Lords Sitting of 12 March 1997

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

Miss Roisin McAliskey
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the interests of access for her family and proximity to a secure hospital with facilities for ante-natal care, they will transfer Miss R. McAliskey from HMP Holloway to HMP Maghaberry or to Musgrove Park Hospital.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jusisdictions is subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. This makes no provision for a transfer to any other United Kingdom jurisdiction for these purposes of a prisoner detained in custody under the Extradition Act 1989.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply; however, I have a few questions. First, why have Her Majesty's Government not advised the German Government to accept the very large amount of bail money that has been offered? Secondly, do the noble Baroness and her colleagues know that the immediate family of the prisoner would welcome her transfer to Northern Ireland where facilities for the care of both the mother and the child, when it is born, are no doubt a good deal better than in Holloway?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have already said that there is no power to do so. It must be a matter for Germany and for the courts in this country; it is not a matter for the Government to make that decision. As regards the care, I can tell the noble Lord that the prisoner is having all her medical needs met in this country.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as probably the only Member of this House to have visited the lady in prison, perhaps I may say how strongly I support the proposition put forward by the noble Lord whose highmindedness is questioned by no one. Is it permissible to add that in meeting the lady I had a long talk with her? She is a thoroughly honest young woman who is pregnant—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Longford: No, I do not mind what noble Lords say. I am talking about a young woman who is being very badly treated. As I said, she is a thoroughly honest young woman. That is all I want to add.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the young lady in question, Roisin McAliskey, is suspected of terrorist acts in Germany. Germany has requested her extradition and she now has to follow the due process of law. It must be for the courts to decide guilt or innocence.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the broader issue of women prisoners generally, can the Minister confirm that there is at present no one individual with responsibility at national level for the management of women prisoner establishments or, indeed, for the provision of policy advice on sensitive areas like the treatment of pregnant prisoners and mother-and-baby units? Is that not a matter worthy of reconsideration?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what really matters for women prisoners is that their medical needs are met and met in a practical way at local level. From all that I have heard, I am entirely confident about the facilities available at Holloway for this particular prisoner; and, indeed, for women prisoners generally because there are no special conditions for this prisoner. I am confident that those needs are being met. I believe that what matters is not great bodies at national level but someone making sure that the system works at a local level in a practical way.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance, first, that there is no question of this woman being chained during her labour? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that her baby will not be taken away from her?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an absolute assurance that this prisoner will not be chained during pregnancy. Indeed, the noble Lord knows that I came to the House with a Statement, following a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, confirming that a pregnant woman would not be chained at all from the entrance to the hospital and throughout the whole stay in the hospital until leaving that hospital. Therefore, I can give an absolute assurance on that point.
As regards the noble Lord's second point, I can say that a decision will be taken tomorrow as to whether this prisoner's application can be acceded to; namely, to keep mother and baby together. However, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is a great deal to be considered and that, above all, the primary consideration is the health of the baby.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much longer the procedure is likely to take before this young woman's case is heard? It seems to have gone on long enough already. What is holding it up?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. However, what will hold up the case is the number of times the defendant challenges the system. There are applications for bail, and there will be challenges against any decision for extradition. Those challenges can be taken right through to this House. Therefore, it will depend on how vigorously the

297
decisions at each stage are challenged. If the case is challenged all the way, I fear that it may be some time next year before a final decision on extradition is taken.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I fully understand what the Minister said about the paramount importance of the welfare of the child. However, can the noble Baroness help us as to what other criteria will be taken into account when the decision is reached as to whether or not the child should be taken away from the mother?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be social services reports, reports from the Prison Service and, indeed, reports on the interests of the child being met. A great deal will have to be considered. However, all those things will come together tomorrow when a decision will be made. That decision will be conveyed to the prisoner as soon as possible thereafter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, on the technicalities of the matter, is there a designated court in Northern Ireland for extradition matters and if so why was this prisoner not taken before that court given that she was arrested in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, there is not a designated court in Northern Ireland for these purposes.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when one takes the interests of the child into account the first consideration is that the child should be allowed to stay with the mother?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, that will be a strong consideration in this case as in any case concerned with keeping a mother and child together.

Drug Smuggling
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the quantities of narcotic drugs detected and impounded each year by the British authorities, during smuggling into the United Kingdom, have increased since 1990.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Answer to the Question is yes. The annual quantity of drugs seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise each year has more than doubled since 1990 from a total of 25.8 tonnes seized in 1990 to 55.6 tonnes seized in 1995.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I have noted reports about the successful discovery of drugs in unlikely hiding places. Can my noble friend confirm that in that connection much help is being provided by trained sniffer dogs? Is full attention being paid to long stretches of irregular
298
coastline, for example the west coast of the Scottish Highlands, where drugs can be landed and attempts may be made to do so particularly at night?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, definite success has been achieved by the utilisation of sniffer dogs. There are now 90 of them deployed around the United Kingdom. They are trained to detect a wide range of drugs concealed in freight, vessels, vehicles, luggage, postal packages and on the person. In 1995–96 the dogs made 1,112 detections of drugs valued at some £25.9 million—an increase of 10 per cent. on the previous year. Detections of Class A drugs—that includes cocaine and heroin—by dogs rose by 35 per cent. last year. As regards remote parts of the country, Customs and Excise staff are now in flexible, highly mobile anti-smuggling teams based at strategic locations and supported more and more by intelligence information. This is proving effective. In Scotland, for example—which the noble Lord mentioned—front-line anti-smuggling staff have already this year made five commercial drugs seizures with a street value of some £3.3 million compared with two commercial drugs seizures last year valued at £120,000 and one the year before that at £73,000.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the advertising campaign entitled "Rat on a Rat" has so far had any appreciable effect on drug seizures?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that concerns a slightly different matter from the importation of drugs, but it is beginning to have an effect.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord has given figures showing that the amount of drugs detected has doubled. However, is he sure that a larger proportion has been detected or could it be that the total amount of drugs coming in has increased?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wish I could answer that question. If we knew how many illegal drugs were coming in and where they were they would be seized. We cannot possibly say whether the figure represents a greater proportion of the total. However, there is another measurement which could be useful to the noble Lord and that is the value of drugs prevented from entering the UK. That information comes from intelligence sources. Success in this area is achieved mainly by breaking up smuggling gangs. The figure has risen from an estimated £500 million in 1990 to £1.677 billion in 1995–96.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister has told the House that the amount of drugs detected coming into the country has increased enormously. Will he confirm that in the Treasury fundamental expenditure review of 1994–95 there was a decision to cut 292 front-line anti-smuggling Customs officers from the staff of Customs and Excise? Will he also confirm that the Government are now planning to cut a further 300 front-line staff from Customs and Excise? Will

299
the Minister tell the House whether he thinks there is any relationship between these significant cuts in anti-smuggling staff and the amount of narcotics coming into the country? Will he also tell the House why the Conservative Party is soft on drug smuggling?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I resent the suggestion that the Conservative Party is soft on drug smuggling. Of the 292 anti-smuggling posts that were cut in the first reduction, 50 of those posts were recycled into investigation and intelligence work where most of our success in this area is derived. A report on the emerging impact of that first tranche is being considered at the moment. No further cuts will be made until the impact has been fully assessed.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Treasury had announced that it had planned a reduction of 300 posts in the Customs service which is now being considered?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I repeat what I have said. No decision on further cuts will be made until the impact of the previous cuts has been fully evaluated.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, did not my noble friend find that accusation from the noble Lord opposite a little unacceptable? Will he not consider inviting the noble Lord opposite to substantiate that serious and quite unfounded charge?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I think that I said I found it offensive. The accusation cannot be substantiated, so to ask the noble Lord to do so would achieve no purpose whatever.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that less than the estimated 10 per cent. of illegal drugs entering the country are intercepted? Does the Minister accept that that level of seizure has remarkably little effect on the street availability of drugs?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the point relates to the question asked previously. We do not know what illegal drugs are coming in. Therefore an assessment of 10 per cent. is purely guesswork.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that something like 80 per cent. of the heroin entering Europe comes via Turkey? What consideration have the Government given to the flow of reports from Turkey about the links between the Turkish mafia and high level politicians in that country which appear to be facilitating the entry of these harmful drugs into our continent?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that that is a question for our intelligence services. It is not a subject which is passed on to me.

General Election: Comments by EU Commissioners
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, without prejudice to such action as they may wish to take at intergovernmental or European Council level, they will apply to the European Court for the issue of an injunction addressed to the European Commission prohibiting individual Commissioners or any officer acting on their behalf from participating by speech or otherwise in any of the matters at issue or under discussion among the electorate of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming general election.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, no, we have no such plans.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may express my disappointment at the less than hoped for robust Answer to my Question. Is the Minister aware that the responsibilities and duties of individual Commissioners in the European Community, as laid down in Article 157 of the treaty, do not include a duty to intervene in political matters inside member states or even between member states? Is he also aware that the attitude of some, but by no means all, Commissioners over the past few months has become increasingly strident, involving outright criticism of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition? It is not the business of those Commissioners to intervene in political matters within and between member states. I was rather hoping that the Government were going to do something about it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there is no duty on Commissioners to intervene in matters within a member state. The Commissioners' duties are to be independent of member state governments and to act within accordance of their obligations set down in the treaties in the furtherance of the Community's business. It is no part of the Commissioners' role to become involved in internal politics of any member state, although as private individuals they may participate in elections.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that European Commissioners take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the European Community, that Privy Counsellors take an oath of allegiance to the Crown and that my right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan is both a Privy Counsellor and a European Commissioner, can my noble friend the Minister say which oath the Government would expect Sir Leon to honour if the interests of the United Kingdom and the Community were to be in conflict?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, since that latter eventuality is not the case, there is no inherent problem.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find his answer to the question quite robust? It is an extraordinary question and deserves the short answer that he gave.
Is the Minister also aware that the Commission is not a monastic order and that no Commissioner takes a vow of silence—nor for that matter a vow of chastity or obedience either? Will the Government be firm in rejecting this quite extraordinary attempt by certain Members of this House to curb the right of two electors in a British election from expressing their views?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most reassured that the noble Lord can from personal experience confirm that the Commissioners are human. The position as he expressed it is absolutely right.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the European Court even has power to issue an injunction in those circumstances? Is he aware that even if it has such power, it could not exercise it unless there was clear evidence of an intention by members of the Commission to take part in our general election?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There is a series of procedural and other legal impediments to achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, seeks. In order to gain an injunction, it is necessary for there to be an abuse which is threatening. In this case there is no such threat.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary of this country is making speeches in the Community critical of the member state in whose country he is making the speech. That is a right in the interests of freedom of speech within the European Union. So is it not strange that there should be this attempt to prevent European Commissioners, including those from this country, expressing their views? Would the Minister like to speculate on why the Eurosceptics on both sides of this House are now running so scared?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not stand at this Dispatch Box to indulge in speculations. However, as the noble Lord says, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is fully entitled to contribute to the debate about European issues.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us the answer had the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to Whitehall civil servants? That is relevant to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. If the position is different as regards Whitehall, will the Minister explain the difference, and why?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there is a considerable difference between the European Commission and the
302
domestic Civil Service. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asks Her Majesty's Government to seek an injunction,
"prohibiting individual commissioners or any officer acting on their behalf from participating by speech or otherwise in any of the matters at issue or under discussion among the electorate of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming general election".
Effectively that means that they can conduct no business as it affects the United Kingdom. Were that to apply to the United Kingdom, it would apply no doubt also to other states of the European Community, and that would effectively drive the European Community into a state of complete gridlock.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Eurosceptics, or Eurorealists as I prefer to call them, are certainly not running scared? No one who stands up for this country and for the continuation of democratic rule by our elected representatives needs to be running scared.
Are the European Commissioners who make such incursions into our national life doing so with the use of taxpayers' money? Is that illegal? It would certainly be illegal during an election campaign.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no one would accuse the noble Lord of running scared of anyone.
The European Commission is funded by taxpayers' money throughout the Community. As long as there is a general election within this country, the Commission is therefore in receipt of taxpayers' money, some of it emanating from this country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that Members of this House are not in the strongest position to talk about the observation of democracy? The two Commissioners about whom we are talking were previously Members of another place and have been elected politicians. They were nominated by Her Majesty's Government to their present clearly political positions. I do not see the fundamental difference between the healthy debate that we have in this House and the healthy contribution to a broadly European debate which members of the College of Commissioners have. Does the Minister view the position in the same way?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed his opinions most clearly for the benefit of the House.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a great deal of fuss about nothing, since neither Mr. Neil Kinnock nor Sir Leon Brittan is likely to have even a minimal effect on the voting intentions of British citizens?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not know whether I can speak for the general election. However, were the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, able to have a vote, it is unlikely that the utterances of either of those two gentlemen would affect the way that he voted.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers give me cause for disappointment

303
in comparison with those given to me directly by M. Delors during his period in office? As he will be aware, I criticised M. Delors for having criticised our British Prime Minister at the time—which he had the impertinence to do. In reply to me, in a public gallery and televised, he turned round and said, "Well, it's a free country, isn't it?". That is a far more convincing answer than the noble Lord has given me.
Is the Minister further aware that in the course of an interview given to the distinguished correspondent of The Times, Mr. Bremner, on 7th February, Jacques Santer delivered himself of the following observations:
"Impatience over Britain's approach to Europe could lead its European Union partners to sidestep London, requiring a future government to choose whether it wants Britain to stay in the EU, Jacques Santer, the President of the Commission, said yesterday".
He also insisted that:
"the project for a single currency was 'not just an economic process but a profound movement towards political integration'. The EU's founding fathers had intended it as a step towards 'an economic government of Europe'".
That is not a matter that is generally accepted within the United Kingdom by any party. He had no business to make any observation as to what was or was not the attitude of the British Government.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had just explained that it was a free country and one could express oneself in the way one wanted.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on meat hygiene.

Education Bill
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Henley, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 14,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 15 to 27,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 28 to 31,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 32 and 33,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 34 to 39,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 40 to 45,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 46 to 60,

Schedule 8,

304

Clauses 61 to 74,

Schedules 9 and 10,

Clause 75.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport: An Integrated Policy
3.2 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley rose to call attention to the recent report of the United Kingdom Round Table on sustainable development Making Connections and to the need for an integrated policy for national and local transport; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate this very important part of the transport scene. First, I congratulate the authors of the report who, as the House may know, were appointed by the Government. The Secretary of State, Mr. Gummer, and Sir Richard Southwood were co-chairmen. The strength of criticism of the Government contained in the report is therefore quite surprising. It may reflect the fact that the Secretary of State is the only member of the present Cabinet who has even the hint of a green tinge. I declare an interest in relation to the Rail Freight Group, the Piggyback Consortium and Adtrans.
The Round Table report states that the group was conscious of the importance and difficulty of making multi-modal journeys seamless. That is a difficult concept to understand. The group gave as its remits:
"To identify key barriers to inter- and intra-modal transfers within passenger and freight journeys, and to recommend ways in which these could be overcome, with the aim of achieving a more sustainable transport sector".
What is inter-modal transfer? For those who may not be embroiled in the subject, it simply means using more than one mode of transport for a particular journey. It may mean a complicated journey across the country; but the term is equally applicable to local journeys to do the shopping, to take the children to school or to the park, or to visit relatives—journeys made every day and often several times a day. For freight it means easy transfer between road and rail. Is there information? Are there suitable sites for terminals and services?
On the basis that it is apparently the stated view of the Government, at least in the abstract, to encourage people to use public transport, it is generally agreed that in order to persuade people to leave their cars at home and walk to school, take the bus or buses to the shops or use the bus and train to get to work, there has to be the carrot of better public transport as a reasonable alternative. But the report demonstrates just how far the Government have let slip that most important ingredient to a seamless journey—the change of mode.
We may go back over 18 years of Conservative non-policy—the massive road building programme, Roads for Prosperity, and the great transport debate during which the then Secretary of State, Dr. Mawhinney, generated tons of unread paper, which all sank without trace when he departed. There followed the sudden cutbacks in the road

305
programme when the Treasury and the green lobby got together with the same objective but for different reasons.
The railways have seen similar disastrous restructuring. Just as Bob Reid was delivering real benefits from his reorganisation, rail was privatised. Railtrack was going to be kept in the public sector. However, there was a U-turn and it was privatised because the Government could not sell the franchises.
The Government privatised the buses. In London, presumably because the odd parliamentarian uses them, the routes structure was preserved and each one was let off individually. The service is poor, but at least some of the network benefits are there. Elsewhere, where few parliamentarians or persons of influence travel by bus, the free market reigns supreme. There are more buses on the road, but, except in London, there are fewer passengers. The report states that between 1985–86 and 1995–96 bus passenger journeys in London increased by 5 per cent., which is good, but elsewhere decreased by 29 per cent. That can only be a result of the inability of people outside London to find out how to get a bus, where it goes and when.
Do the Government care? They did the same with rail freight. It was sold off to private companies. There is a policy of encouraging rail freight. I do not know whether the Government are shortly to announce that there will be 44-tonne lorries across the whole country; I do not know whether they will encourage a planning regime for rail connected sites or announce any other measures. The property of Railtrack and BR is being sold off as if there were no tomorrow. Has that approach ever been thought through?
From the Government's point of view it may appear on the surface to be a success story. Underneath, as the report states, the quality of the transport experience could be very much better. The few have made a lot of money. But what about the many—those who have to use the new system that the Government have created and, I submit, forgotten about? The report is about making connections—changing trains, changing from bus to train, changing from one train operator's service to another. The sub-group chairman, Dr. Susan Owens, said of the report:
"It's really indicative of a terrible failure of our transport system in terms of its co-ordination and organisation. Competition in transport is not just producing the integrated network that is essential if we are going to tackle the problems of traffic growth".
Unless we can achieve that, travel choices will continue to be weighted heavily in favour of seamless journeys by car or lorry.
Let us examine some of the main points of the report and what has happened more recently to support its conclusions. It gives a clear message that if we are to encourage people from the private car onto public transport, that transport has to be attractive, and passengers must have information about where they are going, when, where they can change, how much it will cost and, most important of all, what will happen when things go wrong. Noble Lords might think that all those questions are quite reasonable.
306
Starting with passengers, what are the barriers to journeys that involve interchange? First, people need information before a journey. It is possible to obtain train timetables. But is it possible to take a bicycle on the train? What happens if one leg of the journey is delayed? How do people find out? Well, there is a train timetable.
Now, after years of requesting, there is one national number; and it is good. I support it. But for buses, if you want to go to Ripon or Bridport, two towns which do not have rail services, how do you find out how to get there from the nearest station? Whom do you ask? Whom do you telephone? Bridport is on the territory of South West Trains. The new operator said that it would be starting a new bus link from Dorchester to connect with the trains. The problem is that the person who was dealing with the link was sacked as an economy measure—so there is no bus service and no person to ask. When you get to Dorchester, where do you find the bus stop? Is there a map?
It is the fragmentation of responsibilities for information which is so serious. In paragraph 45 the report states that the authors were told that a full information service, presumably for all forms of public transport, down to the very local level of postcodes—which is close—would cost 2 per cent. of total public transport expenditure. They thought that that was high. I am told that the airlines spend an average of 2 to 3 per cent. on advertising and promotion and expect to do it to attract traffic. So why should not the surface public transport operators spend the same? They are, after all, in competition with the private car. Why will not bus companies work with each other and with the train companies?
The Government should have foreseen all this in their policy of privatisation. I do not suggest that the Government should have paid for it all, but they could at least have required the rail and bus franchisees or operators, as a condition of their licences, to contribute to and participate in a national scheme. But they did not. They did not care and probably do not now. They have washed their hands of it at the level where it matters to the users and customers.
Moving on to information, passengers have to feel in control of their journey—where they are going, that they will get off at the right stop and that they are heading in the right direction. Some new trains have signs inside saying where they are going. Buses do not give much information. It would be nothing spectacular but they could display maps. There could be a system whereby people can ask where they go. But there are few, if any, announcements on buses and never an announcement about competing buses. Yet they are part of the transport system.
Physical inconvenience is another matter raised in the report. It points to the difficulties and the safety problems faced by people who are frail and disabled or by those carrying heavy baggage or with small children when crossing busy roads in transferring between interchange points. It is quite frightening, as I am sure many noble Lords will know, when lorries are rushing past, you cannot find the bus stop, and the children are screaming.

307
Whose job is it to sort it out? I have no doubt at all that it is the duty of the Government to set the scene and the structure and the duty of local authorities and the operators to participate. Each is now passing the buck, complaining that they have no money. The 2 per cent. figure, however, is still there.
As regards tickets, the railways pay lip service to giving impartial information, but there are endless stories about people doing the same journey every week and being charged different prices. The operators have abolished super savers on some routes and you cannot get reductions for network card holders on other routes. Sometimes you cannot get a return ticket; it is all different. Sometimes you can pay on a train and sometimes you cannot. It is better in London, again, I suspect, because many parliamentarians have had a hand in the legislation. But all-operator season tickets and single and return journeys of several elements with different operators are not common outside London.
There are problems with timings and connections between operators. Does one train wait for another? Sometimes it does; sometimes it does not. Does a train wait for a bus connection? I suggest that there are not many examples of that. The bus probably goes nowhere near the station. And anyway how does one know in advance? Does the bus or train run at all? We have talked quite often in this Chamber about South West Trains. Not only were many trains cancelled, but the timescale for the reinstatement of the original service gets longer and longer as the weeks go by. The company, I believe aided and abetted by the franchising director, makes the point that cancellations are only in off-peak services. That is fine if you are a commuter. If you are an off-peak traveller, because it is cheaper, it is tough.
I was interested to note the comment by Sir George Young who recently visited Bournemouth at the time of the cuts. He said:
"I know that South West Trains is doing all it can to restore services quickly".
There was not a hint of criticism of how this first and flagship franchisee got into the mess in the first place.
Of course, the situation was exacerbated by signalling problems near Woking a week or two ago when Railtrack managed to put up a signal gantry back to front, so the signals pointed in the wrong direction. The company wondered why it did not work. It spent a lot of time putting new paths beside the railways for the safety of its staff, although they appear to have done quite happily without them for 100 years. The best thing is that at the end of each path there is a single post which says "End of path". I am waiting for a sign four feet further on, saying "Beginning of next path". Is that really all Railtrack can find to spend the £1.6 billion on when it should be improving the infrastructure, keeping the tracks on line, replacing rotten sleepers and even repainting the Forth Bridge? The House will recall that the railway inspectorate has had to slap several enforcement notices on Railtrack to make it improve the track at Euston and at the Forth Bridge as well as making it invest, we hope, in sensible activities rather than footpaths or notices.
308
We have heard all about jobs and job losses. South West Trains has only lost 70 jobs but there are more to come elsewhere. Can the company keep the trains going with all those jobs being lost? I very much doubt it.
Then there is the question of shortening the length of trains. It may surprise passengers on South West Trains and Connex that all passengers on a journey of over 20 minutes should have a seat. Who checks that? The operators check whether their trains are long enough, but they also save money by shortening them. Who checks the operators? The franchising director is supposed to, but he has quietly dumped this pledge. He has only done one census; he should have done two. And guess what? His report will not be out until after the election, I think. Surprise, surprise! So we will not know what the congestion is, although those who travel on the trains will be well aware of it.
In summary, the report gives many government failings. It is, one might say, sponsored by the Government. The failures result in ageing buses, falling numbers of passengers, poorly co-ordinated timetables and, as people move to the car, even more crowded roads.
It is interesting to comment on what Will Hutton said in the Observer early in February:
"They could have added [in the report] that the old public monopolies that so displeased our Conservative masters are rapidly being replaced by private monopolies, with 50 per cent. of the routes dominated by Stagecoach, Cowie and First Bus".
What is the difference between the two? Can we assume that since Mr. Gummer was co-chairman of the group, in the unlikely event of his government being re-elected he would implement the recommendations in full? Only a year ago, Sir George Young issued a Conservative Party press release which stated that,
"we have a clear consistent policy [which is designed] to produce better services for passengers at less cost to the taxpayer. It is that simple".
Many passengers would say that he has not delivered to them and the savings to the taxpayers, however good they may look on paper, have yet to deliver the goods. If they do not, then it will be after the election and someone else's problem.
I conclude with a quote from the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, that well known Conservative supporter, who says:
"Under our new masters, Connex South Eastern, certain trains have got shorter and more crowded".
As the cattle trucks clattered into London Bridge, the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, complained to the driver. The driver said: "I wish more of you would complain". That sums it up.
It is a disaster. It has been 18 years of disaster, but the connection problem is heightened and emphasised in the report and it is what we need to debate today. I beg to move for papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am honoured to be the first to have the privilege of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this important debate. As usual I must declare an interest. As many of your

309
Lordships know, I have been connected with the bus industry for many years. Therefore I welcome the opportunity to comment on Making Connections. I am afraid that my views and observations are quite different from those of the noble Lord because I feel the situation is quite sunny compared with the way in which he painted it.
Contrary to press reports at the time of publication, the report has some very positive statements about the benefits of privatisation and commercialisation. It identifies a clear road ahead through quality partnerships and I shall come to them later. It also identifies the importance of local authorities being provided with sufficient resources for public transport. It is worth noting that in the mid-1980s revenue support accounted for 30 per cent. of local bus revenue. Now it has been reduced to 11 per cent. and the customer has a greater choice of services. That surely is a great achievement.
In the media there was much ill-informed and unhelpful comment about the commercialised bus industry outside London. Everyone recognises that we must "all" increase the use of public transport to ease congestion; but what people mean is "everyone else but me". Some people want the bus to provide the same door-to-door convenience as the car, when clearly that is not possible. Therefore, they look for any excuse not to use the bus. We are all impatient by nature. There are still some difficulties to overcome. Information and ticketing have been sources of irritation since time immemorial. However, the industry, the Government and the local authorities have recognised that weakness—not before time. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will inform us of the progress of the government working party which is studying this aspect of bus services.
Much is made in the report about the use of real time information. Of course, we all thoroughly approve of such systems, but we must also be realistic. In many rural areas a good, well designed and easy to read timetable is all that people need. The report, intentionally or otherwise, gives the impression that only in London does the customer have the benefit of good information. Personally, I do not believe that it is perfect in London. Let me assure the House that there is much innovation outside the capital city.
Where long distance travel is concerned there is, for the first time, an industry-funded national timetable and a national telephone hotline. That will give information on any inter-urban coach or rural bus service. Tickets for coach and train services can be bought over the telephone. That service is known as the Train, Bus and Coach Hotline and is available nationally. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the number, I shall tell your Lordships that it is 0891 910 910. Referring again to ticketing, it is simply not true that the London-type travelcard is unique. Many similar systems exist outside the capital.
A welcome comment was the key recognition of the role of quality partnerships. A quality partnership is a formalised partnership between local authorities and bus operators, aimed at increasing the quality of both vehicles and infrastructure. The report recommends that
310
the Government should encourage voluntary action between operators and local authorities. Such co-operation is already taking place. Quality partnership agreements have already been signed between operators and local authorities in the West Midlands and Glasgow. Several other such partnerships are in the pipeline.
In the report, a review of the regulation of certain aspects of the bus industry is suggested. At this stage I am not entirely convinced of the need for change. There are already examples of partnerships by mutual agreement, and whether the weight of further regulations would be beneficial is somewhat doubtful.
Following a massive upheaval of the bus industry after the 1985 Transport Act, heavy investment is now on stream and ridership is stabilising. We must be careful not, once again, to change the regulatory regime, thereby placing in jeopardy either the newly-forged partnerships or investment in new buses. Passengers' needs must always come before political doctrine.
Finally, there is the recommendation that interchange sites should be safeguarded through the Government's Planning Policy Guidance. It is important that we do not spend money on developing interchange facilities at one end of a town and then authorise business and commercial expansion miles away. Therefore, such matters must be for local, not national, determination.
The dismissive attitude of planners towards coach travel leaves much to be desired. For example, if you happen to be one of the 2,500 tourists who come from Paris or Brussels on Eurostar every day to Waterloo, you are given a very poor deal indeed if you want an onward journey by coach. You must cross a busy road and carry your own luggage to a disused car park before carrying on with your journey. So, let us not forget that the coach is also an important mode of travel.
In the brief time that I have available, I should like to reminisce a little and confess that, when the Transport Act 1985 was a mere Bill, I was totally opposed to it and, indeed, cynical as to its aims. I could not see the purpose of altering a regulatory structure which had been in place since 1930 and which I thought worked perfectly well. Like many people in the industry, I could not see bus operation as anything but a necessary mode of transport—but one which was severely declining and with few opportunities for commercialisation.
History has changed all that. The industry is now more buoyant and purposeful. More importantly, the public are getting a better choice of service.
3.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to draw attention to a silence in the Making Connections report and to a weakness.
The silence is on the subject of canals and water transport. We make less use of our navigable rivers and waters today than at any time in our history. I do not long to see Viking longships again sailing up the Humber; but I should like to see the Trent as it once was, full of traffic going up and down at high tide. I should also like to see our canals used. The Don navigation has been magnificently restored in the past 20 years with European money. It is a state of the art,

311
first-class canal, where locks open as a boat approaches. It is absolutely superb. There is only one thing wrong with it: it is almost entirely disused. A fine array of herons walks along the banks and, if I dare say so in your Lordships' presence, cormorants swim up and down the water. But of ships, boats and barges there is none.
One of the reasons is covered in the Making Connections report. A canal cannot be taken into one's backyard or the factory gates. There need to be more thought-through ways of getting containers from the barges to where they need to be. But when we look at the pollution rate and so on, it is difficult to think of any better or more economic way of moving heavy goods about than by water. It has always been so in the past; I cannot understand why it is not so in the present. I find puzzling and regrettable the silence of Making Connections, which uses the word "canals" once, and the previous report from the same source which said that it did not have space to talk about waterways.
I also believe that we are failing to grasp the problem of the motor car. Lip service is paid to less of it but that is all. When we look back over the past 100 years, there is something rather extraordinary in the way the motor car has crept along by the legislators' blind side. Stagecoaches were regulated at every stage by the Turnpike Acts. On canals and railways not a movement could be made without an Act of Parliament. But once the red flag was given up, the motor car was allowed to get on with it, with dire consequences for us all that still continue.
In the 1930s we decided not to build roads, for the perhaps not unreasonable reason that Hitler and Mussolini were building roads and so it must be wrong. In fact, we did not do anything until we suddenly realised that the roads that we had would be lined from John o' Groats to Land's End with bungalows. So we began to control the car by planning where we put houses. That was a step in the right direction.
When we look back at our Victorian cities, we see that they were limited by the tramlines and walking distance to the tram terminus. There was no point in building further away than that. My moderately wealthy grandfather travelled by tram from his big house in Devon Road to Newcastle every day. He could not have built his house further away unless he had been very wealthy and into horses and carriages, which he was not. Those restrictions vanished when the motor car was invented.
We are still making some attempts through planning to control the spread of our towns and villages. But when I drive around South Yorkshire—now the East Riding of Yorkshire—which I do a good deal, I see in almost every village splendid groups of new houses. They are rather expensive new houses and new houses in which nobody could possibly live without having a car or possibly two cars. I do not understand what the planners are doing. They are building-in a situation in which there will never be public transport and people will be dependent on the motor car. We can multiply illustrations like that.
312
By increases in petrol taxes and by making the improvements in the quality of public transport about which other noble Lords have spoken, we can curb the desire to use the motor car. But I suspect it is wishful thinking to believe that that is enough. I drive a car; it is extraordinarily convenient. The thought of standing at a bus stop in the rain is not attractive when I can take the car. However, the car is an extremely destructive implement in relation to the quality of the life of our nation and indeed the world and we should leave it at home.
I am disappointed that the Making Connections report only advocates less use of the car and does not go on to say that we need radical legislation, certainly in the planning area and possibly in other areas as well. In that way we can again become a society in which the most sensible means of travel are used, both by passengers and freight. I like to think that freight could be transported by water, and passengers by public transport which is both trustworthy and convenient, as well as being accessible. Perhaps then, like my grandfather—who was no saint or hero—new generations will choose to go by tram instead of, as I do, by car. We need to be more radical than the report suggests if we are to bring the car under control.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for bringing this report to our attention and I say straightaway that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield hit the nail squarely on the head when he referred to the historical basis from where our transport system came. Initially, our transport system was built around the waterways—arguably that is one of the reasons we industrialised so fast and so early. We had a system of waterways which allowed the transport of goods far more easily than any of the other major nations in Europe. We then backed that up with a train system.
Because we were one of the first to introduce a train system, we found ourselves building vast numbers of trains, many of which never made any money under the old privatised system. Arguments took place and ultimately we were left with a train system running on narrow gauge tracks. The first problem we encountered with our freight system, as the report pointed out, was that we had smaller carriages travelling on smaller tracks than virtually any other country in Europe.
We can never escape history, but we can go on from it. We are in danger of accepting the fait accompli; that we cannot transport goods by rail or waterways because of the expense of transferring them from their present mode of transport. That is what the report discusses. It takes time, effort and—dare I say it?—money to change the mode of transport of heavy loads to either rail or waterway, though once the transfer has been made, the unit cost of moving them around is incredibly cheap.
The report appeared to be primarily aimed at passenger transport, or found itself drawn towards it. Passengers have accepted the idea that travelling around in a metal cocoon—a car; one's personal mode of

