Lords Sitting of 25 February 1998

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to Paris on the 26th and 27th February 1998, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Museums and Arts Centres: Funding
2.37 p.m.
The Earl of Clancartyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the announcements that the funding of the Buckinghamshire County Museum, Aylesbury, is to be reduced by about one-third, and that the community arts centres in Buckinghamshire are to be closed; and whether they will protect local authority museums and other cultural facilities from cuts in local authority funding.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we would like to see the best possible museum services provided everywhere. However, local authorities are not required by statute to fund museum services. It is therefore not for government to tell elected local representatives how to take detailed local decisions. Buckinghamshire County Council's spending priorities are a matter for it. Government funding of local authorities under the system of standard spending assessments is based on what each authority needs to spend to be able to give a standard level of service. This is calculated using demographic, geographical and other factors which have a bearing on revenue expenditure, and these are applied equally to all authorities.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that it is absurd that a museum which yesterday was nominated for the 1998 European Museum of the Year award is being forced to introduce admission charges from 1st April and is losing six posts, including a dynamic director who, according to the Bucks Herald, is sacking himself? What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is clear from my first Answer that I agree with the noble Earl that this is very sad. I am happy to add tribute to the Buckinghamshire County Museum, which has not only been nominated for the 1998 European Museum of the
676
Year award but actually won the 1996 Museum of the Year award. But it is, I am sorry to say, a matter for Buckinghamshire County Council.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the Minister advise local museums minded to lend works of art to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that rumour has it that his apartments are already becoming over full and that the time is already too late to hang any more pictures on the new wallpaper?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that is a deplorable question as well as an entirely irrelevant one.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend draw the subject of this Question to the notice of our right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and ask him to investigate the cause of this regrettable development?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think my noble friend is coming back to the Question on the Order Paper, which concerns Buckinghamshire—at least I hope so. No, I do not think I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to it. It is a matter for Buckinghamshire County Council.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that museums and galleries have a most valuable role to play in improving the educational standards of this country? I think particularly of the Aylesbury museum, which has a spectacular exhibition of Roald Dahl. I cannot think of a better way for young children to experience the excitement of reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Matilda, not to mention The Giant Peach. This is an enormously important aspect of museums. I would love to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister entirely agrees with what the noble Baroness said. I am a product of the Buckinghamshire state education system myself. I do not remember so much of the museums as I was educated in High Wycombe, but I certainly benefited from many of that authority's activities, notably in the visual and film arts. I also pay tribute to the Roald Dahl part of the museum, which I understand is a splendid success. But it is still a matter for Buckinghamshire County Council.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can there be any sensible objection to museums with spare works of art hidden away in the cellars because they have not room to exhibit them lending those works of art to other museums or places where they can be seen by the public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think the noble Lady's question is wide of the Question on

677
the Order Paper, as was the question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, although I sympathise very much with what she says.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend said, could there not be still a statutory requirement for local authorities to have a cultural policy? Many years ago I seem to remember that there was something about a penny on the rate to be spent on the arts. What has happened to that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the analogy to the point my noble friend makes is the statutory requirement on local authorities to provide a library service. That certainly has considerable value even though it does not enable central government to interfere in the details of the way in which that service is provided. To widen it in the way that my noble friend suggests may be attractive, but it would increase central intervention in local government autonomy.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the future of county museums and arts centres in Buckinghamshire and in other places would be much more secure if the Government were not determined to channel £1.2 billion of National Lottery money into their new good cause, large parts of which ought to be financed by taxes which they dare not raise?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, there is no connection between the division of lottery money and the expenditure of local authorities. As the noble Lord well knows, local authority expenditure in total is allowed to increase in advance of inflation next year. The amount of money from the Museums and Galleries Commission for local authority museums and for smaller museums generally has been maintained for next year.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole House will be very glad that the central government revenue support grant to local authorities will be based on equality and fairness in total contradiction to the way in which the previous government gave enormous support totally unfairly to local authorities such as Westminster and Wandsworth? What plans do the Government have to publicise the fact that they are fair and that the previous regime was totally unfair?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that I had better stick to my rule of not answering questions which are wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Monskwell, is right to this extent: that the sooner local authorities are uncapped and allowed to spend and raise money locally so that local people can have their local services,
678
including museums and art galleries, the better? Would not that be a good thing to do and do the Government have that in mind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I do not believe that that is the case. There is still capping which is being used with considerable discretion this year. Buckinghamshire County Council spent a very large part of its reserves last year—being the last Conservative county council in England—and is now having to pay the price of having reduced reserves.

MoD: Disposal of Redundant Sites
2.46 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will co-ordinate the policies of the Treasury, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Defence to change the present policy whereby the Ministry of Defence in disposing of urban properties is required to seek the highest market price, thus enabling supermarkets, office blocks and hotel developments to outbid potential housing developments on brownfield sites.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we are all aware of the potential for the use of redundant MoD sites to provide housing. The MoD is closely involved in a research project with the Department of the Environment. Transport and the Regions, which includes consideration of the issues raised by the noble Lord. Ultimately, however, it is for the planning process to determine the alternative use to which such sites are put.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He will appreciate that this Question was tabled before the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place. which has been widely welcomed. Since it is now the determination of the Government to secure more housing on urban land and less in the countryside, surely it would make sense for the Treasury to review its policy requiring the highest possible price from the MoD regardless of other circumstances? Does the Minister agree that when land is already held by the state housing should he the priority for it?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, there is co-operation between government departments. as I have said, at official and ministerial level. In disposing of surplus property the Ministry of Defence seeks to work closely with the local authorities and regional government offices to try to accommodate the local plan itself as far as possible. As regards the Treasury rules at the moment, they allow each case of disposal to be considered on its merits. However, the issue will be examined again by the DETR research project.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a precedent for a government to give

679
priority to local authorities to purchase some of the properties which have been government-owned? For example, under that policy Manchester purchased a large disused armaments factory and turned it into a very successful building components factory. Can the Minister give an undertaking that he will look into examples of that kind in order to try to carry out part of the policy enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Steel?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend when he refers to what occurred in Manchester. I can assure him that part of the review that is being considered will look at the best way forward. As I say, in the meantime we try in the MoD to work very closely with local and regional authorities in order, wherever possible, to meet the demands of the local population.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a number of instances where the Ministry of Defence has been remarkably inept at disposing of land? I give one example of RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk, where two false attempts were made to sell property, but in each case the person with whom the deal was agreed did not have the money? Is not the real answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for the Ministry of Defence, once it has decided that it does not need public property, to transfer it to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which, in disposing of it, could take into account the wider requirements of public policy, particularly that of the environment?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, those matters will be considered in the review. We are well aware of the need to use brownfield sites wherever possible for housing development, as was discussed the other day in your Lordships' House. It is estimated that there are enough brownfield sites in MoD possession which may be disposed of to provide 26,000 houses. It is important that such points are borne in mind. As I have said, we are awaiting the results of the review.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I understand that estate agents handling MoD redundant property are not allowed to give any indication of the price. Will the Government review that situation?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, again I am sure that that point will be considered by the review. We want to see the best use being made of MoD land, taking into account the needs of the local authority and the content of the local plan.

London Underground: Investment Policy
2.50 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Taraasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for investment in the London Underground.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we are in the final phase of developing proposals for a public private partnership to provide the Underground with the funding it needs to increase investment and modernise the network. We shall shortly be in a position to make an announcement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but is it not the case that the need for investment in the Underground is urgent and was stated as such by the Labour Party, both before and after the last election, yet 10 months since the Government took office we have still not heard anything? Is it not also the case that everyone in Whitehall is running round and round trying to find a new word for "privatisation" which will not offend either the Deputy Prime Minister or Mr. Jimmy Knapp? Can the Minister give me an assurance that any proposals coming forward will not result in an alteration of the definition of what is "public expenditure" or "public sector borrowing"?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the issue is urgent—and it is the more urgent and deeper-rooted because of the number of years of under-investment in London Underground and the horrendous scale of backlog that we inherited. This is a complex issue because we ruled out the crude and wholesale privatisation suggested by the party opposite. That means that we have to consider very carefully the options by which we can maintain the public accountability of the Underground while harnessing private finance and skills, and build on the Underground's public service record. That is what we are seeking to do. As I said earlier, we hope to make an announcement very soon.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the history of public/private partnerships in organisations and undertakings as large and as complex as London Underground has not been totally happy, and that the weakness usually is that wherever the Government become involved in such an undertaking or joint venture, historically the continuity of the investment programme has been lost because all governments always change investment programmes? Is there any likelihood that the Government might rethink the possibility of privatisation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the simple answer to the noble Lord's second question is "no". However, I take the noble Lord's point that some of the private finance deals that the House has discussed only recently have not been the happiest of examples. That is another reason why we are looking carefully, with our advisers,

681
Price Waterhouse, at the different ways in which such a partnership for London Underground could ensure continuity of investment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the Minister say why privatisation was ruled out, out of hand and without consideration, and why it could not be given equal consideration with other solutions?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it was ruled out because we did not believe that it would give the guarantees about service and safety that we considered essential to run an Underground system safely and well in our capital city. We thought that it reflected more a dogmatic commitment to privatisation rather than a rational analysis of the problems of the Underground and a flexible and pragmatic approach to meeting them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the question of continuity, does the Minister recall that the previous government at one stage agreed to meet the reasonable requirement of the Underground for increased investment, but that within months and in a subsequent Budget that was withdrawn? Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that such a situation will not arise again? If there is likely to be any further delay in devising a public/private strategy for raising the additional investment, could the Government not provide at least a bridging loan so that the work can start?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said earlier. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement soon. I take the noble Lord's point both about the history of this matter and about the urgent need for investment. As part of our work to develop a PPP, we are considering ways of increasing investment in the Underground in the short term, as well as developing a solution which will quickly eliminate the Underground's investment backlog.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, if by any chance any members of Her Majesty's Government are still harbouring any thoughts of privatisation along the lines suggested by the Conservative Party, will my noble friend invite them to study what happened to British Rail and the absolute disaster that that privatisation has been for the nation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I encourage all noble Lords to attend, and perhaps participate in, our debate later today on the state of the railways.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any reason to say that there will be a decision "soon"? I understood that it would be "very soon". Which is it, "soon" or "very soon", and when is either of them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have my Civil Service lexicon with me which explains the difference between "soon" and "very soon",
682
but I hope that noble Lords will not feel disappointed at the length of time that it takes to make an announcement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister say what advice the Government have received from London Underground about water penetration into underground tunnels; what plans the Government have for investment to meet that danger, and what estimates they have formed of the likely cost should they discover, to their great surprise, that they have left the investment too late?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not have the detailed information that the noble Earl requests, but I shall reply to him by letter and would be pleased to answer such a Question if he were to put one on the Order Paper.

Ministerial Workloads
2.57 p.m.
Lord Geddesasked Her Majesty's Government:
When and how ministerial workloads allow Ministers time to consider the full implications of their decisions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord draws attention to a problem that we all have, whether in business or in public life and some of us in our private lives. However, Ministers have the support of the Cabinet system, Cabinet committees, department ministerial teams, a highly professional Civil Service and political advisers in considering the decisions which they have to take. We are prepared to be judged on the outcome.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. If I may, I shall leave the raising of specific examples to other noble Lords. More generally, will the Minister comment on the widely held view that because civil servants keep their Ministers' diaries so full, government decisions seem increasingly to be either in the hands of those same civil servants or to be put out to formal consultative reviews, of which I am advised that over 140 are extant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Ministers' diaries are, always have been, and always will be a matter of creative tension between Ministers and their private offices. I do not accept the thrust of the noble Lord's separate question. The reviews that we are undertaking, many of which have reached proper conclusions, are helpful to Ministers in taking a long-term view on the decisions that they have to take. Apart from anything else, they involve very many qualified outside people in that decision-making process.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not my noble friend feel that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and perhaps his colleagues, have a bit of a cheek in asking this Question, bearing in mind the spate—indeed, the

683
huge flood—of ill-considered legislation (often having to be repealed) which came from the party opposite during its 18 years in government, and which was criticised in this House not only by myself, but by many other noble Lords, including many on the Conservative Benches? Can my noble friend give an assurance that there will be no repetition of such a flood of ill-considered legislation from this Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would love to be able to give that assurance but my noble friend is aware how difficult it is. The Government have been congratulated by the other Benches on the quality of some of the legislation that has been brought forward. I refer specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his congratulations on the Human Rights Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and his congratulations on the drafting of the Crime and Disorder Bill. There are many other examples. I remind noble Lords that we set ourselves very much higher standards for legislation than most other countries. We try to do in legislation what many other democratic countries do through ministerial decree.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, should not Ministers have used the time available to them when in opposition fully to consider these implications, as they might then have been able to avoid some of the recent U-turns, including the one reported in today's press, released through an unattributable source, about the reimbursement of single mothers for the losses that they are likely to sustain under the Social Security Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all of us who have the good fortune to be members of the Labour Party and take part in this Government know that before the election a very considerable amount of valuable work was devoted to policy making. That is reflected in the speed with which we have been able to put together an effective legislative programme. I totally reject the suggestion of the noble Lord that there has been a significant number of U-turns, as he describes them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the results of the 133 reviews and task forces who are to report by 1998 will undoubtedly involve a great deal of ministerial attention, but does he agree that the spate of European legislation coming into this country, which in many cases goes on to the statute hook without even a senior civil servant seeing it, is itself an indication that Ministers, whatever their desires—I understand the pressures—simply have no time to read most of the important papers that come from the European Commission? In justification of that we need only look at the quality of the trash that comes before us to realise that the Government cannot possibly be associated with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend pursues a familiar train of argument. There is a considerable amount of European legislation to be considered. In turn that places a burden on Ministers and
684
the Civil Service. But many of the subjects on which the European Union finds it necessary to legislate are matters on which we would ourselves be obliged to legislate even if we were not members of the Union. My noble friend's question gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the valuable work of the European Communities Committee and its sub-committees of your Lordships' House in drawing the attention of this House and Parliament to the more controversial matters.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of one reply given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to the reproachful looks of a private secretary when he brought hack his ministerial box unopened and unexamined after a weekend? When the private secretary asked the noble and learned Lord what he had done during the weekend his reply was, "Better fresh than briefed, dear boy".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what can the noble Lord say about education Ministers who today found time to hold a ritzy and very glitzy presentation, with musical accompaniment, to launch three policy documents on lifelong learning, the response to the Dearing Report and the response to the Kennedy Report? The reports and the comprehensive pack were made available to the press. I await my copy. What happened to the promise that when those reports were ready they would be brought before Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it sounds as if my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department for Education and Employment are doing a very proper job of presenting the results of their considerations, and those of their advisers, to the public generally.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the courtesy with which he replied to my original Question. I also thank him for his remarks about the work of the European Communities Committee. To what extent are the Government bound by the findings of formal reviews; or is my general perception correct that they are merely time exercises in order to give the Government an opportunity to think about the issues in hand?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, neither. It is very rare for the Government to be hound by the results of reviews. On the other hand, it is very rare for reviews to be simply time exercises. They form the proper degree of consultation that is a necessary part of open government and are a feature of any government, not just of this party.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is my understanding correct that every day Ministers have a huge number of pieces of paper to sign, either letters to the public or Answers to Written Questions? As to the latter, perhaps I bear some guilt. Does the Minister agree that Ministers do not have the time to read every single piece of paper that passes over their desks? If that is so, how can they be sure that the answers that are provided

685
respond to the letters that they have received, particularly from members of the public, and that responses provide the correct information?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no doubt my noble friends Lord Donoghue and Lord Gilbert will take note of what the noble Countess has just said about her own Questions. No one has more than 24 hours in the day. From my experience in a number of departments, although not as a Minister in those departments, I am convinced that Ministers pay a great deal of attention to letters, particularly from Members of Parliament and Members of this House. How they can read every single letter from members of the public beats me.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two debates today my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the apparent leaking of the Access to the Open Countryside consultation paper.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg leave to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Hamwee and the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proportional Representation in Local Government
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee roseto call attention to the case for the introduction of proportional representation for local government elections; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this debate concerns the case for proportional representation for local government. There is a quite notable move towards more co-operative and less confrontational politics, and we welcome that very warmly. That move means that there has been talk of and now plans for democratic renewal (to use the current buzzword). It is in that spirit, and because we believe that proportional representation tends to engender cooperation, that this debate is intended to put the case for proportional representation in local government. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if in this debate I tend to use the acronym "PR"
686
which is perhaps not very elegant. It is also in that spirit that in particular we seek assurances from the Government—I hope that they can be given today—that yet on their agenda, it is not although this topic is not off it.
I am not today arguing for a particular electoral system. Examples may well be given during the course of the debate to demonstrate that objections to the first-past-the-post system, or defences of it, can be met by the different systems. My objective is to keep the door open. PR for local government should be on the Government's agenda for a number of reasons, the very least of those being its fairness to politicians.
I asked the Electoral Reform Society for recent examples of the effects of the first-past-the-post system. Inevitably my own borough, the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, figured in that list. In the last election the Liberal Democrats polled some 46 per cent. of the vote and won 83 per cent. of the seats. That follows eight years when, on less then 50 per cent. we won more than 90 per cent. of the seats. So we are either moving in the right or the wrong direction depending upon your criteria. In Newham the Labour Party polled 57 per cent. and won 99 per cent. In Westminster the Conservatives' 53 per cent. won 75 per cent.
Perhaps the most perverse of the results in the last London borough elections—which I am sure would have been endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, were he able to take part in this debate—occurred in the London Borough of Croydon. There the Conservative Party polled 42.5 per cent. of the vote and won 30 seats; the Labour Party polled 39 per cent. and won 40 seats and took control of the council.
In the county elections in 1997 there were similarly odd—or wrong—outcomes in a number of counties. In Buckinghamshire the Conservatives polled 46 per cent. of the vote and won over 70 per cent. of the seats. In Devon the Liberal Democrats' 39 per cent. winning 57 per cent. of the seats; the Conservatives' 34 per cent. won only 24 per cent. These are very considerable discrepancies, and other counties produced similar results.
Since then the political context has changed. The elections to the European Parliament next year will be on the basis of regional lists. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will see elections using a form of additional member system. The word is that the Government will use a proportional system for the Greater London Authority. At the same time the commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead is considering proportional alternatives to first-past-the-post for Westminster.
This House, ironically, has been traditionally less anxious about keeping to the old ways than another place has often shown itself to be. In 1983 my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich presented a Bill dealing with proportional systems at local level. That failed to proceed by only eight votes. Two years later the noble Lord, Lord Blake, successfully piloted through this House a Bill dealing with the same subject which was blocked in another place.

687
There are quite often discussions about the effects of first-past-the-post on elections to the House of Commons. I do not defend that system for that House but the effects there are not as bad as they can be at local level. The very numbers make a difference. In local government, where local authorities are much smaller than the total membership of another place, it can mean that the minority, the opposition, disappears.
Local government is part of the political scene. I do not subscribe to the view that local government should not he political, but it should not be driven by central proscription of whatever party. For example, competitive tendering may be the right approach in borough A; it may not be the right approach in district B.
Other noble Lords will mention low standards and even corruption, of which there are striking examples—certainly too many examples—and almost all of those are in authorities where one-party rule has been the norm.
Central government intervenes too much in local government. One of the benefits of a new electoral system which produces a more proportional outcome is that it would have less excuse and less reason to do so.
Those who have most knowledge of an involvement in local government affairs are rightly concerned about bringing government closer to the people. Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of the Local Government Association, has said on a number of occasions, and recently in an article in The Municipal Journal, that ways need to be found of encouraging bringing government closer to the people. He said:
"We need to look at how councils are run in order to achieve this. It is unhealthy for a party with a significant share of the local vote to be unrepresented in the council chamber, as happens with all political parties."
The examples I have given have deliberately covered all three of the major parties. He continued:
"We need to look at adding a minority of councillors elected by proportional representation for the area as a whole to the majority of councillors elected for wards through the current system—this is one way to encourage better electoral turn-out."
The justification for local government is that it is a democratic, fair way of governing and delivering local services. It is widely said that democracy does not mean rule by the majority; it means rule by the majority with deference to the interests of the minority.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in a debate on the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, said:
"council decisions, local government decisions, are taken collectively. Therefore, unless there is a proper, fair system of representation which can ensure that the citizen can affect those decisions, even if they are about drains, highway cleansing, and that kind of thing, then he is denied his democratic rights; he is denied his liberty; he is denied his influence over decisions which affect him".—[Official Report, 4/3/85; col. 1176.]
That encapsulates the point perfectly for me. Fairness to the electors and confidence of electors in their local government, put another way, is about the reputation of government.
688
The Deputy Prime Minister, in his preface to the recently published consultation paper Modernising Local Government, wrote:
"Our agenda is the renewal of local democratic government leading local communities and serving local people. We want councils to gain a new democratic legitimacy."
I agree with that and with much of what is in the paper, but the electoral system is a notable omission from it and the proposals for rejuvenating local government must be incomplete without it.
One of the aims of the paper is to increase local turn-out and that is very important. In December there was an example in Liverpool of a turn-out of less than 7 per cent. That hit a new low. Parties ought not to be able to take the outcome of elections for granted and make assumptions about turn-out. Michael Thrasher at Plymouth University has written that he believes that low turn-out levels would be improved by proportional representation. He writes:
"There is strong evidence that you increase turn-out immediately by at least 7 per cent. because people see that their votes are less likely to he wasted … people vote for candidates and not parties, which is particularly appropriate in local government."
Having turned out, would people be faced with difficult systems as is often suggested? I believe not. In Northern Ireland there are different systems for different elections. In England, Scotland and Wales we will soon have parallel systems for different elections. As is often said, electors, wearing different hats, may also be fillers-in of pool coupons and lottery tickets.
To those who say that proportional systems lead to contrived boundaries, that our system is good because it allows for the direct geographical community link, I would say that that depends on the system which is chosen. Perhaps I may take an example close to home. The ward which I represent as a councillor is hardly perfect. If it has a centre it is the south circular road and I suggest that that is more of a barrier than the centre of a community.
We must not let the debate pass without pointing to the better representation that is achieved by a proportional system. By "better" I mean more representation by women and by members of different minorities. In other countries, that has been shown to be an outcome of proportional systems.
I return to what I see to be the insidious effects of the first-past-the-post system creating what I may describe as false majorities. Even if that does not lead to corruption, it means that the administration has too easy a relationship with the officers of local authorities. Things become too easy; the critical edge is lost. Without realising it, the officers can become more relaxed in testing the practicality of political directions. Neither the officers nor the politicians will necessarily think through all the answers to the questions which would be asked if there were an adequate active opposition.
Of course, if electors do not like what is happening they can, through the ballot box, get rid of an administration, but probably more effectively so if there is a proportional system. It is often said that if there had

689
been PR it would have been the voters and not the Prime Minister who would or could have responded to the GLC. That would have saved a great deal of trouble.
It is not just a matter of overturning majorities. One can have the same administration but with a bigger opposition. There probably will be a bigger opposition. An increased minority means better scrutiny, the load better spread among opposition councillors and the opposition reaching a critical mass, which can be more effective.
If it is not a question of overall control, if there is not a hung council or, as I would prefer to call it, a balanced council, is that a bad thing? I think not. It often means that there must be real discussion and real arguments which must be won. If that is inconvenient to the administration and to the officers, without wishing to minimise the effort involved, I would say, "Too bad".
It used to be said that PR for local government would he the thin end of the wedge; that if the wedge were jammed in further there would be all kinds of national horrors in our electoral system. We are seeing changes, not horrors, to the electoral systems nationally. It would be odd if the Government ruled out the prospect of change at local level. I hope that they will indicate that they will not do so.
John Stuart Mill argued for proportional representation of the minority as well as the majority. He said:
"Unless they are [fully represented as a minority] there is not equal government, but a government of inequality or privilege, contrary to all just government, but also, above all, contrary to the principle of democracy which professes equality as its very root and foundation".
I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on introducing this debate. It is a timely and important subject. Proportional representation is on the agenda in many other fora. I agree that it is inappropriate that local government should be passed to one side and not considered when such changes to electoral systems are proposed.
Local government appears to be held in disdain by many electors who see that in many cases there is no purpose in voting either because one party has such an overwhelming majority that voting makes little difference; or because there is a belief that local government services are not being delivered in the most effective fashion and that many committees are staffed by councillors who have been elected—and I use the word advisedly—by local parties rather than by the electorate.
It is only a matter of time before local government comes firmly within the frame for a change to the electoral system. When the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly have been set up and the 1999 elections have taken place the electorate will have a greater understanding of what is involved in the different electoral systems. There has been a
690
conservatism in voting systems within this country. We have been slow to move in the direction that many other countries have taken. As a result, we have not had such an effective form of government. That is particularly true at local government level where electors often feel alienated from the process and therefore from the services which the process provides.
It is important to consider not only the electoral system but the state of local government. It is largely in need of overhaul. Although it is true that a change in the electoral system would not be a panacea for the ills of local government, it would make an important contribution to bringing local government closer to local people, to making it more accountable and, most important, to be seen to be more accountable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted some frightening statistics and I should like to give a few more. It is unfortunate, at best, that the 1997 figures for local elections in the London boroughs show that in 14 of the 32 boroughs one party has 70 per cent. of the seats. People might say that that gives firm local government. Yes, it does, but in Scotland, where I come from, many local authorities have firm local government. The question is: what does that firmness produce? In what way is it channelled and in whose interest? I shall name no names, but in many local authorities where a party committee selects the candidate members know that they are effectively electing a councillor. The electors are shut out from the process; they have no say. Yes, they have the opportunity to go to the polling booth on election day and place their X on the ballot paper. However, realistically, they have no real say in the choice of candidate because the tradition in many local authorities is to vote for the party rather than the candidate. With few exceptions, that party is regularly returned to power.
That does not mean that the party in power in a local town hall or city chambers is responsive to the views of local people. However, people within that group tend to respond to the stresses and strains of the leadership. They follow certain personalities and give all their attention to which camp they should follow rather than to the best means of delivering local services. Of course, that is a generalisation; of course many dedicated councillors do a good job and do the best job they are permitted to do in the circumstances. But I say that that is not good enough in local government. We need a system which makes it less likely that one party will have an overwhelming number of seats and therefore have such a firm grip on power that the local electorate have virtually no say in what it does.
I was interested to read a quotation from the Minister without Portfolio printed in the Local Government Chronicle in December 1997. He stated that much of what government want to do can be delivered only through local authorities. He continued:
"But when they become out of touch with the communities which they represent—and certainly when they become victims of political infighting—they become worse than useless".
I wholeheartedly accord with those sentiments. The question then is: what do we do about changing that situation? Fundamentally, we address the system by which those representatives are elected.

