Lords Sitting of 26 November 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 Exeter.

ME: Diagnosis and Treatment
2.38 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current advice upon which general medical practitioners base their diagnosis and treatment for the illness myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) or, as known by some psychiatrists, chronic fatigue syndrome.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I first congratulate the noble Baroness on being the Peer of the year. I am sure that all noble Lords would like to join me in congratulating her on her extraordinarily successful work in so many fields of healthcare.
With all her expertise, I am sure that in relation to this Question the noble Baroness is aware that there is no single diagnostic test for ME. This means that diagnosis is often made by eliminating other possible conditions through a series of specific tests. The causes of ME are not fully understood, nor is there a generally agreed method of treatment. Treatment to relieve the wide variety of symptoms which may present and which patients can experience is therefore a matter for individual doctors to decide in consultation with their patients.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness and the House for their support. The past five years have been a long, hard struggle for me and I appreciate the support that I have received from all parts of the House.
Is the Minister aware that most GPs and many health authorities rely on the report of the Royal Colleges, No. CR54, for diagnosis and treatment of ME, which not only causes a tremendous amount of ill health, pain and moral disappointment to patients with ME but also prevents them from receiving disability benefit? Will the Minister look once again at this report—I know she has been asked to do so many times—with a view to having it withdrawn?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I accept the noble Baroness's point that a number of people have received unsympathetic responses on first approaching their general practitioners about this condition. However, as she will be aware, both the report of the medical Royal Colleges and that of the national task force on CFS and ME—which was more of a
992
voluntary-sector based activity—endorsed what I believe is generally known as the bio-psycho-social approach to diagnosis, which means that there is no polarised position between this being a psychological or a medical disease but that it is something which needs to be handled in a holistic way. As I said in reply to the noble Baroness's first Question, that means that there will be a variety of different treatments, depending on the patient.
The noble Baroness will be aware that entitlement to disability living allowance does not depend upon a particular illness or disease but upon the effects of disability on a person's life.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many hundreds of people suffering from this disability in one form or another? Can she tell the House what research is being undertaken into ME?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes, we are aware of that. It is generally said that several thousand people have this unfortunate condition, in whatever manifestation it occurs. Through their research and development programme, the Government are funding research projects in this area, perhaps the most important and significant of which is looking at general practice in relation to the syndrome.
Lord Addington: My Lords, would it not be sensible to give guidance to doctors to the effect that they should examine patients to see whether there is a medical cause for the condition such as, for instance, organophosphate poisoning—which has been frequently referred to in the past—as opposed to a psychological cause? In other words, the medical condition should be looked at first. If a patient is misdiagnosed and psychological help is given to someone with a medical condition, that will not only waste considerable amounts of money but will inflict problem upon problem on those who are misdiagnosed.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect me to give a clinical judgment on this complicated condition. I can only refer to the previous answer I gave. My understanding is that the general guidance given to general practitioners is that this is not something which should be looked at as exclusively a medical or a psychological condition but that the best approach to therapy is a holistic one.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I welcome the carefully balanced answer that the Minister has given. As one who has observed the serious nature of this illness in my family and among others, let me say how welcome it is that she accepts that not all these cases are psychiatric; there are undoubtedly many cases which have direct physical causes. One of the most important ways of dealing with the problem is thorough and careful diagnosis by the medical profession and, where possible, early treatment. There is clear evidence that where the problem is tackled early there is much more likely to be a cure.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for underlining what he

993
described as the balanced approach that we are attempting to take. As he says, different people in different places have recognised a variety of different conditions which they have related to CSF or ME over the past 35 years. It is important that people who fear that they may be suffering from the syndrome take medical advice early on. It appears that it is only prolonged fatigue that is generally recognised as a physical symptom of the illness.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, if a medical practitioner prescribes to a person a long period of bed rest, that person would qualify for disability living allowance?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, once again I am being invited to suggest a clinical solution to this complicated problem. As I said in answer to the previous Question from the noble Countess, the question of disability allowance will be reflected in the mental and physical condition that the person exhibits when they make application. It is not related to the diagnosis of the specific illness.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the organisation Fighting for Truth has been asking her to receive a petition since July? As I understand it, it has not yet received an answer and we are wondering whether the noble Baroness received the petition. Is the Minister aware also that my noble friend Lady Mar will be presenting a petition containing 12,502 signatures to this House this afternoon?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must confess that I am not aware of the petition to which the noble Lady refers. I shall ask the Department of Health to look into what happened to it.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is the Minister aware that figures have already been quoted stating that 200,000 people are suffering from this debilitating illness, around 5,000 of whom are in Northern Ireland? Can the Minister give a further explanation concerning the clinical diagnosis of the condition? Also, does she agree that there is an urgent need for general medical practitioners to receive help in referring patients for diagnostic treatment to hospitals under the National Health Service arrangements?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for emphasising again that this is a widespread problem. I can only repeat that specific diagnosis is difficult to make. It is up to local general practitioners to use their best clinical efforts to deal with any patients who present to them. The point underlined by all the questions posed this afternoon is that there is a need for a better understanding of the
994
condition. That is why the department is supporting the research I described, particularly in relation to general practice.

Traffic in London
2.46 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have in mind to deal with the growing problem of traffic in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we are seeking to make the most efficient use of the existing road network and to develop new enforcement techniques to ensure that the network functions effectively. We are progressing the red route and bus priority networks and are looking to improve public transport and conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, thereby encouraging greater use of alternatives to the car. We are also developing a national integrated transport policy to deliver a clean, efficient, safe and reliable transport system.
The proposed greater London authority will assume overall strategic responsibility for transport in London and the implementation of a properly integrated transport policy for the capital.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her interesting reply. I receive many complaints concerning the state of traffic in London. I am impressed also by the Green Paper called, New Leadership for London. That says,
"London needs integrated transport arrangements … Its road network is heavily congested and vehicle emissions are a major contribution to air pollution".
All those problems reduce the quality of life here in London. Can my noble friend say when the White Paper, which I understand is being prepared, will be published so that we may debate the matter further?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. We also receive many complaints about the state of traffic in London. We plan to publish the integrated transport White Paper late next spring. There is an enormous task ahead. There were over 5,000 public responses to the consultation. That illustrates the acceptance and acknowledgement that we cannot go on as we have in the past on transport policy. But we are taking steps in the meantime. My noble friend referred to the issue of emissions from vehicles. The new experimental powers for local authorities to conduct roadside testing for emissions will be a help in that area.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the House may recall that this time last week the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, expressed his unhappiness about the Government's proposals not to re-nationalise the railways in Wales. Can the noble Baroness confirm—I hasten to add that I

995
bear no personal animus towards the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—that their proposals to consider at least the partial privatisation of London Underground are likely to increase the noble Lord's unhappiness?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would never do anything—nor, I believe, would my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister—to increase the unhappiness of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. We have completely ruled out the wholesale privatisation of London Underground. But given the history of neglect and under-investment in London Underground, it is essential that we find ways of improving investment. That has to be done by sensible partnership with the private sector.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will my noble friend—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I cannot see what goes on behind me, but we have time for my noble friends and the noble Earl. In strict equity, it is probably our turn this time, and then the noble Earl afterwards.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will my noble friend do all she can to promote cycling in London, in particular by providing more cycle ways? That would surely help to ease congestion. Is she aware of the London Cycling Campaign, which has been in existence for some years now and is developing a number of initiatives to promote cycling?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London launched consultations in August on a new approach to traffic management and parking in London. That consultation ends at the end of this week. We intend to publish new guidance early next year. We are proposing significant changes to current guidance on parking controls, the aims of the red route network and the development of cycling facilities in London. We are also looking at particular measures regarding buses, and to help pedestrians and people with disabilities. I know that my noble friend shares my interest in road safety. I hope that in encouraging cycling he will also encourage the wearing of cycle helmets.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it was a great mistake a few decades ago to abolish our tram system? Trams are clean, efficient, reliable and user friendly. If she wants evidence of an efficient tram system, will she visit the city of Talin, in Estonia, where she will see in operation an efficient system? She will not only receive a warm welcome but she can also ride on a tram—which she cannot do here.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can also go to Manchester, which might not take me away from your
996
Lordships' House for so long. There are undoubtedly advantages to trams. Implementing light rail systems and tram systems is extremely expensive in terms of investment. We underuse buses. More investment in buses could have a huge impact on improving public transport.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that if the Greater London Council had not been abolished we should not be in the present mess so far as concerns traffic in London? But as we are in such a mess, does my noble friend agree that it is necessary to take some immediate steps in preparation for the possibility of the recreation of an authority in London? The matter cannot be left in its present situation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, no, the situation cannot be left. That is why my honourable friend the Minister for Transport is taking the action that she is; it is why we are supporting initiatives such as the World Squares Initiative and looking at ways of reducing traffic congestion in some parts of central London; it is also why we are making progress on the Bill to hold a referendum on creating a greater london authority.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a great part of London traffic congestion—not perhaps on the most arterial routes but elsewhere—is caused by vehicles engaged on building operations and in which the police seem totally uninterested? No doubt the vehicles have to be outside buildings, but not double parked, and sometimes triple parked. Could there not be greater control over this?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point on the question of enforcement. In all areas of traffic control, whether it concerns parking or bus lanes, it is essential that we have in place enforcement mechanisms and speed controls to ensure that we do not cause congestion that is avoidable.

Folic Acid
.55 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to encourage the use of folic acid in order to reduce the incidence of spina bifida and babies with neural tube defects.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government are actively encouraging all women of child-bearing age to increase the amount of folic acid they consume through a three-year health promotion campaign, costing £2.3 million, which is being run on our behalf by the Health Education Authority. Since the campaign began, surveys show that 84 per cent. of the women questioned are now aware of folic acid and its importance compared with 51 per cent. at the beginning

997
of the campaign. The Department of Health has also set up an expert committee which is considering all aspects of this question and is expected to report early next year.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will appreciate those efforts. But is my noble friend aware that the minority are precisely the people who would be at risk—those not involved? Does my noble friend agree that it is a pity not to proceed with legislation as the benefits are so great and the consequences of delay are so terrible, with many children being born with avoidable spina bifida? Should we not follow the example of the United States, where they have legislated on this issue?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, every baby born with a neural tube defect, of which spina bifida is probably the most common, is a great tragedy. However, it is worth noting that the numbers born have fallen from four per thousand births 25 years ago to 0.3 per thousand now. I am aware that the American Food and Drug Administration is implementing statutory control of folic acid. But, as my noble friend may be aware, the amount of folic acid that it is statutorily instructing food manufacturers to put into food is considerably less than the 400 micrograms which are recommended as an extra food supplement by doctors in this country.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that folic acid is extremely beneficial for many other conditions and that it would be wise to encourage consumption even though it may mean eating more broccoli and other rather unattractive foodstuffs?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand that it is not simply broccoli, because in order to reach the 400 micrograms recommended as an additional food supplement one would have to eat 27 bananas every day. The noble Lord is right. There is mounting evidence that folic acid plays a role in heart disease. Several trials to investigate this issue are going on worldwide, including one that is being co-ordinated by Oxford University. We shall wait to see what the evidence produces on that before making further recommendations.

Health and Safety Executive
2.57 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to improve the efficiency and performance of the Health and Safety Executive.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government have been reviewing the work of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The results will be announced shortly, but I can tell the House that responses indicated that there was broad and substantial support for the current system. However, neither we, nor
998
the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, are complacent, especially given last year's distressing rise in fatal accidents. The commission's and executive's plan of work for 1997-98 shows that they are seeking to increase the amount of time which inspectors spend in contact with clients, and includes performance measures and plans to achieve efficiency savings of around 4.5 per cent.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she confirm that for 1996-97, 95 per cent. of all serious accidents at the workplace, including a number of fatalities, were not—I repeat "not"—investigated by the executive? Will she acknowledge that that quite scandalous state of affairs has been created by the savage reduction in resources to the executive over the past 18 years, including a substantial drop in the number of inspectors? Will she give the House an undertaking that in the lifetime of this Parliament health and safety at the workplace will enjoy the same standard of excellence that it had under the last Labour Government?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can certainly assure my noble friend that we are firmly committed to high standards of health and safety for workers and those affected by work activity. We want to raise the profile of health and safety so that everyone—employers, workers and the public—know their rights and their duties in this area.
In response to my noble friend's particular question, the HSE aims to investigate all fatal accidents and a broad spectrum of other accidents and incidents. But my noble friend is right to point out the pressure there has been on inspectors and on the executive, and the reduction in funding that we have seen over past years. The scale of it is such that there has been a reduction of £45 billion in funding for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive since 1991-92. Obviously, it will take time to enhance the profile and the climate in which the HSE works. Decisions about funding for 1998-99 will be announced in early December. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the discussions that are currently taking place, but I can say that the Health and Safety Commission and Executive has many champions within the Government.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the point that the Health and Safety Executive needs to recover the esteem that it lost at the time it approved the deregulation of safety in the mines and the fact that one report has claimed that accidents do not go unreported when the evidence is to the contrary?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has a long-standing anxiety about safety underground and that safety is of paramount concern to this Government. We support the Health and Safety Commission's programme for reviewing a raft of what is outmoded legislation on safety within the mines. Ministers are happy to listen to views on how arrangements introduced under the recent programme are working. The commission has just published

999
proposals for the replacement of the law on the control of ground movement in mines. They are proposals which are designed to promote safety improvements.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the position is as regards agriculture? Due to the lonely nature of farming work with machinery, the situation is very bad. Can the Minister say whether it is improving and what steps the Government are taking?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, obviously the area of agriculture is of concern. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has drawn attention in this House and elsewhere to the issues raised as regards organophosphates. In a range of areas in agriculture there are concerns in the Health and Safety Executive. I know that inspectors are working hard on the matter. Perhaps I may write on the detail to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, bearing in mind the decision of the Government not to increase public spending and therefore the difficulty of restoring to the HSE the level of the resources which it had at its disposal in previous years, what steps are the Government taking to persuade employers to play a greater part in ensuring the safety and health of their own workers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is a very important role of the HSE not simply to prosecute employers after there has been an accident but to promote good practice before that. A great deal of the work of the inspectors is concerned with routine inspection and making sure that employers are aware of areas where they need to take action. That is one of the reasons that we are trying to improve the amount of contact time between inspectors and employers and to maintain the proportion of inspectors who do the job as against administrative staff. As I say, we are looking at the overall issue of funding resources and at ways in which we can raise the profile of health and safety and to begin to change the climate in which that work is undertaken. That will entail working together with employers and trade unions in the field.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the pressure which the Health and Safety Executive is under and of circumstances which make it difficult for the executive to take on extra work? Is it wise for the executive to be given responsibility for the investigation of railway accidents? Have the Government considered the possibility of making the responsibility for investigating railway accidents the same as that for investigating accidents in the civil aviation industry? Can the Minister enlighten us about that particular decision? The Health and Safety Executive has no historical expertise in that sphere and therefore might it be better for railway accident investigations to be linked with investigations into air accidents?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there is always a debate about investigations into transport accidents and
1000
incidents and where such investigations are best placed. The Health and Safety Executive at the moment has the responsibility. If we transferred that to the aviation investigators, they, too, would have no experience in the field of rail safety. I know that the matter is under consideration, but at the moment the responsibility for investigating areas of rail safety rests with the executive.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Railway Inspectorate was handed over to the Health and Safety Executive in its entirety only recently, and that therefore it has all the expertise that it needs from exactly the same people who studied railway accidents under the Railway Inspectorate?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for that comment. The expertise is there. It is important that we look at where the best and most productive investigation can be placed. There is a debate about transport and whether a universal umbrella organisation would be more effective. But the important thing is to make sure that when investigations take place they are thorough and effective and that the recommendations are acted on.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that probably the best way to raise the profile of safety at the work place would be for every major accident, especially every fatality, to be investigated by a qualified safety inspector? That would ensure that the small number of rogue employers who put the lives and the health of their employees too often at risk are made to raise their standards to the level of the best employers who take the matter very seriously indeed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we need to raise standards to those of the best employers. I repeat that the Health and Safety Executive aims to investigate all fatal accidents. It is important that it also considers a broad spectrum of other accidents. The policy of which accident to investigate and how much time to devote to preventive inspections rather than investigations afterwards is essentially a matter for the HSE. But its inspectors vet all accident reports and have the discretion to mount an investigation when it is deemed necessary.

Petition: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
3.7 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from Mrs. Doris Jones, which prays that this House will take note of the Petition organised by Fighting for Truth which calls for the rejection and withdrawal of the Royal Colleges' report on chronic fatigue syndrome (CR54) and further prays that this House will call upon Her Majesty's Government to review the scientific evidence upon which diagnosis and treatment of ME are based.
Petition presented.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at the request of the Official Opposition, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will speak second in today's debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the establishment of general teaching councils for England and Wales and with respect to the registration, qualifications and training of teachers and the inspection of such training; to make new provision with respect to grants and loans to students in higher or further education and fees payable by them, and provision with respect to the funding of higher education institutions in respect of expenditure of connected institutions; to enable young persons to have time off work for study or training; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.
(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable local authorities to operate experimental arrangements with respect to the way in which they take decisions, including arrangements with respect to elected mayors and the discharge of functions by single members of authorities; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Sport in Schools
3.9 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally rose to call attention to the importance of sport in schools; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realise that some noble Lords are leaving the Chamber, probably to go for their afternoon session at the gym, so I shall give them a few moments in which to do so. I thank all noble Lords who have expressed interest in this debate. I look forward particularly to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Burlison, Lord Monro of Langholm and Lord Cowdrey
1002
of Tonbridge. On a personal note, perhaps I may say that the idea of opening the batting on the same team sheet as Colin Cowdrey is one childhood fantasy fulfilled. The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, is a distinguished former sports Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, has played professional football and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, brings both health and local government expertise to our deliberations. We look forward to their contributions.
I start by asking whether school sport has recovered from the scars left by two pieces of political ideology inflicted on it during the 1980s. I refer to the selling of school playing fields which was forced on local education authorities by the then government, and to the political correctness of some Left-wing local authorities which suggested that competitive sports were socially damaging. Of the two, it seems to me that the sale of school playing fields has done the more lasting damage. Indeed, it may still be happening as cash-strapped local authorities rob Peter to pay Paul.
My second concern is that the rupture in relations between teachers and their employers which took place in the 1980s, together with more tightly drawn contracts of employment, more specified curriculum content and the increased bureaucratic demands placed on teachers, have ended the easy-going add-on which made teachers give freely of their time to school sports.
My third concern is the paradox that at a time when sport in its various manifestations has never been wealthier and is receiving ever-increasing amounts of money from television sponsorship, school sports are still run on a shoestring and depend on voluntary good will.
A year ago, under the last government, the then Minister responsible for sport, Mr. lain Sproat, expressed concern that the Department for Education and Employment did not really have its heart in the policy of two hours of compulsory PE. At that time—only a year ago—he expressed concern that the average 14 year-old spent an hour a week playing some kind of sport and 25 hours watching television. He also expressed regret that some 5,000 playing fields had been sold during the 1980s and early 1990s.
However, the last Administration had a death-bed repentance with the publication of Raising the Game in the summer of 1994. By the time Labour came to power in May of this year, the new Government were firmly committed to their policy document, termed Labour's Sporting Nation.
So, in place of the ideological conflict of the 1980s, we have a real opportunity to create a long-term strategy for school sport which can enjoy cross-party support at all levels of government, local and national. However, to succeed, the Government must be coherent. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient interdepartmental coherence and co-operation between the departments of health and education, the sports ministry and the Department of the Environment? Will the noble Baroness clarify again the Government's attitude to selling off playing fields and, in particular, to Ministers' willingness to call in planned sales?
Is the Minister worried that according to Professor Neil Armstrong, head of the Children's Health and Exercise Research Centre at Exeter University, the number of 14 year-olds in Britain who do not have at least two hours a week of PE has doubled in the past decade? Fewer than half of our children do PE for the recommended two hours. Pupils spend an average of just 106 minutes, including changing time, on structured exercise, while French youngsters enjoy twice that amount of time. Britain came 13th in a survey on physical education in 25 countries which was carried out by Exeter University.
By "coherence" I should like to know what plans the Minister has for making two hours of physical education a reality. How does she propose to deal with high truancy rates where provisions do exist? What proposals does the Minister have for expanding the number of teachers with coaching and PE qualifications? There is concern that some teacher training programmes currently in place provide no specific training for PE, yet teachers are expected to take their class for physical education once in post. What proposals does the Minister have for increasing the number of women teachers with sports qualifications? We already have the warning from Professor Armstrong and others that a generation of youngsters is storing up health problems. To quote Professor Armstrong:
"If you are going to have an active adult population, the time to start has to be in childhood".
In promoting sport in schools, I can recommend to the Government no better set of marching orders than those issued by that excellent body, the National Council for Schools' Sports. Its plan calls for the educational basis of school sport to be recognised; all pupils to be given an opportunity to participate in sport; all pupils to be given the opportunity to attain their potential; teachers to be recognised as a key element in the extended curriculum with those involved in extra curricular activities being encouraged and supported; and a recognised structure for school sport at all levels. It also urges that appropriate partnerships be utilised.
I should like to concentrate on the last point about encouraging appropriate partnerships. I have said that I am not talking mainly about resources, although I recognise that some of my demands have resource implications. However, I am equally concerned that the money that is already in sport should be used wisely. I have mentioned the millions of pounds being poured into sport, especially into football, by television. I sometimes wonder whether there is not a case for a windfall tax on football transfers so that some of the money now going into inflated transfer fees could be channelled into the development of sport at school level.
I welcome the publication by the Football Association of its study, Charter for Quality, and in particular its declared aim of supporting soccer in schools. I welcome the idea of awarding charter mark status to schools meeting the required criteria. If I have a concern about both the FA approach and the approach of some of our other national sporting bodies, it is their over-emphasis on the elites. Of course, we all want a system which spots and nurtures talent. We all want to see Olympic
1004
gold medals by the armful, the World Cup coming home, the Australians thrashed at cricket and the New Zealand rugby players humbled.
However, national sporting bodies should not be seeking too early a recruitment. Every child has a right to a sporting life where sport is part of education, development and fun—not a career choice made at the age of eight. With that proviso, I welcome the FA's initiative, as I do a parallel initiative from the England and Wales Cricket Board in its national development plan for cricket, on which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, will elaborate.
Returning to the theme of partnership, we can enhance the value of money and effort already in sport by greater partnership. It could take many forms, such as better and more school and community involvement by professional sports clubs. I believe that the soccer clubs have a particular role to play. There could be better co-operation between sports clubs and school sport at local level with a far greater use of shared facilities. My noble friend Lord Addington will develop that theme later. There could be more co-operation within different levels of education; for example, rural primary schools could use the facilities of the secondary schools that they feed.
Business should be encouraged to increase its sponsorship of sport. I commend, for example, the Royal Sun Alliance Panathlon Challenge, which is aimed at encouraging schools to compete against each other in a range of sports chosen to suit limited sports facilities. That initiative has encouraged a number of inner-city schools to return to competitive sports. An integral part of the scheme is its £1,000 coaching bursary for teachers. That scheme is part of a wider Sports Match initiative, sponsored by Nationwide and aimed at encouraging the commercial sponsorship of grass-roots sports.
I have a final point on funding. It has been put to me that there is no guarantee that sport will be a major recipient of lottery funding after 2002. I cannot believe that the Treasury, even in its wildest fantasies, will not continue to make sports development a major beneficiary of lottery funds, but perhaps the Minister can clarify the point.
Because there is a long list of speakers and many very well qualified contributors yet to come I shall not weary the House by discussing the need to streamline sports administration to cut out bureaucratic waste, although future speakers with greater experience than mine may be able to speak to that. I am very well aware that I have barely touched on the need to encourage more women teachers to be trained in sports skills so as to encourage more girls to participate in sport. I point out that apart from the noble Baroness who is to reply there are no female speakers in the debate. Sport is not just for boys. We must have a system that encourages girls to participate fully in sport. I hope that noble Lords can develop some of the points that I have raised.
In the words of the great Bill Shankley, football is not a matter of life and death; it is more important than that. Having spent 40 years supporting Blackpool Football Club I must be a little more philosophical than

