguish between the trade union movement and the Labour Party, in the way that it is almost impossible to distinguish between Sinn Fein and the IRA. There are examples of organisations in which the overlap is fundamental. Therefore, I was very surprised to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who appeared to believe that what was an asset to the Labour Party was in fact a handicap.
Turning to the Conservative Party, there appears still to be a measure of surprise that men of business consider that it is a good idea from time to time to give some money to the Conservative Party. Surely, that is a natural form of insurance. No businessman who had at heart the interests of his own pocket or his shareholders could possibly do anything but blench at the thought, let us say, of Mr. Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, a small contribution, anonymous or public, to

1379
the Conservative Party is no different from any other form of insurance that a businessman might take out for any of the risks which the world of business normally entails.
To me, it is a perfectly understandable reaction. It used to be the case that other interests were represented. In Disraeli's time it was the landed interest. That has now shrunk, for all the efforts of Brussels to put more money into it. Parties are parties of interest. If they were not parties of interest, they would fade and die.
The problem for the party led in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is that it is not a party of interest. It is a party of individuals. Obviously, therefore, to raise finance or to get people to stand for office it depends upon exciting a degree of ideological sympathy. It is perhaps understandable that, with the wise exception of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the idea of a certain amount of state money should be appealing to a party of that kind. I keep remembering that, like the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I was born under a Liberal Prime Minister. I want to see the Liberal Party, the party of my youth, retained for what may remain to me of this life.
So I am in favour of the parties going on. I see no great reason for asking that anything should be changed. The only thing in favour of having a committee of the great and the good, which would look at finance, is that, like all committees, there would no doubt be leaks from it. One can image the kind of leaks that would occur: the committee—it is said—has discovered that there is a body called the Transport and General Workers' Union, which appears to pay a great deal of money to the Labour Party; and so forth. The leaks would keep the press going and the committee could sail on its way, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, spending a great deal of our money but doing no great harm. There is something to be said for tying up those people who like to sit on committees and look into things to which, in the end, they can make no difference.
I do not know what, if any, Papers will be moved for at the end of this debate. I am in favour of letting the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, have them.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He introduced a new note in mentioning interests as basic to funds for the Conservative Party. Before he spoke we had a different picture of the average donor to the Conservative Party from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We were introduced to the Conservative supporter who is a humble individual; one who wishes to see the party that he prefers flourish and succeed; and who does not want other people to know that he supports it. There must be many people like that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to give way. I should like to make an important point. Seventy per cent. of the money that comes to the Conservative Party comes through the constituencies and, I can assure him from many years of personal experience, from a lot of people of relatively small means.
Lord Mayhew: That may be true between elections, but not at a general election at all. We should not argue about this. We entirely agree about the individual contributions of a man who supports the Conservative Party but does not want anybody to know. He has a right to privacy. There are probably increasing numbers of people like that at the present time. However, if the size of the donation increases sufficiently, there comes a time when the donor's right to privacy comes into conflict with the elector's right to know.
I do not know where that precise point comes. My noble friend mentioned the sum of £5,000. In my view, in a healthy democracy, any donation of a five-figure kind, either to a political party or to the private office, party leaders, an MP or a Peer, is a matter which should be in the public domain.
What is more, there is another picture, which has not been mentioned, of the donors to the Conservative Party. We might contrast the picture given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with the description which I read a few days ago in the Sunday Times, written by a former editor:
"We now know, thanks to the investigative reporting of this newspaper, that the governing party has been at various times secretly bankrolled by a nefarious collection of foreigners, from dodgy Greek shipping millionaires, to shady Arab middlemen, to dubious Hong Kong tycoons, to fugitive Cypriot business men".
Those people are donors to the Conservative Party and we know about them not because the Conservative Party told us, but simply because their rather energetic efforts of secrecy have broken down. For example, we know that Mr. Asil Nadir paid £440,000 to the Conservative Party, not because it appears in the party's accounts, but because the tell-tale cheque stubs were found by the Fraud Squad during its investigations. Is that the kind of secrecy which noble Lords opposite support? It seems impossible to me.
I venture to ask something of the noble Viscount. We know that he will not tell us the names of donors; we know that he will not tell us how much the donations are; but perhaps he will tell us what proportion of major donors to the Conservative Party are wanted by the police. That would help. It may take him a little time to work out but we should look into that. It is not a matter of indifference. Whether or not Mr. Asil Nadir contributes huge sums to the Conservative Party is not a matter for secrecy. The electors are entitled to know. Indeed, in relation to Hong Kong businessmen, important tycoons such as Mr. Li Kashing and Mr. See Sin Tong are major donors to the Conservative Party.
The Conservative Party says that that is no affair of the British electorate; that it is no affair of the Hong Kong electorate or the Hong Kong Government. It does not matter that those people are critics of the government and members of the shadow government for Hong Kong which the Chinese Government prepared. That is also part of the problem to which noble Lords opposite have not addressed their minds. But it is a matter of grave importance. The Government are incapable of taking decisions without affecting vast companies and huge interests of that kind in one way or the other. As the Conservative Party keeps the whole question of donations secret it is not possible to judge whether a government decision is taken strictly on its merits or because of warm feelings towards a major donor. The donations are secret

1381
and in my view that situation is quite improper and must be reformed. We know that some donors to the Conservative Party have gone sadly unrewarded. For example, the poor Al Fayed brothers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Poor?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, they were not even asking for a peerage or a knighthood; they were only asking for British citizenship. One would have thought that they had earned it. But no, presumably the Conservative high-ups thought the donations were not high enough or well enough concealed, so they go without. To achieve results donations to the Conservative Party should be not only large, but also discreetly advanced.
I have a question in relation to the Labour Party. Labour Party members will agree that if substantial donations to a political party should be made public, so also—even more—should substantial donations to the political work of individual political leaders. That goes without saying. Noble Lords may remember that many years ago eyebrows were raised when it was revealed that the private office of the late Lord Wilson was being bankrolled by a secret trust. I know that Mr. Blair, Mr. Brown and Mr. Cook are fully aware of the need for complete openness about the Industrial Research Trust in which they registered an interest. In my view they would be wise to let the public know the names of the trustees and major donors, and also of another institution called Common Campaign Limited.
However, it is the secrecy surrounding donations to the Conservative Party which is rightly the main focus of public concern. Secrecy is the mother of sleaze, which is the mother of corruption. That has been the experience of Italy, France and many other countries. While the Conservatives stick to their doctrine of secrecy at all costs, that experience may spread to this country as well.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, reference has been made today to the fact that parliamentarians, political parties and politicians generally are in disrepute. One of the reasons for that, in addition to those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is that our political system is so partisan. I have said this about the legal system and I say it about the political system. The essentially adversarial system that we follow in both spheres has outlived its usefulness.
The general public is amazed that intelligent people cannot find consensus to resolve many of the acute problems that face our country today. That is why I say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is right to raise this subject here. Whether there are overtones or undertones of partisanship in this debate, they are as nothing compared with what would have been raised in another place. Of course, if effective action is to be taken, it must be taken in another place. But this is the right forum to ventilate feelings and have a slightly more detached debate than would be available in the other place.
I shall not go over the arguments about the present funding system, save to say I cannot understand why any party could possibly object to insisting that every
1382
contribution to a party over a certain sum should be disclosed. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and his noble friend Lady Young that probably the majority of contributions to the Conservative Party come from individuals who are voluntarily contributing. I accept totally that it is probably true that the Labour Party has more individual contributors today than it has ever had in its experience. But why should contributions of the size about which we heard from my noble friend Lord Mayhew not be disclosed to the public? There cannot be a case for that at all.
Likewise, I do not believe that a public company, in particular a privatised public utility, has the voluntary sense to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred. It is investing in its own public interest, as it sees it, and it is wrong that it should do so. I would incline to ban all contributions from publicly accountable companies.
I want to make, briefly, the case for change. Political parties play an essential role in a democratic society, though I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that they receive much ill-informed abuse, as do all parties. It was in 1872 that Disraeli said,
"I believe that without party, Parliamentary Government is impossible".
I agree with that. Over the past 25 years or so the responsibilities of political parties have increased dramatically both with the expanding politicisation of local elections, which I personally deplore, and the advent of European elections. If we have elected assemblies in Scotland and Wales that would also add to the responsibilities where they come into existence.
The need for efficient and adequately funded political parties has never been greater. None of the political parties, including the Conservative Party in Britain, has sufficient income to perform all its responsibilities adequately. The strain on resources is aggravated by the fact that political costs have risen far faster than inflation. The traditional solutions of a membership drive or seeking greater support from institutional backers, produce patchy and sometimes highly risky results and divert the attention of party workers from more important matters such as policy formulation. It is also in the nature of such funding to be erratic, while many of the administrative costs of running a political party are fixed costs.
The most immediate consequence of inadequate funding is that staffing levels are too low and that those who are on the payroll tend to be overworked and underpaid. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that in fact political parties at headquarters have become too strong. In many ways I would far rather see any state finance advanced to the parliamentary parties and possibly into the constituencies, rather than to the headquarters.
The cost to the British people of the underfunding of political parties is either seen in avoidable mistakes made by every incoming administration because it has not prepared sufficiently—there is a lack of detail in policy, and so on—or in the excessive dependence of Ministers on the Civil Service for advice on policy.
The advantage of state subsidy in some form is that we would have more competition because state funding of political parties should lead to more and fairer

1383
competition. However, equality of electoral opportunity can only be achieved if the mechanism chosen for such a scheme includes safeguards against a misuse of power by the governing party.
Both the Labour and Conservative Parties would be freed from institutional dependence, either completely or at least to a large extent. It is the extent of the dependence which is the fear. That is the governing fear exercising the minds of the public at the moment in relation to the Conservative Party. There is nothing wrong with the principle of interest groups financing political parties provided that the payments are made transparently and voluntarily, with the proviso that public limited companies do not indulge in it at all.
There is no evidence in this country that payments made by interest groups are generally made with a view to a specific quid pro quo. I do not believe that we are that kind of country. Naturally, for example, business has, rightly or wrongly, traditionally expected a general bias in its favour from the Conservative Party. Similarly, the trade unions quite naturally expect a natural bias from the Labour Party when it is in government. Thankfully British politics is free of the corruption endemic in many countries around the world. However, what also matters is the appearance that such sponsorship generates. Parties should feel completely free to act independently and to be seen to have such freedom.
Perhaps I may take the position of the Prime Minister in the "winter of discontent". He was faced with the enormous problem of his financial backers indulging in the most irresponsible behaviour. He was leading a government that was largely financed by the very unions who were causing the trouble. Therefore, stability of income would be very important because a system of party political subsidy would ensure that income would not fluctuate wildly with varying economic conditions and with the ebb and flow of a party's political fortune. Also, party leaders would not have to waste their time attending fundraising events when they could employ their time more fruitfully elsewhere.
Perhaps I may now refer very briefly to the drawbacks of state funding because there are, admittedly, drawbacks to a system of public funding of political parties. It could maintain current parties in existence after their support had long diminished. It could lock out new or emerging parties and most systems have a bias towards the status quo. However, all these defects can be mitigated or avoided by the careful construction of the system.
I refer very briefly to foreign experience. In the past few years there have been not only reports in this country. There was a report from the Council of Europe on the financing of political parties in 1989. There was a list published in the House of Commons Hansard of 17th July 1990 at col. 496, with the information then available of funding in different parts of the world. There was the Congress Report prepared by the staff of the Law Library of Congress in 1991 on Campaign Financing of National Elections in Foreign Countries. There was the European Parliament report called The Funding of Political Parties in European Community Member States in 1991. The Home Affairs Committee published in one of its indices in its second report in House of Commons Paper 301, a list of 19 countries, including three Commonwealth
1384
countries, 13 European and an additional three elsewhere, of the funding arrangements in those countries. So the problems are not special to this country, but in every democratic country in the world at the present time.
I suggest to noble Lords that whatever partisan background we have—and it is natural in our democracy that we indulge in it—nevertheless there is a case for consensus here. There is a case for an inquiry no doubt developing from a report made 20 years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I read that report 19 or 20 years ago and I cannot recall its precise terms now, but it was a very important report. It is in the interests of all parties to investigate this matter now and to see whether a more sensible arrangement can be achieved.
At the end of it all I say that the bulk of support for any political party should come from the individual subscriptions of those who believe in the policies of that party. But that is not to say that there is not a very good case now for investigating the importance of a state contribution at certain levels.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Prime Minister announced on 25th October the establishment of the Nolan Committee of Inquiry. In the course of the Statement he made in the House of Commons he said,
"It is important that the public have confidence in our system of public administration, our methods in making public appointments, the conduct of people in authority and the financial and commercial activities of public figures".
He added:
"In the present atmosphere, there is public disquiet about standards of public life, and I have concluded that action is imperative".— [Official Report, Commons, 25/10/94; cols. 757–8.]
Yet it now appears, as we all know, that the one area in which there is most clearly public disquiet about standards in public life is not to be investigated by the noble and learned Lord's inquiry. That is the subject of the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. As a result of the fierce opposition of Ministers, the issue of the manner in which political parties raise their funds will not be examined by this committee until certainly the next general election.
The Leader of the House who will be replying in a few moments is, I believe, required to justify that decision by his colleagues. He can hardly deny that there is public disquiet. Indeed, it would be remarkable if he made any serious effort to attempt to do so.
Let us consider what has been revealed in recent months and years. First, it has been estimated that between 1984 and 1992 there were £71 million of unexplained donations to the Conservative Party. If the object of the exercise is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, told us a few moments ago, to deny money to central party headquarters, he must, I am sure, be disappointed that quite such a large sum was raised during that period for the party of which he is of course a member. No one knows, of course, from where that £71 million came; the exception being a small group of people at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square.
One of the people excluded from having any knowledge was Mr. Eric Chalker who was a member of the Conservative Board of Finance between 1989 and

1385
1993. He told the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place that while members of his board received a partial breakdown of donations by UK region, value and number, more complete information was kept from him. He added that when press reports were published of specific and very large individual donations, including some from abroad, he asked the chairman of the Conservative Board of Finance for detailed information. Despite the fact that he was a member of that board of finance he was denied that information.
Secondly, we have the revelations concerning the Conservative Party's offshore bank accounts. Mr. John Strafford, another former member of the Conservative Board of Finance, said in a letter to The Times:
"everyone is now clear that the Conservative Party uses offshore accounts … and that a large amount of funds raised on behalf of the Conservative Party goes into accounts which are not in the name of the party".
The noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, a former treasurer of the party, is quoted in the minority report of the Home Affairs Select Committee as saying on ITN that the party had tons of offshore accounts. Before the debate I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, indicating to him that I proposed to refer to him. I am sure that many of us are deeply disappointed that we have not had the good fortune of having the noble Lord assisting us during the course of the debate.
We then come to the consequences of that climate of secrecy. As the result of the investigations of a number of national newspapers, and due also to disclosures in the civil and criminal courts, we have begun to learn of the identity of some of the donors of party funds. There is for instance Mr. Octav Botnar, a former head of Nissan (UK) who channelled donations of £150,000 through an offshore account in Jersey. Mr. Botnar is now wanted in this country on allegations that he was involved in large-scale fraud. However, he is presently resident in Switzerland, and showing no immediate sign of being anxious to return to the UK.
There is then Mr. John Latsis, a Greek shipowner, associated closely with the military regime which destroyed democracy in Greece—a regime which, as the House will recall, thought it appropriate to torture its opponents. He is said to have contributed £2 million to the Conservative Party.
There is also, as my noble friend Lord Mayhew mentioned, the Hong Kong connection. A number of very large donations have been reported in the press as coming from named individuals. That is a matter which should awaken some interest in us. That indeed no doubt explains why no fewer than 14 Ministers of the Crown who travelled to Hong Kong on public business and at public expense took time off while in Hong Kong to involve themselves in political activities, including fund raising.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is worried about keeping down the level of public expenditure. It might be a good idea if the Conservative Party repaid some of the assets of those gentlemen to the taxpayer who had the privilege of financing those trips to Hong Kong.
I come now to a number of other cases which have attracted a fair degree of public interest. First is another case referred to by my noble friend Lord Mayhew—Mr.
1386
Asil Nadir, the former head of Polly Peck, a fugitive from justice who fled to northern Cyprus while awaiting trial on charges of theft and false accounting. As has been indicated, cheques of £440,000 were sent by Polly Peck to the Conservative Party between 1985 and 1990. None of them appeared in the accounts which were submitted by Polly Peck. In addition, further donations were sent by Mr. Nadir to overseas firms, presumably using some of those offshore accounts.
There is also the case of the Fayeds, to which my noble friend Lord Mayhew again referred. It is unnecessary to go through that but it seems to be a matter of some passing interest. I assume that the Conservative Party would not have received money from those gentlemen if it had any doubts about their moral character. That being so, it makes it even more puzzling that they have apparently been denied British citizenship by Ministers who belong to the same political party which was perfectly prepared to accept their money.
There is then the question of political honours to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead referred. That was dealt with in the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to that report, if I may say so, a slight note of reverence crept into her voice. It was as though the Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place was a cross between the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and the United States Supreme Court. Unhappily, it was not quite like that, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead pointed out. The report was passed by that committee only on the casting vote of the chairman.
In the course of that report—my noble friend referred to this, and I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will reply to the point—comes the comment made by Lord Shackleton, a distinguished former Leader of the House who was of course chairman of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. He referred to secret donations to Conservative Party front organisations which he indicated could enable honours to escape scrutiny by that committee. He is quoted as saying:
"There is an obvious gap. It is highly likely that these secret donations are by-passing the scrutiny system, and that honours are effectively being bought".
That in my view requires a specific reply from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. There is no way a charge of such gravity from a former chairman of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee can possibly be ignored.
The cases I have raised this evening demonstrate an overwhelming argument for an independent inquiry into the fund-raising of all British political parties. I would emphasise, of course, all political parties. I would find it hard to believe that anyone who has been involved in any way to any significant extent in the management of British political parties over the past 35 years or so could possibly suggest that they had never received a donation which, looking back on it, made them feel altogether at ease. The difference between us in this House is a clear one. The opposition parties believe that there should be an independent inquiry, and Ministers are determined that there should not be. Given the sort of evidence that has been put before the House this evening, it is fairly obvious why they take that view.