691
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also referred to voter turn-out. I believe that in local elections people vote with their feet. There is a low turn-out, it being unusual for more than 50 per cent. of voters to vote in elections for the whole council, and far less in by-elections. That seriously undermines the legitimacy with which local representatives claim to represent their local community. It is important that people from those communities should represent people whom they know, whose problems they know and among whom they live, if at all possible. But it seriously affects the legitimacy if there is such a poor turn-out, if people have very little interest in even going to the polls to record their vote.
We have a situation in which the greatest disinterest in local authorities tends to be shown in areas where there are safe Labour seats. Recent research from Plymouth University showed that where there are safe Labour seats in London, people are less likely to vote at all; where the Labour share of the vote exceeded 50 per cent, the average voter turn-out was just 40 per cent.; where Labour's share exceeded 70 per cent. the turn-out dropped to 36 per cent. That shows that people are aware of the necessity of voting. Where there is a real chance of influencing the outcome, people generally do exercise their right to vote, and understandably. But without that, we should not be surprised when people show less interest. That affects their view of local government and the services which are provided.
I am not at all convinced by the view that to change the electoral system would be unwelcome because it would be confusing. Apparently, it would be confusing on two levels. First, there could be different voting levels. For example, in my country of Scotland voting would take place at local government level, Scottish parliament level, at Westminster level and at European Parliament level. It is not necessary for all those systems to be identical. They deliver different services, involve different people and are elected at different times. It is quite possible for people to differentiate, understand what and who they are voting for and understand that there is an importance in those differences.
I am not persuaded by the second argument; that is, the patronising view that the electors will find the system too complex. Our European cousins do not find other systems too complex. They have managed to handle the issue quite effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave the example of lottery tickets. I refer anyone who says that we should not be introducing any means of involving the public which is too complicated to the recent Inland Revenue income tax forms. They have been distributed widely throughout the country and have not been withdrawn or even modified because they are too complex. It is insulting to people to say that we cannot change the system because it is beyond their ability to understand what they are voting for or how to vote. That is not the case.
There is a debate going on in Scotland at present because when the parliament is elected in 1999 it will have a system whereby people will be asked to vote for the candidate and also for the party. Incidentally, on the same day they will be asked to vote for local government candidates. Nobody suggests that that will be too confusing for people. The media in Scotland are
692
already starting to explain what will be involved and how people should approach it. It is a new system. It is a new way of electing representatives; and I say that it is all the better for that. The sooner we embrace change in the electoral system, the sooner we shall begin to modernise our democracy and, I believe, bring it closer to people and connect with more of the people for whom local representatives should be providing services and active and proper representation.
I believe that the system of local government in this country—I mean the UK as a whole—needs an overhaul. The first step in that process could very usefully be the electoral system, because that is the main reason for the level of disrespect with which people view local government these days. When I was a Member in another place I used to pick up many complaints, most of which had nothing to do with the Member of Parliament because they referred to services delivered by local authorities. I would ask why the local councillor had not been approached and I would be told, "It is a waste of time. He is never there". In many cases, that was untrue. But the perception of the people was that the locally elected member was there for his personal gain. That is manifestly untrue in the vast majority of cases.
I represented a part of Glasgow and I do not mean to characterise in any way the individuals who represented that part of the city in Glasgow City Council. But people felt that it made very little difference who they voted for and that therefore the councillors, or the candidates who wanted to be councillors, had very little reason to go to the electorate to explain what they were doing, to connect with them regularly and to report to them on a regular basis. That applies in many cases throughout the country where there is overwhelming control by one political party or another. It is a system which really must end.
When the electors on the outside are looking in at in-fighting within a local authority, they feel that they have no control over that. They feel that they have elected their representatives but they have no control over what they do. There is little point in saying, "Well, when the election comes round, we can always vote for somebody else". In theory, that is the case but we all know that in practice it is extremely unlikely to take place.
I welcome the debate today which opens up the discussion on what kind of electoral system we should have in local government. For many people the door seems to be closed. I say that the door for most people is closed in terms of those people who are electors. Those doors must be opened. We do that by reviewing the system by which we represent our local representative. In so doing, not very far down the road, if we modernise our system we shall improve the effectiveness of local authorities and the services which we provide and we shall improve immeasurably the regard in which our local representatives are held.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon. We have heard already there is little disagreement about the problems facing local government and local democracy

693
in Britain today. But agreeing about what we must do about those problems is quite another matter, particularly when looking at the merits or otherwise of different voting systems. However, I hope that as views are shifting in Britain today, after this debate a few more people will see the value of having a system of proportional representation for local government and the value of that playing a part in what my noble friend has already referred to; that is, the democratic renewal of local government in Britain today.
The Government's latest paper on that entitled Modernising local government: Local Democracy and Community Leadership highlights some of the issues and problems already raised today. Indeed, the Minister for the Environment, Transport and the Regions expresses his wish that councils should gain a new democratic legitimacy.
Two of the problems about which the Government have expressed a desire to do something are voter apathy—and that has been demonstrated clearly by low turn-outs in our local elections—and the problems of one party domination of local councils. As we have heard from the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, that can lead to complacency. We read in our newspapers that it can lead also to corruption.
What is disappointing about the document that the Government have published is that it misses out some important facts. It explains graphically about poor turn-outs and how they compare with turn-outs in other European countries. It explains graphically that we have no standard system of local government elections in this country. But it fails to tell us what are the systems in those European countries where they have a better turn-out. It fails to point out also that if one compares Britain with the rest of Europe, there is a huge difference in the ratio of elected representatives to voters.
Those matters are an essential part of any investigation into improving democratic accountability and representation at local level. I shall expand a little on those areas. For example, if we look at turn-out, the Government give us the average turn-out in sub-national elections in the European Union and we see Great Britain right at the bottom with an average turn-out of 40 per cent. If we look at Ireland, we see a turn-out of 62 per cent. and for Denmark it is 80 per cent. I do not give as examples places like Luxembourg which has a 93 per cent. turn-out because there is compulsory voting. I am trying to compare countries where there is no compulsory voting.
But the document does not explain that in all those countries which have a higher turn-out, they nearly all have a system of proportional representation. That is the common theme. I recommend that noble Lords read the table I am discussing which explains the complexity of the different kinds of council that we now have in Britain. Those councils hold elections at different times. Some of them comprise single member wards while others are three member wards. Sometimes the elections take place every year and sometimes it is every four years. We need to consider having a rather better
694
uniform electoral system. As regards elected representatives and the number of people who elect them, in this country every elected person has been elected by, on average, 1,800 electors. The average ratio in Europe is between 1:250 and 1:450.
We may hear, particularly from the Liberal Democrat Benches this afternoon, that we do not believe that proportional representation is the total panacea to problems in local government. Nevertheless we believe that it forms an essential part of measures needed to improve the democratic accountability and the breadth of representation of local government. We make no bones about the fact that our preferred system is the single transferable vote. We believe this has been shown to ensure a much wider cross-section of elected people in local government. I hope that the Government will take that to heart because the local government Minister, Hilary Armstrong, stated at a local government conference that there was poor representation in local government. She said that 35 per cent. of councillors are now above retirement age; only a quarter of them are women and that there is little representation of ethnic minorities in local government. She believed this meant that local democracy is not as healthy as it should be.
We certainly agree with that. That is one of the reasons we believe that the single transferable vote would achieve better representation across all areas. It also gives the best choice to voters. It gives them a choice not only of party but also of person. We believe that is important. It also maintains the geographical connection between elected representatives and those who elect them. It does not often result in—this almost never happens—"one party states" that remain in power year after year.
European countries have shown that the system works. In the time that I have tried to promote proportional representation two main arguments have emerged against PR and the single transferable vote. We are told that it leads to weak government and that we want it only for our own political ends. One needs to consider the first-past-the-post system in this country and the way councils are run at the moment and who is running them. In nearly 40 councils three or more parties share the administration. In 29 councils the Liberal Democrats run a minority administration which involves support from others. There are 19 Labour minority administrations. There are only two Conservative minority administrations. There are five independent minority administrations and roughly 50 councils have joint administrations of every possible combination.
I do not believe it is those councils which give rise to the stories about poorly run councils and corruption. Studies have been undertaken to consider how hung councils are run. I believe that "hung" is a negative word; I prefer to call them balanced councils. It has been revealed that in the main they run efficiently and many local communities are satisfied with their councils. That is the case with the majority of local government in this country.
I was a local councillor on a balanced council—I shall use the more positive word. That was in the days of the Militant faction and the Labour Party. I believe that the

695
Labour leader of that council at the time was extremely grateful that my group acted as a brake on the Militant people. Members of three parties on that council had to work together. The leader of that council was able to tell the Militants that they could not do such and such a thing because they had to work with others. That is a powerful consideration for seeking to impose a system which ensures that people must work together and extreme elements cannot take over.
We as a party have demonstrated that we can win in first-past-the-post elections in local government. Therefore it is not for that reason that we think proportional representation is a good idea. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has mentioned various councils in this respect. We have a huge majority on some councils but we did not gain the majority of the vote. We are now the second party of local government. We control outright about 50 councils. We have a minority administration in 29 councils. The Conservative Party now controls fewer than 21 councils outright. We are critical of a system which is unfair, whichever party is in control in local government if it has gained that control through having many seats but it has not gained the proportion of votes to match that situation. That has been clearly illustrated by figures. I am sure it will be illustrated again today.
Elections are the prime way that a community expresses its political will. Clearly in Britain today our people have been short-changed. I hope that the Government will not close their eyes and ears as regards introducing a new electoral system for local government. I believe that the debate today will demonstrate that there is evidence in support of adopting a new system. and that there are systems that will serve us better than the present one. We must adopt a new system if we are to have real democratic reform in local government in Britain as we go into the 21st century.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I wish to speak a little longer than is customary as regards a declaration of interest, although in view of the comments that have been made by both my noble friends who have spoken so far it is probably more of a confession than a declaration of interest. I have been my party's leader on the council of the London Borough of Sutton for nearly 24 years. Virtually half of those years were spent in opposition, mostly as a small opposition, and nearly half have been spent in majority control.
Since 1994 my party has held 84 per cent. of the seats on Sutton Council. Unlike the case of my noble friend on the Front Bench, at least we gained a majority of the votes, but only 56 per cent. so we are substantially over-represented. I am grateful to be informed that we are over-represented by 16 seats. In my wilder moments of fantasy I have tried to determine which 16 seats those are. Perhaps other leaders do that from time to time.
I hope that we have not become a complacent council. Every two years we engage MORI to conduct a residents' attitude survey on a whole range of matters. However, the first question is always, "How satisfied are you with the way in which the council is running
696
the borough?" The survey that was carried out last November indicated that 81 per cent. of our residents were either very or fairly satisfied, compared with only 7 per cent. who were dissatisfied. I hope, therefore, that we have not yet become one of the rotten boroughs that I read about which arise from huge majorities.
However, it has not always been like that. Back in 1982, at the time of the Falklands War, I remember vividly that we polled 35 per cent. of the vote in the borough as a whole and gained three seats; just 5 per cent. of the council. Some 21 of our candidates came within 150 votes of winning their seats. That is probably a record for the number of near misses on one evening. It was at that moment that I became convinced of the need for annual elections because for me it felt like a four year sentence even though ours was the only party able to claim a 50 per cent. increase in our representation on the council, from two to three.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee made reference to the borough next door to mine, the London Borough of Croydon. My friend—I say "friend" with a small "f"; I do not want to endanger his political career any more—the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, lost the leadership of Croydon council in the 1994 elections. It was a shame, because the Conservative Party actually polled 4 per cent. more votes in the borough than did the Labour Party, but ended up with 10 fewer seats. It is not the first time that has happened, although the other occasion is less well known or less well remembered. In 1986, in the London Borough of Wandsworth the Labour Party polled more votes than the Conservative Party. I leave noble Lords to ponder what might have happened to the politics of local government had there been a proportional system in place in Wandsworth at that time, and had Wandsworth been run by the Labour Party rather than the Conservative Party. Just how different things might have been. We should probably still have had the poll tax, but I suspect its effects in Wandsworth might have been rather different.
We have talked about a voting system that produces huge majorities for parties. That is bad enough. But a system that gives victory, and a clear majority, to a party that comes second in an election must be ludicrous and is not deserving of any respect, least of all from voters. Yet that is what has happened.
I share with a passion the Government's commitment to renewing local democracy, although I do not necessarily agree with all the ways in which they wish to do it. I believe passionately in local democracy and it has been much of my life's work. I am grateful to the Electoral Reform Society for sending me another copy of the Fabian Society publication of March 1997 (before the general election) on electoral systems. I wish to quote from the end of the introduction, which states:
"Democratic renewal is at the heart of Labour's programme for Britain. Renewing local democracy is a key element; and PR for local elections one vital means to that end".
I agree with that wholeheartedly. I look now to the Government's recent consultation paper on modernising

697
local government and, as a true Liberal Democrat, turn first to the paragraphs on voting systems. Paragraph 3.46 states:
"However, in some parts of the country there is virtually one-party rule with few, if any, opposition members on a council".
I omitted to mention that on my council there are five Labour Members who now form the principal opposition, on the basis that they lost fewer seats than the Conservatives; and there are currently only three Conservatives. So perhaps the document refers to my own borough. The paragraph continues:
"Some argue that local democracy does not operate as effectively as it might in such situations, and that this can lead to councils becoming complacent and incompetent. Others say that the problem is not with the democratic system".
I turn the page to the following paragraph (3.47) to see what the Government are proposing to do about that. It states:
"Reforms to the electoral. political and consultation arrangements discussed elsewhere in this document are of greater importance and urgency".
Welcome though some of those reforms are, they will do nothing to address the democratic deficit that we have been discussing.
The Government's answer appears to be annual elections. I must say straight away that there are some in my party who favour annual elections. As I said, in the particular circumstances in which I found myself in 1982 I was then one of them. In the circumstances in which I find myself now, I am not. I want, however, to quote with more legitimacy again from the Fabian Society publication. It states:
"Annual elections are often advanced as a means of increasing local government's representativeness and accountability; our view is that reforming the electoral system would be a much more reliable way of achieving these goals".
I entirely agree with that.
Paragraph 3.4 of the Government's consultation paper refers to the question of annual elections. I wish particularly to draw this to the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who will reply to the debate. It states:
"The Government also believes that it is not always healthy for a single party to dominate a council, particularly where this position is not the result of an overwhelming advantage in votes cast. It may be that this situation is more likely under whole council elections every fourth year. than with more frequent elections".
The noble Baroness was for some years a very distinguished chairman of the Association of County Councils. During that time she dealt much, and closely, with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which my council was a member.
County councils are elected once every four years. As I am sure the noble Baroness will recall from her chairmanship, most of those county councils did not have a majority. Very few had large majorities. She dealt with the metropolitan authorities, where all the worst effects of very large majorities were seen—and yet they elect by thirds. In replying, will the noble Baroness explain whether she agrees, and how she can justify the statement in the Government's consultation document from her own experience?
698
There is no doubt that turn-out is the Achilles' heel of local government—although, incidentally, in London the turnout has risen steadily since the 1960s. In 1968, the turnout was only 36 per cent. By 1990 it had peaked at 48 per cent. —perhaps as a result of the poll tax and also because the election was held on a very sunny day—and it dropped back slightly to 46 per cent. in 1994. That is not good enough. I welcome the Government's proposals to review the electoral arrangements. I very much hope that we shall move from what is essentially a 19th century system of elections into a 21st century system.
We also need to address the question as to why local government elections have such a low turnout. It is due in part to a lack of interest on the part of the public and the media; it is due to the lack of esteem in which local government is held; it is because such elections are so often seen as a national referendum rather than about local issues; it is because local government is perceived, rightly in my view, as not having sufficient power; and it is also because votes are seen to be largely meaningless.
Many of those issues could be addressed with a proportional system. I do not for one moment argue that PR is the panacea for all that is wrong with local government; nor do I suggest that it is the whole answer. It most certainly is not. I do not wish today to argue for any particular system, although I share the views previously expressed that the single transferable vote system is probably the most suitable. However, I do argue strongly that, whatever system is in place, we should retain the link between councillor and voter. That is extremely important. I would strongly reject a system of party lists—even though they might be the purest form of proportionality.
I share the views already expressed on balanced councils. Some of us in this Chamber are party politicians and strive for a majority. That may be in our party's interests—though that is arguable—but it is not necessarily in the public interest. We cannot renew local democracy without examining the electoral system, which has produced so much of what is wrong with local government.
Without PR, the Government's reforms will be rather like a Polo mint—quite tasty round the edges, but with a whacking great hole in the middle. If the Government are not yet ready and able to rule PR in for local government, then I urge them not to rule it out.
3.58 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare a non-pecuniary interest. I speak as the recently elected president of the Electoral Reform Society, by which I am in part advised. The society will not misunderstand me if I say that I regret that I am in that position, for I succeed Lady Seear whose shoes I shall never be able to fill, and which I wish she were still filling.
In 1986, on local election night, I remember listening to the results coming in from my own borough of Brent, where the Labour Party, with just over 40 per cent. of the vote, came in with an enormous majority. As those results came in, I forced open my second eye, and

699
murmured, "That is a very had result for Neil Kinnock". So indeed it proved, for that was the council which was compared by Mr. Ken Livingstone—who used to be my representative in another place when I still needed one—to Pol Pot. To be dismissed as "loony Left" by Mr. Livingstone is a distinction of some standing.
In Lambeth in 1982, Mr. Ted Knight, the memorable "Red Knight", won control of the council with 33 per cent. of the vote, while the Conservatives, with almost 40 per cent. of the vote, lost control. Those two examples illustrate that first-past-the-post is capable of giving an advantage to, shall I say, somewhat unusual political outlooks. For if we take 40 per cent. of the majority and apply the principle of the majority within the governing party, then 21 per cent. may be taken as a majority of the whole. It is curious arithmetic and occasionally it leads to curious results.
The Prime Minister has objected in the past to PR on the grounds that it gives too much power to small parties. On 25th June, speaking at Westminster, I replied by saying that the disadvantage of first-past-the-post is that it gives power to even smaller parties.
That is also true in local government. In 1990, again in my own borough of Brent, there was for a brief while a balanced council, a brief stage of civilisation between loony Left and raving Right. The Conservatives then succeeded in securing a defection from a certain councillor Nkechi Amalu Johnson. When she joined the Conservative party she announced that she admired Margaret Thatcher for the same reasons for which she admired Winnie Mandela and Idi Amin. This was in the only borough in the country with a greater concentration of Uganda Asians than the city of Leicester. And she knew perfectly well what she was doing. Thus first-past-the-post can give the power to extremely small groups. To my mind, that is one of its disadvantages.
I am interested in a speech made by Mr. William Hague at the Centre for Policy Studies. I have here, I confess, only the press reports and the PA summary; I have not yet succeeded in getting a text. But it seems to me to show some slightly unexpected thinking. He says that one of his objections to PR is that it interferes with accountability to the voter. That might just be defensible if he believes that the closed list is the only possible form of proportional representation. If so, the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of believing the Minister without Portfolio. That would be a cardinal sin on the Government Benches. Of the Opposition Benches, words fail me when I contemplate what type of sin it might be. It marks a certain unevenness in the performance of the Leader of the Opposition. I noticed last summer when he was wearing his baseball cap he had "William Hague" on the front and "A Fresh Future" at the back, thereby earning the title of the youngest leader ever to have a fresh future behind him.
William Hague also said, at the Centre for Policy Studies, that:
""proportional representation is a profoundly undemocratic measure, masquerading under the banner of democracy and the Conservative Party I lead will have no truck with it".
I wonder exactly what the Leader of the Opposition means by "democratic". When I receive the full text of the speech, I shall endeavour to discover. I think I owe
700
it to him to attempt some definitions of my own. First, it is a vital principle of democracy that we should be able to change the Government through the ballot box. In fact, arguably that is the most important thing democracy is all about. Secondly, it is a vital principle of democracy that there should be an opposition. Thirdly, it is a vital principle of democracy that all votes should count equal. It is my contention that first-past-the-post in local government does not meet any of those tests.
During the European elections of 1994, I was visiting a small town in Sussex where I was proudly assured by my host that my party in two elections had gone from having no seats on the parish council to having every single seat. I said to them: "You had better watch it. You'd better make sure at the next election that you lose at least one of those seats because you've got to have an opposition". They replied: "You are quite right, but we need some co-operation from our opponents. I am not sure we can get it".
In the London borough of Newham, the Labour Party has every single seat. In Castle Point. in 1983, the Conservatives won every single seat on 51.3 per cent. of the vote. That does not suggest that first-past-the-post guarantees an opposition in local government. All votes count equal. My noble friends who have already spoken addressed that point. Ever since the Conservative Party in 1867 abandoned Disraeli's proposed fancy franchises, they have accepted the proposition that all votes should count equal. Since they do, the Conservatives should accept that in some ways first-past-the-post is undemocratic.
What interests me most is the possibility of changing a government through the ballot box. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, pointed out in a powerful and extremely interesting speech, that sense that it is possible to change control is vital to turnout. I am sure that all of us here who belong to a political party, when we have taken part in election canvassing, have always met the response: "Oh, it's no use voting, they'll never lose here". That—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this may be the wrong place to interrupt the noble Earl but perhaps he could help me. He talked about democracy. Is not one definition of democracy and the right to vote the ability to get rid of a government or a local council? Under first-past-the-post, this works extremely well. Indeed, it works brutally, as the Conservative Party discovered on 1st May. Does the noble Earl agree that under proportional representation, however it is defined, that can never happen? All we have is a minor shuffling of the seats which preserves the old order rather than bringing in something new.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention which I was just about to answer. May I also remind him of the point made in the Companion that in timed debates interventions should, if possible, be brief?
There are large numbers of areas where under first-past-the-post there has practically never been a change of government. I do not have a complete list, but