1005
that. But sport is important to the life of the nation, and it is important to a healthy and enjoyable childhood. We can all play a part in making sure that this and future generations benefit from all the pleasures that sport can provide and all of the lessons that it can teach both about individual development and making a contribution to the success of the team. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I have two apologies to make: first, for popping up at an unexpected time; and, secondly, to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey for inserting myself between him and the maiden speech to which I know all noble Lords look forward. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for introducing this debate in a typically well-informed and attractive speech.
That sport in schools is in a state of decline is beyond dispute. Although physical education is a compulsory part of the national curriculum the amount of time devoted to physical education and sport in schools has shown a steady decline for all ages. I should like to give a few figures to reinforce some that have already been given. In 1987, 72 per cent. of 14 to 16 year-olds did at least two hours of physical education a week. By 1994 less than 25 per cent. did so. British secondary schoolchildren spend an average of 85 minutes a week on physical education—less than any other country in the European Union. About half of this (40 minutes a week) is spent on what used to be called school games. That is a pitiful total when it is remembered that that includes changing and travelling time. Extra-curricular sport—that played outside school hours—has been fading away. The Secondary Heads Association points to a 75 per cent. drop in extra-curricular sporting activities in 1995. Not only is the total time spent on physical education and sport astonishingly small, but as pupils get older it steadily decreases.
Why has this happened? It is true that resources are tighter than they were. Between 1977 and 1992 the number of physical education teachers fell from 41,800 to 24,000, although the total number of teachers remained the same. The national curriculum guarantees state pupils access to playing fields, but about 5,000 of these have been sold off since 1981 and an estimated 2,600 are under threat.
Others point to the impact of the teaching contract in reducing teachers' willingness to take out-of-school games, coupled with the extra pressure of paperwork, testing and examinations which accompanied the introduction of the national curriculum. I think it is a fair criticism that the national curriculum was overloaded and generated an astonishing amount of unnecessary paper.
Still, in the end it is local councils, schools and teachers who decide how to balance their budgets and allocate teaching time between different activities. The decisions taken against sport, particularly competitive sport, reflect a deep-seated bias against team games, competition and excellence, which I am afraid runs
1006
strongest in the party opposite. Writing in Education Today, Peter Harrison, General Secretary of the Physical Education Association, quotes with approval James Thurber's saying that if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly. That is witty and thought-provoking but it is pretty shocking to have it enshrined as the symbol of sports policy. School sport appears to be good for Labour, on three conditions: that it is low quality, that it is anti-competitive, and that it includes everyone and everything—in short, that it is politically correct. From such a philosophy national champions will never emerge.
Does the decline in school sport matter? It does, though not, in my view, for some of the reasons commonly given. School sport sails more and more under the fitness or health flag. Of course, to play a sport really well you need to be fit, but you get fit to play a sport; you do not pursue a sport to get fit. I speak about this with particular feeling. My back has never really recovered from years spent on the squash court. It went again this morning, no doubt in anticipation of my debut on the Front Benches. If I go into spasm as a result of years of sport I hope that noble Lords will not become too alarmed.
The reasons for school sport have little to do with health or fitness per se. To think of sport simply as preventive medicine is to be rather like Victorian schoolmasters who advocated organised games as an antidote to moral vice. Games are valuable in themselves and for the pleasure that they give.
It is often argued that we must have school sport to produce Olympic medallists, winning soccer, rugby and cricket teams, tennis champions and so on. I am not convinced of that. Most continental schools do not do sport, as opposed to physical education, and they manage to produce their share of medallists. Even in this country clubs are much more important for producing professional sportspeople. The previous government announced that it would set up a British academy of sport to be funded by National Lottery money. This Government have adopted the idea but renamed the academy the UK sports institute—a triumph of presentation over substance. I much preferred the previous title. It was—is—to be a network of super training clubs for gifted athletes. No one yet knows where its headquarters or regional centres are to be. Perhaps the Government will get round to telling us some time. It is a good idea and the original inspiration, for which we owe a debt of gratitude to the previous Prime Minister, should not be drowned in the clamour of special interests. If we want to go further, for example by starting up specialist sports' schools as they had in the former communist countries, and as they still have in the United States, it is up to the sports bodies to decide to do it and raise the money.
School sport does not require this type of justification. We want to preserve the British tradition of schools as providing an all-round education, giving non-academic pupils a chance to shine and offering a training in the social as well as the academic virtues. In particular, I emphasise the social virtues fostered by our traditional team games: soccer, rugby and cricket, with their mixture of competition, co-operation and loyalty. Many

1007
of the abiding metaphors of our culture like team spirit and fair play derive from the sportsfield. The fact that playing by the rules is so deeply ingrained in us owes something to school sport. I also defend individual sports as a spur to personal excellence. These are the main reasons for keeping sport in schools. It is the loss of these values which is the greatest casualty of its decline.
I shall end with just one thought. We must recognise that the days when every school could provide a filling sporting menu for its own pupils has probably gone. Co-operation is the name of the game—co-operation between schools, and between schools, clubs and sports centres. In my vision, every community should have its own sports centre, with its own playing fields and facilities which all the schools and pupils in the area could use regularly as a venue for matches as well as for training and leisure activities.
The task of setting up such a national network of sports centres would offer a fertile field for public-private partnerships. If it could be established, in the course of time, it would set sport in schools on a much firmer foundation than it enjoys at present, and allay most of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to whom we owe the opportunity to discuss these matters.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation, and with many more butterflies in the tummy, I can assure noble Lords, than ever I endured at the other Lord's, almost as hallowed, but less noble. Perhaps I may say straight away how deeply honoured I am to have been allowed to come into your Lordships' House, and how grateful I am for the warm and friendly welcome that I have been given on every side.
I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for prompting this debate today. It is most timely. It is a subject dear to my heart and to many across the land. As the noble Lord emphasised, we are just not giving our youngsters enough time in schools. I long for time, almost more than money, to be given in the school curriculum for sport. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky touched upon the value of team games—a most valuable aspect of it all, and difficult to put through in our present school system.
This time last year I was set a task by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable John Major, as part of his sport initiative Raising the Game. I was charged to form a small group comprising Sports Council, head teachers and PE teachers to see whether it would be practicable and helpful to PE teachers if we could persuade leading sportsmen and sportswomen to visit schools and demonstrate their skills. It was a scheme labelled "Sports Ambassadors", which I am happy to say has been received favourably by the current Secretary of State and his Minister for Sport.
That gave me the opportunity to take a close look at a whole range of schools. I learned a great deal. All is not gloom, I hasten to say. First, I was most impressed by the new style, highly trained and skilled, band of PE teachers who bear the huge responsibility of looking
1008
after sport in schools. Their task is daunting. There are far too few of them to cope with the vast numbers, the limited playing fields, inadequate facilities, and too little time given to each pupil. And time—insufficiency of time allowed—is the key issue.
Secondly, I have come to admire the expertise of the Sports Council as it develops new ideas to help the PE teachers. The most recent of them, in conjunction with the excellent body the Youth Sports Trust, is aimed at the primary schools (ages 4-7) so that we can get hold of them and inspire them when they are young.
Thirdly, I have come to understand the predicament of the head teachers. Set upon achieving high standards in the classroom, they are naturally wary of giving up too much curriculum time to sport. Looking through the eyes of the PE teachers, they are faced with a three-pronged responsibility. First, there are those with talent who long to play all the time and learn, and PE teachers give to them as much time as they can, but not enough. Secondly, there is a huge number of youngsters in the middle ground, who can get only a smattering of various sports, in the limited time, and who probably leave school disappointed, only to find sport in later years. They have such regrets that they were given so little opportunity at school.
The third, and most compelling reason for backing more sport in schools, concerns that troublesome fringe element, which every school has, whose members block their minds to school and its routines—some sullen, others hiding their insecurity behind bravado and aggression—their energies lured away into unacceptable mischief, truancy, the drugs scene, petty crime. They are the despair of their parents, a headache for the schools, and a nightmare for the police.
Sport might be the only meeting ground with them—and therein the opportunity—to grab them back into the fold and open their eyes to the rewards that they can find within school life. I believe that sport can provide the key, not to all, but to many of those people.
I finish by saying, yes, of course, we must see more of our youngsters participating in sports in the schools. But clubs do a brilliant job now. The development officers put the talented folk through to the clubs. But, admirable as this is, it is through sport in schools that they make their friendships and learn their lessons. The great thing about sport is that one is never successful for very long. When one starts to get above oneself, it is a terrific leveller, because one loses very much more than one wins. That is a wonderful teacher for life itself. I hope that this debate today will send a signal to all head teachers, urging them to give a little more time to sport in the curriculum, and, what is more important, that when they do so they will be able to do so with government approval.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although I have been in your Lordships' House for only a relatively short time, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, on behalf of the whole House on an excellent maiden speech. I am sure that the House shares my view that the noble Lord will make

1009
a contribution in this House in the future equal to the contribution he made with the cricket bat at the other Lord's.
In congratulating the noble Lord, I am reminded of a story that concerns a mutual friend of ours—the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin. Some 10 years ago he and I realised that in the 1950s we were posted to the same RAF station for over a year. We never met. I played cricket for the station; he played cricket for the RAF. Cricket is a wonderful sport, and it is with some trepidation that I confess I am a member of Lancashire County Cricket Club. However, with an accent like mine, I suppose the noble Lord also realises that I was very pleased that Glamorgan won the championship last year. I am sure that he will serve his country in this House as he served the country on the cricket field.
It will come as no surprise that many of us should be recalling our own school days and how we were involved in sport. I shall come to that. My contribution will not be one of political point scoring. I shall emphasise the principle of sport in schools; the working out of that logistical application must be for the Government. If we can emphasise the importance of sport in schools sufficiently we will have done our job. It cannot be in any way exaggerated. Of course academic studies must never be neglected. We recognise that there is sometimes competition, particularly with the drive by the Government to raise literacy and numeracy standards in schools. Sport must not be sacrificed in the process, to the extent that it damages the well being of all concerned. There has to be a balance.
Many arguments will be advanced in the debate as to why sport must be maintained, increased and extended in schools. I shall concentrate on three very general principles: first, why sport in schools is important to the country; secondly, why sport in schools is important to the individual and individuals who participate; and, thirdly, why sport in schools is, indeed, important and good for communities.
First, it is important for the good of the country. Britain is a sport-loving country, whether it be football, cricket, athletics, Test matches, the World Cup or the Olympic Games. There is an enormous amount of enthusiasm. But it is also about competition and, indeed, about winning. When we win, it is good for our nation. We have the feel-good factor. It raises widespread pride, confidence and morale among our people. In my view, for those successes to be maximised we must start early so as to ensure that the commitment and the skills are generated among our people at a very early age in school.
Secondly, sport is good for the individual. Of course, sport and academic study can and should produce the whole person. There are many who excel both in sport and in academic study. However, there are those who excel in sport but who do not do so well initially in academic study. It seems to me that, if they build up their confidence by excelling in sport, it will generate an opportunity, an initiative and a motivation also to excel academically because their confidence will be
1010
boosted. That is what I see happening. It will, perhaps, turn them away from developing an inferiority complex, feeling that they have not made it in some way.
Thirdly, why is it good for communities? We all know that young people have an enormous amount of energy—an energy that must have an outlet, a physical outlet; for example, participating in sport. Otherwise, I fear that people may choose to release that energy in another way, through another outlet, that will be less productive, less satisfying and, unfortunately, more destructive.
I have been involved in sport for as long as I can remember. I played football at 13 years of age in an under-18 league side; I played adult football at 15. I continued playing league football until I was 43 years of age. Intermingled with that I played rugby for the school—it was rugby in the morning and soccer in the afternoon—as well as cricket. As noble Lords will appreciate, I am just a spectator these days. Nevertheless, I play a little golf when I can. Of course, the school I attended did not produce too many golfers—some rugby players perhaps, but not too many golfers.
I was never a great academic achiever but I do not put that down to my concentration on sport. Many of my friends were good sportsmen and, at the same time, academic achievers. My excuse is that I was perhaps something of a late developer. I also believe that schools can be used in the context of allowing other organisations to use their premises; the school gymnasium and so on. There is no problem about that, so long as it does not deprive the school children of such opportunities. My grandson is seven years of age. I take him every Saturday to a school where he receives football coaching. The school field is used. I believe that that sort of thing should happen.
I emphasise that those three points are important. Sport is good for the country as a whole; it is good for the individual and the individuals who participate; and it is good for communities. I hope that this House will do all in its power to support the extension of resources and facilities to ensure that we have the best sportspeople in the country developed through our schools.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to make my maiden speech this afternoon and to acknowledge the great kindness that I have received from Members and Officers of the House since I was introduced on 5th November. That was a memorable day, especially for my four young children whose only disappointment was their failure to meet Guy Fawkes on Bonfire Night.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, I bring no great sporting achievement to the House. Perhaps the most that I can offer is the fact that I was a member of a school hockey team which, in a whole season, managed to lose every match and by pretty handsome scores at that. However, I have a passionate interest in sport and a belief that it is absolutely essential that this

1011
country does well in sport. Like the noble Lord. Lord McNally, I want to see more gold medals awarded to this country.
Who can deny that the fall-off in sports and physical exercise in our schools inhibits our ability to attain great sporting achievement? Many reasons have been given as to why that should be so. I would add to that list. I believe that the traditional approach to teaching sports has actually inhibited many people from fulfilling their potential.
When I was at school the focus was on a very limited number of competitive sports. That was great for children who were good at those sports but a real turn-off to many others. Of course, some of those people who were turned off are now in senior positions in our schools and in the educational establishment. I believe that sports and physical activity are important, not just for sporting achievement but also for the health and well-being of so many young people in our nation. What is happening in terms of the fall-off in sports and physical activity at school is surely paralleled in the home situation where the computer and the television are such powerful competitors.
It is also true to say that children now do not even get exercise on the way to school. A BMA report produced in September shows that, in 1972, 71 per cent. of all 7 year-olds went to school under their own steam. However, by 1990, that percentage had been reduced to 7 per cent. So, as the BMA report shows we have unfit children—children who are lethargic, unwilling to walk anywhere and engaging in very little physical activity either at home or at school. We are in great danger of breeding a new generation who will present very grave health problems in the future. I declare an interest as the chair of the Association for Public Health in expressing my concern in the area.
Many initiatives have been undertaken to try to improve the situation. I welcome them, but we have to do much more. We have to increase the number of coaches in schools; we must give much more support to PE teachers; and we must focus on girls. There is an alarming difference in the level of activity of girls compared with boys. We must also recognise that primary schools are the essential foundation. We need to concentrate on and help those primary schools to develop more facilities. They must give themselves more time to provide activities for children.
However, we must do more than that: we must recognise that it is no good lecturing children and students and expecting them to want to undertake physical activity and sports. They must be convinced that this is something worthwhile and something they will want to do. That means that we must have a wide range of choice available for those children. Those wishing to undertake competitive sports should be given all the support they require. Those for whom competitive sports are a turn-off need a wider range of activities.
A number of schools are introducing a wider element of choice. I have in mind, for example, the introduction of orienteering. Indeed, the Panathlon mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which embraces nine sports
1012
ranging from chess and orienteering to five-a-side football, is a wonderful way to develop sports in those schools without playing fields or with very limited facilities. There are also dance classes and physical activity weeks which encourage children in every part of a school to think about physical activity and to have a go. Other schools have brought in sports personalities in an effort to encourage people.
Those are the foundations on which we need to build in the future. What I would really like to see is the emergence of a concept of the healthy school where academic performance is combined with a concern for children's physical and mental well-being. That surely is a foundation on which we can develop sporting excellence in this country and also build a much healthier nation.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I have the great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I warmly congratulate him on behalf of the whole House for gracing your Lordships' House with an excellent, incisive and knowledgeable maiden speech. In many respects this has become the day of the Colins for in addition to hearing the outstanding maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, I was fortunate to return from Los Angeles this morning on the same flight as Colin Montgomerie, one of the world's greatest golfers and unquestionably one of Britain's finest sporting ambassadors.
That encounter provided me with the opportunity to recollect an early meeting with Denis Thatcher soon after I had been appointed Minister for Sport. He produced an excellent initiative to promote golf in schools; to reinforce the etiquette so central to the game; and to increase participation and develop excellence. It was his idea that all golfers teeing off on a Sunday should be encouraged to place a new ball in a Golf Foundation box on the first tee, to be collected at the end of the day, valued and the money used to finance local professionals' involvement in teaching golf to children from local schools. Here I wish to take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky as it is a central point to this debate; namely, the importance of school sport vis-à-vis the clubs.
I had the great privilege to cox rowing eights at a time when we had an outstanding British eight. I had the great privilege to steer that eight at two consecutive Olympic Games. From my own experience I point out that if it had not been for the support given to rowing at the school I attended—I am delighted to inform the noble Lord who spoke earlier that it was a Welsh school, Monmouth School—I would never have had the opportunity to cox when I was at Oxford and then in the national squad. It is absolutely essential that we develop wider participation and excellence—those are the two key objectives—at school level. If we can master that, we shall develop the club members of the future and the members of the national squads. I hope that the Government will seek an initiative in that direction as it is important to focus on the role that clubs can contribute to school sport. In most localities those clubs will depend on schoolchildren for their future

1013
membership. If one can encourage clubs to make available both facilities and particularly the time of club members to supplement the work of PE teachers in the development of children in local schools, one will provide not only the future membership of those clubs but also achieve the wider objective of sport for all.
It is appropriate that your Lordships have dwelt on what I believe to be four of the key issues that underpin today's debate. Those same issues will also, I hope, underpin the Government's consideration of an appropriate, far-reaching sports policy for this country. I see the four issues as being the lack of time that is allocated to physical recreation in both primary and secondary schools; the inadequate training that physical recreation teachers receive; the amount of funding that schools and extra-curricular clubs obtain, even with the additional resources from the National Lottery; and the vitally important need to encourage and maintain healthy levels of physical activity beyond school and university into adult life.
It is, of course, well known to your Lordships that regular exercise is a precursor to a healthy life style. The health benefits of physical activity during childhood and adolescence should not be underrated. Physical exertion not only reduces body fat and the likelihood of heart disease but is also important to enhance our psychological well-being. However, all recent studies have shown that young people in this country do not exercise with the intensity, the frequency and for the appropriate duration of time that leads to a healthy life style and well-being.
Physical recreation must be, and must continue to be, a crucial component of any school curriculum. Overall, between the ages of six and 18 we in the United Kingdom rate 13th in Europe for the amount of time we dedicate to physical recreation. That is in a country which so rightly prides itself on sport and recreation. Although many schools are keen to devote more time to sport and team games, the real problem lies in staff availability and teacher training. That is one of the reasons I urge the Government to consider bringing forward an initiative to allow clubs to become more involved and to supplement and work with physical education teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, understandably did not dwell on the structure of sports administration in Britain. However, I hope he agrees that it is important to underline the fact that we need to address this subject. It is vitally important that there is a clear focus and a clear, cohesive policy which covers many government departments and is responsible for the needs of all involved in sport. I was sorry to see sport moved from the Department of Education and Science. I understood the arguments at the time but if we are to have an outstanding policy which supports the development of excellence as well as wider participation, its heart should be in our schools.
In the tradition of this House this debate has highlighted and considered many of the key issues this country faces in developing sport and recreation in schools. I refer to sport for all; dual use of our facilities; far wider participation in schools; the development of
1014
excellence at every level and support for those who are disabled who are keen to be actively involved in sport. Their disabilities count as nothing when one sees the outstanding results they achieve. It is those results which should be praised. In my experience of working with the disabled in sport, none of them wished to focus on their disabilities but rather on their abilities. I hope that the Government will give equal importance to developing sport initiatives for the disabled. The issues I have outlined are the pillars of British success in all areas of sport development. Schools are at the heart of that success.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Carew: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for introducing this important subject for debate. I very much enjoyed the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Sport has been very much part of my life. I have been a sport's competitor for 25 years at international and Olympic level. For the past eight years I have been chairman of a world equestrian body—a poacher turned gamekeeper. All this experience has taught me the importance and significance of sport for young people, especially those in school.
Why is sport important in schools? Education includes not only academic subjects but also sport. An education is incomplete without participation in some form of sport. Sport helps develop a basic physical fitness and it highlights individual skills which are necessary for participation in sport at a high level. We now live in an era of professional sport and those involved can earn high financial rewards for sporting excellence.
Sport also highlights temperament and sportsmanship. It is essential to learn to behave both on and off the field of play and, additionally, a child should learn to be graceful in defeat and magnanimous where successful. That is an important ingredient in the character of an individual. Sport does much to create confidence, develop personality and create leadership skills—three attributes that are important for a successful career in one's chosen profession. It is interesting to note how many successful sports men and women have become captains of industry, senior officers in the Armed Forces, successful lawyers, doctors, accountants and members of many other professions, including politicians and even Members of your Lordships' House.
Individual sports are of course important, but I believe team sports to be the most important of all in the education of young people. It all starts at school. Team sports teach children to work with and for each other. That is something which will be with them all their lives. A few years ago the International Olympic Committee seriously considered deleting many team sports from the Olympic programme. I and others spent much time in persuading the IOC of the importance of team sports and the awarding of team medals to all team members. I am delighted to say that team sports and medals are now very much part of the Olympic programme.