313
transport—is the normal and indeed desirable way of transporting oneself. Cars of all types are sold from every angle in our consumer-led society. We want to travel in our own box with our own space around us.
It is too late to try to convince people that cars are not the way forward. All we can do is try to restrict the numbers of cars on the road by offering alternatives which are comparatively easy to use. The report talks about making connections between the various modes of transport and there are many examples of how that can work. The first example that springs to mind is Victoria Station. Perhaps appropriately, it is the largest, if not the closest, mainline station to the Houses of Parliament. There one can find mainline trains, underground trains, bus services and taxis integrated inside the same building. If one wants to change between any of those modes of transport, one will not have to walk more than 100 yards, but even then it is not perfect.
The taxi rank at Victoria Station was left over from the days of the horse and cart—the taxi service originated with horsepower. The tube system grew up around it and through that area, but suffered greatly from a lack of private finance. It still desperately needs investment. Though improvements have been made, many parts need at the very least a wash and brush-up. However, it is there and it works.
The regulatory powers of London mean that we know where the buses are going and where to catch a train or a tube. A series of co-ordinating bodies are working together to give us that information. If we can do that on a 100 year-old site, surely we can do it in miniature at dozens of other points throughout the country, especially when possibly only two or three modes of transport are involved. Realistically, if we are not going to invest in trams or in some other form of light rail system—I believe we should, but that is neither here nor there in this debate—we must strive to co-ordinate the remaining transport systems, as the report suggests.
We must introduce tickets which are acceptable to all modes of transport so that the inconvenience of the journey does not outweigh the benefits. If noble Lords want to see why it is so important to get rid of such minor inconveniences, they should walk to Clapham Junction and watch young women performing the Herculean task of trying to carry four bags of shopping and two young children. It should perhaps become an Olympic event. With the best will in the world it is impossible to carry two children and a volume of shopping up and down those steps without assistance, even if a member of the public is generally willing to grab the pushchair, but that cannot be guaranteed. Negotiating the steps in itself is extremely difficult, but when one has to buy a ticket with junior running off in one direction and tins of baked beans rolling out of the carrier bag in another, it becomes impossible.
We must integrate the systems and give people information about where trains are running and where tickets can be bought. Without the one-stop convenience that that would bring, we are ultimately heading for disaster. We have sold the idea of the car being the best
314
mode of transport and the most socially acceptable; unless we can address all the other points, we are doomed to failure in making people change their minds.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, normally I would expect to see my noble friend Lord Listowel sitting by my side. But, sadly, our most distinguished colleague with his remarkable record passed away this afternoon. We send our deep sympathy to Lady Listowel and the family.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his thoughtful speech and I welcome the debate. It enables us to look with some care at the railway system of this country and its condition following the Government's decision to privatise, with all that that means. There was a time when our railway was regarded as the best in the world.
We want to be sure that the changes which are currently taking place are justified. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, has done his best at Question Time and in debate to defend government policy, and I respect his efforts. But I fear I still look to the future with some doubt and without great confidence.
The noble Viscount knows that my primary concern is the North Wales coast rail line which is the main route to Holyhead and then by sea to Dun Laoghaire and Dublin. It also serves the North Wales coastal communities, and, as noble Lords know, it is of major importance in encouraging tourism in North Wales. It has also been designated a trans-Europe network. Against that background, may I remind noble Lords that North Wales generally and the port of Holyhead particularly have suffered from very high unemployment. It is important that we take the right steps to help them. The port is important and the condition and usage of the railway is crucial. But what is the situation?
The truth is that the quality of the track is often poor and in Anglesey it results in numerous speed restrictions. The signalling is so old that there are times when only one train can operate in each direction. Furthermore, there is now no rail freight to Holyhead, something which has reduced the importance of the port. Until fairly recently, young Holyhead and Anglesey men, on leaving school, could obtain apprenticeships in the port as engineers, electricians, French polishers and so on, but sadly all this has gone. I remember a time when we could travel by train from Holyhead to Aberystwyth and onwards—but not today. Of course we want to see change, but it must be change in the right direction and one which recognises the historic importance of the two great bridges over the Menai Straits.
The Government, instead of consulting leaders in Wales, the North of England and Scotland, launched into enterprises which can only end in disaster. I was shocked to read what the Evening Standard had to say recently about the privatisation of the London tube system:
"The longest suicide note in political history … a disaster for London … and a disastrous leap in the dark".

315
Ministers may wish to study the sums of money gained by the top 10 men involved in privatisation ventures. I was shocked when I read of them. It amounts to £103 million, money which could buy 34 new regional trains, or staff all the 1,000 unstaffed railway stations for four years. These are the realities and they should make our hair stand on end. Today over 1,000 of Britain's 2,500 railway stations are without staff; that means that in two out of every five of our stations no help is available to passengers. I know there are problems in Network SouthEast, where over 80 per cent. of stations are unmanned after 6 p.m., and 50 per cent. are unmanned on Sundays. But the £103 million I mentioned would staff them all for four years.
I am truly astounded by the way in which entrepreneurs have made substantial fortunes whilst the railways themselves have been neglected in many areas. I have mentioned the personal fortunes amounting to £103 million gained by 10 of these men while only one order for new British trains has been placed since privatisation. That has not been brought up in our debates and it has not been mentioned by Ministers at Question Time. The general public are not made aware of these facts, but it is high time they were so that they can decide in the coming weeks how they will make political decisions.
Recently Ministers have given the impression that we are moving into a happy new year. One of them said:
"Privatisation means better services to passengers at less cost to taxpayers".
That, to me, seems incredible. Those who travel to London daily in the South East take a very different view, especially when they see directors walking off with millions overnight. I think there is a strong case for a major public inquiry into the operation of at least three train leasing companies: Porterbrook, Eversholt and Angel. It is a regrettable scene and there is one thing we must bear in mind; namely, that if, as we hope, we form a new government in a few weeks' time, we shall find some major problems in the cupboards of Whitehall. It will not be easy to resolve them, and although I look forward to that, I do so with some worry. We must be ready to tackle these problems honestly and effectively. The railway and tube systems will be among them. I want to see an integrated policy. I want to see efficient and comfortable trains whistling along the North Wales coast and on to Anglesey. I shall not be satisfied until I experience that when I go home!
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this subject. Transport, for some reason, seems to be regarded by many people as something to be endured rather than a necessity and as a result the priorities afforded to it by governments, in my view, have over the years been sadly neglected.
For this reason, I welcome this Government's approach to transport which, as your Lordships know, has involved, among other things, much deregulation of the bus industry and, more importantly, the privatisation of the railways. In view of my interest in railway affairs, this is what I want to concentrate on.
316
The report that forms the subject of this debate deserves better publicity. It seems to address much of what was wrong with what went on before. We have had an adequate railway system in this country bequeathed to us by the Victorian civil engineers, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. The fact that so much criticism can be levelled at it stems much from the way things happened in the past. Nationalisation all those years ago served us ill and unfortunately resulted in stagnation, with a system ultimately concerned more with its own problems than those of its customers. There was no sustainability.
To put such a system into the private sector in the way this Government have succeeded in doing is a bold step and not without some risk. However, the present level of service is guaranteed under the franchising system and government interference is limited to the controls exercised by the franchising director and rail regulator, whose functions are enshrined in legislation.
The train operating companies have announced much needed improvement to their rolling stock, and indeed in many cases to their services. The track authority has announced a rolling programme of improvements and enhancements, much of which would be impossible under the previous regime. It is all very exciting and I would encourage everyone to look positively at what is likely to happen.
These companies, as encouraged by this report, will have to co-operate with each other for their businesses to grow. Life for the travelling public has to be made easy. Making connections is an apt subject that has been rather neglected in the past. We now have a central telephone inquiry service which is able to provide advice and information. There has also been produced an extremely comprehensive computer programme by means of which one can work out any journey that one wishes to make. In some cases this can produce some rather bizarre routes but on the whole it seems to be very useful.
Car parking is another very important aspect of rail travel. To this end it is most important that any railway land suitable for this purpose is safeguarded and so used. It can form a useful addition to a train operating company's income even at relatively nominal rates.
On the freight side, privatisation has produced enormous opportunities. It seems to have suddenly dawned on everyone that the competition here is not within the railway system but outside it. I refer to road transport and the arrival of but one main player in the rail freight area as a consequence of this fact. It has to be said that in order to maximise the potential for rail freight a lot of work will have to be done.
The Piggyback Consortium has done much work to concentrate people's minds on the need to provide a suitable infrastructure to enable rail to play its part in helping to protect the environment by taking some traffic off the roads. Once we have piggyback in this country and within Europe, it will mean that one transport operator can in fact deliver any number of road trailers to a given destination with one tractor unit. He takes one himself, consigns the rest by rail, delivers them with his unit and repeats the process with his back

317
loads. Thus many lorry journeys are saved and with the frightening prospect of the arrival of 44-tonne vehicles to our roads, it should make it much easier to confine them to local rail-borne work.
The report mentions the need to keep track of rail freight consignments, containers and the like. Perhaps that can be achieved by some sort of satellite tracking system. This may be difficult because of the sheer numbers of units involved, but I believe that some sort of system like this is in use in the USA to keep track of freight cars so perhaps it can be done in Europe.
I welcome the recently announced improvements to the line that connects the port of Felixstowe with the rest of the system. Railway-port connections are a vital part of the container business and will enable rail to play a better part in the distribution process. Avonmouth has also recently had its link improved in order to facilitate the distribution of imported coal and I understand that land there has been earmarked for an intermodal terminal.
One of the most important connecting pieces of railway is the West London line. Only six years ago this line was electrified and re-signalled, which brought it out of what was almost a state of suspended animation. This was done mainly to facilitate the operation and maintenance of Eurostar trains. Since then and post-privatisation, many people have suddenly woken up to its potential. London is badly served by connecting railways and already a study is under way to further improve its capacity to around 21 journeys per hour from the present 12.
We are going to see a great revolution in the way rail services are provided in the future. Privatisation has transformed the ways in which such services can be both funded and operated. There are bound to be problems, but in the end they will be overcome. Let us not forget that the private car and the lorry are powerful competition that provide almost total convenience. Rail's task is to make its service equally convenient and to this end journeys must be made as seamless as possible. I think that we are now in a much better position to achieve this.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, so ably opened by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I do not normally participate in debates about transport as it is not a subject on which I would claim any expert knowledge. The last time I did so was on the Bill concerned with railway privatisation, when, together with a number of other noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, whom I am sorry not to see in his place this afternoon, we managed to achieve some protection for railway pensioners. However, I speak today as a user of transport facilities and what I think I may describe as a reluctant motorist.
Why am I a reluctant motorist? It is because I recognise that the car is not an environmentally friendly instrument. I have no doubt at all that if we had a really good public transport system I would abandon
318
my car, which is costly to maintain in any event and in the area where I live very difficult indeed to park. The value of car ownership is increasingly being undermined by the number of people anxious to join the throng who feel they cannot do without them.
The report Making Connections, which I read with enormous interest, highlights very effectively some of these concerns. Why do I use a car? It is because it is by far the easiest way to get to the places I want to visit or need to visit. I am glad that the report pays particular attention to the difficulty of making connections on journeys which are not straightforward. I can certainly attest to that.
In this country it is relatively easy to go up and down, from north to south, or vice versa, but try crossing from east to west, particularly at the mid-point of the country. That is a very different story.
You get the information required at the start of the train journey telling you where you have to change. It is fortunate if there is only one change. At the station where you have to change, the information you want may not be readily forthcoming. Moreover, and what is even worse, since privatisation and the emphasis on cost-cutting, which seems an inevitable side-effect, there is no one to ask. An unintelligible voice will blare something over a loudspeaker. Believing that you are on the wrong platform, you hastily run down the stairs, along a gloomy underground corridor and up another flight of stairs, only to realise that you should have stayed where you were. Then there will be an announcement that the train you are waiting for has broken down and for the safety of passengers checking has to take place, and there are apologies for the delay etc. That is not fiction, it has happened to me on more than one occasion, and I am sure that it has happened to others.
As a lone woman traveller the disappearance of staff very much concerns me. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has already dealt with that at some length. Once you would never arrive at a small station to find absolutely no staff there at all, yet that is now a frequent occurrence. I am glad that Making Connections highlights concerns about personal safety if journeys involve waiting at ill-lighted and threatening interchanges. That is another reason why I prefer to travel in my car. It may not be as safe as I think it is, even equipped with a personal phone and a direct line to the AA, but I feel that it is.
Reliability is a key factor as well, and that also has been stressed in the report. It is right to focus on transfer needs—which the report believes are not being met—as a major reason why people will often go by car rather than by rail or bus.
As far as buses are concerned, I do not think that privatisation has resulted in an improved service to the customer. On the contrary, it seems to me that in London, where the situation is probably better than in many other parts of the country, nevertheless there are large numbers of buses on some routes—undoubtedly those regarded as the most profitable—while on others where the need may be greater the service is not so good.

319
Again, I speak from my experience, which may not be typical, but I believe that it is shared by a number of people. The local bus route which covers north-west London, where I live, and which provides a link with Brent Cross shopping centre for a series of thickly populated neighbourhoods, has an appalling service. I try to use it instead of going by car, but I usually find myself standing in a queue with a number of other elderly ladies who are out shopping. One said to me recently, "Really, you know, I do think that transport ought to be publicly owned and operated". So much for the popularity of privatisation.
As a motorist, I find the large number of long-distance freight lorries on the roads a bit daunting. Again, that is dealt with, I believe very fairly, by the authors of the report. More should be done to see that heavy freight goes by rail instead of cluttering up the road networks. I have often wondered why it is not possible to stipulate that heavy lorry deliveries should be made at night. I know that that is done in some EU countries. In the beginning there was opposition from the drivers, but generous overtime allowances soon made it acceptable. We should accept that if greater road safety resulted, it might be worth the extra cost on some goods.
The report makes the important point that while deregulation of public transport has brought benefits, it has made it more difficult to provide a high standard of intermodal services—that is to say, easy transfer arrangements—because the operators see more financial advantage in competition than in co-ordination. That is the downside in any market-oriented system. Only government intervention on the basis of a planned strategy to co-ordinate transport services throughout the UK can produce a system which is truly of benefit to the public generally and is environmentally friendly as well.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley, for introducing this debate today. The report that we are discussing is admirably cogent and succinct in drawing our attention to the shortcomings of our public transport system arising from bus deregulation and rail privatisation. Paragraph 14 of the report states,
"Over recent years, deregulation of the bus industry and rail privatisation, together with reductions in local authority powers, have produced a more fragmented service and a lack of clear responsibility for ensuring that network benefits occur".
I wish to concentrate my remarks on the way in which this fragmented service, this lack of clear responsibility for making the system work better, resulting at times in an alarming dearth of information about passenger journeys and lengthy delays in securing transport connections, affects women passengers in particular, women travelling alone, elderly women and women travelling with small children.
The report acknowledges that the deregulation of public transport has brought some benefits, but the report is unequivocal in its view that deregulation has meant that because operators see greater financial advantage in competition than in co-operation, passenger information systems, synchronised services
320
and through-ticketing have all suffered. If you accept one judgment, I believe that you must accept the other also. Those shortcomings are difficult enough for all passengers, but women's travel needs and patterns arguably differ from those of men. Women are especially vulnerable to assault. Part-time workers—the overwhelming majority of whom are women—have to get to and from work outside peak public transport hours. Women travelling with young children face considerable physical burdens and difficulties. Elderly women are particularly badly hit because they are less likely to drive private cars than their male counterparts, and increasingly fragmented and unreliable transport systems leave them more and more isolated socially.
I suspect that for most women the most serious problems in using public transport are associated with the risk to personal safety, particularly when travelling after dark. In a nation-wide Harris poll, 59 per cent. of women said that they tried to avoid travelling by public transport in the evening hours because they feared for their personal safety. How much more are such fears exacerbated when there is little or no reliable information about transport connections, when women travelling alone are forced to make constant inquiries, sometimes from complete strangers, about where and when the next bus will arrive or depart, and when literally hours have to be spent hanging around ill-lit and unstaffed bus, coach and even railway stations?
Before any noble Lord suggests that it is all a question of perception rather than reality and that a little decent counselling could sort out the paranoia that is here and there, I should like to point out that many, many women, myself included, have direct experience of physical or sexual attack when using public transport after dark. It is a horrible and bitter experience.
Since bus deregulation, women are the fastest growing group of car drivers in this country. According to Professor Kerry Hamilton, Professor of Transport at East London University, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in women's use of cars in 10 years. Her research has shown that that is not because women have suddenly got the surplus income with which to buy cars—indeed, many run into debt in securing their cars—it is because the public transport system is failing women at every turn in relation to their domestic and work needs.
In West Yorkshire, research shows that older women are hit hard by deregulation because they can no longer rely on local buses to go to bingo or to go out dancing or with their friends. As a result, they stay in under a kind of self-imposed, but completely understandable, curfew, and they become increasingly isolated. Elderly women drive much less than do their male counterparts. In London, for example, only 17 per cent. of women over the age of 65 drive, as compared with 57 per cent. of men of the same age. For most of them, the current uncertainty of the public transport system causes not merely inconvenience or difficulty over shopping, but real loneliness and a deterioration in the quality of their lives.
For women with young children, all those problems prevail—and many more besides. Complaints abound about the uncertainty associated with the timing of

321
public transport, about the lack of facilities, and about the lack of storage for shopping and pushchairs on buses. In short, there has been a complete failure on the part of the deregulated industry to address the normal everyday life of thousands upon thousands of women and their transport needs.
I hope and believe that if there is an incoming Labour Government, as I believe that there will be, they will take the report as seriously as it deserves to be taken and that we shall not hear the constant refrain, "It really isn't as bad as that" or "It's not me, guv", when it comes down to the question of who should actually do something to put all this right. The abdication of responsibility in this area evinced by Ministers has certainly not been unexpected, but it has indeed been depressing. It will be another reason why many women will reflect on their voting options in the forthcoming general election.
4.5 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I regret to say that until the other day I had never heard of the Round Table on Sustainable Development. That is unfortunate because if I had known about its report, I would certainly have ensured that the potential solutions that are offered by ITS (intelligent transport systems) were made available to it. Clearly, we should have had better co-ordination and, as President of ITS Focus, I must take my share of any blame for that. Perhaps ITS Focus is too closely identified with the road network and perhaps the Round Table is too closely identified with the rail network although that is an inference on my part and I shall happily accept correction if I am in error.
In ITS Focus, we see environmentally friendly modes of travel as just one of the benefits of encouraging a greater use of public transport through a more attractive public transport system. We also think that the tools to achieve that either already exist or are at least imminent. Certainly, the infrastructure exists; the cable networks, the Internet and the Radio Data Services are all available for intermodal transport information. Trip planner kiosks have already been built for demonstration purposes. I refer, for example, to Southampton's ROMANSE project, which has been showing its multimodal trip planner kiosk for some months now. Indeed, I saw it demonstrated in London last autumn. Two weeks ago, in another debate, I outlined some of the ways in which buses are being made more attractive through intelligent transport systems, so I shall not repeat those points now.
I turn instead to Europe where a booklet, Public Private Collaboration in Traffic and Travel Information, was produced by DG XIII in early 1996, following a transport telematics forum held in conjunction with ERTICO, which is the group involved in ITS for Europe. The booklet urged nation states to integrate traffic management and traffic information services, calling for co-ordination of information at the data processing level so that it can lead to the collection, processing and dissemination of traffic management data.
322
It seems to me that the Commission is right in identifying the need for a multimodal travel information service provider. Airlines appear to have no difficulty in providing computerised through ticketing. I am sure that multimodal travel can do the same, given the right stimulus. No doubt opinions will differ as to what such a stimulus should be, but I do not think that it is necessarily money; it might be some form of regulation. Judging by airline competition for passenger reservation systems, it should not cause a determined government too much hard work to achieve the same in land and water-based transport. Even if all that comes to pass, it will still be necessary for those offering freight services by rail and/or water and for those offering passenger services by rail, water, bus and coach—in other words, services which have the potential to take vehicles off the road—to compete with the car and lorry for such traffic. Only then will congestion reduce and the environment become less polluted.
I turn to the USA. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Act set out to develop an intermodal transport system that will,
"be economically efficient and environmentally sound: provide the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy-efficient manner".
The US Department of Transport asked ITS America to prepare a strategic plan, taking account of all relevant interests. The plan was published in 1992 and covered 20 years. ITS America proposed to develop a national systems architecture with open interfaces. That was approved in 1993 and was completed in 1996 at a cost of 30 million US dollars which was federally funded. Today, 75 metropolitan areas in the US have shown interest in nine core ITS technologies. Currently, the US Department of Transport is supporting a model deployment programme in four cities out of 23 shortlisted. In parallel, there is a 16 million dollar five-year programme aimed at securing a comprehensive set of ITS public domain standards. It is not just that the US can afford to throw money around and we cannot. The fact is that while we today talk vaguely about the future possibility of intermodal transport the USA began its homework as long ago as 1991. It is now well on the way to developing new ideas to stimulate radical changes in the movement of people and freight. Doubtless, it will soon have new world-beating products to sell.
I turn to Japan. In 1995 ITS Focus led a DTI-supported mission to that country. This reported that four core ITS technologies had products in or close to market. One of the four was,
"Public transport information provision and vehicle management systems in vehicles, at roadside (via variable message signs at bus stops) and at bus, metro and surface rail stations".
In Japan the associations appear to be much more authoritarian than UK trade associations. The report was impressed by the way in which the Japanese Government used them to shape key ITS products, including travel information services.
That report on Japan is now 15 months old. It seems to me that in both the USA and Japan government has grasped early the advantages which new technologies can bring and has offered focus and direction to get new

323
products started. In Europe the Commission has also grasped the potential but it has been unable to persuade most nation states to give ITS the priority that it needs. It is easy for me to be wise in hindsight, but I suggest that as far as concerns intermodal transport and trip planning we in the UK have failed to get our act together.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I open by thanking my noble friend Lord Berkeley for giving the House the opportunity to debate this report. I believe that this is the first time I have spoken on transport issues in this House. I speak as a user and claim no great expertise in the matter. Nevertheless, I found Making Connections one of the simplest and most practical reports of its type that I had read.
The report sets out nine recommendations and identifies key barriers to intermodal and intramodal transfers within passenger and freight journeys. I recommend that the Minister sleeps with that report under his pillow every night until each recommendation is acted upon in full. When the Minister comes to speak it will not be good enough for him simply to trumpet the improvements in individual privatised routes, because the report makes clear time and again that it is the development of the network that is key to improving public transport facilities as a whole. That is one responsibility that the Minister cannot privatise. The report makes clear that these action points, as it were, are laid firmly at the Government's door.
I want to go further than the report. I believe that there is considerable public support for greater Draconian measures to reduce traffic particularly in our cities. Each of us can tell heart-rending stories about traffic jams, frayed tempers, time wasted and pollution; indeed, we have heard a few this afternoon. I give just one example. When I was of primary school age I lived in Notting Hill in central London. Almost every day I walked unaccompanied about one and a half miles to school. One wonders how many children of primary school age do that today. I suggest that very few do it. The figures reveal that in 1981 80 per cent. of all seven to nine year-olds walked to school unaccompanied. Today, it is less than 10 per cent. The corollary of that is that car usage has increased. The figures reveal that at peak hours in London 15 per cent. of all car journeys are delivering children to school.
We all agree that at the very minimum this is a lessening in our quality of life. The question is: what should we do about it? Poll after poll shows that the public is increasingly supportive of removing traffic from the roads, particularly in cities. Even the roads protesters gain a certain amount of sympathy. Swampy is seen by some (although not by me) as a national hero.
While the Minister is sleeping with the report under his pillow can he claim to be a hero of any kind? I believe that the answer is, "No". Heroism requires boldness. Even if the report's recommendations were acted upon in full it could not be described as a bold act. It would not reduce the traffic in the way that most people would like.
324
As to what those Draconian measures should be, I believe that where possible decisions should be taken at local authority level. I am aware that the Government have been talking to local authorities who have expressed an interest in introducing road pricing in their areas. I am also aware that local authorities are concerned that revenue generated from road pricing should be classified as a charge rather than a tax so that potentially they can benefit from that revenue and borrow against it to improve public transport. That is just one option that I know the Government are considering. But if the Minister is not willing to be bold he should allow others to be bold in a variety of ways to combat excessive traffic. He could then share in their boldness and maybe—just maybe—Swampy would return to his hole never to be heard of again and the Minister would be seen by some as a hero.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this afternoon we are debating a very interesting and useful report. We all owe my noble friend Lord Berkeley a debt of gratitude for introducing the debate in such a helpful way.
This afternoon I should like to highlight a number of the key recommendations arising from the report and then talk about those areas in which we may gain an advantage in future. The first and probably the most important recommendation of the report is that land currently owned by Railtrack should be safeguarded from inappropriate development. I am sure that all noble Lords appreciate that if land adjacent to a main railway station, which is probably fairly close to the centre of an urban conurbation, is sold off for a supermarket or office development, effectively it is a lost resource for the building of sensible interchange facilities for the transport network. This is a matter of such importance that government action should be taken "this day", to quote the words of Sir Winston Churchill. I hope that that recommendation in the report has been read by the Government, accepted by them and will be implemented by them.
To build on that, I believe that we need to recognise the planning requirement. The report identifies that the use of interchange facilities, particularly at main railway sites, is not integrated within the planning framework. I believe that as a national parliament we should say that it is essential that planning for major interchange developments must be integrated within the planning policies both at local and regional level.
The next recommendation that I highlight is the one that calls upon local authorities to audit interchanges that exist currently in their local areas, and to develop and report upon proposals for improvement. I would add to that the rider that it is not for the local authority to do it on its own; the local authority and all the various private interests need to get together. Local authorities nowadays are experienced in undertaking joint developments with the private sector. I hope that that recommendation will be acted upon by local authorities.
The fourth recommendation I highlight is the need for what I would describe as IT investment, the need to provide the public, industry and commerce with the

325
essential information they require with regard to transport—how to get from A to B in a cost-effective, timely manner. Safety may be an important consideration in some respects. The guarantee of arrival on time may also be important. The public, industry, and commerce need the information that should be there, but, unfortunately, in many cases is not.
All the technology available in the IT sphere whether it is telephone systems, computer systems or display systems are used in other industries and different branches of human activity. It should not be too difficult to ensure that our transport industry uses that IT to provide the information needed. It has already been pointed out that the report has some limitations: the fact that it mentions canals only once has been raised. Air transport is not significantly identified. We may recognise why that has happened. The use of inland waterways is a minority activity in the transport sphere. One recognises that air transport is not a mass transit or heavy freight transit situation.
There is a need to highlight all methods of transport when we talk about interchanges. The report is all about interchanges among different modes of transport. We must appreciate that all modes of transport need to be identified. Public authorities have a responsibility to provide the infrastructure (the framework) in which other organisations, private individuals and private operators can operate. We should recognise that there is a European, international, national and a local dimension.
Finally, rather than look at the problems that have emerged as a result of privatisation, as some people have suggested—the difficulties that bus and train users face—bearing in mind that it has taken place, let us think of the future and of these privatisations providing an opportunity for services to be integrated. For example, some bus and rail services are currently run by Stagecoach. There may be integration there. Rail and air are under one roof in the sense of Virgin. Time has run out. I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for introducing the debate. I hope that the Government listen to what is being said.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for bringing to our attention the report Making Connections. I found the report to be an excellent summary of where we are and where we ought to be going if we are to reap the environmental benefit of making public transport more accessible and more attractive. In doing so, we should not overlook the fact that we could make it more profitable, and thus, it is to be hoped, less dependent upon subsidy.
I have just one major criticism of the report itself, and that is the omission of any reference to the development and—I underline the point—the enforcement of bus priority measures, which I feel are relevant. They have a major role to play in making the bus more reliable and thus more attractive. Without them, the vicious spiral of
326
perceived bus unreliability, the preference for the car, and thus yet further increased bus unreliability will be with us for ever.
That said, let me turn to many of the report's positive recommendations. First, I accept fully that we must get away from the fact that the motorist sees the car as the natural option. In paragraphs 26 and 77 the motorist's concept of the marginal cost of the car being far cheaper than the one-off full fare cost of public transport is highlighted. Paragraph 26 might have gone further and addressed other misconceptions; for example, the true social and environmental cost of using the private car and the relatively greater safety of public transport. Nor was reference made to those—it is difficult to obtain a figure as to how many there are—for whom, like myself, the car is not an option.
I support the recommendation that timetable and fare information should be readily available both at national and local level. On rail, I believe we are getting there, thanks to the national timetable available in both book and database form; the national enquiry centre, with its local call rate accessibility, which enjoys a considerable degree of marketing to increase public awareness; and the fares manual and the ABC Rail Guide. Together those meet most of the rail traveller's requirements.
As regards buses, information is rather harder to come by. There is the Great Britain Bus Guide, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teviot. There is the National Express Timetable, and there is the hotline, alas at premium rates, and therefore not as appealing as it should be, also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teviot. They meet many timetable requirements but they are rather weaker on fares. In addition, how many people know that those sources of information exist?
Although Making Connections puts the onus on government and local government to ensure that information is fully, reliably, nationally and locally available, I feel that we should be better served if we were to leave the private sector, which, incidentally, provides all the services I have just mentioned, to bed down, with the Government encouraging them towards a co-operative national facility, based on the recommendation of the one fact, which I am not sure any other Lord has mentioned, that competition is less between the different modes of public transport than it is between them together and the private car.
The report's recommendations on timetabling and ticketing co-operation among all public transport operators is one I believe we can all readily accept, but we need monopolies, fair trading and competition considerations reviewed, or sorted out, because they seem to me to work against those three laudable objectives.
Lastly, perhaps I may refer to recommendation 5 which calls for a review, in consultation with all interested parties, to consider legislative changes with a view to increasing co-operation on timetabling and ticketing; in other words, with a view to increasing integration. Perhaps I can nominate three foreign best practice candidates whose political, legal and operational backgrounds might merit consideration for the review body. In Norway, all transport schedules, all

327
fares, are available in just two books. Transport is so totally integrated that I have been on an express train from Bergen to Oslo which was delayed 10 minutes because the boat from the North Cape and beyond was running late and the connection had to be held.
In Sweden, the county of Stockholm, which is far larger than any English county or any form of Scottish region, save possibly the Highlands and Islands, guarantees that one can travel from any point served by public transport—bus, train, tram, light rail or, indeed, ship because there is a big archipelago in the county of Stockholm—to any other such point at least every four hours with a single ticket, a return or travelcard, as the authority to travel.
In Holland, rail and bus schedules are summarised in just two volumes, the rail volume giving not only details of all train services and fares, national and international, but also information on the many points where a train taxi service is available with through ticketing from the point of boarding. It gives details of buses on which rail tickets are accepted. It gives details of buses to points not covered by the rail network. It also gives comprehensive information on local transport within the conurbations of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht.
It seems to me that in Norway, Sweden and Holland they have integrated transport. It seems to me that we all want it. Perhaps we should get away from the not-invented-here concept and have a look at how other people tackle the problem.