1387
Yet if the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned about the level of public disquiet, and about standards in public life, as I am sure he is, how can he possibly believe that that will be diminished without an examination of those issues by the Nolan Committee? Consider, for a moment, the views of a distinguished member of the Conservative Party, and former Leader of the House, Mr. John Biffen, who said:
"In the present mood of scepticism about British politics the Conservative Party should open its financial books and demonstrate that its accounts are not padded by big business and shady entrepreneurs".
In my view, that is absolutely right.
That being so, what is the Government's case against an independent inquiry? First, we have the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, writing in the Independent, that in Britain people have the right to give money privately to the political party of their choice. He also stated that to change that would be an affront to democracy. That sounds a little odd because today we are talking not only about the rights of British people to give their money away privately but about the rights of foreign companies and individuals from outside this country to make secret donations into offshore accounts held on behalf of the Conservative Party. Those money are not even disclosed to their own central boards of finance.
Secondly, there is the claim of the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, that to introduce transparency would be an affront to democracy. Perhaps on this occasion the noble Lord has been guilty of a slight degree of exaggeration. I suspect that it would be a matter of surprise to the United States to discover that it had apparently connived at just such an affront to democracy, because there all significant contributions to campaign funds must be declared. And why? It is because of the scandals of the past; because of the consequences of secret donations to candidates for public office, which affects the integrity of public life. What is true of the United States is true of every advanced industrial nation in the world.
All I say in conclusion is that an inquiry on the lines suggested today is inescapable. The Government should be under no illusion that ultimately an inquiry will take place whether they want it or not. As my noble friend asked at the outset of the debate, why do they not just for once behave with good sense and allow the Nolan Committee to undertake its work forthwith?
5.22 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have had an interesting and on occasions entertaining debate. I greatly appreciated the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It reminded me of a report that I once had when I was studying biology at school. I was not a good biologist and at one stage I received a report which read, "Sets himself a lamentably low standard and rarely manages to attain it". I received a subsequent report which came to my mind when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It read, "As an entertainer he is much appreciated by the form, but as a biologist I fear that his work is somewhat negligible".
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, entertained us greatly and I enjoyed it. However, it is interesting to note that the one issue to which he did not refer was disclosure. According
1388
to the noble Lord, everything in the garden is lovely and we can get people to beaver away on things that do not really matter. But the one issue more than any other single issue with which the debate has dealt has been disclosure. On that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was silent.
I fear that I shall upset the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who was upset by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I fear that I may do the same. My noble friend Lord Houghton made a remarkable speech. His report is now some 20 years old and it may be that all we need to do is to reinstate the Houghton Committee and give it powers of revision and the job will be done. That is one possibility but I have no doubt whatever that at some stage the job will be done. There will be an inquiry and as a result there will be greater transparency in relation to the funding of political parties in this country.
Let us first see whether we can agree about anything and then see where we disagree. Broadly, we can accept the terms of the Motion. There is a case for an inquiry of some form into the present arrangements for the funding of political parties. I am open as to the precise nature and scope of such an inquiry, but I have no doubt that one should take place.
I believe that everyone can agree with two basic propositions. First, that anyone in our democracy should be able, if he wishes, to participate financially as well as practically in the working of that democracy. In other words, people should be perfectly entitled to support political parties if they so wish. But the corollary of that argument is that the support should be given in such a way that it does not call into question the integrity and validity of the very political process that is being participated in. Therefore, the second proposition, which I suspect not quite so many people will accept, is that that participation in the political process, if it is of any major kind, should be publicly acknowledged and therefore transparent.
I believe that the present system is flawed in that, first, those who participate are not always stakeholders in our democracy. Several noble Lords—and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Mayhew—have had something to say about foreign participation and foreign donations to the Conservative Party. I do not propose to go over that ground again. However, I believe that there is an inherent danger in having major contributions to a political party from people who do not have a basic interest in our democracy. The danger is that they are not participating in the democratic process but are buying government policy. I hope that most Members of this House will agree that that is wrong.
Secondly, the system is flawed because it is not transparent and it is therefore not accountable. I can see no reason why that should be so. For the sake of precision, perhaps I may state precisely the Labour Party's position on the matter. I shall quote from the text which was part of the Labour Party's evidence to the Nolan Committee. We stated that we were in favour of:
"a new regime for the funding of political parties to include: full disclosure of their accounts".
I hope that that deals with the point made by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The new regime should also include:

1389
"proscriptions on overseas and large secret donations; limits on election spending at national as well as constituency level; new requirements for shareholder agreement, and contracting out, in respect of donations by companies".
I have listened to the whole debate but I have not heard one word from the other side that is capable of justifying the situation, which my noble friend Lady Gould set out at the beginning of the debate. It is that a trade union donation must go through a whole series of hoops which are designed to ensure, first, that the members of the trade union are in favour of it, because the political fund must be set up after a ballot and, secondly, that the donation is public and everyone knows about it. I heard from the other side not one word of justification that trade unions should be under those burdens but companies should not. Why on earth not? Why should not the shareholders of a company have just as much right to know what the company is doing in relation to the political activities of that company as a trade union member has the right to know what his leaders are doing in relation to his trade union's political activities? There exists a basic unfairness which ought to be dealt with.
As regards transparency, what is the position of the Conservative Party? I can give many figures, some of which are well known. Some of them have had to be ferreted out from perhaps 150 or 200 different company accounts. We can trace donations of £2.51 million to the Conservative Party in the financial year ending March 1994. From the latest accounts for Conservative Central Office, we know that donations from companies and individuals totalled £9,372,000 in the financial year ending March 1994. One knows where £2.5 million came from but one does not know where the remaining £7 million came from. Therefore, we can account for about 27 per cent. of what the Conservatives have revealed as donations and contributions. That compares with being able to account for 36 per cent. in 1991, 54 per cent. in 1990 and 52 per cent. in 1989. Therefore, there is a shortfall. In a democratic society I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask the Conservative Party where that money has come from. People know where Labour Party cash comes from and they also know that in relation to the Liberal Democrat Party. It is not unreasonable to demand the same degree of transparency from the Conservative Party. Otherwise, there is bound to be suspicion as to the way in which the money is obtained; secondly, the way in which it is used; and, thirdly, the pay off for those people who are making contributions.
I have managed to extract some figures of the top 10 corporate donors to the Conservative Party to date. I shall merely give the list and your Lordships can draw the necessary conclusions. At the top of the list is United Biscuits which donated £1,004,500—one peerage and one knighthood went to the leaders of United Biscuits; Hanson donated £852,000—two peerages; Taylor Woodrow £837,362—one peerage, one knighthood; British & Commonwealth donated £823,560—one peerage; George Weston Holdings donated £820,000—no peerages and no knighthood but I am told that he is Canadian and is therefore not in this country; P&O donated £727,500—one peerage, three knighthoods; Western United Investment donated £620,900—no peerage but the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, is with us
1390
already; Glaxo donated £600,000—two knighthoods; and Trafalgar House donated £590,000—one peerage, one knighthood.
It may be that if I were a man with a suspicious mind, I should think that there might conceivably be a causal connection between one side of that balance sheet and the other. But being the generous-minded, naive individual that I am, who, after all, has only been involved in British politics for some 35 years, I am quite prepared to accept that all those who came to this House from the list that I have just read are well qualified and would have come to this House had they been giving donations to this party or the party of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I am quite prepared to accept that all those who received knighthoods received them because of the shining qualities of their characters and that it had nothing whatever to do with the fact that their cheques arrived on that side of the House rather than any other.
Of course I am prepared to accept that, as is the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead; and even his suspicious colleague the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, might be able to accept that. But I can tell the House that the general great British public does not accept that and does not believe that that is pure coincidence. That rubs off not only on the party opposite, which frankly I do not really care about, but it rubs off on all those who are engaged in politics. If sleaze is pouring over that party, some of the stench unfortunately falls on the rest of us.
Therefore, there is a problem which needs to be solved. The present position is not satisfactory; it is unreasonable. Question-marks are raised over the way in which the governing party of this country raises its money; where it comes from; and what is the pay off for the people paying it. In those circumstances I believe that the demand for an inquiry is more than thoroughly justified.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I too am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for introducing what we can all agree has been a useful and important debate.
In passing I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that for a man who tells us that there is inadequate transparency in the matter that we are discussing today he seems to be remarkably informed. Indeed, I should say to him further on the question of honours that it might be worth asking himself a further question in all his innocence and mere 35 years' experience; namely, what is the contribution to the national prosperity made by the names that he has read out? Indeed, I go so far along the road of the advocacy of the Liberal Democrat Party that when I return to this matter I shall not do so on a sheet of lavender writing paper.
We can all agree about one matter. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Holme, my noble friend Lady Young, who made a remarkable speech, and even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, agree that the authority and respect for MPs and all those who take part in British political life has increasingly been called into question in recent years. Therefore, it seems to me that a vacuum of authority has begun to appear and people like

1391
the noble Lord increasingly turn to one source to fill it. That source tends to be one-headed and composed of the great and the good.
It is as though we are beginning to live in a rather crude neo-Platonist age in which the country relies on a race of disinterested guardians to resolve matters of ethics, government and public morals. I have noticed that the Liberal Democrat Party is particularly addicted to that approach, as we have heard this afternoon. Not so long ago, a much higher proportion of those matters would have been decided by Parliament, often with the guidance of the Church, although that is less fashionable in places other than your Lordships' House. Those guardians may nominally report to government or Parliament but my, how the press howls if an individual or institution dares to reject those recommendations.
Now, of course none of that means that I do not have the greatest respect for the great and good, or indeed that I hold that inquiries conducted by the great and good are not often useful. However, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hold that we must be careful in general that inquiries conducted by committees, however eminent, do not become so much of a habit that they begin to usurp the proper functions of Parliament. That danger became all too apparent in the 1960s when the government of which the noble Lord was such a distinguished member, in their desire to avoid taking a decision about anything, spawned Royal Commissions like a rabbit on the South Downs. I am glad to say that my noble friend Lady Thatcher and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have resisted that temptation to the great benefit of the common weal. We should be especially careful to preserve the role of Parliament when addressing matters that concern the nature and organisation of Parliament itself and of those who organise the sending of Members of Parliament to Parliament. In our system the funding of political parties is surely and emphatically such a matter.
So, if the inquiry which the noble Lord is calling for is a Select Committee inquiry by either House of Parliament, of course I have no objection in principle to what he advocates. If, on the other hand, he is advocating the appointment of a commission of neo-Platonist guardians—and I coiled from what he has said this afternoon that that is what he has in mind—then in principle I am against him for the reason I have just given.
Even if the noble Lord were advocating a Select Committee inquiry, I am not sure that I could support him at this moment. It might not be a wholly suitable subject for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, although I am open to persuasion on that score; but even if it were, a Select Committee in another place produced a thorough report on this very question as recently as 16th March 1994, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out. We try, as your Lordships know, not to duplicate the work of Select Committees in another place in this House—and, of course, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, even on such an important subject as this, it may be a little much to expect from another place an annual inquiry of this kind.
Nevertheless, I am aware of the suggestion from some quarters that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and his committee should undertake an inquiry on this subject
1392
as part of its next phase of work. As the House will know from answers I gave after my Statement to the House on 25th October last, my right honourable friend specifically excluded the funding of political parties from the noble and learned Lord's remit. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, cross-questioned me most assiduously on the subject. For the reasons I have given noble Lords this afternoon I continue to think that my right honourable friend was right to do so. The more we undermine Parliament's ability to regulate matters which most closely concern it, the more we lessen the authority of Parliament and the respect in which it is held. It is for that reason that I was relieved to read the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, that his parliamentary commissioner for standards should report to a sub-committee of another place rather than be independent and free-standing with no responsibility to Parliament or another place.
Nevertheless, I recognise what motivates the noble Lord in initiating the debate. His concern above all is to try and ensure that the votes that elect Members of another place are secured in as unbiased and equitable a fashion as possible. I and the entire House would expect no less from the noble Lord.
Furthermore, I am sure that in the present atmosphere, when allegations about standards in public life abound, the noble Lord feels that now is not a bad time to remove all taint of interest from politics and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, advocated, free from ideological influences.
If that is what both noble Lords would like, that strikes me as a dangerous ambition. We agree that the authority of Parliament must derive ultimately from the ballot box. I hope that neither noble Lord feels that it is either possible or even desirable for interest, whether charitable, commercial, moral or sectional, to be divorced from Parliament and politics. What is politics about other than ideology and interest? The whole of the Liberal and socialist case today has been based on ideology and interest, and that has been the inescapable conclusion of at least all noble Lords who sit beside and behind me. If we attempted so to divorce it and succeeded we would be divorcing politicians from those very matters which should be their constant concern. It would be more difficult for Parliament to act as the forum where ultimate power must rest and where interest should be controlled when it becomes overmighty.
I would be worried if the great interests, commercial or sectional, did not want to support political parties, and I would be equally worried if they were forbidden to do so. We have seen the rapid growth in recent years of single issue pressure groups which, if they become too powerful, can unbalance the entire political debate. Parties in our system are, almost by definition, coalitions. That may be said about the Liberal Democrat Party, which is the result of one of the most recent and obvious open coalitions of political post-war times—mould breakers. They have a bias towards balance which helps control interest.
I do not have the time this afternoon, and I am sure that your Lordships do not have the inclination, to rehearse all the elements of a highly complex subject. I do not think that the noble Lord's Motion encourages any of us to do so.

1393
I am more than a little tempted to follow my noble friend Lord Beloff down the extraordinarily attractive and entertaining road down which he tempted us. When we return to these matters we shall explore a little further the importance of interest of Lord George Bentick and of Disraeli.
However, I should like to touch on two matters which are relevant to what the noble Lord had to say: state funding and the anonymity or otherwise of donors to political party funds.
The Home Affairs Select Committee in another place discussed the question of state funding of political parties in some detail. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which reported in 1976, the committee in another place was not attracted to the idea of any extension of existing subsidy. As did the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the committee acknowledged the existence of the "Short money" and the value of benefits in kind in the form of party political broadcasts, free postage at election time, and so on; but in terms of straight cash they remained sceptical.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I understand that he would not support the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that there should be a new inquiry on the grounds that his was perfectly sufficient for the purposes. Our experience of the noble Lord's thoroughness and capacity to understand the nub of any matter, whether or not we agree with him, leads us to suspect that that is not bad advice.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that I hope it will be possible to hold the line on free political broadcasting, although I am not sure who watches the broadcasts apart from the entire political classes and aspirant boy racers at various central offices.
I share the scepticism of the committee. It is true that other countries subsidise their political parties from public funds. As the table on pages xii and xiii of the Select Committee report makes clear, there is no distinct pattern or practice.
A large number of the countries listed there do not give state funding and a number of them would appear to all of us to be entirely democratic in their theory and practice. It is tempting to wonder to what extent public political funding encourages the proliferation of small parties. Except for the Liberal Democrats, I suspect that most noble Lords feel that that is an undesirable development that is already encouraged by certain kinds of proportional representation. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, one could argue that state subsidy encourages corruption rather than the reverse.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out that in this country political activity is voluntary. The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who appears in this instance to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the leader of his party in this House, believes that it should remain so. Raising money for parties and devoting time to political parties is an activity of civil virtue and one that is to be encouraged in a state whose government is based on representative
1394
principles. We all know that such activity involves, above all, hard work and demands great enthusiasm for the cause at the expense of shoe leather and sometimes one's digestion. Should that enthusiasm flag, it seems curious and perhaps socialistic to argue that the state should make up for the deficiency by public subsidy. It reminds me of the nationalised industries. We know that the private sector had to rescue them and restore them to prosperity. It is no wonder that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, supported the idea of public funding, just as they in their party have supported every measure designed to increase national prosperity and to reduce individual self-reliance, which is the secret of national survival.
Even those systems of subsidy, for which such learned commentators as Dr. Pinto Duschinsky argue and which link the level of subsidy to the number of votes cast, risk institutionalising political parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, acknowledged, they thus preserve them beyond their sell-by date. In view of what has happened to the Liberals since 1917 I can understand the noble Lord's enthusiasm for state subsidy in that context. His magnificent biography of Asquith demonstrates his mastery over the period.
In parenthesis I should like to remind the noble Lord that his interpretation of the history of the time was not universally shared by Lloyd George's political opponents. I quote from the memoirs of Mr. J. C. C. Davidson who was a most distinguished political fixer in his time in the Conservative interest. Mr. Davidson's attitude to the matter of raising party funds was in marked contrast to that of Lloyd George, who was endearingly frank about his methods. In a memorandum written in 1927, Davidson recorded:
"In the course of a conversation with Mr. Lloyd George yesterday in which the use of Party funds for philanthropic purposes came under discussion, I"—
that is, Davidson—
"dropped the remark that Mr. Lloyd George was fortunate in being much better situated with regard to Party funds than the Conservative Party. He laughed at the remark, and with his characteristic flair for altering his ground, burst into an enthusiastic defence of the system of raising Party funds by the sale of honours. 'You and I', he said, 'know perfectly well it is a far cleaner method of filling the Party chest than the methods used in the United States or the Socialist Party'. He complained that the Socialist Party was a trade union party solely because of the power of the trade unions to withhold funds. 'In America the steel trusts supported one political party, and the cotton people supported another. This placed political parties under the domination of great financial interests and trusts'.—
I believe that the noble Lord would agree with that.
"'Here', said Mr. Lloyd George 'a man gives £40,000 to the Party and gets a baronetcy. If he comes to the Leader of the Party and says I subscribe largely to the Party funds, you must do this or that, we can tell him to go to the devil. The attachment of the brewers to the Conservative Party was the closest approach', said Mr. Lloyd George, 'to political corruption in this country. The worst of it is that you cannot defend it in public, but it keeps politics far cleaner than any other method of raising funds'".
I wonder how a measure which would begin to nationalise political parties would appeal to an earlier and more laissez-faire school of Liberalism.
Finally, my Lords, I would like to say a word about donations to political parties. As far as I can ascertain no one has suggested that the individual small donor should not be encouraged. Some have argued that donations

1395
should be tax allowable in other fora. I believe that one noble Lord—and I hope he will forgive me because I cannot remember who it was—mentioned that during today's debate. As noble Lords will know, that is the position in the Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, in Germany. It is an idea which might be worth exploring. But, ultimately, it is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and another place.
The difficulty arises when we consider contributions to political parties from commercial enterprises, trade unions and other bodies corporate or unincorporate. I find it difficult to argue against allowing such bodies to make donations to political parties. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, why they should be at a greater disadvantage than any individual?. Some corporations are not as rich as individuals. The fact that they are corporations does not seem to me to be an argument for disbarring them from contributing to the political party whose interests they think most closely represent their own. They have their interests like individuals and the present rules of corporate disclosure seem to me to be perfectly adequate; indeed, the remarkable catalogue put forward this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, provides evidence to support that claim. A company giving more than £200 in aggregate must disclose the donations under the Companies Act 1985—legislation passed by a Conservative Government—and its actions are open to challenge by shareholders.
Incidentally, I should emphasise the fact that my party has accepted the code of practice set out in Recommendation 15 of the Select Committee's report.
As my noble friend Lady Young emphasised, my party has been the recipient of sustained innuendo this afternoon. In that context, I would merely draw your Lordships' attention to the line on page 35 of the Select Committee's report where the code of practice makes it clear to donors that illegally obtained money would not be acceptable and, if discovered to be so obtained, would be returned. My party subscribes to that view; and, indeed, puts it into practice. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does that mean that the Conservative Party will return the money contributed by Mr. Asil Nadir?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if that money is proved to have been secured as a result of an illegal donation of funds secured illegally, the answer is: yes, of course, if that is so.
The position with trade unions is equally clearly regulated through the 1984 Act, although I cannot resist pointing out that the Labour Party is the only British political party which arguably trades policies for political support. However, from the point of view of my noble friend Lord Beloff, that may not altogether be a bad thing.
The question of anonymity has also proved to be a contentious issue. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, waxed extremely eloquent on the subject this afternoon. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that attitudes have changed substantially since the 1930s, when one donor insisted that the Conservative Party should not know that he was the source of a munificent donation in case it was thought that, as a result, he would exercise undue influence in the councils of the party. Nowadays,
1396
openness is regarded in some quarters as the ultimate virtue. Just as the virtue of physical modesty suffered a decline under Labour Home Secretaries in the 'sixties, so financial modesty seems to have suffered a similar decline in the 'nineties. To reveal all is now the ultimate virtue, financially as well as physically. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, lauded the virtues of transparency with some warmth. With his traditions of advocating transparency in other fields, I can understand why he did so.
There is a difficulty here, which I think we should not underestimate. There are those like the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Harris, who advocate complete exposure and who do so for the most honourable and disinterested of reasons. There are others who advocate that course in order to satisfy their's and the public's prurience and in order to blackguard honourable but modest people, who do exist despite what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested. I believe that such pruriently inclined people are dangerous. That is why they have supplied a rich cast of villains for the English novel from Thwackem and Square to Obadiah Slope. They are what we dislike about puritanism. The reason that they are so dangerous is that they play on our legitimate hatred and fear of corruption. There is no easy solution to the dilemma in our imperfect world. As in so much else, we must endeavour, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, implied, to strike a balance between privacy and exposure. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I believe that our present arrangements do so. On the whole, the Select Committee supports that view.
We should be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the debate with his customary elegance. I am sorry that we do not agree. As my noble friend Lady Young said, the noble Lord made a party political speech under the cloak of righteousness and the alleged desire for consensus. I certainly know now that, for all his past political history, spiritually the noble Lord has finally come to rest under the cloak of the Liberal Party. However, I suspect that this is not the last that either this House or the public will hear of the matter. I much look forward to our further exchanges on the subject.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I was never a great believer in second bites in speeches, especially when debates are drawing to a close. Therefore, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. In my opening remarks, I said that I had no doubt that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal would give us a rumbustious and probably ingenious reply. I thank and congratulate him on having fulfilled those two criteria. Indeed, the noble Viscount introduced almost fantastical notes into our proceedings at times. It was certainly highly ingenious. The noble Viscount also set my mind at rest on one point. I thought that I was becoming a little too obsessed by historical matters, but after hearing the noble Viscount's long eloquent passage on 1921–1927 I shall lose all inhibitions in that respect.
The noble Viscount's reply was good humoured and, if I may say so, a little in contrast with some of the opening speeches from those Benches. I have rarely participated in a debate in which noble Lords showed more ill-tempered and defensive sensitivity than we heard from