1015
As a small boy, I once asked my father whether he would wish me to be good at games or good at work—a typical schoolboy question. I received the reply I had hoped for, as I was considerably more enthusiastic about playing sport than playing academics. Perhaps my late father should have emphasised academic priority, but maybe he thought that one day his son, who was likely to have only an average brain, might just develop other talent through sport.
In retrospect, my advice in response to a similar question today would be for a child to work as hard as possible at his or her academic education, but also to devote as much time as reasonable to practising some form of sport. At all costs, complete your education because life as a professional sportsman will at some stage come to an end, often sooner rather than later, and then your academic qualifications will be a necessity for a different career.
What is the present problem with sport in schools? It is a serious problem in state schools. It is a case of the disappearing playing fields. More and more recreation grounds are being bulldozed. Supermarkets and petrol stations are rising up where once there used to be cricket pitches, a rugby pitch or a soccer pitch. Many children are unable to show what sporting talents they may possess. Additionally, the physical fitness of children is a worry. I understand that only one-and-a-half hours of PE a week is obligatory in the school curriculum.
What can be done to improve the situation? There is news today that public schools will be asked to share their sports facilities with state schools. That seems reasonable, but will the sharing of outdoor playing fields create an administrative problem for the respective schools? Head teachers must show their leadership and, if necessary, become flexible and creative. One headmaster's example is to organise aerobics—movement to music—which helps physical fitness and appeals especially to girls. Another headmaster organises bowls. However, in order to do so, the children, under supervision, must walk one mile there and back. They are delighted to do so.
In conclusion, sport is very much part of a child's education. If the opportunity to practise sport in schools continues to decline it may well affect the possibility of these young people eventually achieving sporting excellence. Additionally, the leadership qualities so often shown by children on the sportsfield may take rather longer to surface.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am honoured to be invited to join such a noble body. It is also a great honour for me to make my maiden speech on a subject which I hold very dear. I am a passionate advocate for the safeguarding and development of school sport. School sport acts as a bridge between education and physical activity, as well as being a vehicle for self-esteem and team spirit. I have a particular and perhaps personal reason for being a staunch proponent of school sport. If it were not for the guidance and encouragement which I received from committed and highly patient teachers I would never have made my
1016
way into professional football. Some might say, rather unkindly, that the fortunes of the teams for which I was privileged to play, would have fared better were that to have been the case. Less cruel commentators would give recognition to the fact that I, a working-class boy many years ago, was not so concerned with an academic education but could build a career from natural skills nurtured at school.
In case anyone should gain the wrong impression, I spent my career with second, third and fourth division clubs, but played mainly for Hartlepool United in the third and fourth divisions. Nevertheless, I still have a great fondness for the game and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for using football in order to illustrate the necessity of school sports for a child's mental, moral and physical development.
I do so for two reasons: first, to take the opportunity to express appreciation of the teachers who freely put effort into school football, a game much loved by children up and down the country, and of local authorities which play a supportive role often in the face of adversity; and secondly, to express my concern that our sporting youngsters are under increasing pressure to specialise in one particular sport at a very early age. Football is a national pastime, more popular now than ever. The new Labour Government have introduced measures which I believe will encourage school football. Local authorities seem willing to assist wherever possible. Teachers are keen to develop skills on the pitch and to increase the number of those participating in schools.
Why does there appear to be a crisis of confidence? There is already a sound structure for school sport, but in order to accentuate its positive elements extracurricular school-based teams need the involvement of teachers and they need suitable funding. To that end, I very much welcome the opportunity given to teachers to gain coaching qualifications.
As your Lordships will learn, I am not often readily disposed to scoring cheap political points, but I believe that I have a serious observation to make. It was made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The previous Government had a poor record in preserving school sports. Since 1989, more than 5,000 school playing fields have been sold off, mainly in response to rate capping. I am encouraged by the resolution of the new Minister for Sport to put a hold on the sale of irreplaceable recreation land. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the Government are considering replacing those fields.
I take the liberty of singling out for praise my local authority of Gateshead. In Gateshead, the situation is quite the reverse of the national trend. In some areas, extra football pitches have been produced for schools. I believe that to be a promising and effective way of encouraging a renaissance in school sports. Local management of schools has brought about budget cuts. Regretfully, sport and sports equipment is an easy area in which to make savings. Many physical education teachers make an invaluable contribution to a child's development, but they badly need resources.

1017
During this decade and the last, the number of physical education teachers has fallen from 42,000 to 24,000. Less than two-thirds of British schools provide the recommended minimum of two hours of physical education a week. Let us be clear about the issue. Teachers have a very significant role to play in the pursuance of skills. They can identify potential and are best placed to act on it. Sport is an integral part of the school ethos and should not be dismissed as some kind of afterthought. The teachers' involvement both inside and outside school hours is necessary for today's gifted child to become tomorrow's national asset.
The structure for sport needs to be strengthened. That can be achieved by a genuine partnership for all. I refer not only to football but to all sports. Why not have a governing body to co-ordinate school sports associations? Why not complement the towns' and the players' general education needs with specialist coaching? Why not put the sports clubs into the schools so that come four o'clock quality training is available? I am glad that moves have already been made in that direction with the sports colleges and sportsmark. In football there is already in existence a system which promotes talent through effective partnership. The centres of excellence are a very healthy means of developing young players without interfering with their academic studies. Although schoolboys are attached to professional clubs and attend once or twice a week, they are still allowed to represent their schools at various levels and retain their educational link.
There are many areas that I should have liked to cover but like other noble Lords, my time is running out. There are many dangers in the sport-led approach. It does not provide any happy medium; the emphasis is placed squarely on the sporting body. On the other hand, school sport develops the child both at a personal and physical level. Although those two philosophies are not necessarily exclusive, it is important to make a distinction between them.
No one can inspire young players more than the sports teacher. If partnership between professional bodies and schools is to make any positive contribution to a child's development then the sports teacher must play a leading role. The teacher who knows and understands his pupil is one who can best meet the requirements of that child. Their enthusiasm and commitment should be matched by better resources for all school sports and physical education. Only then shall we see school sport in this country regain its confidence.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I have the great pleasure of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, on his enlightening and valuable speech. I thank him. I am sure that we shall all look forward to his future contributions in this House.
Like most people, I believe also in the importance of sport on the playing field to occupy the youth of the country. It is a constructive, stimulating pastime and must surely help to nurture a better character in a person. Like most private school boys, I enjoyed good
1018
quality sports facilities at school. The sporting disciplines and skills I was taught prepared me for coping with the demands of life and enabled me at a later date to become a successful international three-day eventer. Probably due to the fact that I fell off rather too many times, I must be forgiven when I stutter and make mistakes in my speech.
Today, like my contemporaries, I have retained that discipline. I still exercise regularly and believe that as a fit person one can perform better in the demanding world in which we live. Industry is constantly looking to employ new school leavers and graduates which it hopes will become good team players capable of going out into a highly competitive world and winning. We rely on our industry to produce revenues to run our country. Therefore, we must ensure that we train the best possible young people to be employed by it. Young people discover and develop many skills outside the classroom. It is in the unique open-air environment of the playing field that schoolchildren learn the skills of working together in a team with all sorts of competitive pressures and competing to win.
Education is the training of the body and the mind. In the previous government's Education Reform Act 1988, physical education in schools was made a foundation subject in the national curriculum. That was continued in the Education Act 1993. The general requirement for physical education states that:
"Physical education should involve pupils in the continuous process of planning, performing and evaluating".
Couple that with a requirement for team and competitive games, and the time-honoured playing field must be the ideal place for that physical education. Therefore, it is extremely sad to see statistics saying that local authorities have released to the private sector more than 5,000 playing fields in the past 10 years. I understand that local authorities are not required to report disposals of playing fields to central government. Consequently, no central record of playing field sales exists. Even now the sales continue. In July this year it was reported that the Labour-controlled Rotherham council agreed to sell the field at my right honourable friend William Hague's old school, Wath-upon-Dearne Comprehensive in South Yorkshire. In August it was also reported that Edinburgh's education convenor Elizabeth Maginnis said it was significant that the Sports Council had twice relaxed its opposition to trading land for improved sports facilities in the city since Labour took power at the Scottish Office.
Therefore, with the local authorities continuing to allow the sale of these playing fields surely the time has come for a firm hand from this Government in the form of new legislation to stop the sale of playing fields. Will the Government set up a register of playing fields and bring forward new legislation to preserve playing fields?
Recently we have heard that the Government are considering a controversial move of stripping private schools of their charitable status unless they form a partnership with state schools. Two questions spring to mind. First, who is going to pay for the additional cost of upkeep to playing fields? I hope the Government are not trying to ease their financial responsibility onto the private schools' parents. Secondly, most schools do not

1019
have any spare capacity on their playing fields. Does this mean that private pupils will have to stand on the touchline of their playing fields and await their turn to play?
Parents who send their children to private schools, like other taxpayers, are entitled to free schooling. By sending their children to fee paying schools they save the Treasury having to supply expensive schooling for them. Additional to that, private schools also fund bursaries and scholarships worth £126 million. So to strip private schools of their charitable status if they were not to allow state schools the use of their playing fields would cost those schools about £63 million which would result in school fees increasing by more than 6 per cent. It is difficult to see how the Government have reached that controversial decision.
The best way of protecting playing fields is by people using them, by a good planning system, by the use of the law of charity and by other statutory measures, whether mandatory or permissive. These statutory measures should include playing fields in the ownership of all of the government departments, such as defence and health.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a great privilege to address this House for the first time, although batting at number 10, I seem far too high up the order for any team led by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey.
All too frequently we return from the Olympics and Commonwealth Games or World Championships and blame a lack of financial resources on our lack of success. In fact, our top professionals are now well cared for through the lottery, the four sports councils, sponsors and, it is hoped in the future, through the academy of sport.
I believe our problems begin much earlier: it is at school and in the translation from school to sports club. We fail to recognise talent and achievement and many of our best youngsters never fulfil their potential. There is no doubt that we should do very much better. Part of our failure is due to a lack of enthusiasm in many schools. Of course, there are exceptions and there are many dedicated PE and other teachers, but I speak in terms of the generality.
I appreciate the extreme pressure on the curriculum, but that should not remain inflexible. This is an important subject and is highlighted in the Scottish Sports Council's excellent publication—A Youth Sport Strategy for Scotland. It is not easy to change a crowded weekly programme but I am convinced that sport is not receiving adequate attention. If need be, we should consider a longer school day or a longer school year. One period a week or 5 per cent. of a year's teaching, as recommended in the guidance, is totally insufficient.
There is no doubt that boys and girls benefit from sport and recreation provided that they enjoy it and have fun. The advantages are enormous. There is nothing like a winning football, hockey or rugby team to raise morale and give a sense of purpose and pride in the whole school.
1020
Team sports are the key, as many noble Lords mentioned. However, I do not underestimate the importance of individual sports like tennis, badminton, squash and so on, and particularly swimming. Swimming is very important. Every child should be able to swim before leaving school. Team sports do more than improve physical fitness. They develop character, leadership and discipline, all of which are equally important.
Outward-bound activities are a high priority, such as hill-walking, orienteering, white water canoeing, sailing and so on. In these youngsters need to be pushed to the limit. They can often achieve objectives previously thought to be beyond them. Yes, sometimes there will be an element of danger; but good supervision must never allow foolhardiness.
Only by their going to the limit will the best be brought out in girls and boys. It is the stuff of leadership, personality and confidence that we want today in all walks of life. There is nothing like the "feel-good factor" of personal achievement in difficult circumstances.
The governing bodies—with some of which I have been involved for most of my life—the sports councils and the CCPR are all well aware of that and are anxious to help the education authorities and school boards. The Scottish Sports Council has an excellent team sport programme and is advocating the introduction of school sport co-ordinators to help in school. I believe that the pilot scheme has been a tremendous success.
Most schools have good facilities, from gyms to all-weather pitches, often used by the community as well as by the school. Like other noble Lords, I have been disappointed that education authorities have sold off sports grounds. But that is not the key. We still have adequate pitches and facilities if we can get on with the coaching that is so important.
We must remember, particularly in relation to the idea of public schools and comprehensive schools joining together, that this country has a rather wet climate. We cannot play several matches a day, five days a week, on the average grass pitch. What is necessary is time and good coaching. We have, too, to encourage people to move on from school to their local sports clubs, which often offer very good facilities. But the clubs, and the coaches to those clubs, need to have access to the schools in order to help induce pupils to come to the sports club when they leave school. It is crucially important to bridge the gap between school and sports club and to show pupils how welcome they are when they arrive at the sports club to carry on the good work that they have been doing in school. It is so important to have pupils in sports clubs and not on street corners wasting their time in the evening.
I call for two things. First, extra time is necessary. As has been said throughout the debate, we must have more time for sport and recreation. Secondly, there must be greater co-ordination between schools and clubs. If we can bring those two aspects together we shall make a good start. However, tomorrow is almost too late. We want to start today.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse: My Lords, what a delight it is to follow the noble Lord. I have had the pleasure over many years to be his trusted colleague in another place. I have also had the privilege over many years of sitting in the Chair in the other place listening to speeches both from the Front Bench and the Back Benches made by the noble Lord. When I noticed that I was to follow him on the list of speakers, I thought that in order to do justice to my colleague of many years, I should probably need the seven minutes at my disposal. Suffice it to say that it is probably appropriate that my remarks will be centred on one sport; namely, Rugby League football. I know that over many years the noble Lord has been distinguished in administration, and probably in playing rugby—but not the type of rugby that I have been used to. It is the type of game with a lot of men on the field who seem to take pleasure in scratching one another's backs with the studs in their boots. I never understood that. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord.
I do not wish to appear too parochial. However, I think that I may emphasise the point by explaining the situation in schools in my area. Over almost a century, the schools in the area in West Yorkshire in which I have lived all my life have played competitive Rugby League. As a result, small towns such as my own, Featherstone, with no more than 15,000 people at any time have produced Rugby League players, to the extent that a team from that small town has played in the Challenge Cup at Wembley five times and won the cup three times, with players who have come through schools competitions. Unfortunately and regrettably, not many schools now play Rugby League in the areas that have always been renowned for that game.
I fully understand that teaching staff are overloaded and that the game is not part of the curriculum. But what is happening now is that the professional game of Rugby League is facing a crisis. Gone are the young men who used to play because they loved the game. Now, Murdoch money has been introduced. It attracts foreign players and creates a situation whereby the community spirit created by the schools and the youngsters following on from school, taking pride in playing for their home town, has now, unfortunately, gone. Games of amateur football take place, but they are organised outside the schools.
It is absolutely essential that every encouragement is given to schools to reintroduce competitive Rugby League in those areas. While acknowledging, as I said, that the staff are overloaded, encouragement has to be given to volunteers from the local communities to take part within the schools and assist teachers outside the curriculum. If not, the game which we all loved for something like a century will dwindle and probably die.
What can be done about the problem? There is certainly a need to create opportunities for schools to maximise voluntary community involvement. I am sure that parents are willing to go into schools to assist. If that can be encouraged from government downwards, it will be a great step forward in returning to the situation as we have always known it. It will put a sense of community and love of the game back into those areas.
1022
We have to focus our attention on the primary sector—which is unfortunately not the case at present. The English Sports Council's Challenge Fund must be extended into the primary sector. That would not be too great a job for the Sports Council to consider, and probably approve. Also, Rugby League must be allowed to take full advantage of the opportunities available through the national junior sports programme, in particular the BT Top Sports Initiative.
Rugby League is one of the greatest sports that people can possibly play. I say "people" because there are now many ladies who play Rugby League football. Only the other day I had the opportunity of announcing the appointment of the first woman development officer for Rugby League. But we must have the involvement of the schools. It is a safe game. Children of nine to 11, and younger, given the opportunity and guidance within the schools, could look forward to a career, not only as players but, for the love of the game that they have learnt at school, as supporters throughout their lives. I speak with experience. I was fortunate enough to play myself through the schools and then to play professionally, but since finishing, arising out of my love of the game, I am able to continue watching it as a supporter. It has been a major part of my life. I hope that communities, many of them within mining areas, will still be able to enjoy the game because it has played such a large part in their lives.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Woolton: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for introducing this important debate today. I should also like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge and to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Burlison and Lord Monro of Langholm, on their excellent maiden speeches.
I am very aware that I am speaking after some very distinguished speakers and I should stress that I have no great sporting talent. Nevertheless, sport plays a significant and important part in my life, and I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate today. In the short time available to me I can do no more than make a few general points. I start by saying that I, too, believe that sport has a crucial role to play in schools. I am a passionate supporter of all sports and I benefited enormously from exposure to a wide range of sporting opportunities as a child at a private school. I have perhaps made more use of such opportunities since I left school than while I was there.
I am also now a parent of young children who are just beginning to enjoy the same opportunities that I had. While many children receive their first exposure to sport through their parents, it is at school that this can be properly developed.
I, no doubt along with other noble Lords who have registered an interest in sport, received a number of briefing papers ahead of today's debate. I was struck immediately by the universal concern expressed that there is far too little time devoted to sport and physical education in the national curriculum. It seems that we

1023
are producing a whole new generation of couch potatoes. Children appear much to prefer spending their time watching television or sitting in front of computers or, worst of all, roaming the streets without purpose.
Yet at the same time sport and sporting prowess seem to dominate the news more and more. We are told that more people visit sporting events than ever before and that the range and variety of sports now available has never been greater. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned, huge sums of money have started to flow into many television-friendly sports. Britain has always been proud of its sporting tradition and yet we are told time and time again that we are now a second-class sporting nation.
Much of the blame has been placed at the feet of government and, more particularly, at the perceived failure of the school system to produce the sporting heroes of the future. I have no doubt that the importance attached to competitive sports was allowed to diminish during the last few decades when it seems that, along with many other issues, teachers started to decline to supervise children participating in sports, either in or after school. I believe that this is no longer the case and that, particularly with the various initiatives of the last government and with the support of the then Prime Minister, John Major, a new focus was placed on promoting sport in schools. I am delighted, therefore, to read in various statements by members of the new Labour Government that they, too, recognise this issue and, in particular, under their "Sport for All" banner they have said that they intend to continue to place a high priority on promoting sport in schools. I believe it is a very necessary and achievable aim, in the words of the Conservative Government's White Paper Raising the Game, to:
"bring good sporting facilities within the reach of every child in every school by the year 2000 and to restore the nation's playing fields".
Sport is an essential ingredient in all youth development and it is often at school that children first have the opportunity to achieve a lifelong habit of sport for fitness and pleasure. There is therefore an overwhelming need throughout our school system for good quality and well-balanced physical education and sports facilities.
I wrote down over 20 positive social or moral values, if you can call them that, that I believe are generated in young people by an involvement with sport. Many have already been mentioned by other noble Lords today and I would just mention the encouragement of a healthy lifestyle, the setting of goals, communication skills, confidence-building, self-discipline and friendships. There are many more. At a personal level, at a family and community level and also at a national level, most children benefit from taking part in or watching competitive individual and team sports. My particular point here—and I agree with many other noble Lords—is that children should be introduced to sport as young as possible, preferably at primary school. I know that my own children have already benefited from that at primary school age.
1024
I am positive and excited about the future of sport in schools. I believe that resources are now starting to flow back into the grass roots. I, too, would particularly like to recognise the efforts of the various national sports councils and the many and various governing bodies of sports, of two of which—the MCC and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club—I am proud to be a member, and all the other organisations which have started to feed resources into the school system. Of course we need the next generation of sporting heroes and of course we need to promote initiatives such as the academy of sport. Resources must be directed towards both regaining our leading position in world sport and also in providing those of us who have no extraordinary sporting talent with the opportunity to enjoy our chosen sport for fun.
I have moved over this huge subject far too fast, and we have heard much that is both positive and negative about the future for sport in schools this afternoon. I have many anxieties about the future, not least the continuing loss of our playing fields. These appear, despite government assurances, still to be under great threat. I hope that the Government will be able to give some reassurance about this today. The key to the future success of sport in schools must lie in providing our children with the best of sporting facilities and the best of teaching skills. I shall welcome and support all initiatives to bring this about.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to the importance of sport for the personal and social development of disadvantaged young men and boys. Lest a phalanx of noble Baronesses should rise up to smite me, I quickly want to say that I fully recognise the importance of sport for girls and that girls can be at least as successful as boys and have a right to equal access to sports. Nonetheless, I intend today to focus on sport for boys.
I have become convinced that our society has serious problems which arise from a failure to educate, socialise and civilise its boys and young men, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, in his excellent maiden speech, drew attention to this. We as a society are seeing the emergence of a new type of young male: one who is weakly socialised and weakly socially controlled. If this problem could be solved—and I believe that sport has a role to play in solving it—advantages would accrue not only to the boys themselves but also to the girls and to society as a whole.
Let me give a few examples of the problem. well known to your Lordships. Rates of juvenile crime have fallen over the past 20 years, or so we are told, but the proportion of violent youth crime has risen dramatically. The rate of truanting from school remains unacceptably high. Too many of our children leave school without any recognisable qualifications and yet, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told us yesterday when repeating the pre-Budget Statement, Britain is facing a skills challenge greater than any since the industrial revolution. In its report Learning to Succeed,

1025
the National Commission on Education, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, states in its first paragraph that,
"an uncomfortably large majority of young people leaving school have trouble with literacy and numeracy and seem to have benefited all too little from their education".
National statistics show that the percentage of young people not achieving any GCSEs, even at G-level, is, on a national basis, 8.4; but in the London Borough of Haringey the percentage is 17.7.
My next example is the dead hand of unemployment caused by lack of education and training and by negative attitudes to society and to work. Unemployment is much higher than average in some areas. It was stated in Learning to Succeed:
"Concentrated unemployment has aggravated problems of poverty and given rise to fear of the emergence of an underclass".
If I had time, I could tell your Lordships about a visit I made last week to one of the slums of Chicago. A paramedic unit told me that the three most important kinds of cases they had to deal with were asthma, delivering babies and gunshot wounds.
Finally, many children are growing up in families with only one parent. The UK national average for one-parent families is now 19.1 per cent.; the figure for the Borough of Lambeth is 45 per cent. Noble Lords might like to ask themselves how many of those single mothers would want to be single mothers if they had the opportunity of carrying out their parenting function in partnership with the right young man. Perhaps part of the problem is that we do not have enough suitable young men. We are bringing up our boys and young men to be uneducated, unskilled, unsocialised and often anti-social. We must remedy that situation, and I believe that in doing so sport has a contribution to make—not only sport in school but sport outside school, sport at weekends and sport in the holidays.
How can sport help? Many boys enjoy sport. Sport can reduce truanting, which is an important issue. In Chicago I was told at Hull House that many schools in America are now reintroducing sport and as a result there has been a dramatic fall in truanting. A little jam with the medicine makes it worth coming to school.
It is a fact well known to teachers that a child who succeeds in one area of school work is more likely to succeed in other areas. Building self-confidence and self-esteem can improve behaviour. Sport can build self-confidence and self-esteem for many young men. Many boys with below-academic potential can become successful in sport, and that improves their overall performance. Enhanced self-confidence will make them more able to obtain training and work.
Sport teaches social skills: self discipline, working in a team, learning to cope, winning and losing. And, of course, it helps with physical health. Sport can help a young man to cope better with peer group pressures, which otherwise may lead him into trouble.
Sport in school may have another advantage. Sociologists may argue that boys do not need a male role model in their lives. Whether or not that is true, what is absolutely clear is that most boys seek a male
1026
role model, and they model their own behaviour on that role model. In societies and families where socially acceptable role models are scarce, a football or basketball coach can play an important role in inspiring and guiding boys, can be a hero and a friend, and can act as a positive role model in a boy's life.
The Home Secretary in another place has made no secret of his concern to address the problems of the young disadvantaged and the causes of crime. I hope that he and the Government will give very careful thought to the role that sport can play in achieving that objective.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and to say how wonderful it has been to hear the maiden speeches.
It is extremely important that sport—both as regards the individual and the team—is given a fair place in education before children leave school to go on to university or higher education and into the world. I believe that sport helped my confidence. I was not terrific at sport, but I was reasonable. I was able to represent Clifton in rowing; I got into the A-team for rugby. I know that it also helped me academically. It is so important for boys and girls.
Sport is important for character building; I refer to a Christian viewpoint of character—personality, mind, body and soul. We learn from others in sport—do we not?—in particular team sport, but also individual sport. Individually in tennis singles one can have a pleasant game—or not, if those taking part behave in an unhealthy, aggressive way. We can learn from others. We learn to respect others—do we not?—if sport is carried out properly. We learn to understand from others and in so doing we learn about ourselves. In that way we help one another.
In team sports we learn about trust and loyalty. Those are two qualities which perhaps need to be rediscovered in the world today. Trust and loyalty, whether at school, with your team, with your club or your political party, are important not just when things are going smoothly and lovingly but also when they are a bit rough and tough. In a special way, respect plays a part in team sport.
A short time ago, I remember reading in, I think, the Sunday Times, an article about some rugby clubs which were doing helpful work in teaching young children rugby. It was extremely interesting. The person who wrote it said that there was one aspect in which those clubs were disturbed. It may seem surprising, but they were disturbed by the action, ways and thoughts of the parents, not the little ones.
We know that there is bound to be aggression in sport, but we hope that it is kept in tight rein, in its right place. It was disturbing that the parents' attitude was, "Come on, my little boy, get in there. Give him the works". They leaned towards aggressiveness rather than healthy aggression. That is what the clubs do not want; and that is what we do not want in sport—unhealthy, aggressive, nasty brutality.