Meat: Slaughterhouse Hygiene
4.31 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I shall make a Statement about the standards of hygiene in British abattoirs. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told this House yesterday, this is an issue which the Government take very seriously indeed. I welcome the opportunity to set out the facts.
"Before going into detail, I wish to emphasise that before any redmeat carcass goes into the food chain it has to be individually stamped by Meat Hygiene Service inspectors as fit for human consumption: this is a critical safeguard, the existence of which is being ignored in the welter of comment appearing over the past few days.
"Until 1995, standards and rules in abattoirs were enforced, with varying rigour, by over 300 local authorities. This was not a satisfactory state of affairs. For this reason we set up the Meat Hygiene Service, a major reform which was strongly opposed by the Labour Party and others.
"The Meat Hygiene Service has now been in operation for two years. In its first year, the Meat Hygiene Service was required to carry out a review
328
of all slaughterhouses in Great Britain to record standards, to establish a baseline for measuring future progress and to decide how to allocate resources for enforcement. This is the exercise to which I referred in my Statement last week.
"In order to raise standards within abattoirs, the Meat Hygiene Service was set formal targets. In the first year, it was set a target of increasing by 10 points the scores of those plants which were below 65 on a scale of 0 to 100. This target was met in full. For 1996–97, it was required to ensure that at least two-thirds of the plants exceeded 65. It seems likely that this target will be met also. Although these scores are a useful mechanism for driving up standards, I should again emphasise that all redmeat must be passed fit for human consumption.
"In addition, the Meat Hygiene Service has taken a number of further steps. Thus, we have drawn up an operations manual which for the first time sets out a national standard on hygiene and in the hands of Meat Hygiene Service inspectors is a vital tool for raising such standards. It specifically covers the steps to be taken so as to exclude 'dirty livestock'—a policy which, as I said last week, we will shortly be reinforcing in graphic form.
"Also, since concern has been expressed that supervision in some plants may be inadequate, the Meat Hygiene Service has carried out a major review of supervision levels. As a result, the contracts now being placed with official veterinary surgeons will ensure that sufficient time is put in at each plant in 1997–98.
"Further, the State Veterinary Service, which oversees the Meat Hygiene Service, has carried out an audit of the service's methods in its application of both the operations manual and the scoring system. I will shortly be discussing with those responsible for the audit how best to carry forward their recommendations.
"I should also mention the steps we have taken over the past year to strengthen the capacity of the Meat Hygiene Service. More than 450 additional staff have been assigned to the agency. Although these extra staff were appointed to apply BSE-related rules, they will of course reinforce inspection overall in abattoirs. Enforcement of the BSE rules themselves was tightened up sharply and, as the House has been informed on past occasions, compliance with the rules in that specific area is now satisfactory.
"What I have just described is action already taken. I will now deal with action in hand. We have been working with the Meat Hygiene Service on a joint action plan to drive standards upwards, targeting both the most serious problems and the plants with particular difficulties. The main specific action points, which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary put to a meeting of leading meat industry representatives on 18th February, are as follows.
"First, the Meat Hygiene Service will accelerate its work on defining standards for clean livestock. Standards already defined in the agency's operations manual will be set out in the graphic document to

329
which I have already referred. Secondly, it must be clearly understood that no carcass showing any signs of faecal contamination should be submitted for approval as fit for human consumption. Thirdly, we shall shortly start the publication of the findings of enforcement activity on a regular basis. Fourthly, principal official veterinary surgeons, who are the most experienced veterinary surgeons, will be given a larger role in managing OVSs and meat inspectors. Fifthly, Meat Hygiene Service's staff will be given extra (additional) training in hygiene standards. Sixthly, OVS attendance will be stepped up at plants with poor hygiene scores. Seventhly, a new industry government working group will be set up to concert the drive to higher standards. Eighthly, the State Veterinary Service will intensify its audit activity, which will provide the basis for yet further action.
"I have told the chief executive that in appropriate cases infringement of the rules should result in prosecution. Also, where appropriate, consideration will be given to the revocation of licences.
"The knowledge which the Meat Hygiene Service has now of meat hygiene is clearly relevant to Professor Pennington's inquiry into E.coli. It is important that the Pennington Group should have access to this knowledge. Professor Pennington has been offered a statement to be drawn up by the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service.
"I am well aware that public concern over meat hygiene has been heightened by the reports of the past few days. In my view, those reports are misleading and do not take account of the important progress made over the past 18 months. I do not pretend that there is not scope for further improvement. But I can assure the House that MAFF, the other agriculture departments and the Meat Hygiene Service had been and remain determined to drive up standards, and we are succeeding.
"I turn now to the pieces of paper produced by the Opposition in recent days from various quarters and of various dates. They may yet produce more such documents. I will not speculate as to the motives behind their production. However, they must be seen in the context of our policy to improve standards. Set in that context, they do not detract at all from the facts, which are as I have just stated them to be.
"The Meat Hygiene Service will apply the rules ever more strictly and this requirement will be reflected in the Meat Hygiene Service targets for 1997–98. Each plant now knows where its weak points are. Plants which are found repeatedly to have low standards will face progressively stricter attention from the meat inspectors and, as I have said, in appropriate cases prosecutions and licence revocations will ensue. Our purpose is to bring our abattoir practice up to the highest possible standards.
"There is much public interest in this matter. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that he was taking a personal interest in our efforts to drive up standards. I therefore intend to place a fuller version of this Statement, containing
330
additional detail about the measures to which I have referred, as an information paper in the Library of the House. I hope to do this by the end of this week. This will provide the basis for more informed discussion than that which has taken place over the past few days".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place. Perhaps I may turn to the Statement first. As regards the disciplinary action which has been mentioned against employees of the Meat Hygiene Service, the details of which were given in a Written Answer by the noble Lord in the Official Report of this House last week, can the Minister say whether all those cases related to offences connected with the specified bovine materials or were they other offences that were subject to disciplinary action?
The noble Lord outlined the eight point plan that the Government have now put in action. However, it is a quite extraordinary situation. An independent report in March 1993 showed that there were very poor standards in our slaughterhouses. The Government introduced the MHS in 1995 to deal with that but now they tell us, as if they had just discovered it, that,
"it must be clearly understood that no carcass showing any signs of faecal contamination should be submitted for approval as lit for human consumption".
Why now in March 1997, when an independent report was produced in March 1993, is it necessary to draw that to the attention of the slaughterhouse operators? The Statement says that,
"we shall shortly start the publication of the findings of enforcement activity on a regular basis".
But again, why now? We have had the BSE enforcement bulletin since last summer, so why do the Government have to wait until they are pressed to produce this description of enforcement activity?
There is also the extraordinary sentence in the Statement which says that,
"pieces of paper produced by the Opposition … do not detract at all from the facts which are as I have just stated them to be".
What do those pieces of paper say? They refer to levels of hygiene enforcement leaving much to be desired; abattoir inspectors being actively encouraged to ignore breaches of regulations; the fact that, far from improving, standards of hygiene are steadily decreasing; a potential time-bomb for human health; meat being sold falsely as BSE free in as many as one in 10 cases; not enough health staff to combat the problem; and allegations that the Minister, Mr. Hogg, has failed even to answer the letters dealing with the matter since June of last year. However, all that is just brushed aside and described as,
"pieces of paper produced by the Opposition".
The EHOs formerly employed in meat inspection were transferred and became civil servants in the employment of the Meat Hygiene Service when it was set up in April 1995. They then had to sign the Official

331
Secrets Act. I believe that there was a mindset among those officials who spend every day of their working lives in abattoirs. They know that their activities could lead to the closing of abattoirs and the staff losing their jobs. As we all know, the abattoir trade is fast and rough. They are very aggressive businessmen working on very slim margins. As I said, I believe that there was a mindset in the MHS and that the Government did nothing to ensure the enforcement of the regulations which they had laid down. I have that as first-hand information from employees of the MHS.
In December 1995 in this House my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked the noble Lord, Lord Lucas the following question:
"can the noble Lord tell the House how many slaughterhouses in England, Scotland and Wales are regarded by the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food as inefficient or unsatisfactory?"
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, replied:
"I do not believe that we know of any such slaughterhouses".
In a later supplementary question I put the following point to the Minister, asking him whether it was,
"extraordinary after all the confusion and the increased costs and pressure on abattoirs resulting from the regulations, [that] the recent inspections of abattoirs by the State Veterinary Service found that nearly half of those inspected were in breach of the rules governing the removal of specified offals as a control against the possible spread of BSE".
In his reply, the Minister said:
"our belief is that the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service and the regulations has resulted in a great increase in quality and a great decrease in costs compared with previous inspection results".—[Official Report, 13/12/95; col. 1273.]
In April 1996 the Shadow Health Minister, Mr. Henry McLeish, pointed out that the latest available figures for England showed that 112 slaughterhouses were failing to comply with the EC directive.
I have already referred to the independent study of March 1993 which highlighted the very poor standards in many of our abattoirs. Only seven months after that report the Government announced that,
"the seven point plan of deregulation in the meat industry … signals a move for a less prescriptive system of meat hygiene enforcement".
Unannounced inspections by the State Veterinary Service in the autumn of 1995 showed that 48 per cent. of slaughterhouses were failing to meet the Government's specified bovine offal regulations. In that same news release from the Labour Party of April 1996, we asked the Government to publish:
"the latest figures for hygiene assessment in slaughterhouses in England, Wales and Scotland; the most up to date figures for those slaughterhouses that have satisfied the EC Directive; the names of those slaughterhouses that are failing to meet hygiene standards so that the public can see where food safety regulations are being broken".
All of that was ignored. When did the Government know about the bad practices in abattoirs; what did they know; and what action did they take?
Another report and independent review came to light last week. Perhaps I may just remind your Lordships of one part of its contents, namely:
"Spinal cords were not removed, specified bovine offal bins were unmarked and there was a major problem with faecal contamination".
332
That report was not publicised, although the authors had been advised that it would be. We know that Professor Pennington, who is leading the Government's inquiry into E. coli, did not receive a copy. Indeed, the Minister, Mr. Hogg, said on a radio programme today that it was Professor Pennington's fault if he had not seen it. However, if he did not know that such a report was being prepared, how could he ask for a copy of it? At the very time when the Government should have been leaving no stone unturned to ensure that standards were properly applied in our abattoirs, we understand that the Minister himself had not looked at the report. That comprehensive and devastating report was summarised, sanitized and made available to a few people in the meat industry.
Last Thursday in the other place the Minister of Agriculture said that we were not to worry because he had made sure that everything was all right in our abattoirs; while he had not actually seen the report of the hygiene advice team, he had in fact put its recommendations into effect. The Minister said that standards in our abattoirs "were constantly improving". However, now we find that the Association of Meat Inspectors has been warning Ministers and others over the past nine months that, in its experience, the problems in our abattoirs are bad and getting worse. In a letter to Mrs. Angela Browning on 11th February, the General Secretary of the AMI said:
"There has been no improvement in the standards of hygiene, and sadly faecal contamination appears to (be) becoming an acceptable infringement of regulations".
On 19th January he wrote to the Chief Executive of the MHS saying that,
"far from improving, standards of hygiene are steadily decreasing—with particular reference to faecal contamination in beer".
Indeed, only last week, the General Secretary told the chief executive that,
"far from being encouraged to enforce stricter hygiene standards. MHIs are being actively encouraged to ignore breaches of regulations and in some cases [are] threatened if they try to take action".
In the Statement the Minister referred to the State Veterinary Service and reminded us of its crucial work in overseeing the MHS. When this Government came to power in 1979, there were just under 600 state vets, but now we have fewer than 300. It is over a year since the problem of dirty livestock was highlighted by the report of the hygiene advice team. Is it not obvious from what the Minister said there are serious problems still to be addressed in our abattoirs?
I have worked professionally for the Ministry of Agriculture for over 40 years. With great sadness, I have to say that this is a sad Statement for a once-great department of state. Indeed, today's Statement will not convince anyone that the Government have, as yet, even begun to grasp the enormity of the problem.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should also like to sympathise with him for having to repeat such a pathetic Statement. It really does not tackle the problem in any shape or form. It is stated that carcasses must be individually stamped by Meat

333
Hygiene Service inspectors as fit for human consumption. That is not much consolation to those who suffer from E.coli and their relations in many areas of Scotland. The whole point is that this has not been effective. We have an epidemic, or near epidemic, and certainly serious cases, and nothing is really being done to tackle that.
I note that the MHS was set a target of increasing by 10 points the scores of some plants. Surely any inspector should know what is a well run slaughterhouse, and what is clean and what is dirty without needing to increase the scores in order to reduce the number of bad abattoirs. That is not tackling the problem as it should be tackled. We are told that 450 additional staff have been recruited. It has already been pointed out that the number of state veterinary surgeons has been cut by 300. Can the noble Lord tell us whether all the 450 additional staff are in place and what training they have received? That is important and it is something that we should know. Perhaps he can also tell us the total number of abattoirs in England, Scotland and Wales which the 450 extra staff must look after? The Statement mentions additional training in hygiene methods and that the State Veterinary Service will intensify its audit activity. I should have thought it should intensify the supervision of the abattoirs which are at fault.
The essence of the whole question is completely ignored in the Statement; namely, that the public are concerned about the way the Ministry of Agriculture is run. That is the essential point. The story of the Swann Report is quite pathetic. Authoritative journals—the FT and others—have given accounts which have not been denied. Mr. Swann produced his report and was told to take it away and rewrite it. He refused to do so, so someone else was asked, obeyed, and rewrote it. Mr. Swann had 81 points of concern which he illustrated with strong language. He was concerned about faecal contamination and faecal matter all over the place. He was concerned about dirty beasts entering abattoirs which had every chance of spreading infection.
The 81 points were whittled down to 11 and the circulation of the report was restricted. Professor Pennington, as already noted, was not informed that even such a slimmed down report existed. The Minister of Agriculture said that it was not his fault. If his officials were at fault, what has been done about them? Did his officials think so little of the Minister that they thought they could hide an essential report such as this? These are extremely serious matters which are not referred to in the Statement in any shape or form. The report that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Forsyth, was incandescent with rage—a fine phrase which quite rightly struck the headlines—turned out to be absolutely true. He was rightly angry that he was kept in ignorance of the matter. These are indictments of the Ministry of Agriculture which everyone knows to be true. All we are told is that a target was set for improving scores by 10 points, and that further training will be undertaken. There is something seriously wrong.
As regards overseeing abattoirs, in many cases that was done a great deal better under local authorities than it has been done under the new body. The Ministry of
334
Agriculture is no longer a fit body to oversee the standards of hygiene which the public depend upon. It is all very well to have a poacher turned gamekeeper, but what does not work is to have someone who is both a poacher and a gamekeeper. The sooner a separate overseeing body is set up, the better. For the present, this account means nothing.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for asking me such a difficult and challenging set of questions on a subject where I think I can give a number of good answers. It is always a pleasure to show the Ministry of Agriculture in the good light in which it deserves to be shown, and not the rather gruesome green colour in which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, chooses to paint it.
First, I shall answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He asked whether the people disciplined by the Meat Hygiene Service had been disciplined in respect of SBO controls. That is correct. Disciplinary offences have been announced regularly in the BSE enforcement bulletin. The figures made public yesterday are merely the cumulative total. There is nothing new about them. The noble Lord asked why there was a need to make the remark in the Statement about the need not to present carcasses with faecal contamination. It has always been and remains a heavily emphasised part of the meat hygiene inspectors' manual that they should not pass for human consumption any carcass which has faecal contamination on it. We feel that some abattoirs have continued to present carcasses in such condition to the Meat Hygiene Service for its approval. We wish to work back up the chain to make sure that abattoirs have quality controls in place and this does not happen and that they identify and remove those carcasses before that point in the MHS inspection is reached.
On the subject of the enforcement bulletin, I think the noble Lord, Lord Carter, described graphically the information he would like to have on slaughterhouses. That is something which we are, and have been, working towards. We have developed a system known as the HAS, the hygiene assessment score, which is intended to perform that role and to encapsulate the quality of a slaughterhouse in one figure. However, to do that requires the system to be developed and proven. It also requires that the people making the assessments—carried out monthly in every slaughterhouse—are consistent as between slaughterhouses so that different inspectors in different slaughterhouses give the same quality assessment for the same quality of slaughterhouse. That takes, and continues to take, some time to get right. As my right honourable friend said, it is something that we are determined to do in the near future. As noble Lords opposite will know, we encourage the production of league tables. We believe that that sort of information reaching the public is a spur to better performance. I do not think that abattoirs have any reason to think that the position should be otherwise. I am delighted at the conversion of the parties opposite to that as a principle and as a method of improving performance perhaps throughout the public service.

335
The noble Lord referred to the Opposition documents, as my right honourable friend called them, that have been produced. There were some rather odd reports of leaked memos of meetings which Mrs. Browning had held which are public documents. There was some expansion of the concept of leaked documents to include ones that the newspaper had discovered for the first time in its files rather than ones that were leaked. But a number were leaked. They appear to have been leaked by Mr. Comrie, general secretary of the Association of Meat Inspectors. Most of what he says in those documents amounts to a criticism of his own members—that they are not enforcing the controls in the way they should. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He referred to the mind set of those officials, having come from local authorities, being rather more towards protecting the abattoirs than the customers. We recognised that problem as part of the existing situation which had to be tackled.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the situation under local authorities was acceptable or in any way better than the current situation. There was a substantial problem to be dealt with. Some individual cases would have been good, but in general there was a problem. Lack of training and the attitude of the inspectors were part of that problem. Since the individuals are still with us, it is a matter that we continue to work at improving.
Mr. Comrie made some strange remarks. He has between 1,500 and perhaps 2,000 members. He has been quoted in The Times as saying that he received hundreds of unsolicited letters on the subject from his members. Neither we nor the Meat Hygiene Service has seen a single one of those letters. Some of the statements made by Mr. Comrie are specifically disowned by his colleagues on the board. I think that it would be wise for us all to take what he said with a pinch of salt. Clearly he has a position in the industry, but I do not think that what he says should be treated as veracious without being confirmed. We should be delighted to see any of the letters he received. Certainly, if the number amounted to hundreds, it would be a serious matter. However, I have a great deal of doubt about whether those letters exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the number of unsatisfactory abattoirs. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked how many abattoirs were in existence. The latest figure I have, as of January 1997, is 557 abattoirs. Of those 116 fall below the 65 mark, almost all of them by a relatively small amount. That is an enormous improvement. When the benchmark was established something of the order of 380 fell below the 65 cut-off point at which we aimed as a first stage in improving abattoirs. The score runs to 100 which I would describe as excellent and very hard to achieve. It is the three Michelin stars of the abattoir world. But 65 is achievable by all abattoirs. We are determined that they should reach that standard as swiftly as is reasonably possible.
336
Both noble Lords raised the subject of Professor Pennington. I find this aspect of the past few days rather puzzling; probably my officials in MAFF do too. We were involved at an early stage in discussions with Professor Pennington and his team. We pressed our case that we had much experience within the State Veterinary Service and within the Meat Hygiene Service which would be relevant to the investigations he was making. We received explicitly, and with feeling, the impression that we were pushing too hard: that his was an independent inquiry; that he should be allowed to proceed in his own way and make his own choices as to what evidence he took; and that we were in danger of acting in a way which might be seen as putting improper pressure on him or in some way seeking to influence the results. So we took a step back and waited to hear from him. We waited with some reasonable confidence that he would come back to us. Clearly, we had much information that would be useful to him; his group includes a lady who is on the Meat Hygiene Service ownership board. What the Meat Hygiene Service is and does is therefore well known to the group. His reference to lack of knowledge of the report a few days ago rather surprised us. I have no explanation for what has gone on. It is a pleasure to us that at last he is asking for information from us. We were concerned from a parochial point of view that he was proceeding without the benefit of much available information and expertise. So whatever the consequences as regards what has appeared in the media, we are glad that the lines of communication are open, irrespective of why they were closed in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, went rather further than the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in criticising MAFF. He said that nothing was being done and seemed to imply that we should have done a lot more and faster. I do not think that that is true. We have pushed this matter through in a sensible and effective way. Yes, there is a lot further to go. There was a great deal to do when we started out on this track. We have proceeded on the basis that we should proceed in conjunction and in co-operation with the industry wherever possible, that we should bring it along with us and that we should not take a big stick to it and close down everything that was unsatisfactory. Had we done so, we would have closed down two-thirds of the industry on day one. That is the principle on which one proceeds with, say, schools which are unsatisfactory or in many other circumstances where one wishes to improve a situation which has been tolerated for a long time. I am sure that that was the right way for us to go about it. We have been going about it effectively. Although there is a great deal left to do, we are confident that we are doing the right things in the right way.
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us find his reply very reassuring because of its innate good sense? It is appreciated, I think, on all sides of the House, that this difficult problem faces the Government with complex

337
issues. Following, as one does fairly closely, what the Government have done there is every reason for confidence that the matter is being dealt with as sensibly, calmly and steadily as possible. We are grateful for that.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. We are always willing to listen to suggestions as to how we might do things better, in particular with such an old and intractable problem as this. I do not think that the criticisms and comments we have heard over the past few days have had any helpful content; indeed, to some extent, they have been destructive and uninformative.
Baroness Symons of Vernhan Dean: My Lords, in paragraph 9 of the Statement which deals with actions to take forward a joint plan to drive standards upwards, the Minister states:
"Secondly, it must be clearly understood that no carcass showing any signs of faecal contamination should be submitted for approval as fit for human consumption."
Do we infer from this that hitherto carcasses showing signs of faecal contamination have been passed fit for human consumption? If not, this is hardly a new action point to be taken forward. Many noble Lords will find it extraordinary that this is a new action point. It is a basic standard of human hygiene which most of us learn when we are extremely young.
Secondly, paragraph 8 of the Statement says that,
"more than 450 additional staff have been assigned to the agency".
Will the Minister tell us whether those are permanent staff and, if so, whether they are financed from current MAFF running costs or whether the costs of such staff are drawn from the contingency fund?
Thirdly, I find the Minister's explanation in regard to Professor Pennington's inquiry quite extraordinary. He explained the nature of an independent inquiry as somehow requiring of its chairman powers of clairvoyance in knowing what papers might be necessary. Is the Minister now satisfied that Professor Pennington has seen all the relevant information and all relevant documents which he may find important, the existence of which he is hardly in a position to know of if no one told him in the first place?
Lord Lucas: To answer the noble Baroness's questions in the order in which she asked them, I am sorry that I did not make myself clear enough on the matter of faecal contamination in my answer to her noble friend Lord Carter. It has always been a matter of obvious and strict practice with meat hygiene inspectors that any carcass which has faecal contamination should be rejected and not passed for human consumption. What we are trying to do for the future is work back up the chain and make sure that such carcasses are never presented for approval by the abattoir. In other words, we shall work more with the abattoirs' own internal systems of quality control to make sure that they do not ever consider presenting such carcasses to meat hygiene inspectors.
338
On the question of the 450 additional inspectors, we see no immediate prospect that they can be dispensed with. The problem of BSE is with us. I think it is unreasonable to look more than three years into the future. We shall clearly need those inspectors for the next three years. To ask what happens after that is altogether too speculative.
Turning to the matter of Professor Pennington, our strong feeling is that Professor Pennington does not have all the information that we should like to give him. However, we cannot force that upon him. We have offered information; we are offering a report. We cannot force him to take them. As I said, the professor has in his group someone who is a member of the ownership board of the Meat Hygiene Service. We have offered him, initially and repeatedly, information, meetings and anything that he wants from us. He has yet to take us up on that. That is his decision. I cannot explain it; but he is independent and that question has to be put to him. We should be delighted, we should be over the moon, if he would make use of the information we have.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, to take up the point about Professor Pennington before the Minister leaves it, I simply cannot understand the Minister's argument. Here is a man entrusted with an inquiry into E.coli, a very serious matter that has resulted in deaths. The Ministry of Agriculture knows that it has in its possession a report which deals with many of the aspects which could clearly effect E.coli. Was Professor Pennington told specifically of that report? It is all very well for the Minister to say today, "We had information that might be available and helpful to him". That is not the point. It is also not the point that there may have been a member of Professor Pennington's committee who had knowledge of the meat inspection industry. The onus is on the Minister, not on a member of the committee. I cannot understand why the Ministry of Agriculture did not disclose the specific report and send it to Professor Pennington. It seems the obvious thing to do.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord should get hung up on this report, which is an irrelevancy. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, correctly described it, it is a summary—indeed, a summary of a summary—intended for general discussion within the industry and released as such. The crucial documents are those that relate to the inspections done at each of the 557 abattoirs. That sort of level of data—on the actual problems which are encountered at abattoirs and what has been done about them, individually, in actual cases—is the crucial data which the Meat Hygiene Service has. It has an enormous amount of categorised, useful data on what is happening in individual abattoirs. We should not even have considered this particular report as being the important document to show to Professor Pennington. It is the lower level data—that which is much more detailed and informative—which we should be delighted to see Professor Pennington make use of.
We have made every effort, and I am sure that Professor Pennington knows that we have a great deal of information on this matter. He may feel that he has

339
that information effectively from other sources and does not need to come to us, and that if he talks to us he will in some way have us "selling our wares" to him, trying to convince him that what we have done already is the right thing when he wants to stand back and take an independent view. I do not know. All I can say to the noble Lord is that Professor Pennington is perfectly aware that we have this information, and we shall be more than delighted to give it to him. But we cannot force it upon him.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffam Prior: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that possibly too much has been made of the issue of faecal contamination during the slaughter of animals? It is a matter of degree. The slaughter of animals is not by any means a pretty sight. Slaughtermen work amid blood and ingesta contents. But the majority of them are skilled and attentive people and they work in a hygienic manner—although it is very difficult under those circumstances to avoid some degree of faecal contamination. I remind the House that the slaughter of animals is not done under sterile conditions, so it is very difficult to produce a carcass that is entirely free of contamination.
I also wish to ask my noble friend: might it be useful to refer to what the health advisory team report says about a variety of matters? Perhaps I may quote the final paragraph on page six of the report. It states:
"In general the meat industry has responded very positively to the HAT [health advisory team] exercise. In almost all plants the management teams commented that they found the exercise useful and constructive".
In addition, in relation to specified bovine offals, the report comments on page 13 that their,
"removal in the slaughter hall was carried out in accordance with the legislation".
It seems to me that many of the criticisms aimed at the report need not have been made had the report been read in detail.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very happy to agree with my noble friend that the industry as a whole, in general, has responded very positively to the initiatives undertaken by the Meat Hygiene Service. There are those who have not, or who are doing a great deal less than they could be doing. As my right honourable friend has said, if they continue in that way they will progressively be forced out of the industry. I do not think there is any doubt now that we are enforcing the specified bovine offal regulations properly, indeed almost perfectly. That is as it should be.
I disagree somewhat with my noble friend in that he places a rather lesser weight than I do on the need to make sure that there is no faecal contamination. I am sure it is impossible to ensure that there is none. The dirt comes in on the animals, in the animals, and there is no way of ensuring perfection because the contamination cannot be seen at very low levels. One of the dangers with E.coli 157 is that it is infectious, indeed deadly, in very small numbers. I believe that a matter of 10 individual organisms can cause a fatal infection, which is unusual. We shall never be rid of the problem of its spread in slaughterhouses. However, we can do a
340
great deal to improve the current situation. In the past two years we have seen many instances of significant improvement being made. We know that further improvement can be made and are determined to see that happen.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister's department exploring the reasons for the sudden explosion in E.coli infections? Is he aware that in America, Japan and Germany, where there have been massive closures of small abattoirs, there have been massive outbreaks of this particular strain of E.coli? MLC figures show that, in 1980, there were 1,047 abattoirs in this country; there are now 408. I declare an interest in that I use a small family abattoir associated with a butcher's shop for my animals when they are to be killed. It is a mere four miles away from my home. The animals do not suffer any distress.
We have heard a lot about faecal contamination today. Anyone who deals with cattle will know that as soon as cattle are stressed they suffer from loose motions which go all over the place. If cattle have to be transported long distances to the few—the 408—remaining abattoirs, even if they leave home clean they will be pretty soiled by the time they reach the abattoir. Then they are mixed in lairages with other animals where there are other infections. Because of the stress, their immune systems are affected and they will be more vulnerable to infections from other animals. I ask the Minister how he expects the farmer to ensure that his cattle are clean by the time they reach the abattoir.
In addition, if you are going to wash cattle, their warm, wet skins are an ideal breeding ground for any bacteria left. The processes in the slaughterhouses, where the men are paid at piecework rates, are not conducive to good hygiene practices. The meat inspectors inspect the cattle after they have been eviscerated. The knives are passed from one animal to another without being sterilised in between. It is quite possible that they too are responsible for passing on the bugs from one carcass to another. I ask the Minister whether MAFF has considered that. Will he revert to the principle of "small is beautiful"?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as usual, there is a great deal of sense and correctness in what the noble Countess says. If I may, I shall write to her on some of the detailed points she raised. From my limited knowledge I am sure that in some systems the knives are sterilised between carcasses or they certainly should be. However, I am familiar with all the problems she raised, particularly those caused by the modern large-scale meat industry where meat is produced, processed, slaughtered and distributed on a large scale. It provides an opportunity for nasties such as E.coli 157 to proliferate in a way which would not be possible in the old style meat industry where a local herd went to a local slaughterhouse and distribution took place locally.
I do not believe that we can do anything to get away from modern practices, but it is one of the reasons we have to put much greater emphasis on hygiene

341
procedures and facilities in the big slaughterhouses to ensure that the opportunities which E.coli and other bacteria can find in such places are denied to them.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, what is the status of the Meat Hygiene Service? It is of interest to a number of us on the Select Committee, but I ask the question for myself. What kind of agency is it? How accountable is it to Ministers? If it comes up with recommendations, how binding are they on Ministers? What is the relationship between the two? If the service recommended fewer abattoirs how would it be received? Would the recommendation have to be carried out? Is the service independent or semi-independent? I do not believe that the whole matter of executive agencies has been thought through.
Why are there no problems in Northern Ireland? The Northern Ireland agricultural service and the way it deals with abattoirs is highly efficient. There are far fewer abattoirs, the service receives large sums of money from the European Community, and whatever the Republic receives the north receives as well. The problems that have arisen in England, Scotland and Wales have not arisen in Northern Ireland. Having had responsibility for Northern Ireland a long time ago, I recommend that we should have a good look at the situation there. It could show us a thing or two in this part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give exactly the right answers to either of the noble Lord's questions. I do not know the technical name for the type of agency that the Meat Hygiene Service is. It is clearly not an agency with an independent existence in the way that the schools inspectorate is. It does not have control over its own destiny, nor, when it makes pronouncements, do those pronouncements have the force of law. They are not pronouncements that it is impossible to circumvent. It is an agency on its own because it carries out a separate function and it is most efficient that it should be set up like that. However, it is totally responsible to, and reports directly to, Ministers. Its independent existence is to help with increased efficiency and better operations rather than having any additional importance.
As regards Northern Ireland, I have no information that it is better or worse. I just do not know the independent position of Northern Ireland. I shall write to the noble Lord. I have no particular reason to think that slaughterhouses there are better but certainly some aspects of the cattle industry are a great deal better in Northern Ireland.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 2 of the Statement that,
"before any redmeat carcass goes into the food chain, it has to be individually stamped by Meat Hygiene Service Inspectors as fit for human consumption".
The simple question is: how on earth do they know that it is fit for human consumption? In recent years we have been concerned with BSE, now we are concerned with E.coli, and particularly E.coli 157. How is the Meat
342
Hygiene Service able to stamp a carcass in an abattoir as fit for human consumption when, on the Minister's own admission, one cannot even see E.coli 157 with the naked eye? That is at the heart of the problem we face. It is all very well having men in white coats with white hats standing with a stamp saying, "This is fit for human consumption", but the fundamental question is: how do they know?
The supplementary question is: what is being done? I presume that the Minister's answer to my original question will be that they do not know, they cannot tell. But what is being done about the possible risk of E.coli 157? Is action being taken further back in the food chain to ensure that the cattle infected with E.coli 157 do not go near an abattoir, just as cattle that are infected and are seen to be infected with BSE go nowhere near an abattoir.
The noble Countess's question is pertinent. If the Minister writes to her I hope that he will also write to other Members of your Lordships' House who have contributed this afternoon.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to do so and to include some of the more detailed information for which the noble Lord asked. The short answer is that we do our best within the limits of our knowledge and as our knowledge and experience increase, we shall do better.