1397
the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She really got into a great lather of indignation with me. Indeed, the noble Baroness is quite entitled to do so, and, of course, she may be quite right. However, I am perfectly entitled to point out that she showed remarkable defensive sensitivity. Moreover, even the normal lucidity of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, deserted him at times, so overcome was he with the impropriety which really both speakers raised in differing ways about our having such a debate at all. I thank the noble Viscount for having distanced himself from that by saying that the debate was invaluable and for thanking us for raising the matter.
Nobody takes the view—I do not believe that he does for a moment—that people should not be allowed to express an interest in politics. I do not take the view—certainly I do not—that people should not be allowed to contribute large sums of money, if they wish, to the party of their choice. Nobody takes the view that it can be other than a horrible development if parties become entirely the creatures of state funding. I believe that there are considerable difficulties about state funding. I believe that some measure may be desirable, but it is not an easy solution by any means. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I do not want parties to be too rich or party machines to be too powerful. However, this debate asks for and is primarily concerned with honesty and transparency, no more and no less.
I am perfectly sure that, for all the ingeniousness of the Lord Privy Seal's arguments, until there is transparency this subject will rumble on. He said that what was wanted was nothing but inquiries. It is not this party, or even the party opposite, that has produced a position where for almost the first time in history there are two major constitutional inquiries running at exactly the same time. My complaint is that the Government lurch into inquiries at the last moment when scandal forces them to do it as a short-term reaction without thinking out the consequences. If they were wise they would see that this was something that had to be inquired into. Transparency will come. For once they should be ahead of the game rather than following it weakly and without due consideration. We have had a useful debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Transport Policies and the Environment
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood rose to call attention to the case for transport policies for the United Kingdom and Europe which will be sustainable in the long term, as set out in the Eighteenth Report entitled Transport and the Environment of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Cm. 2674); and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion is broadly phrased and time is short. Your Lordships will not expect me to cover the whole range of the issues that can be raised. There will be another debate next week in which some of them may be aired in greater detail. I am aware that many of your Lordships will also
1398
speak and no doubt give added emphasis to one aspect or another of the topic. In this context, I welcome the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to intervene in this debate with his maiden speech. He brings to the debate great experience and knowledge of the transport industry.
In preparing for the debate, I have been inundated with material from a wide range of different interests, much of it very useful. I wish to concentrate on the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the six speeches made in the spring by the Secretary of State, Dr. Mawhinney. For many of us, the RCEP report has come as a most welcome confirmation, from an authoritative source, of much of what we have been thinking, saying and trying to do for some years. For example, the desirability of equal assessment of road and rail infrastructure projects and the need for an integrated transport policy that should be sustainable has been a "given" of my party's policy for many years.
I take one of many examples that can be chosen to indicate how far local government is ahead of central government in these matters. Some years ago Surrey County Council, then under Conservative leadership, wrote a transport plan. It is now being revised with a Liberal-Democrat as chair. By comparison, Dr. Mawhinney's speeches dealt with issues of sustainable transport almost as though they were totally fresh to his listeners and readers. He asked many questions and provided relatively little indication of his own attitude, or that of the Government, beyond referring to such things as the Government's statement on sustainable development, PPG13 and steadily rising petrol taxes. All of these are useful but they do not constitute a comprehensive policy that, for example, can be used by businesses and local authorities to assist in the determination of their approach.
Dr. Mawhinney seemed to suggest on more than one occasion that business should take transport decisions in the light of their impact upon the environment and possibly modify and change such policies as the just-in-time method of supply or long-distance sourcing of goods. But it is the relatively low cost and ease of road transport—a situation that has developed, at least in part, as a result of actions by various governments over the years—that has made these policies financially and commercially attractive.
My last point about Dr. Mawhinney's speeches concerns his constant reference to the conflict between economic and business needs on the one hand and the need for environmental protection on the other. I believe that this conflict is to some extent artificial. Not only will failure to improve and preserve air quality cost us huge amounts in healthcare—for example, a recent Liberal-Democrat publication has highlighted the rapidly rising cost of the treatment of asthma—but a degraded atmosphere and general environment can never be a desirable background for a successful economy.
We welcome the RCEP report and, in particular, its approach in defining what its authors believe should be the main objectives of a sustainable transport policy; the key targets that that policy should aim to achieve, such as percentage modal transfers between one method of

1399
transport and another; and the main policy options/changes in practice and research projects that they think are necessary to achieve those objectives.
I take one example. Compared with the somewhat chaotic way in which infrastructure projects are currently assessed—this methodology has been criticised for its inaccuracy and lack of proper financial targeting by the Audit Commission and other authorities in that it fails to assess equally between road and rail, or to compare projects on trunk roads or other roads, or even to establish an overt order of priority amongst trunk road proposals themselves—the suggestions of the RCEP on such matters seem a model of clarity and good sense that may greatly improve the quality of decision taking and the accurate targeting of funds. I believe that that is an objective that we all wish to take on board.
Another useful attribute of the report is that it firmly establishes the need to ensure that the real costs of different modes of transport, including environmental costs, are borne by the particular mode or those who operate within it and use it. So often attempts by local government to encourage people to use public transport ale thwarted by the apparently high cost at point of use by comparison with the motor car that waits outside the house.
I also welcome the attempt, albeit not wholly complete, to quantify these costs so that they may be correctly assessed and assigned during project planning. I do not agree with every suggestion for that allocation. For example, the report proposes not only that tax on petrol should rise sharply—a matter with which we are broadly in agreement—but that there should be a variable excise duty to reflect fuel consumption. That is a good idea, but only if it can be set at a low level for the smallest and most efficient cars; otherwise, the combination of increased vehicle excise duty and sharply increased fuel prices will be too punitive for those who live in the countryside.
I also welcome the suggestions for joint research with other countries in the European Union and beyond, and indeed with companies—for example, oil companies and motor manufacturers—with the objective of ensuring equal levels of duty on heavy goods vehicles across the European Union that reflect the polluter pays principle. Another example is a worldwide tax on air fuel. Not only does atmospheric pollution not respect national boundaries, so it is extremely important for nations within the European Union to act together to protect the environment, but it is undesirable to impose higher levels of taxation on the United Kingdom than on other EU hauliers.
So how should we take the principles of the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution forward? I hope that the Government will at least commit themselves to the general approach adopted by the Royal Commission even if some of the individual recommendations prove to be unacceptable. A co-ordinated approach to sustainable transport planning is long overdue and this Government—any government—have a key role in achieving it. No other party to transport policy: employer, commuter, shopper, road haulier, traveller by air or sea or on foot or bicycle, has the same duty as the Government to think in the long term,
1400
although many can no doubt be persuaded, in transport as in recycling, to think globally and act locally. And no other party has the financial clout.
At this point I must pause to say what a disaster in terms of sustainable transport policy I believe the sell-off of Railtrack to be. If we are to achieve a transfer of trips from the motor car to rail and from the HGV to rail, it is of the highest importance that the Government can continue to exert at least some influence on, in particular, the investment decisions of Railtrack. There are a number of projects sitting about in people's back pockets requiring relatively little financial investment which would, for example, enormously improve rail access to Heathrow. It would in my view be a tragedy if the Government were left unable to exert any influence in that direction.
We have already expressed our intention, should we get the chance, to buy back at least a share in Railtrack, should it be sold before the next general election. I look forward to hearing comment from the Labour Party on this matter during the debate. Our objective would be to enable government to influence rather than manage—I stress that comparison—a semi-public company which was also able to borrow in the market. If that requires a change in Treasury rules, all I can say is that that change sounds to me as if it is long overdue. We cannot allow rules which were made by men to become an enormous limitation on the actions of subsequent men and—I should add—women.
The Government must make their transport policy intentions clear and explicit. It will be desirable, if the long-term approach recommended by the Royal Commission is to be effective, for there to be a certain level of consensus between political parties so that that approach can be carried out over time. We also need co-ordination and clear understanding between local and national levels of government, and government must make their direction and purpose clear to local government. At present, for example, criteria for funding road schemes through transport supplementary grant and the TPP process can change more than once during the process of project design, causing waste of time and resources.
Even the package approach, welcome though it is, has been established with no indication of the future level of funding it might receive or even its relative importance in terms of financial support in the eyes of the department. As very few schemes can now be taken forward without being part of a package, this means that the new approach could actually be used as a new means of rationing funds for transport projects even more strictly than in the past.
Within the overall guidance of national government local authorities should be left to deal with the small scale projects—which the report assesses as often more capable of yielding a good environmental rate of return—without too much interference. I am sure I do not need to add that from our side we would prefer to see those local authorities capable of raising their own finances for such projects. We also support the emphasis given in the report to the regional level of activity, both in assessing projects and also in encouraging public

1401
transport, although we would of course prefer regional authorities to be directly elected rather than based on the existing groups such as SERPLAN.
Finally, there needs to be a partnership between government at all levels, industry and individual citizens. We—many other transport authorities are doing the same—are already exploring how we can encourage employers to alter the commuting habits of their employees so that they cause the least possible impact on traffic and congestion in the surrounding area. A good deal of interest is being shown by employers in this. To take something on a much bigger scale, if, for example, the Government could negotiate with the British Airports Authority, which operates the largest generator of traffic in the whole of the United Kingdom at Heathrow Airport, to ensure that it put together a plan for enabling its employees to get to work without getting into their motor cars, much of the congestion at peak hours on the M.25 would be considerably alleviated. There are 50,000 employees at Heathrow Airport and most of their journeys occur at peak hours. That is another partnership that we should seek to establish.
As for the partnership between government and individual citizens, it seems to me to be of the greatest importance that we should carry forward a traffic awareness campaign similar to—and with the same long term and steady intentions—that which has been done for drink/driving. When I was a young woman it was common for people leaving a party to be pressed to take "one for the road". Not only does one never see that any more, at least not in the circles in which I move, but one also notices that, if partners arrive at a party together, one will drink but the other will not. That campaign has had an enormous effect and the Government could stimulate a similar campaign both as regards the environmental consequences of individual traffic decisions and—perhaps this is even more important as a first step—to discourage excessive speeding. Nothing in my view is more destructive of peace and quiet in local areas than a combination of congestion and speeding—congestion in one area leading to speeding in another. I read your Lordships' spirited debate on an earlier occasion on the commission paper on sustainable mobility to which I gave evidence as part of the ACC group. I look forward to the next few hours with keen anticipation of other people's contributions. I beg to move for Papers.
6.17 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I wish to begin by saying how grateful we all are to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for introducing this debate. It is an opportunity that we all greatly welcome. It will be a pleasure for me to listen in a moment to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, not just because I have known him for over 40 years but also because I know what an expert he is on transport matters. I suspect that he will tell us something about the Channel Tunnel in which he has been closely involved.
I must make it quite clear that I am a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Noble Lords will not be surprised therefore to hear that I think
1402
it has produced rather a good report. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in replying to the previous debate suggested that some Members on these Benches had spoken with defensive sensitivity. I hope that I can be acquitted of that if I refer to one or two of the criticisms which have been made of the Royal Commission's report and try to address them. With a report of this length—it is a long report—I am bound to be repetitious if I try to summarise, which clearly should not be my role in this debate anyway.
The first criticism is the length of the report itself. The second criticism I wish to address is the assessment, or rather lack of assessment, of benefits for the economy and the fact that the report appears to be heavily biased towards environmental impacts. I also wish to discuss whether targets are appropriate in the first place and, secondly, if one can accept targets, whether the targets which have been chosen are appropriate.
As regards the criticism about length, I am sure the Royal Commission would plead guilty. It is a long report, but then this is a large subject. The terms of the Motion, which refers to,
"transport policies … sustainable in the long term",
demonstrate just how important it is to take an all-embracing holistic approach to this extremely complicated subject. Transport impinges on all our lives in any number of ways.
In paragraph 1.12, Chapter 1, the report refers to the sustainable development strategy of the Government. The Royal Commission points out that:
"Transport provides a crucial test of the commitment to sustainable development which the UK and other countries made at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992."
The thrust of the report is to make in advance what can really only be termed a preliminary attempt to define what is meant by "a sustainable development strategy". That phrase was used in the document that came out in 1994, the Government's own strategy for sustainable development, which has a chapter on sustainable transport. From that document there are quoted in paragraph 1.13 four parts of the framework which the Government themselves have suggested it would be sensible to have in mind when framing a sustainable transport policy. I will quote just the last sentence from that paragraph, and it comes itself as a quotation from the government document:
"To ensure that users pay the full social and environmental cost of their transport decisions, so improving the overall efficiency of those decisions for the economy as a whole and bringing environmental benefits".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, reminded us, the Royal Commission report seeks to put figures on the decisions that we make every time we choose a mode of transport and tries to assess not just how that might improve our competitive position within the economy but who is picking up the bill at the end of the day. That is a very important consideration, and it is one which has been sadly lacking in the past. The Department of Transport has until recently been accused, I think with some justification, of a policy of "predict and provide". You predict what the traffic movements will be and you provide for the requirements. It is as simple as that. Also, local authorities tended to agree or even to

1403
encourage out of town developments without measuring the impact of people's transport options. Clearly, the further out of the cities you go the greater the dependence on the car; and so there has been a failure in the past to quantify both the benefits and the environmental impacts, or indeed other disadvantages.
This Royal Commission report is not a blueprint, whatever it may be, on how to produce a transport policy. The Royal Commission, by its nature, has a requirement to try to give advice on environmental pollution, and transport is a major source of pollution. Therefore it is clearly a report which is biased towards trying to assess these impacts and to make some recommendations. Because it is not a blueprint, it is perfectly correct that others will have a different slant to contribute, and in the debate in which we are engaged it is important that all these views be given due consideration.
Moving on to some of the objectives and targets, the objectives which are listed seem on the whole to be pretty uncontroversial in the sense that objectives seek, for example—I will not quote them all—to improve the quality of life, reduce noise nuisance from traffic and the like. That we all accept is, on the whole, a desirable objective of any transport policy. Where it gets much more contentious, as I said before, is in the use of targets and, once you have determined to use them, deciding what they should be. For example, take the target on carbon dioxide emissions from transport. It is a highly controversial one because if you accept, as I think we all do, that personal mobility makes an essential contribution to the quality of life and we would not wish o be without it, it is then asking an awful lot to say "But, by the way, we wish to see the carbon dioxide emissions reduced by 80 per cent. by the year 2020"—and that is from 1990 levels, not today's.
Nevertheless it is inevitable, if you think about it. As a consequence of the climate change convention, we have agreed already to try to reduce our emission levels by 2010, and the Berlin conference recently sought to do the same for future years. Carbon dioxide from transport is about one-fifth of the emissions, so either we say that transport is exempt and is too important so we will make the rest of industry and other sectors contribute more to these reductions, or transport simply has to make its contribution.
There are in fact practical alternatives. It does not mean the end of the car. It certainly means that some other fuels become much more attractive and we deal with the alternative fuels, and it also gives a great incentive for the motor manufacturers to go for ever more efficient engines. That of course helps the consumer. It does not mean that you put safety at risk and it does not mean that these targets are unobtainable. If you think of some of the difficulties, as some motor manufacturers have said, you have only to recollect that some of these cars are already in existence: there are cars being made which would achieve these average objectives.
In a strange way, we still reward those who behave in an anti-social way. Take, for example, the company car. That is still the most astonishing facet of our renumeration and reward system. The report again
1404
says—there is a box that I should like to draw your attention to—that were the Chancellor to be able to tax the cash equivalent for these company cars, the tax yield would be about £2 billion. If you could only revise the company car fiscal opportunities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be better off by £2 billion and the individual in the company, who very often does not use the company car (6 per cent. of company cars use no mileage at all) would be better off and the company itself would be better off because it would have more flexibility.
My time is almost up. I simply want to make the point that this document repays careful study, long though it is, and it is certainly a contribution to a debate which needs to be taken very much wider than our debate today. I am sure this debate will have made a very useful contribution in bringing this whole very important issue to public knowledge.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to make a small contribution to what I believe is a subject of absolutely vital importance to the sustainability of our environment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, on initiating this debate on the contribution that transport can make. I should also like to thank her for her kind words of welcome.
In researching the maiden speech of my aunt, Lady Berkeley, in 1970 I found that she also spoke on transport—on rural bus services—and said that the unsatisfactory nature of those services was causing great concern to country dwellers. How true then; and it gives me no pleasure to suggest that it is very much worse today, 25 years on.
I first declare my interest in that I am employed by Eurotunnel, the Channel Tunnel operators. I have had the privilege of working with many of your Lordships over the years and I should like to record my thanks for the support that many of you have given to the project. To see this very great engineering achievement and transport link completed—I hope that some of your Lordships have used it—makes one realise that it is after all a connection by means of which some 60 per cent. of our exports can go to the Continent. I think it is also appropriate to record congratulations to the Department of Trade and Industry, which over the years has probably achieved a unique success in getting 90 per cent. of production orders, after competitive tendering within the European Union, going to British firms. That compares very well with the other side of the Channel.
The tunnel is now open. Eurostar recently took its first millionth passenger, if that is the right word. Every week 100 freight trains pass through the tunnel, and traffic on the lorry and car shuttle is building up. There it is: it is a transport link, and I would not like to say more at this stage. It connects the transport networks of Britain and the Continent and therefore makes its contribution to a sustainable transport policy, which we are talking about today.
I am also chairman of the Piggyback Consortium, the objective of which is to create a system of putting lorry semi-trailers on trains within the British Rail loading

1405
gauge width, and there is a target of getting half a million lorries a year off the roads. They do not have to go through the Tunnel; they can go anywhere where road bridges are slightly raised; but it is an objective which I think is useful.
However, today I would like to explore some matters of wider interest in the debate on implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission's excellent report. I want to concentrate on carbon dioxide emissions and to discuss means of reducing them in respect of the road-rail interface within the European framework. I should like to give a few examples of how that might be achieved.
As we have already heard, the target in the report is to limit carbon dioxide emissions in the year 2000 to the 1990 level, and to reduce it to 80 per cent. of that value by the year 2020. That is quite a challenge, given the national road traffic forecast of a growth in demand of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent.—maybe 100 per cent—between 1988 and 2025.
For passenger travel the report states that in 1992 12 per cent. of passenger-kilometres were by public transport. To meet those targets the Royal Commission recommends that the figure should be increased to 30 per cent. by 2020, 2.5 times the present figure for passenger travel by public transport. The report also compares Britain's current 12 per cent. with 18 per cent. in France and 21 per cent. in Germany. One could argue that those countries are halfway to that target. Why is there the difference? Can we learn something from those countries?
I believe that we need both the carrot and the stick approach. The sticks are easy to describe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to some of them. They are not too difficult to implement, given sufficient political will. The Government are already looking at tolling motorways and charging for driving in city centres, and are already committed to increasing fuel duty by 5 per cent. above inflation each year. Perhaps they should also consider imposing more rigorous speed restrictions on other roads to discourage diversion from tolled motorways. That would also contribute to road safety and reduced pollution. The report states that pollution would be dramatically reduced if speeds were reduced. Such sticks may look unpopular on their own, but, linked to a carrot, they become more acceptable.
The carrot in the short term is a coherent, integrated public transport service, safe, secure and accessible to those with small children or who have mobility difficulties, or whatever, and with well designed interchanges between buses, trains and taxis. Those facilities must be cheap enough for people to want to use them. We have been saying that for a long time; it deserves repeating again and again. That may seem an impossible goal, but the report states that in the Netherlands the share of passenger-kilometres by public transport increased by 22 per cent. in 10 years, largely due to a government policy of developing and encouraging an integrated and accessible system. You can even order a taxi to be at your destination when you buy a ticket. Some noble Lords may have been to Amsterdam. The trams and cycles, and the absence of the combustion engine in the
1406
centre, make one wonder why we do not have the courage to try that concept in London. The quality of life outside this place on a smoggy, polluted day leaves much to be desired.
For longer journeys, there is the French TGV. Some noble Lords have travelled with me on the TGV. I do not say that it is better because it is French, but the TGV is a good example of how passengers have been attracted off road and air on to rail. In the first 10 years of its life, the TGV from Paris to Lyon—it is roughly the same distance as from London to Manchester—caused rail traffic on that route to increase by 80 per cent. Air traffic on that same route was halved, and the adjacent autoroute, or motorway, experienced a smaller growth in traffic compared with motorways without comparable TGV lines. It also helps that fares per kilometre in France, and I believe elsewhere, are considerably less than those in the UK. I calculate the figure to be about half.
To achieve those objectives, we must recreate our integrated network of bus and train services. Those services are, after all, really competing with the private car, not with each other. It is ironic that buses are specifically forbidden to discuss through-ticketing for fear of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In contrast, the rail regulator, after considerable nudging from this House and another place, is committed to retaining some network benefits and through-ticketing. Why is there the difference between bus and rail through-ticketing? Should not they be working together?
I believe that the regulator of the future should be the regulator of the public transport network with the specific objectives of making it more accessible and user-friendly—in short, of attracting (I emphasise the word "attracting") more passenger traffic to the overall network. The debate must continue, but we must beware of all stick and no carrot. I believe that we may be seeing that situation already. We must ensure that the additional revenue from those extra penalties, or sticks, on the private car, and so on, is not gain for the Treasury which is not transferred to public transport.
I turn to freight. The Royal Commission estimated that freight by rail would have almost to treble in 25 years. I cannot cover the issue in detail now. But I believe that with an attractive freight facilities grant—it is certainly not that at present—competitive track access charges, and aggressive new management in the rail freight industry (which I believe that we are beginning to see), there is real possibility that the rail freight targets can be achieved.
The Royal Commission has warned us of the severe consequences of doing nothing. We must heed them. I should like to see the Government propose clear new policies within transport, the environment, health, and trade and industry to achieve the targets. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, called for an integrated transport policy. Transport, as with pollution, knows no boundaries. Those policies must be developed and implemented with other member states and the European Commission. If we do not do so, we shall have technical incompatibility. That is becoming evident already. We

1407
start from behind. We have much to learn from other member states; and we have something to contribute. Let us for once take the lead in that process.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for instituting the debate. It was not so long ago that we debated the issue. We have debated it quite regularly in the past and there is no harm that we debate the subject again today. The great advantage about today's debate is that we hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We welcome him and have listened attentively to what he said because, as the noble Baroness said, the noble Lord is very experienced in the transport sector. There is, I think, a clique of transport enthusiasts in this House. We welcome the noble Lord to that clique and are grateful for the added expertise that he brings to our debates. We hope that he will come to the House often.
I thank the commission and in particular my noble friend for all his hard work. It must have been an enjoyable and stimulating commission. Pollution covers a number of areas—local, national, European and worldwide. Naturally the committee considered all those areas. For example, the report refers to local 20 mph zones; nationally, it refers to annual excise duty European-wide, and road pricing technology; and worldwide it refers to aircraft emissions.
However, I then become somewhat worried. The first sentence of paragraph 107 of chapter 14 states that,
"Our recommendations complement and reinforce each other, and must"—
I stress the word "must"—
"be viewed as a whole".
Therein lies the great difficulty regarding the excellent work of the commission. Some of its recommendations are peaks of ambition rather than realistic medium-term targets. It is difficult for a country of the size and shape of ours, with the Channel Tunnel its only link to another country, to influence much that goes on in Europe, let alone worldwide. Therefore to have the maximum effect, I should have liked the commission to have subdivided its report into the recommendations that could have coherently hung together and which we in this country could have implemented by ourselves.
We must also be careful that we do not take action that will be detrimental to ourselves and from which others can benefit, as the noble Baroness pointed out. If we tackle pollution it must be for the most part on a European-wide basis, and a worldwide basis.
I wish to touch on two important factors. First, the Government must be involved in the discussion, as must all of us. There is no doubt that our way of life will change. The commission pointed out ways in which it is likely to change. If we do not take part in that debate and come forward with our own ideas we cannot blame anyone else for taking action in the future.
I am slightly worried as to what some of the commission's recommendations mean in the way of an increase in government interference in our lives. I object to that, and hope that there might be other ways of achieving the same ends.
1408
The second point that concerns me is the massive cost of the recommendations. As I have said many times before, protecting the environment is a very expensive exercise. We must not do anything that is detrimental to our industries and economies, which are needed to generate wealth to enable us to protect the environment. The two go hand in hand. There was a suggestion in the committee's recommendations that an increase in fuel duty should double the price of fuel for cars within a period of 10 years. That would have an enormous effect in the countryside and would change the way of life there. The cost of fuel might increase dramatically under the Government's proposals, but under the commission's recommendations the change would be quicker and more severe. There are not the public sector utilities in the way of trains or buses to compensate for that dramatic increase in cost in the areas where a lot of low-income people already live. These are the kinds of knock-on effects that need to be thought through and debated as a result of the committee's hard work.
I should like to touch briefly on two other points. The committee quite rightly raised the question of noise. People's perception and their interest in noise has been growing for many years. I blame some local authorities for aggravating that position. There are cases, for instance, where the Government have put in a road scheme, and then the local authority has allowed development right up to that road. It may have been a bypass, or a new road, that has increased traffic in a particular area and the local authority has allowed development up to that point.
Similar cases have occurred with some of our airports. They are vital communication links for this country. The airports were there long before some of the present development grew up. Quite naturally, as people become more concerned about noise, so they complain from the very houses that are part of the development that took place when the airport was already there. That does not stop the problem, but it could perhaps have been alleviated by better decisions on the part of some local authorities in the first place.
I touch briefly on airports, which are a matter of concern to me. It is vital that Britain maintains its link as the hub of the European air system. We are very fortunate to have the network of airports that we do have, with Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton around London. It is vital for our prosperity that these airports are kept and maintained, and that every opportunity is given to develop them, bearing in mind the constraints that the commission recommends.
For that reason I was disappointed by the recent decision of the Government on Redhill airport as a feeder relief airport for Gatwick. With the congestion that already exists at Heathrow and Gatwick, it seems logical that we should use existing sites such as Redhill and Northolt to enable our main airports to flourish. The sadness in regard to Northolt, which is very much under-utilised, is that it could be of enormous benefit to Heathrow and to the regions by taking some of the traffic out of Heathrow to allow bigger planes in and thereby maintaining the important position that UK Limited has in the world aviation market.