701
among the London boroughs I mention the boroughs of Barking, Bromley, Kensington and Chelsea and Newham. I cannot imagine the prospect of any change under first-past-the-post in Salford or Gateshead. I used not to be able to imagine change in many places in the south of England, though we are working on that. Where there is more than one party, as in my own borough of Brent, there is the possibility of a change of alliance.
In 1985–86 my own party in Brent worked with the Conservatives. In 1990 we worked with Labour. We are prepared to assess which is the less loony of the other two parties. From time to time we change our minds on that question.
Where there is only one party in power, you get factions. In 1994, Mr. Mike Bower, the Labour leader on Sheffield council, said:
"Liberal Democrats are like fascists. They exploit discontent".
I thought that that was called democracy. You get factions. But in another place where the ballot box has not produced an adequate process of change, the London Borough of Hackney, for example, you see it getting out of control. Because people always want to change things, you also get corruption. Not that people are more evil in those places, but they are led more into temptation. My noble friend Lord Tope has resisted temptation, but he should not have been led into it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I decided to join the debate on proportional representation this afternoon not because I have a great love for the system, but because it satisfies one important criteria by which we need to judge voting systems; that is, the simple test of fairness.
We have had ample examples quoted by our Liberal Democrat colleagues this afternoon indicating how unfair the system is in its present form in terms of delivering what the electorate want in relation to the form of their local government. The Liberal Democrats extended and expanded effusively on the subject and gave good cause for a change of electoral system locally. The Government, in their modernising document published a week or so ago, left the door open for us to consider these matters afresh and in the future.
It is somewhat churlish of some of the Liberal Democrats to discern that Labour is disinterested in electoral reform. That is not the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave some good examples of where we are contemplating change in the electoral system—in Wales, in Scotland, and perhaps in relation to the Greater London assembly. We are not therefore a party fixed in our opposition to PR and we have a commission looking at the wider question of proportional representation for another place. We are therefore a party which is prepared to contemplate change in that direction.
Perhaps one of the failings in the arguments put by those opposite is that they seem to think that all the problems of local government will be solved by a new system of election. They fail to address the other issues in local government which are just as important: for
702
instance, the need to have better political management; perhaps clearer lines of accountability; ways of ensuring that we get a broader community view; and a more responsive form of local government and local democracy. Those issues are all part of Labour's modernising agenda and those are the issues which interest me most.
However, I believe that we should revisit PR for local government because the current system, as my noble friends opposite argued, throws up ludicrous anomalies and extreme cases. How can it be right that Cheltenham should have 94 per cent. of Liberal Democrat councillors with around 49 per cent. of the vote? That cannot be right and produces a gross inequity. It cannot be right that in many of the boroughs which Labour runs throughout the country, we have almost a majority of seats based on less than 50 per cent. of the vote. That cannot be right either. In my borough, Labour secured 55 per cent. of the vote in the last set of local elections and we have around 77 per cent. of the seats on the council. That is another example of inequity.
However, if we are to change the system of first-past-the-post, we should not countenance changes in other important aspects of representation. It is important to have the community and ward link between the elected member and the town hall, county hall or city hall. If we are to contemplate a change, we should look for a system of proportional representation which produces clear outcomes. I am not one who favours hung councils—and "hung". they are, not "balanced".
We should look to retain the important, powerful community and ward link. If we can design a system that does that, we will match four or five important tests for local democracy. We must design a system that is simple; one that is fair; one that establishes the local people and councillor link; and one that is effective. Those tests need to be put into the PR debate and I hope that if we revisit PR in government, those tests will be applied.
The fifth test which is also important is transparency and accountability. PR can produce some strange anomalies which blur accountability and can obfuscate outcomes. It is there that we need to concentrate our attention. For example, if we were to opt for a single transfer of the voting system, we would end up with a form of local government where the tail wags the dog. That would not be right; nor would it be in the best interests of local government. We need to look further afield for systems of PR which produce clearer political outcomes and which reflect a better balance in the scale of representation on each local authority.
I might add one argument that has not been put this afternoon, but which is extremely valid in terms of proportional representation. It is this. The current system means that we can almost predict that many northern areas will always deliver a Labour council with a large majority. We might equally predict that many south-western councils will deliver large Liberal Democrat majorities. But in each of those areas there are electors who are effectively sidelined from the system because they have no representation in their town hall,

703
county hall or city hall. That cannot be right or fair. Nor does it give a fair reflection of the state of the parties at the time either locally or nationally.
We therefore need to look at different forms of proportional representation—forms that are more reflective of a party in a locality; forms which retain the local ward and community link with the councillor; and forms which enable people to identify clearly who their councillors are. That is an important point. Some research recently conducted suggested that less than 10 per cent. of the local electorate will know who their local councillor is. I believe that to be wrong. It demeans the system and it means that the councillor will be valued less. We need to address that issue, perhaps through better publicity or by ensuring that local councillors are better local champions. Again, if we have proportional representation in local government, it will need to address that issue.
My noble friend Lady Gould tells me that PR is not one of four, five or six different systems; she says that recent research identified 757 varieties of proportional representation. I never believed that that could be the case, but my researches show that there are indeed many and we need to find one that works. For me, that may be the AV system which produces clear outcomes and in the last general election would probably have produced a House of Commons with a similar composition—certainly on the Labour Benches—to that which it currently has.
I therefore welcome the debate. It opens up the final chapter of the modernising agenda. It should be seen as part of a broader package of improving the quality of local government. I believe too that it may enable us to attack the unfairness that currently exists in the electoral system, create genuine oppositions in those local authorities that desperately need them and better reflect voters' wishes.
Some of the claims made for PR, such as the fact that it will attack corruption and enable better scrutiny, are poor arguments. I believe that corruption can occur in any local authority if that is the way in which members wish to operate, and the system can be exploited to that effect. I do not know that PR will attack corruption. I can predict that there will be systems of PR abroad internationally where corruption occurs in local government. So that is a poor argument.
However, if we are looking for fairness; if we are looking for a better balance; if we are looking for local authorities that give a fair reflection of their host communities in terms of age, gender and ethnicity, PR may be a way forward. On that basis I am happy to give my general support to the move to bring proportional representation to local government.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. It enables me to clear up a misconception that he has on where we Liberal Democrats stand.
I listened to the noble Lord's speech with great interest. He stated that Liberal Democrats see proportional representation in local government as a
704
way of solving all the problems. That is not our case. We say that without proportional representation we will not be able to solve together, with other parties, the problems that local governments face. We say that with proportional representation we may have a better chance of working with others from other parties and, indeed, with those from no party in solving the problems that face local governments.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for introducing this timely debate. She spoke of co-operation, not confrontation. I recall—as those noble Lords who were present at the time will also recall—in June last year that my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank introduced a Motion in this House in which around eight of my colleagues from these Benches spoke, urging the Government to introduce proportional representation in time for the next European elections. It was the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, as Minister at the Home Office, answered. Although sympathetic, the noble Lord gave reasons why it was unlikely that proportional representation would be introduced before the 1999 European elections. A few weeks later we found out that the Government had found time. We are very grateful for that. We do not know yet how the noble Baroness will answer the debate. But if she says that it is unlikely to take place or that there will be no time to introduce legislation by the next European elections or the elections after that, perhaps we may take that as a sign that something will come out of Downing Street and that we will be faced with a situation in which we have proportional representation at local government elections. Therefore, I am optimistic. We look forward to her reply on that point.
I declare an interest. I have never taken part in local government, much to my regret. Even if I now lived in east Durham, where I lived for five years after leaving Her Majesty's ground forces, the Army, I would never, under the present system for local government elections, take part. That I regret, but I would not have been elected.
In 1989 there were both county council elections and European elections. I stood in both. The reason I stood as a Social and Liberal Democrat candidate in both the county council and European elections is as follows. The Labour Party in Durham controls politics at every level. It has done so since 1922. I congratulate those in this House who hail from Durham and who have represented Durham, on their splendid service to the people of Durham. I refer in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, who is not in his place. Perhaps I may tell the House what happened in Easington in 1989. The Labour Party had not been opposed at the county council elections for about four elections. A farmer who lived in Durham was a member of the Conservative Party but regarded himself in local politics as an independent. We met in the village pub by coincidence. He said, "I understand you are standing for election to the county council. If you do so, I will not canvass for you, but I will vote for you. and I will ask my friends to vote for you". I said to him, "I understand that you are standing against the Labour Party in the forthcoming election. If you stand, I will not only vote for you but I will canvass for you if you want my support". What a way to go about things! He then said,

705
"I will stand but I am reluctant to". I asked him why he was reluctant. He said, "I have a wife and I have children. My wife can take the ostracism, but my children are victimised in the playground at school". I said, "I will then stand". I stood and I gained 30 per cent. of the vote. My opponent, whom I respect, gained 60 per cent. of the vote.
Three things happened. First, my opponent's leaflet came out first. It was not a well thought-through leaflet and it was rather ill-written. The electorate realised that my leaflet, which came out about two days later, was better thought through and rather better written and presented. Then an extraordinary thing happened. Throughout the campaign the Labour Party canvassed. It had about 50 people in the area. They were knocking on doors and cajoling and asking people to vote for the Labour Party candidate. Then came the count. A fellow member and officer of the Territorial Army told me that he had never attended an election count and asked whether he could come. I procured him a ticket. There were the Labour Party workers, myself and my friend. As the votes poured out of the boxes the number of ballot papers showed that I was leading in my ward. My friend turned to me and said, "George, if you win, will we get out of this place alive?" I said, "No". I think that illustrates the point that power corrupts and total power corrupts absolutely.
Let us look at proportional representation for local government. Local needs range from drains to dustbins, from education to the environment, from pavements to policemen, and from libraries to leisure centres. Let us have more people involved in local government, from all parties and from no party. Let us have more people voting at elections; not just 7 per cent. Let us not just aim, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for 54 per cent. Let us aim for 75 per cent. to 80 per cent.
We are one of the countries that first created local government. At the moment one would think that we had not created local government and that we did not have it. I ask the Minister to listen to the speeches made in the debate, to look at the problem with her advisers and to come back to the House and say that her government, to whom most of us offer good will, will bring in proportional representation for local government.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, my enthusiasm for supporting the introduction of PR in local government relates to the credibility of the political process as a whole. It will be common ground in the House, as it is across the country, that politicians are held in very low esteem. There are a number of reasons for that. There is a common view that politicians are in it only for what they can get out of it. That is often expressed in those terms rather than by suggesting that politicians might actually be corrupt. It is partly because, as has already been mentioned, there is a sense that many politicians are not seen or felt to be close to the people whom they represent. It seems to me that the electoral system in local government exacerbates these perceptions at lost local levels.
706
I grew up in what was then a mining area of west Yorkshire. It was a one party state. Labour dominated politics, utterly and completely. I do not believe that the old Rothwell Urban District Council was a corrupt body but it was certainly a smug and unimaginative body. Largely because there was such a predominance of Labour councillors—in reality, councillors of a single party—its actions were never scrutinised and the politicians never had any need to fight anything approaching a real electoral campaign. The electoral system in those circumstances made it difficult for any other party to gain meaningful representation. So I am sure that a number of people who might otherwise have been prepared to play a part in public life were deterred from attempting to do so by the very high hurdle of actually being elected and winning a seat on the first-past-the-post system.
For the population of Rothwell at large there was rarely, if ever, any real sense of an election taking place because everyone knew that the only election that mattered was the selection process that went on in the wards of the local Labour Party. The dangers of the smugness and complacency we saw there become worse if we see that one party has an untrammelled rule over a long period. In parts of west and south Yorkshire huge Labour majorities have been notched up in local elections for decades. While the vast majority of those councillors remain extremely scrupulous and uncorrupt, there are a number of glaring and recent exceptions to this rule.
Doncaster is perhaps the most dramatic of these. Here there is a council in which Labour holds over 90 per cent. of the seats: 57 out of 63, with about two-thirds of the votes. This is a situation which has encouraged a serious and systematic abuse of expenses, overseas trips. gifts and hospitality. The district auditor has produced a damning report on the activities of the council and, on top of the costs of its previous extravagances, it is now faced with a bill of £275,000 to help pay for the inquiry and to set things right. Many of the excesses in Doncaster have been on a pretty low and petty scale rather than on a grandiose scale.
In one much publicised case, a councillor spent £110 on two nights in a three-star hotel in Bradford in order to attend a conference although he had undertaken that he was going to commute. This is hardly corruption beyond the dreams of avarice, but the cumulative effect of this kind of case, partly because it is so common place and partly because people can understand what is going on, brings politics into disrepute—not just the actual politicians involved but, by association, all politicians and the process. This is extremely bad for the system of democracy as a whole. It must be said that it is exacerbated when, as in the case of Doncaster, the councillors who have been specifically criticised by the audit commission steadfastly refuse to apologise for anything that they have done wrong.
If there had been PR in Doncaster based on reasoned votes in council elections, the opposition parties would have mustered over 20 seats instead of their paltry six. They could have then exercised a much more effective scrutiny of what was going on and jolted the ruling group out of the complacency which, in my view, has

707
helped breed its excesses. It would also have been easier for voters effectively to have expressed their discontent over a longer period. Although the Liberal Democrats are now capitalising on the particular problem of Doncaster, and we won a by-election there a fortnight ago with a huge swing of well over 30 per cent., it is still difficult to make a real impression across the board in a place like that with such a tradition of one party politics and with the first-past-the-post system.
Incidentally, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the electoral system is irrelevant to the issue of corruption. If one looks at where there has been corruption in British politics, certainly in recent years, in all the cases of which I am aware it has been in councils where there has been a large and continuing majority of one party or another. In the case of Westminster, I believe it was a fear of losing a long-standing majority that led councillors to contemplate all manner of things which the district auditor and public opinion believed were not in the best interests of the voters of Westminster.
If first-past-the-post can encourage corruption, it also encourages voter apathy. Turn-out in local elections is low, and we have heard many figures about that. As has already been said, in many inner city wards it is lower still. Leeds City Council has a unique social mapping database which records on a street-by-street basis levels of dependency on state benefits—in effect, levels of deprivation. The council has undertaken an exercise to compare deprivation levels with turn-out at local elections. There is an almost exact fit. There are many reasons for this. Education levels are relevant to turn-out as well, so is the daily grind of life if one lives on the poverty line, which makes participation in politics seem to very many people an unnecessary luxury.
Another contributing factor in my view is that in many of these wards there is no effective electoral contest. Labour has held them for decades, the Conservatives have disappeared from the cities; and the Liberal Democrats, despite our spectacular growth in Yorkshire and Sheffield, elsewhere in the county and in inner cities across the country, simply do not have the resources to campaign intensively in all inner city wards. Frankly, in many of these wards there has been no serious electoral activity within living memory. Therefore, even if there were to be an interest in politics among the people who live there, it is actually quite difficult to find an outlet for it.
As many people have said, nobody but a fool would claim that PR would transform the situation overnight. However, any system of PR which would require the parties to take the whole of a council area seriously, instead of being able to leave whole swathes of an area without any real activity, and any system which retained a link between the councillor and a geographical area—I believe that for local council elections the arguments for STV are particularly strong—would jolt many local councillors out of their complacency and require them to keep in close contact with their electorate.
I would have hoped that these were such strong arguments, if not self-evident propositions, that the other parties, both the Government and the Opposition, might
708
find it possible to support them. Indeed, I was rather encouraged to hear the Leader of the Opposition express an enthusiasm for community politics. The Liberal Democrats have many achievements to their credit. To have the Leader of the Conservative Party speaking in favour of community politics must surely rank as one of the more significant ones.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Having listened to him and his predecessors speaking on the evils that come from low turn-out and the importance of a high turn-out, I wonder whether he would care to address his mind for a moment to the possibility of compulsory voting, which happens in other parts of the world and which would achieve much greater results than would apparently be achieved under proportional representation.
Lord Newby: My Lords, at one stage when I was a civil servant, attempting to look at alternatives to the domestic rates in the days when Michael Heseltine was Secretary of State for the Environment, there was a discussion about whether the poll tax might be an appropriate alternative. Among the civil servants a laugh went around the room and somebody said, "Imagine collecting that in Brixton." Frankly, I believe that the same argument applies to compulsory voting. I do not believe that one can force people into democracy. It is up to the politicians and the system to persuade people that this is something in which they should participate.
I apologise for returning to the topic of the Conservative Party, but I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, might, in winding up, extend his movement onto Liberal Democrat ground by expressing support for PR, at least for local government elections, just as his leader had expressed support for community politics. I suspect, from his earlier intervention, that may not be the case. However, I believe that having moved half-way across the road with regard to the relevance of local government and the way in which it might be conducted, he should really give further thought to going the whole way.
Although I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the desirability of compulsory voting, I believe that other changes will be needed to improve the standing of politicians. A range of other measures will be needed if the status of local government and interest in its elections and participation in them is to increase. I believe that PR is the key.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I came yesterday to your Lordships' House from the talks in Belfast. I find it rather remarkable to be sitting in this debate. Your Lordships are struggling over the question whether or not proportional representation might be introduced into local government at some point on this side of the water. Whatever the contentious matters that we debate in Northern Ireland, it is quite clear in the talks that not a single party there is proposing that we should have anything except proportional representation in Northern Ireland. That is because we have had the experience of it over quite a number of years.

709
Why should the people of Northern Ireland and their political representatives have become so persuaded that proportional representation is much the best way to approach representational politics? It is not because, in the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, they fear being made to vote. In Northern Ireland we escaped the notion of conscription because at a very early stage it was appreciated that to try to conscript Northern Ireland people as soldiers would only create trouble; but to give them the opportunity to fight voluntarily would ensure a massive surge of support, and so it was. I strongly suspect that if the largest fines imaginable were to be imposed for failure to vote, there would be a long queue of people blocking up the courts.
There has been no problem about ensuring high turn-outs. Indeed, if one takes into account some of the postal votes, there are areas of Northern Ireland where the vote verges above 100 per cent.! It is not proportional representation on its own which has created this situation, but because, whatever else, there is a sense of stridency, enthusiasm and a valuing of politics in that people believe their votes make a difference.
I have some personal experience of proportional representation in local government. On the two occasions when I stood for Belfast City Council in 1989 and 1993, I was elected under the system of proportional representation and the single transferable vote. It may seem a very complicated system, but it is not, particularly for the voters and the parties. If it is seriously being suggested that the people of Northern Ireland can quite happily understand the single transferable vote system, but that those in the rest of the United Kingdom are simply not up to understanding it, that would be a remarkable state of affairs. It is not a complicated system at all; it is quite simple. People put down, in order of preference, the candidates for whom they wish to vote as one, two, three, four, five and whatever.
Perhaps I may take your Lordships briefly through the kind of situation which has been our experience for more than a quarter of a century in Northern Ireland. As regards the selection of candidates within a party, because the STV system has multi-members—that is to say, in each of the areas there will be a number of representatives—most of the major parties, like my own, put forward a number of candidates for each of the electoral areas. They are not very large areas, but are large enough to sustain five or six councillors. At the selection meetings therefore it is not a question of the party élite deciding on the single standard bearer; on the contrary, there is the opportunity for the party to put forward two, three and sometimes even more candidates, which it is felt might have support in the local community. That means that the parties are not able simply to put their stamp of approval on one single individual; it means that the representation coming forward from the party expresses the breadth of view within it.
As regards campaigning and voting, the voters are able not just to look at the representative of the party and say, "Will I vote for him or her"; they are able to say, "There is one of those representatives whom I think is a particularly fine woman. She deserves my vote and
710
I shall give her my first preference. But I do not think a great deal of the chap standing with her; I prefer the fellow from the other party. So when I come to my second preference, I shall not give it to the party hack who has been put forward to make up the list, even though I generally support that party. I shall give my second preference to the other party because it has had the good sense to put forward someone who is a local representative of some calibre. He deserves to be on the local council". That means that there are transfers not just from one representative of a party to another of the same party, but from a representative of one party to a representative of another because that person corrals support from across the political divisions.
That is not such a difficult concept for the voters as one might imagine. Indeed, within a matter of a year or two the voters of Northern Ireland became extremely sophisticated at deciding exactly whom they wanted; who would really represent their views and who would not. Transfers were sometimes quite remarkable. Representatives from one party found themselves being elected on transferred votes coming from one or more of the other parties.
It is not that this is difficult for the voters and the political aficionados to understand. The problem is that the party leaders and elites do not have full control of things. I accept that that is a problem, but is it one from which we should turn aside?
Some noble Lords have said that it is desperately important for there to be close links between the elected representative and the people of the area. That is entirely so. But if you happen to be a nationalist in the Northern Ireland context and the representative for your area is a unionist, you would not feel that there is a particularly close link between you and your political representative just because he happens to represent your area. Indeed, you would feel completely unrepresented. You would much rather be in a situation where there are four or five representatives for a slightly larger area. You could then go to the representative whom you believe actually represents your views and is in some way sensitive to you. That is exactly the situation that obtains on this side of the water.
If in a particular area there is almost no one but Liberal Democrat councillors, Conservative councillors or Labour councillors, anyone who is not susceptible to those political views will not feel particularly represented just because someone is elected for their geographical area. The voter will want someone who has some sensitivity towards his or her political viewpoint. The voter will want to know that his vote matters and makes a difference. It is not so difficult to create such a scenario.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said. "Yes, but there will be stagnation. Change will not happen". I can understand that being a concern. If there is to be progress and development in politics, some people have to be in and others out (as the noble Lord well knows), at least for a period. However, I draw the noble Lord's attention to some of the local government elections in which my own party has had that experience in the past 12 months. Last May, before the local government

711
election to Carrickfergus council, my own party, along with some other representatives such as independents, had had control of the council. Then there was a proportional representation and STV election. We were unfortunate enough not to be able to carry quite the same number of seats, so we went into opposition. Another controlling coalition took over. That was sad news for us, but it was balanced by the fact that we and some others effectively took control of Belfast City Council, which is much bigger. The result was that for the first time ever in the history of Belfast my party was able to collaborate with the SDLP and put forward a nationalist lord mayor. That has never happened before in the history of Belfast. Was not that a change? Was not that a development and something of significance under PR/STV? It was of enormous significance.
It is important to understand that in that context the unionists did not suddenly feel, "Now we are completely out in the cold and there is nothing for us for the next few years; we have lost control which means we have lost involvement; we are alienated from our own city". That was not so at all. The fact that we have a controlling interest on the council means that not only can we ensure that the SDLP provides the lord mayor for this year but that the Alliance Party will provide one for next year. The unionists, even though they lost votes, do not have to feel alienated from their own city because they will have their opportunity in the millennium year.
It is not necessary to create the conditions where those who are in power have control and keep it to themselves and those who are out feel alienated and have no part in the conduct of their own local government. There is a real possibility for change, development and evolution. Surely that is part of what this debate is about. It is about change, development and evolution for the better of our whole political system from bottom to top or, as in the case of proportional representation perhaps, from the top to the bottom.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Alderdice—and one that I often have. Apart from the eloquence and force of his contribution, we have learnt that the British constitutional system is conspicuously bad at finding actual experience, drawing conclusions from it and then applying it. We have such experiences in Northern Ireland—my noble friend outlined them—and perhaps we could all usefully learn from them.
We owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for introducing this subject—not, I emphasise, wholly or solely (as one or two noble Lords have implied) as a matter of Liberal Democrat interest only. This is genuinely a matter of public interest because it affects the quality of our government in this country.
I say at the start that I warmly welcome the Government's approach to modernising our democracy, putting our institutions back in touch with the people and generally producing a better quality of government. This is a time of constitutional renewal and this debate is about whether that constitutional renewal should
712
apply also to local government. I think that it should because there is much to be done. As one of my noble friends has said, it was John Stuart Mill who pointed out that local government is the seedbed of democracy. It is where people—citizens and their representatives—learn the give and take of difficult decisions that deeply affect local people. Things can go wrong at the grass roots. We have had some terrible experience with local government in the past few decades in this country. Of course, some had nothing to do with the electoral system—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was right to remind us of that—but some relate to the voting system in local government.
As many noble Lords have said, one-party government can lead to complacency and corruption. It is not inevitable but, as my noble friend Lord Russell said, let us not lead people into temptation. Distance can grow between voters and their representatives and, as a result, turnout can decline and apathy and cynicism can grow. Unrepresentative minorities can gear themselves up (because they are part of the largest minority) to absolute control for extreme and unrepresentative policies. I hope that even now the memory of what Militant did in Liverpool is as fresh in the minds of the Government as it should be fresh in the mind of every citizen in this country. It was an example of what can be done by a small, unrepresentative minority taking over a ruling party which is itself based on a bare majority.
It was the problem of unrepresentative minorities taking over city councils, largely, that led the former Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to introduce the poll tax. Let us be quite clear about it. That was the motivation for the introduction of the poll tax. This country had five years of convulsion, with the most unpopular policy of modern times. That led directly to her political demise as Prime Minister because she had not grasped the basic fact that you best get representative policies by having representative government. The party to my left could certainly have saved itself the agony and humiliation of the poll tax incident if it had simply set about democratising local government so that majorities were representative majorities, and not unrepresentative majorities.
I fear that that blindness in Conservative ranks continues because the most conspicuous feature of this afternoon has not been the eloquence of my noble friends—it is well known that Liberal Democrats know the arguments for proportional representation—and it has not been the extremely cogent speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Bassam, from the Labour Benches; it has been the silence of the grave from the Conservative Benches. We have not heard one single speaker, yet I read this morning in the Financial Times, a reputable organ, that Mr. William Hague, now a reluctant convert to community politics and to partial constitutional reform, will nevertheless fight proportional representation tooth and nail. I am sorry that the weight of that responsibility falls solely on the broad shoulders of the Conservative Chief Whip. One would have thought that the Conservative Party could have found someone else also to fight tooth and nail this afternoon. Perhaps their colleagues at this end of the