Transport: An Integrated Policy
5.27 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Berkeley told me last week that his Motion was to be debated today, I congratulated him and decided to keep a travel diary. I live in Richmond. Monday morning: travel to Carlton Terrace for 9 a.m. conference. Arrive at Richmond Station 8 a.m.; queues out into the street because most of the ticket machines are out of order and the booking clerks busy with people buying weekly season tickets. Managed to find a ticket inspector who sold me a ticket to Waterloo on South West Trains. Fortunately the train arrived late so I was able to catch it. When it did arrive, it had only four carriages; travelled like a sardine. Got to conference on time, rather dishevelled.
Tuesday: travel to Beaconsfield. I always travel there by train. South West Trains to Waterloo and then the Bakerloo Line to Marylebone. I knew that the Bakerloo Line from Waterloo to Piccadilly had been closed for months. Got to Piccadilly by another route. Found that the Bakerloo Line was closed that day all the way to Paddington. As a result I missed my train from Marylebone. However, there was another one 17 minutes later. It is a pleasure to travel on the Chiltern Line from Marylebone. There are new diesel trains with signs inside saying where they go. The stations and the line have been modernised, but that was before privatisation.

343
On Wednesday, I had to go to a funeral at Golders Green. South West Trains to Waterloo and the Northern Line to Golders Green. The system worked perfectly. However, I had anticipated problems and arrived early. The most depressing appointment for which to arrive early is a funeral.
My experience exactly mirrored the points in the report Making Connections, which we are debating this afternoon. The report is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of reliable connections within passenger journeys; the importance of information during the journey; punctuality—the report used the word "time" but I prefer the word "punctuality"—and reliability, which are important on each section of the journey because of interconnections; physical convenience; personal safety; and cost. All those factors will make travelling by public transport much more user-friendly, as many noble Lords pointed out. That was the key lesson of my short diary.
Not only is that lesson confirmed in the paper that we are debating today, it is also the policy objective envisaged by the Technology Foresight Panel on Transport in its report published in 1995 by the Office of Science and Technology. The same objective is envisaged in the Government's 1996 White Paper called Transport, The Way Forward. Labour's transport strategy also works toward the kind of seamless "multi-modal" transport system.
So all the right words are there—they were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Cadman—but how are they being translated into practice? The answer is not at all well because the Government's policies are having a contrary effect to those objectives. I agree with my noble friend Lady Symons and other noble Lords that the unco-ordinated privatisation plans and the piecemeal approach to policy mean that the fragmented bus and rail franchises which are supposed to compete with each other are simultaneously obliged to try to work together. To try to enforce that contradiction—of competition on the one hand and seamless travel on the other—the various agencies and regulators are creating an increasingly complex web of rules to deal with each problem as it arises.
The licensing system requires the operators to take the initiative regarding services and alterations. But, surely, if we are committed to a seamless inter-connecting system (which all the documents advocate), it is the transport authorities which should be taking the initiative. Instead of just reacting to operators' applications, surely we need a more positive approach showing the leadership and initiative called for by many noble Lords in this debate. We need to pursue those objectives to achieve our seamless system. Only a partnership between the public and the private sectors, as proposed by Labour, will achieve it. Noble Lords may well laugh, but it is absolutely true. Privatisation and regulation alone will not do it.
Privatisation of the transport system may solve some of the Government's public sector borrowing requirement problems. But the ability of privatisation to renew rolling stock, improve stations and finance the infrastructure required to provide the seamless system,
344
cannot be taken for granted; neither will it provide the technology, according to the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. The Channel Tunnel is one example of how such private sector projects can go badly wrong. So is the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway System. That was to be financed by property development alongside stations but the Hong Kong Government had to make repeated injections of public money to stop the system going into bankruptcy. The finances of the Jubilee Line do not look too good either.
The public would like to see targets set for reducing road congestion, with powers given to either passenger transport associations or local authorities to use road pricing and parking restrictions in order to reach those targets. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us, those authorities should also have a say in the investment plans of the transport infrastructure, so that the planning and social dimensions contained in the report that we are debating, in the Government's paper and in the Technology Foresight paper can all be considered.
There are many concerns about transport. There are the environmental concerns of noise, pollution and congestion; the concerns of industry that congestion, lack of co-ordination and poor infrastructure can threaten Britain's competitiveness—the CBI made that point in its paper in 1995; and the social concerns that urban congestion and poor co-ordination are adding to the divisions in our society by penalising those passengers who most need public transport. Poorly co-ordinated public transport only adds to those divisions in our society.
Fortunately, on these Benches we are here to speak up for all those concerns.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the report Making Connections, to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley drew attention, is 20 pages long. I am the 15th speaker in this debate. As the 15th speaker, it is hard to say very much new about a 20 page report.
The report emphasises a small part of the total problem of integrating transport and sustainable development. It does not quite connect the relevance of its recommendations to the other parts of the transportation problem. The 18th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which dealt with transport and the environment, makes the whole context clear. We have been discussing among other matters the problem of intermodal transport changes and information. But the point is that facilitating those things, whatever it costs, produces a much larger pay-off by reducing reliance on car transport. The benefits of reducing reliance on car transport should have been put at the forefront of our concerns.
In The Times Higher Education Supplement this week, there is a review of a number of books on transport. One book mentioned was The True Costs of Road Transport, written by Professor David Pearce and other authors. They are good economists. They are people who, unlike those at the Treasury, understand economics and not just cash flow. They have

345
estimated that, if the costs of car transport are added together, including greenhouse gases, air pollution, noise, congestion and accidents, there is a total cost of nearly £50 billion a year. That is a staggering sum of money. Those are what economists call externalities. If the total cost comes to £50 billion—or even if it is halved to £25 billion—enough damage is being done to society, for which we pay in one way or another, either through the National Health Service, accidents, early death, time delays in travelling, or unsafe public transport, as my noble friend Lady Symons pointed out. Surely it is good economics for somebody somewhere to invest some money in improving the system.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, pointed out, that is where the report Making Connections does not get the matter right. It does not point to the sophisticated technology that is currently available, which would be very cost-efficient. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, also pointed out that other countries try to manage their transport better, both in terms of hard printed information systems and in terms of access to information technology.
There are some questions that we must face. If it costs, as the report says, 2 per cent. of total revenue to improve information systems, can that 2 per cent. be raised by a general levy on the industry? Or can the Government decide that 2 per cent. of that small sum of money is a good investment in public welfare? Or can the Government decide to have some decent economics and road user charges?
For a long time we have allowed the motor car to become the most under-priced transport system in use and the costs are being borne not by car drivers, but by people like me who do not drive. I am not a reluctant car driver; I am a non-car driver. I use public transport all the time. I do not want to drive; I want to live and I want others to live.
Why have we not made any progress on the efficient pricing of car driving, especially in inner cities? Why, when we know that cars cause a substantial amount of pollution—the larger proportion being caused by cars over five years old—do we not have a differential rate of excise duty taking account of age? Why is fuel efficiency not a criterion by which we issue licences to cars?
Those are sensible and economic measures that the Government could take. But it needs a government which believe in economics rather than cash, as I hope the next government will. They need to follow sensible economics, looking after public welfare and obtaining it cheaper, rather than privatising merely to save money on a PSBR which is falsely calculated.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this debate and for drawing the report to our attention. The report consorts pretty well with the policies of these Benches, and no doubt will contribute to them at one date or another.
346
I speak towards the end of the debate which means that many aspects have already been tackled. I do not intend to repeat them all, but I want to associate myself with what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who always adds a tone of broad-minded, economic good sense to what goes on in this Chamber. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the valuable points that were made.
First, I want to make a couple of general points. The report has some omissions. One word which is noticeable by its absence is "parking". If a carpark is available at nil or low cost at the other end of one's journey—as it is to your Lordships and indeed to myself—one's incentive for travelling by car increases enormously; the cost is so much reduced. We must therefore tackle the issue of car parking at places of work much more thoroughly. Many local authorities no longer prescribe minimum standards of car parking but maximum standards, thus gradually exerting a downward pressure on the number of spaces provided. That is just one of the two points not covered in the report.
The report challenges government—any government—over what they intend to do to play their part to achieve the ends it deems to be desirable. Nobody has challenged those ends as not being desirable. Everybody supported the recommendations made by the report. Seven out of the nine recommendations are to government, and it is therefore important for us to learn how this Government will respond to those challenges. I shall name just a few of them.
Many references were made in the report to the effect of institutional fragmentation on the seamless journey by public transport. Those of us who have been in this business at county or other levels for quite a long time have often raised that point as an essential element of public transport if it is to compete with the motor car in terms of comfort, reliability and so forth. Paragraph 14 of the report notes the "tensions between competition"—between service providers—which can lead to better services on a specific route and integration, which is essential for easy transfer. It says:
"Unless these problems are overcome, the potential benefits from increased competition may be more than outweighed by the disadvantages".
That approach is linked to Recommendation 1 which states:
"The Government should raise the profile of intermodal transport [by instructing] The rail regulator … to take account of transfer issues in setting the regulatory framework. The Government should [give] new … guidance to local authorities. public transport operators … on transfer issues".
Similarly, Recommendation 5 states that the Government should encourage operators to co-operate voluntarily on ticketing and information matters and should clarify the existing legal framework for such co-operation and should consider options for changes in

347
the legal framework which would enable greater co-operation to take place. Will the Government respond in the affirmative to those suggestions? They are important, practical suggestions.
Again, when considering freight movement by rail—an extremely important subject, often left on one side in discussions about the movement from road to rail—the report points out a lack of strategic consideration of freight transport in general and intermodal terminals in particular. In other words, suppose one's freight leaves the factory on a lorry and one wants to put it on a train. Where and how can that be done conveniently? Interestingly enough, it draws attention to the poor road systems around some of our main freight terminals. I agree with its criticism of Willesden, which I have always felt was an idiotic site to choose as the main transfer point for the Channel Tunnel rail link.
The need to retain land currently held by Railtrack so that it can be used for passenger and freight intermodal transfer is also emphasised by the report. Do the Government accept Recommendations 3 and 8? They would place a duty on the Government to act in various ways to address the situation. Finally, do the Government accept that better track and trace arrangements for freight carried by rail, both within the United Kingdom and across the European Union, would encourage better use of rail by freight movers? Will they ensure that our voice is strong within the European Union to achieve better co-ordination in that sphere?
We are not all such skilled travellers by public transport as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, whose exploits were both educative and amusing. But we urgently need to raise the percentage of journeys made by public transport, whether by ourselves as passengers or by freight. To do that we must attract new users; for example, those who now travel by car simply because they own one or those who carry their freight by lorry simply because they own a lorry. It costs no more than the cost of the petrol to go from point A to point B.
The report challenges the Government to play their part in solving this specific little nexus of problems. I should like to know, as would everybody else—not just here but beyond this House—how this Government will respond to those recommendations.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I begin by joining with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn in his tribute to the late Lord Listowel, a man of great dignity who gave a great deal to this country. We shall miss him.
Secondly, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in what has been an exemplary and excellent debate. We have had many innovative ideas produced and both the Minister who will reply and I will have our work cut out in ensuring that we properly canvass those ideas in terms of policy-making.
We have also had some novel contributions; the first edition of the Haskel Diaries—we shall look with interest at the future development of my noble friend
348
as an author—and we shall no doubt have another chapter of the Minister's book entitled Self Delusion. The Minister lives in a world of some pretence. He likes to think that the privatisation of London Underground is enormously popular with the people of London. In fact, a day or two after the announcement was made in another place an opinion poll was taken. The poll showed that 65 per cent. were against privatisation and only 13 per cent. supported the sale. Splitting the figures down on political lines, 42 per cent. of Tory voters were opposed to privatisation as against 31 per cent. in favour. The Minister is once again living in a world of illusion. But all that will collapse quite shortly.
I would also pay tribute to the work that has been done by those who compiled this excellent report Making Connections, on which so many of my noble friends and others have commented. What is interesting is that it was the Government who set up the inquiry. Each recommendation represents a huge indictment of the Government's policy, if one can dignify it as such, over the past 17 years. It comes to this: fragmentation, mounting congestion, lack of public accountability, inadequate co-ordination between different modes and failure to achieve, or even try to achieve, proper complementarity between the different modes. The report does not refer to the use of short sea shipping, which is something else the Government have demonstrably neglected.
No concept of sustainable economic development and environmental protection is sustained by the Government's policy. Theirs has been an ad hoc approach, a government distancing themselves from the desirability of having a national framework for transport policy and failing to provide any sufficient involvement of local government, particularly through the PTEs and PTAs. The country is paying very heavily for this neglect, a huge and unpardonable neglect. We have seen that, as they were developing their privatisation policies, inordinate delays occurred in terms of refurbishing the infrastructure, and the investment that was needed was again neglected.
We witness these situations every day in our lives. We see that London Underground is in a parlous condition. We see the gridlock on the roads. According to the CBI, all this is costing the country around £19 billion a year. The Government have done very little to arrest the situation. There is a complete lack of coherence about seeking to get more traffic from the roads on to rail. I remember very well Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, when he was Secretary of State for Transport, making a pledge about that. Has that pledge been honoured? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to the move from road to rail that has been accomplished since Mr. Rifkind gave that undertaking.
It is clear that in May the next Government—the Labour Government—will inherit a transport mess. Our aim will be to secure a coherent national transport strategy, making the best use of all the modes of transport, and to ensure greater mobility, greater access and greater efficiency. That involves one of the important elements dealt with not only in the

349
report but in the report of the rail regulator. He expressed great disappointment in the information about railway services that was being given:
"A failure to tell passengers what the railway network is offering in prices, in choice, in availability, in making sure information is accurate, in encouraging passengers to use the railway with confidence from the time the first inquiry is made to the completion of a satisfactory journey".
So the indictment is repeated in the rail regulator's report. He said:
"Train operators can and must be impartial and accurate when giving information about and selling their own and other operators' passenger services".
And they have not been. The Minister has done nothing to ensure that these matters have been properly corrected because he is powerless now. He is entirely in the hands of the rail regulator. We shall change that situation. The Minister smiles. Smiles will get him nowhere. He has totally failed over the years—not him personally, because he does not deal with the railways; he just deals with the appalling position of aviation and shipping, so his endeavours are confined.
It will be a difficult task. We have to try to win more passengers and more freight onto rail from the roads, and railway investment obligations and duties under franchise agreement have to be honoured. There are simply too many cases, which have been revealed over the past few weeks in particular, where the fundamental obligations are being dishonoured. That is not acceptable. The mere fact that South West Trains is prepared to give away a free ticket for one day is no answer. What will happen to South West Trains as a result of this breaking of a fundamental obligation? We read in the Observer that South West Trains may escape fines for breaking its franchise agreement despite cancelling hundreds of services and plunging commuters into chaos. Will the Minister kindly get some information about that?
The fact of the matter is that he has said in this House that it would be subject to penalties. Will it be? Or will the regulator take a rather different view and say, "Well, it is not too serious"? I challenge the Minister about that. We want to know. What will happen as a result of this breach of a fundamental obligation?
The main way of achieving a publicly accountable and integrated rail system is by regulation. We shall examine the present powers of the regulator to see how they can be utilised more effectively and how, where necessary, they can be strengthened using secondary amendments to the Railways Act 1993 if that can be undertaken. We shall contemplate four key changes. There will be increased accountability of the regulator to the Labour Secretary of State so that he is under no doubt what our intentions are for the railway industry and how we expect him to fulfil his duties through tighter and more effective regulation. There is no question that that is needed. The regulator will be given powers to ensure that the system and its assets are managed in the public interest and with efficiency.
350
Given the public subsidies which the Government have chosen to provide, is it not essential to underline the need for public accountability, which the Government have relinquished? We are talking here of some £850 million a year. We shall ask the rail regulator to examine the present subsidy arrangements and to take steps to see that this subsidy is re-routed into infrastructure. That has been done in Holland and in Sweden with success. We are intent on ensuring that the necessary levels of investment and proper passenger services are put in place. The subsidies have a crucial role. We shall seek to give greater emphasis to standards of safety. There is increasing evidence that workers are undertaking excessive hours. That may well imperil safety.
As regards Railtrack, we shall certainly review the high access charges which are currently being levied and deflecting freight transport from the railways. The benefits would flow primarily to the travelling public rather than to the shareholders. We believe that that is a priority. The present situation is grossly unsatisfactory. It costs £170,000 a year in track access charges to add just one passenger coach to the system compared with £300 to £400 in vehicle excise duty to put one coach on the road. Is that equitable?
We shall ensure that the income realised by Railtrack from the sale of property and from development is actually put into the railway system. There is no guarantee that that has or will happen under the Government's own proposals. Railtrack inherited huge amounts of land. As the noble Baroness has just said, we are surely entitled to an assurance that those assets are used in the public interest and within the railway system and not for the benefit of shareholders.
As regards the train operating companies, tighter regulations will be required to encourage higher levels of investment and a fair and inclusive relationship with the staff involved. We shall negotiate with the rolling stock leasing companies and rail manufacturers to encourage higher levels of investment in rolling stock. It is quite wrong that so much of this component of the industry has suffered in a very dire way, particularly with regard to York.
The bus industry is also in a parlous state. There has to be a much greater degree of influence as far as concerns the local authorities. Once again, this matter has been dealt with extensively in the report. It will be interesting to hear what the Government have to say. This Government have been dismissive of every alternative idea that has been put forward. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss those which have been put forward in the debate tonight. The Government have not achieved any measure of success in their transport policy, at least in overall terms. Of course, it is possible to point to a measure of success here or there, but overall the Government's policy has been a catastrophic failure. That is demonstrated by the views of the CBI, local authorities and of so many people who are interested in securing a good and successful transport system which has been found to be incapable of achievement under the present Government. Thankfully, their days are numbered.
6.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I begin by adding my voice to those of the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Clinton-Davis, about the passing of Lord Listowel. We have to thank very much the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for giving us the time to discuss transport issues in general and this report in particular. As always on transport matters, we have had an extremely wide-ranging debate with contributions ranging from those of the right reverend Prelate mourning the loss of the man with the red flag to the incisive transport diaries of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, no doubt eagerly awaiting publication as we speak.
One point that has run through many of the contributions that we have heard from Members of the party opposite in dealing with rail matters—the debate has largely centred on rail, although there have been some very good contributions on bus deregulation as well, but the railways has been the central theme—has been the newly-discovered, rosy view of the grand old days of British Rail in the 1970s, which I do not believe the travelling public would recognise. What is clear from all contributions this evening is that innovative solutions are required.
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said. He accused the Government of being rather timid and not sufficiently bold. I should have thought that the biggest structural change to the railways in decades was a major and bold initiative. I believe that we are seeing the same with our plans for the London Underground.
It is the Government's view that transport policy has to take place in the wider context of the need for sustainable development. That view was clearly spelt out in our Green Paper on transport policy entitled Transport, The Way Forward, which we published in April last year in response to the national transport debate initiated by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Transport. I welcome the consideration which the Round Table on Sustainable Development has given to these issues. As the Green Paper makes clear, the Government share the desire of the Round Table to see an increase in the proportion of people using public transport and we have acted vigorously to achieve that.
This speech is not intended to be a formal response to the Round Table's report. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked me a number of detailed questions about our specific response to a number of the recommendations. We shall be making a formal, ordered response in due course when we have had time to give proper consideration to the detailed requirements which have been made by the Round Table. I do not believe that they deserve anything less than that.
This evening I would like to pick up some of the points which have emerged from the report and from the debate. One key area where I would like to draw a distinction with the Round Table's view is where the responsibility for action should lie in addressing a number of these issues. The Round Table has addressed many of its recommendations to
352
government. As I have said, we shall consider them carefully and seriously. My belief is that the Government's role is primarily to set a framework in which others can implement the necessary measures. At the end of the day the success of interchange initiatives is dependent on the actions and energy of transport operators and local authorities. I was drawn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He described a number of areas where interchanges were working extremely well. I believe that he mentioned airports. If it was not the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it was another noble Lord who spoke.
Lord Addington: I spoke about Victoria station.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, certainly one Member of your Lordships' House described what went on at airports. It is very much in the commercial interest of people operating transport services to co-operate with each other in terms of increasing their whole market by producing innovative ticketing arrangements and transport solutions which perhaps were not available before.
We have heard a great deal about integrated transport policies. I believe that is one of the more hackneyed phrases used in the transport field—
Lord Clinton-Davis: A hackney cab!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my words were carefully chosen. It means a different thing to different people. I do not believe that integrated transport should mean a centrally planned, inflexible system governed from the centre. That was certainly the thrust of a number of the contributions that we have heard this evening; namely, a desire to return to the man in Whitehall running all the transport services and unable to respond rapidly to local demand. I do not believe that too many of the travelling public wish to see a return to the cult of the bureaucrat running transport rather than the businessman who is so directly accountable that if people do not buy his system, then his salary is at stake. That would seem to be a clear incentive.
The Government's role is to provide the right environment for these needs to be met. I believe that that has been done. Through our privatisation and deregulation programmes we have put in place a framework in which transport operators are well placed and have every incentive to respond to the needs of customer demand and to grow their markets. That will include improvements to interchange facilities to ensure a more integrated transport service.
I listened with great interest to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about a particular rail network in Wales which he uses. I certainly felt that he was not turning his back on the private sector, but was looking forward to co-operative partnerships and that is what privatisation is designed to bring. We have seen the very impressive plans for investment from Railtrack throughout the network. The £10 billion investment plan

353
is very exciting. It was not there before and we certainly look with great optimism to see how that will benefit passengers quickly.
The view of the party opposite about the privatisation of the railways deserves considerable attention. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to hear whether he would tell me which bit of the railway he sought to buy back. Although I know of his party's commitment to a publicly owned, publicly accountable railway, I did not hear that. There is certainly some confusion there. I took that to mean that the same thing will happen with this privatisation as has happened with previous privatisations which were opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition. One thinks of the privatisations of British Airways and of the British Airports Authority, to name just two, which Opposition spokesmen opposed tooth and nail only to find that after a while the privatisations were welcome. We read all sorts of suggestions in the press. Like the noble Lord, I do not believe everything that I read in the press, apart from articles such as that which appeared in The Times on 12th February 1997, entitled, "The Right Track", and subtitled,
"Privatisation has made the trains run on time".
That makes good reading—
Lord Clinton-Davis: South West Trains?
Viscount Goschen: We have seen a confused policy from the party opposite with regard to what it would do about the railways. The Government have produced an innovative plan which has broken the mould of the railways and their long-standing decline. All 25 franchises are running, or will run, at least the same level of service as British Railways.
In his interesting speech, my noble friend Lord Cadman gave considerable balance to many of the contributions that had sought to attack what has happened since privatisation. The majority of franchisees intend to increase service levels. At the same time, while encouraging competition and diversity, network benefits such as through ticketing have been safeguarded. Ticket retailing arrangements at all 1,300 manned railway stations have been protected. Passengers can buy tickets to the same destinations as those previously offered by BR, even if their trip involves changing train or train operator. These through ticketing arrangements are legally binding on licensed train operators.
Over the next 15 years, the 25 franchises will deliver a saving to the taxpayer of well over £6 billion. In seven years' time their grant requirement will be about 40 per cent. of what BR claimed for running the same services last year. That means that we are getting a better railway for less cost to the taxpayer. Dogmatic differences aside, there would seem little reason for opposing a privatisation that delivers a success story on that scale.
Railtrack recently published its network management statement setting out its plans to spend some £10 billion on the maintenance, renewal and development of the rail
354
network between 1995 and 2001, more than £4 million a day. Looking forward, Railtrack's spending on the rail network—excluding day-to-day maintenance—is expected to average some £1 billion a year over the next 10 years. This includes more than £1.5 billion on renewing and upgrading the West Coast Main Line, allowing the introduction of high speed, tilting trains and £600 million on Thameslink 2000. In addition to all this, passenger train operating companies are committed to substantial rolling stock investment, estimated to amount to at least £1.5 billion over the lifetime of the current franchises.
I could relate many more examples. Virgin Rail is to spend an estimated £500 million on high speed, tilting trains for the West Coast Main Line and to replace CrossCountry's rolling stock at an estimated cost of £250 million. Whatever one's view about the rights and wrongs of the private sector running the railway network, those figures are impressive and represent an investment that was not there before.
Privatisation is delivering not just increased investment but also better services, in line with the aims of the Round Table. We are seeing new bus-rail links established on services across the country—Great Eastern's intermodal through-ticketing scheme in Chelmsford and Colchester, for example, or Midland Main Line's coach-bus link in Corby and Kettering.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, challenged me on the point that because operators were in competition with each other, that automatically meant that they could not work together to produce mutual benefits. As I was sitting here on the red leather Benches, my mind was drawn to what happens in your Lordships' House. The Opposition and the Government seek to compete with each other and to attract voters to their way of thinking, but it is only through the use of the usual channels and the ways in which we work together that we can both seek to achieve our aims.
Much has been said about better information for rail passengers. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, welcomes the developments that have taken place. The train operators have developed ambitious plans to improve telephone inquiry bureaux performance. They are spending £15 million more this financial year than the last on these enhancements, and in October 1996 they introduced a new national "0345" inquiry number, which is already reducing waiting times and allowing callers to get through to an inquiry point at the first time of calling. These improvements demonstrate the private sector's readiness and ability to deal with exactly the sorts of issues that were properly raised by the Round Table's report.
In addition, the franchisees are investing considerable sums in station improvements, including enhancements to passenger security, waiting accommodation and disabled facilities. I listened with great interest to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. Indeed, I agreed with the vast majority of what she said. Personal security issues, particularly for women and particularly when they are travelling at night and during the hours of darkness, are major factors affecting decisions on whether or not to travel. That is why

355
I welcome the investments that have been made in terms of closed circuit television and the other measures that make stations safer. There is nothing between us on that. Perhaps I may cite the example of Connex South Eastern's plans to spend £25 million on extra passenger security measures, improved ticketing and car parking.
The House would be surprised if I did not say a word or two about the privatisation of London Underground given that I have extolled the benefits of the privatisation of the heavy rail network. We feel that such benefits could be brought to London Underground. We have consistently demonstrated our support for the Tube, not least through consistently high levels of funding. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is a substantial investment backlog in the London Underground and that innovative solutions are required. It is beyond the ability of governments to finance all the extra investment that is needed, which is why we believe that privatisation is the answer.
We have had a very good discussion on the issues surrounding bus deregulation. My noble friend Lord Teviot gave a fair description of what has happened since deregulation. I want to emphasise that the deregulation and privatisation of the bus industry has been a success story both for passengers and for the taxpayer as well as in terms of helping to achieve our wider transport policy. The key facts in the deregulation success story are very much worth repeating: bus route mileage has risen by over a quarter since 1986 as operators have developed new services in response to passenger demand; improved efficiency has reduced operating costs per vehicle mile by nearly half; the burden on the taxpayer of subsidy has been more than halved; investment in new vehicles has increased each year for the past four years; and there are clear signs that the long-run trend of declining patronage has begun to stabilise and level off.
I recognise that halting, and reversing, this long-run decline in bus patronage is important, though difficult to achieve, given the firmly entrenched growth in car ownership and use. The issues of car ownership and the growth in car usage were well summed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who described herself as a "reluctant motorist". Almost everyone who talks about transport these days prefaces their remarks by saying they are "reluctant motorists" and that they would rather travel by public transport all the time. It seems, however, that only the noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Desai, have mastered the art of travelling solely by public transport.
I hope that the House will recognise that the increased innovation and investment by bus companies, and the growth in route mileage which I have just described, are all necessary and valuable in helping to bring about the required growth in bus use. Deregulation has ensured that decisions on which bus services should be run are made by those best able to make them, that is, by commercial operators, responding to customer choice and competition, rather than by public sector planners.
We believe that to erect a new legal framework for the delivery of bus services, as the Round Table appear to suggest, will in all probability mean more
356
bureaucracy with the higher cost that that implies and the stifling of initiative. We know that new services have been mounted by the new deregulated bus operators, often with the use of small buses such as midibuses which were not used to the same extent beforehand. In order to raise passenger numbers they have had to work hard to give the customer the service that he is looking for. One has only to look back to the pre-1995 days of a declining and predominately public sector industry, with all of the bureaucracy and inflexibility that that implied, and a regulatory system which stifled competition and innovation in meeting customer needs, to realise that as with rail those who look back to pre-deregulation or pre-privatisation days as a model to which we should nostalgically return do not give the full picture.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in his very amusing peroration this afternoon accused me of living in a dream world where privatisation was the answer to all ills. I believe that it is important to look at the facts. A one-third drop in complaints following rail privatisation is the kind of fact that we want to hear.
There are many other issues touching on bus ownership that can be spoken to but, given the clock, I turn to freight which we believe is so important. Many similar issues arise here. The objective of seeing more freight taken off the roads and put on to the railways and waterways is one that the Government entirely share. But I believe that the Government's role is primarily to provide the right circumstances in which transport regulators can achieve this. The way in which the Channel Tunnel freight terminal network was devised by a public sector BR is a clear reminder that the public sector cannot simply second-guess the needs of the private sector. The result was a network which with hindsight was too dense and bore little or no relationship to the harsh realities of rail freight economics.
The prospects for intermodal freight and rail freight generally depend upon rail's ability to compete with road in terms of pricing, reliability and the convenience of the service that is offered. We have already seen the successful transfer to the private sector of all the domestic rail services. In Britain we have already had a taste of what can be achieved by the railways when they improve their services. We believe that freight will similarly benefit from that. Further, we believe that where the Government can make a contribution to making up the difference between a commercial case and one that is not, in terms of rail infrastructure our freight facilities grant has a role to play. That is another clear example of the remaining role of Government policy in this issue. That relates just as much to the inland waterways network as to rail. The freight facilities grant is also available to waterways.
I welcome the enhanced attention which the Round Table's report has drawn to interchange issues, and I recognise the Government's responsibility to put in place an environment in which transport operators have both the incentives and the opportunities to facilitate transfers in and between modes.