1409
I am grateful for all the commission's hard work. As my noble friend said earlier, the report is lengthy. It is impossible to do it justice in the short time that we have. I urge the Government and all who are concerned about this matter to take this debate forward. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this short step on its route.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming this debate, and particularly in welcoming the report and the opportunity that I now have to support it. Reading the report, one realises that it is not dogmatically anti-car. It is the more authoritative, compelling and convincing for its balance and calm tone. The question of balance is vital, because one must win the hearts and minds of the public in the debate on dealing with pollution and their choices of transport mode.
The issue seems to be moving up the public agenda very fast. One has only to read of the action taken by families in Greenwich during the recent incidence of high pollution to realise that. But there is still a wide debate to be realised. We must not overlook that—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made this point—or the need for easily understood and easily accessible information. Some measures may appear to bring disadvantages to individuals. Unless they are understood in the short term and are seen to be for good reason, they will not succeed. We need to help the public to link the issues, and to link the causes and effects. That was a point to which the New Scientist drew attention in a very blunt editorial on 13th May. Referring to summer arriving in Britain and bringing with it the worst air pollution of the year—at a time, I have to say, when I was lucky enough to be breathing clear mountain air and was able to stop coughing for the first time in two months—the editorial went on to say:
"Coincidentally, last week also marked the utter humiliation of the Conservative government at local council elections … These two events are presumably not linked directly for there is no evidence that voters who walked to the polls decided that the Conservative government should pay the price for the foul taste of the air. But the government's lack of success in dealing with air pollution says much about its current political weaknesses".
I am not one who calls for a rigid blueprint in these matters. But I believe that the Government have failed in not helping to provide an appropriate framework to deal with transport and pollution. We know that the Government favour a light touch. But it must be the right touch. We need the right government structures at every level; and we need especially the recognition that transport cannot be isolated from land use planning matters. We need to recognise the environmental impact of policies. For instance, if bus deregulation proceeds in London, how are the Government easily to encourage the greater use of public transport? My noble friend Lady Thomas referred to rail privatisation and the disposal of Railtrack. Already, it is difficult even to get information as to how to make any but the most straightforward journey by rail. And that is at the very start of the process of privatisation. It is difficult for the Government to say that they are promoting public transport hand-in-hand with some of their other policies.
1410
If the Government will not accept the need for an integrated transport policy—and we have seen no evidence that they do—perhaps they will accept that each individual traveller is an integrated person. Instead of regarding, for instance, car drivers as distinct from rail passengers, as distinct from cyclists, we should encourage each individual to choose the appropriate mode for each particular journey. In particular, car owners need not only be car drivers. We have not reached the point of having a culture in which leaving the car at home is one obvious option.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned sticks and carrots. We may have to accept that some of the carrots will need to precede some of the sticks. The accessibility of less environmentally damaging forms of travel needs to be available before tougher policies are applied; otherwise, the public will resent and resist what is being done. That means investing in what we have. London Underground is an obvious example. Its use is an increasingly unpleasant experience. I am told by users of branches of the District Line, other than the Wimbledon branch, that, most unhappily, delays, cancellations and overcrowding on those branches are increasing noticeably. It has to be said that the Wimbledon branch seems to have improved. That may or may not be because the new head of London Underground uses the Wimbledon branch.
Let us take the separate, and quite different, example of regional airports. There are environmentally sound reasons for expanding regional airports. I may not agree with the whole of what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, may say about airport policy, but on the matter of regional airports, I do agree with him. There are very good reasons for expanding them instead of directing the great majority of flights to the South East and requiring passengers from, say, the North-West to travel to Heathrow to connect with international flights. It also means ensuring that what we have is as acceptable as possible. Let me mention here the new A.14 in Cambridgeshire. The road surface noise from that trunk road has proved more intrusive than the worst fears of local people had envisaged. We need to invest in research and development, which is vital to make sure that, where there has to be development, we understand the impact on the environment and on local people.
Finally, to ensure public information and public understanding there has to be openness. For instance, monitoring of pollution must be open and understandable. That is especially important in a very complex scientific and technical area. The London Air Quality Network, which has been commended by the Royal Commission, recently called for an easily understood format for reporting air quality and pollution levels to the public. One must welcome openness. After all, it is at the heart of an accountable democracy. One must encourage all agencies to be free with information and to use plain language in its presentation. Among those agencies, I include the Cabinet Sub-committee for London. The argument that transport is a major issue for London and that strategic land use planning and transport in London need to be linked was won years ago. It seems that only the Government are not convinced and deal with these matters out of the public eye in a private Cabinet committee.

1411
The issues of transport and pollution are not isolated. There are many good reasons to take them seriously. I shall end by mentioning only two of them. The quality of life is an important criterion for overseas companies considering where to locate. In other words, air quality is important in attracting investment. Secondly, the environment is vital to health. My noble friend Lady Thomas, mentioned the work undertaken by our colleague the honourable Member for Montgomery in drawing attention to the costs of treating asthma which have risen by over 20 per cent. in the past two years. There are those who say that we must do more, we must get bigger and we cannot afford environmental measures. It may be trite but it is true to say that we cannot afford not to implement them.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this 18th report of the Royal Commission is significant not only for its length but also, perhaps more importantly, for drawing together so many of the issues which dominate the debate on transport and the environment. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, we have discussed many of the issues on many occasions over recent months. Certainly those issues have often been discussed in my time in your Lordships' House and as long ago as 15 or 20 years. We do not seem to get on very much faster. That is not to deny that the Royal Commission is not right in reminding us of those self-same issues.
But I do not believe that the report has taken on board nor paid sufficient regard to those measures that have already been taken and are already in prospect to lessen the impact of land based transport. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I am more inclined to congratulate my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport for having taken measures quite recently on fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and other matters. One problem with emissions is that only a few years ago we were urged internationally to move from petrol (gasoline) to diesel fuel. The motor manufacturers rejigged their plant and produced motor engines, particularly small diesel engines, to meet that need. Within a matter of a few years, we have heard that diesel particulates are in fact more dangerous than petrol emissions. What chance does the motor manufacturing industry have when we keep moving the goalposts. In this regard, what we need is a more consistent approach to some of the problems.
The problems are not only a matter for the Department of Transport. The report talks about planning and that involves the Department of the Environment and indeed other departments also. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said—I hope that he will forgive me if I do not quote him exactly—that gains for the Treasury should not be kept there but should be spread around. Too much of what is happening in the motor and transport industry is Treasury dominated. A lot more could be done if some of those funds could be released. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
I return to the commission's report. Notwithstanding the preface to the report, which states that:
"An effective transport system is vital for economic well-being and the quality of life",
1412
many of the report's 102 recommendations run quite contrary to the economic growth of the United Kingdom, the international competitiveness of industry and indeed the natural aspirations of the people of this country. Of the 102 recommendations, 31—one third—say that the Government "should". That will all cost money. From where will that money come? I shall return to that issue in my concluding remarks.
Having started in that fashion, the report concludes with the suggestion that:
"unrelenting growth of transport has become possibly the greatest threat facing the UK".
I do not believe that that suggestion can be maintained.
My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke about the international pollution. Chernobyl is just one example which he did not mention, although he gave other instances. The growth of transport is not the greatest threat facing us. Let me say—I mean it quite critically—that by far the weakest aspect of the report is the total and absolute failure to address the economic and social impact of its recommendations. Some can be accommodated in the natural consequence and natural advancement of things. But I have not read any response to the report which does not draw that conclusion.
Let me pick just one example—not quite out of the air, because I happen to know a little about freight. To suggest increasing road costs to make "rail more attractive" is a nonsense. It will merely increase costs to industry without effecting a significant shift in the mode of travel. Anybody who runs a heavy goods vehicle at £35 per hour does not run it for fun. It is there to meet the proper and legitimate demands of its customers, without whom we should not have the quality of life that we enjoy. It is perhaps of interest to your Lordships to note that there are today fewer heavy goods vehicles—commercial vehicles over, for example, a Transit van weight—on the roads than have been recorded since records began.
The commission talked about compulsory transhipment depots to serve communities. In my view, that is a practical nonsense. One will simply substitute one heavy goods vehicle for six or eight light vehicles. They will add to the congestion; they will add to the pollution. If heavy goods vehicles were denied access to the urban areas it would add another £1.5 billion to industries' costs. That would be reflected, for example, in the cost of a packet of cornflakes and other things.
Road transport contributed £24 billion to the Exchequer in 1994–95. Road users paid 12 per cent. of all tax revenues and less than one-third of that was spent on roads, whether on the environmental impact, road building or improvements. That is a point that I wanted to pick up from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the Treasury. That money must be spread around better. It is no good adding more to the Treasury coffers.
Levering up fuel costs as the report suggests would seriously damage the rural community and fall disproportionately upon the lower income groups. Having said that—a fairly condemnatory statement—I have no doubt that most people will accept some use restriction and possibly some cost increase in relation to cars (an individual pays around £815 a year in direct motor taxes). We must influence the car culture and take the balanced

1413
view, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, remarked, to reduce the impact of transport. Actions in that regard must be practical, cost-effective, widely supported and, above all, offer freedom of choice within the framework of people's lives.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Berkeley on his maiden speech, not only for its content, but also bearing in mind his great contribution to Eurotunnel over the years and his excellent liaison with the inter-parliamentary Channel Tunnel group over that same period.
The report pursues this subject in massive depth, but I shall confine myself to a few short remarks on the railway aspect of it. That fits in rather well with a long-term view of the recent history of transport. As we approach this new century that seems to be a legitimate way to measure the time. If we think of the 19th century, that was obviously the age of steam traction fuelled by its old ally, coal. The 20th century has undoubtedly been the age of the internal combustion engine with its energy source coming from oil. The question is: what will the future be in the 21st century?
I suggest that the key element will be electricity. If that occurs it will have profound repercussions on the subject dealt with by the report. Although at present we are ultimately dependent upon fossil fuels, electricity is suitable for generation by alternative sources such as wind, tide and so forth. In my belief—a very fond one—it may ultimately be generated by cleaned-up nuclear fission, or in the 21st century, by fusion.
In transport terms this source of traction is not very suitable for road transport—notoriously so—and perhaps never will be; but it is ideal for railways. I draw your Lordships' attention to what the report says on that subject. It said that there is a compelling need to transfer to rail as much traffic, both passenger and freight, as possible if the world is to meet the reduced pollution targets for the next century. There are signs that railways are already moving to meet that need.
If we consider the question of urban passenger transport, it is notable that there has been a worldwide move towards rail. Many cities are building tramways, light railways or main-line extensions to meet the pressing need to reduce urban air pollution. In this country we have seen recent examples in Manchester and Sheffield. Generally speaking, since the low point of Beeching, British Rail has opened no less than 250 new stations, which shows that at last it is moving in the right direction. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the Eurostar train puts a new dimension on rail transport and I urge anyone who has not yet experienced it to do so. It provides extremely strong competition for air travel to Paris.
The way the freight situation has developed is also interesting, again perhaps in the European context. As the noble Lord said, there has been a rapid build-up. At present around 100 trains a week run at night through the tunnel. That is an interesting development because it demonstrates that it is possible to concentrate sufficient traffic at collecting points to run daily scheduled freight
1414
trains to a number of destinations. I believe that three trains a day leave Glasgow and Mosside, some of them taking traffic to Northern Italy and points beyond. That may be extended to more key routes on British Rail, provided they were modified to accept nine-feet containers or trailers by piggyback. There is urgent need for that to be done.
The next time the Government are urged by the ministry for road transport to spend a few billion pounds on new roads, I urge them to put a few hundred million into upgrading rail instead. I am certain that the environmental and social gains will justify the expenditure.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, this is a provocative and stimulating report and I wait with bated breath for my noble friend's reply to see whether the Government have been mainly provoked or stimulated. I should like to put forward four points from the report. They are not money-spending points; in fact they are money-saving points.
First, in relation to the road programme, we all recognise that there is no way in which we can build all the roads which would be filled if we were to build them. That means a lot of roads must be cut out of the programme, but not all roads. In rural areas, in which I have a specific interest, it is clear that people's quality of life in many rural villages such as mine in Suffolk have been made intolerable by the build-up of traffic on trunk roads, and bypasses are needed there. On the other hand, in rural areas it is not desirable to make improvements to very minor roads in order to stimulate or speed traffic on its way. I would prefer traffic calming measures such as speed limits and traffic humps to slow down the traffic. It is also a great deal cheaper to do that.
We have to make better use of the roads that we have. One obvious way referred to in the report is by the use of tolls. I should like to make a modest, practical suggestion as to how we could introduce tolls straightaway on the M.25 in an inexpensive manner. We should bear in mind that for quite a lot of most days the M.25 is choked full. I suggest that we introduce a single-price toll of £5 for entering the M.25. You would pay with a smart card, and without one you would not get on the road. After all, if you try to start your car in the morning without petrol you cannot drive, so there need be no sympathy for people who try to join the motorway without a card.
You would pay to get on the road, and you would pay £5 whether you went so far as one junction or the lot. But—and this is important—it would be free to enter the M.25 between midnight and 6 a.m. I suggest that would make much better use of the M.25, and that would not be expensive to introduce. Sophisticated road pricing is a great idea, but it is still years ahead.
We need to make much better use of the cars we already have. I believe that the Government's policy over the decades has probably been wrong regarding vehicle excise duty. I believe that the current vehicle excise duty is £135 a year. In 1968 it was £25 a year, and if one multiplies that for inflation, today that figure would be £225. In 1975 the road tax had already started to fall in

1415
real terms. It was £40 a year, which is equivalent to £176 today. I would settle for £200 a year, and by my calculation, that would give the Chancellor an extra £1.3 billion, which is well worth having. It would make people think twice about having too many cars. To reinforce that, I suggest that we consider that individuals having second cars should pay double the road tax, which will be £400. If one has better use of cars, then one needs to build fewer roads. Noble Lords may think that is radical, but it is a perfectly sensible approach to dealing with a real and urgent problem.
Finally, I come to a subject which I am very keen about; namely, bicycles. I am delighted to see that the report gives them extensive cover. As I am sure all your Lordships know, National Bicycle Week starts on Saturday. On Tuesday of next week there is what is called, the "Great Parliamentary Bicycle Ride", which is from Covent Garden to the Palace of Westminster. I hope that many Members of both Houses will attend. Indeed, it would be quite fun to have a competition to see which of the two main parties can produce most Members on bicycles. The Liberal Democrat participation can be measured on the basis of proportional representation!
What is quite serious is that bicycling is jolly dangerous, particularly in London. It is 10 times more dangerous to be a cyclist than it is to be a passenger or driver in a motor car. One of the points proposed by the Royal Commission Report is to ask the Government to produce specific proposals for making bicycling safer. That is most important.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords a few figures which really show why bicycling is such a good thing. I believe that it is Paragraph 6.39 of the report which gives complicated sums about the mega joule per kilometre of the cost of moving people around in different ways. I have reduced those sums to a rather simple form and I believe that the arithmetic is right. My noble friend Lord Selborne will correct me if I am wrong. If it costs one unit for a person on a bicycle, four times as much energy is used to walk; 50 times as much energy is used to move someone in a car on an ordinary urban road and 80 times more energy to move someone in a car in the commuter rush hour. That strikes me as a good argument in favour of the bicycle. It is also a great deal healthier.
It is stated somewhere in the report that a large proportion of people of our age—I am referring to the average age of noble Lords—are not fit enough to walk even at three miles per hour. I do not think that applies to most noble Lords; but it is a pretty awful condemnation of the state of health of the British nation. It may be that we are not representative. I am told by actuaries that Members of this House live a decade longer than the rest of the community.
Quite seriously, London is an ideal place for bicycling. The total number of journeys in Britain by bicycle is about two per cent. In Germany it is about 10 per cent; in Holland about 30 per cent.; and in the city of Delft it is between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. We should have targets greatly to increase the number of bicycle trips made in this country.
The first requirement is proper bicycle lanes, particularly in cities and in London. There is a very simple way of doing it. If one considers one-way streets—I am
1416
not about to suggest going down them the wrong way, because I said that once before and got into trouble—where there is parking on both sides, if one of those lanes was taken away and turned into a cycling lane, then at no extra cost—hey presto!—one has a perfectly good bicycle lane!
I hope that the Government, if they are really taking this subject seriously, will draw up a plan and not just leave it to local authorities because they will not do it. Some will and some will not. There is no point in having a chain if some links are missing. I end there. I believe that there is a great deal that can be done and I should like to hear the Government's response to some of my ideas.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, in my particular case for drawing my attention to the material which is in the Royal Commission's report on environmental pollution and transport. It is a fascinating document.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in tandem, almost, in that I shall be devoting most of my remarks to cycling. I have to declare an interest: I am a fair weather cyclist. I quite often travel to your Lordships' House by bike. I also admit to using my car rather too often for longer journeys rather than using my bike or public transport, despite the fact that I am entitled to a rail card. We use cars because of their comfort, convenience and ability to carry luggage, shopping and other paraphernalia, so easily in the boot. A hatchback or an estate car enables us to carry furniture and sometimes a bicycle—or even such other items as sacks of manure—around town or country with ease.
I admit that cycling can never be the major mode of transport in the country or the solution to all the environmental impacts which methods of transport have. But for short journeys, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, pointed out, especially in urban areas, the bicycle is extremely efficient and often the most rapid form of transport. I can reliably reach your Lordships' House from home in 25 to 30 minutes on a bicycle. By Tube it takes 35 to 40 minutes; by bus it takes about 45 minutes. Car journeys are very unpredictable, taking anything from 20 minutes to 40 minutes depending on the traffic. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, the fuel efficiency of riding a bicycle is enormously superior to that of a motor vehicle. The car burns up 40 to 80 times as many calories per person/kilometre travelled, depending on the traffic, as a cyclist. Also, the car produces 40 to 80 times as much CO2 as a cyclist. The cyclist uses no fossil fuel and emits no nitrogen oxides or particulate matter in exhaled breath.
Although the precise mechanism is not fully understood, there is little doubt that vehicle fumes play a part, perhaps a major part, in the recent worrying increase in asthma. That was referred to by the noble Baroness. Diesel fumes which contain more minute particulate matter are a suspect with regard to asthma, because it appears that the hydrocarbon particle acts as a nucleus or nidus to which allergens or other irritants can stick.