713
Corridor should be brought in to the new Conservative project and realise that this is something that they must fight—or perhaps they are ambivalent.
Indeed, Conservatives should be ambivalent because the Conservative Party's attitude on proportional representation is a very strange one. The first-past-the-post system from which the Conservatives have benefited for so long has now turned on them. The Conservative Party has now become the victim of the system to which it has been so slavishly devoted for so many years. In Scotland and in Wales, the Conservative Party has been eliminated as a parliamentary force—because of the voting system. As my noble friend Lady Maddock said, the Conservative Party is now the third party of local government—because of the voting system. The Conservative Party has very nearly been eliminated as a force in local government in many Northern and Midland cities—because of the voting system. In the London boroughs of Hounslow, Islington, Newham, Lewisham and others, the Conservative Party is hardly represented. It seems political masochism of the most extraordinary order for the Conservative Party to persist in its opposition to a reform which is not only in the public interest, but which would also so clearly benefit the Conservatives in their new minority status by ensuring that they are properly represented. I have a prediction for them: it will get worse.
I dare say that we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the defects of proportional representation. I have heard that argument from him before on such occasions. Most of the arguments boil down to the following: first, PR produces weak government. All that I would say to that is that in local government what we want above all is good government, based on consent, and good government that will persist over time, with policies that are in touch with local people. We do not want little Mussolinis in our town halls; we want good government. Strong government is not the British way of doing things. I repeat that we want good government.
The second argument is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made when he intervened in the speech of my noble friend Lord Russell. It was the question of how, with PR, one can turn people out. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, that is a real discussion. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is this: if the Conservative Party were able nationally to muster 50 per cent. of the votes, it would have the majority in Parliament. What is there intrinsically to stop any party setting out with the leadership and the policies that will command the majority of its fellow citizens? That applies locally as well as nationally. If you cannot do it, you have to do what most people do in their personal, professional and business lives—and that is, to find some via media and some way of compromising so that good government can be carried on.
The other argument that is often used is to say that the system is complicated. My noble friends have dealt with that point very well. I am not sure that I would go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in saying that we should sell PR on the basis that it is just as easy as the
714
Inland Revenue form. There is probably a slightly better way of putting across our case. However, PR is certainly just as easy as filling in a lottery form, which most people seem to have mastered pretty readily.
It is right that PR is no panacea. However, in local government PR could have some conspicuously virtuous effects. It could make election more important than selection. It could encourage higher participation and therefore a better turnout. It could produce greater responsiveness on the part of local government. It would produce a lower likelihood of complacency and, I believe, a lower possibility of corruption. It would produce better representation, and I believe that it would ultimately produce better government. The arguments for PR are extremely powerful.
In concluding, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who has great experience of local government, to answer two questions when she responds at the end of the debate. First, when shall we know the system by which London elections are to be conducted? Secondly, if, as is widely rumoured, they are to be based on proportional representation, why does the same logic that is to be applied to London not apply to local government in the rest of the country? I should like to hear quite specifically from the Minister that at this stage on this important issue the Government have an open mind. I believe from the sense of the debate this afternoon that that is what the House wants to hear.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this interesting debate. I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for having instigated it. Noble Lords may have noticed that I slipped into the Chamber a few minutes after the noble Baroness began her speech. I apologise for that discourtesy.
I am the only speaker so far who is to speak against proportional representation. I therefore look forward with particular interest to the speech to be made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, to see whether I am the sole voice in the debate this afternoon. There is nothing particularly surprising about the Liberal Democratic Party initiating a debate on proportional representation. It is rather like a convention of football club owners initiating a debate on the need for more televised football.
In all the best detective stories the first task is to look for the motive. The Liberal Democratic Party has a powerful motive. Proportional representation gives more power to the Liberal Democrats, more power to politicians and less uncertainty for those with political power; in other words, the political machine.
Who stand to be the great gainers from the introduction of proportional representation? It is the Liberal Democratic Party. "PR" should stand not for "proportional representation" but "permanent representation"—permanent representation for the Liberals in government and local government alike. It also stands for the preservation of governments, local councils and politicians. Earlier in the debate I asked the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a question. It was the noble

715
Lord, Lord Alderdice, who replied, I am sure much to the gratitude of the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a very good point, but when answering he inadvertently made an even better point about proportional representation. It was not the voters who decided what the coalition in Belfast should be but the politicians who got together behind closed doors and produced a solution that they thought would work best for themselves. During this debate statistics have been hurled around the Chamber. They do not prove anything bar whatever one wants them to prove.
The Motion before us today is concerned with local government, but let us not delude ourselves. PR in local government would be a further step on the road to PR in general elections—a direction in which both the Labour and Liberal Parties are already pointing in policies for European elections and for Scotland. During the course of the debate I could not help but reflect on why, if PR was such a good idea, we had not got it already. Why did not the Labour party include PR in its manifesto? Why in the past 18 years did we not bring forward our own ideas? We have not done so because we believe PR to be profoundly undemocratic.
I ask the House to consider the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in describing the benefits of proportional representation: it will be fairer to the electors; it will increase the turnout at local elections; people will vote for candidates rather than parties; it will mean that more women will be elected and that other kinds of minorities will be represented. This is marvellous stuff, and the Labour Party should listen to it with care.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord allowing me to intervene. I do not want to interrupt the flow of his eloquent speech. Is the noble Lord saying that women in this country are a minority?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I took a very careful note of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She said that PR would mean that more women would be represented and that other minorities would be represented. I do not put a gloss on what she means. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cheltenham, that I am perfectly well aware that women in this country do not make up a minority of the electorate. The noble Lord has made a good effort to diminish the effects of what I said. If all of this is so good why did we not do it a long time ago?
What would proportional representation mean in practice? It would mean that almost no national government or local council could be formed without the say-so of—guess who?—the Liberal Democratic Party. Having been the least popular of the three major parties, at a stroke they would be transformed into the most powerful. Power would be given to the least popular. I find it hard to see what that has to do with either representative democracy or effective local or national government.
What are the Liberal Democratic Party afraid of? At the start of this century the Liberal Party was the largest party in Britain. It dominated both national and local
716
government and it won that dominance under the first-past-the-post system. Under the first-past-the-post system it lost that dominance. Why? The Liberal Party lost it because of what it now calls "unfair votes". That was not the reason: the party lost it because of lost votes. The people of Britain preferred Labour to Liberals—Social Democrats and Liberal Democrats alike. Odd though it may seem, they still do. There is nothing to prevent the Liberal Party from retaking its place at the head of the parties of Britain except that in election after election the public have shown that, whatever they think of Conservatives or Labour, they find Liberal Democrat ideas and policies the least attractive.
I believe that instead of seeking to tear up the first-past-the-post electoral system in their own narrow party interests the Liberal Democrats should seek to do to Labour what the Labour party did to them; namely, to use the existing system to win success as the leading party of the left. This is quite possible. I refer to the noble Baroness's own borough of Richmond, where I understand the Liberals have squeezed the Labour and Conservative parties such that they now dominate the council. I suspect that that is one reason why those who live in Richmond suffer the highest council tax cost in outer London. I am also told that it has lost to property developers the historic ice rink that was once so much loved by local people.
The Liberal Democrats should have the courage to present themselves to the public for what they are rather than seek to win power locally and nationally on the coat-tails of a Labour Prime Minister. As they cling to his coat-tails and sup tea in secret Cabinet committees they should be careful with whom they do business and to what it leads. One does not have to be too perspicacious to see that the Prime Minister's dream is to split their party, bring the Social Democrats under his wing and cast the grand old Liberal tradition, which has served this country well, out into the darker fringes of politics.
We have seen those dangers in the House only this week. I refer to the proceedings on Monday when at the very last minute the noble Lord, Lord Tope, failed to move a Motion on two vitally important matters to Britain's schools, students and universities. The noble Lord told the House that,
"any further delay with this Bill …"—
there had been no delay—
"could have a serious effect on other government legislation, some of which, it is true to say, my party supports, at least in principle."—[Official Report, 23/2/98; col. 407.]
I suggest that the words, "supports, at least in principle" are significant, for it was reported in yesterday's press that "senior Liberal Democrats" had discussed with the Government changes to the PR system proposed for European elections—supported by the Liberals significantly in principle, but not in detail—and had suddenly won movement in their direction. The juxtaposition of these two things is, I submit, no accident. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was constrained by his Whips to abandon a defence of the universities, students and their families for a modest move by Mr. Straw on PR. Such is the power of PR to influence Liberal Democrat minds and to force low compromise

717
at the expense of high principle. That is the fundamental argument against PR at any level, national or local. It puts a premium on private party bartering and fuzzes clarity of principle; it transfers choice away from the electors and gives it to machine politicians; and it offers the greatest power to the most unpopular party. It also creates extremist parties and a proliferation of parties.
I was impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, that the current system led to the amelioration of extremes within local government. I agree with her. Surely the opposite must be true: when you have a proliferation of small parties it gives political credibility to small, extremist movements.
For once I find myself in strong agreement with a Labour Party document, their consultation paper on local government, published in February. It says:
"The tradition in this country is for there to be a close link between constituency representatives and the citizens they represent. Our local government voting system delivers just this result with each councillor being elected by the citizens of the ward or district which they represent. We believe such links between councillors and people are vital to ensure councils engage effectively with their local communities."
I agree with that.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. William Hague, made a speech on the constitution. He said:
"Of all the dangerous and destructive constitutional reforms currently on the table, perhaps the most dangerous and the most destructive is proportional representation."
At a time when a first-past-the-post system has recently found favour in Italy, a country wracked by generations of weak governments which were the fruit of PR, it would be extraordinary, simply to serve the narrow interests of the Liberal Party, to throw over the direct links between electors and elected and make councils less stable and council candidates even more the servants of party than people.
I have listened to the Liberal Democratic Party this afternoon with respect. With equal respect I have to say that this is an old, self-seeking Liberal canard which we on these Benches will not buy. Let the Government, and the noble Baroness in particular, be in no doubt that if they are in favour of proportional representation they are on their own. We will fight them every step of the way.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I quake to hear the authoritative and, I presume, final position of the Conservative Opposition Benches on a subject to do with the constitution, at least for today.
It is clear from the debate that there is a wide range of views both within the House and elsewhere on the merits of proportional representation and on the importance of considering them in the context of different types of elections to different bodies. There is currently no consensus about the best or most appropriate voting system for local government, although certain possibilities clearly command more support than others. There is certainly not a consensus that a change from the current first-past-the-post system is required, although there are many who argue this particular view, and we have heard some distinguished
718
proponents. We have had demonstrated this afternoon a need for a mature and reasoned consideration of the issue.
The Labour Government have embarked upon a radical and wide-ranging programme of constitutional reform, including devolution in Wales and Scotland, PR in elections for the European Parliament, the Independent Commission on the Voting System for Westminster chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the creation of a mayor and assembly for London—which will be contested and supported by all parties represented in the debate today—open government and freedom of information. The Government have a radical programme which will touch all levels of the state, and local government is crucial within that.
In his recent speech at Scarborough the Prime Minister set out four key areas of change in our agenda for local government: new legitimacy, new ways of working, new disciplines and new powers. We have made a start in all of these areas and our aim is to ensure that councils can fulfil their potential. They have a vital role to play in giving their communities the quality of life which people rightly expect and deserve.
We have published a consultation paper on local democracy and community leadership which sets out ideas for achieving this. This is the first paper in a series, with more to come, on best value, finance issues and a new ethical framework in response to Lord Nolan's report on standards in local government.
The change of culture equally affects the disciplines under which modern councils must operate, including the move away from discredited compulsory competitive tendering towards a regime of best value. Your Lordships will be aware that there are now 37 full best value pilots in place across the country. It is an issue which is extremely important in terms of righting the balance between local government and central government.
More generally—not least because of the writing of my noble friend Lord Bassam—people in local government are becoming seized of the cultural change that best value, fully implemented with local performance plans negotiated with the community, will engender.
We intend that this programme should lead to massive change in the culture of local government, with greater accountability and openness, better, more streamlined decision-taking, greater efficiency, greater public involvement in decision-taking and better and more visible leadership. Overall we are working in partnership with local government to enhance its ability to meet the needs and aspirations of the communities it serves.
Our first consultation paper, which has been referred to by many speakers in the debate, deals with options for moving to annual elections and options for possible changes to other electoral arrangements: for example, voting on Sundays, electronic voting, and other experiments which would be made possible by the Private Member's Bill, if enacted, of the noble Lord,

719
Lord Hunt of Tamworth. Let me place on record again my gratitude that all sides of the House were able to come together to agree improvements to that measure.
This first consultation paper seeks views on 30 different fundamental questions. The Government will listen to and consider carefully all views expressed on this paper and those to follow before setting out their proposals in a White Paper. We shall legislate, where necessary, at the first opportunity.
The programme set out in the consultation paper includes some major changes, such as the move to annual elections. This manifesto commitment will ensure that authorities will be subject to more regular electoral accountability for their performance. As a minimum, it could mean a change in electoral practice for a large number of authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked me for the arguments that would support annual elections. From my experience in local government, the strongest support arises from the argument that you can have a fluke set of circumstances and an unusual result in one year. That can lead to a lack of continuity because there are marked swings every four years instead of a gradual responsiveness to the changing mood of the community.
The issue of complacency and low standards in local authorities which have been controlled by a single party for a long time is widely acknowledged across the political spectrum. Our consultation paper contains a range of measures—a number of them radical—to address this issue. There are measures to encourage higher turn-out, greater public involvement between elections and innovative ways of taking decisions.
Our programme will bring the one-party state system up to the mark and make the absence of opposition less likely. For example, under the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there may be experiments separating the executive role from the representative and scrutiny role in the local authority. This would occur where the authority experimented with a directly-elected mayor or a cabinet model, for example. Wherever there was a separate executive arm established there would be a requirement for the authority to have one or more scrutiny committees. These committees would have full access to information, members of the executive and the officers of the authority, and their membership would be in line with the overall political balance of the authority. That point was supported across your Lordships' House when the issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The power of scrutiny of a majority political party on an authority is an alternative and supplementary means of tackling corruption. The difficulty is the language which is used in connection with local government. It has been interesting to hear today the different language used in connection with control, no overall control and whether there would always be a lack of scrutiny when one party has a large majority on the local authority.
If through enabling legislation we had enhanced scrutiny, it is possible that the small number of senior officers and members of an authority which may have remained under one party control for several years will find that some of the fiercest scrutiny comes not from
720
the opposition parties but from their own back bench members. Councillors on a scrutiny committee would have a number of incentives to be rigorous in their oversight of the executive, including the normal process of exercising political opposition and representing the interests of their constituents. Therefore, our package builds on the traditional strengths of local government. A major element is to enhance the degree to which councillors are able to represent fully and actively those who elect them in order to make them closer to the people.
As was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the programme for local government is a major undertaking. It will involve legislation and could involve authorities in managing a number of significant changes simultaneously. The Government have decided that on local democracy the highest priority must be given to the broad package set out in the recent consultation paper and to the complementary introduction of best value and the new ethical framework. We are committed to fostering innovation and change in partnership with local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke of the judgment being made by government about priority within a programme of identified issues. Local and central government must work together to develop a radical and realistic programme for change. Delivery must not he impeded by trying to do too much at once. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked for more change. There is a rate of change which would he a rate too far in keeping the partnership approach between central and local government.
However, the Government recognise that any consideration of democratic arrangements, central or local, must necessarily include looking at voting systems. Clearly, we will have to address the issue in due course. The Government will look carefully at the issues and listen carefully to what people say. Nothing would be served by me seeking to respond to comments about the different electoral systems or their appropriateness to local government today. Claims have been made for proportional representation. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords spoke about the voting patterns in, for example, the boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea and Sheffield. However, I suspect that in most years there would be a majority from one party and no overall control. Therefore, our approach to the system of scrutiny is extremely important.
The acceptability of the decisions taken by our local authorities depends on their democratic legitimacy. I have attempted to explain today that this is not merely a product of the voting system used. There is a range of views on the voting systems and many will argue for first-past-the-post, as did the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The Government take the view that it is necessary to ensure that we have the most suitable electoral system for the body that is to be elected.
Certain issues relate to the size and nature of the body that is to be elected. I was asked specific questions about London and what the Government are likely to do. The Government will publish a White Paper next month on

721
the new strategic authority and mayor for London. It will set out the proposed electoral arrangements for the mayor and assembly. The new authority will cover more than 5 million voters and will have strategic powers and functions. The primary function of the assembly will be to hold to account the mayor for London, and the details will be published. However, in considering the proposals in the White Paper and making comparisons with local government, it must be remembered that the authority will comprise a comparatively small number of members and will have a highly strategic function. It is not necessarily comparable with other levels of authority.
As many noble Lords have said, the link between locality and councillors is important. I intend to look further at the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, with regard to the number of councillors in the areas of the country which do not have PR. From my experience as a councillor, I know that it is important to have a good relationship with the local community. At present, it will not be popular to turn to a system—for example, the STV system—which will lead to an increase in councillors of 500 per cent. As a councillor on a county council, I represented almost 14,000 people and I know that a multi-member seat would cover a large area.
We intend to ensure that we retain a local system and wish to avoid large wards or remote systems which cut people off from the local community. The Government wish to place all their weight behind the programme of democratic reform for local government. Never have a government working with local government supported such a range of exciting initiatives and opportunities to experiment. Evaluation of the radical changes which result from that programme may lead us to consider changes to voting systems. The Government are not, therefore, drawing any conclusions on the issue at the moment.
Today's debate has been helpful in teasing out some of the issues which will need to be addressed. I was particularly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, based on his particular experience. I am sure that we shall benefit from that in future debates.
My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie raised many important issues and much has been made of the low turn-out in local elections. As a government, we are committed to increasing that turn-out. There are many factors. One issue is a new partnership which allows local authorities greater freedom to work with their communities after years of centralisation. Over the past 18 years, there have been many examples of tension and mistrust between levels of government.
We intend to be open and honest with local government and work through the radical programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has given us an opportunity this afternoon to give consideration to an important aspect and subject. On many future occasions I look forward to hearing contributions from noble Lords on that subject.
722
I was slightly surprised by the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, in Durham. My experience of Durham county councillors was that they were a very lively lot. Perhaps the most lively was the leader with whom it was my pleasure to work alongside in the Association of County Councils. At the age of 84, having nursed his wife until her death from Alzheimer's disease, he took up parachute jumping to raise funds. When he was asked whether it was not very stupid to parachute jump for the first time at the age of 84, he said to the young reporter, "Certainly not. If I kill myself, I lose two years. If you do, you lose 62 years". Those people were not all perhaps of the type experienced by the noble Earl.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome very much the enthusiasm for democracy which has been expressed from almost all sides of the House and for the inclusiveness for which we are striving and which we are increasingly attaining in government in this country.
It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rejects that inclusiveness even of his own party in what I can only describe as "yesterday's speech". He may have missed my explanation that PR would affect the Liberal Democrats as much as it would the other parties, although that was a point made by other noble Lords. I said also that of the various arguments for PR. any benefit to the politicians was the very least.
To put the point firmly on the record, I must say that I did not talk of women as minorities. I most carefully did not use the word "minorities". Indulging myself just a little, I should say also that it is reassuring to know that the Conservatives have absolutely no new arguments against the Liberal Democrats in my own borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. Despite the relatively high council tax there which the noble Lord well knows is because of the extraordinarily low level of central government grant, the electors have continued to return Liberal Democrats with huge majorities.
Perhaps the Conservatives are comfortable only with extremes and the noble Lord does not recognise that, as my noble friend Lady Maddock said, co-operative politics hold back the extremes. He may not know either that Italy has moved to a form of AMS rather than first-past-the-post.
The general point is that it has been said around this Chamber that proportional representation will not be a panacea, nor indeed, I believe, has any noble Lord argued that no overall control—hung or balanced councils, whatever one wants to call them—is the right model and the only model. That is not the case. But proportional representation is a vital ingredient in rejuvenating local democracy. I believe that has been demonstrated today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that PR for local government would be considered in due course. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said earlier this afternoon that she did not have a Civil Service lexicon with her. I am not sure where "in due course" comes in the hierarchy of short, very short or other courses.