357
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wagged his finger at me about South West Trains. South West Trains is already liable for penalty payments under the contractually binding performance regime. The company may also face formal action for breaching its contract. The Franchising Director will need to assess the scale of any breach before deciding what action to take. There is no question of letting off South West Trains in the event of a breach.
I believe that over the past decade and a half we have put in place an environment in which transport operators have both the incentives and opportunities to facilitate transfers in and between modes. I welcome the progress that has been made.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, we can probably go on debating this all night, but noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to do so. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate. It has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion of an important but much neglected part of the transport chain. I very much welcome the speeches from all sides in support of the recommendations in the report. Some noble Lords did not believe that they were strong enough. I am not sure whether the Government support the report. Maybe we will hear about it after due consideration, if that due consideration takes place before May 1st. If that does not happen, they can forget it, can they not? I am not aware of any noble Lord on these Benches who used the expression "central planning". To me, an integrated transport policy means operating within a framework. The Government have failed because this document has exposed the weaknesses of connections. I say no more than that. I believe that that is where the failure arises.
To conclude, I believe that all speakers welcome this report; I believe that privately, in his heart of hearts, the Minister also welcomes it. It is up to a future Labour Government to pursue these recommendations and the many good suggestions that have been made today. I conclude by thanking noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Rural Economy
6.26 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to call attention to the needs and problems of the rural economy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion for debate today selected by my colleagues on these Benches recognises the importance of the rural economy and the fact that the needs and problems of that economy are very different from those of urban and inner-city areas. We know that the population of the countryside is increasing. Every census reveals an increase in rural population. Moreover, many urban dwellers would like to live in the countryside if they were able to do so.
This has been confirmed by a substantial MORI poll. Evidently, there is a strong belief in a rural idyll away from the pressures, problems and pollution of our cities and large towns.
What are the facts that lie behind this concept of a rural idyll? Between April 1990 and January 1995 unemployment increased by 51 per cent. in urban Great Britain and by 74 per cent. in rural Great Britain, with the largest increase (171 per cent.) in the south-east of England. Between 1979 and 1993 homelessness more than doubled in rural Wales and rural England and increased nearly threefold in rural Scotland. Between 1979 and 1993 recorded crime increased by 87 per cent. in the English and Welsh metropolitan counties and by 144 per cent. in the English and Welsh shire counties. Nearly 75 per cent. of rural parishes in England have no daily bus service. Since deregulation of bus services, passenger journeys in England outside London have gone down by 29 per cent; in Wales by 20 per cent.; and in Scotland by 22 per cent. But in London, where buses have not been deregulated, the decrease has been 3 per cent.
The phenomenon of two nations is now an established fact in rural areas. There is one group of relatively well-off people with one or two cars—and so they are not concerned with poor bus services—who shop weekly at out-of-town supermarkets—and so they are not concerned about the decline in the number of village shops. They have time to serve on the parish or district council, and they apply perhaps an essentially urban view to the smells and noises that are inseparable from many rural pursuits and to the demand for social housing, which may reduce the value of their own houses. The other group is effectively hidden away. Rural poverty in Britain?—some say that there is no such thing and that the countryside is where the affluent live. If you drive through any village you will not see the poverty and deprivation that are now sadly such a feature of certain areas of our cities. Rural poverty is submerged beneath a layer of apparent affluence. It is household-based rather than area-based and is not readily acknowledged, or even recognised, by the more affluent. Even the disadvantaged in rural areas do not like to use the term "poor" to describe themselves. But that rural poverty and deprivation are real and affect some 25 per cent. of the rural population.
The Community Council for Wiltshire—where I live—has managed in 11 years to provide 106 homes for local rural people. There are an estimated 3,000 families needing decent rented housing in the county. The majority of employed people between 18 and 30 years old in one large Wiltshire village which was recently surveyed were earning less than £140 per week. Examples can be found in North Yorkshire, Northumberland and Devon, where 50 per cent. of households surveyed had a main wage earner earning less than £8,000 a year.
Whenever I speak to rural, largely farming, audiences, I always say the same thing—by far the biggest social problem in the countryside now is the lack of affordable homes to rent or buy. The right to buy local authority housing, although extremely successful politically, has had a particularly severe impact in rural areas. Between

359
1980 and 1991, some 30 per cent. of council housing stock in predominantly rural districts was sold off, resulting in a loss of 95,000 rented homes.
ACRE (Action for Communities in Rural England) estimates that there is a need for some 30,000 local authority homes a year to satisfy the demand for affordable housing in rural areas, created by the selling off of local authority housing stock. The Rural Housing Trust, of which I am a trustee, points out that the latest cuts in the Housing Corporation's Improved Development Programme have meant a reduction of roughly one-third in the rural programme. Cuts in the rate of grant over the past five years have resulted in rents which are too high for those people on low incomes who do not qualify for housing benefit. Government policy on funding for housing association development now means that large-scale development by large, urban-based associations takes up most of the allocations. Small rural associations which are close to the communities they serve and which concentrate upon meeting small-scale local needs are at a huge disadvantage in the competition for funds.
The Labour Party is committed to the phased relief, over time, of the billions accrued from council house sales to build the homes which are so badly needed, with the concomitant effect on employment in the building industry and associated suppliers.
All our rural areas typically have lower wages than the national average; lower percentages of affordable housing; limited local services; and poor public transport. That combination of factors impinges particularly on all groups in the rural community. Perhaps I may take just one example—carers. I should declare an interest as vice-president of the Carers National Association, which points out that only 5 per cent. of parishes has some access to a CAB; 46 per cent. of rural carers have never applied for any benefit; 30 per cent. of carers have never inquired about benefit; only 17 per cent. of parishes has a GP; about 40 per cent. of the carers surveyed had never taken a week-long break since they started caring; and the Rural Development Commission found that only 8 per cent. of parishes had some day care provision for the elderly and only 3 per cent. of rural parishes had day care provision for disabled people.
However, it would be wrong not to mention some of the positive things which are being done to promote employment and provide services in rural areas. The Countryside Commission recently launched a strategy for the south-west coastal path that supports the equivalent of more than 800 jobs. It is what might be described as sustainable tourism. There are many other examples in that field.
The RSPB points out that nature conservation provides jobs and benefits to local economies. In a recent report Working with Nature in Britain it highlights eight case studies. Three, the Abernethy Forest RSPB reserve, the conservation of the red kite in Mid-Wales and the management of heathlands, provide almost 300 jobs.
In the field of rural healthcare there is considerable scope for improving services and providing information to people in rural areas. The employment of community
360
development workers by primary healthcare practices or groups of practices can do a great deal to develop rural healthcare services and draw attention to the isolation of many poorer people, which is the common experience of all those in rural community development work.
There is undoubtedly a change in the political attitude to the problems of the rural economy. In April 1995 the Labour Party produced a rural policy document entitled A working countryside; in September 1995, the Government produced a White Paper Rural England; and in November last year we had the Cork declaration following the European Conference on Rural Development under the Irish Presidency of the EU.
It is interesting to note the common threads which run through all those documents, led, dare I say it, by the Labour Party document, which was the first in the field. It recognises that a countryside policy can no longer be the residual of an inefficient and wasteful CAP, riddled with fraud and doing little to create employment and revitalise our rural economies.
The Labour Party has produced a substantial document on reform of the CAP. In our objectives we say that we want to see a fundamental reform redirecting funds to the benefit of the rural environment, the broader rural economy, consumers and the public purse. We set out six major policy objectives, the fourth of which states:
"European policy must play an enhanced role in the rural economy—to advance the sustainable development of economic activity in rural areas, in particular by promoting rural employment".
In the Labour Party we have made it clear that we support the redirection of the CAP towards a common agricultural and rural policy. We accept the concept of a rural strategy, set out in the Cork declaration. However, it would be wrong to suggest that that fundamental redirection of policy will be easy. The farming lobbies throughout Europe are still very powerful and will argue strongly against change. It is easy to pay lip service to the idea of developing the rural economy, but it will not be easy to shift policy, particularly with the pressures on agriculture that will result from the WTO negotiations which start in 1999 and the enlargement of the EU towards the east in the early years of the next century.
Enlargement of the EU may present an opportunity to redirect ourselves towards a true rural development policy. Fundamental reform of the CAP will he essential to accommodate eastern European countries. But there is a further inescapable result of EU enlargement. To repeat an observation I have made previously in your Lordships' House, the EU now stretches from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to Poland. When Poland joins it will stretch from the Atlantic to Russia. That vast panorama of differing rural structures and agricultural efficiency and productivity cannot be managed from Brussels with a dirigiste agriculture policy which is targeted down to the last litre of milk over quota and half hectare of set-aside. Rural policy, above all, in the EU cries out for subsidiarity.
That is why the increasing political recognition in the UK of the importance of rural policy is so significant. I have referred already to the Labour Party document

361
A working countryside and the Government White Paper. There are a number of ideas and proposals which are common to both. The Countryside Commission has recently produced an imaginative and thoughtful document called A Living Countryside which sets out a strategy for economic activity and reinforces that character of our countryside which makes it so special.
The needs and problems of the rural economy are now widely recognised. Our success in dealing with many of them need not involve heavy public expenditure, but it will demand a recognition across national and local government of the particular policy approaches which are required. The Labour Party document A working countryside contains no fewer than 50 policy proposals and commitments under the three broad headings "Rebuilding the rural economy", "Renewing rural communities" and "Respecting the rural environment". I shall take just a few of them at random:
"Partnership with the private sector to ensure rural communities have access to the information superhighway …
A national minimum wage to combat the scandal of low pay".
That is one aspect of agricultural policy which will always be supported by the farming industry, because of course farming has had a minimum wage for over 50 years.
To continue:
"Building thousands of new homes with the thousands of millions of pounds from council house sales which Labour will allow councils to spend on a phased basis.
Partnership with housing associations to build affordable homes to rent.
Maintaining the network of rural post offices and strengthening them by giving them greater financial freedom".
There will be an improvement in rural bus services by regulating the private bus companies and demanding that they meet certain social objectives. Each health authority will develop a rural healthcare plan. Rural schools will be linked to the information superhighway, giving access to new educational opportunities.
We will judge all our policies for rebuilding the rural economy and renewing rural communities on criteria of environmental sustainability. There will be a major boost to low input agriculture, including organic farming, through reform of the CAP. There will be an end to the sell-off of Forestry Commission woodland—privatisation by stealth. There will be a target of reducing waste disposed to landfill by 30 per cent. over five years and a presumption against new opencast coal-mines. Those are 16 or 17 of our 50 proposals and commitments.
Whatever our political views, I hope that all of us can agree with the three basic objectives of rural policy as we have set them out in A working countryside: first, economic renewal to ensure a broad range of opportunities; secondly, social and democratic renewal to strengthen rural communities; and, thirdly, the protection and enhancement of the countryside environment.
We have a countryside whose diversity and beauty we all wish to protect. We have a rural economy with many needs and problems; but, it is hoped, a new
362
political recognition which cuts across party boundaries of those needs and a willingness to deal with them. As we approach the millennium, I am hopeful regarding the future. I hope that today's debate will add to that optimism. I beg to move for Papers.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating the debate. I agree entirely that it cuts across party lines and I am in a great measure of agreement with his analysis of the CAP. I wish to deal with that specific aspect; that is, the relevance of a reformed CAP to a rural policy for Europe and specifically for the United Kingdom. I must say immediately that I am a farmer and therefore a recipient of CAP payments. I am vice president of the Action Committee for Rural England.
I think immediately of the cost of the CAP; 45 billion ecus, that is £33 billion, paid to seven million farmers throughout Europe. Those farmers have assets and income. At the same time in Europe, approximately 18.5 million people are unemployed, a large number of them in rural areas. Again, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the need for social renewal and social equity. It has taken a while, but since 1995, three years after MacSharry's reform, it was accepted by the Commission that the reform of the reforms had to be put back on the agenda. That culminated in the meeting at Cork referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Cork declaration. That called for a move away from a sectorially based CAP to a rural policy for Europe which emphasises rural development and rural industry.
I am not sure that I approve of a concept of evolution of the CAP. For many years we have been asking for something stronger. I sat as a member of a sub-committee of the European Communities Committee at the time of MacSharry when we pointed out the need for something that would be much more radical than is implied by evolution. It is clear that, whatever happens to the CAP, if we cannot have an integrated rural policy it must have a completely different concept from the present top-down approach of the CAP. It is highly centralist and highly inappropriate for reflecting local needs. If you cannot reflect local needs you will not achieve local investment in jobs and you will not understand the dynamics of the local rural economy. If a rural policy means anything it means job creation.
It is clear that agriculture, which by definition is a large industry in rural areas throughout Europe, must be a component of a reformed common agricultural policy, but it is equally clear that the funds must be channelled more widely than simply to agriculture. Farming will be a beneficiary, but so will other industries. Indeed, while we are looking at the reform of the CAP, it is clearly important to look at other mechanisms in Europe such as the structural funds and objectives to determine how rural policies can be put in place.

363
This is a short debate and time-limited. I shall set a precedent by taking less than the full time. I shall simply point out that there is no point in having such massive expenditure in rural areas if it does not inform a rural policy. Since 1948 we have had a great deal of intervention in agriculture. It is remarkable that, despite all attempts to change support for agriculture, we have never wrestled with the problem as to how we support the wider rural economy.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am also most jealous of the way he handles his facts, which makes my efforts appear less good.
The question of rural development and the rural economy is enormously important. Immense changes have occurred, and they were detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. They have had an extraordinary effect on the countryside. All of us who have any connection with farming know how numbers employed in farming have decreased in the most extraordinary way. I am a retired farmer. My old farm used to employ 12 men and many casual workers. Now only two people work on that 500 acre, good Angus farm. The same is true all over Scotland and the rural areas.
The Liberal Democrats in a constituency in Aberdeenshire conducted a survey of the farms in their area. They did not receive a full response, but 10 per cent. of the forms were completed. It gave them a fair indication of what is happening. Of those responding, 66 per cent. were from farms worked entirely by the farmer and his family. No people were employed. Thirty-seven per cent. of them relied on sources of income other than farming. A number of other interesting points arose, one of which interested and depressed me. It was that more than half-55 per cent.—of those who responded would not recommend that their children should follow them into farming. That is a tremendous reversal and indicates the state of the economy and thinking of the farming section of the rural economy.
The farming sector will remain the major single factor, but by no means will it be the majority factor in the countryside. Therefore, while the importance of farmers making a decent living is immensely important, if we do not want the countryside to become the commuter belt we must encourage many different ways of making a living in the country. Of course, we have tourism, which in many cases is allied to forestry and access to forests.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, highlighted the fact that if people are going to work in the countryside they must have somewhere to live. People who want to live in the countryside and have money have driven up the price of houses much too far. In the countryside we need more social housing in which people can afford to live.
The way forward appears to be to encourage enterprise of a different sort. One of the enterprise groups in Aberdeen carried out a survey. Of course, we are talking about an area which is very prosperous due to the presence of oil. That survey took in the whole of
364
the countryside behind Aberdeen, which is a big area. It found that the average company would employ about 10 people. The survey also found an extraordinary amount of enterprise and a willingness to start business in the area. Indeed, an exhibition was organised with the presence of bankers and entrepreneurs who showed what was needed to start a business and how it should be done. I should stress that 3,000 people attended that exhibition; they did not just look, they also asked questions as to how they could start in business and go ahead. That must be one of the main ways to keep the countryside alive and vital with small businesses.
I should add that there are some very interesting businesses in the area which really depend on intellectual curiosity and enterprise. They do not need much capital or, indeed, many raw materials. There is one small group which started a business with remote observation vehicles—ROV, as I understand it—which has been very successful, especially in the industry. The vehicles are made elsewhere but the group places them; and, indeed, it received a good deal of publicity when one of its vehicles was used to try to find the Loch Ness monster. That expedition was not successful, but it found many other things at the bottom of the loch and was very useful. That form of enterprise by small groups in the countryside is most important.
The Government have a great deal to do in order to advance the cause. They need to ensure that the capital, training and education are available and, indeed, they should make sure that certain tax advantages can be obtained by those who put money into small businesses. I know that they are doing so in a small way, but such enterprises need to be encouraged. If you encourage such enterprise in the countryside you will get a living countryside with people being employed, and you will also get a living, breathing area which will be of great advantage to Britain and to Europe.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I must begin with an apology as I shall almost certainly have to leave the Chamber before the start of the winding-up speeches. The Government's Statement this afternoon has thrown my timetable rather out of kilter. I should like to talk about housing, although in a rather different direction from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, I have to say that I very much agree with most of what the noble Lord said.
Last November, the Government issued their Green Paper Housing Growth: Where shall we live? It is a very thoughtful document and of great significance to the rural economy because of the now notorious need to plan for 4.4 million extra households by the year 2016; that is, as near as may be, a 25 per cent. increase. Indeed, the Government thought the figure probably too low because all past projections have been too low. On the other hand, their critics thought it too high.
However, surely we can all agree that there will be an increase in the demand for housing well above the population growth and that the figure, whatever it is, will be a pretty big one. The question then arises as to what extent demand will, unless managed, spill over into

365
the countryside. My thesis is that there are already quite enough pressures on the countryside so that, whatever the colour of the next Administration, we must contain that spill-over to an absolute minimum.
The Rural England White Paper, to which reference has been made, forecast a growth in population of rural areas of 12 per cent. by the year 2025. I do not know how much of the urban spill-over is contained in that rural growth but, if it is included, then the implications for rural housing demand, for reasons explained in the Green Paper, are much higher than 12 per cent. Indeed, if the spill-over is not included in that 12 per cent., then, because of the drift to the countryside, the situation will become much worse.
It seems very clear to me that it will be difficult enough to cope with what I call "natural growth" in rural household formation, let alone dealing with urban spill-over. I believe that the Green Paper is conscious of that problem. It rightly emphasises the importance of urban regeneration and has useful things to say about making our cities more attractive places to live in and about the use of brownfield sites and whether there are enough of them. It also has interesting thoughts about the respective merits of key village extensions versus multiple village extensions, and so on.
However, what needs to be emphasised—it is perhaps not sufficiently emphasised in the Green Paper—is the fact that new towns and new villages on greenfield sites should only be sanctioned in exceptional circumstances. I believe that that is a fundamental point. There is an interesting short section in the Green Paper called "Improving the Planning System", but there are two worrying sentences:
"Nevertheless we should not assume that the current [planning] system is adequate to meet the demand … we need to ask ourselves whether present guidance … provides a sufficiently robust framework for the necessary development to take place in the most appropriate parts of each region".
We certainly want a robust planning system and robust guidance but not one that implies, which is how I read it, although I hope the Minister will perhaps tell me that I am wrong, a willingness to accommodate spill-over into the countryside. Just as important, we want robust implementation by local authorities and robust support from Ministers.
Even if the danger of the spill-over into rural areas was not worry enough, there is the added dimension of its effect on rural road traffic. Even without that effect, the forecast of a more than doubling of national road traffic by the year 2025 implies a far greater growth in rural road traffic, without any spill-over from urban populations.
When we have to build new houses as I am sure we will, I should like to emphasise the need for, and the importance of, good design both in siting and in detail. The Rural White Paper had good things to say in that respect. I wonder whether we would benefit from encouraging the Royal Fine Art Commission to play a leading role. Unless we resolutely tackle the problem of the need for 4.4 million houses and unless we make
366
cities places where people want to live, we risk, especially in the south east of England, losing our most prized national asset: our countryside.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I do not have the level of expertise of previous speakers or indeed of the speakers who are to follow me. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to raise a few matters which relate in particular to rural Wales and which we regard as being of critical importance. Those issues are based on the White Paper of the Welsh Office entitled A Working Countryside for Wales (Cm 3180). Many of the concepts in that White Paper offer considerable potential. Nothing that I say this evening detracts in any way from my appreciation of that potential.
However, perhaps I may begin by asking whether the Government can devote more resources to ensure that employment is brought to those rural communities where there are severe problems of unemployment. The Welsh White Paper acknowledges that the east of Wales has done better than the west. But who in the end decides how the money is to be allotted between the east and the west? In rural Wales one of our major problems is to find employment opportunities for those communities in north-west Wales and in south-west Wales—the areas, broadly speaking, to the south of the A.55 and to the north of the M.4—which are by now in serious decline. I mentioned one of those communities in the health debate about a month ago. Those communities constitute the Welsh heartland and are therefore in a category of their own. We are aware that the process of economic decline can also become one of social decline involving the disintegration of communities. That is our concern.
The second issue I want to raise has been mentioned by three previous speakers. I refer to the lack of housing which local people can afford to buy. This matter is well known to the Welsh Office. On page 13 of the White Paper the authors acknowledge that their consultation,
"revealed considerable concerns about the future supply and cost of housing".
They further state that the answers to these concerns need, inter alia, to,
"allow markets to work effectively".
That is an astounding conclusion. There is every reason for thinking that unregulated market forces during the past 18 years have been a prime cause of the present problem. Therefore to ask us to continue to rely on the market will make matters even worse.
I believe that the authors of the White Paper (on page 14) are conscious that many people in Wales are demanding legislation to control the local housing market in rural Wales. That demand was articulated at a rally in Cardiff a few months ago. Of course there are problems with that suggestion. All the same the case for such legislation has not been properly addressed or convincingly answered by the White Paper. It is also surprising that the document contains no reference at all, as far as I can see, to the impact of second homes or holiday homes on the housing market although this has been a burning issue.

367
Before I leave housing, I should also mention that there is a great deal of anxiety in rural Wales about the possible impact of unused large-scale residential planning permissions granted under the pre-1968 planning system, such as the one affecting Morfa Bychan in the Lleyn Peninsula and which the High Court has recently ruled is still alive. It would be helpful if we had some idea of the size of the problem and whether it needs to be addressed by central government. Do the Government know how many such permissions are in existence and if not can they obtain the information?
I have had an interest in health issues since I first became involved with the Welsh hospital service in the late 1960s. There is a worrying admission in the Welsh White Paper that some of the health needs of people living in rural Wales may require special attention. That will come as news to the authors of the Rural England document. The Welsh Office document identifies the symptoms in these terms:
"a higher than average rate of suicides in farming communities; emotional problems in children and young people; and the effects of stress on elderly or disabled people and their carers".
The document further states that the problems,
"need to be well researched and tackled effectively".
The authors are to be congratulated on bringing all this into the light of day. But who will undertake the careful examination which is required? I hope it will be undertaken by an authoritative body such as the Medical University of Wales.
My final point is to inquire whether we in Wales have the right all-Wales machinery to develop rural policy? The present machinery has come in for considerable criticism, for example from the Wales Rural Forum which is representative of all aspects of Welsh rural life. The forum has been pressing for the setting up of a comprehensive rural forum to represent all rural interests and which would have an effective say in policy making. The Government have rejected its case. However, I do not believe that the case has been fully answered by the arguments set out on page 41 of the White Paper. Looking two years ahead, I trust and hope that the elected members of the new Welsh assembly which an incoming Labour government will establish will themselves have a key role to play in influencing policy making for the development of rural Wales.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, I welcome this debate on the rural economy and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to focus on it. As always on these occasions I need to declare an interest as chairman of the Rural Development Commission although I do not intend to talk about the commission specifically this evening.
Strictly speaking there is now no such thing as the rural economy. Just as there is no homogeneous urban economy, rural areas house a diverse range of economic activity and enterprise. This wide variety in the countryside relates to local, national and international markets and is, with the obvious exception of agriculture, really just that part of the total economy of our country which happens to be rurally based.
368
It follows of course that the rural economy is not synonymous with agriculture. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, reminded us, although it is still the biggest user of land, agriculture in most rural areas is no longer the largest employer. The overall picture of economic activity in the countryside is one of the long-term decline in employment in traditional industries such as agriculture and mining, and a growth in other sectors such as services and manufacturing. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, gave us some unemployment figures. Perhaps in the interests of balance I could respond with employment figures for the rural development areas. Between the census years of 1981 and 1991 there were 120,000 new jobs. That is a far greater rate of growth than in urban areas. I believe that has continued since 1991. Therefore the rural economy generally has proved adaptable to the changes which have taken place, especially in the more accessible areas and those closer to the centres of population or with good communications.
Given more time—and also in the interests of balance—I should have liked to spend a moment or two on the lessons learnt, and some of the success stories. However, the main point that I must make in the time available this evening is that not all rural areas have enjoyed economic success. Some, mostly the remoter areas which were heavily dependent on declining industries or lacking good communications links, have continued to face difficulties in adjusting to change. Rural economies, particularly in these less accessible areas, are heavily dependent on self-employment and very small businesses. There is clearly a need to try to ensure that many more small firms not only survive, but grow and create more jobs. I see that as a key challenge for the growing Business Links network.
The more disadvantaged rural areas also need good communications and infrastructure. Roads and utilities are important. It is also vital that rural areas are not allowed to fall behind in the provision of the infrastructure required for advanced tele-communications. Retaining the present universal service obligation and the geographic averaging of tariffs operated by BT ensures the availability of the same standard of modern telephone services in rural as well as in urban areas. This principle of universal service needs to be extended as new telecommunications developments are introduced. We also need to consider the incentive, or lack of it, to service providers to push their network into remote areas in a market-led environment.
One industry of particular importance to the rural economy is tourism. Recent research has calculated that in 1994 tourism spending in rural England amounted to over £9 billion and supported almost 400,000 jobs. In addition, tourism can also bring a number of wider benefits to the local community by helping to support local shops and services.
Therefore, tourism policy must have a clear rural dimension. But in taking advantage of the economic and social benefits to be gained, we must be careful not to spoil the very thing people go to rural areas to enjoy—the countryside itself.

369
In discussing the rural economy of this country, as other noble Lords have said, we cannot ignore its place within Europe. A significant number of England's rural areas are designated as Objective 5b areas and benefit from European funding under the structural funds. Those are due for review in 1999. There has been much speculation also—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, added to it today—about possible further reform of the common agricultural policy and the emergence of a single integrated rural policy. The UK must contribute to the debate and secure a policy which fully recognises the needs of the poorer rural areas of England. If I may say so, the Rural Development Commission, with all its experience and practical knowledge, has much to offer to that debate.
I have one final point. In this House rural debates are well supported by well informed, regular Members from all sides of the House from what I might call our "country club". But I suspect that the rural economy in too many quarters is automatically regarded as a specialist topic, firmly and completely in the sphere of the Department of the Environment—and certainly not much to do with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of National Heritage, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport or the Treasury. Despite the clear and helpful lead given by the 1995 rural White Paper, in the country as a whole many take the view that jobs in the countryside are an unwelcome, indeed, unnecessary, intrusion and that it is in the towns that they belong. Too often rural areas are viewed through urban eyes just as places for growing food or for recreation.
Much of rural England makes a significant contribution to the national economy. It can and must do so in the future.
7.13 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is very easy for the rural and remote areas of Scotland to be seen as a playground, a theme park and as a holiday sanctuary. I assert that these remote areas are valid working environments.
The Motion talks of the needs and problems of the rural economy. I would suggest that it is not all doom and gloom. Migration in recent years to Skye and Lochalsh, for example, has caused that district to become the fastest growing population in Scotland in percentage terms. Quality of life and sense of community are the attractions.
Large distances and low population density are obvious symptoms of a remote area. The Highlands and Islands, and Scotland as a whole, enjoy an easy statistic: one person per nine square kilometres in the Highlands and Islands; and nine persons per one square kilometre in Scotland overall. Long distances, high fuel prices, ferry prices and air transport charges can be mitigated by lower rates of vehicle taxation, reduced VAT on road fuels, road equivalent tariffs on ferries, and the removal of air passenger duty on Highlands and Islands air flights. Those minor tax breaks would ease the higher
370
cost of living without creating a tax haven. Further infrastructure measures should include more causeways between islands, as already built between Barra and Vatarsay and about to be built between North Uist and Berneray.
Bridges keep better hours and are open in worse weather than ferries. My only and inevitable remark about the high toll Skye Bridge is this. A PFI bridge should be built only in a vibrant economy where it will be paid off quickly. A fragile rural economy is the last place where a high toll bridge should be built.
After fiscal and infrastructure measures, I move to the issue of enabling people to find ways of making a living. This is becoming easier with advances in electronics. Teleworking is possible though there are perceptual problems. For example, an acquaintance is a power station engineer who works from his croft in west Argyll. The question is: how can anyone in west Argyll know anything about power stations? I suspect the answer is that this person was a power station engineer before moving to Argyll. The real challenge for someone in a remote area is to gain credibility. That is the solution of an urban perceptual problem.
In reality, just as electioneering can take the form of telephone canvassing, so directory inquiries and mail order type businesses can be located anywhere. The debate is all about enabling people to empower themselves. That is different from empowering them. Education for emigration must be reversed. The role of government and other economic development agencies must be to pilot examples of possible practice and provide training. For example, I am excited by a new bulb-growing venture in Benbecula. That is being promoted by Comhairle nan Eilean and the Scottish agricultural colleges. The venture typifies the essential elements of a remote area's enterprise. Three areas of expertise are required: horticulture, marketing and distribution, in equal proportions. The product is, and must be, a high value one. Markets must be sought; and air transport is available, for example, from nearby Balivanish airport.
Finally, I move to land use and land reform issues. After the Clearances, the potato famine of the mid 19th century and the land wars of the 1880s, commissioners were sent to north west Scotland. The Napier Commission report of 1884 recommended that smallholders should be given security of tenure as tenants and organised into townships. They are, of course, known by their Anglo-Gaelic name of crofters.
Crofting used to be about subsistence. The 1886 Crofting Act allowed crofters to engage in what it quaintly called auxiliary occupations. Today crofting is a viable population holding measure. Active crofters live on their crofts and earn 80-plus per cent. of their income from auxiliary occupations. But the key is that they live in their own homes on their crofts with which they have developed a deep bond despite only being tenants of the land. The Gaelic language and way of life help as well in that respect. There is currently a strong and unmet demand for crofts.
A courageous government will revisit the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 and create more crofts. This time they will buy in good land rather than the poor

371
land bought by the Congested Districts Board and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. The Crofters Commission should move beyond regulation and reorganisation towards the development of economically stronger crofting townships. The under-utilisation of land must be tackled. The plight of the islanders of Eigg lies in the failure of the landowner to grant leases. No economic development can take place on Eigg as a result. That stifling of the rural economy by landowners is quite prevalent.
In conclusion, the Crofters Commission, along with the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the local enterprise companies, and the talents of the residents must be combined and encouraged in their counter-urbanisation policies.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, six minutes is not enough for a lively debate. Nevertheless I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to make a few comments. Degraded rural areas mean a degraded environment—bad for people, bad for wildlife. It is bad, too, as the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, pointed out, for the tourist industry which has become a useful source of extra income for some farmers. So measures to sustain biodiversity and to conserve the best in landscape not only create employment directly but have spin-off effects which benefit the local residents.
I am happy to acknowledge the valuable work of the Rural Development Commission. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, was too modest in not mentioning it. It has achieved a great deal. I share the concerns of the National Farmers Union at the budgetary restraints which are presently causing the Rural Development Commission to withdraw some of its very valuable services. But there are many areas outside the present remit of the RDC which suffer similar problems and for which help is needed.
Part of the answer is to give back to communities control over their own lives. So many decisions that should be made by local people through elected representatives are now made by unelected quangos answerable only to the Secretary of State. Local people know best what they need and they should have the power to change their representatives when those representatives fail to reflect local needs and wishes.
We all acknowledge that the school and the village shop are key elements in the life of rural communities. Closing the local school is a body blow to village life. It reduces security for the children and causes endless problems for parents. Until now, there has been a rigid approach to closures based on school numbers. I suggest that that approach should be re-thought.
I give as an example a school at Outwell in the Fens, with a roll of 150 children, which is viable even in current terms. With support from an enthusiastic head it has embraced information technology, established electronic communications nationwide and overseas, including in North America. That has had the effect of widening horizons and combating the feeling of isolation which so often afflicts schools in rural areas. The example is being copied by other schools, to their great benefit.
372
The case of the Beaupré school in Outwell is an example of how even smaller schools can remain part of the wider picture and should not be considered too small to provide real education. As the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, and my noble friend Lord Carter said, we must also ensure that rural populations as a whole are not left out of the information revolution.
Village shops across the UK are struggling to keep open. Too many have closed already. To help the remainder, and perhaps to reverse the trend, it will be necessary to take positive action. I welcome the proposals in the Local Government and Rating Bill, but more is needed. For example, the new requirement to introduce unit pricing will have a severe impact on small shops, which may stock as many as 3,000 different items on their shelves but may lack the computer systems to deal with the 6,000 or so pieces of information that they need to record. It is important therefore that small and medium-sized shops are given plenty of time to comply with the law. They will need sympathetic advice and handling if they are not to be forced out of business.
We appear to have reached a consensus on the kind of help that is needed in rural areas. What is now required is a practical approach to the problems and a willingness to re-think some of the old, outdated ideas.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, we have heard from all sides of the House this evening how rural England has undergone tremendous social and economic changes in recent years, how the economy of rural areas is buoyant, and how it is out-performing that of urban areas. We have also heard of the high growth rate of new businesses and of unemployment rates in the countryside being generally lower than urban areas.
However, the apparently vibrant economy of rural areas disguises the effects of important variations in the quality of the jobs created—that is to say: are they short-term or long-term, part-time or full-time, and are they compatible with the needs of the environment and local communities?
In particular, it appears that, despite the huge amounts of development taking place in these areas, there has been an overall decline in the provision of essential services and, for some groups of people, continued deprivation and hardship. The obstacles to a better quality of life for these people consist of a range of issues, such as the lack of childcare facilities, affordable housing and access to public transport.
The aims of policies for these areas should not only be to ensure a better quality of life, but also to improve the environment. I am concerned that we risk devoting too much attention to purely economic activities such as job creation or new physical development in the countryside. Such activities could detract from the quality of life.
Perhaps I may give an example. The villagers of Woodcote, in Oxfordshire, conducted and co-ordinated two village appraisals over a period of 10 years. The findings highlighted the dramatic pace of rural social and economic change. From 1961 to 1991 the number