1027
Those who were helping the little ones in the clubs were disturbed by that attitude. The parents were not helping the children to try to appreciate the beauty, the talent or the gist of the game. When I am watching rugby or any sport, if I see any of that ghastly, horrible, aggressive brutality I say, "I am not sitting down to watch that". I sit down to watch a game played with not only healthy aggression, but also with the talent and beauty of whatever game is being shown.
Sometimes parents need to be taught about sportsmanship. As has already been said, there is graciousness in winning as well as graciousness in losing. As long as a game is played in a healthy, decent, sportsmanlike manner, the players will know how to react if they lose and how to react if they win. There is nothing worse than winners being arrogant and pompous about their win.
Discipline and confidence have been mentioned and they are important. All those characteristics come from our Christian virtues. We must also consider the aspect of sharing. I was at a private school—or public school, whatever one likes to call them—in England and in Canada. Parents make quite a sacrifice to send their children to such schools; they are not necessarily just those parents with pots of money. If a scheme could be worked out, I am sure that many private and public schools would be willing to share their facilities with others. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her Government will be able to put sport back into schools with a good foundation and find a way of forming a partnership between the different bodies, schools and people.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I am sorry to come in in the gap in the speakers' list, and am grateful to the Government Front Bench for letting me say a few words.
I am pleased to say that, through debate, I have been able to stop the sales of a couple of important pitches, one in the Borough of Redbridge and one in Glasgow. But it is alarming to see the number of sales that are still being negotiated. As a commentator at many sporting events throughout the country, I am aware that many sports are out of the question for people by the time they are teenagers. It is vital that we find the talents of children when they are still young at early school age.
I consider that one of our problems in encouraging sport is that the majority of children do not board at school and there are so many other attractions on Saturdays and Sundays in which they can take part. It is also difficult to find teachers willing to help on Saturdays or Sundays to teach the children when they receive the same salary as the teacher working only five days a week. That is something we must address. This country used to win many medals and now we win fewer and fewer. Sport in this country is in great danger unless we take radical steps very quickly
4.55 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it is altogether too long since we discussed sport in this Chamber, and I thank
1028
my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to take a look at sport and particularly sport in schools. This debate also gives me the opportunity to congratulate all the maiden speakers who have spoken.
Perhaps I may be allowed to start with a cricket analogy. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, started very well and gave us a good beginning. He certainly backed up that beginning. It can safely be said that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, managed to show us, with nice driving strokes, that everything was not wonderful in days gone by. The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, showed us what happens when we take one sport and develop it in a good cultural environment with the right background. It can produce exceptional talents. The noble Lord was far too modest when he described playing in the second, third and fourth divisions as being a modest achievement. It is considerably more success than most people even smell.
If the noble Lord, Lord Monro, feels that he is a had number 10 in the batting order, then I am afraid most teams have nowhere to go. He was right when he said that clubs have an important role to play in the future of sport. Indeed, that is a point I shall develop later.
I should like to say at the start that when we talk of sport, we talk of contest using physical skill. That defines sport. I hope therefore that this debate will finally say goodbye to the absurdity—indeed the impossibility—of non-competitive sport. It just does not exist. When we talk of non-competitive sport, we are talking of exercise—nothing else. That is what it is. I may be accused—to use a brutal expression—of kicking a corpse when I say this. But this is one corpse whose death throes are not quite over so let me make it clear. We have to compete in sport.
School has traditionally provided us with a place where children get their first taste of sport. But, to return to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, it was not always a happy experience. I was probably born to be a Rugby Union player; having the physique and background that I have did not give me many options, and culture meant that the game of Rugby League was not available to me until considerably later on. I went through the school experience on many an afternoon with the wind coming in horizontally, sitting around being forced to play soccer—Association Football. I developed a loathing for the game, which has only fairly recently been tempered. I regularly saw a cloud of people around the ball at the other end of the pitch kicking each other with great abandon. I stood, in defence, wondering when I was to be allowed to join in and, when I was, what I was supposed to do. I soon discovered that simply knocking the players over was not allowed, though it was a great way on occasion of ending the experience early.
That experience added nothing to my sporting education. By the same token, on the few occasions when we played rugby at school, it did not help some of the people who had been in the cloud kicking the ball around to have me running at them and knocking them over quite legally. Once again, they did not benefit from the experience.

1029
Ultimately, sport is something you should do because you get something out of it. Playing a sport because it is good for your school or good for something else misses the point completely. If it is not something you are benefiting from or enjoying, it just will not work. We all know of the rebellious period when teenagers decide that they do not want to join in. How often is that attitude encouraged in sport because teenagers do not enjoy the sports available to them?
The school experience of sport not only has that to contend with but also has the fact that teachers are now snowed under by paperwork. Many of the reports and forms may be beneficial with regard to certain aspects of education, but surely we can get rid of some of them. If we cannot, and we want to have a meaningful educational experience in sport, schools will have to do something else. They will have to employ more teachers and perhaps put aside a little more time in the curriculum for sport. If you have one and half hours or two hours a week for sport and you intend people to shower afterwards, you will cut down your time dramatically. What is certain is that you cannot break it down into penny packets. Indeed, as people get older, especially as they get into their late teenage years, they discover something which all sportsmen discover. I refer to having to warm up in order to avoid tearing muscles. That is certainly a habit they should get into very rapidly. If you carry out this process and have only half hour packets for sport, you will probably have about five minutes in any one lesson to indulge in the sport. The pressure placed on sport by the curriculum and the way it is structured is crucifying the experience in schools for many people. That is beyond question.
We must try to encourage schools to have a realistic sport sampling process and to bring in outside expertise. What I know best is Rugby Union. It has shown a good example not only in teaching rugby to young children in the form of mini-rugby and other competitions, but in doing so in a way acceptable to the children. It has not, as has happened in prep schools, forced them to play 15 a side, with young people running around—many not interested and not wanting to get involved. Some young people just will not receive the ball and if they do they cannot pass it very far. We should not force them to take part in a game for which they are not yet ready.
Rugby League has also shown a good example. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, that when you are on the ground and they are trying to scratch your back, it is not because you have said that it itches. This is an example of how the game can develop. Cricket has done the same thing and even tennis has become involved. We should teach the game in a form that is appropriate to the young. They will then enjoy it and get involved. Schools have to start this process. They have to get people interested. Then—and this is a cultural change for many schools—they must throw up their hands and say, "We cannot do any more with you. Go somewhere where the expertise is". That is a cultural change which schools will have to take on board. Many schools like the idea of the status symbol of a successful school sports team. However, if those days are not yet over,
1030
they are certainly numbered. If we are interested in sport first and school prestige second, we shall have to square up to that problem.
When we consider the whole question of sport in schools we have to bear in mind that we are aiming for something that is not confined to schools. We are talking about forming the habits of exercise and of participating in sport. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, you do not play sport to get fit: you get fit to play sport. That is the incentive behind it. I certainly appreciate the fact that the noble Lord has a damaged back. Rugby Union has meant that after many a late night here I have had to twist my back more often than I care to mention. Sport takes it out on your body. It is something you have to acquire a taste for. Unless schools are prepared to act as a springboard for later life, school sport will dwindle away to nothing, because it is simply not moving with the times.
5.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge and Lord Monro, and my noble friends Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Burlison on their excellent maiden speeches. I very much enjoyed what all of them had to say and look forward to hearing them speaking in the House on many future occasions. I have listened carefully and with great interest to the many points raised in the debate today. I shall try to answer the questions posed but I am sure that in the time available I may fail in some cases. In that event I shall write to Members of your Lordships' House who raised particular questions.
Of course, it goes without saying that we want the very best for our young people. They deserve nothing less than the best. This Government believe that the best must include high quality physical education. What has struck me most today is the degree to which we seem to share that view. There is a great deal of common ground on the importance of physical education and sport for young people as part of the broad and balanced education which is their entitlement.
I am only sorry that there were not more women speakers in the debate. Sport is certainly not just for boys. I gather that the sport in which there are now more women participating than ever before is rugby football, as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Lofthouse are already aware. I am an addict of all sports. As a child. I even played touch rugby with my father and brothers. My sister and I joined in. It was a school of hard knocks in some ways but it was very enjoyable and good for us. Nowadays I stick to tennis. I play tennis every weekend—not very well but I hope I make up for it by my enthusiasm and my competitive approach.
It is important for us to be clear about what we mean when we talk about physical education. A great many people believe that it is synonymous with sport. It is not. The original National Curriculum Working Party on PE summed up the differences succinctly. Sport covers a range of physical activities. Physical education, on the

1031
other hand, is a process of learning, in which the context is mainly physical. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, in physical education the learning process is every bit as important as participation and performance. Good quality PE provides a challenge for all young people and a complement to sporting prowess. Sports provision, including competitive sport, is an essential part of good PE.
There are many reasons for promoting good quality physical education. First, and probably most importantly, as my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Carew, have said, it is the key to a child's health and physical fitness. We have heard a great deal about the ascendancy of the "couch potato" society in recent years. I do not believe that this is entirely the result of a decline of PE in schools, perceived or real. It may have rather more to do with the excitement young people get from computer-driven games than any reluctance to stretch themselves physically.
What is important is that we make sure that schools are in a key position to educate young people about the importance of establishing the habits of a healthy and active lifestyle. We must also recognise that sport complements other aspects of what children learn in school and in their personal lives. For example, it unquestionably lays a valuable foundation in developing adult skills: how to work together as a team; how to co-operate with each other and strive towards a common goal.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' most recent annual report found that the health of PE in schools was largely sound. But the Government have inherited a pretty mixed picture which certainly leaves us no room for complacency. I have already mentioned the importance of a healthy lifestyle. There are other genuine concerns to which many speakers have referred today, especially the need to safeguard the future of school playing fields and other sports facilities to which schools and their local communities must have access. It is a great shame that so many have been sold off in an apparently uncontrolled manner.
However, the English Sports Council is considering how and what records of recreational land might be kept. There also seems to be inconsistency in the amount of time which schools allocate to physical education although that is formally a matter for the schools rather than something that is laid down in the national curriculum. We know that in the past teachers, particularly in primary schools, have been inadequately trained to teach this essential part of the curriculum.
Another important issue is equality of access for young people to good quality teaching and facilities. That is particularly the case for pupils in inner cities, in which creative solutions have to be found to ensure that they have access to appropriate sports facilities without spending a great deal of lesson time travelling to distant playing fields. Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others have said, we must recognise that young people's interests vary widely. In particular, teenage girls often prefer some types of activity to others and we must ensure that the curriculum is used
1032
in a sufficiently flexible way to take account of the particular concerns that girls may have and caters for their interests. What matters is that young people learn to enjoy taking exercise and get into the habit of regular activity, whether it is in an organised team game, athletics, swimming, gymnastics or contemporary dance.
Therefore, there are a number of challenges which we must face if we are not only to safeguard but to improve the prospects for sport in schools and secure the benefits they bring. In the short time since last May the Government have made a start in tackling these issues, and we shall go on to do a great deal more.
I was especially interested in some of the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Burlison. But first, and in response to many speakers today, we intend to make sure that playing fields needed by schools and their communities are not sold in future. We are looking, with our partners inside and outside government, at a wide range of options to secure that. But while we intend to prevent the indiscriminate development of school playing fields, we have to be practical. A total ban on disposals would be too inflexible and against the interests of schools. We recognise that some schools use the proceeds from selling surplus land to develop sports facilities, for example, sports halls and all-weather pitches. We do not want to exclude the possibility of schools making imaginative and constructive use of their assets where it is in the interests of their pupils. Indeed, we have to encourage it. This is a "can-do" Government who face up to reality.
Secondly, the new national curriculum for initial teacher training will ensure that newly qualified teachers are properly equipped to teach PE. I know, as some speakers have suggested, that this has been a particular concern in primary schools. Our new requirements for initial teacher training now allow trainees to specialise across the seven to 11 years age range, so that for the first time primary school teacher trainees are able to specialise in PE as part of their course. Just as importantly, prospective teachers must now spend more time in schools while training and meet new standards which ensure that both primary teachers and PE specialists have the skills, knowledge and understanding to deliver the PE curriculum.
Thirdly, we shall be designating more sports colleges next month. Along with the first 11 sports colleges which began operating in September, they will raise the standard of physical education and community sport and will help young people benefit from the enhanced self-esteem, interpersonal and problem-solving skills which sports foster. While they are able to give priority to pupils who demonstrate the relevant aptitude for a particular sport or sports, we must ensure this does not become a back-door route to selection on the basis of general academic ability.
The Government intend to give these schools a new community focus in which new and exciting specialist schools are quite rightly expected to work in "families" of schools, with feeder primaries and other secondary schools, and with the local community, to spread more widely the benefits of expertise and the advanced provision that they can offer.

1033
But partnership should not stop there. We need to encourage others who can contribute in some way to maximising the opportunities available to young people. The noble Lord, Lord Carew, referred to the fact that my right honourable friend Stephen Byers has today addressed the Girls' Schools Association. He is encouraging independent schools to foster closer links with the state sector, for example, by making sports and other facilities available to children from neighbouring maintained schools where they are able to help. I hope that they will respond positively. I was very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was so negative about that.
The public sector is also looking at its own resources. For example, the Ministry of Defence is considering whether it can open up some of its sports facilities to local schools. I hope that we can explore new aspects of partnership which will benefit all of our young people.
While on the subject of partnership, I have to say that the previous administration have not always had the best track record of co-operation between departments, and between departments and other agencies. But we need to practise what we preach. Co-operation and genuine partnership is at the heart of this Government's strategy, including where physical education and sport are concerned. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, my department has worked, and continues to work, very closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with the English Sports Council and other partners on a range of complementary initiatives to enhance the profile of PE and sport in schools. Where appropriate, we shall also work with other relevant government departments.
Other co-operation which has borne fruit includes the sportsmark award scheme for recognising those secondary schools which achieve a high standard of sporting provision and have good policies for promoting sport. To be eligible, schools have to meet a number of requirements, including a minimum of two hours per week of timetabled PE, at least four hours of sport outside timetabled lessons and offer a range of activities to boys and girls of all abilities.
Working closely with those with an interest in PE and sport in schools, the English Sports Council is developing a proposal for a network of school-based community sports co-ordinators. These would be additional full or part-time teachers based in secondary schools with four key responsibilities: to develop support programmes for local primary schools; to build school-club links and "education for leisure" programmes within the school curriculum; to establish and support after-school sport programmes, to which we attach great importance; and to develop leadership and coaching programmes for senior pupils to gain appropriate qualifications to enhance their role within the sporting community. This looks like a particularly exciting means of enhancing the profile of PE and sport both within schools and, more widely, within the community.
Recently there has been a successful pilot of a scheme for sporting ambassadors which may interest the noble Lord, Lord Addington. This scheme provides for a
1034
programme of school visits by top sports people, in order to encourage school children to participate in sport. We owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for his work in chairing the ambassadors' committee.
A great deal has been said today about the importance of physical education and sport in school. What has been said reinforces the view that PE should be part of the entitlement of young people to a broad and balanced education.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is no longer in his place. I gather that his back has finally given in and I hope that he will be better soon. I am sorry, however, that he introduced a slightly abrasive note into the debate. This subject seems a very good example of something on which we should have constructive, cross-party debates without an exchange of insults. I totally reject the noble Lord's claim that the Labour Party is against competitive sport in schools. That is utter rubbish. The Labour Party does not in any way take that view; nor do the Government.
However, I make no apologies that this Government's priorities are to improve standards in the basics of literacy and numeracy. We have set ourselves ambitious but realistic targets in these key skills, which young people must acquire if they are to make their way as successful adults in the 21st century, and we are determined to ensure that these targets are met.
Of course, learning is about development of the whole person, and while standards in the 3Rs are the top priority, children need much more as building blocks for learning and life. They need to develop their moral and social awareness; to have their curiosity stimulated in order to help them to develop the ability to learn; and, as we have heard today from so many speakers, to develop mentally and physically through good quality sports provision in schools. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, for recognising the importance which the new government attach to sport in schools.
Cynics may argue that we cannot have it both ways—that we cannot have high standards in the basics and a broad and balanced education which includes good PE. I take issue with that. It is wholly consistent for us to raise standards in the basics while improving the provision of, and standards in, school sport. That is what we must do. Good PE is entirely complementary to our drive to improve standards in the basics. Indeed, it would be unthinkable for one to happen without the other.
5.24 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that meaty reply. All of us, and those who advise and lobby us, will want to read Hansard for the full extent of what the noble Baroness said, but I am glad that she gave the debate the response that those of us who participated wanted. The noble Baroness approached the matter in a non-partisan way and took the opportunity to put behind us some of the ideological differences on this issue in order to build a real national strategy.
Like the well disciplined team that we are, we are to come in well on time with this debate, so perhaps I may make just one or two comments. I very much appreciate

1035
the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the young disadvantaged. That issue is very important to any debate about school sports strategy. Likewise, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for picking up the very important issue of sport for the disabled. That matter is very much a part of policy.
We had one absentee today—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt (of Llanfairwaterdine) but I will always know him as Lord Hunt (of Everest). The noble Lord would have been present but for indifferent health and I know that he would have wanted to raise a point which might have challenged my noble friend Lord Addington. I refer to the merit of individual sports where the competition is with yourself, such as is the case with Outward Bound.
Noble Lords may know that my noble friend Lord Addington is one of the more eligible bachelors in this House. I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, might consider introducing my noble friend to one of the maidens of Featherstone who play Rugby League. That may help to bridge the gap.
The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, has spent his career playing for Hartlepool United. I am not sure whether that is a triumph of hope over experience or of joy through suffering.
What is certain, however, is that our four maiden speakers, coming from very different aspects of sport, were all well worth listening to. I know that their speeches will be well worth reading in Hansard tomorrow.
I have been delighted by the quality of the debate. The only sport in which I have ever been a member of the first team is darts, but some "jobsworth" said that it was not a sport. However, sport has always been very much a part of my life, and especially now that I have a young family. I have been checking what sport my son, John, aged seven, does at his local primary school. He has one and a quarter hours of key stage two sport, covering five specific areas: dance, team games, gym, adventure/outdoor activity and swimming. In addition, he has three sessions a week of basketball, football and swimming and we have an eight-mile cycle path in St. Albans. So, all is not gloom.
As I said, we have heard some excellent maiden speeches and our contributions as a whole have shown that blend of youth and experience which is the hallmark of all successful sports teams. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gibraltar
5.28 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell rose to call attention to the problems faced by the inhabitants of Gibraltar; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful indeed to the fickle finger of fate which drew this particular topic out of the hat at such an opportune moment because the question of Gibraltar has been in the news on many occasions in recent days and has been raised
1036
and discussed in another place. Gibraltar has been on the agenda at meetings between the Foreign Ministers of Spain and the United Kingdom and will be discussed in the latest round of the Brussels process on, I believe, 10th December. It will be the first time for a number of years that those in Brussels have assembled for that purpose.
The question of Gibraltar has rumbled on for nearly 300 years since the Rock came into British possession in 1704. Since that situation was ratified by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 Spain has tried to repossess the Rock on many occasions by many means, including force. In recent times the use of force has been renounced by Spain. In 1967 Mrs. Judith Hart, speaking for the then British Government, said that there would be no change in British control over Gibraltar without the freely expressed wishes of the inhabitants of that territory. Of greater importance than any of these declarations or agreements is Article 73 of the United Nations Charter which provides that on any question of decolonisation of any territory owned by a colonial power the wishes of the inhabitants of that territory must be paramount.
Sometimes we forget that it is the people of Gibraltar who have the final say. I do not believe that that point has yet been taken on board in Madrid. In recent years, particularly since joining the European Community, as it then was, Spain has used every chance to undermine Gibraltar's links with the United Kingdom. It has not tried to do so with a single blow of an axe. Spain believes that it will take many years before it can achieve its ends. It envisages a process of a thousand tiny cuts that will sever the cords that bind the Rock to the mother country. Economic decline may be imposed on Gibraltar in such a way as to put pressure on its people to accept Spanish rule at some stage. The sheer inconveniences may become so burdensome that they will give in and ask Britain to negotiate a deal with Spain. Madrid believes that eventually the Rock will drop into Spain's lap like a ripe plum.
The question of air liberalisation is perhaps the longest running of these European points. It came to a head 10 years ago over the air liberalisation agreement. One remembers that at that time there was talk of a "Basle-Geneva" solution which would enable people who landed at Gibraltar airport to go straight into Spain without passing through customs and immigration, as happens in those two Swiss-French joint airports. There would be nothing wrong with that were it not for the fact that Spain claims the territory of the airport. There is certainly nothing wrong with it as between Switzerland and France at Basle or Geneva, but there is a problem about it as between Gibraltar and Spain because of the territorial claim. One realises that Spain wishes to have not just joint use of Gibraltar airport for civil passenger traffic but joint air traffic control and joint right of access for their aircraft without passing through immigration control on the Gibraltar side. All of this, if it were conceded, would be trumpeted abroad in Spain as "progress"—a step along the road to a change in sovereignty.
Since the people and Government of Gibraltar have refused to ratify that agreement, Spain has refused to allow any of its own carriers to fly into Gibraltar or any