723
I believe that I am right to welcome the confirmation—to read between the lines—of not only PR in London but also the open mind of the Government on this issue.
My noble friend Lord Tope referred to the outcome of the borough elections in Wandsworth in 1986 and the fantasies that we might have had had the votes been reflected in the number of councillors elected. At that point, I was watching the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shuibrede, who was a councillor in Wandsworth until four years ago. For him, the fantasy went on a little longer than for some other noble Lords.
In the 1890s Lord Salisbury said:
"By democracy, I do not mean a system in which seven men tell nine men what to do".
It is that basic issue of fairness which has been central to this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I do not need Papers to persuade myself of the case for PR in local government. I hope that no other noble Lords do. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Access to the Open Countryside
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend Michael Meacher MP in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware that we have published today our consultation document Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales. I held meetings with four national organisations yesterday in order to outline the Government's thinking in broad terms. In view of the complexity and detail of the issues, I allowed each organisation to have a copy of the document to examine overnight.
"I emphasised that it was for personal use only and that the contents were not to be disclosed to anyone else. The organisations concerned were the Country Landowners' Association, the Moorland Association, the National Farmers Union and the Ramblers' Association, all of which have been involved in extensive discussions with my department on this issue.
"I completely understand the honourable Member's concern that non-governmental organisations should have seen the document before it was available to the House.
"I have discussed this matter with the Deputy Prime Minister and apologised to him. He made clear that he regarded this as unacceptable, and I share that view. He accepted my wish to make a full and unreserved apology to the House, and that I now do".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before making a few substantive remarks, I should tell your Lordships that I have some land in Cumbria and some of it is above 600 metres.
The noble Baroness, in her charming way that we all respect, has repeated to us one of the oldest stories in the world: "I told him a secret and then he talked". I hope the Government will not mind me offering a piece of advice which I believe is a dictum of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, in one of his law cases which was that the trouble with gentlemen's agreements is that there are not enough gentlemen to go round.
What has occurred is regrettable. There are too many occasions when Parliament has not been told when it should have been told. But of course, on behalf of these Benches, I accept the apology.
The document which is at the centre of this little storm is called Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales, a consultation paper. The problem is that it is not a consultation paper at all. I knew that even before I read it because as I was getting up this morning and listening to the "Today" programme, I heard the right honourable Member, Mr. Meacher, explain to me and much of the rest of the nation what it was all about. He said:
"If we cannot achieve our full objectives by voluntary means we will resort to other means and that certainly means legislation. We are absolutely clear about that. I repeat again we arc going to achieve the increase in access we set down in the consultation paper. If we can achieve it by voluntary means that is far and away the best way to proceed in this as in other areas. But if we can't, then we will bring in legislation".
That is not consultation; it is an ultimatum. It is no more a consultation document than the recent agreement made between Kofi Annan and Tariq Aziz was a voluntary grant from Saddam Hussein to UNSCOM to have the right to roam over Iraq.
This is Hobson's choice. The document is effectively the briefing pack for the Second Reading speech that the noble Baroness will use if she introduces this legislation; that is, unless the Government's aspirations are achieved voluntarily in double quick time. The Government here are threatening landowners with legislation before proposals have either been placed before Parliament or considered by it. I always understood that it was Parliament that made the laws in this country, but perhaps I am out of date. I am just an old Tory and not a new Labour man.
In short, I believe this document represents poor governance. The Government should first have told Parliament of their legislative intentions. That is what this document sets out. It threatens citizens with legislation as if it and not Parliament made the laws. Given the substance and the content of this document, we believe that it should have been given to Parliament first and not just issued after an interview on the "Today" programme and, I assume, a press conference at the department.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the breach is one that often occurs, apparently, and something should be done to stop that. I was a little perturbed at the inference that one of the four bodies leaked this to the press. From past experience I should think it is just as likely to be someone from within the government department than from these respectable bodies. I agree that what has happened is regrettable. I agree with most of what the noble Lord on the Conservative Benches has said. I have read an article in the Evening Standard, although I did not hear the programme this morning.
However, the proposal we are discussing seems quite sensible in that the Ramblers' Association and other interested bodies will be in a far better position if landowners enter into voluntary agreements. I do not know many bad landlords but I know that many good landowners already allow the public access to see the beauties of the countryside. I have found that where a bargain is drawn up as regards the shooting season for deer or grouse in Scotland, people keep to their promise to stay off the land and not spoil the income for the estates which is necessary to maintain those estates. That appears to me to be quite a sensible approach. I do not think that legislation is such a great threat; I believe that might be quite sensible. The noble Lord referred to the United Nations negotiations with the dreadful Hussein. I think that the Government have been a little incompetent but their intentions are good. However, I would not like to agree with the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the courtesy with which the Statement was received by both Front Benches. It comprises a full apology from the Minister. Sometimes it is right not only to make an apology but also graciously to accept it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for doing that. A judgment was made by Mr. Meacher. He has made it clear that that judgment was not correct and has apologised for it. The relevant document is now in the Libraries of both Houses. I have compiled a Written Answer on this matter in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
I should make it clear that, as I understand the Companion, I should give details and elucidation on the Statement in response to the PNQ rather than engage in a substantive debate on the issues contained in the consultation document. However, I shall comment on the status of the consultation because I believe the accusation has been made that it is not genuine because there is the possibility of legislation. I refute that accusation. We made it quite clear in our manifesto that our policies included greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside. We intend to keep to that commitment. In a sense that commitment is not open to consultation. What we are prepared openly to examine in all its forms is the means by which we achieve that aim. The document makes it quite clear that it would, to say the least, be quicker and more effective to achieve that aim by voluntary means rather than to adopt the legislative route. We are open-minded about the means
726
we adopt to fulfil that obligation. That is what the consultation document is concerned with. I am sure that many noble Lords will want to participate in that debate at the appropriate time.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I first heard about this matter last night when I attended a meeting with the chairman of the ramblers who had a copy of the document. I have only just received it and therefore I have not read much of it. The thrust of it seems to be that if landowners allow public access to their moorland there will be no legislation. I must declare an interest in this area. However, I do not think landowners will allow open access to their moorland as no one wants to see his land ruined, and that is what I think will happen in many cases.
If the Government were prepared to consider increasing the number of footpaths, rather than increasing open access, on the basis that 90 per cent. of walkers use footpaths and few stray from them, they could expect and demand complete co-operation. Many moorland owners have already offered such a facility. If the Government were to demand, for example, a mile of footpath per 1,000 acres, they could expect full co-operation. However, if open access is allowed, vandals will take advantage of that, not just walkers. That would be terrible. I also hope the noble Baroness will note how many people demonstrate on Sundays not just against hunting but also for the right to roam and in favour of many other countryside activities.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I note the comments made by the noble Lord opposite. Given the nature of the Private Notice Question to which this Statement refers, I think it would be inappropriate if I responded in detail to all the points the noble Lord has made. We are discussing the nub of the consultation and the debate that is now taking place. I am sure there will be opportunities in your Lordships' House for us to discuss these matters.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, I understood that we were discussing the Statement made by Mr. Michael Meacher in another place which is purely and simply an apology. While such mistakes are regrettable, they happen; they are not uncommon. This afternoon Mr. Dennis Skinner has pointed out that on 41 occasions—at the last count—the previous government made similar errors during their years in office.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I am sure he is right to say that this is not the first government to have sinned in this way. However, I repeated the apology because it arose from behaviour that was not appropriate, as my right honourable friend made clear.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister that I was not present when she repeated the Statement as yesterday I was told there would be no government Statement on the Floor of either House. However, that

727
is as may be. I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Gisborough has said. I declare an interest not only as a landowner, but as someone who will be—
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I believe I am right in saying, with respect, that this is a debate to discuss the Government Statement. We should he wrong to involve ourselves in any way in what might be considered to be a Second Reading debate. My apologies to my noble friend.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may simply ask the Minister a question which I believe is fundamental to the way in which these discussions go forward. Will she tell the House who is to facilitate the negotiations? When there are two sides, on the one hand the Ramblers' Association, it would be helpful to those of us who will be involved if there were clear guidance as to how the negotiations are to take place. If there is not, it will lead to all sorts of difficulties.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are in the realm of consultation rather than negotiation, and the consultation document makes clear the areas on which the Government are seeking the views of all those with an interest, from either side, indeed from the many sides in the debate, as to how we square the circle of extending the rights of people to explore the open countryside with the responsibilities which clearly go with that extension.
So far as making a statement is concerned, perhaps it might help for clarification. The document is not being launched by an oral Statement in either House but, as such documents often are, in response to a Written Parliamentary Question. The Statement that I have repeated today is in response to a Private Notice Question referring to the availability of the document to non-governmental organisations before it was available to Members of either House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has frankly admitted on behalf of the Government that an error of judgment was made on this occasion? We welcome the fact that an apology was made. In my view, and I suspect that of others, one should welcome that and leave the issue altogether. It contrasts extremely favourably with the record of the previous government. Mr. Michael Howard lost case after case in the courts and never expressed a single word of regret.

The Railways
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodrose to call attention to the state of the railways; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before beginning my remarks, I should like to thank the large number of Members who have decided to speak in the debate. In particular, I extend a welcome to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, who will make his maiden speech. I am
728
also delighted with the support that I am receiving from my noble friends. We can look forward to some expert contributions.
This debate is certainly very topical. We daily await the response of the Government to the failure of London and Continental Railways to fulfil its contract to build the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. At some time in the not so distant future (are we entering into the Civil Service lexicon again?) we shall have an announcement from the Government as to their plans for an integrated transport system. The inquiry into the Southall disaster last year has been postponed because the matter is sub judice pending a possible criminal prosecution; but until that postponement it filled a lot of media space in the past few days. This week's "Panorama" was devoted to the problems of two TOCs and there has been a plethora of reports from OPRAF, the rail regulator and many private organisations and pressure groups about the aftermath of privatisation, the present levels of service and investment, or containing advice about what should happen next. Hardly a day passes without a news story, usually a damaging story, about the railways.
In introducing this debate, I do not wish to enter into an argument over privatisation as such. Yet the current state of the railways is greatly affected by the results of privatisation, and I and my noble friends are bound to refer to those. My main theme is the need to expand the use and infrastructure of our railways in the context of an integrated transport policy. I shall also discuss the difficulties which the fragmentation of the network and the services put in the path of ensuring that the public interest is reflected in what actually happens in terms of service provision and network enhancement.
The environmental case for rail taking an increased share of passenger and freight movements is widely accepted. People understand and desire the benefits of reduced congestion, reduced air pollution and reduced wear and tear on our road system. At the same time, the safety case for rail is very high indeed. In theory, if all passenger journeys were transferred from road to rail, deaths would be reduced from 3,500 to 100 per annum. The greater use of the railways can also play its part in developing and redeveloping town and city centres, which chimes well with the Government's planning approach laid out in their recent Green Paper.
All in all, there is a strong public interest in maintaining and expanding rail services. But the current structure inhibits those objectives. For example, if we examine the infrastructure, the responsibility for maintaining, improving and presumably extending the track rests with Railtrack; but residual railway lands which might be needed for that are still in the ownership of the British Railways Property Board. Again, with passenger services divided among 25 different franchises it is possible for overall performance apparently to improve while important pockets of sub-standard service remain.
A recent report from the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) highlights some of those improvements, including better standards of performance in the National Rail Enquiry Service, ATOC's development of a code of practice for the

729
safety aspects of stations, car parks and trains, increased levels of satisfaction and a required investment in 2,052 railway coaches, of which half are to be in service by the year 2000. All of those are welcome. However, it is noticeable that most of the service and infrastructure projects are outside the south east, and in particular outside the Surrey, Sussex and Kent areas, where levels of satisfaction among commuters are extremely low. Equally, it might be hard to persuade commuters on the "misery" lines from the north into the City that their services are really improving. Delays, cancellation and overcrowding are a normal part of life, together with elderly rolling stock which is dirty within and without.
No wonder the national press, most of whose journalists live within the London commuter zone, finds bad news stories easier to come by than good news stories. I was alarmed to learn while doing the research for this debate that, of Connex South Central's 600 slam door trains, not one is due to be replaced during the period of its contract and that Connex South Central is the only train operating company which does not expect to reduce its fleet of slam door trains. So while one may admire the initiative of TOCs, which are increasing cross-country services in the Midlands or improving the stations which they lease, one cannot ignore the current under-performance of commuter services into London and the very large numbers of people who are affected by those poor services. Moreover, because of the separation of contract compliance and regulating functions and the curious way in which standards are built into the contract process, it is difficult to compare the levels of performance between different train operating companies. That is vividly illustrated by the most recent publication from OPRAF on customer satisfaction, which indicates different levels of benchmark for each company and different methods of measuring satisfaction, with different criteria as between one company and one element of service and another. Common criteria, benchmarks and assessment processes are urgently needed.
The financing of rail services and improvements in the infrastructure currently depend on high levels of public subsidy. It is the high track rents made possible by these subsidies which enable Railtrack to commit itself to historically high levels of overall investment; for example, the modernisation of the west coast main line signalling system. But what will happen to investment as subsidies begin to be phased out? Stop-go investment was a curse under the nationalised system. Does the new privatised system remove that curse? Certainly, the failure of London and Continental Railways to fulfil its contract in respect of the Channel Tunnel rail link is not reassuring. It is, in our view, essential that the Government ensure the full completion of that project. Not only would the completed CTRL make a contribution to environmental objectives, but the commercial benefit of the new line is not to be realised unless it is carried through Stratford and on to King's Cross-St. Pancras.
There are other areas in which an expanded or restored network would enable the operating companies to fulfil public needs and expectations. For example,
730
Heathrow Airport is the largest single generator of traffic in the United Kingdom and one of the largest single generators of traffic in the whole of Europe. Most of that traffic comes in by road. Yet with a relatively minimal reinstatement of existing tracks and chords, together with some new build, it would be possible to link most of south and south-west London, and the outer southern suburbs, to Heathrow by rail with enormous benefits to congestion on the M.25. But obviously if existing but unused rail land were to be lost, that option would also be lost.
So far I have spoken largely of passenger services, but there is also great public interest and commercial benefit in expanding the role of the railways in freight movements. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the all-party Rail Freight Group at which the importance of completing the CTRL and thereby releasing pathways on the existing tracks for freight was once again emphasised.
Equally, documentation I have received from other freight organisations indicates their interest in investment in modernising the loading gauge so that the network can accept trains carrying 9 foot 6 inch containers and improving the possibility of carrying piggy-back road trailers by rail. One major company concludes that where the network capacity is concerned:
"There is at present no clear strategic planning approach which can look beyond relatively short-term commercial horizons".
So if there are problems and if the public interest, possibly supported by public funds, needs to be injected into the equation, how might one achieve those objectives?
One thing that needs to be done is to create an even playing field between the railways and their chief competitors—private motor cars. Interestingly, some of the methods by which this could be done would also generate funds for investment in public transport, including the railways. We believe that the motor licence fee should be reduced, possibly in a way that rewards owners of more economical cars, while motorists should be asked to pay the full costs of using their cars via increased taxation of petrol. In places where congestion is particularly damaging, road pricing might be introduced. Local highways authorities could be enabled to monitor and recuperate the fines for illegal parking.
All three of those measures would generate funds which could be hypothecated for use to support public transport. They would have the additional benefit of doing so at the level of both national and local government. I think it is generally agreed that co-operation between the public and the private sector is necessary to achieve the best results. No doubt others will have good ideas for creating what we believe to be the desirable outcome of partnership between the public and the private sector.
In responding to today's Question about London Transport, the Minister suggested that the Government were seeking such a partnership in that context. I hope we may take it that that is a good augury for future decisions.

731
Another element of our approach is the creation of a single rail authority to take over the role of both the rail regulator and OPRAF, as they have recently been modified by the Government. We think this would help to bring public interest into the system of franchise negotiation, standard and target setting and increase the "fit" between that and the regulatory machine.
Equally, we also hope to see an element of strategic planning of rail capacity and the establishment of clear priorities for improved services so that, for example, hard pressed London commuters could benefit as well as the inter-city passengers.
Many Members of this House have told stories during debates about railways and some may do so today. In The Times yesterday, a letter appeared in which a woman told how she went to Chester station to meet a train arriving at 1935. She queried the meaning of the message on the TV screen: "Expected 1951 on time". She was told that the train was currently running late but might arrive on time. After the train arrived 35 minutes late, at 2010 the screen still showed the same message. This time she was told: "Sorry love, the man who does the TV goes home at seven o'clock". She concluded: "Come back British Rail, all is forgiven".
Liberal Democrats do not want to return to the past. We recognise that our preferred option for privatisation which would have involved retaining Railtrack in public ownership is no longer a possibility. But we still insist that railways have a key and expanding role to play in an integrated transport system that is safe, user friendly, accessible and environmentally sustainable and which reflects the public as well as the private interest.
We acknowledge that the Government have begun the process of improved regulation and planning, but we would prefer the creation of a single rail authority which would replace both. We think that a partnership between the private and the public sector is necessary to ensure investment that satisfies the public interest as well as making economic sense.
We suggest that only a transparent fiscal regime can both ensure that the real costs of all modes of transport are appreciated by users and that the higher costs levied on the use of motor vehicles are seen to be devoted to the improvement and upgrading of public transport.
It is up to the Government to convince us in the next days, months and years that they have the determination to take the decisions that can make our railways work for us. I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on instituting the debate and on what I thought was an expert and thoughtful speech about the problems facing the railways. Perhaps I may first declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and an adviser of Adtranz. I welcome the opportunity to have this informed debate which is much needed. I wish to concentrate on the strategy for growth in the railways. I would like to ask and, I hope, answer the question: does the present arrangement require some modification to deal with a growing railway, to deal
732
with investment and priorities rather than the static and declining one which was the basis of setting up the structure five or six years ago?
We have growth in the railways now. Passenger traffic is up 7 per cent. I believe that Connex South Eastern was up 17 per cent. Rail freight increased 15 per cent. if we exclude coal. As all noble Lords know, passengers and freight share the same tracks. There is every indication that this growth will continue. On the passenger side, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and many noble Lords have mentioned the serious overcrowding on passenger services. On freight, it is a different problem with the temporary lack of equipment for rail freight because of the growth. But that is being made good by new investment, we hope.
So the challenge for the railways now is how they deal with growth. The first necessity for passengers is usually longer trains. That seems to be constrained by the charging regime and the inability or unwillingness of ROSCOs to invest in new trains. It is the easiest solution. Another alternative is new construction, of which the Channel Tunnel rail link is the most pressing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, it is necessary.
The third alternative is to increase capacity on existing lines. That usually means signalling, which is seen as the great white hope for the future for cost effective increasing of capacity and on which most upgrades of capacity are now based. I wish to pose the question whether the signalling industry, as it is at the moment, has the capability, with the client—which is usually Railtrack—to deliver on time and on budget. I see signalling as very much the Achilles heel of the railways industry at the moment. There is such a shortage of signalling engineers that some design is being done in Australia, presumably on the Internet, although I do not know. There is a real shortage of signalling engineers at the moment. That is because the present signalling is old, its life has expired, there is a lack of previous investment and so on. It is the cause of the capacity problems and it is the solution. Is the railway industry equipped to deliver? In this House we have talked about the Jubilee Line, this new moving block system which will not work for several years and the west coast main line which is an even more exciting example of a moving block system on four tracks simultaneously which will happen some time in the future. It needs to happen.
My question is: has the industry given up testing and trialling the new systems on little used branch lines before going into such high profile financially and in the public eye with lines such as the Jubilee Line and the west coast main line? It concerns me greatly that they are going into this without any testing. It is the first time in the world that such systems have been used—and on the west coast main line—and we have spoken of that enough in this House.
I move on to the question of passenger, freight and investment. If we look at Railtrack's revenue in round numbers, the company receives around £2 billion a year from passenger revenue and £200 million from freight. Of that passenger revenue, all but around £400 million

733
is subsidy from the Government. It is not surprising that the passenger railway needs subsidy; it is the same the world over. It may be called a social charge on the Government. But freight is not subsidised.
If one ignores the subsidy and looks at the way in which the money goes into Railtrack, it amounts to £400 million of non-government money for passengers and £200 million for freight. That is the way that I look at the balance of priority between passenger and freight in terms of how Railtrack should look at its investment. I do not recommend any change in the structure, but it concerns me that the passenger TOCs are able to reserve their capacity 10 or 15 years ahead, whereas freight generally reserves it only a few months ahead, when it knows where the traffic will come from. When one has a system where demand is growing as it is at the moment, he who applies for capacity last appears to have to pay the bill for any upgrade. It is unfair that the last person happens to be freight—my interest—just because passengers have long-term contracts and freight does not. I believe that a new mechanism is urgently required for sorting out the problem.
The rail regulator has a major part to play in ensuring that Railtrack invests and invests wisely for both passenger and freight. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned, is that enough? Is it reasonable to expect Railtrack to look 20 or 30 years ahead to growth, to new markets, speeds and frequency of trains? They may do—I do not believe they do at the moment—because they have a commercial interest. But the regulator has a growing role in making sure that the investment is targeted correctly and that the Government's proposal for a strategic rail authority should include some means of investment in strategic signalling, land and so forth for the future. There is an argument for investing in a way where some of the revenue could be returned to the industry after a time when the investment starts giving a return in operation. For instance, a lump sum, to start with, could go round the system and it would help to get things going.
In conclusion, the railways are growing. Industry should not be subject to major upheaval. I welcome the Government's policy. I suggested a few small changes, but the biggest change that I welcome is the change in the attitude of the Government who are committed to expanding the use of the railways for passengers and freight. I await the White Paper with great interest.
6.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for introducing this debate. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I come to the debate as an amateur, being one of those people, not least clergy, with a lifelong fascination for railways.
When I was a child that greatest of all railway bishops, Eric Tracy, wrote in my autograph book, "Good spotting. Stick to your Sunday school". On the whole people want to like railways. They spend millions of pounds supporting preserved lines and we need to create the conditions so that they are moved from seeing
734
the railway as an exceptional leisure time activity to being that normal means of transport it is in many parts of Europe.
Intelligent people accept that the railways as a system of transport which can move people in large numbers and freight in large quantities, make both economical and environmental sense. It has to be done and the Government must help to make it happen. The quality of life in our land is literally being destroyed by the daily choking experience on our roads. According to the British Lung Federation, air pollution from road traffic affects over one-third of the population, killing as many people each year as road traffic accidents and costing £11 billion. Increasingly, road rage is a sad by-product of overcrowded roads. Time and money is being lost and the quality of life impaired; physical and mental health is being adversely affected by frustration.
So we want our railways to work. It makes sense. But it seems that when it comes to railways we give full range to the British disease of pointing up and even embellishing the problems and the failures of the system and rarely celebrating its achievements. As a frequent traveller on the west coast main line, which badly needs new track, new signals, new rolling stock—you name it, we need it—we await the promises of Virgin Trains and Railtrack to be delivered. We have the bright red carriages now before us as hope for things to come.
I could regale your Lordships for many hours with stories of missed meetings and being late home through delayed trains. But how often do I speak of when the train is early into Euston or Preston as it was both ways last week and seven minutes early at lunchtime today; or on my recent journey from Blackpool to Cambridge, three companies and every connection on time? How often do I compare the relative comfort of sitting in a delayed train with refreshments available and the cheery announcements becoming ever more interesting as to why we are held up, with the utter frustration of sitting for hours in a traffic jam in isolation on the M6 with no idea of what is wrong or when we may move?
We want more people to travel; more companies to send their freight by rail. That needs important investment from both the public and private sectors. It needs an integrated transport policy by which the Government promote rail travel. But if that is to happen, it also needs more good news stories about the rail services to overcome the built-in resistance of switching from the car to rail where that is possible. There is a fine balance to achieve between genuine criticism to bring improvement to our rail system and that endless criticism which in itself creates a self-fulfilling prophesy.
There is good news, as we have already heard this evening. Freight companies like English, Welsh and Scottish, in imaginative ways are clearly increasing the amount of freight carried. Proposals for the so-called "piggy back" system for heavier lorries should be backed to the hilt so that those lorries can be taken off our roads. We need to encourage that developing partnership at local level between local authorities, the rail companies and keen local people which has led to increased passenger services, sometimes with

735
exceptional results in terms of the numbers using them—for example, on rural lines as in the Ribble Valley where I live, or on the Huddersfield to Sheffield line where I lived previously. However, I sometimes think that companies seem to go out of their way to kill that local enthusiasm. Promotional efforts are wrecked by the wrong carriages, the train not turning up or whatever.
As a vice-president of the Railway Development Society I urge support for the suggested moratorium on the sale of the track bed of former lines, that which remains. They have a potential for being re-opened in a new age and not least as freight lines which would take traffic off our rural highways. For example, in the Peak District immense profits would come in all directions if the 20 miles of track between Buxton and Matlock were relaid.
As a countryside commissioner for England I am well aware that that is a challenge as the pressure mounts for more sites for housing in the coming years. Let us not underestimate the huge problems which years of under investment in the railways and perhaps the lack of political will to face the issue have created. But there is great potential, not because people want to move from the door-to-door convenience of the car, but because slowly but surely we are realising that health, the quality of life, and the beauty of the countryside is being destroyed before our eyes by over-dependence on road transport. I hope that this debate will increase that awareness and that the Government, as they promised, will give more attention to this subject and, indeed, risk perhaps some short-time unpopularity to shift resources from road to rail transport.
6 19 p.m.
The Earl of Leicester: My Lords, I read in one of the obituaries of the late Enoch Powell that he was always nervous before a speech. If he was nervous! It is a great honour to speak in your Lordships' House and I very much appreciate that privilege.
I, too, am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for initiating the debate and for her very kind words of welcome. I confess that I am in awe of her detailed knowledge and I shall therefore speak in rather more general terms. My knowledge of the railways is limited to travelling on them a lot and to having led in the early 1980s a couple of deputations from my local authority to lobby various transport Ministers for better road and rail improvements in my part of Norfolk. But I am enthusiastic about the railways. That enthusiasm, I readily admit, is probably because I travel frequently on what I believe are two of the most competently-run lines in the country—the East Coast line to Scotland and my own local one from King's Lynn, via Cambridge to London. I admit that I would perhaps not enjoy travelling on the line on which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is forced to travel. I understand that the level of service is appalling and is getting worse.
I can remember the so-called levels of service that we endured 20 to 25 years ago. I remember the old gateway to the east, Liverpool Street Station, with all its exotic sights, sounds and smells, where there were generally at
736
least three ticket inspectors at the barrier. Their job was to check your ticket but they did not think that was their job. They much preferred to talk and joke among themselves; and if after waiting meekly for a while you decided that you had had enough of that and walked through the barrier, there was a very loud yell after you, something rather rude was said and they hauled you back. Now there are not three ticket inspectors at the barrier. There is not one. But there is one on the train who is generally charm personified. He or she now says, "Good morning" or "Good evening", "Please" and "Thank you", thus making life so much more pleasant all round. I can remember dinners on the train to Scotland which should never have been dignified by that title. There is nothing particularly difficult about producing edible food on trains, but they just did not care. Now, what a change! I really almost do not mind paying for my dinner now.
I know there is a lot wrong with the railways, stemming no doubt in part from the rush to privatisation and perhaps especially in the way Railtrack is constituted. I believe that it can almost hold the train operating companies to ransom with its track access charges. A very good example is Virgin CrossCountry. In the last year of British Rail ownership passenger receipts for that sector of the line were £102 million. Virgin now has to pay Railtrack access charges of £100 million and it has to pay another £50 million for train leasing, train maintenance and station maintenance. So it is small wonder that it needs a subsidy of £120 million in the first year of operation. In fact, as we all know, of the £2 billion paid in public subsidy to the train operating companies, half of that goes to Railtrack.
But there is good news as well. Railtrack tells us that it will have spent £10 billion—an enormous sum of money—by the year 2001. One of the reasons it is spending that amount of money is that there is a new spirit of optimism in the railways. For instance, the Chiltern Line is doing so well that it has persuaded Railtrack to re-lay 18 miles of double track between Princes Risborough and Bicester North, 20 years after it was singled, thus enabling Chiltern to double the frequency of its trains on that line. There are orders for brand new stock: 44 four-car units for London, Tilbury and Southend, the old misery line—it probably still is—and eight new eight-car trains for Gatwick Express. Those are only two of the new orders. Great North Eastern Railways is increasing passenger traffic to such an extent that, if it continues at this rate, in two years' time it will run out of not only trains but track as well.
Lastly, I turn to the Cinderella of the railways. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, some interesting facts and figures. What he did not tell us was that between 1945 and 1995 the amount of freight carried on the railways fell in every single year except 1984. This year it has gone up for the first time. The noble Lord mentioned a figure. That has been almost entirely due to the vigorous pursuit of business shown by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways. It has even persuaded those high priests of super-efficiency, the supermarkets, to move some of their gods—I should say