373
of houses in the village increased almost three-fold. Many new residents and firms had moved into the village from outside the area. Proportionately fewer local people were working and by 1990 two-fifths of the local jobs were held by non-local people. These kinds of changes are placing enormous pressures on the quality and fabric of rural life and bring few local benefits.
I believe that we are not being discriminating enough about the kind of development in these areas. There appears to be a mismatch between the opportunities and benefits arising from new rural development and the needs and skills of rural dwellers themselves. Meantime there is a danger that the quality of life in the countryside is being eroded.
I turn briefly now to the national parks of England and Wales, which are places where there is an opportunity to promote social and economic well-being while protecting and improving the environment. In fact the appropriate clauses of the Environment Act 1995 confer a duty on the park authorities to foster the economic and social well-being of their local communities as they carry out their purposes of conservation and of promoting understanding and enjoyment. These clauses form the basis for sustainable development, rather than stifling any development at all.
Some national park authorities are already taking a lead on implementing this new duty. For instance, the Brecon Beacons park authority has set up "Beacons Country Products", which works with local communities to encourage and market local produce. Its projects include a mobile slaughterhall, the aims of which are to keep more of the value of locally produced sheep within the local communities, and a silage wrap recycling project, which addresses an environmental problem in a creative way.
The public will associate national parks with high environmental quality. The Council for National Parks is promoting the idea of a national parks accreditation scheme. Products from the parks, where they are environmentally-sensitively produced, should be identified and promoted as such. Supermarkets would have a role to play in marketing these goods, capitalising on regional purchasing policies where they exist.
We should, perhaps, take a lead from the French experience—in France great success has been achieved by promoting local goods in this way, enabling much more of their value to remain with the local communities, and also enabling greater investment in maintaining the high quality environment on which such products depend.
Finally, tourism, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, is another example of the interdependence between the major employment sectors in national parks and a high quality environment. The Countryside Commission and Countryside Council for Wales have carried out a survey on visitors to national parks. That survey confirmed the importance to these visitors of the quality of the park landscapes, the fresh, clean air and the peace and quiet they offer. These are the reasons why the parks were designated and underpin this significant sector of the local economy.
374
These examples from national parks carry lessons for the whole countryside. They highlight the interdependence of a high quality rural environment and economic vitality. The Government's new planning guidance for these areas, PPG7, makes that link clear. High environmental quality is a driving force behind much rural development. That development and the jobs it supports must, in their turn, sustain and improve the environment for long-lasting benefits.
In conclusion, it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the Government for their record in placing rural issues in the hands of some perceptive and effective Secretaries of State over the past 18 years. I feel that I must mention Michael Heseltine, who carried out this appointment twice, and the current incumbent, John Gummer, for his understanding of and sympathy with green issues, for which he is saluted by many of us, and who minds passionately about these matters.
The balance between rural prosperity and the protection of the countryside will never be easy to achieve, but Britain has much to be proud of and to teach the rest of Europe. By contrast, there is much to fear from the prospect of an urban-based Labour government which would not have the interests of the countryside as one of its priorities.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing this debate. The needs and problems of the rural economy are so often submerged beneath the weight of urban priorities. I have had the mixed blessing of inheriting a large family home. In previous centuries such homes with their parks and agricultural estates were major centres of rural employment. Hardly anyone living in the village would not have been employed in some capacity by the "big house".
In the early 1970s, when my wife and I took over the management of the property, employment had perforce dwindled to one or two ancient retainers. The head gardener, nearing 80, had in his earlier days had 14 gardeners working for him. Now he was alone doing his own weeding in an inevitably much reduced area.
The good news is that in the 25 years since then, by moving from traditional agriculture and building up a commercial leisure and banqueting business, we now employ 31 people full time plus anything up to 50 people part time on busy days in the summer. The big house has once again become the largest employer in the village.
I mention this only because it illustrates the changing nature of rural employment. Our needs are not for cowmen and ladies' maids, but for park wardens, waitresses, banqueting managers, tour guides and gift shop staff. Rural employment is now extremely varied and continues to change.
However, this change and the broadening of income-earning activities have not yet been recognised by the Inland Revenue. The taxing of rural activities is steeped in history and is extremely complex. Some

375
of the problems can be overcome by the formation of limited companies and by the helpful one-estate election option. But I would like to put in a plea today for the introduction of the concept of a rural business unit, as proposed by the Country Landowners' Association and supported, among others, by the Historic Houses Association. I should say that I am a member of both organisations.
In recommending the rural business unit, I am speaking not only to the Minister but also to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and his colleagues who may shortly be in a better position to secure its introduction.
The concept of the rural business unit, or RBU, is that all those income-producing activities traditionally associated with a rural estate, together with evolving leisure and other commercial activities, could be assessed as one trading unit for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax purposes. That would allow, for example, the letting of furnished holiday cottages, the letting of sporting rights and non-agricultural lettings and the income from houses open to the public, gift shops, garden centres and catering activities to be brought within the RBU.
The Inland Revenue and the Treasury are familiar with this proposal and I will not burden your Lordships with the detailed figures. Suffice it to say that the RBU concept should lead to a more productive use of rural assets which should in turn have a positive effect on tax revenues over time. I hope that whoever is in power after the election will give careful consideration to the concept of rural business units.
There is one further problem of the rural economy to which I wish to refer today and it is one on which I have been in correspondence recently with the Minister. It concerns the thorny question of access to the countryside and the classification of rights of way. A case with which I have recently been concerned has involved the designation of a series of public footpaths and bridlepaths as a "Byway Open to All Traffic", or BOAT as they are rather confusingly called. The evidence used for the designation was a variety of ancient maps which indicated that these ancient routes may have been used by horse-drawn vehicles in previous centuries.
The new designation as a BOAT means that these routes can now be used by motor cycles and four-wheel drive vehicles in competition with the pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders who use them now. It is difficult not to be sympathetic to the legitimate rights of motor cyclists and four-wheel drive vehicle owners, but I have to say that I cannot help feeling that the new BOAT designation is not in the best interests of the particular countryside environment, nor of the wildlife habitat nor of the pedestrians and equestrians currently using the paths. In the event of misuse, it is possible for the county council to make a traffic regulation order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 banning motor vehicles, but that is a cumbersome and expensive procedure.
The Minister has indicated to me that he has considerable sympathy with my concerns. He has said that he hopes to make an announcement shortly based
376
on the response to his consultation paper Vehicles on Byways. I hope that he will be able to tell us more about it today. In particular, I should like to hear whether he has had further thoughts on the idea of the creation of a new class of highway, determined by whether the surface is or has ever been metalled. The suggestion is put forward in paragraphs 10 to 17 of the consultation paper Vehicles on Byways and seems to be an excellent idea.
I look forward to the noble Earl's response and once again hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and his colleagues will take note, in case it falls on them to put the suggestion into practice.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate so ably and knowledgeably introduced by my noble friend Lord Carter. I am a city dweller and always have been, but like most of us I very much value the countryside, although I must confess that I see it mainly as a visitor. However, I have relatives who have made their lives in the country and who are very much a part of their local communities.
The welfare of those communities is, or should be, of concern to all of us. At one time in previous centuries most of the employment available was in the countryside. Now the declining nature of countryside employment is everywhere acknowledged and is believed to constitute something of a problem. Between 1986 and 1996 there was a decline of 32.6 per cent. in full-time male employment. The Rural Development Council identified the cause of the continuing decline in the number of agricultural workers as,
"the continuing substitution of farm labour by various forms of capital. While the most obvious substitution is of labour by farm machinery, it is important to recognise that other forms of capital, including agrochemicals such as herbicides and fungicides and the various prophylactic drugs used in animal production systems, have also reduced the labour in-put required on farms".
During this time, farming has become a highly profitable enterprise. Furthermore, the subsidies received by farmers are substantial. In its submission to the Agricultural Wages Board in 1996, the Transport and General Workers Union—the union which organises agricultural workers and to whom I am grateful for the briefing I have this evening—told me that it was able to demonstrate that the subsidies paid directly to farmers were more than the entire hired labour bill. Given that huge payment to farmers, the union believed that insufficient consideration had been given to the impact on agricultural and rural employment of the policies adopted under the common agricultural policy.
The union cites as a classic example of a policy which it believes specifically creates unemployment the policy of set-aside. It is estimated that for every 130 hectares of land put into set-aside, one job is lost. It estimates that that has led to a loss of over 3,500 agricultural jobs. However, unlike the subsidies paid to farmers for taking their land out of production, the union members receive no compensation beyond statutory redundancy payments. That is not a lot of help to farmworkers, many

377
of whom now spend much shorter times in jobs owing to what appears to be the increasing casualisation of the industry.
I understand that the Low Pay Unit recently undertook a study of rural life in Suffolk. It cites some typical cases. For example, a young man only in his late 20s had just been made redundant from a job he had held for only two years. He had twice been made redundant before and moreover was well qualified, having taken a three-year course in arable management and husbandry. He was becoming disillusioned and, not surprisingly, even though he enjoyed the work, was thinking of moving out of agriculture altogether.
Poor wages do not encourage energetic young people to stay in the country and make their lives there, even though they may enjoy the work and love the country. Wages in farming are generally conceded to be low. Incidentally, if the experience since the abolition of wages councils is anything to go by, they would be a great deal lower were the Agricultural Wages Board to be abolished. Naturally, there would be strong opposition to any such course.
Even so, the figures I have for last year indicate a minimum wage in agriculture of around £155 a week. The Council of Europe decency threshold rate is £239 a week. Average wages in the country compare very badly with those in manufacturing industry. There is a gap, I am told, of about £90 a week. Moreover, we are not here talking about jobs that require little skill. The union makes the point that agricultural workers are now required to have a range of skills, dealing with complicated vehicles and machinery. Moreover, unfortunately, it is not an industry in which accidents and diseases arising from the job are rare—quite the contrary. We have often in this House—due, I am glad to say, to the commitment and persistence of the noble Countess, Lady Mar—frequently discussed the threat to farmworkers of the use of organophosphates. It is now increasingly admitted that the noble Countess was absolutely right to be so concerned.
The cost of living in the country is no cheaper than in many country towns. The majority of agricultural workers no longer live in tied cottages—no doubt they are glad about that—but rural housing has become more expensive in recent years, as the better off from the towns compete with local people in the housing market for the housing that is available.
There are also problems about transport. Poor transport in most country areas forces many families to buy cars, which often they can ill afford, if they are to cope with the isolation that would otherwise be imposed upon them. Incidentally, while on the subject of transport, I must voice what is perhaps a controversial view. I have little sympathy with the anti-bypass protestors. They may be active and engaging young people, but the viewpoint that they represent is essentially a minority one. We have some lovely country towns and villages. The village in which my sister lives was once quiet and peaceful, but no longer. Heavy lorries and traffic thunder through it. As a result, the villagers are desperate to have a bypass and apparently one is to be constructed. We are not speaking about
378
well-to-do people with country mansions. They are ordinary people living in ordinary little houses, often built abutting the road in days when there was little or no traffic. The heavy volume of traffic is now seen as a threat to them and their children, and sometimes to their homes.
Of course, there should be full consultation with local people before heavy road works are commenced. And that usually takes place. The problem is that the people who want bypass roads, which I understand includes the majority of the population in Newbury, very rarely get newspaper coverage because they do not provide sufficient of a story.
Again, I thank my noble friend for providing the opportunity for this debate. The welfare and prosperity of our fellow citizens who live and work in the country should be of importance to us all because ultimately we rely upon them for our own wellbeing.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on introducing the debate and declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks.
The national parks of England and Wales cover 10 per cent. of the land area and are places where people have lived and worked for thousands of years. Those beautiful landscapes are the product of mostly benign human interaction and our challenge is to ensure that we hand on to future generations the national parks that we enjoy today.
As living and working landscapes where the quality of the environment is of paramount importance, national parks provide a model for sustainable development. That means balancing the needs of society with the need to sustain the environment. As government advice states (DoE circular 12/96):
"the qualities for which the parks have been designated are as much the products of man's hand as of nature. It is in the interests of the conservation of those qualities that the National Park Authorities have a duty to work with and for their local communities".
The 1991 report of the National Parks Review Panel, chaired by Professor Edwards, found that:
"human activity, of a sympathetic kind, is a major factor in the achievement of park purposes".
Those purposes are conservation and the promotion of their understanding and enjoyment. Yet today proposals for major and damaging development in national parks seem to be justified by the short-term gain in jobs, often only a very few jobs. The economy in national parks needs jobs that sustain the environment. Only those kinds of jobs will sustain the natural resource on which those communities depend. That relationship is recognised by the recently revised Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7:
"the appeal of the countryside is central to its economic prosperity, and healthy economic activity in rural areas facilitates investment to protect and improve the countryside".
The Council for National Parks has carried out research, using data from the National Office of Statistics, to examine the economy of national parks. The data suggest that national parks have a higher level

379
of economic activity among the male population than other rural areas and the national average. The biggest sector is tourism, which depends on a high quality environment for its viability; then comes the service sector; and agriculture.
The reliance on those sectors suggests that protecting the environment of national parks is a significant factor in protecting the socio-economic well-being of the park communities. One would expect national parks to be disadvantaged by being remote rural areas. But the park authorities play a vital role in supporting tourism and associated local purchasing and employment; and they provide help to secure environmental land management funding and European Objective 5b funding, to which my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth referred. There is even greater potential for such a supportive role, as park authorities now have a duty under the 1995 Environment Act in pursuing their purposes to foster the socio-economic well-being of local communities.
The Government say that national parks are:
"in a strong position to influence the way we care for our countryside, to be models for the sustainable management of the wider countryside, and to help further general understanding and appreciation of the means by which development and conservation can he better balanced".
There are many lessons from national parks from which other rural areas can benefit, not least that it is possible to protect and enhance the environment while securing the vitality of rural communities.
Lastly, I should like to put in a good word for the Post Bus service. The three-cornered co-operation between local government, the Royal Mail and the Rural Development Commission, so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, should be highly commended. The Post Bus provides an increasingly important lifeline at affordable cost for the still fit but elderly, who are no longer provided with a user-friendly bus service. I hope that we shall see increasing support for that very worthwhile initiative.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, those who both live and work in the countryside are today a tiny minority, some 3 per cent. of the population. Most of those who live there, like myself, now work in towns and cities. We were told recently that most of the population, given the choice, prefer to live in a country village, which is of course an impossibility. For them, holidays and weekend visits have to make do. But that 3 per cent. of the population are responsible for making and keeping the countryside as it is. They farm it, manage it, care for it and live in it all the year round. They work in it, if they can get work. The rest of us merely enjoy it and enjoy the results of their work. If we are to have a living countryside instead of one which is dying, it must be a working countryside too, not a dormitory and not a rural theme park but a place with affordable homes and suitable jobs for proper pay—a true community for those who live there.
Six minutes is scarcely enough to draw breath on any of the many vital issues that noble Lords have raised this evening. In my six minutes, I shall just touch on three matters.
380
No matter how many jobs are available, if one cannot get to them, they are no use at all. Yet one quarter of rural homes have no car, and that includes many old people for whom visits to hospital can he a nightmare. Many families have no access to a car during the day and for young people who are not well paid or are on training courses, life can become intolerable and opportunities for future careers simply cannot be taken up.
The rural economy cannot flourish without a properly integrated transport system which serves the needs of that specific rural community. We need a government with the will and determination to see that that happens. If one has a job and can get to it, it is of no use if one has a young family and no help. Only 5 per cent. of rural parishes have any nursery school provision at all; only 4 per cent. have any after-school care. We need a government which have the will to change all that.
As experience shows, it is of little use allowing new developments in rural areas which are unsuitable for the people of that area and their skills. If we do that, people move in from outside to take the jobs or come out from the towns to work there. That leaves the local population as before; that is, unemployed but with roads under more pressure from the increased traffic, house prices still further out of reach, and too often watching the destruction of the most precious and non-renewable resource—the countryside itself.
We need a proper strategy for each area with encouragement to small businesses to invest in suitable projects. Part of that must be a real will and determination on the part of government to reform the common agricultural policy. There must be new incentives to use land in ways which both contribute to the environment and to the rural community.
Perhaps I may raise two matters in relation to jobs, both of them dear to my heart. Many of our most rural areas depend on livestock production. The days of the village slaughterhouse have gone. Two-thirds of our abattoirs have closed in recent years. We now transport live animals for increasing distances to be killed and processed in larger and larger plants, the consequences of which we now hear almost daily in this House. We are not making progress; quite the reverse.
I hope that there will soon come a time when projects like that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—the mobile slaughterhall—now operating successfully in Wales as a result of the work of the Humane Slaughter Association, will take off. It will ensure that animals are slaughtered and processed as close as possible to the place of production, with consequent and obvious benefits to both animal welfare and rural jobs.
There are differing views about country sports and this is not the time to debate the merits or the demerits. In the parish in which I live on Exmoor the local hunt is the largest single employer. Sixteen thousand jobs in rural areas are directly dependent on the continuation of hunting, and the same number again indirectly. Many of those people live in tied housing with families, children at local schools and have known no other career. The latest estimate that I have seen only this month indicates that a further 150,000 people are engaged in work or

381
businesses which would be adversely affected by the end of hunting. They include farriers, transporters, saddlers, forage merchants, horse breeders, dealers and fencers. Almost all of those people in rural areas are extremely worried about the future.
My noble friend Lord Carter has done this House a service by introducing this important debate in such a constructive way. Rural communities may be in a minority, but the time has come when their views should be heard above the clamour of urban and suburban views and their needs, so long neglected, met at last.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his introduction clearly demonstrated the common strands of thinking throughout this House. The greatest problem for the rural economy is to keep it rural and then to manage it in a sustainable rural environment.
The village is the centre of the rural environment and yet the village is being destroyed by centralised shopping areas—denuding the villages of their shops—and poor rural public transport. The incomer—the noble Baroness may agree with me—does not usually help the situation by trying to import urban standards into the village way of life. They are often at odds with those enjoying countryside pursuits and who live in an essentially different rural environment. So those who choose to move to villages must change their way of life.
We are lucky that the British Field Sports Society has amalgamated with other countryside groups to focus their combined forces on the need to protect and enhance all countryside pursuits. It is those activities which encourage local labour, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, to stay in the countryside.
The village used to be maintained by the farming community as the major source of employment. What is happening, as has been said, is that modern and intensive farming methods require fewer farm workers. But there is hope yet. The reform of the CAP is at hand. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned it and my noble friend Lord Selborne spoke with great authority, as he frequently does, not only on the reform of the common agricultural policy but also on the reform of the reform of the common agricultural policy. May that soon happen. There is a great victory to be won at the end of that rainbow. It was the Bard who said,
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune".
We can look forward to success when the CAP is reformed.
I have the enormous good fortune to live in a village of 1,500 souls. It was recently upgraded to the unwelcome status of a "major population area". We have a thriving high street of shops to supply every need—even a bootmaker. There are adjoining estates which are large enough to sustain themselves as an entity and employers of considerable importance generating the need for a timber mill, a blacksmith, keepers, water bailiffs and many other services
382
increasingly supplied by the self-employed. It has the good fortune to have a road system which must be the target of every transport planner. The roads are narrow and winding, and can only be used by those with a great determination to reach their destination in our village. Long may it remain so!
In addition, there are two employers in the farm machinery business in the village and a small brewery, which was opened by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth thanks to the Rural Development Commission. Unfortunately the brewery does not have a pub attached to it, though there are five in the village. We have our own medical and dental centre. So I must confess that we can perhaps survive without too much additional farm labour. But the point is that it is farm labour in general that keeps the rural element in the countryside and creates a cohesive structure in the life of the village.
We need such small centres in the rural environment which support the surrounding catchment area of small hamlets, in a parish which may typically be part of a team ministry covering half a dozen parishes. Those are of vital importance to the countryside that we are all trying to maintain.
That may be at variance to the wishes of the supermarket chains which are rapidly filling the local towns with tempting one-stop shopping. But the geography of the country applies here because those towns are largely relics of coaching days, with stops some 20 to 25 miles apart, and it is in the interstices of the countryside between those centres that village life thrives. That is where the rural environment needs to be cherished as an entity.
In the previous debate today reference was made to the transport infrastructure. That was a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. We need more smaller forms of transport in local areas, perhaps an enhanced taxi service or a service similar to that of the Royal Mail van.
There was a very rude article in The Times of last Saturday by Simon Jenkins. I shall not quote from it but it went entirely over the top. It was quite unacceptable, but it nevertheless demonstrated a feeling that is growing in contemporary society that the concentration on using pesticides in farming is becoming less and less popular. Noble Lords will perhaps know of my support for organic farming. I believe that the day will come when up to 10 per cent. of arable land in the UK will be farmed by these methods. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, kindly mentioned organic farming. I am grateful to him for that.
It is with such farming methods, among others which noble Lords have mentioned, that the rural economy will thrive, with increased farm labour and less chemical warfare against the very soil which we need to protect and regenerate and which is vital to the self-sustaining environment of the rural economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the EU. With your Lordships' permission, I wish to draw attention to ECOVAST, the European Council for the Village and Small Town, which has issued a pamphlet entitled A Strategy for Europe. Its purpose is definitive. I ask my noble friend to draw it to the attention of my noble

383
friend Lady Chalker as its work may correspond to the efforts of the ODA and the British Council in promoting the benefits of rural economies in Eastern Europe. In the meantime, I have placed a copy of the report and the strategy document in the Library.
8.1 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing this most important subject for debate. I declare several interests. I am a chartered surveyor and a member of the Country Landowners' Association. I also live and work in the countryside and I am a manager of an Exmoor hill farm. It is a matter of pride, in connection with that, that over the past five years both the workforce and the turnover have been increased by around a factor of four. That is purely through the process of diversification—both tourism and running a commercial shoot. I very much relate to what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, had to say about rural sports. They are an extremely important part of the rural economy. Anyone who suggests that they should be removed needs to put something else in their place.
There are more fundamental problems which I should like to address. They relate to problems of poor integration right the way through our regard for the rural economy. I realise that there are fundamental difficulties in dealing with domestic and EU policy integration in this area, but we need to have balanced policies that keep a proper relationship between urban and rural land. That has been mentioned before and I should like to stress it. The town and country planning regime in particular has a very important role to play. The noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, referred to transport and communications. I agree with him: it took me more than a year to get a clean line through to my farm manager so that I could send and receive faxes. That was not good enough.
What we need above all else is investment and business activity. There needs to be a government steer in all this. We need this particularly through county structure and local planning policies. For years they have said that the economic factors were not the affair of local planners. They are central to the local planning purpose and they have to be fully integrated with that. Beyond that, too many rights are being claimed for the public interest and not enough duties and responsibilities are being accepted by those who claim those rights.
There is a lack of reciprocity in how we look at things. Again, the planning world gives us some examples. On urban fringe degradation, it is all very well calling it a local gap or a green belt. But if it is degraded, it does not matter how good the agriculture land is; it will not be possible to use it for that purpose. That point has to be considered. For years the presence of livestock buildings was not treated as a material factor when planning new residential development of protected buildings. That is improving, but we are still faced with situations where access roads to farms on urban fringe areas are being fettered by housing development, which then means that any diversification
384
is held back by the fact that occupiers do not want lorries rumbling through and do not want extraneous traffic. Those matters have to be looked at in both directions.
We have problems with central policy integration. I have problems with forestry policy on Exmoor. There are problems of open landscapes, with the inference that there should be no tree planting—no conifers because conifers are not wanted in the uplands. There is also the 800 ft. rule. Yet I have ancient conifers, which were planted in the 1840s, that are subject to Section 3 designations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. We have to see these things in both ways. All those woodlands need investment. They cannot be left just to be some quirky feature on the landscape.
The new Planning Policy Guidance No. 7 has gone into some detail on agricultural permitted development rights but it does not look sufficiently closely at equestrian, sporting, amenity and tourism uses of land, all of which are valid rural activities. Economics is still not being made central to a mixed process. This economic situation is overwhelmingly the engine of rural land use and management. As the co-owner of seven listed buildings in rural areas, I know that they are extremely expensive to maintain and that the money for that does not grow on trees.
Many localities are more viable and valuable for almost anything other than agriculture and forestry. We ignore that at our peril. Land has to be valuable for the purposes for which society wants it managed. If it is not valuable for that purpose, society will be whistling into the wind for delivery. We need the equation of landscape value versus critically poor land-use returns to be squared and resolved. The equation of costs of good environmental management in areas of low rural returns is related to that. There are also compliance costs versus the vulnerability of the management systems that have been traditionally in place.
We have had abandonment, fragmentation and rural disinvestment before—Wales in recent memory and England in the period from 1870 to 1939. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that hill farming is certainly not one of the profitable sectors of the agricultural economy. The rural economy has to be a viable, free-standing business sector. It is not to be a charity-aided dependency of the nation. It cannot survive in that way. It requires long-term investment.
I should like to pose a few possible solutions. We need to add value, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords. We need to repatriate parts of the food industry and the timber processing industry to rural areas. We need to simplify the tax treatment, which was referred to by my noble kinsman Lord Cobbold. I very much relate to that. We need a bottom-up approach, where land managers are part and parcel of the policy formulation and can put in their halfpenny worth as investors in production and people. We need less dictating by government and, more particularly, a reduction perhaps in the nine central government agencies that are even now still referred to in Planning Policy Guidance No. 7.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter for initiating the debate on this aspect of the economy, which is of particular interest to me as a farmer in Cheshire.
The rural economy is not separate from the national economy but an integral part of it. There are, however, some features which require that policies for a predominantly urban environment need to be tailored differently if they are to be successful. Rural areas have certain similarities even though they are diverse in nature. These range from the remoteness of the hills, through the intensities of market gardening, to the vagaries of fishing.
It is worth noting that 23 per cent. of the nation's population live in rural areas. The disposable income of these areas is generally less the further they are from the south-east. Disposable income in the south-east is generally 110 per cent. of the national average, while in Scotland it is 96 per cent., in the north of England 93 per cent., Wales 90 per cent. and Northern Ireland 88 per cent. This economic pull towards the south-east will put rural areas under downwardly spiralling pressure as regards employment and income—that is, unless regeneration, re-investment and development policies are consistently maintained.
The rural economy's problems are highlighted by agriculture. As with any other industry, the expectation is of increasing efficiency, producing more healthy food at cheaper prices. At the same time, farmers are expected to show responsibility for the stewardship of the countryside. We have moved from an era of production, as portrayed by "Food from our own Resources" of 20 years ago, to the sentiments expressed in the 1995 rural White Paper of sustainability, subsidiarity and self-help.
Sustainability in this context is the balance between development and diversification, tempered with the desire not to destroy the inherent character of the landscape. Yet there is a long-term exodus of employment from agriculture. Professor John Marsh of Reading University calculates that agriculture and horticulture contribute only 1.5 per cent. to gross domestic product. Nevertheless, the economic importance, as confirmed by the BSE crisis, extends beyond this contribution both downstream to food manufacturers, processors, retailers, florists, hauliers and the timber industry and upstream to the agrichemical, engineering and feedstuff industries.
Agriculture must remain the focus of countryside policy. The Government must commit themselves to a strategy of developing a thriving farming community. Significant changes to the common agricultural policy are in sight and Britain must not stand on the sidelines, as it does under the present Government, when changes are proposed. Policies must reflect market realities.
Although various models of reform have been proposed, the direction of the reforms seem set to reduce prices and place greater emphasis on social and environmental policies. A reduction in prices will steer agriculture to ever more efficient production, capable of competing, without support, in world markets.
386
However, areas which cannot produce profitably will become uneconomic. Support payments will need to be structured on an area basis de-coupled from production. The alternative of income support is helpful in any transitionary period, although it must be realised that financial support for the farmer does little for support for the farm worker, as my noble friend Lady Turner has highlighted.
If re-structuring is to succeed, a genuine open single market within the EU must be created, with effective enforcement and fair competition. Farmers are exhorted to survive on world prices for their produce. Yet each trading bloc, and, indeed, often each country, finds ways of supporting its farmers such that the world price is largely a dumping price.
With the long-term agricultural restructuring into fewer, larger holdings, and the consequential thinning of the workforce, strategic development of an integrated rural economy becomes ever more necessary. The shedding of jobs must coincide with new business opportunities. People living in rural areas must have the same access to training, jobs and services as people living in urban areas. Policies on training, public access and recreation need to be made relevant to their needs, rather than the town migrant.
Encouraging out-of-town developments on greenfield sites, characterised by the growth of supermarkets, has had a disastrous impact on small towns. The belief is that this will bring employment to the area. Instead, the life of rural towns has been sucked dry when developments take place on their doorsteps. Village communities often mask unemployment as the workforce becomes so-called self-employed, part-time, odd-jobbers.
We must commit resources for training to enable the rural workforce to adapt to the diversifying economy of the countryside. The present Government are reluctant to do anything, but I think we can say with confidence that after 1st May the people will elect one which will. The adequacy of the training and enterprise councils and Business Links in meeting rural needs must be reviewed.
Simply promoting development in rural areas and freeing up more land for development will not produce benefits for those most in need. Development needs to be based on a better understanding of local constraints and opportunities. All rural policies should have the protection and enhancement of the quality of the rural environment at their heart. This is imperative if rural communities are to continue to thrive.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we have passed the gap on the speaker's list and this debate is coming to an end. We have had a very good debate. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating it. The debate has produced all the usual suspects, one might say, and I amused myself at the beginning by writing down one topic which I knew each speaker in turn would produce. For instance, it does not need a great deal of deduction to deduce that organic farming would be mentioned by the noble Earl,