1037
carriers from outside Spain, Gibraltar or Britain to use the airport either. Spain leans on airlines such as Lufthansa and KLM so that they are not allowed to use Gibraltar. This means that Madrid, Frankfurt and Amsterdam cannot be used by the people of Gibraltar as a hub. If anyone wants to fly to anywhere in Europe or outside Europe the flight must be made to London and then from London onwards. The message from Madrid is always the same: sign the air traffic agreement and give Spain its progress and step towards change or suffer the economic consequences.
Times have changed since the majority of the workforce on the Rock worked in the dockyards for the Ministry of Defence. Gibraltar is a small place the size of Andover in population. It has 30,000 inhabitants. They must maintain their mini-economy. If they do not I do not know to what extent the mother country will come to their aid. Clearly, there is no limitless amount of money here in the form of aid for them.
One must also consider the external frontiers convention and the Schengen agreement, which was raised in another place yesterday. Whenever a matter of controversy within the European Union arises it is seized upon by the Spanish side and used to try to obtain some concession over Gibraltar. In the case of the external frontiers convention Madrid seeks to make the point that Gibraltar is not part of the European Community for immigration purposes. If Spain could achieve that it would be a victory, but it would be quite erroneous and unfair because Gibraltar joined the European Community in 1973 with the United Kingdom, 13 years before Spain joined.
The question of tax harmonisation has also been mentioned. I gave notice to the noble Baroness that I would raise this matter. I hope that she will be able to reassure the House that any move towards tax harmonisation will not be used by the European Union under Spanish insistence by a majority vote of the European Parliament, followed by a qualified majority vote of the Council of Ministers, to do away with the use of Gibraltar as a financial centre. Since the run-down of MoD facilities on the Rock, Gibraltar has had to build up alternative means of earning a living, and its development as a financial centre has been one of those methods. I hope that the Minister will wish it every success and protect it.
The land frontier with Spain used to be the front line of conflict, and it is still a serious matter. The flow of traffic across the frontier is turned on and off, rather like the traffic between West Germany and West Berlin was turned on and off by the Soviets in the bad old days. The British have suggested that there should be a red and green channel system. Spain has turned down that idea. It allows traffic to cross only in single line, and it depends on the mood of Madrid or the governor of Cadiz. As far as one understands it, the present governor is better than his predecessor, Mr. Cesar Brana, who liked building up long queues at the frontier. There can be no doubt that the system of one-lane traffic lends itself to queue-building. This is done whenever Madrid feels in a bit of a bad mood. The ability to tighten the bottleneck is there and can be used at any time.
There are inadequate manning levels and queues of an hour have been quite frequent in recent days. In the past year or two delays could be for as long as four or five hours. If the frontier is unreliable it stands to reason that people will not use Gibraltar for tourism for fear of missing their flights home, and Gibraltar's economy is to that extent undermined.
Another problem imposed by Spain is that it will not allow commercial goods to cross the frontier except between 0800 hours to 1530 hours Mondays to Fridays and at weekends not at all. If one wants to go by taxi, one has to get out of one's taxi at the frontier and get another taxi across the line. When one thinks of how normal it is to take a taxi or vehicle across any other European frontier, even to Hungary, Poland or Slovakia, which are not in EU, one wonders why such a situation is tolerated by the authorities in Brussels and the Commission. Indeed I believe that the Swedish Commissioner was shocked when she visited that frontier a month ago. She protested vociferously about it.
There is also a problem with telephone communications. Spain will not accept the international code used by Gibraltar, and the telephone numbers used by the people there are running out. Again, that is a threat to the financial centre.
I have two points to put to the Government. On 10th December, there will be a bilateral meeting. Some people believe that it should be a trilateral meeting, because the people of Gibraltar have just as much, or perhaps more, need to debate the issue as Spain or the UK. Will the Minister assure me that Mr. Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, will be invited to Brussels, and that if he goes—the question of his attendance is controversial on the Rock—he will not go as the British Government's nominee or plaything but in his capacity as the elected representative of Gibraltar and the protector of its interests which, according to the UN Charter, are paramount? The interests of the people of Gibraltar are paramount.
I hope that the Chief Minister will not be asked to leave the room when the subject of sovereignty is raised, which it must be, of course, under the terms of the 1984 Brussels agreement. In that context I have to say that a comment made in this House on 24th October by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about bilateral discussions has caused some concern on the Rock.
My final point relates to the EU in general and the consistent use by Spain of negotiation to try to make progress. Gibraltar needs representation in the EU institutions. At the moment it has no one to look after its interests. It has no one in the Commission who is charged specifically with looking after Gibraltar, and no one in the ECJ, of course. On the Council, in theory, yes. Britain, as a member of the Council of Ministers, looks after Gibraltar, but there can sometimes be conflicts of interest between ourselves and that small territory.
Why is no Member of the European Parliament charged with looking after the people of Gibraltar? Why are the 30,000 people of Gibraltar the only people in the Union of 400 million people who are not allowed to

1039
vote in European elections? When this matter was raised nearly 20 years ago, governments pointed out to me that it was difficult to accommodate Gibraltar within the single member system, but a Bill has been introduced. Cannot the Government see fit to accommodate the 30,000 people, of whom 13,000 or 14,000 are voters, in the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament? There is concern about all those points on the Rock. I was there last week. I hope that the Minister will be able to cast some oil on those troubled waters. I beg leave to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, it is a tremendous honour and pleasure to take my place in your Lordships' House. I am sad that my noble father and my mother whom many noble Lords knew well are not here to enjoy this occasion. As noble Lords may be aware, I succeeded my father in Leicester West and Leicester North-West, and now here. That is a unique record. It is so unique that my son has suggested that this House might introduce a hereditary peerage by precedent. As that is unlikely, he has, alas, to fight his own way up, especially from the other side of the House. I am—I hope your Lordships will not mind me saying so—sad that my wife passed away last year. She would have enjoyed this so much, and so it is doubly important to me that I have so much support, affection and help from my children, my family and my friends.
I am happy to be here, but the people who are most responsible for that are the citizens of Leicester North-West and later Leicester West, especially perhaps those of Braunstone. I hope that they are happy to share their name with me. That is an area of Leicester which I have been most happy to serve for 27 years. Those people have needed that service more than most. I have there many friends, including my agent Janet Setchfield for all those years, and I also salute the present Lord Mayor of Leicester, Councillor Ray Flint.
The subject today is one which is dear to me. I have been to Gibraltar many times. It is extraordinary—is it not?—that a place with just 30,000 souls could produce so many distinguished leaders: Sir Joshua Hassan, whom I knew well and I liked greatly; the former Chief Minister Joe Bossano and Peter Caruana whom I consulted before making the suggestion that I shall make to the House.
I listened, of course, with much interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bethel]. I shall not add to his criticism of the miseries imposed upon the people of Gibraltar by those of Spain. I have spent a great deal of time in Spain. I know the country well. As a youngster I spent months there. I learnt to speak its language. Under sufficient provocation or wine, I could even sing in Spanish. It is a country I like enormously. I have been involved a little in its political life. I went with some Members of the other place once long ago to keep Felipe Gonzalez out of Franco's prison. So I cannot be accused of being anti-Spanish. I just believe that on this issue they are totally, absolutely and permanently wrong.
It is clear from long years in politics that if people think they will get somewhere, they will keep on doing improper, difficult and nasty things in the hope that one
1040
day the other side will give in. If we are to convince the Spaniards that they might as well give up behaving in the way that the noble Lord has described, we have to convince them that it is a purposeless exercise, and that they might as well give up now and live in peace with their neighbours.
How do we convince them? I share the noble Lord's anxieties about what might happen in Gibraltar. My impression is that the entire population, from whatever background, are absolutely determined that under no circumstances whatever will they become part of Spain. The belief that if you make their lives miserable enough by harassing people at the border, by making difficulties at the airport, or in the other ways so ably described by the noble Lord, that result will be produced is just wrong.
How then can we convince the Spaniards? I have a suggestion which I first came across many years ago when I was a law student at Harvard Law School. It comes from the precedent set by the US which, a century ago, started sending what they call territorial delegates to their Congress. They have people who are appointed or elected who are Members of their Congress, but they have different rights. They do not have the right to vote in Congress. But they do have, after much discussion and constitutional change, the right to vote in committees. They have the right to take part in debates, and to do precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was saying that Chief Minister Caruana should do in Brussels: express the feelings and the views of the people who inhabit those territories.
I ask the Government to be good enough to look at the possibility of a minor constitutional change which would enable the people of Gibraltar, and possibly those of other dependent territories, to send and—it is to be hoped—elect a person to come to this Parliament. It is possible that it would be best for such people to be delegated to the other place. However, while sitting here, it occurred to me that it might be equally useful and important for them to be delegated or elected to attend this House where they could put forward their views.
That would have two results. First, the people of Gibraltar would feel that they are heard. They would have elected a person to express their views in the Parliament which, after all, decides upon their future. Secondly, it would be the clearest possible signal to the Spaniards that there is no way under which they can under any circumstances, and by any manner of harassment whatever, incorporate the Rock of Gibraltar with the mainland of their country.
There is a song which I learnt, which says:
"Espana—no hay màs que una"—
there is only one Spain. But, it is also true that:
"Gibraltar—no hay màs que una"—
there is only one Gibraltar. It is a place of which we should be proud. It is a community of communities of different backgrounds and ethnic origins living and working together in extraordinary harmony. It is a community which wants to be part of the United Kingdom. I ask the Government to consider whether its

1041
people's wishes could not be put to some effect and the correct signal given to the Spaniards by allowing it to send a delegate or a Member to our British Parliament.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is the first time that I have spoken immediately following the maker of a maiden speech. Therefore, it is also the first time that I am able to comply with the very pleasant duty and tradition of the House of Lords of offering congratulations on behalf of the whole House. After such a splendid speech, it is very easy to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, on it, and to thank him for his very well-informed contribution. Gibraltar is a subject close to his heart. I express the hope that we shall hear from the noble Lord on many occasions in the future and on many different subjects. The noble Lord's reputation for championing causes goes before him, and therefore we feel sure that the people of Gibraltar will welcome the fact that he made his maiden speech on that subject.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for giving us the opportunity again to debate Gibraltar. Several Questions have recently been tabled on the subject and the Minister is, I suspect, rapidly becoming a considerable expert on such matters. We also had a more general debate on the dependent territories in July when a number of contributions referred to the situation in Gibraltar.
There are so many issues, but I wish to concentrate on three main ones. My noble friend covered many of them. I, too, will dwell on elections to the European Parliament. It seems wrong that the people of Gibraltar have no opportunity to vote, even though Gibraltar is a full member of the European Union. When I was a Member of the European Parliament after the first direct elections in 1979, I was happily one of the six British Members involved. There were three Conservatives, led by my noble friend Lord Bethel], and three Labour Members who were asked by the Government of Gibraltar, in the form of the then chief Minister Sir Joshua Hassan, to represent the interests of the people of Gibraltar.
In those days we were talking about the possibility of perhaps adding the votes of the Gilbraltarians to Hampshire East and the Isle of Wight, as an appropriate place. I would have been very happy to have their votes in Liverpool. in which case I might have won the election the next time round. Nevertheless, it seems extraordinary that the issue still remains unresolved, particularly when we know that people of the French dependent territories in places as far flung as Guadeloupe and Reunion are represented in the European Parliament. Certainly all the people of those territories have the right to vote.
Equally, we must remember that the people of Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish enclaves in north Africa, Morocco, also have the right to vote in the European elections when the people of Gibraltar do not. I certainly see the tabling of the Bill concerning the new form of election to the European Parliament, which I understand
1042
is before the House of Commons today—or perhaps it was tabled yesterday—as a vehicle for introducing change. If I know my noble friend Lord Bethell, aright, I feel sure that an amendment will be tabled in due course when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House, if it has not already been taken care of in the other place. I believe that that is a particularly important and current issue.
The second issue which I wish to dwell upon is the question of dialogue between Spain and this country, and indeed the people of Gibraltar. As our Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, coined the phrase:
"Two flags and three voices".
That worked to a certain extent, but even that relationship has now broken down. It is necessary to do something to break the impasse. I believe that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, was extremely interesting. He may be amused to know that that was put forward at our dependent territories debate—that is, if we are looking at reform of the Houses of Parliament, especially the House of Lords—as a possible solution not only for Gibraltar but also for all the dependent territories. I know that Gibraltar feels that, in this day and age, it should have an equal voice and that it should be part of triangular discussions. I see no reason why, with goodwill on all sides, that that should not be possible.
I believe that my dilemma, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is that I love Spain. Indeed, I have many good Spanish friends. However. I also love Gibraltar and have many good Gibraltarian friends. There are many people who live in Gibraltar—Gibraltarians—who have many good Spanish friends and some of them have homes in Spain. It is those people who are perhaps most affected by the border problems to which my noble friend referred. Above all, it is essential that we improve the opportunities for dialogue because it must be at its lowest level for many years at present.
The third issue that I should like to raise relates to a suggestion that was put forward at a meeting addressed by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, earlier this week in London. The suggestion related to the proposals for constitutional reform, constitutional modernisation, which the Gibraltar Government have put forward. The basis of the suggestion to break the deadlock is that the pill should be sweetened by all parties—namely, Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar—and that they should agree to allow a United Nations sponsored referendum on sovereignty to be held on the Rock to test Gibraltarian opinion at intervals of not less than, say, 25 years. Such a solution, it was suggested, would keep Spanish hopes alive while at the same time encouraging them to exchange their present policy of harassment for one of good neighbourliness to encourage an eventual vote in their favour. If this were to be accepted as a way forward, Gibraltar would be able to enjoy both decolonisation and an end to Spanish harassment. Sovereignty would revert to Spain if, and only if, she managed to persuade a two-thirds majority to vote in her favour.
After something like half a century of Spanish harassment, and a long period when the frontier was closed during and after the Franco regime, I believe that

1043
a change of this kind would enable Gibraltarian opinion to be changed. Although it may be most unlikely that after this harassment Gibraltarian opinion would change in favour of Madrid, Madrid could always nurse the hope that in a changing world anything is possible. That suggestion was put forward and the chief minister acknowledged the fact that it was a possible way forward and indicated that he had no objection to the idea of a referendum. I think that he felt pretty sure of his ground. I put this suggestion to the noble Baroness. I hope that we may hear from her on that subject.
I believe that I have covered the three main issues that I wanted to deal with. I wish to refer, however, to the review of the dependent territories which is currently being carried out by the Government and which followed the tragic happenings in Montserrat. As I understand it, we are due to hear the results of that review next February at the debate organised by the Dependent Territories Association. However, it has been suggested that the review is considering all of the dependent territories—there are 13 in all—except Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. I should be interested to have some confirmation of that and an explanation if Gibraltar is excluded from that review.
I refer again to my strong feeling that the dependent territories—this, of course, affects Gibraltar in the context of this debate—may find a solution within the Commonwealth. As a result of the Commonwealth summit which has taken place since our previous debate, new ways of looking at the Commonwealth and how it functions and how its networking applies, are being considered. Will the position of the dependent territories also be considered in that context because at the moment they do not have a direct voice in the Commonwealth; they have to speak via the UK Government? I know from my experience of attending a Commonwealth education ministers' conference and a Commonwealth health ministers' conference that some representatives of the dependent territories who attended were able to be present only as part of the British delegation. I believe that that irks them and it certainly irks Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is a democracy. The British Government have responsibility in respect of its defence, foreign affairs and internal security. It is also part of the European Union. It has a neighbour, Spain, and it has an incredible and unthinkable border problem. It is incredible and unthinkable in this day and age given that Spain, the United Kingdom, and Gibraltar as part of the United Kingdom, are all part of the European Union. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to reassure us once again and the 30,000 people of Gibraltar that they have this Government's full support in carrying out their wishes to have as much independence as possible but an ongoing relationship with the United Kingdom.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I had thought that this Government were as solid as the previous government on the sovereign rights of Gibraltarians to their own destiny. Indeed they profess that that is the case. But
1044
what do we have? We have the Amsterdam Treaty triumphally heralded by the Prime Minister:
"what we have secured, which is important and is a better way of going about things, is what I call an opt-in'".
an opt-in which the Foreign Secretary described in the following way:
"Britain lost out as the result of an error in discussions on border controls in the final stages of the talks in June".
This error effectively means that this Government inadvertently surrendered a valuable bargaining chip to the Spanish in their longstanding feud with Britain and the Gibraltarians over the sovereignty of Gibraltar. It is no wonder Gibraltarians are concerned.
A Spanish diplomat has been quoted as saying, on the opening of the Gibraltar office in Brussels,
"If they are going to try to negotiate bilaterally with the Commission, then Spain will be very angry—Spain is not going to accept that. We have a right to be angry".
What right does it have to be angry? Gibraltarians are members of the EU whether Spain likes it or not, and in common with all members of the EU they are fully entitled to negotiate bilaterally with the Commission. Would Spain have a right to be angry if Scotland or Wales were to open an office in Brussels? Surely this Government, within the EU and on all occasions, must insist on Spain recognising the international telephone code of 350 for Gibraltar. Paradoxically, Spain recognises the international telex code. There seems to be no reason for this action other than pure harassment.
Spain must recognise international military and civilian air traffic to Gibraltar. Spain must clearly recognise Gibraltarian (EU) passports and ID cards and must apply the same rules on the freedom of movement of people and goods as it does for example at its borders with France and stop the ridiculous harassment at its borders with Gibraltar.
I am pleased to have seen and entirely support the reported strength of the Foreign Secretary's response to Spain over the NATO issue. I ask the Minister for her confirmation that Spain will not be admitted as a full member of NATO—as a supposed ally—until Spain admits that it has no legitimate demands over the sovereignty of Gibraltar and lifts its unacceptable barriers to the freedoms of Gibraltarians.
In relation to the suggestion that Spanish troops could be stationed in Gibraltar under NATO, I suggest that we should advise the Spanish that we are going to ask the Gibraltarian Government to raise a militia. That militia will be armed with EU passports and Gibraltarian ID cards and will guard our embassy in Madrid.
I have given the Minister notice of my next question. On 28th October I asked her noble friend Lord Whitty when a constitutional conference may take place on Gibraltar. He replied,
"My Lords, as I understand it, the Gibraltar Government are making proposals. We have not yet received those proposals; they are not yet finalised. We do not envisage a conference in the sense to which the noble Lord refers. However, we shall consider seriously the initiative taken by the Government of Gibraltar. There are certain limits on the options in both the Treaty of Utrecht and the existing constitution".—[Official Report, 28/10/97; col. 973]

1045
I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to explain this extreme example of gobbledegook. I firmly believe that the time has come for a new constitutional conference and that this Government should formulate their own proposals for discussion rather than rely solely on the Gibraltar Government to make the agenda.
I have suggested in the past—and do so again now—that Spanish observers should be invited to observe such a conference in order that they are fully aware of our resolve that Spain has no legitimate aspirations to sovereignty of Gibraltar and that the expressed wish of the majority of the people of Gibraltar should be paramount, and that we will not put up with the current harassment techniques of Spain over Gibraltar and Gibraltarians. I believe that we should discuss these problems with the Spanish Government in every possible forum and make it clear that we are fully behind the people of Gibraltar over Spanish intransigence in these matters.
My noble friend Lord Bethell, whom I thank for introducing the debate, and my noble friend Lady Hooper spoke of Gibraltarian involvement in elections to the European Parliament. At present, they have no entitlement to vote. Given the number of voters there, it would be naïve to suggest that Gibraltar should have its own representative. However, I should like to see one UK MEP constituency delineated to encompass Gibraltar so that voters could have the satisfaction of having had their say.
6.10 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, on an outstanding maiden speech. I know that we shall hear a great deal more from him in the years to come. I have had a great deal of involvement with him as regards his interests in South Africa. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for introducing the debate. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I do not agree that Gibraltar is a party political issue between the current Government and the previous government. I believe that both Governments have done everything in their power to defend the rights of Gibraltarians and therefore I do not believe that this is an opportunity to make party political gain.
Although the debate focuses on the problems faced by the inhabitants of Gibraltar, I should like to focus my comments on the practical options and measures that there are to defuse the stalemate with Spain and the potential that there is for the territory. I say "territory" because I believe that the time is past for referring to it as a colony. While I respect the long tradition of democracy and self government in Gibraltar and its right of self determination, I fear that the full potential of the territory can and will be achieved only when there is a negotiated solution through dialogue. Against the background of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence accounting for the bulk of Gibraltar's GDP now providing less than 10 per cent. of GDP from the military presence there, I believe that the focus needs to be more on job creation and the promotion of the offshore financial centre, as well as on
1046
its huge potential for tourism. I was fortunate to be a member of the delegation which went to Gibraltar. It was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I was amazed by the huge potential, but also at the sad state of disrepair of many of the hotels. Clearly, they are unable to survive without the increased tourist trade that is so desperately needed in the territory.
I was interested to read in a recent Financial Times supplement on Gibraltar that Peter Montegriffo, the trade and industry Minister, predicted that the financial sector, which now makes up 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of GDP, should increase its share to one-third. He forecast that a further one-third would come from tourism, with the remainder in the public sector and from other activities such as shipping and bunkering.
While, arguably, the political difficulties with Spain may not be much of an impediment to the growth of the international financial centre in Gibraltar, with limited air and sea connections, Gibraltar's tourists are mostly day visitors crossing the border. Coupled with the delays in crossing the border, which several noble Lords have highlighted, there is a crippling effect on the growth of tourism.
I believe that the key to unlocking the current stalemate and to fulfilling the true potential of Gibraltar is the freeing and opening up of Gibraltar's airport to allow joint use. I believe that that is in the interests of all. That would certainly bring financial and social benefits both to Gibraltar and the adjacent area in Andalusia. There are many successful examples of the joint use of airports in other parts of Europe; for instance, Geneva and Basel, which operate under joint usage by two sovereign states.
In order for the offshore centre to be successful, it needs to be reputable, respectable and well regulated. I believe that the regulatory authorities of Gibraltar have gone a long way towards achieving those objectives. Since the cigarette smuggling and drug trafficking operations have been brought under control, I can see no valid reason why there should be any protracted delays on the border.
I support the words of the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, in his recent address to the United Nations Fourth Committee, when he said:
"Time cannot stand still for Gibraltar. We must progress onwards".
While the transfer of sovereignty is non-negotiable for the people of Gibraltar, I welcome the Chief Minister's desire for, in his words, "bridge building and fence mending" with the aim of achieving some European formula which can potentially be acceptable to Britain, Gibraltar and Spain.
I also believe that the time is right for constitutional reform in Gibraltar, possibly similar to the Guernsey model. The Treaty of Utrecht does not forbid a more modern political arrangement. I hope that in winding up the Minister can give some encouragement as regards the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that Gibraltarians should have the right to take part in elections to the European Parliament.
In conclusion, I believe that it is in no one's interests to continue the current stalemate between Spain and Gibraltar. I favour a process of encouraging constructive