737
goods—by rail. Mind you, my Lords, the supermarkets have made so much money that I would not be at all surprised if they had their own gods.
Since October Safeway has been moving 10,000 cases of soft drinks a week by rail—not much, only 40 lorry-loads off the roads every week, and still a long way to go to fulfil EWS's aim to increase freight by rail from the miserly 6 per cent. that it is at the moment to 15 per cent. of total freight traffic. What an enormous environmental benefit that will be!
I believe that the railways have an exciting future. I agree, as I am sure everyone here does, that the activities of the operating companies need to be regulated. But it is a question of degree. Too heavy a hand, and we will strangle them. Let us instead get the regulatory mechanisms right and allow them to flourish and the consumer to benefit.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I regard it as a particular honour and privilege on behalf of the House to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on an extremely fine maiden speech. It was positive, articulate, well-informed and entertaining. It was very welcome indeed. It might even have been welcome at an earlier stage, for the noble Earl succeeded to his father in 1994. I notice that his family motto is "He is prudent who is patient". He has been very patient indeed and his speech was full of prudence—nothing that one would not have expected from someone who in various forms has represented his community for something in the region of 20 years. I very much hope—I am sure I am speaking for other noble Lords too—that we will have the benefit of his wisdom and prudence, and his patience with some of the rest of us, much more frequently in coming years. We all convey our congratulations to the noble Earl.
Like him, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Thomas for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. It is a topical one. It is a matter of great concern and not just from a negative point of view. Stories of difficulties on the railways are legion and possibly always have been. But I should like to raise one specific issue in the realm of public transport and the railways. I refer to the importance of the integration of rail and other forms of transport.
There are those who are partisan for the railways. There is nothing wrong with that. There are all kinds of attachments, emotional, environmental and economic, in support of the railways, and there is much to be said for them, particularly when one thinks of the transport of people and goods over longer distances. However, it seems to me that one does not need to be partisan only for the railways to see their great value. If they are integrated with other forms of public transport they can together provide positive opportunities for us in creating an economically successful and environmentally sustainable future transport system.
Integration involves not only railways but buses. I refer not only to the large buses of the double-decker variety that we see outside your Lordships' House, but also to smaller buses, flexi-buses and indeed to the
738
guided bus routes which are completely devoted to the buses, ensuring that they are able to be much more rapid in their conveyance of passengers and therefore much more attractive for people to take than resorting to private cars, as so many of us often do. Those forms of transport are much more useful in the confined town and city atmosphere than railways sometimes are. What is important is that they are linked to the railways so that people can move easily and readily from one form of public transport, convenient in a more confined space, to another form of public transport, one particularly adapted to the longer stretches. It is that opportunity to pull things together which has been a little lost in the frenzy for privatisation.
In my own part of the world, where the railways have stayed within public ownership, transport in the form of the railways and the buses—the rural bus as well as the urban bus—has been concentrated in one holding company called Translink. Therefore it has been much easier to exploit that kind of co-operative venture than would have been the case had it been split between disparate companies. If not all the companies have goods for gods, certainly a lot of them have the financial recompense for a bit of a god, rather than one that is necessarily best for the community as a whole.
I would make a plea that we give some attention to rail transport. I believe there is a powerful appreciation within the community as a whole and I sense it tonight in your Lordships' House, that the railways deserve attention and resources and have a real contribution to make. I would also make a plea that this should not be done in isolation from other important parts of public transport. They must all work together, with interfaces and linkages with each other, so that it is possible for our citizens to pass smoothly and without difficulty or hiccup from one form of public transport to another. They should be sufficiently well integrated so that that can be a thoroughly successful and appealing alternative to the private car, which is otherwise, for most of us, the most integrated and convenient form of transport. A viable alternative in integrated public transport would require co-operation among the various forms of transport, with the railways being upgraded, together with other forms of transport.
I am grateful to my noble friend for this opportunity for a debate and hope that this notion of integration may gather as much momentum as the notion of the railways coming back to their former glory.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this subject today. The state of the railways is indeed a topical subject, what with the financial problems of the CTRL, the impending modernisation of the west coast main line, plus the ThamesLink 2000 proposals, all of which are in some way linked together.
A couple of years into privatisation has resulted in much potential improvement, with some £500 million to be invested in around 450 new train sets comprising over 2,000 carriages. In addition, some £2.5 billion is to be spent on infrastructure improvements. Unfortunately,

739
it seems to be proving difficult for some of the train operating companies to aspire to their customers' expectations. We should remember that for the past 50 years the railways have been run under public control, with all that that entails, accountable to the government of the day and subject to the Treasury and PSBR requirements.
Suddenly, all is changed. The railways are released, almost, into the world of being accountable to shareholders and their customers. The Government are not really involved, except in a degree of regulation and some considerable financial assistance which—and this is an important point—is finite. It is controlled and reducing over the length of the train operating companies' franchises.
Some train operating companies who have inherited modernised infrastructure have found it easy to attract new business, so much so that they have run up against capacity problems. One can cite here Great North Eastern and Chiltern Rail. Both are constrained by the length of their franchises, which are for seven years, and by physical constraints. It seems to take three or four years to acquire new trains. Thus, in a seven-year franchise, to sign a lease agreement on trains that have a life of 30 years is not good business practice. Should they not regain the franchise after seven years, what happens to their investment? Perhaps they just will not make it. They will carry on with what they have, and simply price off demand. This is what went on before. It does not work and it will make nonsense of any future integration.
Let us try listening to what these operating companies have to say instead of threatening them with greater regulation. Some had mistakes have been made, but remember that all these firms are having to learn as they go on. Perhaps too many people have been let go. Let us get some of them back to provide some customer service. Let us be positive and say that there will be improvements. Let us be positive about increasing the length of some franchises. It will make better financial sense.
What about freight? This is one of the success stories of privatisation. Remember that the competition is with road, not with other freight companies. It is therefore no surprise that one company has taken most of the operation. So successful have they been in attracting new business, simply by being positive, that they have almost run out of capacity. There are plans to triple their business in 10 years.
The capacity of the whole railway system is going to be a problem. There may well be a necessity to regulate but, of course, that was not envisaged at the time of privatisation. British Rail had given up on freight. Freight was not really in the music of privatisation at all. However, the potential was realised and we have GWS and Freightliner providing most of the services. Remember that they do not receive any public subsidy, so the risk is theirs alone. They are having to start almost from scratch.
The motive power is so unreliable that they have had to acquire some 250 new units. It is interesting to note that American builders can produce a loco within about
740
one year of receiving the order. The first of these locos is due here at the end of next month. They are investing in some 2,500 new wagons of various types. To achieve this the railway works at York has been acquired, again by an American company. It may sadden some of your Lordships that UK builders are not more involved. Actually, they are pretty well full up with other business. American diesel loco technology is just about the best there is, and these locos are going to be much quieter in operation than those we have been used to.
There are two other points I should quickly like to reinforce. The first is the CTRL. It is vitally important that this project is completed in its entirety, as approved by Parliament, and as quickly as possible. Despite what your Lordships may have heard in some sections of the media, this project is not all about saving half an hour on a trip to Paris. It is all about increasing capacity for other traffic, especially freight in the south coast area and south east generally, properly connecting the rest of the UK with the Channel Tunnel and achieving much regeneration of east London and north east Kent in the process. It should not be reduced to the status of an SNCF branch line by curtailment.
The other point is so-called surplus railway land. I propose to revisit this subject on another occasion. I should like to stress that the apparent rapid disposal of this asset is causing considerable concern. The rail freight market is expanding rapidly and there is going to be a real need for rail-accessible land to be made available for depots and loading facilities.
It is vital that local authorities and the Government are made aware that once these sites are lost it will be almost impossible, given planning problems, to replace them. All those involved in the railway freight market are agreed that something needs to be done quickly. They are all working together to identify sites and present their case. I hope that the Government will listen, because otherwise their much vaunted integrated transport initiative, to which I look forward, will be more or less useless.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I believe that the new age of the train is standing in the station. The environmental case for railway operation is better than ever. The question is: will we get on that train and enjoy the benefits, or will the train be cancelled because the system is in too much of a muddle? I do not blame the Government for the fragmented and unstable structure of the UK rail network—at least, I do not at present. I will allow the Government some time to come up with a rescue plan for an industry which should not be ailing. Mr. John Prescott's review towards an integrated transport system will have to bite on some tough bullets, but it will be worth it.
I would like to speak about Scottish and Irish railways. Scotland enjoys passenger train services provided by four TOCs: National Express, Scotrail, Sea Containers GNER, Virgin West Coast and Virgin Cross-Country. Freightwise, Scotland is also served by Wisconsin Central's EW & S, and any other private

741
company that chooses to run its own freight trains. The infrastructure is owned by Railtrack who operate it as a Scottish division.
It has to be regretted that the earlier contractions of the network leave the Scottish network with only two points of contact with the rest of the GB network, at Carlisle and Berwick. The loss of the Edinburgh to Carlisle line (the Waverley route) will show up increasingly in the future. However, all is not doom and gloom. Scotrail has announced several improvements. These range from bicycles going free—again; new stations at Dalgety Bay and at Drumfrochar; 47 new three-car train sets have been ordered; promotional fares are offered on the Dumfriesshire line; a new morning commuter service from Dingwall to Inverness has been announced; increased services between Bathgate and Edinburgh and in May 2000 there will be the start of a quarter-hourly Edinburgh to Glasgow service.
This mix of rural and urban commuter, shopper and tourist sector improvements reminds us of the very varied nature of providing a better service within the diversity that is Scotland. The range is from tackling urban and inter-urban road congestion and its associated environmental pollution to the provision of services in the remoter areas.
Finally, Scotrail has a lot to live up to, following its award as the best train operating company and the £5 million prize for doing so from the franchising director. Perhaps I may sum up the Scottish experience of the other companies thus: I live in Clackmannan, which is admirably placed 35 miles from Edinburgh and Glasgow. There is competition for my business on the Anglo-Scottish routes. At present GNER wins hands down. But, after looking at the Virgin-Railtrack plans for the upgrading of the west coast main line, as encapsulated in PUG 1 and PUG II, I believe that there will be a serious choice. Equally, I applaud the decision to increase the loading gauge on the west coast to accommodate piggyback freight trains. Like the reservation of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mine has to be the introduction of transmission-based signalling to a major main line without it having been tested and developed on a minor line beforehand.
I would now like to cross the North Channel. In Northern Ireland we have a publicly-owned railway. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has said, not only has NIR been integrated with the bus network to form Translink, it has also upgraded the international service in conjunction with Iarnrod Eireann. A quick view of the rail network of Ireland cannot help but notice the decimation in the border areas. Fortunately, progress in inter-governmental relations has paved the way for improvements. Had that arrived earlier, then the old Ulster transport authority would not have earned the soubriquet, "Ulster's Track Abandoners". The new Enterprise service is a symbol of the better relationship on the railway and also a symbol of European investment. The two systems now run a modern two-hour service between the two capitals, albeit using French train sets powered by Canadian diesels.
742
Much of the rolling stock on the Irish network is second-hand, usually ex-British Rail. There has been some admirable recycling, which underlies historic under-investment in NIR. For example, the Class 80 or Castle Class multiple units, were built on the salvaged underframes of scrapped BR Mark 1 carriages. How the managers of NIR must envy Iarnrod Eireann's new Japanese Sprinters, which now ply on the Dublin Western suburban routes, not to mention the Dart electric services on the coast. I wonder whether Railtrack has considered the adoption of CAWS (continuous automatic warning system) which is an in-cab computer signalling warning system used in the Dublin area. Might that system be compared with the transmission-based signalling system proposed for the west coast main line.
My final remarks have to be about the need for a sustained investment in the infrastructure and rolling stock. I see no reason why public funds should not be used. The benefits of a better railway network can be divided between users and non-users. Nothing will be achieved if the network is allowed to decline. The challenge for the UK government is to untangle the muddle in the network and allow it to thrive, as it cries out to do.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for initiating this debate. It seems clear that there is general agreement that the railways have an enormous contribution to make to this country, both in terms of our economic prosperity, the environment and the fast and effective journeys it ought to be able to offer to millions of passengers. The problem is that, as yet, we do not have a completely efficient and effective system in order to do that.
As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, so eloquently said, over the past 20 to 30 years there have been improvements, and I would be the first to acknowledge that. But we also have to face the effect of privatisation and say that one of its adverse effects has been to undermine the national integrity of the railway system. There are many examples of that. They are the connections not now being held because they are operated by different companies; the accuracy of train information across the whole network is pretty poor; the complex fare structures that now exist make it sometimes very difficult for passengers seeking to make different return journeys across different company operators; the regulatory regime is often confused and patchy; and the sanctions available for poor performance are often inadequate. Finally, and most importantly, it seems that there is no focus for taking a strategic look at the development of the railways, not over the next two to three years, but over the next 20 to 30 years. The whole problem is summed up for me by the fast disappearance of cheap, walk-on fares in relation to many of the operating companies.
There was a very interesting report in yesterday's Independent which looked at the figures for fares between June 1995 and January 1998. In that period inflation rose by just over 9 per cent., but when one

743
looks at the cheap fares, the Thameslink cheap day fare rose by 15 per cent.; the cost of the Midland mainline super-saver fare rose by 16 per cent. and the Virgin super-saver fare rose by 21 per cent.
I suggest that the price for privatisation has been paid for not by the people who drove that through nor by the railway companies or their shareholders, but by the travelling public. All these problems have been reflected in my own experience, living and travelling from Birmingham on many occasions and using the railway system. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to previous debates in your Lordships' House about the situation concerning the west coast main line. I make no apology for returning to that subject.
The railway system is very important to the city of Birmingham. It was partly responsible for its development as a great industrial city. In its days as the engineering window on the world the railways played a very important role. It also plays an important role now in the current regeneration of the economic prosperity of Birmingham and the West Midlands. Thousands upon thousands of visitors go to the National Exhibition Centre, the Convention Centre and the National Indoor Arena. The London to Birmingham line is particularly important to them and to our economic prosperity and also in attracting further investment into the city. So having an effective, efficient, fast railway is vital to our economic prosperity.
However, the experience over the past 12 months has been anything but that. The charter standard for punctuality is 90 per cent. of trains reaching their destination on time. As many of your Lordships will know, the railways' definition of "arriving punctually" is rather different from that of most people. If a train arrives up to nine minutes and 59 seconds late, it is still counted as being "punctual". Even on that lax definition and standard, Virgin's west coast main line signally fails to reach it.
I took note of the right reverend Prelate's point about searching for good news. The good news that I found in last year's performance is that out of 13 four-week periods, Virgin managed to reach that 90 per cent. target on five occasions. The bad news is that it did not do so on eight occasions and that in the four weeks to 8th November last year, punctuality was just under 83 per cent. That has caused frustration, misery and discomfort to many people.
Again, I take the right reverend Prelate's point that the line has been starved of investment for 30 years, but if one looks at the causes of the problems and at many of the defects and delays, one sees that they involve engine failures, points failures and signalling failures. I would put that down as much to poor management and poor attention to detail as to investment problems.
The other issue to which I draw your Lordships' attention is speed. The Birmingham to London line is 113 miles long and the journey takes on average 100 minutes. However, the journey from Doncaster on the east coast main line, which is 156 miles from London, takes the same 100 minutes. I know that Doncaster, being bottom of the Third Division, needs all
744
the help that it can get at the moment, but those comparisons show the striking difference in railway services in different parts of the system.
I welcome the intention of Railtrack and Virgin to upgrade the system. That is much needed. However, I am concerned that the intensity of investment will be in relation to the journeys from Euston to Manchester and Glasgow and that the spur coming off at Rugby for the journey to Birmingham is to have restricted investment. There is also concern that local railway services will suffer. I urge my noble friend the Minister to put as much pressure as she can on Virgin and Railtrack to ensure that the Birmingham line receives as much investment as other parts of the railway system.
I very much welcome the Government's intention to review and strengthen the regulatory process and to establish a railway authority which can ensure that we get the strategic direction that we require. I hope that we shall see the results coming through very quickly.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for initiating this very important debate. I think that this is the first time that I have participated in a debate with the noble Baroness since I had the honour of congratulating her on her maiden speech back in November 1994. I would also like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Leicester on his excellent maiden speech. Dare I say it, but had Peers by succession been barred from taking part in this debate, there would have been just four speakers.
Railways are very much in my blood on both sides of my family and indeed the first Lord Palmer was a director of the Great Western Railway for 47 years, 42 of which he served as vice-chairman. I must declare an interest as a frequent traveller on the Great North Eastern Railway Line. The chief executive happens to be a distant cousin of mine. As a child, I had much pleasure driving our steam engines, shunting our biscuits from our factory in Reading onto the main line.
As my voting record showed when we were debating the Railways Bill, I was dead against privatisation. The railways have played an incredibly important part in the success of our nation and it is amazing to think that in 1921, 735,000 people were employed on the railways, which represented 3.8 per cent. of the country's workforce. Today there are almost 67,000 people employed on the railways, which is just 0.3 per cent. of our total workforce.
In the main, it appears that GNER and GWR are performing well but the situation is still far from perfect. I believe passionately that the Government must do everything they can to encourage the rail companies to woo freight and passengers off the roads.
In 1923, 349 million tonnes of freight were carried on the railways and today this figure is just 101 million tonnes. I also believe that the large grocery chains should be further encouraged to transport more of their goods by rail rather than blocking the arteries of our road network. It is exciting that EWS has just started trading with Tesco, Sainsburys and Safeway. When

745
travelling to Edinburgh from home by road, I can often pass six Asda trunkers in the space of 20 minutes. Today freight transported by rail accounts for a paltry 4.7 per cent. of total freight movement. However, things are improving and 15 months ago there were 18,000 freight trains running every four weeks. Today that figure has risen to 27,000—a great improvement, but there is still a long way to go. It is tragic and sad to think that the total national rail route today is almost exactly half what it was at its peak in 1933.
Before coming to the main point of my speech, I would like to air four small points. First, I urge the Government to get the rail companies to allow a greater degree of flexibility on tickets. I put my daughter on the 7.35 train to Exeter last week and was appalled at the overcrowding and yet people dare to complain about live exports of animals. I also would ask Her Majesty's Government to persuade the rail companies that return tickets should be valid for periods longer than one month. In addition, when new rolling stock is commissioned, there should be better provision for luggage.
Finally on these small points, I would like to reiterate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, at col. 167 of Hansard of 8th May 1996 when he deplored the fact that there is no station at Edinburgh airport. Bearing in mind that the people of Scotland have voted for a devolved parliament, a station at the airport must become a No. 1 priority.
It is encouraging that there has been a great improvement in rail infrastructure, particularly on the Great Western line. To give one small example, car park vandalism is down by 40 per cent. and in my native Reading by as much as 70 per cent. Industrial relations have greatly improved, and I believe the rail companies and the unions deserve much credit for this.
I believe passionately that our railway network has a buoyant future but that future is dependent on one thing, as other noble Lords have mentioned, and that is investment. One of the reasons that GNER is performing so well is that there has been a massive financial investment on the east coast line over the past 10 years prior to privatisation. Another reason for GNER's great success is the high calibre of its staff at all levels who have received excellent training. I think it is also worth mentioning the enormous change in the quality of food served on board and I reckon now that the food served on GNER can challenge any restaurant in the land. The main reason why the west coast line is so under-performing is that, as other noble Lords have said, there has been virtually no investment over the past 30 years.
One of the problems about financial investment in the railways, whether it be rolling stock or infrastructure, is that it has to be on a massive scale. To give one small example, a new nine-coach 225 set costs £15 million and has the capacity to carry 555 passengers. While some updating may be necessary along the way, the assets must be fundamentally sound for at least 25 years to give any realistic chance of a commercial payback. It must also be appreciated that the gestation period to bring forward a project on this scale would probably be
746
two years, with a further three years to build. In that context, as the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, said, a seven-year franchise does little to encourage investment, and even one of 15 years could hardly be regarded as generous.
I have one final plea. The new regime must be allowed and encouraged to flourish, and be kept free of as many regulations as possible. Where there is regulation, it must be there to encourage competition, not to stifle it.
7 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I too welcome this debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I declare an interest in so far as I am a companion member of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers, which is the professional body that is responsible for that subject.
The United Kingdom railway system forms a vital part of our transport system which is now in a critical state, as many other noble Lords have said. Our railways are essential to us from an economic and environmental viewpoint for the carriage of both passengers and freight. The critical state of railways is not just a UK problem; it is a Europe-wide problem. We debated this issue on 12th June of last year when the House considered the report of Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee on the Community's railway strategy. It is essential that the UK has an integrated transport policy which maximises its use of public transport. I make a plea to the Government via the Minister that greater consideration be given to urban light rail systems in places like Birmingham and the Manchester extension. That has not been mentioned before.
In this country we have a different set of problems to those elsewhere in Europe characterised by the recent privatisation of the system, the very dense commuter traffic in the south-east and the comparatively short distances over which most freight is conveyed. All of this was made worse by the starvation of investment in infrastructure and rolling stock in the run up to privatisation. This shows up particularly in the state of the west coast main line. This was the subject of very substantial investment involving electrification and resignalling during the 1960s. I was one of the engineers involved in that. We now have to make a new and even more substantial investment to bring it up to date. This is particularly so for matters such as the structure gauge, which means altering bridges and tunnels in order to put piggyback trains through them.
This lack of investment demonstrates the dilemma that faces engineers. We have a new generation of tilting trains that are needed to cope with the Victorian engineering of the west coast main line with its sharp curves and steep gradients and the new concept of moving block signalling, already mentioned by a number of speakers, which will safely allow greater track occupancy and directly communicate with the driver in his cab, giving him information about the speed that he is permitted to go. The system has digital displays. These systems are beginning to come in. This

747
signalling will conform to new European standards and will enable trains and locomotives to travel in due course anywhere on the European network. This system is in its infancy, and specifications are beginning to emerge from Brussels. The new trains and signalling will require considerable development work, and that means that the time to bring both into service approaches the contract duration for the train operating companies. I hope that the re-engineering of the west coast main line will also ensure that it is practical to run piggyback trains throughout its length, and that the line to Holyhead will not be ignored.
Noble Lords may be interested to learn that when we were installing the Victoria Line we ran no fewer than three prototype systems. First, we ran it on extra capacity up beyond Acton where there is a four-track main line. When the start button was pressed to set the first automatic train in operation it went backwards because the circuit diagrams were incorrect. We then tried it at Turnham Green in-service carrying passengers between two stations. Finally, we installed it on the Woodford-Hainault line as a full scale prototype. It was then installed on the Victoria Line proper when the Tubes were commissioned. We were remarkably successful in experiencing very few problems in getting the whole system to work.
My previous remarks referred to investment in existing lines. But surely we should be looking for investment in new lines such as Cross-Rail and the reinstatement of lines removed in the Dr. Beeching era. Only by making that investment will we persuade people not to use their cars for all journeys or manage to take heavy freight off the roads. That is the direction in which we should be moving; but, unfortunately, we have a scenario in which the British Rail Property Board is disposing of critical chords, trackbeds and other land where freight operations might in the future be reinstated. One particular line that might be reinstated is the Dumfries-Stranraer line which would avoid an enormous detour almost up to Glasgow and back again. I am pleased to hear that Derbyshire County Council is considering an investigation into the feasibility of restoring the line between Matlock and Buxton, referred to by the right reverend Prelate, in order to reduce the number of cars entering the Peak District. It might be possible to encourage some mineral traffic back onto that line. The problem is that many of the currently used quarries are a considerable distance from the track and most of the quarries that are on it have been abandoned. Surely, this is the kind of initiative that the Government should encourage in their integrated transport policy.
As a member of the Select Committee of this House on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, I particularly hope that the Minister can enlighten the House as to the state of negotiations on the future of this link following the demise of London and Continental Railways. It is essential that that link is built in toto in order to maximise the benefits particularly to the north of the country by the provision of links to both the west coast main line and east coast main line at St. Pancras to encourage regeneration of the east coast corridor and provide relief for the North Kent commuter lines. That in turn will release capacity for freight on the Kent lines.
748
To cut the link short at Ebbsfleet or Stratford in order to save substantial investment costs will not solve these problems. The Channel Tunnel forms the UK's link into the European Community's rail freight freeway concept. It is essential that that has adequate links into the freight networks of this country.
Rail still has an enormous amount to offer its customers and the country from an environmental point of view. However, Railtrack and the train operating companies must get their act together to offer a reliable, quality service at the right price and with adequate investment for both passengers and freight.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I have listened to some very well researched and technically knowledgeable speeches this evening, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who has just spoken. I have no technical knowledge of railways but I should like to make some general remarks from my experience.
I travel regularly by train to London from the west country and have done so for the past six-and-a-half years. I noticed a marked improvement in punctuality and standards of service in the year or so running up to privatisation. This continued after the private companies were set up. However, in my experience in the past year standards have slipped, which is very disappointing. Recently punctuality has been uneven. For a period it is very good and then for a few days, or perhaps one day a week, the train on which I travel is late, sometimes by up to half an hour. The regulator has quite rightly pointed this out and warned the railway companies that their standards must improve.
However, to say, as some do, that performance in both punctuality and service is now worse than under British Rail is not my experience. Matters are definitely much better than they were under nationalisation on the Great Western line on which I travel and on South West Trains which my wife and I use occasionally. It will take time for the private railway companies to turn the railways in this country into an efficient, comfortable and agreeable way to travel. It is essential that that should happen. If we want people to use their cars less, as I am sure we all do—although by "people" we usually mean anyone but ourselves—the" railways must improve.
It has been said by some that the contracts for the railway companies' franchises are not long enough for significant investment in new rolling stock to be made. Can the Minister comment on that? It has also been said by critics of rail privatisation and the way it was designed and implemented by the previous Government that insufficient guarantees on improved performance were written into the contracts. The same critics say that some railway companies merely cram as many passengers onto their trains to make as much money as possible during the time of their franchise without making the significant investments that are clearly necessary. I also ask the noble Baroness to comment on that matter. I hope that the criticisms I have outlined are not true.