1417
Cyclists, as compared to motorists, do not just contribute to a healthy atmosphere, they improve their own health. I spelt that out, possibly in some boring detail, in a contribution I made to the Unstarred Question on cycling tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, almost two years ago. To sum up, the beneficial effects on health of cycling occur mainly in the cardiovascular system (the heart and the arteries). The likelihood of a heart attack (a myocardial infarction) or angina, high blood pressure or a stroke is measurably decreased by exercise. Osteoporosis, also a major cause of problems in middle to late life, especially among women, is greatly reduced by exercise.
There is now no scientific doubt about those findings, which are recognised in the recent report of the physical activity taskforce set up under the Health of the Nation initiative entitled, More People, More Active, More Often.
As the Royal Commission report points out, although cycle ownership has risen from 25 per cent. to 36 per cent. in the past 20 years, the percentage of the population which uses bicycles regularly has decreased by a third over the same period. Cycle mileage per person per year has fallen from 51 miles to 41 miles. The Royal Commission report, as the noble Lord pointed out, takes cycling seriously and devotes 21 paragraphs in six different sections to cycling. It makes four recommendations and puts forward one major objective in relation to cycling, (target C2 in paragraph 14.96) which states that the target should be:
"To increase cycling use to 10 per cent. of all urban journeys by 2005, compared to 2.5 per cent. now, and seek further increases thereafter on the basis of targets to be set by the government".
The decrease in cycling use is due partly to the increased convenience of cars, as I said, and the vast increase in the percentage of the population which owns a car, and partly to the perceived danger of cycling in present traffic conditions. There are about 250 deaths and 25,000 injuries among cyclists per annum, as the report points out. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, mentioned that the death rate per 100 kilometres travelled is nearly 10 times higher on a bicycle than it is in a car. In Britain the death rate from cycling is two or three times higher than it is in the Netherlands, Sweden or Denmark.
As an important step towards increased cycling safety the report recommends that,
"comprehensive networks of safe cycle routes which do not involve the use of heavily trafficked roads should be built up in all urban areas."
Further,
"the government should make available to all local authorities the relatively modest resources required to support a 10-year programme to create high-quality cycling facilities; the new appraisal method of cycling schemes be reviewed in the light of the 1995/96 TPP round".
In statements over the past year or two, the Government have accepted that an increase in cycling is desirable. In June last year the Department of Transport issued a cycling friendly statement entitled A Blueprint for Cycling Policy, advocating some of the cycling measures put forward by the Royal Commission, but it put the onus of operating those on local government, the private sector and individuals themselves. Of course local authorities are the proper people to construct safe cycle ways and provide other measures recommended in the report, but they need the "relatively modest"—as the Royal
1418
Commission puts it—resources required to carry out those schemes. Local authorities have had their duties increased and their budgets decreased regularly during this Government's lifetime. Exhortation from central government is not enough. Action in the form of resources is essential.
I should like to ask the Minister a question which I put to him two years ago. Deaths and serious injuries to cyclists are due usually to head injuries. Although the cost of cycle helmets has come down over the past few years, they are still much too expensive for some, especially children and adults from poor families. They represent about 25 per cent. of the cost of the bicycle itself. That is partly because they are VAT liable, as are the bicycles themselves and bicycle spare parts, although motorcycle helmets are exempt. We cannot exempt pedal cyclists' helmets, pedal cycles or pedal cycle parts without a cross-European agreement to do so. That would seem a desirable aim right across Europe. I see that I have overrun my time. I believe there may be another tandem coming along after me and so I shall now finish.
7.27 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was referring to me as a third tandem—no, we have another cyclist here. I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the debate. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I shall concentrate upon our inland waterways, but I should like to start with two quotations from the report. The first is:
"We do not regard this cycle of continual road building facilitating continue growth of road transport as environmentally sustainable".
The second quotation is:
"Unrelenting growth of transport has become possibly the greatest environmental threat facing the UK and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving sustainable development".
I am grateful to Dr. David Hilling of the Department of Geography at the University of London for providing me with most of my information. On an island such as Britain, it is brought home to us that land itself is a finite resource. That is one of the reasons not to open up more and more large aggregate pits even if the land will ultimately be available for a limited number of alternative uses. Connected to that is the fact that road building removes from other possible uses both the land from which the aggregate is taken and the land to which it is taken to make the roads.
In taking the best practicable environmental option as the basis for decision-making, the Royal Commission suggests that not only industrial pollution—the original target—but now also transport policy should be based upon that principle. In that context, I should like to see more use made of water transport. The objection often raised to water transport that it is so slow. If you look at the life history of many industrial products you see that they spend a long period in a warehouse, a short period moving quickly in a lorry, and another period doing nothing in a warehouse. It should not take a great deal of forward planning to provide for the goods to spend a certain amount of time that they would otherwise spend doing nothing in the warehouse travelling more slowly by

1419
water. In that way a huge tonnage of different products would pollute far less in their journeys to their eventual customers.
The stated objective of the Royal Commission is to increase the proportion of freight carried by less environmentally damaging modes and to make the best use of the existing infrastructure, which of course includes the man-made and the natural inland waterways.
I return to the slowness of water transport. Perhaps the Royal Commission overestimates the deterrent effect of this disadvantage. Certainly the amazing growth of container traffic on the Rhine from Rotterdam to Antwerp suggests that an extra few days is of no great significance as regards goods that have already travelled a long way from the Far East and other distant places.
In Germany there is a weekend lorry ban on motorways. That is undoubtedly helpful to the waterways. We could see more of that type of restriction in the future. Tweddle and Nash recommended—I am not sure of the name of the report—that British waterways should be included in the European masterplan for inland waterways. This would ensure that Britain gets a share of any infrastructure grants that may be available. As recently as 1994, and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, the British Government were arguing that countries' waterways were not a part of the mainland—that is the European—waterways system. Yet before railways were even invented ships provided direct connection between inland ports in Britain and those in the mainland of Europe.
To illustrate the possibilities for increasing the tonnage of freight carried on water, I should like also to draw on two other reports which refer specifically to the Thames. The Financial Times, in a report dated 6th January 1989, described the Thames as the:
"most under-utilised stretch of natural infrastructure in Europe".
Any policy based on the BPEO must make more use of London's river.
In 1992 the Government set up a River Thames Working Group to examine the present use of the river, the factors which inhibit the growth of traffic and the potential for developing freight and passenger transport on the river. Its report highlighted the huge quantity and wide variety of products which are carried on the river.
The Royal Commission report examines the now well-known benefits to the environment of a greater use of water transport. Barge transport in connection with the Jubilee Line extension is reducing lorry transport in the city by 300 journeys a day and waterfront industries create local employment and economic benefit.
Waterside industry in general must be in the context of proper landscaping, attention to design and the reduction of environmental conflict. Please remember that for those who use the waterways for pleasure in particular the view from the water needs to be considered. Too often planners are steamrollered into developments which exploit cheaper waterside land and result in nothing but slabs of wall facing the waterway. It will never have the charm and the interest even of the older industrial areas through which many canals pass.
1420
I wish to conclude by passing on a comment which friends of mine made when they flew back from France in early May during some very hot weather. They told me that as they flew over the Channel and inland the colour of the air became a dirty yellow-grey and looked very sick. Certainly during those days, and for the first time ever in my life, I found the air in London difficult and distasteful to breathe.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I too welcome the Royal Commission report. I welcome its analysis of present travel patterns and transport trends; its review of policy options; recommended objectives; targets; and, finally, the importance that it gives to cycling. I realise that there are many issues to be discussed tonight and I hesitate to overplay the cycling aspect of our debate. However, many of your Lordships will know that in the week I cycle in London in all weathers. It is my intention to confine my remarks to that subject tonight. The economic health and environmental benefits of cycling were fully discussed in your Lordships' House on 21st April 1993 and are now increasingly widely recognised. I believe that that debate was initiated by my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
Since then there have been a number of changes. The bicycle is no longer viewed as just the vehicle of the poor—or, perhaps in our case, that of the eccentric—but increasingly as a symbol of modern and healthy living. Bicycle ownership continues to increase. Sales are running at more than 2 million per year and the industry calculates that ownership is now close to 20 million.
However, this cycling revival is not reflected in national or regional use statistics. In London, usage is said to have dropped by 30 per cent. between 1981 and 1991, although local commuter counts indicate an increase since 1991. Certainly during the 15 or 20 years that I have been cycling I have seen a marked increase. The decline may well be attributable to a decline in the levels of child cycling where escort trips account for roughly one-quarter of all peak hour traffic in West London. While motor traffic growth has increased the gap both in perceived and real danger between those who travel inside a motor car and anyone outside, now nearly 30 per cent. of London schoolchildren are taken to school by car and less than 1 per cent. cycle.
Cycling is more important for commuting. On some inner London arterial roads cyclists can account for 17 per cent. of all vehicles during peak hours. Generally there is a shortage of reliable information about cycling and travel patterns, although cycling has now been included in the Department of Transport comparative study journey times. In central and inner London—even under present conditions—cycling is quicker than going by car, even for journeys up to six miles, and in outer London only slightly slower. The London Cycling Campaign's commuter challenge from Camden Lock to St. Paul's will be illustrating this tomorrow as part of Hovis National Bike Week.
I cycle each day from home to work. It takes about 20 minutes. Then at the end of the day I cycle from my surgery to your Lordships' House, which takes between

1421
12 and 15 minutes. My journey would be much more comfortable if there were a recognised safe way to cross Park Lane. Even in roads such as Park Lane, Bond Street, Sloane Street and St. James' Square it is impossible to get away from double-parked traffic, fumes, potholes and refuse—particularly glass—which are so much a feature of central London cycling. Westminster councillors have once again rejected proposals for a Park Lane crossing, fearing that such an improvement would increase congestion and pollution. The parking attendants seem to have little effect on vehicles parking in bus lanes. The refuse collection lorries have an inherent design fault which allows glass to fall onto the road when rubbish containing glass is being compressed.
On my journey to your Lordships' House tonight I counted 24 cars illegally parked on my side of Bond Street. In several of them drivers were sitting in the driving seat so that they could drive away if a warden appeared. Two of those cars contained chauffeurs who were keeping the engines idling, I imagine to keep the air conditioning in good order for their owners when they arrived back from shopping.
Old habits die hard. Until very recently the message from the Department of Transport to transport planners and the general public alike was that cycling was too dangerous to encourage and it was not its role to promote any particular mode of transport. The Government, to their credit, have begun to take cycling seriously and encourage it as a valuable and flexible means of transport.
Safety remains the chief deterrent. A recent television programme about new London cyclists found that inner London was not as bad as they had expected, although the potholes were much worse. In their submission for the London Cycle Network, London boroughs identified a number of factors which contribute to cycle accidents. I would hope that adoption of the Royal Commission's cyclist fatality reduction target—I say to my noble friend Lord Selborne that that is a good target—would help to focus road safety effort on addressing these issues and reducing the dangers at source.
In Planning Policy Guidance 13—PPG 13—which has been taken further in the subsequent strategic Guidance for London, the Government recognise that policy decisions rather than immutable trends shape individual travel patterns and recommend that walking, cycling and public transport are given advantage over travel by car. The package approach, introduced in 1994, offers a more sustainable framework for local authority funding. Previously cycling featured only as a minority interest among safety schemes. The Cyclists Public Affairs Group reviewed the 1994–95 bids and allocations in its report, Trust Pedal Power. Provisional results of a similar study for 1995–96 show an increase in bids which include cycling schemes and some significant higher awards—most notably £3 million towards development of the London Cycle Network. However, 75 per cent. of UK local transport funding last year was committed to major schemes.
I believe that the Royal Commission's proposed objectives and targets provide a much better basis for sustainable transport and land-use planning, and would help to release funds for local transport networks and
1422
improving the relative attractiveness of walking, cycling and public transport. However policy develops, government must ensure that there is adequate finance to build coherent local cycle networks. I am told that the cost of implementing on-road measures is not high but, for complex and congested locations, often involves as much time and expertise as much more costly junction schemes. Adjustment or restriction of traffic flows and re-allocation of road space may well be necessary, but it is a small price to pay for making cycling easier and safer and much more widespread in urban areas.
There is an enormous potential for an increase in cycling; in particular, substituting for the shortest and most environmentally damaging car journeys. According to the National Travel Survey 1989–91, 73 per cent. of all UK trips are shorter than five miles. The Cyclists Touring Club, in its report Bikes Not Fumes, showed that 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of all non-walking journeys could be undertaken by bicycle without greatly increasing the average length of bike trips. That would displace up to one-sixth of all car mileage, up to half of all car trips, saving up to three-quarters of a million tonnes of carbon monoxide each year, 100,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxide and 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere each year.
National levels in European countries—Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands—are far superior to ours. Many towns not traditionally associated with cycling have increased use by more than 10 per cent. of all trips over a 10 year period—notably Munich, Stuttgart, Hanover, Basle and Munster. In a total reversal of cycling's negative image, those tend to be the most prosperous and progressive cities.
The Dutch have made serious efforts to combine cycling with public transport—35 per cent. of all rail passengers arrive at the station by bicycle. The Cyclists Public Affairs Group has produced useful guidance for rail operators on improving the connections between bicycles and trains. I am therefore pleased that the Royal Commission has made specific recommendations on this. Increased cycle carriage on trains and convenient cycle hire facilities can also encourage tourism in rural areas and reduce the impact of motor traffic on rural roads and environmentally sensitive areas.
The Government forecast that car ownership in London will increase by about one-third between 1991 and 2011, with congestion and motor traffic also increasing alarmingly, though at differing rates, throughout London. Recent draft strategic planning guidance recommends that boroughs should review their policies to avoid congestion and air pollution reaching unacceptable levels.
Measures which reduce the worst pollution are of course useful. But I believe catalytic converters are not effective over short distances and do not reduce global warming gases. I read in the Evening Standard on Monday that, according to reliable estimates, most of the pollution is caused by 12 per cent. of the vehicles—the major factor being poor vehicle maintenance. Many drivers do not know the problem their car is causing. I am aware that Westminster council has been targeting these "gross polluters" with its roadside emission tests, but I should be interested to hear from my noble friend whether the testing is having any effect. I should also like to ask

1423
him whether it is possible for a cyclist or pedestrian to report a vehicle that is obviously emitting dangerous fumes.
In conclusion, I am delighted that the Government are at last beginning to take cycling seriously. There is no doubt that the conditions in which we cycle are affected by government policy. Much can be done immediately and without significant cost. An individual's decision to travel by bicycle will be affected by perceptions about the volume and mix of traffic, the amount of road space available, the local availability of goods and services and the relative convenience and security of parking. The Royal Commission's report shows how these issues interrelate and makes a great many useful recommendations. I hope that the Government will give it the highest priority.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on introducing the debate. I believe that there is real hope that we can adopt most of the recommendations of this report because the human race is so adaptable. It was pointed out to me the other day that, for example, no one would have forecast 20 years ago that generally we should have given up cigarettes, but we have done so as a nation. That is a colossal social and medical change. If that sort of change can be made, we can do anything.
But to highlight our dilemma, I should like to give your Lordships three quotes from the Royal Commission and from the earlier report on sustainable mobility of Sub-Committee B, on which I had the privilege to serve. The first quote is:
"It is not the Government's job to tell people when and how to travel".
The second quote is:
"No politician hoping for election could ever mount a platform and say, 'I plan to ban you from driving from London to Birmingham'".
The third quote is:
"To avoid gridlock on that section of the M.1 between Luton and the M.25 we will need a motorway 20 lanes wide in as many years".
Thus, not surprisingly, the dilemma which existed when we debated your Lordships' report last October is still with us today and is, if anything, greater.
I doubt whether many noble Lords heard the speech I made last October. In it I produced a solution; namely, prohibitively expensive parking in our city centres. As proof that that works, I gave as an example the island of Manhattan where not even the chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank could afford to park. Therefore, he was spearheading the swing back to rail. Alas, my hopes have proved premature. Only last Sunday I learnt from a Morgan Stanley banker that those very expensive car parks are full again and that traffic density in New York is as bad as ever.
I am also a little dismayed to learn that at our latest development at Canary Wharf, public transport is quite inadequate and will remain so even after the completion of the Jubilee Line. Moreover, there are no main line stations. Thus, the employees of the Daily Telegraph and the merchant banks already there generally drive. What a pity that is; and whatever happened to the river bus?
1424
The swing back to rail becomes ever more urgent. The Royal Commission points out the scale of the problem. In this country we have 16,500 kilometres of rail but we have 360,000 kilometres of road. It points out too the frequency of the chained journey; that is, a trip to work, dropping one's child off at school and then on the way, popping into the Asda superstore to buy the groceries. Nowadays, we take that sort of journey for granted. We could never make such a journey by public transport. Increasingly we rely on our cars. One generation back, only 1 per cent. of children went to school by car; now, 30 per cent. do. In 1980, only 5 per cent. of us shopped in out-of-town megastores whereas now 37 per cent. do. Some drive a surprising 40 minutes each way to reach them.
Perhaps the reason that I appear rather pessimistic is that I produced solutions in my October speech and some of them seem already to have come a cropper. The Royal Commission has tackled that unsustainable descent into chaos with great imagination and makes no fewer than 110 recommendations which are eminently sensible but potentially unpopular—to increase fuel duty, to increase road tax, to decrease speed limits and to reduce the number of bypasses. For example, recommendation 58 states:
"Planned expenditure on motorways and other trunk roads should be reduced to about half its present level".
But irrespective of popularity, the Government must take the bit between their teeth and implement those recommendations. We cannot continue to pollute our land with asphalt and our air with greenhouse gases.
In addition I have singled out two rays of sunshine from the report. The first is the internet and the second is walking. With regard to internet, it must be true that as electronic communication becomes faster and more comprehensive, there will be less need to travel to work. The numbers of people working from home will increase. Another interesting factor is that an average car journey is under five miles, which is an easy distance for most of us to walk. I say "most of us", because, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out, and as I have learned to my horror, one-third of men and half of the women between the ages of 55 and 64 are not fit enough to walk at 3 miles per hour on level ground. Fortunately, I do not belong to that group. During the week I live in Notting Hill Gate. To ensure that I arrive here in time for a meeting, using public or private transport, I must allow an hour. Alternatively, to walk the four miles here through the parks takes an hour and it puts me in a good mood.
I recommend that means of propulsion, as does the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Three bicyclists have spoken in the debate, the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Rea and Lord Colwyn. I still regard the bicycle as pretty dangerous and not much faster. I am a little worried that one of the three bicyclists is my dentist.
The most important question raised by the Commission has been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: do we need to travel so much? It emerges from the statistics in the report that train passenger miles have not decreased; rather, they only represent 6 per cent. of the total miles travelled. Are we travelling hopefully rather than arriving? Are we confusing activity with achievement? Many of us may yearn for the rustic days of

1425
Hardy's Wessex when most people never even travelled to Dorchester, but is that mere romantic nostalgia or is there a grain of truth in it?
Last week I went to Liverpool. A verger showed us the baptistry in the Anglican Cathedral. I asked him about the Roman Catholic Cathedral which is nicknamed Paddy's Wigwam. "Oh, Paddy's Wigwam", he chuckled, 'To tell the truth, I never journeyed that far". That verger was a happy man. Perhaps the Church has something to teach us about sustainable mobility.
I agree with the concluding paragraph of the Commission's report where Burke's dictum is quoted:
"Society is not only a partnership between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born."
We must think of the unborn. We must provide for them a green and pleasant land. If we implement the Royal Commission's recommendations we will do so.
7.55 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, correctly warned the House that a tandem was following him on the subject of bicycling. It is because the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, made such a formidable speech that I regard him as being in the engine room of the tandem, which I think is the back. I shall delicately steer the front.
We have all been encouraged by the mention of National Bike Week that starts on Saturday.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on an articulate and formidable speech. Some of us who have been involved with bicycles for some time are still waiting with interest to see how his company will implement a very small requirement in the Channel Tunnel Bill. I tried to enlarge that requirement in this House but failed, and it was put in in another place by Sir George Young. That requirement was that the shuttle should be able to carry bicycles from shore to shore.
I hope that in the Government's response to the report they will confirm their whole-hearted commitment to two wheels. Can the Minister say whether the Government are going to make a proper response to the report and give an indication as to when that might be? He has been asked very specific questions on cycling which I do not expect him to be able to answer in the context of this very abstract report, but I hope that he will be able to regard the diversion we have caused on cycles as a case study to bring an abstract report down to earth.
Having stated that I should like to speak also about motor cycles, I was surprised that I could find no reference to motor cycles in the index; it is as though they were deemed to have a similar environmental impact to any other combustion-engined vehicle.
As someone who invariably cycles or motorcycles through traffic, I am regularly astonished that more people do not spontaneously take to two wheels to beat the congestion and the ever-decreasing traffic speeds. I get the impression that in this complex report bicycling features as only an afterthought. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who talked about extensive coverage in the report. The relevant cycling conclusions
1426
are summed up in two objectives and four recommendations. Recommendations 100 and 101 relate to facilities that could be provided by British Rail and Railtrack. There is an apparent obvious conflict between the immediate short-term aims and problems of those organisations and the longer-term perspective of the Royal Commission report.
There is a medium-term economic case to be made that it makes sense, as other countries find, to encourage extra rail passengers by providing secure station parking and uncomplicated carrying of cycles by train. However desirable and likely that seems at present, it is useful to note that the report keeps those ideas in play for the future.
Recommendations 98 and 99 advocate safe cycle routes and schemes, claiming that only relatively modest resources are required to support a 10-year programme to create high quality cycling facilities. Those recommendations tie up with the stated objectives to increase cycle use in the next 10 years for all urban journeys from 2.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. That is ambitious but possible, in my opinion. It is partly based on usage levels in similar countries. I hope that those recommendations can form the beginning of a national cycling strategy.
As a long-standing member and officer of the all-party cycling group in this building, I feel that we have in a sense been here before. I am also encouraged by the recent significant shift of attitude at government and sometimes local government level.
In the recent paper that was produced by the former cycling Minister, Mr. Robert Key, changing perceptions of cycling was highlighted as being a most important feature. I was pleased to hear the Minister, Mr. Steven Norris, say in an adjournment debate in another place today that in this country we have hugely undervalued cycling. He stated that targets have their place as long as local variations can be recognised.
The apparent changes of attitude, while valuable, should also be reflected in actions.
I should like to quote a paragraph from the press release given by Mr. Steven Norris today, which I find encouraging:
"There is a need to take drastic action if we are to move to a position where cycling is seen as an integral part of a sustainable transport policy. Our intention is to ensure that cycling is placed more centrally in planning local transport strategies. One such action is the creation of a National Cycling Strategy."
Those are good intentions and I hope that they will be followed up energetically.
I understand that progress is slowly being made in London, sometimes using funds that are ring fenced for the purpose. In the area that I know well, Kensington and Chelsea, new cycle lane signs and dedicated parking stands are in evidence. There is a very welcome profusion of "Sheffield" stands in the borough. At first they appeared to be unused, but as they became noticed, over a period, they were more regularly used. A valuable incidental effect of positively providing parking stands for cycles is to welcome officially and approve the cyclist who would normally not take any great pleasure in having to padlock his machine to someone's railings or a lamppost. It is in such small ways that the improved status and perception of the bicycle is reinforced.