1047
dialogue, possibly linked to a timetable and, it is to be hoped, to a resolve on the airport, while like all other noble Lords respecting the rights of the people of Gibraltar to self determination.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for initiating the debate. On 12th November during the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill the Foreign Secretary stated:
"I invite the House to approve the Bill that puts the Amsterdam treaty into legislation with pride".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/97; col. 910.]
That may be so, but on 5th November at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Gibraltar's Chief Minister expressed its fears regarding the frontier control of persons and provisions in the treaty which could enable Spain to continue to abuse immigration controls at the frontier as a means of creating unnecessarily long border queues. As noble Lords have mentioned, those are damaging for the economy.
The very rigid controls exercised by Spain on persons desirous of entering Gibraltar were referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. But in view of Spain's concern regarding the status of the territory in the European Union, the fears are not concerned with the nationality provisions regarding freedom of movement but are related to the position of the territory of Gibraltar itself for persons desirous for entering Spain through the Gibraltar-La Linea border. Can the Minister satisfy the House that those fears are unfounded or that the Government will take action if need be?
I should like to turn now to what I would call the theme of this year's National Day on 10th September; namely, self-determination and decolonisation. On 26th March of this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, wrote to me saying that the Government support the principle or right of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar. But she mentioned too the limitation of Gibraltar's options which would have to be compatible with the Treaty of Utrecht and workable in practice. Can the Minister confirm that a formula which would give Gibraltar a status similar to that of the Channel Islands would not infringe on the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht; in other words, an improvement of the constitution along the lines of a Crown dependency which would also not require the agreement of Spain. In that case, two recent unpopular statements could be avoided in the future; namely that,
"Spain is one of the key players in the settlement of a long term status for Gibraltar".
and, regarding decolonisation,
"We want to do a deal with the Government of Gibraltar and then cover the Spanish dimension on a bilateral basis".
To conclude, in view of the Foreign Secretary's firm stand in Luxembourg last week with regard to a Spanish attempt to winkle out back-door concessions over sovereignty, the Government might now consider more favourably the assertion that the Rock's status is a Gibraltar/United Kingdom matter.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have some hesitation in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, on his maiden speech. I say at once that my hesitation is due solely to the fact that as a parliamentary novice who delivered my own maiden speech only a week ago, I regard it as somewhat presumptuous to congratulate such an experienced and distinguished parliamentarian as the noble Lord. However, I listened to his maiden speech with great pleasure and admiration. I believe that his proposal for a Gibraltarian delegate to the Parliament of the United Kingdom is interesting and deserves consideration.
The people of Gibraltar clearly have a right to self-determination. The United Kingdom is a party to the international covenant on civil and political rights. Article I of that covenant states clearly that all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural developments.
The people of Gibraltar are a people with a distinct identity. They are neither part of the people of Britain nor part of the people of Spain. They are the people of Gibraltar. The fact that the United Kingdom failed to obtain the consent of the people of Hong Kong for the return of that territory to China is no reason for refusing to recognise the rights of the people of Gibraltar.
The right of self-determination can be exercised by the people of Gibraltar in a number of different ways. As has been pointed out, independence is not a realistic option. It is probably contrary to the Treaty of Utrecht and at the present time it is not sought by the people of Gibraltar. But the people of Gibraltar can seek a greater degree of autonomy than they have at present while remaining subject to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. By contrast they could seek full integration with the United Kingdom, again, of course, subject to the consent of the people of the United Kingdom.
Indeed, they could seek association or integration with the Kingdom of Spain. Spain is fully entitled to try to persuade the people of Gibraltar to become part of Spain. If it so wishes, Spain is entitled to offer inducements for that purpose such as special status, as was done by China in the case of Hong Kong. Indeed, if the union of Gibraltar with Spain was the bona fide wish of the people of Gibraltar, the United Kingdom would have no right or reason to object to it.
But Spain, clearly, should not use harassment to force the people of Gibraltar into an unwilling union. Many forms of harassment are currently being used. First, there is the go-slow at the La Linea border crossing; secondly, the restrictions on the access to the airport; thirdly, the refusal of the right to run a ferry from Algeciras to Gibraltar; fourthly, the refusal to recognise Gibraltar's international direct dialling code; and fifthly, the refusal to recognise the identity cards of the people of Gibraltar as valid travel documents for entry into Spain.
Because of the problems with tobacco smuggling, there may be some justification for car searches at La Linea being more thorough than at other border

1049
crossings into Spain. But even so, the long waits imposed from time to time at that border crossing are completely unjustified. Indeed, a number of the restrictions appear to contradict the law of the European Union. One draws the clear inference that at least one purpose—probably the principal one—of the imposition of restrictions is to try to force the people of Gibraltar into a union with Spain by making life sufficiently uncomfortable to make them change their minds.
Gibraltar should not be dog in the manger about its own position. It may well be that a Spanish terminal at the airport, which would permit travellers to southern Spain to avoid going through Gibraltar customs and immigration, would be a practical and sensible step. It was certainly one which was agreed to by the United Kingdom and Spain in 1987. At that time the Government of the United Kingdom was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, someone not inclined to make concessions to foreign countries when those concessions were not justified or, indeed, sometimes when they were justified. In any event, it is true that Gibraltar was entitled to reject the agreement reached between the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain. But certainly I would welcome reconsideration of that decision.
Be that as it may, the Spanish restrictions in force at the moment are not justified as a matter of international law nor are they justified by any acts or omissions of either of the governments of the United Kingdom or Gibraltar. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use all reasonable means to persuade the Government of Spain to withdraw those restrictions which can only do damage to the goodwill between Spain and this country and between Spain and Gibraltar.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for introducing the debate. It is only on such a significant subject that I feel able to trouble the House with a second speech in one day. However, it provides me with the personal pleasure of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on his maiden speech. It was incisive, superbly delivered, deeply felt and clearly thought through. It had all the hallmarks of the noble Lord's previous incarnation in another place. Consequently, the noble Lord has today demonstrated the art of seamless transition. As he put it, and if I may be so bold as to agree, it bore all the finest hallmarks of an hereditary principle.
One factor shone through the contributions to the debate. Gibraltar is unique—unique because of the combination of its geography and status and the resultant problems that its inhabitants face.
The special position of Gibraltar is reflected in the diverse ethnic and cultural heritage of the people, of which they are rightly proud. They are rightly proud, too, of their long tradition of democracy and self-government, which enables them to meet the challenges that they face today.
As my noble friend Lord Bethell made clear, there is agreement between both parties on the United Kingdom's policy towards Gibraltar, which is guided by
1050
the twin precepts of the Treaty of Utrecht and the 1969 constitution. It is enshrined in the preamble to the 1969 constitution, and the Government are wise to stand firmly by their commitment to the people of Gibraltar, that we will never enter into any arrangement whereby they would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. I am sure that the Minister will have no hesitation today in repeating our assurance to the people of Gibraltar that its future, including the issue of sovereignty, must be a matter for the population as a whole.
That assurance is vitally important. As noble Lords well know, the status of Gibraltar has been a matter of disagreement between the United Kingdom and Spain for nearly 300 years—ever since the rocky promontory at the foot of the Iberian Peninsula ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht.
Spain has always laid claim to Gibraltar, and has sometimes used notoriously hostile tactics in stating its assertion of sovereignty to the Rock, culminating in General Franco's unilateral decision to close the border between Spain and Gibraltar in 1969, effectively severing links between the Rock and the mainland for over 13 years.
Despite the Brussels process established in 1984 to discuss a range of Gibraltar-related issues. including sovereignty, the people of Gibraltar are still beset by an unsubtle blend of restrictions contrived by Spain. For example, at the beginning of this year, Spain again indicated that it would refuse to recognise British passports issued in Gibraltar. The then Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, intervened to secure written assurance that Spain would not re-open this issue and the possibility that Britain would take the matter to the European Court of Justice if Spain reneged on its promise was not ruled out. Indeed, that assurance that Spain would never question the right of Gibraltarians to free movement within the European Union and will not do so in future was repeated to the Foreign Secretary at the General Affairs Council on 2nd June. I know that the Minister will commit the Government to taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that Spain respects that right.
Furthermore, at the same time Spain informally floated proposals for joint sovereignty over Gibraltar, which the then Foreign Secretary rightly dismissed on the ground that such a proposal did not have the consent of the people of Gibraltar. I hope that the Minister will today guarantee that the Government will continue the previous Administration's policy of quiet diplomacy combined with firm action where necessary.
It is certainly the case that Spain has it within her power to make life unpleasant for the people of Gibraltar in the single-minded pursuit of the ultimate goal of sovereignty. Spain is also not above using Gibraltar as a pawn in her separate disputes with the United Kingdom—for example, sudden cases of customs and immigration working to rule, resulting in four or five hours' delays to cross the border, have been known to take place during fishing disputes between the two countries.

1051
Thus, Spain continues to create practical difficulties for Gibraltar, as we heard described so eloquently, particularly in the clear list given to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Against those practical difficulties, and given Spain's record on Gibraltar, does the Minister agree with the 10,000 Gibraltarians who, on 13th May this year, presented a petition to the Governor for the Prime Minister that, as British citizens of the European Union,
"the policies of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain amount to a blatant disregard and denial of [their] fundamental rights"?
Quite apart from the understandable view that that represents—namely, the utter void of political and diplomatic ethics—those blockades and restrictions have serious practical consequences for the people of Gibraltar. As a result, Gibraltar exists in a state of relative economic siege, its development impeded and its potential unfulfilled.
I am sure that, along with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, the Government will apply the policy of active encouragement and assistance pursued by the previous Administration in order to help Gibraltar create a base for itself in tourism and banking, for insurance and for other financial services, particularly since, 10 years ago, the Ministry of Defence accounted for some 65 per cent. of Gibraltar's economy; now that is closer to 6 per cent.
The previous Government also encouraged, cajoled and sometimes insisted that Gibraltar take a firm line to clamp down on drugs and tobacco smuggling, for which the Rock was developing a reputation. The Government of Gibraltar responded with very tough and effective measures in line with United Kingdom and European Union standards. Strict, "all-crimes" money laundering legislation, designed to increase investor confidence in Gibraltar, came into effect on 1st January 1996. Today, Gibraltar is proud that illegal drug trafficking and smuggling in the waters around the Rock is now largely consigned to history. That has put an end once and for all to the unproven Spanish allegations that the colony is used as a centre for land-based drugs and it emphasises the need for cross-border co-operation with Spain rather than confrontation. However, Spain's continued intransigence threatens to choke the economic potential of Gibraltar. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that that does not happen.
I now wish to turn to the area of self-determination and sovereignty, an issue which the people of Gibraltar see as key to their future. I believe that everyone who has spoken in the debate recognises this as a difficult and complicated issue. Will the Government continue the previous Government's policy which fully supported the principle of self-determination so long as it is exercised in accordance with the other principles and rights in the United Nations Charter, as well as other treaty obligations?
In the case of Gibraltar the right of self-determination is circumscribed by Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht. That means that Spain effectively has the right of first refusal if the United Kingdom were ever to relinquish
1052
sovereignty. That means that independence for Gibraltar can therefore become a reality only with Spanish consent.
However, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has argued that the,
"right to self-determination of colonial people is a fundamental right"
and has asserted a "two flags, three voices" principle for negotiations on Gibraltar's future constitutional status, declaring that,
"there can be no progress in resolving our differences with Spain if they continue to insist the matter must be resolved bilaterally between the United Kingdom and Spain, thus denying us our fundamental human right of self-determination".
This is a sensitive and difficult issue. However, I wish to ask the Minister for a statement of the Government's policy with regard to the principle of self-determination as a fundamental human right, and their obligations as circumscribed by the Treaty of Utrecht, particularly in the light of the Government of Gibraltar's proposals for a constitutional status similar to the one enjoyed by the Channel Islands.
I now wish to turn to another issue about which the people of Gibraltar—and clearly from this debate, your Lordships' House—feel extremely strongly; namely, the issue of a franchise for the European Parliament elections. We recognise that that is an issue of deep concern for the people of Gibraltar, particularly since the recent extension of the co-decision procedure under the Amsterdam Treaty which gives the European Parliament a far more extensive role in the process of legislation which Gibraltar is subsequently required to transpose into domestic law and implement.
However, we also recognise the formidable practical difficulties in resolving this issue, in that any alteration to the status quo would require the agreement of all member states, including Spain. I should therefore like to ask the Minister for a statement of government policy on provisions to allow Gibraltarians to vote in European Parliament elections, and to have a separate representative in the European Parliament under the EC Act on direct elections. Would the Government encourage the involvement of the European Commission of Human Rights on this issue? Furthermore, what is the Government's policy on Peter Caruana's proposal to include Gibraltar in a United Kingdom region under the European Parliamentary Elections Bill?
There are two other areas where Gibraltar's interests are potentially compromised by the actions of government. With the permission of your Lordships' House, I should like to have clarification of the Government's position on both these areas. The first concerns Spain's decision to participate fully in NATO's integrated military structure under NATO's internal adaptation process. Ironically, but not surprisingly, Spain has always sought to exclude COMGIBMED, the NATO base in Gibraltar, from NATO exercises, and refuses to allow NATO's ships and aircraft to enter Spanish ports and airports if they have come directly from Gibraltar. However, on behalf of the Opposition I should like to express our full support for any efforts to bring Spain hack into the

1053
integrated structure of NATO, but with the firm caveat that this cannot be at the expense of the interests of Gibraltar, to whom we have given assurances.
On this side of the House, we support the statement given by the Prime Minister on returning from the NATO summit in Madrid that,
"while [the Government] want to see Spain contributing fully to alliance security, we are determined to ensure that the interests of Gibraltar are fully safeguarded in the process".
When asked on 7th July whether the Government would block Spain's entry into NATO's military command structure, the Foreign Secretary said,
"Yes we can and yes, we will, unless there is an agreement".
I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether it is still the firm position of the Foreign Secretary to defer agreement at the December ministerial meeting on Spain's integration into NATO's military command structure unless the current Spanish restrictions on the movement of military aircraft in and out of Gibraltar are dropped, given that NATO decisions must be reached by consensus.
The Prime Minister also said,
"We have made it clear to the Spanish Government, tactfully but firmly, that a necessary part of ensuring any new command structure that involves Spain is in place is that we should resolve the questions over the airspace".
That is not my choice of syntax, but I would ask: how does the Minister envisage resolving this question and reaching agreement, since the Spanish Foreign Secretary, Senor Abel Matutes, has been reported as saying that Madrid will not lift any restriction that could affect Spain's legitimate demands of sovereignty over Gibraltar? What discussions have been held with our NATO allies on this issue and, in particular, the United States?
I should like to turn to the second area, which my noble friend Lord Chesham also raised, where Gibraltar's interests are potentially compromised by the Government, namely the Treaty of Amsterdam. I should like to ask the Minister if she would clarify the issue of Article 4 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It is my understanding that as a result of negligence on the part of the Foreign Secretary a late amendment by the Spanish Prime Minister was accepted into the treaty by default in the early hours of the morning of 18th June, meaning that any member state, including Spain, would have a veto over future opt-ins to the Schengen agreements. Future opt-in will now be decided by unanimity rather than by qualified majority voting. The Prime Minister himself told us:
"What we have secured, which is important and is a better way of going about things, is what I call an opt-in … we have the power within the Treaty to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do no other country can block us going in".
Is this statement correct? The Foreign Secretary has since described the episode as a misunderstanding and has complained about the note-keeping of the Dutch presidency; so if the Prime Minister's statement is not misleading then what was the misunderstanding to which the Foreign Secretary has referred? I should like to ask the Minister why the Foreign Secretary failed to
1054
challenge the late amendment. It is no wonder the Government of Gibraltar fear that, as a result, Spain has a powerful bargaining chip with which to exact concessions on Gibraltar.
The people of Gibraltar are determined to remain British. It is a fact that Spain's policy of confrontation rather than co-operation only serves to make Gibraltar more defiant of Spain. Gibraltar is capable, ready and willing to make an important contribution to the prosperity and well-being of all the people living in the region, in an atmosphere of contribution in mutual co-operation. It is in Britain's interests to have a constructive relationship with Spain, including issues surrounding Gibraltar. It is in Spain's interests to have a constructive relationship with both Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I should therefore like to express our support for the efforts of the Government to achieve these goals, providing they follow a continued policy of quiet diplomacy combined with clarity of vision and steadfast determination to protect the interests of the people of Gibraltar.
6.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], for providing this opportunity to discuss the important question of Gibraltar. We have had a wide-ranging debate and many questions have been raised, some of them very detailed. I shall do my best to answer questions raised by noble Lords and if I do not manage to answer all of them I hope that noble Lords will be willing to accept letters in answer to points that I am not able to cover now.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Janner of Braunstone on his maiden speech. If I may say so, it was a speech containing a great wealth of parliamentary experience, illustrated by his eloquence and his persuasiveness. It is a great pleasure to have heard him and also a great pleasure to greet him as a Member of your Lordships' House.
Gibraltar is unique, not only because of its history and its geographical position but also because it is the only British dependent territory within the European Union. The people of Gibraltar have much to be proud about: their distinct identity as a people, which is a unique blend of the Mediterranean and the British; their links to the United Kingdom; the warm affection between the people of Gibraltar and the people of Britain; and their tradition of parliamentary democracy, of the rule of law and of an independent judiciary. All those contribute to the richness and diversity of life on the Rock.
Gibraltar can be proud, too, that the Rock's geographical position at the crossroads of two continents, where the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic, makes it one of the landmarks of the world. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, reminded us, the territory is a place of special interest for tourists, and Her Majesty's Government support the efforts of the Government of Gibraltar to take advantage of the Rock's natural heritage to build up the tourism sector.

1055
The increase in funding allocated to tourism in the last budget, the strengthening of the Ministry of Tourism, the opening of the new cruise liner terminal last month and the beautification of Main Street are just some examples of the progress made in this important area.
These efforts underline the good progress made in diversifying the economy at a time when the economic base has narrowed because of the rundown in the United Kingdom's defence facilities. In that context, it was welcome news that the job losses announced by the Ministry of Defence last April turned out to be fewer than expected. The economy has nonetheless undergone a major transformation from the public to the private sector. We are pleased that the Government of Gibraltar has recently appointed a new operator (Cammell Laird) to take over the running of the ship repair yard. That should create new jobs in a sector of continuing importance to Gibraltar.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, spoke about the development of the financial services sector, which is another element in the transformation. Steady progress is being made here too. The British Government were pleased earlier this year to be able to authorise Gibraltar to passport insurance services into the rest of the European Union. That was an important step for Gibraltar. We hope that other sectors, notably banking, will follow soon. To help this process, we have funded a number of staff for the financial services centre. We were pleased, too, that an invisibles seminar hosted by the City of London was held on board the Royal Yacht in July to launch Gibraltar as a financial services centre. That boosted the profile of Gibraltar.
Gibraltar can take credit for its improved international reputation, which has come about as a result of the decisive steps taken to deal with the problems of drug and tobacco smuggling. The Government of Gibraltar have passed primary legislation to license the tobacco trade. They will shortly introduce legislation to ban fast boats. Gibraltar's involvement in the transportation of contraband and drugs from Morocco to Spain was an unsatisfactory situation which was met with firm action. The problems of illicit trafficking have now virtually disappeared. The British Government and the Government of Gibraltar are determined to keep it that way.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it was important too that Gibraltar tackled the potential threat posed to its financial centre by money-laundering. That has been achieved by putting in place effective regulatory mechanisms to UK and EU standards. We welcome the Government of Gibraltar's decision to accept the recommendations of the financial action task force, the main intergovernmental body drawing up internationally accepted standards in the fight against money-laundering. The transformation of Gibraltar's reputation over the last two years is an important element in Gibraltar's efforts to develop as an offshore financial centre.
As ever, there is a lively political debate in Gibraltar over a number of specific issues. I should now like to pick up some of these issues in more detail.
1056
One of the issues high up the political agenda at present is the constitutional debate about the future relationship with Britain. Before addressing that, I should first like to reiterate the commitment of the Government to the people of Gibraltar enshrined in the 1969 constitution. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the British Government will never allow the people of Gibraltar to pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. That is not empty rhetoric. It represents a fundamental safeguard for the people of Gibraltar. I was specifically asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to make that undertaking; I am happy to restate it today. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, expressed some doubts about Spain's acceptance of that position. Our message has been clear. Of course, a message delivered is not always a message received.
On constitutional change, the position of the British Government remains as set out by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr Henderson, during his visit to Gibraltar last month. We have an open mind and are willing to consider any proposals from the Government of Gibraltar; but they should be realistic and compatible with the Treaty of Utrecht. We are waiting to see the proposals of the Government of Gibraltar. We do not believe it is helpful to speculate before we see them because we need to look at the details.
As for the points raised about Spain's consent to constitutional change, the constitutional position of Gibraltar is a matter for the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, provided it does not breach the Treaty of Utrecht. But we all know that Spain is Gibraltar's immediate neighbour and it is obvious that the Spanish dimension must be taken into account.
I was asked questions about the proposals for joint sovereignty, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Any proposals for joint sovereignty would need to have the consent of the people of Gibraltar. We stand by the commitment in the 1969 constitution to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised questions about the review of dependent territories announced by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Gibraltar's circumstances are different to those of the other dependent territories, given the EU and Spanish dimensions. Any proposals from Gibraltar for constitutional change will have to be handled outside the review. Nonetheless there may be lessons for Gibraltar that emerge from the review. I am pleased, therefore, that Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, will address the Dependent Territories Association next February when the results of the review will be announced by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
I am happy to turn now to the issue of self-determination, as I was urged to do by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Self-determination is another topical subject high up the political agenda on the Rock. We support the right or principle of self-determination for Gibraltar, reflecting the wishes of the people