387
Lord Clanwilliam; that hunting would be mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the way in which landowners have been done down by bureaucrats would be mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. But all these aspects were parts of longer speeches which were unfortunately not long enough, but which have contributed a great deal to the subject.
The importance of Britain's rural economy cannot be over-emphasised. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, quoted some figures about how small the farming side of it is, and she is right. She went on to quote figures for employment in the hunting industry which made me think that almost everyone in the countryside must be in that industry.
The rural population of Britain is a very large part of our national life. The Countryside Business Group has produced a report, The Economic Significance of the British Countryside, by Professor Diamond and Dr. Richardson of the London School of Economics. It indicates that the rural areas of Britain comprise about 20 million people, which is about 35 per cent. of the total population. There are 6.5 million people employed in rural areas, which is about 30 per cent. of national employment. That is a very large part of our economy and our national life and it is a very good thing.
There are a great many things that we need to do and a great many changes that we wish to see. The reform of the CAP is something which almost goes without saying now when anyone talks about agriculture or the countryside. We on these Benches certainly subscribe to the view that the CAP must be reformed. But we should not forget that the common agricultural policy has virtually saved rural western Europe because without it there would not have been nearly as much real countryside in Germany, France, Italy and in this country as there is now. We should be grateful for that.
We should also be very careful before we say that we must not repopulate the countryside. During the past 150 years we have been depopulating it, so repopulating it will be something of a strain for everyone concerned. It is quite true that incomers can upset the status quo, but there must be a balance and people must learn that both sides must show tolerance to each other. Nevertheless, we want people in the countryside to revivify its whole economy. The noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, was one of those who said exactly that.
But there are a number of people, including those who are the pillars of the national parks, who seem to be resistant to the suggestion that we should repopulate the countryside. I am quite sure that we should do that if we are to have a healthy rural life and be able to produce the kind of services which people living in the countryside are entitled to ask for in a modern economy.
It is sad that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is not here to speak for the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It is also sad that a Bishop did not speak. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark does not represent the most appropriate see to speak about this matter, although it does extend to rural areas south of London, but we would have appreciated a contribution. Some have spoken about the importance of the work of the parish priests in the countryside and how very thinly spread they are at the moment.
388
My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie spoke about tax breaks for those living in remote rural areas. I believe that that should be considered because although everyone tends to think that it is cheap to live in the countryside it is not—and the more remote the area in which one lives, the more expensive it is. I was delighted to hear that my noble friend was going to grow bulbs in his part of the world. At the moment I get my snowdrops from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who brings them to the House. I look forward to competition from my noble friend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke about democracy. That is tremendously important. We want fewer quangos but much more elected democracy with devolved powers and a real ability to act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to the unions. My father's father sat on the Liberal Benches in another place. He was a friend of Joseph Arch and a real supporter of his work in those early days of the agricultural trade unions.
We need more small businesses in the countryside. We have been told that the days of the British slaughterhouse have gone. That may be so, but I was interested to hear the suggestions about travelling slaughterhouses. What are certainly needed are user-friendly slaughterhouses—if that is not a contradiction in terms—
Noble Lords: It is!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: No, I do not think that it is. I must not boast, but I was reading Kierkegaard this afternoon. He compared the deaths of Socrates and Jesus. One could say that Socrates had a very quiet and user-friendly death. What we should give the animals for which we care, but which we eat, is a user-friendly death.
As far as possible, we must build new houses on brownfield sites. I always think that that is a most unfortunate expression. Presumably "brown" land is the best arable land that one has just ploughed up. Anyway, we know what it means as opposed to what is meant by "greenfield" land. I think that we should build more and more on the "windfall sites" which appear from time to time in built-up areas.
We want lower chemical and energy use. We want to cash in on sun, water and wind energy. We want to build up town centres in the urban areas of our countryside. We want to preserve the country farm estates and to encourage small farmers wherever possible. It is good that this Session we have been able to support crofters in legislation. It is good to know that there is a waiting list of people who want crofts. That is extremely healthy. We must encourage local public transport initiatives. We must try to keep our village schools by the use of imaginative co-ordination, as happens in Dorset. If we are to make more houses available, I think that we should have full taxation—not extra taxation, but full taxation—of second homes. We must encourage rural business units.
Overall, in this overcrowded island, the problems caused by overcrowding could be helped if we were better to balance out the population of our island

389
between the cities and the countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, hinted that with regard to the treatment of the countryside the prospect of a Labour government did not fill him with an immense amount of confidence. I hope that a Labour government will treat the countryside well. On the evidence of what has been said today by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others on the Opposition Benches, that will indeed be the case. One thing I can pledge absolutely is that the Liberal Democrat Party, in so far as it has any influence at all, will use it in support of the countryside.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, as regards the common agricultural policy, I want to say only that such acquaintance as I have with the CAP convinces me that radical change will come only from external pressure and that it is unlikely to come from internal agreement.
Despite the United Kingdom's success in farming, partly due to our larger farms, as has been pointed out the farm labour force is still slowly declining, especially in terms of full-time workers. That adds to the rural problems on which so many noble Lords have touched. Environmental issues have never been more significant in the countryside. The CAP has responded, but not always to the satisfaction of all. Many CAP environmental projects are now co-funded; for example, the farm woodland premium scheme, introduced in 1988 to counter growing agricultural surpluses, is 50 per cent. funded by Brussels and now totals some 48,000 hectares in the UK. That benefits the landscape and wildlife.
Planning matters have a major influence on the rural economy. Planning Policy Guide No. 7 is now in place and is supportive of rural enterprise. However, the way in which it is interpreted will be a key factor for applicants. The new dimension in planning matters will flow from local government structural changes, such as the creation of the new unitary authorities. Those changes appear to have a random element; for example, ranging from no change, to the abolition of one county council, with the selective granting of unitary status to local authorities which will co-exist with county councils as did the former county boroughs. Time will tell whether those changes will improve matters. The role of county councils in local government is relatively unexplored territory, yet they seem well fitted to take an overview of environmental matters for areas as a whole.
Rural housing still presents major problems, especially in the rented sector. How will housing associations decide priorities in the light of the restrictions on expenditure? The Housing Corporation is also subject to strict budgetary limitations. New housing targets thus fall seriously short of need—and rural housing could lose out. A diminished role for local authorities as house providers seems especially regrettable in rural areas. Local authorities are good at land acquisition and some have capital receipts available from the sale of housing stocks. Pressures to concentrate housing development on brown sites and inner-town areas is strong, but rural economic development needs affordable rented housing. The Rural Development
390
Commission continues to do a good job, but needs new partners, especially following the expense of winding up its advisory services for small businesses.
Tough times are ahead for village shops and relief for non-domestic rates cannot come soon enough. General stores and post offices in rural settlements may be relieved of 50 per cent. of the amount otherwise payable in rates. Discretion is also to be given to billing authorities to relieve stores and post offices of the full amount, as well as other businesses in rural settlements, the purposes of which appear to the billing authorities to benefit the local community.
That opens the door to experiments with the establishment of community co-operatives. Expertise in that important area is available from the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. The Rural Development Commission must surely invite the United Kingdom Co-operative Council to attempt the formation of two or three community co-operatives. The beauty of that idea is that, if successful, it can be imitated by others. That happened in Rochdale in 1844 and could happen again today in suitable rural communities. A modest start could and should be made. Just think of the range of top level experience which the United Kingdom Co-operative Council can deploy in retailing, credit unions, housing, workers' co-operatives, banking, insurance, agriculture, fishing and building—"infinity" is the word here.
Much of the current bus service owes its existence and continuance to subsidy from local authorities. This applies in both town and country. Cash-strapped local authorities are now obliged to look hard and selectively at bus subsidies. Any reduction in rural timetables will seriously affect the quality of life for a vulnerable body of essential users who are unable to afford private cars. Post bus services have increased and further expansion is proposed by the Rural Development Commission. We strongly support it. However, are there no other sources worthy of examination? For example, are school buses always full? Their departure and return times on weekdays would benefit the elderly. A system of payment by tokens to be purchased at the village shop would eliminate delays in taking cash and giving change. To the best of my recollection, the daily pinta was traded on the basis of tokens quite successfully for many years. Some major city bus services now also use tokens to avoid delaying drivers. A successful community co-operative, perhaps with local authority assistance, might run small buses of the kind that some schools and other institutions now operate for leisure uses.
The Republic of Ireland has been a major beneficiary of European Union membership. Apart from giving it the status of membership of an economic group of world standing, the flow of Community cash to Dublin has played a large part in transforming life in both town and countryside. The blue flag with 12 stars flies happily alongside the green, white and gold. A journey any day along our own M.20 is replete with lorries bearing Irish names and addresses. Despite all this, Irish rural areas are also threatened with depopulation, mostly by the young, leading to decline. I read that village life in Ireland is being partly revived by the limited provision

391
of rural housing for skilled unemployed men and their families who are currently living in urban areas but who are without housing there. In some cases village school closures have been avoided by such transference. As always, the scale is modest but worthy of study.
The partnership role of the European Union in such matters is of increasing importance to the rural economy. Tonight's debate has been useful, but action is needed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply to the many comments that have been made in this constructive discussion this evening.
8.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for having introduced this debate today. It is a debate about a very important matter. True to form, your Lordships have presented views in a way that one would expect, views full of knowledge and interest. The countryside covers more than 75 per cent. of England in land terms and about 20 per cent. of the population live in it. What happens to the countryside and its economy is very important.
Various noble Lords have made a number of points. I do not guarantee to answer all of them this evening. I shall do my best to answer as many as I can. I was slightly amused by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. He made a number of comments and then decided to address questions to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, because he thought that his party might be in government in two months' time. I thought that if he addressed his questions to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, there was no point in my replying. I had always thought the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, a sensible and intelligent person but, my goodness, he is misguided and this evening has shown the weakness of his cranium. I can assure him that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and his party will not be in government in two months' time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Do you want to bet?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord opposite, the Chief Whip, loves making interjections from a sedentary position. I am not going to bet. It would be quite inappropriate for me to take a bet from the noble Lord across the Dispatch Box. That puts the noble Lord in his place. Fortunately, we have avoided a lot of the jargon, except for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Selborne. I thought that my noble friend would do better. He referred to a top-down approach. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to a bottom-up approach. Both expressions are absolutely dreadful. If anyone wants to reform the CAP he can start on the language. People use such absurd language and believe that they are very smart and that everyone knows what they are talking about. A short while ago I went to Cork to attend the conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. Somebody there referred to the need for "more interactivity across trans-sectoral boundaries". I have always believed it childish to talk like that. I have now got it off my chest. Although I did not expect to say it
392
to my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I have said it to both of them. I hope that we will not hear such expressions again.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also made a mistake. He does not usually make mistakes. He said that a brownfield site was land that had just been ploughed up. As a matter of fact, he is wrong. He does not know what it is. A brownfield site is recycled rural or urban land.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, that was the very point I made. The noble Earl misquotes me. I said that brownfield land was misdescribed and could be viewed as arable land. I knew perfectly well, as I thought I made clear, that brownfield land is exactly as the noble Earl has said.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in that case I apologise fully and profusely for misdirecting your Lordships as to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said. I thought that he had said what I said he had said.
The countryside and the people who live in it have seen the most enormous changes over the past few years or so. Traditional rural industries such as forestry and agriculture are no longer the mainstay of the economy of the countryside. Some industries like mining have declined; others such as light industry and small businesses have developed. Computers and faxes have enabled work that could previously be done only in towns to be done in the countryside. Various noble Lords have referred to that. Only a short while ago I visited a village hall that had been given help for rehabilitation by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth's Rural Development Commission. I asked the chairman what he did. He said that he was a German technical translator. When I asked what on earth he meant by that, he said that he translated technical journals from German into English and from English into German, and he did it all by faxes and computers. His job was right in the heart of rural Suffolk. That demonstrates how that kind of activity is taking place more and more in the countryside.
I saw another small business which was also assisted by the Rural Development Commission. It was an old pigsty that had been modernised and turned into a mail order business concerned with horse food supplements. It was doing colossal business all over the world and providing employment to the rural community. All of that is good.
In recent years rural enterprise has performed better than enterprise in urban areas. In general, the countryside has enjoyed higher growth than urban areas with lower levels of unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that unemployment in rural areas was greater than in urban areas. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that is not true. The number of economically active people in rural areas increased by 122,000 between the summer of 1992 and the summer of 1996, compared with a net increase in all of England of only 109,000. Economic activity is higher in rural areas than in England as a whole—82 per cent. in rural areas compared with 79.6 per cent. in England as a

393
whole. So employment-wise, oddly enough—I agree that one would not expect it—rural parts of the country have been doing better than urban parts.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was concerned about unemployment in Wales. With his great knowledge of Wales, I take note of what he said. I am not sure how the figures in Wales compare with those in the rest of the UK. Both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to affordable housing. The Government have recognised that there are special needs in rural areas for affordable housing. We have made various arrangements. There is an exceptions policy which allows planning permission for social housing on land which would not normally be given development approval. The Housing Corporation's rural programme targets small communities. Between 1989–90 and 1995–96 over 12,000 new rural social homes were approved. Small rural settlements will be exempted from the purchase grant scheme giving housing association tenants the right to buy. So those are all the things that are being done from the point of view of affordable housing.
Again, I shall take note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the particular problems experienced by the housing market in Wales, resulting from holiday homes and second homes, and his concerns about health services. I shall certainly draw them to the attention of my ministerial colleagues who have responsibility for Wales.
Some areas are experiencing major changes in the economic sectors upon which they have previously relied heavily. The published unemployment figures can, as my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth suggested, disguise local pockets of high unemployment as well as problems of part-time employment and low rates of seasonal work.
The beauty of the countryside and all that lives and moves within it is important to everyone, both urban and rural dwellers alike. That is why we published the White Paper in 1995 entitled Rural England—A nation committed to a living countryside. It was a comprehensive review of the countryside, the like of which had never been undertaken before. It tried to depict but not to dictate the way in which the countryside was likely to go. It was a major work. It was well received. I am glad to say that I see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, nodding assent. I think that he agrees with me. It was a very much better document than the one the Labour Party produced, but that is to be expected. It re-emphasised—we must never forget this—that the countryside is and always has been a place of work. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. She said that it must not be a dormitory; it must be a place of work. She said that it must not be a theme park. She is right. She always makes the most fascinating of speeches. I was glad to hear her stand up for the right of rural needs and views to be heard. I was glad to hear her support of fox hunting. She said that 16,000 jobs are created in it and 150,000 other jobs depend upon it.
394
Those jobs are carried out by good, respectable, honest people. It is good, respectable work, and, as such, the noble Baroness was right to draw attention to the fact that if hunting and what happens on grouse moors in Yorkshire and Scotland were to go, that would have a great impact on employment in the countryside. The only thing I found surprising about her speech was her conclusion when she said, "What we want is a government to change all that". She was probably referring to another part of her speech, but she was misguided in that respect and I think she was misguided—if I may say so—in the totality as well.
The White Paper proposed some direct government action including that relating to village shops. One sad fact is that the motor car tends to draw people away from villages to do their shopping in towns, and that has resulted in the loss of the village shop which, apart from its function as a purveyor of goods, is an important social centre. It is in order to encourage the continuation of a village shop that in the Local Government and Rating Bill we are introducing a 50 per cent. relief for single village shops in settlements of fewer than 3,000 people.
Indeed today I went to present a Calor Gas Rural Sponsorship Award which recognised the huge input of voluntary work into the countryside. Indeed, one of the awards I gave was to an organisation which was actually campaigning against the Government and planning and development. So noble Lords can see that we are very broadminded and we give people awards for campaigning against the Government. It went to that particular person, but I can assure noble Lords opposite that it would not go to them. They will have to do a lot better before they can get an award.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, showed—if I might say so—shadows of old Labour, but she was so right about the protestors. Of course bypasses are necessary. She described where her sister lives with all the vehicles rumbling through. Of course those places need bypasses. They are wanted by some and not wanted by others. There is a proper democratic process which should be gone through. When that has been gone through, it is right that the conclusion is pursued properly. Those people who disrupt such processes think that they are doing so for democratic reasons. They are not doing it for democratic reasons at all. It is entirely selfish and causes enormous expense. It disregards the democratic process and creates huge problems for the police and huge expense for the people in the locality. There is nothing to praise such people about for that.
The role of British farming as a direct employer in the countryside may be diminishing; nevertheless, it is a highly successful industry upon which many depend—consumers, food processors, suppliers of agricultural machinery and equipment, and others. I was concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden—here we go again—said that there should be a national minimum wage. Well, that would put the frighteners on anyone. I hope that noble Lords will not do that. The party opposite says very little about what it is going to do, but occasionally little bits of iceberg appear from out of the water. They cover a huge great iceberg underneath.

395
I can assure noble Lords that as the general election draws near we shall expose what is underneath the iceberg a little more than has been done so far. When the noble Lord says things like that, it puts the wind up me as it does anyone else who thinks about these things.
Any reform of the CAP must take account of the fact that agriculture is important. We need a CAP which ensures that agriculture in member states will be competitive in world markets. The CAP was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who was concerned to see the CAP change. I agree with much of what he said other than his remark that this Government are doing nothing and we must wait for the next government after May to do something about it. I am bound to say that the noble Lord is totally wrong over that because it is this Government who have been pursuing changes in the CAP time and time again year after year and trying to encourage our partners to do so.
For the past 23 years we have played a leading role in the Agriculture Council, invariably seeking constructive solutions to the many problems which arise. If, in his wildest dreams, the noble Lord thinks he may be on this side of the House shortly—it may be a dream to him but it is a nightmare to others—I can assure him his real problem will be trying to get his European partners to change. However, I agree with him that we should decouple from the price support mechanisms the cash that is required for social needs in the less favoured areas.
It is worth thinking about what will happen in the next few years. In 1960 there were 3,000 million people in the world. There are now 6,000 million. In another 25 years, the number will have doubled to 12,000 million. All those people will have to have food, water and houses and will have to be clothed and have jobs to do. Furthermore, we must preserve the countryside, the bugs, the beetles, sites of special scientific interest, the rain forests, the jungles and so forth. The pressures on the environment will be colossal. I respect the desire of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam for organic farming and say to him only that of course it has a place in the totality of things. However, he must consider how it will fit in with those alarming figures.
The CAP must encompass not only agriculture but also the economic and environmental needs of rural areas. I attended the conference referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at which there was a declaration covering a reformed, simplified, more decentralised CAP. We are a long way from having that accepted by Europe as a whole, but it reflected the Government's views.
The diversification of businesses in rural areas means that the countryside is less vulnerable to changes which might affect one particular sector. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the need for infrastructure development in Scottish rural areas. A Scottish Rural Partnership Fund came into effect on 1st April 1996 with £4.2 million for 1997–98, £1.5 million of which is new money. Furthermore, £1.2 million is offered as challenge funding to support innovative projects drawn
396
by local people which find new ways to tackle particular local problems, and £500,000 of the fund is available to local partnerships.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, referred to the taxation of rural business. That is a matter for Treasury Ministers. I understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the Country Landowners' Association on 22nd November explaining why this is a matter of fundamental tax policy and that so long as the rural business unit concept envisages landlords of rural estates receiving more generous tax treatment than other landlords, the message from the Treasury will be likely to remain in the negative.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to the closure of village schools. The number of closures of small village schools has been of concern to many people. The Secretary of State for Education, while pressing education authorities to be cost effective, accepts the need to preserve the accessibility of schooling for young children.
There are many other matters upon which I should have liked to divest my views, but time runs against us all. I merely thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for having introduced the debate, giving your Lordships time to discuss the matter. Perhaps I may tell him not to get too excited because he has a long, long way to go.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As always, they have clearly demonstrated the range of expertise and experience of countryside matters which your Lordships' House possesses.
All speakers, perhaps with the exception of the Minister, largely avoided polemics. I shall be charitable and presume that the noble Earl knows something that we do not know about the date of the election. Apart from the polemics, I greatly enjoyed the noble Earl's contribution. I could not help reflecting that if he was like that before he had his dinner I was jolly glad that he was not winding up after a convivial evening.
I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
8.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I declare my interest at the outset as a joint president, together with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who I am glad to see in his place—not perhaps his most accustomed—of the Association of London Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is a vice-president of the ALG, has sent her apologies for being unable to take part in the debate. However, the Bill has her support and we look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.

397
The Bill therefore has cross-party support. It is the latest in a long tradition of Bills promoted by London local authorities; a tradition which goes back to the 19th century.
I concede at once that the Bill is a good deal longer than most; indeed, it may be the longest Bill yet with 112 clauses and 70 pages. Certainly it is a formidable Bill. However, I can offer your Lordships some comfort in that by the time the Bill reaches the statute book it will be considerably shorter.
One relatively simple explanation is that the promoters intend to drop Part VIII dealing with business improvement districts. I shall comment on that in a few moments. The second reason is rather different, but it is of some interest and importance. London local authorities have traditionally used their powers to promote private legislation because they have been waiting for central government to legislate but, for whatever reason, time cannot be found for Public Bills. Some of those present tonight may remember our debate on the London Local Authorities Bill two or three years ago. It contained some important provisions about air quality. After a long campaign, in which I am happy to say I and a number of other noble Lords took part, that whole provision was taken up in what became the Environment Act 1995. Therefore, the provisions in the London Bill were withdrawn.
The Bill reflects a comparable campaigning motive; the fraud provisions in Part II. Encouragingly, those provisions have proved successful even before they have started their parliamentary passage. The preparations for this local government Bill began in November 1995 and the Department of Social Security was consulted on a draft as recently as last summer. At that stage there was not a glimmer in that department—not a twinkle in the eyes—that there was going to be a Public Bill to tackle fraud. Yet, in November 1996 it was announced in the Queen's Speech that there would be an anti-fraud Bill. It began its Committee stage in this House yesterday. Of course, it is no coincidence that the Bill covers many of the same areas. If the government Bill reaches the statute book, as everyone assuredly hopes, it will include the new powers for local authorities in relation to landlord fraud. Again, I can predict that Part II of the Bill can be made considerably shorter. A few of the provisions will be necessary because, for instance, the government Bill does not deal with the question of fraud in the education grants system.
There is a third reason why London local authorities seek new powers through private legislation; namely, many of the problems that they face are more serious or are particularly severe in London. Parking is a good example and Part III of the Bill amends earlier London legislation on the subject. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords are not too daunted by the size of the Bill because quite a lot of it will be dropped, and perhaps more if we can reach agreement on some of the matters. Nevertheless, it is a big Bill and has attracted 13 petitions as against one in respect of the Bill that I moved previously.
398
I turn to the Bill. It is promoted by Westminster City Council on behalf of the other London boroughs and the Corporation of London, although the borough of Barnet has decided not to participate as is its perfect right. Part I contains major definitions and the commencement provisions. I do not need to rehearse them tonight, although it is worth noting that some of the provisions come into force in an area only if there is a resolution of the council to that effect; for instance, Part VII on the licensing of buskers and Clause 100 on the transfer of school crossing patrols from the police to the boroughs.
Part II deals with the prevention of fraud and now overlaps to a substantial extent the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill. Assuming that that Bill reaches Royal Assent, it will take many of these provisions into national legislation and the promoters will be happy to amend Part II accordingly. There are one or two points of controversy. However, the Post Office has petitioned against the power to prevent it redirecting mail to another address. The London authorities are prepared to discuss with the Post Office ways of ensuring that their provisions do not conflict with the Government's provisions in their Bill.
The Home Office objects to Clause 17 which relates to powers to require information about previous convictions, including spent convictions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State already has powers to make equivalent provision himself by order and, as I have learnt, would consider a request by councils for regulations to be made. Here, again, it may be possible for the promoters to take out this part of the Bill, but I think that I would need a very clear assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to whether the Government would take such a request from local authorities seriously and, if so, can she tell the House whether such an order would be made?
Part III of the Bill covers parking and, as I said, clears up a number of anomalies and practical difficulties which have arisen since the boroughs took over most of that task from the Metropolitan Police. The new powers include the power to use remote cameras, the power to issue penalty notices by post, and clarification of powers to enforce the rules against double parking. They also make an assault on a parking attendant an arrestable offence. Intriguingly, there has to be a power for local authority officers to remove items from vehicles which have been towed away. An obvious example of that would be a live animal or perhaps something perishable such as a Camembert cheese—leave that in the sun for an hour or two and you will not be able to use your car for a week. I am told that in one case—and this is even worse than a cheese—a dead body had to be removed from a van which had been towed away. So the Bill introduces many new powers.
Part IV concerns public health and gives London local authorities stronger powers to take action against the dumping of waste in open spaces and on the highway and requires alleyways to be kept clean. I am a little surprised to see that London Regional Transport and Railtrack have petitioned against the Bill as it might be used by the boroughs to force them to keep their land clean; exactly so. I imagine that many noble Lords share

399
my dislike—indeed, shame—at the littered embankments and cuttings that have disfigured the railways in London for years. I, for one, look forward to seeing them cleaned up.
Part V deals with filming and I should perhaps address that in slightly more detail. It gives London authorities the general power to give assistance to film makers and to make reasonable charges; it will impose a requirement on film makers to give reasonable notice to the council of their intention to film on the highway or in a public open space in the control of the council; and it gives specific powers for authorities to close a highway for the purpose of filming. However, the latter power will be limited to a maximum of two 12-hour closures per month, except on specially-designated streets where there will be greater scope for closures. For those "special film streets", closure will be limited to no more than one 12-hour closure in any one day. For all streets, one day's notice will have to be given for closures of up to two hours and one week's notice for closures of a longer period.
The intention of all that is to help film makers and to give local authorities clear legal powers to help them. Recent cases in the courts have cast doubt on whether local authorities have such powers, especially the powers to close roads. Moreover, a recent government review of road traffic legislation proposed specific powers for local authorities to close roads for film making. Therefore, my honourable and right honourable friends in the Department of Transport recognise the problem.
However, the important point to make is that those provisions were drawn up at the request of, and in conjunction with, the London Film Commission, a body with both public and private sector support. The body was established,
"to promote and market London as a centre of excellence for film making".
The purpose of the provision is to help the industry, although of course the boroughs have to take account of the interests of their residents which is why limitations on the frequency of road closures and requirements for notice have been included.
Given the fact that the main film makers were behind the commission and supported it—indeed, some of them were involved in the consultations—the promoters were surprised to receive petitions against such provisions; for example, from the BBC and the Independent Television companies. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has already expressed his interest in that respect to me. It is surprising because they were all sponsors of the London Film Commission! The commission made strenuous efforts to consult the television companies on the drafting and I am told that the agents for the promoters were in direct contact with the BBC. I have a horrid suspicion that this is an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Indeed, the people talking to the London Film Commission must have been quite different from the people who decided to draft the petitions. The best way forward is clearly a meeting of all concerned and I am told that that has been arranged for, perhaps, a fortnight ahead. I can give the assurance that the boroughs are sensitive to the concerns
400
of the film industry and certainly hope to reach agreement on the details of this part of the Bill. In that event, I hope that the petitioners will be prepared to withdraw their petitions.
There are other petitioners; indeed, some provisions are opposed by the Open Spaces Society. Again, the promoters will be very happy to discuss the society's concerns, though perhaps it is really only concerned with the temporary closure of open spaces. London Regional Transport and Railtrack have concerns. There, again, the promoters will be happy to discuss such concerns with them. London Regional Transport seems to want a special exemption for buses. I have to say that if a Jane Austen novel, a costume drama, was being filmed in a London street, I am not sure that it would add to the verisimilitude to have a posse of No. 11 buses going down the street half way through the proceedings. I think that some people might find that a little strange.
Part VI deals with licensing in London. When I say "licensing", I am talking about theatres, nightclubs, dance halls, music places, and so on. The provisions are complex and I shall not go through them in detail. However, the desired effect is to close a loophole. A recent court case suggested that while the withdrawal of a licence, or its amendment, is under appeal, the licence can run on even after the length of time for which it was originally specified. Clearly that is an abuse and, indeed, has given the unscrupulous licence holders every incentive to drag out the proceedings for just as long as they can, without paying the fee and without being subject to changes in the conditions.
Clauses 59 to 62 and 65 contain other amendments to London Local Authorities Acts to clear up anomalies and loopholes. Clause 64 is the clause that has perhaps attracted most public attention and has certainly generated some petitions. The purpose of the clause is to amend the legislation governing the licensing of sex shops—again to close a loophole. Noble Lords will remember that under the general law the legislation bites on shops which sell sex objects "to a significant degree". Unscrupulous sex shop proprietors can evade the controls by the simple device of stocking large numbers of, for example, Jane Austen novels or other materials—some of them even stock Bibles. But of course those materials are not sold at all; they are there merely to enable the legislation to be evaded. The overwhelming bulk of the turnover is accounted for by the sales of sex related materials. I should have thought that most people would regard legislation to deal with that as entirely desirable.
However, the petitioners against the clause are concerned that it will catch newsagents who stock what are called "top shelf' titles as they are known in the trade. I have discovered to my interest and concern that a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses on both sides of the House know perfectly well what is meant by "top shelf' titles. The petitioners fear that this clause will bring newsagents under sex shop licensing controls. I can give a categorical assurance to those petitioners that it is not the intention of the promoters to catch bona fide newsagents with this clause. Moreover, the promoters are prepared to consider amendments to the clause if it can be shown that the clause as it stands

401
would bring newsagents who stock a few titles on their top shelf under the sex licensing legislation. I do not think that the petitioners could ask for a clearer assurance than that. I should add that my noble friends in the Home Office have given their support to those provisions. Of course there are some people who would like to see newsagents remove all such titles from their shelves. We may hear something of that tonight. However, that is not what is intended by this Bill.
Part VII deals with the licensing of buskers. In this part there are powers available to boroughs which choose to adopt them to require buskers to be licensed. Boroughs can specify in a licence the hours when buskers can perform and can impose conditions to prevent obstruction and nuisance. There are powers for borough officers to seize the instruments of unlicensed buskers. That may be necessary in extreme cases. Many of us enjoy buskers. They can enliven the streets and they can be lovely, but of course we do not have to spend all day listening to them. If local residents or people working in an area find one or a group of such people outside their premises one can imagine that they would take a different view. The intention behind the clause is not to stop busking—although some boroughs make take the view that it is not appropriate in some areas—but to try to prevent the activity becoming a nuisance. I think our streets should be lively, and lively street entertainment is part of the fun of the city, but we should have regard to residents. That is what this clause is intended to do. Again there are objections to these provisions but the promoters will be happy to discuss petitioners' concerns.
I said earlier that we were proposing to drop Part VIII which deals with the establishment of business improvement districts. This would allow businesses in a particular area to elect to pay a little extra to receive some extra improvements or services. The Association of London Government has decided to remove this part because it is opposed in principle by two of its own authorities. Clearly a Bill of this kind needs to have the support of all authorities. There are others, notably the City Corporation, who would like to see this matter debated. There are advantages and disadvantages to business improvement districts. To this end, at the suggestion of the City Corporation, next Tuesday I shall introduce a Private Member's Bill on business improvement districts which will substantially reflect the intentions of the provisions in this Bill, but will of course apply them nationally. I hope that there will be time before we disperse for the general election to have a Second Reading. I think it is a subject which deserves an airing and so I need say no more about it now.
Finally, Part IX contains a range of miscellaneous provisions. I shall deal only with one or two that have attracted some attention. Clause 99 deals with nuisance from birds. This tends to be referred to as the "pigeon clause". However, it is not only a question of pigeons, starlings, rooks and a number of other birds can also give rise to nuisance. This provision will give London authorities powers to require the owners or occupiers of structures fronting on, or overhanging, the highway to take measures to prevent the roosting of birds if this is
402
a source of nuisance to users of the highway. The most common nuisance is the danger posed to pedestrians who can slip on bird droppings.
The roosting of birds can present a public health risk. I see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is in his place. That does not surprise me because the clause has attracted petitions from the London Diocesan Fund, the British Railways Board, London Regional Transport and Railtrack. Those organisations, entirely understandably, are concerned about the potential costs to them of taking preventive measures. But pigeons in particular are a confounded nuisance and, I am afraid to say, the boroughs are unlikely to be able to offer much comfort because preventing such nuisance from birds is an issue of some importance to them and to their residents. Providing exemptions for some organisations and not for others would clearly be unfair so I fear that it is likely that the Select Committee to which I hope the Bill will go will be called upon to decide on the merits or otherwise of the clause.
Clause 101 deals with the transfer of churchyards. (We always seem to be tripping over the ecclesiastical authorities in these matters.) The clause will give boroughs powers to refuse to take over the maintenance of a churchyard unless the churchyard is handed over in decent order and they are paid a sum to cover future maintenance.
At present under the Local Government Act 1972, if a churchyard is closed, the parochial church council can transfer it to the local authority which will then be responsible for its future maintenance. That section of the Act has caused a good deal of trouble to certain London local authorities, in particular the London Borough of Redbridge, part of which I used to represent in another place, where a number of churchyards in a poor state of repair have been transferred in quick succession. Given the number of churchyards in the London area, this seems likely to become an increasing problem.
The London Diocesan Fund and others have petitioned against the provision. Their concern is the financial burden that is likely to be imposed on parish churches. However, the promoters have already had a meeting with representatives of the churches at which it was made clear that the principal concern of the boroughs is that churchyards should not be transferred unless they are in good order. It is the capital costs of bringing dilapidated churchyards up to scratch that is the real problem.
Following the discussions, the promoters are fairly confident that with good will on both sides a compromise can be reached which recognises the concerns of both parties. It is certainly their hope that this matter can be resolved before Committee stage.
I apologise for having spoken at such length, but given the bumper nature of the Bill, I am afraid that it was unavoidable. On that basis, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and I look forward to listening to the speeches of other noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to follow me. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as this is a private Bill it may be helpful if at this point I give the House the Government's view on it. I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Bill covers many different issues and several government departments are involved in the consideration of its proposals. Many points of detail have been taken up with the agents for the promoters, as have some points of greater substance. The agents are aware that the Government are concerned with some of the provisions in the Bill and the House might find it useful if I briefly touch upon those concerns.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin told us, the Bill contains a number of measures to counter benefit and related fraud. That is an objective which I am sure we all share. However, it will be important to avoid duplication or conflict with provisions in public legislation. I have in mind in particular the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill which covers some ground similar to that in the London Local Authorities Bill.
Clause 17 of the Bill seeks to make certain posts within local authorities in London exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The Government are not persuaded that such provision should be included in local legislation. First, this is an issue which is not particular to London but is one which may apply to many local authorities; and, secondly, there are other, better means of assessing the need for exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked me particularly about Clause 17. I must tell him that the Government can give no promises on the inclusion of these posts within an exceptions order. But all applications will be considered on their merits against well established criteria. Therefore, I invite the promoters to apply to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for inclusion of these posts in a new exceptions order.
The Police Bill that is presently before your Lordships' House contains provisions relating to criminal records, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will he considering applications for inclusion in a new exceptions order which will in due course be laid before Parliament.
On those clauses which seek to create an offence of assaulting parking attendants and park keepers, we have some concerns. These offences are already covered by the existing offence of common assault. Although it is not an arrestable offence at the moment, the Government have announced that they will make it an arrestable offence when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
The Government also have serious concerns about Part IV of the Bill on grounds of both policy and principle. The promoters and agents are aware of those concerns. We hope that further discussions with them will help resolve the concerns that we have in regard to the waste management licensing provisions and the duty of care proposals.
404
The setting aside of national legislation by a local enactment in the manner proposed by Clause 63 is not deregulatory. It could only obstruct the efforts being made by government departments to eliminate fire safety provisions from local Acts where there is national legislation.
The proposals in Clause 64 are intended to reverse the burden of proof for the offence of running a sex shop without a licence and place the onus on those businesses to show that they are not sex shops. They are also intended to lower the threshold of the definition of what is a sex shop. The Government sympathise with the Bill's aim of enabling the law to he enforced against unlicensed sex shops but will need to consider the drafting of the Bill more closely to see whether it will have the effect which is intended.
We also have concerns about the provisions contained in Clause 101 which seek to restrict the existing rights of parochial church councils. We believe that they will have a detrimental effect on the maintenance of churchyards in London.
Apart from those matters, the departments are taking their usual neutral stance on Private Bills. A Select Committee will be in a far better position to consider points of detail and to hear expert evidence on them. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way to a Select Committee for detailed consideration.
9.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing this Second Reading. I always enjoy the noble Lord's contributions to debates in this House and only regret that this evening I must take issue with him on two clauses of the Bill, for there are two clauses which, should they be enacted, will affect four dioceses of the Church of England: London, Chelmsford, Rochester and my own diocese, Southwark.
The vast majority of the clauses in the Bill are to be welcomed and do not directly concern us. However, Clause 99, dealing with nuisance from birds, and Clause 101, dealing with churchyards, have the potential to impose great expense on local congregations within the capital city.
My first concern is with the lack of consultation that occurred during the framing of those two clauses. Had consultation taken place, particularly through the Churches Main Committee, of which I am presently the Chair, I am certain that an agreeable way forward would have been achieved which would have preserved that sense of partnership so often displayed on matters where Church, local authority and central government matters are concerned. Such compromise would have saved your Lordships time and would have helped towards the more speedy passage of the remainder of the Bill through the parliamentary process.
However, that did not happen early enough—although I am pleased to hear that discussions have recently taken place. So we are faced as a Church with two problems. The first is in relation to the control of nuisance birds. The provision made in the Bill will