749
I watched the recent Panorama programme on BBC1 about railway privatisation and how it was working. The negative comments on the current state and future prospects of the railways in Britain reinforced these critical views. Apart from some hype by Richard Branson about what he will be able to do—I hope it is true—as one would suspect of a Panorama programme a gloomy presentation was made which showed little hope for the future. I was very pleased to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn give hope to the railways. His contribution was very positive in that direction.
It will not help future investment in the railways to hear a large part of the media making such criticisms, encouraged by the Save Our Railways organisation. I do not know what that organisation's agenda is, but it does not seem to have any positive contribution to make.
Punctuality is absolutely essential if more people are to travel by rail. There is nothing more annoying than to arrive half an hour late for a meeting, an appointment, or for work in the morning. Next time the person affected will go by car so that he or she can ensure that they arrive on time. If they are late, they can blame themselves for not starting earlier.
Punctuality is not the only aspect which affects travel by rail. Overcrowding is also a great disincentive. I have not experienced it myself but I understand that many commuter trains into London are grossly overcrowded.
The politeness and helpfulness of staff is also important, as is the speedy relaying of information the travelling public. These services have definitely improved since the days of British Rail. However there is still some way to go. Perhaps because I am deaf, I find it very irritating that the loudspeaker systems are not correctly adjusted or are too old, and I find it impossible to hear the details of the announcements. It is not because the announcements are too soft but because they are indistinct. That is a sign of bad management. I wonder whether some of the managers spend too much time sitting in their offices and not enough finding out what is happening on the ground. That was impressed on me by my commanding officer when I was doing a certain job.
All enterprises and businesses should be run by private companies. Governments and public corporations do not run things well. Railways by their very nature are, to some extent, monopoly providers and must be regulated. There must be stringent safety rules which are strictly adhered to.
I hope that the Government will give the railway companies the encouragement to invest and improve rail services. It will take time to improve things. Railways all over the world are making a come-back and the new technology on fast trains, particularly in Japan, will make a big difference to the attractiveness of rail travel.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am clearly not alone in your Lordships' House when I confess that as a young boy I wanted to be a train driver. However, I was probably luckier than most—with the notable exception
750
of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—in that I had an opportunity to drive a train when the last steam train went down the line from Thurso to Inverness. This last locomotive stopped for water at Altnabreac and my father and I were given a ride up and down the line. Since then I have had a huge affection for the railways and use them as often as I can.
In common with many other people, I have been very sad to see the remorseless decline of the rail system. I am therefore particularly grateful to my noble friend for having introduced this debate, and at a particularly appropriate time.
It is appropriate for three reasons. First, the decline in real use has been reversed, and that is good news. Secondly, the concern for the future and for the future direction of transport policy in relation to railways has never been more acute, and that is bad news. Thirdly, it looks as though the Government will do something about it, and that is an opportunity.
Whilst the decline to which I refer has in part been caused by the increasing comfort and convenience of the motor car, coupled with the massive extension of the road network, and in part by an equally considerable increase in the variety and efficiency of regional air transport, there is a third and very important reason: that is the hostile political climate under which the railways have operated, stretching back decades, perhaps even beyond the infamous Dr. Beeching.
It is very telling that when governments in the past have referred to expenditure on roads it has been called "investment in infrastructure", but whenever they have referred to similar expenditure on the railway it is described as "a subsidy". Until such time as we are prepared to regard expenditure on rail infrastructure as an investment—and perhaps even to consider road expenditure as a subsidy—then we will not have the political will to do anything to improve its current dilapidated state.
As my noble friend pointed out, it is vital when considering the future of the railways that one makes a correct comparison—what one might term "an apples for apples comparison"—with other forms of transport. The cancellation of the motor rail service is an example. In common with other noble Lords, I was a regular user of the motor rail service, making two or three return journeys a year. The service was well used, as I often witnessed, and yet in the run-up to privatisation the service was closed. The reason given at the time was that it was simply too costly to run.
A few weeks ago I discovered from a friend, who is travelling to Scotland for the first time, that an enterprising road haulage contractor is now running a regular service transporting cars by road from the home counties to Inverness. Your car is picked up and transported overnight to Inverness whilst you make your way by air or rail as you see fit. From April, the cost of this service is £390 including VAT, which is considerably cheaper than the old motor rail used to be. That this service now exists not only demonstrates that the strong demand is still there but, more importantly, it underlines just how prejudicial policies have been against the rail network and in favour of road transport.

751
This example demonstrates how important it is that we develop in our future transport policy as a sine qua non a consistent approach to road and rail. Nowhere is this more required than in how we look at the cost of provision of these services.
For example, the only reason why de-regulated buses have proliferated and can offer a cheaper service is because they bear virtually no infrastructure costs. The same is true for road freight. It is difficult to get accurate figures and I am grateful to Mr. Simon Miller of Railtrack for providing me with some. Rail freight users pay 100 per cent. of the cost of service provision; rail passengers pay on average 60 per cent. of the full cost of service, which will rise to 80 per cent. on current franchise commitments. This compares with road users paying on average about 30 per cent. of the full internal cost of motoring at point of use. These are the hard costs and take no account of external collateral or social costs of these choices.
Again according to Railtrack, road activity is variously estimated to have external costs ranging from anything between £10.9 billion a year up to £52.9 billion a year. The comparable external costs of rail transport are negligible. The plain fact is that road users are not paying for the full cost of their transport decisions.
The same discrimination appears when it comes to investment. Something in the order of £9 billion was spent on roads last year, whereas Railtrack are rightly proud of the fact that their increased expenditure will only total £1.5 billion a year.
There is one area where the Government can have an impact without increasing public expenditure or amending the terms of the franchises, and that is the area of fiscal policy. We are one of the very few countries in the world which has taken the cult of the company car to the extreme. Like many others I benefit from a company car, but under the present system there is no incentive for me or my company to change. If the benefit of a company car were to be fully taxed, and particularly if scale charges for petrol were to be fully abolished and replaced by genuine business mileage to be claimed from the company, I foresee two effects. The first is a reduction in the number of cars given as perks. The second is companies paying people in cash which would then be taxed in the normal way.
On the other side of the equation, I should like to see, at least for a limited period, some or all of the cost of rail season tickets being tax allowable. That would encourage more use of the railways by creating greater revenue streams and better cashflow.
Finally, I cannot take part in a debate in your Lordships' House without mentioning tourism. Recently at a lunch, I spoke to the chief executive of the BHA. We were talking generally about tourism and I asked him what, if he had one wish, he would wish for to improve tourism in this country. He thought for a moment and said, "Transport, and particularly the railways". We must not underestimate the value to all businesses, particularly tourism, of having an integrated and efficient transport system, in particular an efficient rail system.
752
The key to achieving the shift in emphasis which we all desire and to achieving the levels of investment necessary to make railways the first choice for passengers and freight alike is a change in the political language and climate in relation to the railway system. In that regard, I am glad that the Government are committed and I am sure that their heart is in the right place. But we need to see some real commitment if these good wishes are to be turned into reality.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to join in the debate because my family and I are rail users and we enjoy it. As regards late trains, often it is not the fault of Great Western Trains, Thames Trains, Connex South Eastern or Virgin—the lines on which my family and I often travel—but as a result of signalling and points failure. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was right in saying that there must be more research and more money invested so that signals and points do not so often fail, causing late running trains. Furthermore, as often happens on the Great Western Trains, for example, a truck manages to damage a bridge, which also results in late running trains. We must not automatically blame the company. Perhaps the Government will give the House encouragement by stating that Railtrack will be helped to make such improvements. I also suggest greater liaison between companies and the consumers. The various companies should provide more reliable and understandable information about connections.
It can be seen that the rolling stock of Great Western Trains is good and is improving. Perhaps it is not as good as it could be, but on the whole it is very good. Its staff are helpful, pleasant and courteous.
Overcrowding has been mentioned. Sometimes trains are so overcrowded that one cannot walk down the corridors. Would not there be an uproar if such a train were involved in a crash? Would not the question he asked, "Why was that allowed?"? The issue of overcrowding on trains must be investigated. It is not allowed in buses and cars and it should not be allowed on trains.
Connex South Eastern and Thames Trains are the poorest companies. They are not impressive and are dirty. I travel from Great Bedwyn, where the line begins, and often an inspector has not appeared by the time the train reaches London. There is no ticket office at Great Bedwyn station so one purchases a ticket from the inspector when he comes through the train. That has happened to my family and I on several occasions.
I think Virgin Trains need a great deal of improvement. They are poor and untidy and often the staff are unhelpful. With all due respect to Richard Branson, perhaps he needs to stop floating about around the world. Perhaps he needs to take a little more time taking note of his Virgin railways in order to see what they are doing. Someone told me that he used to travel on his trains and take note, but perhaps he is tired of that. Perhaps the Government could suggest to Mr. Branson that he takes more note of what is happening on his railways.

753
My family and I have sometimes travelled on the north east line. I am sure that people are right in saying it is the best. Great Western Trains is slowly catching up, but during all our journeys on the north east line its coaches and service have been superb and excellent.
How nice it would be to see the continuation of the improvement of the freight service. How nice it would be to see the busy freight yards which one used to see. How sad it is to see freight yards disappearing leaving untidy tracks. We can all remember the busy freight yards and it would be lovely to see them again. One now sees monster lorries and it is good that they are being put on rails.
It would also be nice to see the re-opening of old lines, as has been mentioned. In Marlborough, where I live, there used to be two stations and one could travel to Swindon or to Cardiff. What terrible journeys they were. Perhaps at the time, closing so many lines was considered the right thing to do economically, but many people took pleasure in travelling on those minor lines. If Her Majesty's Government want more people to use their cars less, public transport must be improved. There must be more co-ordination between the railway and bus companies. I am sure that it could be improved.
I hope that the Government can encourage us by stating that the railways will continue to improve, the north east line being the example to follow. I hope that they will encourage bus companies to work with the railways. That should be possible because National Express has bought some railways. My family and I have never used its lines, so I can speak only of Great Western Trains, the north east line, Thames Trains, Connex South Eastern and Virgin Trains. Of those, Great Western Trains certainly is the best. I believe that today the railways are better than in the days of the London, north east, southern, midland and Scottish lines. Indeed, I heard that by comparison those companies were not financially better off.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, it falls to me to wind up the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank is somewhat surprised to discover that I do so as the member of the new "gang of only four"; that is, the four non-hereditary Peers participating in today's debate. Perhaps when the Government saw the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Thomas they wondered why we had not waited because a White Paper is promised in the Spring. It may well be that a number of points made in today's debate could have been made in response to that White Paper. However, the speeches of so many noble Lords this evening have indicated why the state of the railways is an important issue for us to debate today.
I have listened to the speeches of noble Lords and two fundamental reasons have emerged. First, it is quite apparent that in the aftermath of the Kyoto summit the environmental significance of the railways cannot be over-estimated. We are facing forecasts that indicate that car use will increase by one-third to one-half by 2016,
754
and that at a time when our roads and many of our motorways are already at full capacity. Quite clearly, if we are to meet any of the targets that we set ourselves at Kyoto the railway system is at the heart of the solution.
The second reason that the debate is so germane today is that this House can no longer ignore the fact that for many members of the public privatisation has so far proved to be a failure. Many noble Lords this evening have given anecdotal evidence of their own experiences as to why it is a failure. As the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, indicated, any process that has resulted in the reputation for sanctity to which Richard Branson has become accustomed being ruined as a result of the performance of Virgin Trains is anecdotal evidence enough.
However, we also have statistical evidence from the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. From the 1997 figures we learn that punctuality deteriorated during 1997 on nearly half the reported route groups. The reliability indicators deteriorated on nearly half the reported route groups. Eighteen service groups failed to reach their passenger targets. Train cancellations were significantly worse.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, a major cause of that has been the exacerbation of the problem by a lack of national co-ordination. Many noble Lords have indicated what that lack of co-ordination means in practice. We have a hit and miss record on any national timetable inquiry. Indeed, many people have said that they always phone twice to check that the second result is the same as the first.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would let me intervene. I have telephoned the national number on several occasions. I got straight through and received very courteous answers. I received accurate and up-to-date information on how late the train was.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's experience but it is not the experience of everybody.
There is the issue of missed connections, to which reference has been made. The idea of holding up a train to meet a connection has long gone out of the window. There are different ticketing policies on a number of routes. There are different policies as to whether you should buy a ticket before you get on the train. That struck me when I travelled on two consecutive days. In one case I travelled on the Gatwick Express where I was encouraged to buy my ticket on the train. On another occasion I travelled to Newbury, which is about the same distance as to Gatwick, and had I not bought my ticket before I boarded the train I should have suffered a serious penalty. There seems to be no logic as to why those two positions should apply.
Dare I say that privatisation has not even been a financial success. We are now well into it—in the third or fourth year—but the doubling of the state subsidy in 1997 to £2 billion per annum is double the subsidy that was being paid prior to privatisation.

755
In addition, with some exceptions, we have not seen a dramatic improvement in the replacement of old rolling stock. Investment in rolling stock and the infrastructure of the railways has, over the past few years, suffered what Mr. Patten used to refer to as a "double whammy". Prior to privatisation there was a significant starvation of investment by the government. Indeed, in 1993–94, which was the year pre-privatisation, investment in the railway system was down to only £817 million. I should say as an aside that that had a significant impact on BREL, the then recently privatised rolling stock manufacturing company, which had more than 100 years experience in the manufacture of rolling stock in its three plants in Crewe, Derby and York. Indeed, as a result of that starvation of orders, significant and permanent damage was done to the capability and capacity of BREL which was, by then, owned by the Swedish company ABB.
The other part of the "double whammy" is that since privatisation, with some notable exceptions, there has still been under-investment in rolling stock. We know why that is and various noble Lords have indicated that it is because of the inter-relationship between the length of the franchise and the need to invest significant sums in rolling stock which has tempted many operating companies to opt for short-term profits at the expense of longer-term investment. Moreover, there is the scandalous case of under-investment by Railtrack, which has already been criticised by the regulator.
Noble Lords may well ask what we should do about that. Although in the run-up to the last election both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party were, I suspect, briefly tempted to suggest renationalisation, that particularly horse has now bolted and there is no practical possibility of choosing that option.
However, we certainly want the Government to honour their manifesto commitment to establish a national rail authority. That was in the manifesto. We are now nearly a year after the election and that national rail authority needs to be established very quickly.
We need to remove the confusion between the franchising director and the rail regulator. There is clearly confusion between the powers and the duties of the two. We need to end the regulatory confusion caused by the current failure to regulate the rolling stock leasing companies.
More particularly, and more vitally, we need immediate action to ensure investment in the infrastructure of the railway system and rolling stock. I believe it is the case that as regards stations, which throughout the country require significant investment, both the train operating companies and Railtrack are prepared to invest in station improvements, but there must be a mechanism to ensure that the facility is paid for by subsequent franchisees. Otherwise, they will not make that investment.
Similarly with regard to rolling stock, we must empower Opraf to underwrite residual use of rolling stock and recompense franchisees for that residual value so that when new franchisees come in there is a mechanism in place to ensure that the existing franchisees which have invested can have the residual value and he recompensed. It may well be, as has
756
already been done with Midland Main Line, that the way to do that is by extending franchise lengths under the existing franchise agreement. In Midland Main Line's case, that has been done for a period from seven to 10 years against its commitment to invest in new trains.
It is quite clear that railways are at the heart of the integrated transport strategy that we all require. That requires urgent implementation if we are to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century. I hope that the Government will rise to that challenge.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, with whom I share a birthday, for introducing the debate this evening. There has been a good deal in the debate about the merits and demerits of privatisation. But as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, I do not believe that either the Government or the Liberal Democrats believe that renationalisation is any longer a serious proposition. Therefore, it is up to all of us to help the privatised railways to work, even if the Government, in their heart of hearts, do not really approve of them.
After all, the railways are one of Britain's great national assets. I shall certainly not say that everything is perfect but I shall attempt to demonstrate—and I believe that it has been demonstrated in today's debate—that there are good prospects for the railways.
First, as regards investment, it should come as no surprise that John Welsby, Chairman of the British Railways Board, said a few weeks ago in the Sir Robert Reid lecture:
"The privatisation regime has swept aside the debilitating uncertainty of the annual public expenditure round; investment programmes can be planned over several years forward with much greater confidence; and there is greater freedom for the participants to make use of financing mechanisms such as leasing which arc standard practice in the private sector but which were denied to the public sector corporations".
He continued,
"If, as a public corporation, BR had been granted the scale of Government funding which is now committed, the promises of continuity that have been made, and the flexibility that now exists to make use of the array of commercial financing mechanisms, we would have thought that the millennium had not only arrived early but had also brought with it the sort of glorious benefaction that is the stuff of dreams".
John Welsby is, I believe, also the Deputy Prime Minister's special adviser on the railways. Let us look at the facts. Under the franchising agreements the train operating companies are to spend some £1.8 billion on new trains and rolling stock refurbishment. There are orders for some 2,175 new coaches in process, and more are planned. Hardly a week goes by without some new announcement, such as that on the much criticised west coast main line. I was glad to hear that the right reverend Prelate had some words of praise for that line, although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, did not have very many. I say only that I believe the west coast main line is technically much more difficult than the east coast line. If one were starting from scratch, I think one would build it straighter. New tilting trains are being ordered, which together with improvements to the line by Railtrack, will dramatically cut journey times from

757
London to Glasgow from the present five hours 20 minutes, first to four hours 20 minutes and eventually to three hours 50 minutes. All this should help the Government in their laudable aim to get more traffic on to the railways and off the roads. Growth in passenger numbers is already happening, up 7.5 per cent. last year; with some companies the figure is as high as 15 per cent.
I am told that the current timetable contains a total of 29.000 more trains than the winter 1996/97 one. For example, the Midland Main Line will double the frequency between London, Leicester and Nottingham. Great Western Trains is committed to a half-hourly service to Bristol and Cardiff, and Anglia to a similar frequency on the Norwich line.
Much has been made of the level of subsidy the train operating companies receive, but that is falling rapidly: from £2.1 billion last year to £1.9 billion this year, to £926 million in 2002–2003, when six of the 25 operators will actually pay money to the franchising director rather than draw subsidy. So, taken with the privatisation proceeds of some £4.7 billion, it really cannot be argued that the taxpayer has received bad value for money. One can contrast this with an article that I read in the Economist this week about what is happening in some other European countries. The French Government have just had to write off 20.5 billion dollars' worth of railway debts. The Italian railway is currently losing 4 trillion lira a year, which apparently equates to 2.2 billion dollars. In the years from 1990 to 1994 Europe's railways swallowed 31 billion dollars of subsidy a year. Therefore I do not think the situation in this country can be described as bad.
I said earlier that all was not perfect. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, referred in particular to the situation in the south east of England. But even where justifiable criticisms have been made action is in hand to alleviate the situation. For example, South West Trains has increased passenger journeys by nearly 15 per cent., increased passenger miles by 16.5 per cent. and increased the number of peak time seats available by more than 7,000 extra a day. It has also ordered some £90 million worth of new trains.
Reference has been made in the debate to through ticketing and bus links. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned the situation in Northern Ireland. Here, too, I believe, welcome progress is being made. In Oxford some bus routes have been diverted to serve the station, and through fares introduced by Thames Trains. A ticket, sold on the bus, covers the trip to the station, the rail journey to London and the Underground when you get there. As far as I am aware such innovation was not happening pre-privatisation, and again I believe will help the Government with their ambitions for an integrated transport system. Let us hope that these examples are replicated across the country. Park-and-ride is also being promoted, with major schemes being planned for an East Midlands Parkway station to link buses, coaches, cars, the Midland Main Line and the East Midlands Airport. In addition, there
758
are many local schemes being introduced. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, gets his station at Edinburgh Airport as part of that process.
For some companies success and growth in traffic is proving a problem, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned. I refer in particular to GNER where passenger numbers have increased three times faster than predicted. By all accounts the company is offering a much improved service. The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, in his excellent maiden speech gave a flavour of that. The company holds the franchise for the shortest period, seven years, of all the former inter-city routes. Because of this faster than expected growth, which the Government must surely welcome, passengers face severe overcrowding in the near future, if not already, on some services, with capacity being reached sooner rather than later. The company wishes to invest in new trains, but such investment is not practicable unless the franchise can be extended, as new trains ordered now would not be delivered until late 2000, with less than three years of the franchise to run. I know that GNER has discussed this with the Secretary of State and hopes for an early decision from him. If he gives the go-ahead, the company will be in a position to order a substantial number of trains to give an increase in capacity. That is not to say that GNER has not already invested £12 million more than was committed in its franchise agreement. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some indication about that matter, although of course I do not expect her to make an announcement on the subject in this evening's debate.
It has been suggested to me, and I think there is something in this—I think the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, touched on this—that one of the problems of the franchising regime is that it was based, perhaps for historical reasons, on the possibility of failure, either financial or otherwise, of the franchisee and what would happen in the event of such a failure. Not enough, if any, attention was paid to the possibility of success, or rather being too successful. I turn briefly to freight. Many noble Lords have referred to the carriage of freight and the investment proposals of EWS which has ordered 280 new locomotives and some 3,000 new wagons. As an aside to this, as has been mentioned, it has had to reopen the factory at York which is, of course, good news for employment in that area.
The previous government allowed the use of 44 tonne trucks for journeys to and from the railhead. Can the Minister say how this has worked? Has it been a success and how many operators have taken advantage of this arrangement? I believe that EWS is pressing at an open door as regards wishing to see an increase in the carriage of freight. As the current president of the British International Freight Association I know that our members are keen to give rail a try, particularly if a freight service can be operated to Heathrow, which I believe is being discussed. However, there are problems, including problems of access. I have heard that even on the new west coast line EWS may only get half the train paths it forecast it would need. No doubt the Minister will tell us something of the role of the proposed strategic rail authority. I wonder whether she can say if this is the sort of issue that will concern the

759
authority, and indeed, the issue of British Rail land and keeping it available for railway purposes. That issue has been mentioned by many speakers.
I am rapidly running out of time. I conclude by saying that I believe the industry is keen to play its part in meeting the Government's objective of reducing road traffic and is actively working to encourage new business. What it needs now is the support of the Government in meeting these aims and not the continued sniping that is so often evident in the media, but which, I am glad to say, has been largely absent from today's debate.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on initiating the debate and on her contribution to it. I have to say that participating in it reminds me of the perils of being a Minister in your Lordships' House. I always say to colleagues in another place that one never comes to this House without there being someone who knows more about the subject than one does oneself when replying to a Question or a debate. That was very well illustrated today, not only by those noble Lords who contributed from strong personal experience—technical, engineering or other—but also those who have had experience of actually driving the trains. I had not realised that was going to happen. I must add that I feel slightly exposed, replying to this particular debate as Minister for Roads. The road lobby has been, if I may put it this way, very much not in the ascendency. The benefits of improved rail services have been the key theme.
I also wish to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on his very impressive maiden speech. He said at the start that he was nervous. It was not apparent in either the content or his delivery. I am afraid he will find that he is encouraged to participate a great deal in this House in the future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, pointed out, we have heard from many Members of their experiences of the privatised railway network. I think anyone would agree that those experiences are, to say the least, mixed. Listening to the right reverend Prelate, I nearly said that the performance that we heard about was a "curate's egg". We saw from the exchanges between the noble Lords, Lord Harding and Lord Razzall, that there are different views and different experiences post-privatisation.
But one thing has been clearly demonstrated. Privatisation has not of itself produced the cure-all that was promised, and a great deal now needs to be done. The railway now has a mish-mash of regulatory responsibilities, and there is no one body responsible for balancing the needs of both passengers and freight and the overall development of the network. Most importantly, passengers are not getting the service that they have a legitimate right to expect, nor the service that will make the railways a more attractive alternative to the private car, to make it the normal means of transport to which the right reverend Prelate alluded. These are fundamental problems that we have to address
760
if we are to meet the concern expressed throughout the House today that we should take advantage of the benefits, not only to travellers but to the wider public, and industries such as tourism—to which reference was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—of improving rail services and attracting more passengers and more freight onto the railways.
That is why the Government are committed to creating a new rail authority which will act firmly in the public interest. As part of the wider development of an integrated transport policy—as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, rightly reminded us it should be—we have been conducting a fundamental review of railway regulation in order to identify areas where action needs to be taken. Our review has revealed a number of shortcomings in the present arrangements, some of which were also identified during the course of our debate. The Government have inherited a system which has no focus for long-term strategic planning or investment; no clear split of responsibilities between the rail regulator and the franchising director, and no one body accountable to passengers when things go wrong. It is a system where key players such as Railtrack are only lightly regulated, and where some organisations—the rolling stock leasing companies, for example—are not regulated at all. It is a system which apparently tolerates months of delays for passengers, while leaving the franchising director with insufficient powers to penalise the offending train operator.
These are serious problems. We acknowledge that the reforms needed to remedy these failings are not ones that can be made overnight. We will need to establish a new rail authority to implement the proposals that in the spring we plan to set out in our White Paper on integrated transport.
But we have already taken action within the constraints imposed by the current complex regulatory structures. On 6th November my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport announced three new measures to boost investment, protect passengers' rights and make sure private operators provide high-quality services.
We have issued the franchising director with new objectives which deal with the real issues that matter most to passengers—investment in decent rolling stock and stations, high standards of punctuality and reliability and the protection of passengers' rights.
We also approved a set of planning criteria which will provide an effective framework for developing and implementing worthwhile rail investment—investment of the type called for in tonight's debate—which will improve the range and quality of the services available to rail users.
The third element in our interim package is a voluntary concordat between Ministers and the rail regulator. Firm, fair and accountable regulation is essential for passengers and for the industry on which they depend. We inherited a regulatory structure which did not give the regulator any formal indication of what the Government wanted for the railways. The concordat bridges that gap.