1057
concerned. But we believe that it must be exercised, as the noble Lord said, in accordance with the other principles in the United Nations Charter and with treaty obligations. In the case of Gibraltar, we all understand that that includes the Treaty of Utrecht. In practice, therefore, independence for Gibraltar could only become a reality with Spanish consent.
The Government believe that dialogue and co-operation, rather than confrontation, are the only sensible way forward. The Brussels Process talks, the mechanism established in 1984 for regular dialogue with Spain about Gibraltar at foreign minister level, offers a suitable forum. We continue to believe that the Brussels Process can bring about increased practical co-operation and contribute to confidence building. In response to the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], we hope that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar will be involved in the Brussels Process meetings. We believe it is only right that he should be present in order to express the views of Gibraltarians.
I know too that there is concern on the Rock over the negotiations about NATO restructuring. Those concerns have been raised in your Lordships' House this evening. We are determined to ensure that the interests of Gibraltar are safeguarded in those negotiations. We shall not accept Spanish command over the territory of Gibraltar.
I was asked specific questions by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, about Her Majesty's Government's attitude to Spanish integration into NATO. We welcome Spanish entry into an integrated command structure in NATO. We should like to have with Spain the relationship that we have with other NATO allies. But some of the restrictions imposed by Spain on military activities in the Gibraltar region are, in our view, inconsistent with such a relationship. We are discussing these at present with the Spanish Government. I am sure that noble Lords will understand my reluctance to go into detail on our precise position when we are in the middle of a very sensitive negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethel], said that Gibraltar was within the European Union as part of UK membership by virtue of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome. Gibraltarians are rightly proud of their European identity. Being part of the EU brings rights as well as responsibilities. A fundamental right is that to freedom of movement, which Gibraltarians enjoy within the EU. The Spanish Foreign Minister has given an assurance that Spain has never, and will never in future, question the right of Gibraltarians to freedom of movement in the EU. We shall hold Spain to that assurance. Another benefit from the EU is the financial assistance which can be made available. In that context the British Government were pleased to have secured for Gibraltar over £15 million in EU structural funds.
There has been understandable unease and concern in Gibraltar over the Amsterdam Treaty. This too was a subject touched upon by a number of noble Lords in our debate. The essential points are that the Treaty of Amsterdam does not affect the right of Gibraltarians to free movement within the European Union, including across the border with Spain; nor does the treaty give
1058
Spain any new rights to impose controls at the border. Gibraltar's rights are enshrined in the EC treaty. In no way have they been undermined by Amsterdam. The British Government will defend them vigorously if any member state disregards them.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, raised questions about what had been said by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I can do no better than refer to yesterday's Hansard of another place at col. 754. My right honourable friend there explained what had happened at Amsterdam in considerable detail. He finished his answer by saying that the main gain for Britain from the Amsterdam Treaty was that it achieved a clear legal foundation for the border controls and such a clear legal foundation was never obtained by the Conservative Party in 18 years.
Although the Gibraltar Government are responsible for giving effect to EC legislation in the territory, the UK is answerable to the European Court of Justice for the implementation and enforcement of EC obligations in Gibraltar. We therefore welcome the steady progress made by the Government of Gibraltar in tackling the backlog of EC legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised questions about voting rights in Gibraltar in the European Parliament elections. Gibraltar's lack of representation in the European Parliament results from Annex II of the 1976 EC Act on direct elections. The effect of Annex II on the 1976 Act is to restrict the application of the Act to the UK itself, to the exclusion of other UK territories such as Gibraltar, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, to which the EC treaties apply in part. Amending Annex II would require the unanimous agreement of all EU member states. However, the Government are aware of the strength of feeling in Gibraltar on that issue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, there are real legal and practical difficulties in the way of any change in the present position on voting in the European Parliament elections. But Gibraltarian views in the EU are fully represented by the UK Government. We ensure, as I am sure did our predecessors, that the interests of Gibraltar are taken into account in negotiating new legislation. We are determined to uphold Gibraltar's rights in the EU and, where it has been necessary, we have taken action to ensure that.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, raised the question of Gibraltarian MPs at Westminster. There would be substantial political, legal and practical problems in any such proposal. No dependent territory is entitled to an MP at Westminster since none is part of the United Kingdom. The interests of their voters are quite different from those of UK voters. We believe that they are better served by their own local legislators.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethel], raised the question of the airport. The 1987 joint declaration was not implemented because of strong opposition in Gibraltar itself. Until the declaration is implemented, Spain will continue to block EC air liberalisation applying to Gibraltar. That includes the opening up of new routes to and from Gibraltar.

1059
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, also raised questions relating to EU tax harmonisation. The tax code is part of a package of tax harmonisation measures currently under discussion by member states and will take the form of voluntary, non-statutory and non-binding political agreements. It is at this stage too early to say what its effect will be on Gibraltar because negotiations on the code are continuing in Brussels. However, we are in contact with the Government of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister has been consulted and kept informed during the negotiations. I am not in a position to go into greater detail at this stage.
Many noble Lords, understandably, raised the difficulties there have been over border delays, particularly the noble Lords, Lords Bethell, Lord St. John of Bletso, Lord Merrivale and Lord Goodhart. We welcome the reduction in delays that we have seen at the border following British representations to the Spanish Government. We all understand that Spain has a duty to deploy sufficient staff to ensure a smooth flow across the frontier. But we will continue to raise the question of border delays with the Spanish authorities where they are clearly excessive. We believe that on occasions some of the delays have been politically motivated and we are addressing that issue at a political level.
I was also asked a number of questions—notably by the noble Lords, Lord Chesham and Lord Goodhart—about what Her Majesty's Government can do in relation to Spain's refusal to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code. It is true that Spain refuses to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code, which means that no telephone calls can be made to Gibraltar from Spain using that code. At the moment there is a pragmatic solution whereby Gibraltar is allocated certain numbers within the internal Spanish code for Cadiz. That limits Gibraltar to 30,000 numbers that can be dialled from Spain and those are now almost exhausted. Earlier this year the Commission proposed a practical solution; that is, the adoption of the UK 44 dialling code for Gibraltar-Spain traffic. But so far the Government of Gibraltar have refused to accept that. We continue to press the Commission to urge Spain to enhance the Cadiz telephone exchange to allow Gibraltar access to a greater number of telephone lines.
I was also asked, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to direct my attention to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Whitty. My noble friend's remarks were in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, about constitutional change. We do not believe that other member states would want to be involved in that debate. Seeking their support as a counter-balance to Spain would therefore clearly be ineffective. But where Gibraltar's EU rights are called into question by Spain or any other member state, we of course seek the support of our European partners as a counter-balance. I hope that there is no misunderstanding on that point.
It will be clear from my earlier remarks and the answers that I have tried to give to noble Lords' questions that we are working closely with the Government of Gibraltar to address the problems faced by its people. As a small, democratic, dependent
1060
territory in Europe, Gibraltar is seeking to modernise its economy, despite problems arising from the sovereignty dispute with Spain. Gibraltarians are meeting that challenge with typical resourcefulness and resilience. The British Government's objective is to work to achieve a future for Gibraltar that is both prosperous and secure. There will be many difficult decisions and problems to face in the years ahead. The important thing is that Britain and Gibraltar should work together, as in the past, to find sensible and reasonable solutions. The British Government's commitment to Gibraltar set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution remains the keystone of that co-operation.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Bethell: I thank all those who have spoken in the debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who gave a most sensitive and interesting maiden speech. How well I remember his father, Barnett Janner, who was an eloquent Member of another place and of your Lordships' House. I trust that that line of succession will be maintained from generation to generation.
I am also grateful for the good luck that I had to draw the ballot for this debate at this timely moment. I thank the Minister for answering so many points with her usual skill and care. However, I observe that when she says that Gibraltar could not become independent without Spain's consent, she is saying something which has not legally been tested. I have seen legal opinion which states a different view—that is, that Gibraltar could become independent under the British Crown and still remain within the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. I do not know whether it will ever come to that but there are differences of view in that regard.
I was disappointed with what the Minister said about Gibraltarians being unable to vote in June 1999. It is all very well saying that a change in Annex II would require the unanimous consent of the member states. That argument only appeared in Foreign Office briefs after 1995. Before that, those of us who inquired about the point, were given other reasons why Gibraltarians should not be allowed to vote. But this new reason appeared a couple of years ago. I do not believe that it should deter the Government from having a go at changing the matter and putting the matter right. It may be that Spain would veto the point: but until we do it, we do not know that Spain would. If Spain were to veto that point and refused the franchise to Gibraltarian citizens, it would be a disgrace—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, would agree with that—and a shocking denial of democracy. I hope that the Minister will look at that point and write to me about it. I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in this House, if nowhere else, under the appropriate legislation and I trust that my noble friend Lady Hooper will support that as well.
I thank all those who took part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn

Business Improvement Districts Bill [H.L.]
7.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Few planning issues have generated more controversy in this country than the burgeoning of out-of-town shopping centres. That they are very popular with those who can use them is clear; that they can threaten the prosperity or even the viability of existing town centres is a cause of much anxiety. The last Government, in issuing Planning Policy Guidance Nos. 6 and 13, introduced significant new planning constraints on the building of further out-of-town centres. Successive governments over the years have given the regeneration of inner cities a steadily rising priority. I have no doubt that this policy—restrictions on out-of-town centres and support for inner city regeneration—will be continued by the present Government.
One of the reasons why shoppers prefer the out-of-town shopping malls is that they may find their town centres unattractive, dingy, often unfriendly and even unsafe. To meet this challenge, many towns and cities are now taking positive action to help their town centres to fight back. The Association of Town Centre Management, to which I pay tribute, has been a welcome catalyst in promoting this movement. In August of this year it published a very comprehensive consultation document on what it called "town improvement zones". I hope the House will forgive me if I continue to talk about business improvement districts, because that is the title of the Bill. They are, in fact, much the same.
What the Bill seeks to do is to add a new arrow to the quiver of measures already available to make this policy a reality. It provides a mechanism to enable the business ratepayers in a town centre or other defined commercial area, which we call a business improvement district, to set up a company to carry out improvements in the area and to secure the necessary finance from the business ratepayers in that area.
The Bill is thus an enabling measure. It is not a substitute for existing urban regeneration instruments but an addition. Nor does it affect the argument—it is important to make this case—one way or the other for returning, or localising—the expression used by the DETR—the business rate and returning it to the local authorities where it is levied.
The subject of urban regeneration has long been a particular interest of mine. Perhaps I should declare an interest as the founder president of the British Urban Regeneration Association, though I hasten to say that I handed over the presidency nearly a year ago to a distinguished successor, Sir Jeremy Beecham. I am also one of the joint presidents of the Association of London Government, the body which speaks for the 32 London boroughs.
Last March I introduced the Second Reading of the ALG's London Local Authorities Bill. Proposals for BIDs—if I may use the acronym—had been included in that London Bill, but the association decided that they
1062
should be withdrawn because one or two boroughs were not happy with the provisions proposed. In that debate I foreshadowed then that I would bring in a Private Member's Bill on BIDs. Well, my Lords, this is now it.
The Bill therefore owes much to the ALG's original initiative; but it has been greatly developed, at the Association's suggestion, by the Corporation of the City of London, which has suggested the framework by which BIDs might be introduced through what will be national legislation.
It is most appropriate that the City corporation should have become involved because for years it has been very active in exploring mechanisms by which private finance might be harnessed to push forward initiatives which would benefit the business and the broader public. As part of that exercise the corporation has studied the BID concept in some detail. It commissioned research on the subject, and a report by Professor Tony Travers, who is extremely well known in this field, and Mr. Jeroen Weimar was published in September last year.
The setting up of business improvement districts is an idea which had its origin some decades ago in the United States. The concept has been taken up by other countries, notably in Canada. In the US, BIDs provide a range of local environmental improvements such as landscaping and street furniture, such services as security, closed circuit television and additional, or perhaps higher, standards of street cleansing and refuse collection. The arrangements are put in place primarily for the benefit of the businesses within the district in the expectation that this will lead to increased trade. When this happens—as it does in the huge majority of cases—the whole area benefits. Customers and confidence return; property values are enhanced: and decline is arrested, even reversed.
In this country there is now a substantial number of town centre management schemes. In some cities—Coventry is a very good example—they have developed to the stage where the oversight of the services provided by the schemes is put in the hands of a company specifically set up for the purpose, so that, in a sense, in this Bill we are advancing down a road that has already been opened up.
In another place the Environment Select Committee has produced two reports on shopping centres, the second of which appeared as the committee's fourth report in the last Session of Parliament. Both that report and the report of the Association of Town Centre Management to which I referred a moment ago recognised that a crucial issue of these improvement schemes is how they are to be financed. There is a growing recognition that the problem of what is referred to increasingly as the "free riders"—those who benefit from the improvements but decline to contribute financially—must be tackled. To quote paragraph 7.3.3 of the association's discussion report:
"Private sector participation in a TIZ [town improvement zone] needs to be encouraged. Enabling legislation to allow the

1063
introduction of a voluntary levy will need to be considered, especially as existing TCM schemes are already highly dependent on a small number of corporate backers. Unless"—
this is the key sentence?
"non-participation is addressed then many existing schemes, including TCM"?
town centre management
"and SR B-established partnerships"
single regeneration budget
"will be unsustainable in the long run and opportunities to develop further town centre partnerships reduced".
I stress that point because that is the heart of what the Bill is about. The central purpose of the Bill is to address the issue of free riders by providing that once a decision has been made to set up a BID—I shall describe the process in a moment—all business ratepayers within the defined area of the BID will be required to make a contribution up to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the business rates paid in the area unless they are excluded under the terms of the scheme. The trigger requiring contributions from all ratepayers arises if a simple majority of business ratepayers within the area, measured both by number and perhaps more significantly by rateable value, agree that a BID should be set up. For the minority who do not agree, the payment will of course be obligatory; that is to say, they will not be able to opt to become free riders.
To ensure a high level of consensus and that it is the free riders who are targeted, I would be very ready to consider that perhaps a simple majority is not enough and that we should look for a somewhat higher majority of perhaps the order of two thirds or thereabouts. I shall be very interested to hear the views of noble Lords on that.
I turn briefly to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the local authority, on receipt of an application to establish a BID, to test opinion among business ratepayers through a BID election order. Although any business ratepayer can apply, in practice it is unlikely that an application would suddenly appear, as it were, cold. It is much more likely to arise following a period of discussion and dialogue between the interested parties. Indeed, a BID may emerge from an existing partnership arrangement.
Apart from the business ratepayers in the area, these interested parties could well include the local authority. Indeed, I have heard it said that to be successful a BID would have to have the active support of the local authority. They could include building owners. The applicant will be responsible for informing the other ratepayers affected irrespective of prior dealings.
Clause 2 provides that the application has to be accompanied by a business plan, which is referred to in what one has to call in parliamentary counsel language, a "draft scheme". Apparently, the words "business plans" are not acceptable in this context! It sets out details such as the precise area of the BID, the improvements proposed, their cost and the charge that that will imply for businesses in the area. The proposal will also set out the proposed duration of the scheme, which will be for a maximum period of five years. I say
1064
straightaway that I have heard suggestions that perhaps that is too short or that there should be provision for an extension.
The scheme might well propose an exemption or abatement of the charge for particular ratepayers. For instance, there could be no more than a nominal sum, or even nothing at all, charged to the smallest business ratepayers.
Clause 4 empowers the local authority to make an election order, but an important safeguard is that it does not have to do that. For example, a local authority could take the view that the proposed scheme will not benefit the contributing ratepayers in the area, looking at the business improvement district as a whole. They may take the view that on the information available to the local authority the scheme is not commercially viable. In such circumstances it is open to the local authority either to amend or even reject the scheme and ask for matters to start again.
In Clauses 5, 6 and 7 the Bill spells out the detailed procedures and I need not go into them in greater detail. The Bill enshrines the very important principle of additionality in Clause 9; namely, that the services paid for and provided under the BID scheme must be additional to, and not in substitution for, the services provided by the local authority. Here again, consultation has produced an interesting thought. I know of at least one potential scheme where the local authorities and the potential BID promoters could agree that the BID company might, under contract, run some of the local services in their area; for instance, street cleaning, refuse collection, security and so on. But it has to be additional. It is not just a question of the local authority withdrawing and leaving the BID company to take up all the services.
As I believe it will have been apparent, the Bill has been the subject of consultation with a very wide range of interests. Many useful comments have been made and a number of changes have been canvassed. I have already mentioned the possible change to the threshold level for triggering a BID. Another comment which came to my attention quite recently is that there is a case, which I believe I can accept, for including a specific provision requiring a local authority, when it is considering whether or not to make an election order to set up a BID, to consider any representations not only by building owners, but also by local residents who pay the council tax.
So there is ample scope for some good debates in Committee and I hope that we shall get to that. One of my early mentors used to say, "Define and you have it in outline: illustrate and you have it in the round". Perhaps I may illustrate as I close with two or three schemes which this Bill could help. Today's Financial Times contains an interesting article about a part of London which has come to call itself "Fitzrovia". That is a large residential and commercial area between Oxford Street and Euston Road. Part of it lies in the London Borough of Westminster and part in Camden. The promoters of the Fitzrovia scheme want to see, among other things, a higher quality of street maintenance services than the local authorities are prepared to

1065
provide. One of the leading figures in the area, Mr. Stephano Fraquelli, who is chief executive of the Spaghetti House chain—and this gives one something of the flavour of the kind of people who are interested in this type of scheme—is quoted as saying that he believes that BIDs should be established on a statutory basis. It may well be that they will be able to continue to run theirs on a voluntary basis, but there are plenty of others who have said that that gives rise to great difficulties and particularly to that of the free riders.
Turning to another part of the country, in Bristol the Broadmead initiative covers a substantial shopping area just outside the main city centre. It has made excellent progress as a voluntary scheme. But I was told only this week that it would welcome this Bill, again, to gain contributions from the few significant shops in the area which so far have refused to pay. It would be invidious at this stage to name them publicly.
Finally, in west London I met representatives from the Park Royal Partnership. That is an organisation which brings together the public and private sectors for the purpose of regenerating what is London's largest business park. It contains over 1,200 businesses and provides about 35,000 jobs. It is located within three London boroughs. It is partly in Brent, partly in Ealing and partly in Hammersmith and Fulham. All three authorities are enthusiastic supporters and founder members of the partnership.
The Park Royal Partnership has been highly successful in implementing ideas that have attracted inward investment and new employment to the area. However, they told me that the need for a more active area management has become evident, particularly one that can he financed and implemented on a sustainable basis. They told me,
"We believe that your initiative in sponsoring a BID [Bill I represents an innovative yet realistic method of securing the long term sustainability of regenerated areas."
Those are three very different schemes. They are all enthusiastic about the possibilities that this Bill will open up. I have no doubt that there are many others across the country. I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate both the need and support for this Bill.
We all want to see the revival and wide prosperity of our town and city centres. The Bill has a wide degree of support. It has local authority support, business support and local support in the areas concerned. Therefore, I hope that the House will enthusiastically give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—
(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
7.29 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I think that I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing the Bill. I do not do so because of its content, but only because of the able way in which he explained its provisions. I was interested to hear the noble Lord stress the dislocation to business caused by the emergence of out-of-town shopping developments. Also, it is curious to think that although this Bill was
1066
originally part of a Bill applying to Greater London only, the new edifice that is now before us will apply nationwide.
Perhaps I should explain immediately that I am instinctively against the Bill. It introduces hypothecated taxation. It introduces taxation determined by business rather than by a community of people and it re-introduces the concept of the business vote. I am concerned that its provisions could cause divisions rather than bring people together. The Bill risks creating first and second-class districts and could, in practice, create more insecurity, poorer environments and what one might describe as "knocking copy" marketing of business districts, with business districts saying, "Our business district is better than the one down the road. Aren't they a shower?"
I could, but I shall not, review the historical development of our democracy, with the development of the franchise from freeholders to ratepayers and eventually to the virtual full adult franchise that we have today. I am sure that many of your Lordships are far more knowledgeable about that than myself. However, we do ourselves no harm if we remind ourselves occasionally of our history; otherwise we may forget and we may fail to take its lessons on board.
One of the problems with this Bill is that it would give advantage to what perhaps I may describe as "better off businesses" to the detriment of poorer businesses in the sense that a better off business area would be more able to fund improvements through the funding arrangements outlined in the Bill as compared with a district with a poorer range of businesses. Indeed, the Bill demonstrates the advantages of the way in which we used to do things. A local authority used to have the ability to invest in improving districts with, for example, better street lighting. Business prospects would improve as a result and the revenue stream to the local authority would then increase through the increase in the amount of local business rate payable.
It might be useful to review some of the things that happened to local authorities under the last government. First, they suffered financial cuts in both their capital spending permissions and in their revenue support. Secondly, we saw the destruction of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Thirdly. there was the nationalisation of the non-domestic rate. Never let it be said that Tories are against nationalisation. Furthermore, the poll tax and mass unemployment did not help. The presumption of the Thatcher years was that private was good and public was bad. We now have a new government who have started on the long road back to sanity, social justice and fairness.
Local communities have also had to contend with the emergence of the urban development corporations. We all recognise that they have had only mixed success. It is interesting to think that the one edifice that will probably be seen in time to symbolise the Thatcher years is Canary Wharf. I believe that its address is 1 Canada Square. That building destabilised the whole of the London property market and London's transport system. It led to the bankruptcy of its developers who later bought it back at a knock-down price. All of that