1427
It is encouraging that motoring organisations now take cycles seriously. In particular, the AA has done so in its response to the report of the Royal Commission in which it signifies its support for all the recommendations relating to bicycling. In that response, the AA also refers to its admirable booklet called, Cycling Motorists. How to Encourage Them.
In the cycling field, we should be grateful for the continuing enthusiasm of the three organisations making up the Cyclists' Public Affairs Group. I know that the group is ready to play its part in the massive public education about, and encouragement of, cycling. It certainly agrees with the principle of targets and objectives and the scope for a substantial long-term increase in bicycle use.
Finally, on the subject of motorcycles, I hope that the Minister (who is well known for his interest in the field) will not allow his department to forget the contribution of motorcycles in framing its response to the report. In just about every measure relating to environmental pollution, motorcycles are substantially better than cars: on fuel efficiency, on resources consumed and on road space, for example.
I believe that motorcycles have a much larger role to play in the future which the report addresses. They need to be encouraged, sometimes, as an acceptable substitute for the car, perhaps even for those who find a change to the bicycle too drastic. As well as their national cycling strategy, I hope that one day soon the Government might also try to develop a national motorcycling strategy.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, while travelling here today from the New Forest in my electric train, I thought how marvellously clean such a train is, both to those of us who use it and to those who live nearby. However, I also thought how very foul it is for those who live downstream at the power stations in Yorkshire and get the acid rain. When I arrived here I looked at our palace. As many noble Lords will remember, the external fabric was severely damaged by effluence from coal combustion, be it household fires, industry or the steam engine that was the mainspring of the Industrial Revolution. Over the past decade, much work has gone into refurbishing or restoring the exterior, but now it is the car that is doing the damage; indeed, it is the exhaust from the internal combustion engine. That leads me to think, as many speakers have said today, that our needs for transport and the environment are uneasy bedfellows.
Nonetheless, it is a pleasure to be the last Back Bench speaker in tonight's debate and to share the compliments paid to the Royal Commission for a provocative report. When I say that, I mean one that provokes thought and reaction, and not one that incites violence. It is also a pleasure to join in with the compliments that have been paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the report. It is of course a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to our debates.
1428
As ever, I declare a railway interest. Therefore, I should like briefly to explore the passenger dimensions of some of the conclusions of the commission. It is also nice, when you are speaking last, to realise that you have actually chosen a topic that no one else explored.
If we are to make greater use of our public transport services we need to make them, and information about them, as accessible as possible. Hence I strongly support the commission's recommendation—I believe it is number 43—that additional PTAs and PTEs should be established outside the former provincial metropolitan county areas; and, indeed, in London. It may not sit easily with local government reorganisation, but I believe that there is a strong case for a shire county PTA-PTE structure—not one massively buying transport through the mechanism of subsidy, but one spreading information and seeking to co-ordinate the various disciplines and modes.
I believe that such a structure can in fact still be established under the railways legislation of 1968. I do not think that that spoke specifically and exclusively about the metropolitan areas. The structure has served us well, in the metropolitan areas in respect of its support for rail— and I believe that that support will become more locally focused as the passenger train operating units gather strength—but especially as regards inter-modal (the bus, the train, the tram or even the boat) transfer tickets and information provision.
Perhaps I may take information first. Timetable and fare information must, I believe, be readily and easily accessible if the car is to be left at home. It was most interesting for me to listen earlier this week to a solicitor who lives in Portsmouth but who works in Southampton. He had been persuaded to take up the Government's option—namely, "Leave the car at home for a day. Don't choke Britain". That solicitor was amazed to discover, first, that there was a very convenient bus and train which would take him to work; secondly, that it was actually cheaper, if one took seriously the annualised costs of one's car, than motoring was; and, thirdly, that he did not, as he put it, waste time because time on the bus and in the train could be spent working whereas time in the car must, for safety reasons, be spent concentrating on the job in hand. The solicitor was not aware how cheap the train would be. As I said, he was not aware of how simply and easily the two modes connected.
What that solicitor needed was timetable and fare information which was readily and easily available. In London, we have London Regional Transport's excellent telephone inquiry bureau. I believe that it fulfils an essential role for anyone, motorist or non-motorist, who is thinking of using public transport. "Yes, inquiring customer, there are trains. There are tubes and there are buses, or whatever. These are their times, their fares and their routes". That is the information that a potential user needs before deciding to use public transport. I believe that is an essential plank regarding anything that we set out to do to make more use of our public transport.
The second stage in which PTAs have excelled is through ticketing across the different transport modes— not, as in London, with just a travelcard for the frequent traveller, but also in respect of single journeys where one changes routes or discipline modes. In fact, that is a

1429
particular weakness in London in terms of the traveller who is making a single, perhaps discretionary, journey. "Is your journey really necessary?" Surely we do not make journeys that are not necessary.
In the old days, I could go to the Treasury Building of an evening and get a through bus from there to Regent's Park on one single ticket. Now my route has been divided and I have to purchase two single tickets. Therefore, my fares have increased and so, indeed, has the hassle. I have to wait for two buses instead of one. If I had a car I would be inclined to use it and, given some of the persuasiveness used this evening, I might even consider buying a bicycle if I was really brave.
I strongly endorse Recommendation 85 of the commission on multi-modal ticketing and Recommendation 86 on information provision. However, I would go further and ask the Government to look at best practice abroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, Holland has a publicly-owned railway and a mix of public and private road transportation, publicly-owned trams and a mix of public and private shipping companies to serve the off islands and to cross some of the water gaps.
If I go to a station in Holland, I can buy not only a train ticket, but I can also buy a strip ticket that enables me to ride on any bus, tram or boat anywhere in the country. If the Dutch can do that, surely we should not renounce it. We should consider whether we can do it so that a Londoner could buy a strip ticket here and then use it on the Tyne & Wear Metro or wherever. Not only that, as was mentioned, I can also book a taxi at my destination; I can even hire a bike.
I believe that I should stress the word "connecting". In Norway, all public transport is listed in a national timetable called Rutebok for Norge. Not only does it list all the schedules, and so on, but every railway timetable shows where bus services inter-connect with the trains. If one looks at Stockholm, a suburban or underground train crosses from one side to the other—let us say the south to the north. On the south, on its way in, it is fed by buses. In the centre it does its business. On the north, it feeds into buses. One arrives at the terminal station and five minutes later eight or 10 buses cascade over a wide area of the county of Stockholm. I believe that that is also best practice that we should look at. In addition, at the point where one boards one can buy a ticket that takes one right the way through to one's destination, whatever other transport modes one may use.
I believe that we can learn from the Dutch, the Norwegians, Swedes and the Germans. When we have learnt I believe that the PTA/PTE mechanism spread nationwide will prove to be an apt operating vehicle, not to buy service through subsidy, but by way of information provision and through user-friendliness. As we all know, outside the absolute peaks rail and bus have vast amounts of spare capacity. PTAs have the knowhow. Put them together and one will make a modest contribution towards reconciling transport needs and those of the environment.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am delighted that we have had an extremely good debate, particularly as I was the Peer who put down this subject on the Order
1430
Paper. I believe that we have injected a great deal of wisdom into the subject. As the Secretary of State for Transport is widely known as a thinking Minister—why it should be necessary to pick out a thinking Minister from the rest of Ministers is not entirely clear—it is to be hoped that what has been said in the debate will be taken up. The quality of the speeches has been extremely high. Having become slightly deaf in my old age, I am not quite certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that we all had an extra decade or that we were all extra-decayed. Whichever it is, I believe that we have taken advantage of the first and denied the second.
We have discussed a large number of subjects. We have taken the recommendations of the commission and subjected them to considerable examination. It has been said that the cost of putting them into operation will be enormous. One of the interesting points to emerge from the debate is that a number of the speeches have included recommendations for how that money is to be raised. A number of Peers referred to large savings that could be made by following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, not least taxation of company cars, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Of course, we very much welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In particular, I welcome his call for a regulator for the whole public transport system. I believe that that is something we most have, together with the information required for the whole public transport system. That is one of the reasons why we on these Benches deplore the privatisation of the rail system.
I very much welcome Eurotunnel, if that is the noble Lord's achievement. I travelled on it recently. However, I was slightly disappointed to find that when travelling from London to Brussels the only part of the journey which was conducted at speed was that which took place in France. In both England and Belgium it was very slow, though pleasant. I speak as someone who in his youth cycled from London to Paris and used the Dartford Tunnel, which was an appalling experience. I do not recommend that to anyone. I welcome the fact that we have Eurotunnel. I do not know why this should apply to the French. I suppose that we have got into the habit of thinking of the French as somehow a fast nation and it is not, very seemly for us or the Belgians to proceed at the same kind of speed.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the report hung together and rather wished that one could separate out the British parts. If I may say so, that is typical of the attitude of his Government and party at this time. They appear to be dissociating themselves from Europe as fast as possible. We cannot and should not do it. The more we can integrate our systems the better.
The noble Earl raised the important topic of the country motorist. There are answers to this problem. One of them in which we on these Benches are particularly interested is the taxation of cars according to size and speed capability. On the whole, one does not need a very large car in the countryside, although a large number of Members of this House appear to drive enormous four-wheel-drive vehicles. However, the people who need transport and about whom we are speaking do not need to do that. They do not cover great mileages in most of the

1431
countryside of Britain, although that may not be true of the county of Caithness or one or two of the more distant areas.
We have dealt with the whole range of transport. We have touched on air and airports. My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that the person who used the train was also the person who drove a car and was a cyclist. She did not mention that he was also a pedestrian. Other people have spoken about pedestrians. We have dealt with internal waterways. My noble friend Lord McNair dealt with that very well. I do not believe that we have spoken about coastal transport in connection with goods, but that is a very small omission from coverage of a very large area.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the costs of all this had been underrated. He said that the cost of a packet of cornflakes would go up if all of the recommendations of the commission were put into operation. That is true. If we are to come to terms with a sustainable environment and economy in future, it is essential that we take into account the costs which at present are spread about in different places. Over the weekend I attended an all-day conference of Friends of the Earth. Mention was made of a win, win, win solution. That is a solution where economically, environmentally and socially one wins. It is very good to have a solution where one wins on all three, but one must win on at least two of them in order to have worthwhile transport. If one wins socially and environmentally one may have to put up with rather more cost. That is something that all of us have to face.
There are all sorts of ways of dealing with the various immediate transport problems. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested that we have a £5 fee for entering the M.25. I think that may be a good idea but I was not quite certain whether he wished to introduce it to raise money or to deter people from going on to the motorway, certainly at certain hours of the day. I do not think it would have much effect in the second instance because if the extent to which the M.25 is being dug up now does not deter your Lordships and the rest of the general public from using it, I do not know what will, certainly not £5!
We have dealt with cycling at great length. I wish to add one small point. I think that cycling is tremendously worthwhile and that it is worth encouraging. I usually come to your Lordships' House by public transport, but when I drive I travel through a part of Lambeth where there are quite a few signs, one of which states,
"Kill your speed not a child".
Another states,
"Mind cyclists when you turn".
We have already heard about the death toll of cyclists. Some of your Lordships will know that I have lost a child who died in a cycle accident in London. The question of cycle safety is tremendously important. Of course we must pay attention when we turn left to ensure that there is not a cyclist coming up on the inside at 20 miles an hour. But there ought to be rather more education of cyclists so that not many cyclists come up on the inside at 20 miles an hour. We need to pay attention to that matter.
I am a vice-president of the Pedestrians Association and I am not given much to cycling myself. I very much welcomed the comments of those who have talked about the virtues of walking. It is important that we take all these methods of transport into consideration.
1432
In conclusion, I wish to sum up what I, and I think we on these Benches, believe. The most important thing that we need to take to heart as we move into the era of a sustainable economy is that transport is neutral on the balance sheet. If it enables one to have access to desired goals without undue expenditure of resources, especially non-renewable ones, and without pollution, it is a good thing. If not, it is not. The object of transport and planning policy should be to provide as much access as possible at minimum real cost. Transport, like trade, is a means not an end and if we are to have a sustainable future we must realise that.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like so many noble Lords I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for introducing this debate, although I have to say that I believe that it should have taken place in Government time. It is an issue which has been ventilated with great care in this report and it deserves more than a debate on a Wednesday evening.
A number of your Lordships have spoken from great experience, notably of course the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who sat on the commission and who spoke with great authority about the matters that were raised. We all welcomed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It was, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who said that he was delighted to welcome him to the clique. I want to assure him that it is not so much a clique as a sect. We have some pleasant times together, and that includes the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also speaks from great practical experience and he will certainly give us more grounds for enlightenment in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, encouraged us all to participate in a cycling event. I think he was a little unwise to do that as boldly as he did in the environment of this House. The noble Lord then explained how perilous that activity was. I suppose that is one way of abolishing the House of Lords. The noble Lord then said that on average Members of your Lordships' House live 10 years longer than the rest of the population. I suppose that depends from where one starts. All that, of course, the noble Lord intends to end with a great degree of suddenness. He was reinforced in those views, a little more moderately in some ways, by my noble friend Lord Rea and others who are interested in cycling issues. I believe that the whole House was interested to hear those views.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, had some interesting things to say about the railways, as he always does. He also made a plea to enable the PTAs and the PTEs to remain. I hope that the Minister will give firm consideration to that matter. This debate is based on the report but it has been wrong not to draw attention to the Green Paper issued by the commission in 1992 entitled The Impact of Transport on the Environment—a Community Strategy to Sustainable Mobility. It is not surprising that there are a number of important common denominators which emerge in relation to both documents. I give praise to those who were involved in enabling those documents to see the light of day.

1433
It is not surprising that because both documents have been radical they have given rise to a good deal of criticism, which has been to some degree articulated in this House this evening. Somehow or other the task before society is to secure the right balance between economic and transport activities which sustain our people in work and also enable improvements to enhance our standard of living. On the other hand, how do we protect the environment which is essential for the quality of life of this and future generations? It is an enormously difficult problem. Too often the debate affecting transport and indeed industry as a whole and the environment is seen in a wholly adversarial light whereas I believe that the two should be viewed in terms of their advance in complementary terms. That is what the notion of sustainable mobility is all about. That is why modal shifts will be required on an increasing scale and why we need to encourage combined transport, or "piggyback" transport—which was of such great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—and the greater use of coastal shipping which has just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
This debate also has the singular advantage of enabling the House to try—I think unavailingly—to tease out from the Government what is their transport policy and how the Government see transport and the environment developing together. Of course they have done something of a U-turn on road building but they remain on the horns of an ideological dilemma over the role of public transport and are finding some obvious difficulties with regard to their absurd rail privatisation proposals.
Unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, especially in industrialised countries, undoubtedly lie at the root of so many of our environmental problems. Back in May of 1990 the Bergen ministerial declaration on sustainable development in the ECE region stated:
"The attainment of sustainable development … requires fundamental changes in human values towards the environment and in patterns of behaviour and consumption".
The document then highlighted the need,
"to reduce the harmful effects of the transport sector on the environment by promoting fast, safe and convenient urban and regional transport services and reducing urban car traffic".
Five years later, that remains the problem: hardly tackled.
No one can doubt that transport is a major contributor to energy and environmental problems. It is, after all, one of the main consumers of fossil fuels and has much responsibility for nuisance and damage to the environment. Transport can never be environmentally neutral, and I cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in that regard. The fourth and fifth environmental action programmes of the European Community began to identify transport in this light, focusing on the interaction between transport and the environment.
There is a growing consensus, though the issue was hotly disputed not so long ago, that the high atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is having a deleterious, and perhaps irreversible, effect on the earth's climate, causing a warming of the globe and an ensuing rise in average sea levels. Transport is seen as one of the main sources of carbon dioxide, which is the main man-made
1434
greenhouse gas. So it is with regard to the emission of CFCs and halons; acid deposition owes much to the problems posed by transport. Urban degradation, too, with noise emissions, atmospheric pollution, congestion and inconvenience, again owes much to a failure to deal with these particularly difficult transport and environmental problems.
We cannot fail to address these problems in the years ahead. On the other hand—one has to maintain a balance about these matters—transport in all its modes, including those which carry responsibility for so many of the problems I have underlined, is vital to our economic and social well-being, to the production and distribution of goods and services, as well as to trade and regional development, which are so vital to our economic activities. Transport has given us a wide range of choice, and that applies to the producer and consumer alike. So, directly or indirectly, it affects the quality of life of all our people, not least in peripheral areas.
The question is: how do we go about seeking solutions? I agree with so much of what has been said in a brief issued by the CBI today. It says:
"The Commission is also right to argue that ways must be found to make the longer-term development of transport environmentally sustainable".
That goes without saying; but it also went on to say this in commenting upon Missing Links, which was a document the CBI produced earlier in the year:
"this difference has arisen from other countries' ability more successfully to integrate strategic economic and environmental objectives for transport, supported by broad consensus about those objectives and long-term investment".
Until very recently we have not even tried to obtain that consensus. I remember that Mr. Brian Gould, who was then shadowing this portfolio some years ago in the other place, called for that. The call was repeated by John Prescott, but the calls fell on deaf ears. It is sad that that should be the case because consensus is the only way that we can tackle radical problems requiring radical solutions.
It is true that the Secretary of State has now called for a national debate. I think it is a little overdue—by something like 15 years, which is the period during which this Government have been in office. It requires the abandonment of some of the ideological shibboleths which are currently invading the whole question of transport policy.
I also read the observations of the Freight Transport Association. It is right to stress the importance of the job that its members do. It is right to stress how they have contributed towards resolving a number of environmental problems by intensifying their research and development and by ensuring that older lorries leave the roads. The FTA calls repeatedly for an integrated transport policy because it is concerned with all modes of transport. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and his successor probably do not like the words "integrated transport policy", but it is amazing how many people use the phrase: people who know, people who are in the trade, and among them members of the Freight Transport Association. It is not only the Labour Party. I believe that this report from the Royal Commission has concentrated on vital problems. I do not think that anybody, including the Royal Commission, would claim