405
require parishes to introduce deterrents to birds that will be costly and, on some of our buildings, unsightly. It will also lead to the possibility of dispute between the administration of faculty jurisdiction under the Care of Churches Measure 1991 and this Bill. Your Lordships will be familiar with the requirement for parochial church councils to obtain permission through the granting of a faculty by the chancellor of the diocese for any work undertaken on Church buildings.
I have no objection to pigeons. They are as much part of the created order as I am. But one control which Clause 99 ignores is that of controlling the feeding of pigeons in the first place. I am delighted to learn that Westminster City Council has indicated its intention to do something about it in Trafalgar Square, but it is a city-wide issue. For local congregations to have to bear the cost of a public health problem on behalf of the local authority seems completely wrong.
Secondly, I refer to the more serious situation created by Clause 101. At present a closed churchyard can be transferred by a parochial church council to the care of the local authority under Section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972, merely by giving three months' notice, though in practice it is usual to give up to 12 months' notice. Clause 101 seeks to place conditions on the transfer which would be onerous on a parochial church council.
Paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) of the clause present us with serious problems. The conditions laid down in the two paragraphs are that the churchyard be in decent order when transferred to the care of a local authority, including the boundary wall and fences; and that the parochial church council provides the local authority with an endowment to provide for the future maintenance of the churchyard after its transference.
The reason for the present situation in which churchyards can be transferred to the care of the local authority is that they have been provided by the Church for the local community—not just for those who worship in the parish church but for the local community—without cost to the local authority for as long as there has been room for burials and in many cases for years after that has no longer been possible. Churchyards tend to be transferred when congregations are just not able to maintain them any longer, through lack of manpower or because of financial constraints. It is recognised that churchyards are amenity spaces; that they provide wildlife habitats in urban areas; and that they contain and represent that sense of history that so often enhances the feeling of local community.
The requirement that churchyards should be in decent order when transferred appears reasonable and I hope that on the majority of occasions that is already the case. But the legislation in the Bill would prevent local authorities taking over responsibility for the churchyards that have been allowed to become overgrown or whose boundaries are in a poor state of repair as a result of factors beyond a parish's control. That would result in some churches and congregations being locked into a Catch-22 situation of not being able to care for their
406
churchyard and at the same time being unable to transfer its care because they cannot maintain it to an acceptable standard.
The second section requiring a parish to give an endowment to the local authority on the transference of a churchyard is wholly unacceptable to the Church. It is simply inappropriate to ask a group of worshippers to find monetary resources to fund both the past and the present. I believe strongly that the Church, in providing areas for burial and so relieving local authorities of the necessity of having to do so in many places, should not have to bear for ever the cost of maintaining them. To require endowments is mean-spirited and denies the generous contribution that local congregations have made over centuries in providing churchyards for the local community.
Your Lordships will, I hope, recall that I began by regretting the lack of consultation in the drafting of the Bill. Clause 101, with a little care, could have been worked on to continue a real and harmonious relationship between local churches and their local authorities. The Bill is in danger of seriously jeopardising the future of our churchyards and harms that relationship in the process.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government—I am encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said—will look again at these two clauses before an intolerable position is created for the parishes in London. I fear as well that, should the Bill as it stands become law, it will not be long before Clause 101 in particular is applied across the country, with devastating effects on our congregations in rural communities.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for the detailed explanation he gave. I must declare an interest in that I have been a lifelong supporter of railways, a consequence of which is that I have a few shares in Railtrack Plc. Also, I had the pleasure and privilege of being a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
I know that this House does not customarily oppose Bills, particularly Private Bills, at the Second Reading stage. However, I have been asked by Railtrack to express its concern at some of the provisions of this Bill. In Railtrack's opinion, those provisions have not been given proper consideration as to the adverse consequences that will flow from them so far as the railway industry is concerned. Perhaps I may briefly outline Railtrack's concerns. There are three in particular.
First, Part IV of the Bill would confer on all London borough councils, except for the London Borough of Barnet, and on the City of London Corporation extensive new powers of entry to control waste on land belonging to third parties and situated in the areas of those councils. That land would include operational land of Railtrack, such as its station approaches, land comprising or adjoining station car-parks and its lineside railway land. While I recognise that in some places a

407
problem exists, each council would have power to specify the standards and frequency at which that land should be swept and cleansed. Each council would be able to enter on that land to enforce those powers. However, the Bill contains nothing to ensure consistency in the standards and frequencies to be specified by any particular council. As a result, Railtrack could be put to considerable and unnecessary expense in complying with a patchwork of different standards which might be applied throughout almost the whole of Greater London.
As matters now stand, litter and refuse clearance on railway land is regulated by a code of practice issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by a number of government departments, including the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport. The terms of that code are enforced by Railtrack under guidelines which it has issued to its managers.
Consultations were initiated in November 1996 by the Department of the Environment to produce a revised and more comprehensive code. Those consultations were concluded in late January this year and I understand that it is expected that the revised code will be issued in April this year. Railtrack believes that the code provides an effective means of controlling waste on a national basis and that there is no need for the patchwork of controls which would be introduced by Part IV of the Bill.
Quite apart from its other concerns, Railtrack greatly objects to council employees, who would have little or no knowledge of the hazards to be encountered on railway land, having powers to enter on that land. Apart from the danger which those employees might encounter, their entry on operational railway land would almost certainly cause delay or disruption to the services provided by the train operating companies.
The second concern of Railtrack relates to film making. Clause 48 of the Bill would enable the councils which I have just mentioned to close highways, including highways providing access to railway stations, goods yards and railway depots. What is more, a film maker would be given powers to erect barriers to regulate the movement of pedestrians or vehicles on highways. Such barriers could prevent or obstruct access to and from railway stations, goods yards or depots owned by Railtrack and other railway operating companies. Your Lordships will appreciate that, however desirable it may be that film makers should make use of London as a location for their films, the operation of the railways in Greater London must come first. In other words, Clause 48 should be amended to ensure that its provisions cannot be invoked so as to disrupt the operation of the railway system.
Thirdly, Clause 99 of the Bill would confer powers on those London borough councils to control nuisances arising from the nesting and roosting of birds on various buildings, including operational railway buildings and bridges which Railtrack has a statutory duty to maintain.
Naturally, Railtrack fully accepts that nuisances caused by nesting and roosting birds are undesirable. Railtrack has co-operated with those councils to enable the councils to take preventive measures against such nuisances; and
408
I can assure your Lordships that Railtrack has every intention of continuing to co-operate with those councils to prevent such nuisances. Nevertheless, Railtrack is concerned that the powers being sought by the councils could conflict with Railtrack's existing duties with regard to listed buildings and other structures and to other statutory obligations imposed on Railtrack under local legislation. Once again, the requirements which could be imposed on Railtrack could be both patchwork and inconsistent with each other. What is more, there is no appeals procedure against the imposition of those requirements. Those are real concerns, especially in relation to the need to protect council employees from going on to highly dangerous operational railway lands and the attendant risk of delay and disruption to railway services.
Railtrack and other railway operators have deposited petitions against the Bill. I very much hope that, when the Select Committee considers this debate and those petitions, it will pay careful attention to the concerns of Railtrack and those other operators; and that, in consequence, amendments will be made to the Bill to deal with those concerns.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for bringing this Bill to the House on behalf of the Westminster City Council. I do not wish to delay the House for long, but I wish to thank the proposers of the Bill for including Clause 64 in Part VI on licensing. Clause 64 is intended to stop bogus bookshops in Soho and elsewhere from evading the purchase of a sex shop licence. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is desirable.
The Bill proposes amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which says that a licence will be needed if a shop stocks,
"more than a trifling degree",
of sex articles. I know there is some dispute about whether the clause will affect newsagents in the London boroughs so that they will need a licence if they stock pornography. But if one should walk into a newsagent with 40 different pornographic titles one may well wonder whether one has not inadvertently walked into a sex shop. If "more than a trifling degree" of their turnover comes from sex-related material, there may be an argument for making sure that they are licensed. For instance, I would not want to see the bogus bookshops turn into bogus newsagents as a means of getting around the legislation.
We know what the proposers intend by the phrase "more than trifling" but I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Jenkin can tell the House how it is intended to be applied so that the new provisions are not abused by either the local authorities or those running sex shops. I thank him again for bringing forward the Bill.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, in rising to express my concerns about the implications of Part IV of the Bill for the railway industry, I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the panel which judges the Railway Station of the Year competition.
Some 7,000 miles of rail travel during January and February last gives one a fair idea of the way that the railway operators are tackling station litter and also the much more serious problem of trackside waste. It also enables me to congratulate King's Cross on becoming Station of the Year and thus gives me the opportunity to praise an earlier London Local Authorities Act which gave powers to British Telecom to cut off the phone lines of those ladies of the night who used station phone boxes as the preferred media by which to promote their wares. The impact of that legislation, which took three or four years, was particularly strong in the King's Cross area.
There are two dimensions to the litter problem on the railways. The first is litter left on stations by the great British public. We are, all too often, untidy, and stations, like many other places to which the public has access, have an additional problem arising out of the present security situation. Notwithstanding these facts, my fellow judges and I found that the train operating companies and Railtrack were doing a good job in keeping stations clean.
Much more insidious is the problem of trackside refuse and waste left by third parties on railway embankments, in cuttings or on other railway land. Extreme examples are cars which from time to time are left on the track itself, causing accidents—near Workington in 1990 and in the Cotswolds only last month. Travel by train and one will see televisions, mattresses, sofas, traffic cones, supermarket trolleys and other material which should be cut off at source by the local authorities. In one clean-up operation near Shrewsbury, British Rail removed no less than 34 tonnes of domestic refuse. Fly tipping is also a problem.
The Bill suggests that the solution lies in the boroughs entering the relevant land and cleaning up at the expense of the operators who, I presume, would be one or more of Railtrack, London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway, the train operating company or British Rail itself, which still has residual responsibilities. I cannot readily accept the proposal.
Railways are very dangerous places and access to their land is subject to strict safety controls. Amplifying what my noble friend Lord Cadman said, lineside access is forbidden to all except those in possession of a personal track safety certificate while such work can only be carried out under the supervision of staff certificated as competent to be a person in charge of the work. One such person killed in the line of duty is one too many. There is, alas, more than one such fatality each year; and that is with people qualified in the way I have just described. I doubt whether any local authority has such people in its employ.
My second objection is that the powers sought are unnecessary. Again, as my noble friend Lord Cadman said, the problem is already governed by a code of
410
practice set up under the 1990 Act. I have some interest in this dimension of the Act. The code of practice gives the local authorities powers to compel the cleaning up of litter and refuse by means of abatement orders. Such orders can cover track, stations, forecourts, approach roads, car parks and, in the case of stations operated by train operating companies, track up to 200 yards from the platform ends, which seems to me fairly all embracing.
My third objection is more modest. Recognising the existing problem, the Department of Transport is already consulting Railtrack and other successor bodies to British Rail about the litter duty which applied under the 1990 Act to British Rail and how the duty can be transferred to the relevant successor bodies. My source for that is a Written Answer in another place (at col. 502 of the Official Report) on 3rd March. It seems to me that central government are already tackling the problem or are seeking to find a solution.
Lastly, I wonder whether the necessity for this legislative proposal does not smack of Argentina and the Falklands, if I may be very blunt. The local authorities are diverting attention from their own shortcomings by seeking to go elsewhere. I say that because if local authorities were fulfilling their waste collection and disposal duties properly a good deal of the material we are discussing, and which so upsets my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, would not find its way onto railway land in the first place.
9.44 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his very helpful explanation, which I certainly appreciated because it gave me a lot more of the background to this Bill. In supporting it I should like to make a few scattered and fairly brief comments.
As regards Part II of the Bill, I was quite surprised that so much of it, particularly Clause 8, was not already part of the law. If a great deal of it is to be added by a central Bill, that would be very helpful.
As regards Part IV of the Bill, I would favour anything that helps to make this city a cleaner place to live in. Some capital cities overseas seem to have a higher standard than we do. I believe that the City of Westminster itself undertakes a lot of cleaning because I see many people cleaning the streets. But if the result is that the city becomes a cleaner place in which we can live, I strongly support that measure.
I turn to Part V of the Bill. If there is a dispute between film makers and residents, the question of notice, which my noble friend amplified, seems to be the answer. It is important to protect residents so that they know what is going to happen. If there is good communication between the local authority and residents so it is clear when highways are going to be closed for a limited time, then half the problem is overcome.
As regards Clause 64, which has been mentioned, I warmly support its principle. I hope that nothing will be done to change the effect of what the promoters intend. Whether the word "trivial" is right or not, I do

411
not know. In answer to what my noble friend Lord Ashbourne asked, I take that to mean that if one sees three magazines of the "Playboy" type on a top shelf out of, say, 150 different magazines on display, I would regard that as trivial. That is what I assume the promoters mean. I hope that the law will so decide although I am well aware that very clever banisters are able to make nonsense of that sort of word.
The right reverend Prelate asked a question about Clause 99 and perhaps I may add a question of my own. The normal means of preventing pigeons from alighting is a strip of wire of some sort. I wonder whether that displayed on churches and other ancient monuments would come into conflict with the views of English Heritage. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Jenkin can answer that question when he replies.
As regards Clause 101, I did not quite understand from what the right reverend Prelate said why the deterioration of a graveyard can take place due to factors outside the responsibility of the relevant parish. I thought he was going to say that it was because only about seven people attended the church and they could not possibly afford it, but there may be other factors which the right reverend Prelate did not make clear to me.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, one factor that immediately comes to mind is vandalism.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I understand that and I am grateful for that explanation. But I believe that it is still the responsibility of the owners of the graveyard to protect against vandalism. That is a problem which every public corporation has to cope with. The question of whether a local authority should pay needs further discussion and I shall not adjudicate on it. If there is a shortage of people in the parish then I hope that he will promote church plants into those churches that are having problems of finance. I warmly commend this Bill and I hope that it will go successfully to the Select Committee.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for allowing me to speak briefly in the gap. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing the Bill. I should like to speak briefly to Clause 64 which relates to the licensing of newsagents. I believe that it is well known that soft porn is definitely part of the package which is supplied by wholesalers to newsagents. We all know that the Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport are registered as newspapers and can be sold by newsagents because they contain the minimum one-third national or international news.
My concern, and that, I am sure, of everybody in this country, is that boys and girls aged 10 or even younger deliver those newspapers and have the opportunity to flip through them. It is daring to do so. They want to be more "streetwise" than their peers. It is tremendous to be able to get from such newspapers the addresses from which hard porn videos are advertised. Of course, they can do that just as easily by going through unlicensed
412
sex shops in such places as Soho or by using the Internet system, should they have access to it. I understand that schools are encouraged to present such technological advancement to their students.
Perhaps it can be understood why this Bill should be applauded by everyone in this country as well as in another place, and why all parties should agree to review the Obscene Publications Act 1959, when one recalls Dr. David Goldberg's report on London's mental health, which showed that this city, which the Bill hopes to clean up, has 70 per cent. of the AIDS cases that are notified nationally. I support Clause 64 and the Bill wholeheartedly.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise to my feet in place of my noble friend Lady Hamwee who normally speaks from this Bench on such matters. I am grateful for the comments made about that by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Like my noble friend, I support the main provisions of this Bill.
I notice that there is a certain restlessness on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps it is felt that the hour is late, so I shall be brief. I am enabled to do that because of the very full introduction to the Bill which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and because other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, who is temporarily out of the Chamber, have spoken so well. The noble Baroness made a good response on behalf of the Government.
I turn first to the anti-fraud provisions. An interesting debate, and one on which we have not yet touched, may concern those clauses which relate to fraud in the education sector, and particularly as regards nursery vouchers. Over the year nursery vouchers can amount to over £1,000 per child. It will be interesting to see whether the fears which have been expressed that nursery vouchers may become the subject of fraudulent dealing will be realised. As Bills generally take quite some time to go through not only your Lordships' House but Parliament as a whole, perhaps we shall learn later whether that fear has been proved real.
I am particularly interested in the enforcement of the waste control provisions. Although I listened with great attention to the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Cadman, my feeling is still very much in line with what was expressed earlier—namely, that if the railway authorities and the operating companies do not want strangers entering their land to execute orders for cleanliness, it is up to them, as major landowners in this country, and in this city in particular, to ensure that their land is kept clean. The days when the rail authorities could exempt themselves from whole tranches of duties which others had to fulfil simply by saying that it was too dangerous, too difficult or too likely to interrupt their operations are now past. We need a cleaner town and country. I very much support these provisions and hope that a way can be found to take them forward into the final deliberations on this Bill.
However, I felt a certain amount of sympathy for the spirited defence of his parishes by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. There are problems

413
here. It is important that these churchyards pass into public hands in relatively good condition. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, suggested in his introductory remarks—he will correct me if I am wrong—that if that was secure, less importance would be given to the need to provide an endowment. I believe that it is asking a lot of a parish to endow a piece of land for the indefinite future for upkeep purposes. I believe that that will give rise to a very interesting series of discussions, and a balance must be struck on that issue.
As to the nuisance from birds and so forth, here my heart is very much with the Bill rather than those who have voiced objections to it, interesting and understandable though some of them have been. If my tree overhangs a highway and somebody must enter upon my land to cut bits off it, I must pay for that because it is a nuisance that I have caused. It is generally recognised that if one causes a nuisance on a highway one is responsible for curing it. If there are simpler and cheaper ways of preventing the nuisance from birds, they should be given the greatest possible prominence. I appreciate the cost implications and fears, but I believe that a compromise can be reached.
I shall not speak any longer. There are many others in this House who know a great deal more about this matter than I do. There are many aspects of legislation or the opportunities and powers given to authorities in London which as a representative of another authority in the shire counties—I am not here in that capacity—I wish could be extended to my authority. I believe that London has often led the way in local authority legislative provision. I wish this Bill well. I would be interested in having a chance to take part in later discussions on it at Committee stage.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by warmly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, not merely for his presence and the duty he has performed, but for the excellent way he explained the Bill most fully—that is no criticism—so that noble Lords are well equipped to deal with it. I am also delighted to see the Government Chief Whip in his place, as he often is late at night. It is our intention to return him to the bosom of his friends as quickly as possible. I did not say "boozing". I did not realise that this debate was as important as it was until he decided to join us, and for that I am very grateful.
Of course, the House is familiar with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in local government, in London affairs and in this place. He and I have the great privilege to be joint presidents of the Association of London Government. My credentials go back more than 30 years to the time when I was the leader of a London borough. We are well familiar with the fact that a central body in London in effect is the vehicle that is used by all other boroughs. In this instance the lead borough is Westminster in whose name this matter is being carried forward. Nevertheless, the House will understand, as do those who follow these matters, that the Bill is
414
substantially a response by the ALG to the needs and desires of individual boroughs about matters which require legislative change.
I have looked through my papers and I see that many other bodies have suggested to the ALG that they would like to use the Bill as a vehicle to promote their interests. That is the general situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, in a most apposite speech, when we speak on private measures from the Front Bench on either side of the House, we make it clear that while we may have individual views and experiences—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is well experienced in matters relating to London local government—we are neutral. We do not participate politically. That is the present position.
The first piece of good news we received from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was that it is the promoter's intention, on reflection, voluntarily to reduce the size of the Bill. That will make it a better Bill, because, as he said, it is large. No part of the Bill has escaped comment or criticism. The good news is that with a promoter such as the ALG, which is sensitive to the needs of the people concerned and is aware of our procedures whereby a Select Committee of Members of the House will take as long as is necessary to listen to the petitioners, there is every chance that when we get the Bill back here—whenever that might be—it should be in a form which is acceptable not merely to this House but to those who seek to influence the matter.
I wish to reinforce one or two of the matters that have been raised. There are clauses relating to fraud against local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that no one would oppose any measures taken nationally or in this Bill to deal with that problem. I am a little uneasy that matters which should properly be the province of national legislation will be legislated for in the Bill. I am not arguing against the need for the measures or querying the problems or the costs caused to local authorities, but one must be careful when defining the areas of demarcation which should exist. In Committee such matters will be teased out.
All of us in local government know that parking, street cleaning and nuisances are controversial. In general, the provisions contained in the Bill are an honest attempt to deal with known hurts and the distress caused to local people. I applaud the promoter's intentions in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, took great care and time to explain the clause that deals with the film industry. Like him, I looked at my papers. I am still puzzled as to how something which was promoted in effect by the consortium which is designed to be the voice of the film industry, and which, as I understand it, sought the co-operation of the ALG and Westminster to do so, is now questioning it. Clearly as a petitioner, it will be making its views known. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to my noble friend Lord Hollick who of course has interests in that sphere. He drew my attention to the fact that what he said was undoubtedly a hot potato for the film industry. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the discussions.

415
The views that I was given are trenchant and are not merely idle criticisms. I am told that the proposal relating to regulating and controlling licensing notices is unnecessary. Someone wrote to me saying:
"I have worked in television for nearly 15 years. In all that time I have never known an issue to arise of there being a problem about us filming on a highway or public open space in London. Programme makers are not stupid people. We do not set up our cameras in the middle of the pavement in Oxford Street on Christmas Eve, and, if we did, as far as I am aware powers already exist to move us on for causing an obstruction. I cannot imagine not complying with a reasonable request to move".
My correspondent goes on:
"Finally, there are serious civil liberties issues involved here. It is not for local authority bureaucrats to decide when and where the press should be free".
All that makes for an interesting Committee stage. People are entitled to feel strongly, especially when their livelihoods are affected. That has been established on more than one occasion tonight.
I join the general support around the House for Clause 64, which deals with what are called sex establishments. I acknowledge the right of those who make a profit from such establishments to point out their objections. However, I believe that the intention of the Bill to deal with what could be an abuse is well supported and validated.
My noble friend Lady Nicol, who cannot be here, has drawn my attention to the observations of the Open Space Society. It raises concerns surrounding the provisions relating to the film industry and busking. They were dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Its main concern related to Clause 101. I acknowledge the vested interests rightly and properly represented by the right reverend Prelate. The Bill seeks to turn around the 1972 legislation under which the local authority, whether or not it was able or wanted to, had to give three months notice as regards its liability to look after a redundant graveyard. We are looking at the situation 25 years later. If the argument is that parishioners are now less able to look after them, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that it is more difficult for local authorities to bear the burden in 1997 than it was in 1972. Local authorities have little cash.
I was pleased to note that a solution might be found as regards time. I understand that there has been a lack of consultation, but I know nothing about that. Clearly, better consultation might have produced a better clause, but I can see many ratepayers who, faced with the choice of accepting the liability, will say to their Members of Parliament and local councillors, "No, we will not". A problem then arises. Not far from here, Westminster Council has a history of disposing of churchyards and at what cost. No solution has been put forward in the Chamber tonight. Experience and a recognition of the problems of the Churches and local authorities should enable progress to be made.
Of course, the debate on churchyards is a grave issue—I could not resist that one, as the House will understand—and other matters will need to be considered. However, for my part, and I do not speak for my party in such matters, I am delighted to have the chance to speak. I congratulate the promoters, those
416
responsible for London government, on the fact that they are genuinely trying to produce better legislation and a better London. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has done us a signal service in so very carefully taking us thus far. I hope that this repertory company will reassemble whenever the Third Reading takes place and that we will find a better Bill than the one now before us. However, I have to say at this stage that it is a pretty good Bill.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I spoke at some length when introducing the Bill but I can promise the House that I shall be extremely brief in concluding, not least because I have to speak at a breakfast meeting at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning. I listened to the debate and am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part. Subject to one or two points to which I may refer, it is my impression that no matter was raised which could not be resolved by discussion or which could not properly be put to a Select Committee. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that, having spoken on Second Reading, I do not believe that she will be eligible to sit as a member of the Select Committee. I hate to have to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I fear that that is a rule of the House.
The point that concerned me most was one that was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton; namely, the suggestion that there had been a lack of full consultation on the part of the promoters before the Bill was introduced. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I have no knowledge of that and, therefore, I cannot comment upon it. However, I can say that if that is indeed the case—and I accept without question that that is the view that has been put to the right reverend Prelate and to my noble friend Lord Cadman—I regard that as a matter of regret. This sort of legislation is likely to make much more satisfactory progress if all those who will he affected have an opportunity not only to consider the suggestions in general but also to consider the drafting.
I was also concerned by the anxieties expressed by the right reverend Prelate. I am not sure that I am as worried about his concerns regarding birds as I am about churchyards. The latter is an issue of considerable antiquity and complexity. It is a fact that I was for some two years the Minister for churchyards. Indeed, I discovered that that was part of my responsibilities as Secretary of State for the Environment. It may be of interest to the House to know that that responsibility is now held by the Home Office. All I can say is that I congratulate my successors in the Department of the Environment on having got rid of it. However, I do realise that it is a complicated matter.
I have some sympathy, like others, with the worries of the right reverend Prelate about endowments. On the question of putting the churchyards in order, as I understand it, the discussions which will take place seem likely to reach a reasonable compromise. However, I have no doubt that those who are promoting the Bill will give careful regard to what the right reverend Prelate said about endowments. There must be many parishes for which such a prospect would make

417
the situation totally impossible—as the right reverend Prelate put it, the catch-22 situation. Therefore, without having any authority, so to speak, to offer concessions on the matter, I have no doubt that the points will be considered.
I turn now to the question of birds. I was asked whether Clause 99 might result in works being requested to listed buildings. Clearly the London boroughs would wish to consult English Heritage in such circumstances. If an amendment is necessary to ensure that that happens, I have no doubt that that, too, will be considered.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned faculties and the need to get permission for works. That, again, is a matter where I tread with all the delicacy of an angel on the point of a needle because it is immensely complicated. I am sure that these matters must be discussed and there must be a proper understanding on both sides. There is a genuine problem with birds, not just pigeons as I have said, but also with sparrows. All those who are affected by that problem must take it into account. As we know, this problem is particularly acute in London; it is a scourge in London. I welcome what was said about the actions the City of Westminster is taking in relation to Trafalgar Square.
Reference has been made to the fact that it is the feeding of these birds which causes the problem. I am the chairman of a company and when I arrive at my office in the morning I am sometimes ashamed to find that someone—perhaps someone in a neighbouring restaurant—has scattered bits of bread all over the alleyway and there are hundreds of pigeons eating it. We must try to discourage that sort of thing.
As regards the provision in the Bill to deal with sex shops, I can only reiterate what I have already said; namely, it is not the intention to bring the ordinary newsagent who stocks a few "top shelf" titles within the ambit of legislation on sex shops. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and others, some people might wish that newsagents did not even stock those titles. However, the real mischief is caused by shops whose prime purpose is to purvey sex objects. Licensing is necessary for those shops. In those cases a number of conditions can be imposed which materially reduce offence to the public, such as blank windows and various other measures such as warnings. However, in the last resort I suggest that in the final decade of the 20th century it is quite unrealistic to imagine that we can protect all people in all places for all time against the risk of seeing some of these publications. They are about and they are demanded. What is intended in this
418
Bill is to regulate effectively the more serious cases. I think that would have the support of the vast majority of people.
My noble friend on the Front Bench did not go quite as far as I would have liked in relation to my request about giving details of convictions as regards certain posts as part of the battle against fraud, but she clearly indicated that if requests were made to bring those posts within the legislation they would be considered sympathetically and judged according to the criteria that apply to everyone else. I have no doubt that local authorities will wish to note her words carefully. I believe she has gone some way to meet the case that was made.
I should say a few words about the railways. Railtrack and London Regional Transport may in the end need to argue their case before the Select Committee. I detected if not old Labour certainly "old railways" in the attitude that nothing must ever be allowed to interfere with anything that the railways do. We all accept that safety measures must be put in place. Local authorities will be happy to discuss any questions of safety. The obvious solution is that railway companies should clear up their own rubbish. Of course they have not deposited that rubbish but, equally, local authorities have not deposited the rubbish that clutters the streets but they clear it up nonetheless. If rubbish is deposited on private property, as it were, the owners of that property should take steps to clear it up. I hope that Railtrack and London Regional Transport and the Docklands Light Railway—however, the latter is much less seriously affected by this problem for obvious reasons—will take this responsibility seriously and will be prepared to recognise the pressure that lies behind this measure and the desire that they should take steps to clean up their act. I find it shaming to come into London by train and to see the appalling refuse that litters the cuttings. It is not a good advertisement for London. I believe that legislation is needed to put matters right.
I hope that the Bill will be allowed to go to the Select Committee. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading tonight and that the concerns, all of which have been properly expressed and of which proper note will be taken, will be examined and argued over, with decisions reached. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, if the Bill requires improvements, they will be made and the measure will come back to the House at a later stage.
I hope that the Bill will be read a second time. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.