1067
happened under the aegis of the London Docklands Development Corporation. So we have had some experience of how business does things; perhaps it is time to give democracy a chance.
Business improvement districts are a North American development. I suggest that North America's history, experience and—dare I say this—population density, are different from those in Europe. That brings me to my first concrete question for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I hope that he will be able to answer it when he responds at the end of the debate. Does the noble Lord have any information about the experience of other European countries? Have any of them gone down the road that he is suggesting? How do they organise things in their towns and cities?
My second specific question is directed at my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. Can she give any timescale for the repatriation of the non-domestic rate back to local government? That would help to build that symbiotic relationship which could, and should, exist between the local business community and local people through their democratic structures and it would enable all local enterprises and people to work together.
The genesis of this Bill was before the general election when local authorities did not know whether a Labour Government would be elected and wanted anything that they could lay their hands on which might help them with their difficulties. I hope that with the election of our new government, the promoters of this Bill will realise that there are better ways of doing things than this.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I apologise for rising to speak without giving notice. I had not expected to be here but I have been liberated from another commitment. I shall therefore be brief and leave it to my noble friend Lady Hamwee to make the main response from these Benches.
I should like to speak on the role of local authorities. I should declare an interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Islington. I very much welcome the genuine partnership envisaged in the Bill, which means that applications to set up business improvement districts are initiated by business, but have to be approved by local authorities. That is much more rooted in the local community than our experience in the past 18 years with urban development corporations, single regeneration budgets, City Challenge and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was right that the active support of the local authorities will be a necessary ingredient in the success of business improvement districts. I am concerned that, as set out in Clause 4. the reasons that a local authority might give for deciding not to approve a BID are somewhat limited. There could be other valid reasons than those sketched in that clause for not approving a BID; for instance, it might distort the council's overall regeneration strategy, or the proposed improvements may not be supported by residents, although the "residents" may not necessarily be those in the immediate locality of the BID, but those outside the area. One can envisage wrangles about
1068
whether a local authority was justified in not approving a BID. The local authority might not be anti-business or against making improvements in the area, but it may feel that that BID does not fit into its wider strategy. That may lead to judicial review, which would be unfortunate. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that the Bill is not intended to be a substitute for existing urban regeneration strategies, I wonder whether some thought might be given to that aspect of the Bill to ensure that those concerns are reflected in its wording.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Chamber is a little empty to give the rousing enthusiasm for which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, had hoped for his Bill. However, we on these Benches very much support it although not uncritically.
I thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill. It is well worth discussing such innovations for local communities and local authorities. I thank also the Association of London Government and the City of London Corporation for their work. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Ludford has been able to contribute to this debate, albeit briefly. Her experience as a councillor of an inner city borough gives her a particular perspective. We are lucky that those who are participating in this debate and no doubt at later stages have a considerable spread of local government experience. I too should declare an interest as a London borough councillor.
No one who believes in local democracy can fail to welcome scope for a section of the community to make improvements in that community. I am not as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about any changes that the new Government may introduce. I hope that I shall be proved wrong. Indeed, no one who believes in local autonomy can deny the right of a section of a community to exercise its own judgment and, put colloquially, do its own thing. No one who wants to see greater investment in environmental improvements, community safety, local transport schemes, traffic management schemes and so on can deny new opportunities for investment in such schemes.
Noble Lords may detect from my speech that while we on these Benches welcome this Bill, we have reservations. I hope that those reservations are capable of being answered, although I suspect that some of the answers may lie more in the behaviour of those involved in the schemes than in the Bill itself. Schemes such as these will depend crucially on partnerships. Partnerships can be regulated to some extent, but they are also a matter of personality, understanding and tolerance. Perhaps our job in this Chamber is to test how far structures can be made to ensure the success of schemes without prejudicing the immediate interests of those who are closely involved, such as local businesses, particularly small ones, and the interests of the wider community.
I do not want it to be thought that members of local authorities criticise business improvement districts on the basis that they have not been invented here. I hope and believe that most councillors will have an overriding

1069
concern for their communities and that that will overcome that problem. But I believe that most councillors, certainly Liberal Democrat councillors, are passionate about democracy, accountability and fairness. I should like to see the structure underpinning the BID arrangements meet that test.
Much has been made of additionality, and rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, spent some time on this subject in his speech. But one wonders whether in the real world a BID will be an additional piece of work. I take a trivial example. If a local authority knows that hanging baskets are to be provided in a high street, will it consider putting up further hanging baskets or make other environmental improvements in the high street, or will it consider other streets that are in need of cheering up? More importantly, if it knows that the high street is a target for improvement under a scheme, will it treat business-funded improvements as additional to the amount that it would have spent had there not been a scheme in place?
We all know the real world of hard-pressed local budgets. One wonders how Section 9 could be enforced other than perhaps by the very cumbersome mechanism of judicial review which I certainly would not welcome. How will a local authority or even a regional development authority under the arrangements that are shortly to be introduced be influenced by BIDs? Will the priorities for investment and regeneration be skewed by the possibility of money coming from a particular source? It is the very job of local authorities to take an overview.
My noble friend Lady Ludford spoke of the strategic elements, and rightly so. Local authorities must look at economic development and regeneration in the widest sense and ask whether whatever is going on in their areas will benefit the whole community or just a small part of it. It would not matter if a small part received a benefit provided there was no conflict between different groups. For example, perhaps a group of retail businesses may want a street to be pedestrianised with a view to encouraging tourism, whereas local residents may be keen to see that street serve a very local purpose as a local shopping area. There would be different interests and tensions.
I am not yet sure how those could be resolved. Would the residential community be adequately involved? What about small businesses? One imagines that in some areas the keeper of a corner shop may have different interests and resources behind him from those of substantial businesses in the same street. How is that small business person to be protected? What advantages would there be in a BID which did not appear in a TIZ (town improvement zone)? I apologise for using these acronyms. If there is no voluntary agreement to improve an area should there be compulsion, particularly where there is only a simple majority in terms of the rate payable? I welcome the indication given by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that he is open to amendments on this point.
1070
I take the point that has been made about free riders and that businesses will not be altruistic in their approach to schemes. I understand that in the United States schemes have been initiated for very hard-headed commercial reasons. Much of this will be self-regulating in terms of the initial assessment by local authorities of schemes that come before them and the general good working relationships, one hopes, between the various local partnerships that have emerged.
Like other noble Lords, I cannot let this moment pass without commenting that perhaps we might better spend our time in seeing how to return non-domestic rates to local control. That is an issue of which we should not lose sight. I do not want to end my speech on a sour note. Partnerships require tolerance and flexibility but they also need the right environment. The partners need to be introduced to one another. I hope that this type of arrangement will achieve that. BIDs may not be marriages made in heaven—or even in this Chamber—but they can be a useful means of bringing people together for the benefit of the whole community. I recognise that there are safeguards in the Bill which will address some of the concerns that I have voiced. I look forward to exploring at Committee stage how those safeguards can be made watertight.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for having the foresight to bring forward this Bill. To echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the contributions of noble Lords have been of high quality. They demonstrate that there is an interest in the management and regeneration of our town and city centres.
Over recent years town and city centres have faced a number of competing pressures. Everyone is aware of the impact of out-of-town shopping centres. Places such as the MetroCentre and Lakeside have been enormously successful in attracting huge numbers of customers, filling their car parks by the early morning. This has demonstrated the reality that customers are more selective in their shopping habits and are more mobile. They are becoming accustomed to a high degree of comfort and choice in their shopping. I am sure we all know of local centres that suffered in the face of such competition, as well as the economic recession of early 1980s.
I am pleased to say that our established town and city centres have not laid down and given up the ghost. They have responded with the development of an increasing number of strong and innovative partnerships between those bodies with most to gain from the revitalisation of the core areas. Local authorities, retailers, landlords and local communities all have a vital role to play. There are now over 200 partnerships in place around the country helping to regenerate the shopping areas to which the Bill refers. They are helping to ensure that the quality, composition and condition of the centre are taken into account. This helps to achieve and secure the vitality of the area. Towns and cities need to attract customers. In an increasingly competitive market place they need to offer a variety of attractions—shopping, workplace,

1071
leisure activities, cultural and social focal points. More specifically, people expect that towns and cities should be clean, safe, accessible and environmentally attractive. This requires long-term strategic management. The partnerships which are increasingly being developed will help to deliver this.
The Government are committed to the principle of town centre management and the development of partnerships as a key way to regenerate the hearts of our towns and cities. We provide funding to the Association of Town Centre Management to assist it in the development of best practice. This summer we published a survey of good practice, Town Centre Partnerships, which identified the need to develop a common strategy and vision for the future management of the town centre area.
The debate has highlighted one of the problems facing town centre management schemes. It is the universal problem which faces all of us in our everyday life—that of finance. In many cases, primary funding comes from local authorities and a small number of proactive businesses. But this is often committed on a short-term basis and much time and energy are spent harnessing funds for future years. I recognise also the frustrations felt by those making contributions to these schemes at the fact that other businesses within the area may reap the benefits of the scheme and freeload without making the commitment of being a partner in the process.
This is one of the key reasons why the department has part-funded research by the ATCM into the development of town improvement zones. This has looked at the feasibility of developing a voluntary approach which can be fully inclusive of all the partners in the centre. The report and subsequent supplement has just been completed. They recognise that such an approach can be very effective in certain situations and is well worth exploring. However, the problems that can be encountered through free-riders are confirmed. I know that my honourable friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning will ensure that the Government respond to the findings of the research quickly and come forward with proposals.
The noble Lord is fully aware of the problems being encountered by town centre management schemes and in his Bill he adopts an approach that has been much favoured in North America where business improvement districts are a common feature of many downtown areas. However, I think it is vital that we recognise the very different circumstances that exist in the North American context. The traditional centres were badly hit by the development of a mall culture and were extremely slow in fighting back. Also, in many instances, the central business areas of many American towns and cities had suffered tremendously through neglect, and the lack of a co-ordinated approach to positive management. The development of sprawling, air-conditioned malls exacerbated the problem.
In the UK, the introduction of the sequential test as a tool for site selection for town centre uses in Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 will assist the competitiveness of our existing centres. Although there are already a
1072
number of existing out-of-town centres, PPG6 will help to re-focus development in the existing hearts of our towns and cities.
Another major difference between the UK and North America is the far more proactive role of our local authorities. They have often been the driving force in developing the appropriate partnerships to take action in the locality. They have identified the problems and acted as the catalyst. Indeed, local authorities provide much of the resources for the existing partnerships to which I have referred. This is in contrast to North America where the impetus for BIDs has generally originated in the business community because of dissatisfaction with the functions being carried out by the city authorities.
The key issue raised during the debate is to what extent contributions to management schemes can be made compulsory. This is a difficult and sensitive issue. At this stage the Government have an open mind on the best way forward. We are concerned, however, to ensure that whatever system might be introduced in an area, additional burdens are not compulsorily imposed on small businesses which might already be operating on very tight margins.
The Bill makes provision for a democratic vote on whether a BID should be established. This is helpful, but we need to ensure that any system is able to have the fullest possible support from all the participants. The Government will need to hear strong arguments that a compulsory mechanism, such as that laid down in the Bill, is necessarily the right way to proceed.
As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the way in which local government is financed. Among other things we are looking at the possibility of giving local authorities some measure of control over setting business rates. In response to detailed questions, we made clear in our manifesto that there would be full consultation before any decision was taken on returning or localising the non-domestic rate. We hope that the consultation paper will be ready before Christmas. We will of course take into account all the comments. I am sure from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that there will be some strong responses. Primary legislation will be required. Were we to pursue it we would have to find the necessary legislative slot.
As part of the review we are looking at changes to strengthen local democracy and to develop local authorities' leadership role. As part of this, we are looking to strengthen authorities' capacity to work in partnership with others—with local business, local voluntary organisations and local people. We hope to publish the consultation papers before Christmas including the potential community partners in such a scheme.
The outcome of the review may change the way in which local authorities operate, and hence the context within which your Lordships will wish to consider the current proposals. In short, it may be premature to proceed down the road of compulsory contributions to town centre management schemes until after we know the future shape of local government and the way it is to be financed. However, I fully appreciate that the

1073
noble Lord's interest in, and concern for, the health of our town and city centres is a strong one. It is one we share, and I feel that this debate has been invaluable in highlighting the key issues that face businesses, communities and central and local government in maintaining and improving the vitality of our traditional centres.
The Government will listen to the debate in your Lordships' House with interest and, as the Bill makes further progress, they will note with interest the concerns and points raised.
8 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, there may be some in your Lordships' House who are as puzzled as I am in the process of a learning curve why I find myself speaking in this position in the debate. But, so be it. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his introduction and explanation of the provisions of the Bill. The concepts of a business improvement district, established by an election, approved by the local authority, supported by a majority and subject to the maxima and exclusions which are set out in the Bill, are something which I believe provide an interesting and important advance on the partnerships which have been established between local government and business throughout the country.
Having said that, I am sure that we will want to discuss, and may even go so far as to welcome, the noble Lord's suggestion that the majority should perhaps be greater than 50 per cent. Used ambitiously, it is interesting, as my noble friend suggested, that a business improvement district could lead to the Business Improvement District Company undertaking some of the services for the local authority, although that must be by agreement and ought not to become a device whereby the important principle of additionality set out in the Bill is thwarted.
I am sure that additionality is a matter which will need careful consideration when we come to examine the detailed provisions of the Bill, especially where capital expenditure is involved. I understand that capital expenditure can be the subject of a bid. Clearly, capital expenditure might be used to accelerate a provision in a particular area which might have come in time as a local authority programme progressed.
The evidence from the United States appears to show that BIDs are very successful. Of course, I accept that it is difficult to read across from one jurisdiction to another. As the discussion on the Bill proceeds through your Lordships' House, I shall be interested to learn how they fared elsewhere in Europe as I understand that the Netherlands and Sweden have similar projects.
As I see it, the advantages of a BID are that we will achieve an improved environment, better security and, as a consequence, better economic health within a district. BIDs are perhaps tailored for the needs of town and city centres. However, I do not believe that they should be disregarded for district centres of urban areas or the centres of small towns and villages. Of course, the emphasis in each will be different from place to
1074
place and the scale very different. But, as I see it, the great advantage is that those intimately involved with an area can combine to bring about their priorities in their areas. I see it as an advantage that they do not necessarily have to wait to take their turn in what may be a separate and different set of priorities when viewed on a city, borough or district-wide basis.
I do not see anything but an advantage both to the area in particular and also to the greater area of the authority concerned, which then does not have to provide in the particular areas. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, expressed concern that the better-off areas would benefit. But clearly it could also be said, subject to the problems of additionality being adequately resolved, that more money will then be available for the less well-off areas within the particular local authority. We are talking about business rate payers, not council tax payers.
Nevertheless, having said that while such BIDs may well be used in smaller areas, it is within the city areas that the greatest benefit will be felt. There is already concern about the decline of city centres. There have been the difficulties of competing with out-of-town centres, as was referred to in tonight's debate. No one is saying that there is no place for out-of-town shopping, subject to a whole range of planning criteria which themselves are probably the subject of a separate debate. But safe, secure town centres, providing a pleasant environment are essential, not only to avoid the problems which flow from decline but because out-of-town city centres do not meet the needs of everyone.
However, the comfort and choice to which the Minister referred is only comfort and choice for some people. It is only if the city centres have the kind of qualities that we all want and which we have heard described tonight, together with the economic base and range of choice of shops and services, that we can stop and reverse the decline. It is then that people will want to live in city centres, so releasing the pressure which we are told has to be placed upon the countryside and the green belt. But to do this the city centres have to operate on a level playing field with those greenfield sites. Legislation such as this proposal, giving such powers, helps provide those level playing fields—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him for a moment. I believe that it would be helpful for people present in the Chamber to know that there is a firework display going on outside the House, not a revolution.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I was beginning to wonder what it was that I had said to cause so much discontent.
However, in the city areas, I believe that there will be pressure in the submissions made for BIDs for security provisions, not just for closed circuit television but for personnel on the ground. Whether they be called, as I believe they are proposed to be called in some areas, welcome wardens, or whether they are called community safety officers, is something which I am sure

1075
will need careful handling. I have seen, albeit on a brief and private visit to Baltimore, the public safety guides. I have read that they have been a great success. I realise that such personnel on the ground will only have the powers of a citizen. But I know to my cost, when trying to introduce a similar scheme in the authority which I led—and in which, I suppose, I should declare I still have an interest as a local authority member—that there are many uninformed charges of seeking to introduce vigilante groups and private police forces. It may not be for this Bill; hut, I believe, it is a matter that will need great consideration and sensitivity when it arises out of schemes which form the part of BIDs, if the Bill is successful.
I believe that the Bill will be generally welcomed by the local government associations. Certainly, as we have heard tonight, London local government tried in its last general powers Bill to obtain such powers and only two boroughs objected at that time. I hope that the difficulties and reservations that local government have can he addressed. Consideration needs to be given to the length of the initial scheme, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding suggested. Perhaps I may suggest to him that we also need to look at methods of continuing a scheme where that is felt to be needed and wanting.
While not wishing to restrict initiatives, perhaps the refusal of an election order under Clause 9 should take into account some of the considerations to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred—the wider considerations that a local authority will have. I believe that the Bill will enable many of these important issues and ideas, and indeed problems, to be discussed in detail in your Lordships' House. That can only be to the benefit of those concerned about such issues and about the future of our existing commercial centres, both large and small; but particularly for the future of large town and city centres.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and, if I may say so, pace the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for the general welcome given to the Bill. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury we conducted a series of discussions. Noble Lords will remember the 1970s when one sometimes found oneself in the dark, with the lights gone out. There was one housing scheme which I remember that became universally known in Whitehall as the "candlelight scheme" because the details of it had been hammered out in an inter-departmental meeting lit solely by candlelight. I hope that this Bill will not become known as the "fireworks Bill". There was certainly a remarkable punctuation of my noble friend's speech from the Front Bench.
It would obviously be totally inappropriate, particularly at this hour of the evening, for me to attempt to reply to all the points made in the debate. Some extremely good points have been made. In my opening speech I indicated areas where I would be in favour of considering amendments that might he moved at Committee stage. I was encouraged by what the Minister said: namely, that we should have a thorough
1076
Committee stage on this Bill even if by the end of the parliamentary Session we do not succeed in putting the Bill on the statute book as that may be difficult due to problems in another place.
I am greatly encouraged by the fact that many noble Lords have said that there are many good ideas in the Bill. They need to be refined and explored and there may need to be additional safeguards. The Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill will provide admirable opportunities to do that. I hope that we shall obtain our Second Reading.
A number of noble Lords referred to the repatriation or localisation of the national non-domestic rate. It is interesting to note that in its consideration of what it calls the town improvement zones the Association of Town Centre Management did not regard the development of those schemes as indicating one way or another whether there should be a national non-domestic rate. The Minister said that the context in which this Bill would be considered might be changed when the Government publish the outcome of their review. I understood her to say that this may be before Christmas. It seems to me sensible that we should postpone the Committee stage until after Christmas. Knowing the pressures on business up until Christmas, that may be welcome to both Front Benches.
I must respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. In his comments I recognised the authentic voice of old Labour. His views were markedly different from those of everyone else on both sides of the House. Nevertheless one has to recognise that that point of view is still to be found in some parts of this country. He said that the proposal would he divisive and undemocratic. He said that some areas may be more favoured than others and that therefore no one should benefit from the proposal. I recognise that philosophy. I remember that I grew up on the argument: if I cannot have it, you cannot have it either. That was the climate in the immediate post-war years, and pretty depressing it was. I commend the report to the noble Lord that was produced by the Greater London Group at the LSE in which Tony Travers and Jeroen Weimar set out examples from the American experience. As my noble friend said, I recognise that parallels from the US may not be wholly exact. However, the report shows how business improvement districts have spread not just to the central parts of cities but have been set up with great enthusiasm in some of the really deprived areas of the major American cities. There is, for example, a business improvement district on 125th Street, New York, a major inner-city sub-centre; a long, wide street of mixed retailing with some public sector office blocks in Harlem, the self-styled "Black Capital of the World", the parallel of which, they say, would be Brixton or Harlesden in this country.
I take another example. On Lower East Side, a small struggling historic neighbourhood, on Orchard Street and from Canal Street to Houston Street there is a BID scheme. The corresponding area in London would be Spitalfields or Whitechapel. It is simply not true that business improvement districts are confined to the more prosperous areas of cities. Some of the most successful ones have been established in deprived areas. I am

1077
astonished that the noble Lord should seek to deprive those areas of the opportunities of regeneration which this Bill might help to promote.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I wish to make a few points. I have been to Baltimore and seen the magnificent development of the downtown area which extends over several miles in an area which was completely derelict before the development took place. I accept that it is magnificent. In the context of the argument, the schemes that have evolved in North America suit their situation well. What concerns me is that within a British urban area we could see a situation where in one district within a city there is a BID scheme but a neighbouring area that might be even poorer loses out because it cannot finance a BID scheme and therefore faces unfair competition.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view. Many of us have visited Baltimore over the years. It is perhaps a real pioneering example of inner city regeneration. I am not talking about a scheme of that size. One is talking here about the whole range of small schemes which can revive rundown commercial areas of many inner cities to the inestimable benefit of a city as a whole and the whole of its population. That is the American experience. There are hundreds and hundreds of such schemes. To damn them all, as it were, as the noble Lord did, and say that a scheme cannot go ahead as it is bound to be unfair to others seems to me an immensely depressing philosophy. No doubt the noble Lord will seek to justify his comments when he takes part in subsequent stages of the Bill.
The noble Lord made two good points. He asked whether this measure would not be regarded simply as a tax and therefore fall within the Treasury doctrine on public expenditure and taxation. I am firmly advised that if a charge is levied by a private company under an arrangement that has been reached under the provisions of this Bill that is not a tax and spending it will not form part of public expenditure. If a local authority makes a contribution—as many local authorities may expect to do—that will of course form part of that local authority's public expenditure. But the expenditure by the BID company and the tax that it raises is outside the public sector. I hope that as we proceed the Government may be able to express a firmer view on that point than we have heard—perhaps for understandable reasons—tonight.
I very much welcomed the support—which I had not anticipated from studying the names on the speakers' list—which I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Her experience in Islington will be valuable. Let me look at her comments on the grounds for a local authority to refuse to hold a ballot. The point about the overall strategic role of a local authority would need to be taken into account. As I would have expected, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as an active member of the Association of Local Government, was supportive. She
1078
made a number of points and we shall want to read Hansard carefully. Of course there is always the argument about additionality. It is unreal sometimes to expect either the Treasury, a government department or a local authority not to have at the back of their minds that something else may be available whether that is a lottery grant or whatever. One has tried to build into the Bill a clear statement that the provision must be additional. If the law states that, it puts a strong obligation on those who have to implement the measure.
The noble Baroness mentioned a dispute about pedestrianisation and a difference of view between visitors from outside, tourists and local residents. Leicester is a city which has gone a long way down the road of pedestrianisation. That has resulted in a remarkable transformation of that city, as has been the case with many other cities. These matters can be resolved. Often it is the commercial ratepayers who are at first hostile to pedestrianisation because they fear the lack of opportunity for people to take their goods away by road. It is only when pedestrianisation has occurred that they become enthusiastic supporters of it because it suddenly attracts all kinds of people into an area. There is much experience on that matter on which one can draw.
A number of speakers acknowledged the problem of the free riders and I understand the Minister's caution. The Bill enshrines a new principle and, as I indicated in my opening speech, it is at the heart. As was said by representatives of the Association of Town Centre Management in the last resort without the principle one may not have the kind of schemes one wants to see.
Having listened to some of the people who are currently running voluntary schemes and of their sense of frustration when well-heeled national businesses refused to contribute, saying that if it is going to happen anyway they need not contribute, one knows that that leaves a nasty taste. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that that is divisive and it is what the Bill is intended to redress. I take the point about the smallest businesses. Many schemes will wish to have a nominal sum or nothing from the smallest shopkeepers because, as was rightly said, many are operating on slender margins.
I am not able to answer what is the European experience. I was grateful to hear my noble friend refer to the Netherlands and Sweden. No doubt note will be taken of that and I will be better prepared for the subsequent stages of the Bill. I understand that the Government will require strong arguments as regards compulsory contributions being included in the Bill, a point made by the Minister. Having met some of the people who support the Bill largely on that ground, I hope that we will be able to produce those strong arguments and convince the Government that that is the way ahead.
Some valuable points have been raised which, if we have time before Committee, we shall wish to study. I suspect that I shall be tabling some

1079
amendments and that others will be tabled from other parts of the House. I look forward to the Committee stage with pleasure; and, in the meantime, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.