1435
that it has managed to produce what might be called a blueprint: not at all. It has produced a number of recommendations which demand intensive study, and I praise it for the intensity of its work in that regard. I very much agree also with the CPRE in its view that strategic environmental assessment at all stages of decision making is vital. It is vital for Britain and vital in terms of planning trans-European road and rail networks, and in ensuring as best we can the best practical environmental options, as recommended by the Royal Commission.
We shall have to consider all these matters in greater depth at some time in the future. I have run out of time, although not quite to the same extent as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I propose to resume my seat on this note. Some of your Lordships have concentrated on the cost of the proposals. Not too many of those who have been critical of the report have concentrated on the cost of not approaching environmental issues which society may well have to bear in the future.
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, may I, like other noble Lords, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for giving us the opportunity this evening to discuss the important issues that are raised by the Royal Commission report. If I may say so, this has been a debate in the best traditions of the House of Lords in that, apart from a very small amount of ritual posturing on such issues as rail privatisation, I believe there has been a consensus to a considerable degree in the House on the problems to be faced on the environmental issues that are associated with transport. There has also been a similar recognition that the methods proposed carry considerable costs, be they economic or in terms of the possible restriction of choice.
I was particularly interested to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne. I welcome the experience that he has brought to the debate as a member of the commission. I also particularly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who brought his own considerable experience in the field of transport to the debate, particularly in connection with the magnificent achievement of the Channel Tunnel.
Good transport links are vital to the country's industrial competitiveness. Transport holds the economic machine together and keeps it running. Changing patterns of transport have shaped today's social and recreational lifestyles. People want ever-wider access to job opportunities; to shops; to leisure activities; to schools; and to other people. Yet this demand for transport services has a profound impact on the environment. Our aim is to continue to improve the quality and range of transport provision in the country. However, we must recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the environmental, economic and social consequences of transport. With that, we realise there are some extremely difficult decisions to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to "Win, win, win" situations and solutions, but I suggest that they are rare indeed. Whatever measures we have to take to counter the problems posed by the environmental effects of transport are going to give rise to costs of one sort or another. The issues were brought sharply into focus by the
1436
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report on Transport and the Environment. The commission did a thorough job in assessing the scale and nature of the environmental problems posed by today's transport and by the forecasts of traffic growth. Their report set us a number of challenging targets which they believe should assist us to deal with those threats. However, we cannot deal with those targets without giving consideration to the measures needed to implement them, for it is clear that some unpleasant measures would be necessary if we were to strive to meet them.
I welcome the statement of my noble friend Lord Selborne that this report should not be taken as a blueprint but rather as an indication of very important issues to help us to provide choices and to illustrate what can be done in order to combat the problems that we face. An example of the difficulties I have described—for instance, to achieve reductions in road use and an increase in public transport share which the commission recommended—may lead to measures to restrain car use. The implications of such measures would need to be thought through very carefully indeed. The evidence is not available which suggests that people are yet ready or willing to change their lifestyles in ways which would be required. No detailed assessment has been made of the costs although it is clear that they would be substantial.
We have had a considerable debate on the issues of cycling. I was pleased to hear the contributions of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, my noble friend Lord Colwyn and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, who described the perils of cycling in London and the advantages they felt that it brings. I believe that there has been a recognition of the Government's positive attitude towards cycling. We do not forget the contribution that cycling can make. It often offers an economic, environmentally friendly and realistic means of transport for a great number of people in particular for the short journeys that we have heard described. We are keen to encourage more people to adopt that mode. In 1995–96 we are providing some £3 million for the London cycle network. Local authorities are encouraged to consider the potential for cycling in planning and traffic management strategy and through the package approach.
However, I believe that we are referring here to local decisions involving local circumstances. One often faces criticisms that local authorities should be given more power to do this, that or the other. But I believe that we are talking about a situation where local decisions are best taken at the local level.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, also referred to the issue of motor cycling. He realised that I have a certain sympathy with the issues involved. As with the cycling issue, there are real concerns about safety. Those have to be taken fully into account. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, regarding the discipline of cyclists themselves, be they of the motorised or leg-propelled version.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn asked how one reports smoky diesel goods vehicles. I can forward to him a pamphlet produced by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport entitled How to Report Smoky Diesels. It involves communication

1437
with the vehicle inspectorate which then takes up action on the complainant's behalf. Some 12,000 reports have been made to the smoky vehicle hotline to date.
There is still a belief that all the problems we face could be solved simply by switching investment from road to public transport. Public transport can play a valuable role in safeguarding the environment and our spending plans for the next few years focus on public transport and making more efficient use of the existing road network. Investing in rail, bus, trams and light rail can have a tremendous impact on certain areas. That is why we have invested some £15 billion in national railways since 1979 and £7 billion in London Transport.
However, research and practical experience has demonstrated that improved public transport in itself is not enough to solve the problems of traffic growth. In his maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was quite right to say that if one wishes to take cars off the roads, the clear conclusion of what can only be described as common sense, as well as various pieces of research on the subject, is that sticks and carrots are required. That is the theme which ran through the debate in your Lordships' House today.
Some way of making car use more difficult or expensive would be necessary, as well as ensuring that alternatives are available. The issue for debate is how far such measures are justified or acceptable.
As I mentioned earlier, these are not easy issues to face. They are complex, emotive and fundamental to our way of life. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State initiated recently a national debate on transport policy. As a start, he has made a series of six speeches aimed at focusing attention on the key issues and has invited comments from a wide range of interested parties.
We have been heartened by the response to the debate so far. A number of organisations have taken it upon themselves to organise events to follow up the questions raised by the Secretary of State in his speeches. For example, Transport 2000 has hosted a series of seminars. The Ashden Trust has organised a two-day event to discuss transport and the environment. Oxford University has a conference planned for next week.
In debating the way forward, we should not lose sight of the significant achievements that have already been made in reducing environmental damage. A good example is the efforts made to improve air quality in our cities. We have already made considerable progress in reducing the contribution that transport makes to air pollution through the introduction of improved vehicle emission standards. The first round of improvements introduced in 1993 has effectively required all new petrol engined cars to be fitted with catalytic converters which reduce harmful emissions by over 75 per cent. Already some 5 million cars and vans are fitted with catalytic converters.
The effect of these and other standards is already evident. National emissions of pollutions have stabilised or are falling. Even if no further measures were taken, emissions would continue to fall well into the next decade as a result of older vehicles being replaced by newer, cleaner models.
1438
However, further measures will be taken. A second round of the reductions of limits for 1996–97 was announced as part of the air quality statement, Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge launched by the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment in January of this year. We have taken firm steps to address the problems of carbon dioxide emissions from road vehicles in the context of our international obligations arising from the 1992 Rio Summit, a subject which has been discussed in the debate today.
The duty on road fuel has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. We have made clear our strategy of increasing road fuel duties by an average of at least 5 per cent. above inflation each year. That will encourage motorists to conserve fuel and will give long-term signals to manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles.
Another important issue involves noise. Again, considerable improvements have been made as a result of new technology. It is said that three modern cars will make less noise than one 1978 model, while 10 of today's trucks will make the same amount of noise as one single 1978 equivalent.
That has also been the case with air travel. One should not just consider the issues of surface transport. Modern jets are considerably more efficient in reducing the amount of noise that they produce, producing fuel economy, and reducing the amount of harmful emissions that they put out.
We are also paying increasing attention to the interaction between transport and land use planning, another of the major themes which noble Lords addressed this evening. That develops around the issue of reducing the need to travel. We have heard some descriptions of teleworking, and the use of new technology and Internet, and how that could affect the issue. Nonetheless the question of the journey to the supermarket, the provision of car parks and out of town stores have all had a significant impact on the desire of people to travel. Local authorities have a very important role to play in that area as different measures will be appropriate in different areas. Our aim is principally to ensure that they are given the right guidance and necessary powers. Again I believe that good progress has been made. Last year my department and the Department of the Environment jointly published a new planning policy guidance note on transport (PPG 13) which has as its key aims to reduce the growth in the length and number of motorised journeys, to encourage alternative means of travel which have less environmental impact, and hence to reduce the reliance on the private car. I believe that that guidance has been widely welcomed; and that welcome has been reflected by the contributions of your Lordships this evening. Added to this we have introduced a new approach to funding local transport investment. The so-called "package approach" allows local authorities to take a broader view of local transport problems and to come up with solutions not based solely on road-building.
We are investing significant amounts to improve public transport and we already have grants available to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail: some 150 freight facilities grants have been awarded since 1979. The new track access grant was introduced in

1439
April last year, and we have also been looking at measures which might stimulate the transfer of freight from road to water. That is an issue upon which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, concentrated. It comes within my particular portfolio as Minister with responsibilities for shipping and internal water transport. I have been looking at the matter extremely carefully. I have talked to ship owners and those who have cargoes that would be suitable for movement by inland waterways or coastal shipping, to try to determine measures that would increase the attractiveness of water-borne transport.
However, it is not easy. There are no easy buttons to push which would suddenly make the issue of water-borne transport more attractive. We have had some success with the freight facilities grant; but again, that has been on a limited basis. Where companies need help to create infrastructure on the quayside that is more acceptable to the type of business that they run, we have been able to help. We have had considerable success with a chemical company in Manchester, for example, which now saves a significant number of road journeys that would otherwise be causing a great many problems.
In addition, the Government are prepared to consider funding for different types of public transport where it makes sense to do so. We made significant contributions to funding for the Manchester Metrolink and the South Yorkshire Supertram, and we have set aside resources for the Croydon Tramlink and the Midland Metro schemes.
Last year we undertook a wide-ranging and in-depth review of the roads programme. The newly prioritised programme that resulted seeks a sensible balance between the different economic and environmental considerations. We are now concentrating resources on making the best use of the existing road network by focusing on the removal of accident, congestion and pollution blackspots. But it is important to note that the days of making large-scale additions to the network are gone.
We have heard a few contributions, notably from my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the issue of air transport, and particularly on the question of regional airports. We fully support the valuable role that regional airports can play in providing transport links for people nearer to their point of departure; in environmental issues; in relieving congestion at the major airports in the South-East, and so on.
However, a crucial consideration must be that commercial realities are fulfilled, that airlines actually want to operate services to regional airports. The other consideration is that they are able to operate services to regional airports within the scope of air service agreements. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year the unilateral liberalisation of access in terms of transatlantic traffic to our regional airports. I was very pleased to see, for instance, that a service started recently between Binningham and Chicago. That is a fruit of that particular policy. But I do not believe that it is possible to direct people to fly to a particular destination. That
1440
was what lay behind the traffic distribution rules. They have been shown not to be an economically efficient way of distributing traffic.
I hope that I have shown that the Government take very seriously the need to strike a balance in transport policy. We do not pretend that the balance is easy to find. Apparently simple solutions tend to fall apart on closer examination. We had an interesting discussion on the question of integrated transport policies and the emotions that are created by the use of the term. Those who believe that the greater integration of transport policies is a sufficient answer must be required to say exactly what they mean and what an integrated transport policy entails. That is the difficulty that the Government have had with those who on occasion have used the term by way of a throw-away explanation on the basis that "everything will be all right". What we have sought to say is that a centralised planning strategy whereby people are directed when and where to travel and things are done on a grand scale, is not the solution to the problems that we face. We believe that a better combination of transport and land use planning, for instance, with our planning guidance, smoother links between different modes and easier availability of information are all worthwhile, and they are aims that this Government are pursuing.
The toughest questions we face are all about attitudes. The research I referred to earlier illustrated how current attitudes make it very difficult to achieve significant changes in behaviour, even after spending large amounts of money. So how can we change attitudes? What mechanisms do we need to use to encourage people to change their transport decisions? If we seek to introduce painful measures to encourage change, how much pain is our society prepared to bear?
What is very clear is that there are no magic wands, no quick fixes and no easy answers. The "Win, win, win" options are very few and far between. We are all agreed that we are faced with a rising demand for travel, and that transport is of key importance to our economic well-being. But with it, come major economic problems. The RCEP report, and today's debate in this House, will play a major part in furthering the wider debate about transport and the environment that affects us all.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is now nearly 9 o'clock, and I shall be brief. First, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. Many of them told me things that I had not thought of or heard before. That is always a pleasure for somebody like myself who has spent 10 years thinking and doing things about transport policy. They were very welcome news to me. I thank particularly my noble friends who supported me with their speeches. Perhaps I may single out one other speech, that of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who, in his extremely cheerful and amusing remarks offered me some reassurances that the kind of measures for which I was looking might be on their way.
I cannot say that I was satisfied with the response given by the Minister. But then I do not suppose that he expected me to be. As to some of the other interventions, particularly those from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness,

1441
and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I rather hope that perhaps we can discuss some of the points that they raised over a tea cake or some iced coffee in the Members' Dining Room. But the mention of dining reminds us once again that it is nearly 9 o'clock and we have not had any. I therefore beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sports (Discrimination) Bill [H.L.]
9 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Astor of Hever.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (Amendment) Bill
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, perhaps I may say that I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registers (Scotland) Bill
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill
Report received.

Treasure Trove
9.2 p.m.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that there is a need for treasure trove and portable antiquities legislation to preserve the nation's heritage.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I note that, in asking this Question, I am expected to speak for only 10 minutes. I beg your Lordships' indulgence if I slightly exceed that time limit. I shall be as brief as possible. I shall divide the first part of my speech—perhaps all of it—into three parts: the past, the present and the future.
The past starts eight years ago when I asked the Government Questions about treasure trove and their attitude to that subject. I received a very encouraging reply. Indeed, it looked as though something was going to move. Since then, there have been three or four debates and Questions from Members in various parts of the House. Once, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked a Question, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replied, saying, "We have no intention to change the law."
The situation has changed since then. But I go back that far just to make clear that this subject is not new and indeed has become more and more important.
Starting with the past, I was encouraged on all sides last year to introduce my Private Member's Bill. It went very well and I received full support from all sides of the Chamber. Even better, the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate this evening—I owe her a deep debt of gratitude—announced in Committee that the Government would support the Bill. That was splendid news for us all. Indeed, the Government took over the Bill and, with the help of many of those present this evening, it went through this House. But then the story became less good.
Sir Patrick Cormack, to whom I give my thanks, tried four times to introduce the Bill in the other place. There were four objections to it. Extraordinarily enough, the first objection was from a Government Whip. After Sir Patrick Cormack had tried, Peter Brooke himself, who by then had retired from his post as Secretary of State for National Heritage, tried and had the same result; namely, the Bill was objected to. So the question arose of what to do next.
I was told to try the ballot. I lined up three potential sponsors who came rather high on the ballot list. The first one whom I saw said, "If you will promise that I shall be given the Bill to take, I shall take it." So I rang up the other two potential sponsors and said, "I don't want your help. I have a firm promise from a Member, who shall be nameless". The next day that Member went back on his word. There again, in some way, Government Whips were involved. None of that makes a very happy story. But there was one thing left to do: try to get the Bill into government legislation.
There was much lobbying to that purpose. I want to pay tribute to the Leader of the House and thank him because he tried extremely hard to achieve that end. I must say that

1443
during that battle I had the feeling that the Secretary of State himself was perhaps lukewarm about the Bill. I can illustrate that. I asked him three times if I could have a talk with him and three times he said that it was not necessary and that he was supportive. He left it at that and I shall leave it at that at this time.
I come now to the present. The other day there was a meeting at which the museums of England and Wales and all the archaeological societies passed a resolution urging that the treasure trove Bill should be passed because, as things stood now, the situation was "a shambles". Those were the words that were used, and how right they are.
Let me explain why the word "shambles" is right. A little while ago, there was a case at Heathrow Airport when the Customs and Excise—more credit to them— stopped a large number of coins from being exported. The exporter fought the case before a coroner and a jury. Sadly, the outcome was that the exporter was allowed to go ahead. The decision of the coroner and jury was that it was not treasure but rather votive offerings. They are not covered by the Treasure Bill. That means that the whole system, even that now in place, is unworkable. It is a charter for anybody who wants to acquire certain items and get rid of them, to do so. Indeed, it is a sort of "finders-keepers" game and must stop.
We must also remember that today metal detectors are much more efficient than they were. To that extent again we need action. In relation to metal detectors I must mention the metal detector council. My Bill of a year ago was in no way hostile to metal detector users, but there was a virulent and violent campaign against it by certain of the council members. Others in the council understood better what we were trying to do, and that was good. Now I learn that they are attempting to introduce one or two changes to the last Bill which will make them less worried about everything. I am all in favour of that negotiation so long as it does not interfere with the Government getting on with the job. In other words, it must not be used as an excuse for delaying a Bill.
I turn now to the future. As I have said more than once, we must get on with it. A Bill must be introduced in the next Session; but not, as has been suggested, a Private Member's Bill which will go through the same sort of process as my Bill went through. "Somebody was lucky in the ballot" is not the way to approach it. My experience was unfortunate and I would not recommend any other Member of either House to go that way.
What is the way to proceed? The Government must take this Bill on, ideally in this Session. They must certainly do it in the next Session. When I say "the Government" I refer particularly to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, Mr. Stephen Dorrell. He may find things like the arts, sport or even the lottery more glamorous, but none of them is nearly as important as this Bill. Indeed, it bears the name of his department. I beg him and his department to take it on. If it is to include portable antiquities, then that will be all to the good. I have nearly finished what I wanted to say.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. I do not know whether it is in order, but I shall be happy to offer five minutes of my time to the noble Earl because he will use it far more effectively than I.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, that is a kind gesture, but I am glad to say that I have compressed much of what I intended to say. It may give the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, a chance to say a little more.
To conclude, the Government have dragged their feet for eight years on something which is of great significance to the country. I am quite clear that if the department undertook a publicity campaign to explain what is happening, they would receive all the backing necessary from the media. The media have been a great help to us up till now. They understand what is involved. England and Wales, and perhaps Northern Ireland—I am less clear about that—stand alone in having no laws to protect them. Southern Ireland and Scotland are wise, but our history is slipping away. I ask and beg that we have action now. If Mr. Dorrell goes ahead, then he will redeem his past record and that of his department. He will even earn the thanks and gratitude of our museums, archaeologists and all who care about our treasures and our past.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has done this country a considerable service by emphasising the inadequate, careless and shoddy way we deal with our cultural heritage, in particular with the portable antiquities, which, along with our ancient monuments, are often the only source of information about Britain's early past.
His Treasure Bill won the support not just of the Surrey Archaeological Society which helped him to draft it; it won the support of the entire archaeological community. It won the acceptance not only of the landowners, but also of the principal organisations representing those who use metal detectors to hunt for antiquities. I believe that that was a significant achievement of his Bill. It even won the support of the Department of National Heritage, although only at Report stage. I am afraid that the subsequent passage of the Bill, as we have heard, was less happy and it was actually torpedoed, I believe, by two junior members of Her Majesty's Government in another place. So I believe that nearly everyone in this House shares his regret that that is the position in relation to his Bill.
We regret also that it did not find a position in the current legislative programme, as announced last November in the gracious Speech. There was—I think I am right here—no single legislative proposal from the Department of National Heritage in that programme. If we are grateful to the noble Earl, we are fortunate also in the department's representatives in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Astor, who has Stonehenge among his administrative responsibilities, has been unfailingly helpful in relation to the Treasure Bill. And it was my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who will be speaking this evening, who gave the Bill such a constructive reception in this House last time and who was able to announce at Report stage,
"we have concluded that the Bill … deserves the Government's support.—[Official Report, 20/4/94; col. 235.]
If only the Bill had been so well served in another place we would not be holding this melancholy autopsy here today.

1445
But there are positive indications in relation to the future. I was happy to receive last month a very helpful letter from my noble friend Lord Astor, who has kindly allowed me to quote the relevant paragraphs. He wrote to me:
"Stephen Dorrell announced in March his intention to publish a Heritage Green Paper later in the year. We intend to take that opportunity to raise the issue of the adequacy of current arrangements for the reporting of portable antiquities generally—an issue which, of course, goes much wider than the Treasure Bill. We hope that the Council for British Archaeology's current working party will make a significant contribution to public discussion of the issues.
Any proposals emerging from the Green Paper which require legislation would in the normal course have to wait until time could be found in the Parliamentary programme for a Heritage Bill. However, we would hope to proceed much faster with the Treasure Bill: the need for reform of Treasure Trove is already generally agreed, and we would not want to reopen that issue in the context of the Green Paper consultations. We shall therefore be looking for an opportunity to secure the Bill's reintroduction next session, either as a Private Member's Bill or as a non-controversial government Bill".
That is indeed a helpful statement, but I would remind the House that it was one of my noble friend's predecessors, my noble friend Lord Hesketh, who in reply to the Starred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on 25th January 1990—that is to say, more than five years ago—announced,
"when we have a suitable opportunity for legislation we shall take advantage of it".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1162.]
So we have to conclude that suitable opportunities are rare indeed.
The world's cultural and historic heritage is being plundered at a devastating rate. From Italy to China; from Russia to Cambodia; from Mexico to East Anglia, illicit excavations are ripping antiquities from their contexts and devastating the past on an unfortunate scale and sending the loot on its lucrative path to the salerooms of Geneva, New York and, I am sorry to say, of London. Ultimately, it is less the transfer of ownership that is regrettable, but the destruction of context; the loss of information.
To give an example, a cemetery of Anglo-Saxon graves, properly excavated and published, can write a whole new page in our island history. Subject, however, to looting, it will yield a few handsome Anglo-Saxon brooches for the saleroom, but contribute nothing at all to our study of the past.
That is why England so badly needs not only intelligible and workable legislation on the finding of valuables of gold and silver—that is what the noble Earl's Treasure Bill would do, and, I hope, will do—but also a system for the reporting of finds of portable antiquities so that the information is not lost. In some counties such as Norfolk, a voluntary system is already in place and works well. There is, I believe, wide agreement that a voluntary system would work best. I hope that the forthcoming Heritage Green Paper will set up the options by which a voluntary system could be made to work with a minimum of fuss and with very limited expenditure, perhaps on the Norfolk model, which works well because it commands the support of just about everybody, including the responsible majority of the metal-detecting fraternity.
At the Society of Antiquaries last month, as the noble Earl has already mentioned, the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities at its first meeting, representing a
1446
wide range of archaeological interests, reached a unanimous agreement under the chairmanship of the president of the Council for British Archaeology. Its resolution of 24th May reads:
"This Conference deplores the continuing loss to the nation's heritage which is a direct result of the failure on the part of successive Governments to introduce coherent statutory provision for the management of the UK's archaeological inheritance of portable antiquities; we
1 affirm support for the Statement of Principles on portable antiquities, issued in April 1993 by the Society of Antiquaries"—
and other bodies. We,
"2 welcome the Government's acceptance that the law of Treasure Trove is archaic and in need of reform, and in consequence
3 urge the Government to proceed urgently with the passage of the Treasure Bill (Treasure Trove is currently in a shambles, and leading to the loss of many archaeological artefacts and consequently our knowledge of the history of England and Wales);
4 also urge the introduction of a reporting scheme for archaeological artefacts where no reporting is currently obliged. We recognise that such a scheme, to be effective, must be accompanied by a sustained campaign of education".
Moreover, I hope that the UK will take a lead in supporting the draft Unidroit convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, who will be representing this country at the important discussions and negotiations on that theme which will be shortly under way? May I express the hope that we shall give those proposals our full support, for it is Britain's antiquities which are now being plundered—not just those of Greece and Rome, or of China and Peru.
We need that protection. My noble friend will not need to be reminded of the sad case of the Icklingham bronzes which I believe are currently in New York in the hands of collectors better known for their acquisitive zeal than for any scrupulous reticence when it comes to unprovenanced and therefore probably looted antiquities.
This country's natural heritage is at risk. It is not currently well protected, either by our legislation in regard to treasure trove or by any national system of voluntary reporting. We have a Department of National Heritage. Why does it not do something about it?
9.22 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, the debate gives the noble Baroness who will reply a remarkable opportunity to assure the House that the Government are persuaded, first, that legislation is needed to reform the law; secondly, that such legislation can only be carried out by the Government, and by no one else; and, thirdly, that action is urgently required.
I know that it is difficult for any government to pluck up their courage to do something which is both popular and useful, but I hope that those inhibitions will be cast aside, and that the Government will embrace with enthusiasm the opportunity to repair the very real ravages to our culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred. This is a case where we are losing ancient articles of outstanding, historical, archaeological and cultural importance. They can never be replaced, and irreparable damage is done if they are

1447
torn away and dissipated, either at home by private collectors or abroad. There must be some system which puts that right.
We are in a mess—in a shambles, as has been said—because, I am afraid, of the lawyers. I am bound to say that the lawyers to blame go right back to the 12th century at a time when the only interest in treasure trove was that of the Crown, which was short of money. Originally treasure trove was simply gold and silver coin which had been found and to which the King laid claim. In fact, in those days it was said:
"Seeking for treasure is an offence and no one ought to seek for treasure with the help of serfs or dig the earth for treasure which is the property of our lord the king".
There are not many serfs looking for treasure these days. They have been replaced by metal detectors. That would not have been too bad, but the law then drew a distinction between treasure which had been hidden and treasure which had been lost. Treasure trove—that to which the Crown was then entitled and to which the nation is now entitled—was limited to treasure that had been hidden away with the object of retrieving it. It was not applied to treasure that had been lost by accident. That distinction was made in order to protect the serfs. In those days it was not only a crime to search for and to conceal treasure but it was a punishable crime. There were only two methods of punishment; one was hanging and the other was decapitation. That is not an attractive choice. It was partly for that reason that lawyers limited the scope of treasure so that it was narrowly confined.
Your Lordships have heard of two recent examples of coins pre-dating the Celts being held by the jury not to be a treasure trove because of the theory propounded by counsel that they might have been donated by the Celts as a votive offering and had not been intended to be hidden away from the king. The other case was of Saxon coins. The jury was persuaded that the coins were not treasure trove because they were not found in a container. Apparently, the absence of a Saxon money box was fatal to the claim of treasure trove. Clearly, those distinctions must go and they must go quickly. As the noble Earl said, in the absence of any rule to the contrary, they can be exported and they are then lost to the country.
As your Lordships will know, there is already a Bill afoot that has met with the approval of this House. I believe that the Bill would have met with the approval of another place had it been allowed to consider it. The only reason why it is a Bill and not an Act is because the other place was not allowed to consider it.
There are other necessary reforms in the Bill; for example, to expand the meaning of treasure trove to include artefacts subject to control. They must be two or three hundred years old and they must be artefacts of the time approved by the Secretary of State and both Houses of Parliament. There is no danger in the reform and a great body of good will urges reform.
I have come here tonight as a lawyer to confess that the law is in a mess. This is a great opportunity for a law-reforming Government to do something not only to improve the law but to improve our heritage and our
1448
culture. I know that the Minister is well disposed. I hope that she will prevail on the Government, as she often prevails on this House, to do that which is right and good.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity of returning to this subject. I hope that the Government will give a commitment to allow the Bill which the noble Earl took through your Lordships' House last year to proceed.
Perhaps I may make one or two points in passing. First, I was most interested in the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, about the origins of treasure trove. I understand that it was originally introduced by the kings because they were worried about the diminution in the money supply. For that reason they thought that it was bad for a great deal of money in the realm to be unavailable for currency. That is why the Crown laid claim to it; it was not Royal avarice that lay behind the origin of the measure.
Secondly, I must make a confession; I am a collector. After all the wicked things that have been said about collectors by previous speakers, I am a little ashamed to admit that. Nevertheless, I believe that collectors play a valuable part in the process of archaeological discoveries. In the area in which I am interested—that is the medieval coinage of this country—it is fair to say that collectors who have been students of the series have contributed as much as anyone to the knowledge that now exists.
However, having got that confession off my chest, I can say that from the standpoint of a collector, I believe that the noble Earl's Bill should be revived and that it should not only receive government backing but that they should facilitate its passage through this House and another place.
The way in which the noble Earl has phrased his Question goes a little wider than his Bill in that it refers to portable antiquities and the preservation of the national heritage. That could cover a rather wider area than he set out to do in his Bill, which dealt with treasure. I hope that the Government do not take that widening of the discussion as an indication that there should be a delay with regard to the noble Earl's Bill in order to find some much broader form of legislation which would cover all those other areas. One consequence of that would be infinite delay because most of the other areas involve a great range of issues which have not been discussed by your Lordships' House and which might be very much more contentious to take through this House and another place.
Of course, there are a number of problems in relation to treasure trove which will remain if the noble Earl's Bill is enacted. One of those problems which worries me greatly is the unwillingness of those who discover hoards to provide information as to what has been found and where, because, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew emphasised, context and association are absolutely decisive in the interpretation of such evidence. Without context and association, a very high proportion of the information which the discovery is capable of providing is inevitably lost.

1449
The two areas where that is most likely to arise are where searchers or detectors have been looking for treasure on private land without landowners' permission and therefore they do not wish to acknowledge that they have been trespassing in that way; and secondly, when they have been on scheduled archaeological sites where they should not have been carrying out the activity in the first place but where there is inevitably, statistically, because of the historical associations, a higher probability of finding articles of interest and value.
I do not say that it is a deficiency in the noble Earl's proposed legislation that it does not provide a solution to those problems, but they need to be addressed in some way or other. I was particularly interested in what my noble friend Lord Renfrew said about records and encouragement to keep them on a county or local basis. I do not know how that could be extended to deal with cases of illicit discovery, but that is clearly an area with which we need to deal.
As the noble Earl said, the current arrangements for treasure trove are chaotic because they are subject to capricious decisions by coroners about the motives of those who deposited valuable objects in the ground centuries ago. The idea that because treasure was not contained in a purse or container it would not have been deliberately buried is absurd because, probably, it was originally wrapped in cloth or some other perishable material which has disappeared. Equally the idea that the number of discoveries of gold or other valuable objects and coins from the iron age period can all be taken as votive offerings is in my view a complete fantasy. It is not inconceivable that a discovery could fall into that category but most of them demonstrably could not. The issue is frequently raised as a red herring in relation to those discoveries.
Please let us have the noble Earl's Bill. If there are any practical obstacles, I hope that my noble friend in responding to the debate will spell them out plainly. If it is purely a matter of parliamentary time, perhaps I may plead with her to do her best to ensure that the Government find a gap in the parliamentary timetable when legislation of this kind could be included. On that basis the legislation could go through your Lordships' House with very little consideration because it had been thoroughly dealt with last time.
9.36 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the law of treasure trove was initiated to preserve the Crown's interest in Saxon times. Today, after nearly 1,000 years, it is utterly anomalous both in its effect and because it has become a legal nonsense.
Most people in this country had hoped that in the latter years of the Government's office they would concentrate on improving existing law and procedure, which the proposed Bill, for example, sets out to achieve. Instead, they are still embarking on so many new and unthought-out pieces of legislation that they claim they have no time for simple reform. The Bill is simple and after much discussion it has been, broadly speaking, agreed by almost all of those concerned,
1450
including the Government. It is of considerable importance to the preservation of the nation's heritage and yet we seem unable to bring it to fruition. It should be a first step towards more comprehensive legislation in the future. It should not prevent the Bill going forward now. I press the Government to take the Bill on now rather than much later when even more of our heritage will have been lost to the nation.
9.37 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise as a new boy to this subject but with great enthusiasm. It is always a pleasure to make new friends. I do not exaggerate because so far everybody has been in agreement that behind Lord Perth's moderate and carefully argued case, there is a real gap in our country's legislation in regard to the protection of the nation's heritage.
Anybody who reads the broadsheet newspapers will realise that losses of treasure throughout the world are enormous. There are great profits for well organised and unscrupulous gangs of criminals who, sadly, often do not understand the damage that they do for the short-term monetary gain that they seek. The huge losses in this island alone can amount to several hundred thousand individual finds a year, and a very small proportion of those find their way onto the records through a museum. That is a disaster.
The technology that is most favoured as a subject in the debates has been that of metal detectors, but I read the other day that there is a capability from satellite to detect areas where probable finds can be made. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that well-organised and well-financed groups of treasure seekers will be using that technology at an increasing pace.
The treasure trove limitations are well known. Indeed, noble Lords argued about them during debate on the 1994 Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Moreover, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, described the treasure trove legislation as a nonsense. It is certainly a nonsense today, but it may not have been a nonsense when it was a means of providing income from treasure finds for the treasury of monarchs. However, today it is certain—and I apologise for reiterating what other noble Lords have said, and probably not as well—that it is the understanding of our heritage which is important, not the monetary value of the items which may be the major concern for those who go out with metal detectors. I do not wish to label all such people as being ignorant, greedy and self-seeking enthusiasts; but it is certainly the understanding of our heritage which is important.
For example, a piece of armour, a piece of clothing, a piece of pottery, or whatever, need not have been there for 200 or 300 years; indeed, it could have been there for only 150 years. However, when such an item is taken out of the ground without being recorded, the exact location, the time and the conditions in which it was found are soon forgotten. That leaves a sad gap in our knowledge and in the total picture that we have which was so well described to us by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, both today and, as I read the Hansard report, in the 1994 debate.

1451
I do not wish to speak for too long because so much has already been said by other speakers and I personally agree with most of it. However, should the Minister in her response tonight give us further encouragement, I would say to her that not only my colleagues on these Benches here would support her to the man—and I believe that I can say that quite safely; and it is rare that I can say such a thing from these Benches without first confirming the thoughts of certain people—but also all Members of another place who sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches would support legislation of a kind which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, sought to bring forward last year when he was so sadly and miserably let down.
On the latter point, I must say that I believe that it is an extraordinary argument—and it was one of the reasons for opposition in the other place; and there were echoes of it in this House if I read the Hansard report correctly—when people say that any interference with the current position is an attack on the rights of owners of land. In other words, that they should in some way be liable to hand over for examination, and possibly hand over title to, articles found on their land. It is felt that that is some kind of enormous attack on their ownership of property. I find that strange. Sadly, although my family has had some antiquity, I do not have land which contains any of those treasures. However, if I did, I would look upon it in the same way that I look upon my title: I am a lessee of that title and I hold it for future generations, whether or not I sit in this Chamber and argue as I have the privilege to do this evening. I feel that those who have the privilege of sitting on discovered treasure that adds further value to their land owe it to posterity to bring it forth and have it registered and properly inscribed in reports of finds of articles, whether they be of porcelain, bronze, silver or gold.
I very much look forward to the reply of the noble Baroness. As I read the report in Hansard in 1994, her response was extremely encouraging. If I were the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I would be extremely exasperated. I thought that his speech tonight was moderate and good tempered and was a good example to us all. I hope that the noble Baroness will not take that remark as a relaxing of the pace. I believe that the views expressed tonight in your Lordships' House show how fervent is the wish that this problem is dealt with quickly. Time is running short. We shall have nothing left.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for putting this question again before the House. I had hoped that that would not be necessary. His patience with the ducking and diving of a weak government is remarkable. What has been said on all sides has made clear that the existing law of treasure trove is inadequate. The vast majority of the growing flood of antiquities that are being found fall outside its scope. The Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was quite modest, but it dealt with the worst anomalies. It passed through this House with support from all sides, but was lost in the Commons. It was introduced five times by two distinguished Conservative Members but
1452
opposed by four miserable Conservative Members, one a government Whip and three who are now junior Ministers. I hope that it was not their appalling behaviour that qualified them for office. There has been no success in the search for a Conservative to reintroduce this matter in the Commons. What is lacking is serious government support and initiative.
All events since and before have demonstrated the need for action. Expert assessments suggest that hundreds of thousands of archaeological objects of great value to the history and the collective memory of our nation are taken each year. Only a few are reported to museums. The current law has proved to be virtually unenforceable and irrelevant to the problem. Since the passing of the noble Earl's Bill this huge loss to the national heritage is the direct result of the Government's inertia and refusal to follow the express will of this House. I say that despite the excellent support of the noble Baroness who will close the debate tonight. A great responsibility rests on her ample but beautiful shoulders.
In our debates on the noble Earl's Bill Government Ministers accepted the case put, recognised the problem and accepted his remedy. They accepted that the existing law of treasure trove is quite archaic and that there is need for urgent reform. That was the ministerial position put before us. The Treasure Bill, as passed, offers some of that reform. No one pretended it was a solution to the vast scale of the problem. It was a modest Bill that offered a remedy to some of the worst abuses. It has the support, as we have seen tonight, of all sides of this House. In another place there need be no problem, if only the Government will take action.
I have stated before, and I repeat, that Her Majesty's Opposition in the Commons will give official formal support to this Bill if it is put by the Government to them. Therefore the Government have no excuse. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has said the same for his party in the Commons. Therefore the Government have no political excuse. We can guarantee that there will be support on all sides in the Commons, as there has been in this House, if only the Government have the guts to act. Those Tories who opposed the measure before are now, sadly we may feel, in the Government ranks and will presumably toe the line. Sir James Kilfedder, who opposed by proxy, has sadly passed on, so there is no further problem there. He has joined the antiquities which we all respect.
There should be no problem in this House. This House is united in favour of what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has proposed. Another place will be supportive as the Opposition are committed to support the measure. The Government must initiate this reform. There will be no political problems. The Bill has been refined; the support has been arranged and guaranteed and the measure will require little parliamentary time. The result would be legislation which goes some but not all the way to resolve this terrible problem of the haemorrhage of our heritage. It would be a rare and almost unique success for the Secretary of State and for his supporters, although there are not many of them. Only indolence and cowardice would explain a failure to act. I look forward to hearing a positive statement from the

1453
Minister. Only a commitment by the Government to introduce this measure as a non-controversial Government Bill is acceptable.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this serf, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, would say, would first like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and his principal supporters, my noble friends Lord Renton, who I am sorry to see is not in his place this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for their untiring advocacy of a reform of the law of treasure trove.
As I said just over a year ago at the time of the Second Reading debate of Lord Perth's Bill, archaeology is indeed fortunate to have such untiring champions in this House. As on that occasion, I wish to express my great admiration for the energy and determination which the noble Earl and his colleagues have shown in pursuing this matter. It was certainly refreshing to hear the support given to a future Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on behalf of his entire party. I must rise above some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, but it was also good to hear of his party's total support. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that it is up to him and not the Government to get publicity. I would add that the noble Earl has not done too badly up to now.
Perhaps I may explain why we are in the position in which we find ourselves. When the Department of National Heritage took over responsibility for treasure trove just two years ago it was for the first time possible to bring together in a single government department policy on treasure trove, together with the wider responsibility for archaeological policy in general. I believe that this has been a real gain and I can assure your Lordships that we have not been idle. We quickly appointed an official to work on policy on portable antiquities in general and on treasure trove reform in particular and to liaise closely with the noble Earl, Lord Perth's, team. I believe that the noble Earl and his supporters will agree that this arrangement has worked well, and I mention it to underline the Government's real commitment to making progress in this area.
As it turned out, the Bill which the noble Earl introduced into this House in the last Session was not successful, and that is a matter for regret. We had hoped that it would be possible for the Bill to be reintroduced this Session. However, none of the honourable Members with a place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills chose to take it up. Then, because of other pressures on Parliamentary time, it proved impossible for the Government to find a place for the Bill in its own programme. Nevertheless, I think that some good will come from this, because the extra time has enabled us both to consider further amendments to the Bill which would help to resolve objections from the metal-detectorists and also to give more thought as to how the Bill could fit in with measures to deal with the wider question of portable antiquities.
1454
Following the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I would also like to take this opportunity to stress that my department has actively been pursuing a number of other initiatives to improve the current administration of treasure trove which do not require legislation. We have, I believe, demonstrated that we take the responsibility very seriously. First, my noble friend Lord Astor agreed that we should release the valuation evidence for the Hoxne hoard. That demonstration of open government helped to show finders that the system is indeed fair and it has received favourable comment in the metal-detecting press.
Secondly, a recent case from Northern Ireland highlighted the anomaly that rewards for treasure troves found in the Province are not valued independently. We are most grateful to the Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee for agreeing to consider that find, and for its recommendation which will result in a substantial increase in the reward. We now hope to place that arrangement on a regular footing.
To return to the Treasure Bill, at the end of March we received a detailed critique of the Bill from the National Council for Metal-Detecting. The NCMD had been the one interested organisation to oppose the Bill when it was introduced into Parliament last year and we have looked at what it had to say very carefully. With the co-operation of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and his supporters, we are considering whether it is possible to frame amendments to address the concerns that the metal-detectorists have raised. We are progressing as rapidly as we can. Given that there are other government departments which need to be consulted, such as the Home Office and the Treasury, it is a bit too early to say exactly what proposals will emerge. However, we do believe that the Bill will be improved and that as a result it will command even wider support. I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that this is a good thing.
In addition to that, there have been developments on the wider issue of portable antiquities. In March, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to publish a heritage Green Paper later in the year. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew mentioned when quoting from the letter of my noble friend Lord Astor, we intend to take that opportunity to raise the issue of the adequacy of current arrangements for the reporting of portable antiquities generally. It is worth remembering that, although we believe that it does offer some very significant improvements over the current law of treasure trove, the Treasure Bill is limited in scope to coin hoards and other objects of gold and silver, together with associated finds. Therefore it will not include the great majority of objects of archaeological significance, which are not made of gold or silver. I know that archaeologists will agree that such objects, although often of little commercial value, form just as significant a part of the national heritage as much more glamorous precious-metal finds. My department is taking an active role in a working party which has been established by the Council for British Archaeology, with the support of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, to examine those issues. We shall look with interest at the results of its deliberations.

1455
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, raised the case of the inquest which was held in November 1994 on three groups of Iron Age coins which were seized by Customs at Heathrow Airport. As he said, the jury found that they were not treasure trove, partly, I understand, because the jury felt that they might have been a votive deposit and thus would not have been buried deliberately with the intention of being recovered. We are aware of the facts of the case. I can assure him that we are currently discussing some aspects of the case with the British Museum and our legal adviser.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew raised the question of the UNIDROIT Convention. It might be useful if I were to explain to your Lordships what that is. The draft UNIDROIT Convention aims to provide a mechanism for signatory countries to request the return of cultural objects which have been stolen or illegally exported. There is a forthcoming conference in Rome to finalise the draft of the convention at which the UK will be represented by the head of the cultural property unit and our legal adviser. I understand that that is not a ministerial conference, but it is at official level at this stage. There is still much work to be done on the draft convention and a final text has yet to emerge from the conference in Rome. Therefore I cannot anticipate whether the UK will become a signatory, although we shall certainly be actively engaged in the process of discussion.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew also asked whether it would be beneficial if the UK benefited from the return of objects which originated in the UK. I am grateful to him for giving advance notice of both those questions. We already have in place an EU directive which provides the opportunity for us to request the return of nationally important objects. By that I mean those of Waverley standard where they have been illegally exported from the UK and are located in another member state.
In addition, there is, of course, a mechanism via Interpol to recover stolen objects. The objectives behind the draft UNIDROIT Convention are laudable and we shall continue to work constructively with other countries participating in the forthcoming conference to achieve a convention which could be a mutually acceptable compromise to as many states as possible, both importing and exporting.
Perhaps I may return to treasure trove. Of course any proposals emerging from the Green Paper which require legislation would in the normal course of events have
1456
to wait until time could be found in the parliamentary programme for a Heritage Bill. However, I can assure the House, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in particular, that we would hope to proceed much more quickly with the Treasure Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said, the need for the reform of treasure trove is generally agreed. The provisions of the Bill have wide support and we do not believe it necessary to reopen this issue—as distinct from the wider issue of the reporting of antiquities—in the context of the Green Paper consultations. I can assure my noble friend Lord Stewartby that we shall therefore be looking for an opportunity to secure the Bill's reintroduction in the next Session.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask her just one question. On the matter of publicity, she said that that was my job. I shall certainly take on any job, but it seems to me that it is essentially the work of the department if it believes in the Bill at all and in getting the legislation through this House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is not usual for governments to try to sell their Bills through publicity. There are, indeed, many occasions when they would rather not have publicity. If the noble Lord is promoting a measure that he very much desires and which is supported on all sides of the House, it is for him to raise the matter in order to gain publicity more than it is for me or any Minister.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she confirm that right at the end of her remarks she said that the Government will be looking to introduce such a Bill in the next Session?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.