761
As one would predict, tonight's debate has given us insights into concerns about poor performance by train operators. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the issue at the beginning of the debate. We are not willing to accept poor performance by train operators. Passengers have the right to expect high levels of punctuality and reliability. We expect those who perform badly to take immediate steps to improve their services to satisfactory levels. But also, the good performers should not think that they can simply sit back and rest on their laurels. That performance needs to be sustained throughout the year—the point was made about the differences that can occur at different periods.
Taking the strictures of the right reverend Prelate to heart, I should acknowledge that, despite those mixed levels of performance, some private train companies have made improvements in their areas. They have been mentioned during the debate. It is right to give credit where credit is due. The Government welcome, for example, the initiatives introduced by a number of train operating companies in respect of joint ticketing for bus and rail services. That is precisely the sort of innovation that we are keen to encourage and which will contribute to obtaining a truly integrated transport system—a theme that recurred throughout the debate. But the picture across the country is decidedly patchy. We cannot expect individual operators to act in isolation without the clear, effective and coherent regulatory framework which the new rail authority will provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked about the functions of that new authority. No firm decisions have yet been made. We said in our manifesto that the authority would combine the functions of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and some functions of the department. We do not necessarily regard those functions as the limitation of the new rail authority's remit. The likely areas of responsibility for the new authority will include: managing and enforcing existing franchise contracts; developing a strategic vision for investment in the network; promoting integration between rail and other modes of transport; promoting voluntary action by train operators to win passengers; protecting the needs of disabled passengers; and balancing the needs of passengers and freight users.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley suggested that the new rail authority might have a role to play in making money available for investment in the network. We have as yet reached no final conclusions in this area, but if, as we propose, the new authority assumes OPRAF's current responsibilities and some of the department's, then OPRAF's budget would transfer to the new authority, as would the relevant parts of the DETR's budget. We shall be considering what other funding might be available, subject of course to the normal public expenditure constraints.
The issue of freight recurred throughout the debate. It was mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Cadman. On taking office we found no national strategy for giving rail freight a sufficient priority on the network. We have made it clear that we want more freight to go by rail.
762
We are glad to see that new freight companies are attracting new traffic to rail in an effort to reverse rail freight's long-term decline. They have adopted a positive attitude and ambitious targets. EWS aims to triple traffic in 10 years. Freightliner aims to increase the volume of containers carried by 50 per cent. in five years. We were urged, during the course of the debate, to facilitate increased use of the railway for freight traffic. We have already taken steps to help railfreight operators win more freight to rail.
We have taken positive action to publicise and streamline the grants scheme. We have set targets for the department's freight grants unit and have published new user-friendly guidance for applicants.
Under the previous administration, the freight grants budget was badly underspent. This financial year, the £30 million budget will be substantially taken up. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport will very shortly be announcing the award of seven new freight grants worth a total of almost £5 million. These grants will spare residents of many areas of England over half a million lorry journeys through their localities. That is precisely the kind of issue that many noble Lords raised today. To reinforce the success of the freight grant scheme, next year's budget has been increased to £40 million, of which £20 million is already committed.
As well as revitalising the freight grants scheme, we have also secured commitments from the French Government and Eurotunnel designed to get a better deal for railfreight through the Channel Tunnel and beyond, not only by EWS but also by new entrants to the market.
In the last nine months, three new railfreight terminals have been developed to serve the international railfreight market: Tilbury, Hams Hall and Daventry. As regards the 44 tonne lorries going to the freight terminals, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, with the exact figure.
The Highways Agency, through its "Toolkit" initiative, is seeking to identify pilot projects which encourage both travellers and freight to switch from road to rail. That is the kind of joined up thinking, if I may put it that way, that different bits of the transport infrastructure can bring to an integrated system.
In the context of the development of an integrated transport policy, we are considering what other measures might be introduced to encourage rail freight. We are examining whether planning guidance might be strengthened to protect land for future rail use, and we are considering whether further improvements can be made to the grants regime.
As was predictable, several noble Lords commented today on the need for upgrading of the West Coast Main Line. I am also aware of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Berkeley that the proposed upgrade will not cater sufficiently for freight traffic. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we want to see Railtrack and Virgin trains move this project forward as quickly as possible. We are keeping a very close eye on it; and I note the remarks from the noble

763
Lord, Lord Milverton, that perhaps Mr. Branson could keep a close eye on it as well. We have asked Railtrack for regular progress reports.
It is my understanding that one of the prime objectives of the proposed upgrade is to provide much needed additional capacity in order to meet the needs and aspirations of train operators. This is one of the issues the rail regulator will wish to consider in examining the proposed arrangements between Railtrack and Virgin which are with him for approval.
I note the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hunt about concern in the Birmingham area over the possible adverse effects that additional fast services on west coast main line may have on local Birmingham rail services. I am aware from reports in the press that his concern is shared by Birmingham business, council and train operators running local services. I can well understand the anxiety to safeguard local services. In the first instance, the allocation of capacity on a line is a matter that Railtrack should discuss with train operators and any differences should be referred to the rail regulator as part of his consideration of the proposed access arrangements between Railtrack and the Virgin Rail Group. In reaching his decision, the regulator will take account of the interests of all those affected by the proposals.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, drew attention to the technical problems involved in the upgrading of the signalling systems on the west coast main line. I am conscious that the line has not been improved since the 1970s and the train operators who use it and their customers want to have more services, reduced journey times and better reliability—the issue of journey times compared with the comparable eastern line were mentioned today. We shall look to Railtrack and its contractors to address the technical issues which are associated with the upgrade—and I accept that they are very real issues—that have been raised today.
Several contributors to the debate, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, and others referred to sales of railway land and we are aware of the concerns expressed on the subject. But we do not think it would be useful to stop all sales of former railway land. The British Railways Board no longer owns any operational railway land. Our policy is for British Rail to continue selling surplus land at market value. The sales are part of the expenditure programme of the previous administration to which the present Government have committed themselves. Railway businesses are routinely kept informed and it is open to them to bid for BR sites which are being sold.
As for operational land, when Railtrack was formed it took all those closed lines and closed freight sites which it thought would have potential for future rail use. Railtrack may dispose of certain areas of land that it no longer requires, in the same way as many other private companies do. If land has not been used for over five years and is not required for the future enhancement of the network, its disposal is a commercial judgment for Railtrack to consider. If land has been operational in
764
that period, it would be subject to the normal closure procedures. I can say to the House that in addition to the safeguards I have just described, we are examining, in the context of an integrated transport policy, whether the planning guidance might be strengthened to protect suitable land for future railway use.
The noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Cadman, with others, spoke of the need for long-term sustained investment in the rail industry. As your Lordships know, substantial sums of public money are going into the industry. The need is to ensure that the best value is obtained for that investment. An important responsibility of the new rail authority will be to give strategic direction to the industry. The noble Lords, Lord Brabazon of Tara, Lord Harding, and others raised the specific issue of requests for franchise extensions such as that received from GNER. These will be considered on their merits but I have to say to the House, as I have said before, that there will need to be very convincing arguments of public interest and value for money to justify renegotiation of contracts which were freely entered into following the competitive process.
I noted the territorial comments, if I may put it that way, made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, about services in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I welcomed his remarks about the improving cross-border service and about integration of public transport. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is committed to producing a transport policy statement later this year, to be read alongside our own White Paper on integrated transport policy. I thought his remarks about services within and to Scotland vividly illustrated the point about the patchy performance of train operating companies. Like other noble Lords, he also mentioned the freight operator EWS. I know that a key part of EWS's strategy for increasing rail freight is to get more long-distance freight onto rail, including traffic between the south of England and Scotland. Perhaps they may consider the possibility of carrying cars as freight, as Motorail did in the past. I am busking on that point, I am not sure about it.
While we are on issues Scottish, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, commented on the need for a station at Edinburgh airport. He made wider points about proposals for devolution. We have made it clear that the new rail authority will be a body with overall responsibility for long-term strategic development of the rail network across Great Britain. That is why the new authority will be ultimately responsible to this Parliament. But we want to ensure that the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales play their part in this.
The noble Lord also drew attention to ticketing arrangements under the privatised rail system and urged train operators to extend the validity of some period returns.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath referred to the availability of cheap walk-on fares. We have inherited a system where operators have discretion to price some tickets according to market demand, but without any other controls by the franchising director.

765
I urge train operators to take full account of the needs of their passengers in settling the terms and conditions of fares.
I am conscious of the time, but the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, asked a specific question relating to the Channel Tunnel rail link. As I said in response to a Question last week, London and Continental Railways said that it will require a further £2 billion of taxpayers money over the next two years to complete its contract. The Deputy Prime Minister said that that is not acceptable and under the contract LCR has 30 days to come forward with revised proposals. That 30-day period ends on Friday of this week. We will inform Parliament as soon as possible of the outcome of the discussions over the past month. But, given the sensitivity of those discussions, I hope that the House will understand that there is not a great deal that I can add this evening.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, took us down the interesting avenue of the comparisons between rail and road cost—not a road down which I can follow him this evening. However, it was a well drawn point to make; we must look at the attractiveness of rail both in terms of the quality of the service and the cost.
This debate has served very well to draw attention to the state of the railways. When we came to power we found the system broken into literally one hundred pieces, with no strategic vision for the development of the network. We found a regulatory structure which even the industry regulators acknowledge can be confusing. We found a privatised railway that had made fortunes for the few, but in many cases had left passengers short-changed. And we found a railway crying out for some leadership and direction.
We are determined to address those issues—to do some of the untangling mentioned tonight—and deliver the coherent, clear and effective regulation which is needed to put the railways at the heart of our integrated transport strategy. We have demonstrated our intentions by taking action within the existing regulatory constraints and by conducting a fundamental review of rail regulation. We have taken action to encourage more freight on to the railway. And we have made clear our commitment to a new rail authority which will provide a much-needed strategic overview. We believe that we can—and must—get more out of our railway, and that we must do that not only in the context of an integrated transport policy, but also in the context of our commitment on climate change post-Kyoto.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, at this time of the evening I shall resist the temptation to re-enter the argument, for which I am sure everyone will be grateful. However, before bringing the debate to a close it is appropriate for me to say "thank you", particularly to the Minister for as usual coping with a vast mass of different queries and bits of data with her usual charm and efficiency.
I also thank those who introduced a note of humour into the debate. The idea of balloonists above our heads as we speak was delightful and those of us who have
766
had the opportunity to drive a steam engine are greatly to be envied. I lived over the Euston goods yard as a child and the remarks of two noble Lords brought to my mind vividly the noises, the sights and the smells of that situation.
Finally, I congratulate the noble Earl. Lord Leicester, on his wonderful reminiscence about all that was peculiar and not entirely efficient in British Rail. I thank also my team of supporters on these Benches and all noble Lords who, as I expected, made excellent and illuminating personal contributions to the debate. We are to receive papers soon—one day, in the Spring. They are eagerly awaited and until then, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Asylum Seekers
8.14 p.m.
Lord Hyltonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in reviewing arrangements for asylum seekers, including the backlog of applications; and what improvements they have in mind.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by welcoming and thanking Her Majesty's Government for some small but helpful action that they have taken for people seeking refugee status in this country. They have declared the Congo, Zaire and Sierra Leone to be "countries of upheaval" to which asylum seekers will not be returned. However, will they also include Algeria in that category?
The Government increased the support limit to £165 per week for applicants who would otherwise be destitute. They have allowed local authorities to use their own housing stock for asylum seekers rather than hotels and boarding houses, which are often more expensive and of poor quality. Those are common-sense measures and I welcome them warmly. In the words of Shakespeare: "For this relief, much thanks."
I turn now to four issues hoping that constructive dialogue will lead to real improvements. I have in mind welfare, the use of detention, the backlog of applicants and, lastly, the Government's review and the shape of future arrangements. I look forward to later speakers adding detail to that outline.
As regards welfare, local authorities have recently been providing essential food to some 5,000 single people who might otherwise starve; they have been assisting 2,500 families with children under the Children Act; thus some 12,000 to 15,000 people are receiving help in kind while their applications are considered. The British Refugee Council estimates that to provide income support and housing benefit would cost around £110 per person per week instead of the current £165, which is the allowable cost of benefits in kind. There is thus a huge saving to be made—one which will allow individuals greater choice in managing their own lives.
I understand that the Secretary of State already has discretion to change the regulations so that it would no longer be obligatory to provide benefits in kind. Will the

767
Government grasp this opportunity? Will they also—I hope they will—reduce the six-month period during which new applicants are not allowed to accept employment, even if they are lucky enough to find it? Surely a one-month waiting period would be sufficient.
Do the Government accept that the national assistance and Children Acts do not provide suitable vehicles for sustaining applicants while their cases are decided? The use of those Acts lays unfair burdens on a small number of local authorities and also harms race relations.
The number of people in detention who claim asylum varies from around 700 to 850 at any one moment in time. Some of those people are in prison, others in detention centres. The number has quadrupled since 1990. Detention causes intense suffering, anxiety and uncertainty. There have been attempted suicides and, I am sorry to say, three self-inflicted deaths in recent years. Detention also makes access difficult for legal and other advisers. At the end of last October only 58 out of 740 detainees were held subject to deportation. The remainder were cases awaiting decision or appeal; 316 had applied at a port of entry and 366 were classed as illegal immigrants. That definition includes those arriving unofficially who may nevertheless have genuine cases for asylum and others who may have initially declared themselves as visitors.
The Minister will, I dare say, tell me that detention is only used sparingly and as a last resort. What ideas do the Government have for reducing the use of detention to the pre-1990 level? Bail, we all know, has proved not to be an effective remedy. Will the Government introduce case-by-case reviews by independent reviewers, starting within a week or two of arrest and continuing at regular intervals? Will they ensure that detainees are always informed in writing, in a language they understand, of the reason for their detention and its probable duration?
I come now to the backlog. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has told the House that on 31st December last 51,795 cases were awaiting initial decision. He did not say at that time that there were also well over 22,000 cases awaiting appeal. The total is formidable. I can perhaps encourage the noble Lord who will reply by pointing out that last year the new French Government issued between 20,000 and 40,000 residence permits, many of them to asylum seekers who would have been in danger if returned to their countries of origin. Urgent action is certainly needed in this country as well.
Fast-track procedures have been tried here. They produced some 5,700 decisions in 1996–97, but from these, only three persons were accepted as refugees, an almost unbelievably low figure. I therefore ask to what extent this is likely to be mitigated by exceptional leave to remain and to what extent it is likely to be altered by successful appeals. It does not help very much to give quick decisions if these are later to be overturned on appeal. In dealing with the backlog, what weight is given to the cost of appeals and also to the cost of removing people to distant countries? One thing is quite clear: faster procedures must have built-in safeguards.
768
After the Act of 1993 it is clear that the proportion of refusals jumped up dramatically. At the same time exceptional leave to remain, which had been a safety valve for genuine humanitarian cases, fell from 64 per cent. of applications to between 14 and 21 per cent. Will the Government reverse this policy? Will they make ELR much more transparent? In dealing with a huge backlog, will the Government take into account that 20 per cent. of the initial applications pre-date 1994? Ten thousand people have been waiting for four years or more. The situation among appellants is probably similar. During the waiting time, families produce children, children become established in school and jobs, and houses are obtained. Are these factors being fully considered? Will the Government look favourably on family reunion as a reason for admitting applicants? Amnesty International has underlined that it is both impractical and unfair to remove people who have been here a long time since their initial applications. I am sure your Lordships appreciate the force of that.
Do the Government believe that computerisation will help to reduce the backlog; and if so, how soon? There is talk of staff cuts in the immigration and nationality departments. How will these influence the situation? Will staff be retained at least until the computers are fully functioning? Legal aid also has a bearing on the backlog. At present none is available for appeals. The Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service provide free advice for both first applications and appeals. They cannot cope with all current cases. Can the noble Lord assure us that their government funding will not be cut, and will indeed be increased, until such time as the backlog is cleared?
Turning to the future, can the noble Lord in his reply give the House any outline of the new thinking that is emerging from the interdepartmental review? Will there be an interim report? When is the full report expected? I wish to mention two particular points that the review should consider. At the time of the 1996 Act, it was announced that asylum seekers need only register their application on entering the country. They could justify their case after receiving proper advice. I understand that this has not always happened and that port interviews are still being conducted on arrival and before applicants have had access to legal and community advice. This must be counterproductive. Applicants are entitled to know what the 1951 convention states. It would also be helpful if Home Office assessments of individual countries of origin could be regularly published. Will the noble Lord comment on these and on any other steps that would help to build up confidence in the processing of applications?
I have mentioned the Government's small improvements and also welfare, detention, the backlog and the review. I conclude with Europe and the British presidency. Will the Government use this opportunity to resist the concept of "fortress Europe"? Will they seek to have the 1951 convention properly applied throughout the European Union until such time as it is revised or amended? Will they amend or repeal the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act and resist the

769
extension to additional countries of fines on carriers? Europe has a small proportion of all the world's refugees and because of its wealth, it should bear its proper share. Because many refugees are young, adaptable and dynamic, they have much to contribute. I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate and I look forward to a sympathetic response from the Government.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for putting down his Question and for introducing the debate in such a comprehensive and useful way. This evening I should like to express my concern for one particular group of people who do, I think, have a particularly hard time under the present situation. These are asylum seekers who make application in the proper way when they enter this country, but who have to wait a very long time—sometimes several years—before their case is considered in any way, and before they are called to interview.
Of course one should say at once that they are fortunate indeed to be admitted to this country, saving them from what is often an appalling situation in their own country, where they have usually had to endure deeply disturbing experiences. They are fortunate also to be accorded income support—if they are unable to find work, which is often the case—and often housing benefit also. Their good fortune in these respects has to be recognised.
Secondly, one should value the very great care with which the officials of the immigration section of the Home Office deal with such cases—many of them, of course, legitimate cases—against the enormous pressure of numbers from would-be immigrants who sometimes apply for asylum when their motivation is not in fact to escape from suffering under a tyrannical regime in their own country. It may simply be motivated by a desire for economic betterment. One must recognise the difficult task which the Home Office has in dealing with these large numbers—quite apart from illegal immigrants, and those who enter legally but disappear, as I am afraid they sometimes do, when they are asked to leave.
That being said, however, when an applicant has been in this country for two, three, four or five years, there may be perhaps some presumption that he may hope to be granted exceptional leave to remain, which may, after a further period of time, lead to British citizenship. The situation is not an easy one. They may be left for years in a kind of limbo in this position. When I raised this point during a Starred Question debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Renton on 27th January, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replied in a very sympathetic way. He said:
"I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is utterly demoralising … No human being should have to be left in doubt and limbo for that period of time.—[Official Report, 27/1/98; col. 104.]
I very much agree with him.
He kindly agreed to write to me to say how many applicants there are in this country who have been applicants for more than five years without having a
770
decision in their case or an interview. To my surprise, however, it has not yet been possible to provide this information. I had a very courteous letter from the noble Lord making clear that records are not maintained on this basis. I have to express considerable surprise that we have no way of knowing—I hope some statistical computations will be made—how many people have not had their cases considered who are applicants of five, six or seven years' standing. I would be very interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, how many cases of applicants there are in this country who have heard nothing at all after seven or eight years, because there are indications that some people are in that very unfortunate position.
The noble Lord was kind enough to write to me to say that 10,000 applications are still outstanding from before the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 in July of that year. Is it not strange that we are making large numbers of applicants, some of them clearly legitimate applicants, wait in this extraordinary and nerve-racking situation where they hear literally nothing for year upon year?
There are also financial implications here, quite apart from issues of justice. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to indicate the annual total cost—that is to say, aggregating money from central government and from local authorities—of benefits to those seeking asylum. It would be interesting to have an overall figure, which was not given in the brief debate earlier this week on the Starred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I imagine that the average cost of an asylum seeker must be approaching £5,000 a year, although no doubt we shall learn more if we are given the necessary figures.
Secondly, how many cases on average—that is, cases for initial decision—does an immigration case worker determine per year? A diligent and experienced case worker might feel able to determine one case a week. I have no idea what the answer is. It may take longer than that. But if it were one case a week, and the case worker could therefore adjudicate on 50 cases for initial decision a year, it would seem that of the order of £250,000 per year could be deducted, as it were, from the asylum budget. I have no idea how much it costs to support an immigration official but, taking a figure of £50,000, including pension rights and so on. it would seem that if one drafted in a number of new immigration officers—if one had a task force, with people on one or two-year contracts—one might be in a position to save the Exchequer or, at any rate, the asylum bill of the order of £200,000 per officer.
I have based those calculations on hypothetical figures and I stand to be corrected, but I imagine that my point has some validity. The present system is extremely expensive. It is not only unjust and inefficient to have a backlog of cases of five to eight years' standing; it is extremely expensive on the Exchequer to be maintaining applicants without giving their cases any consideration whatever for five years. It is perfectly clear that some of those cases will receive a negative reply and that those involved will have to leave this country. It would have been much less expensive had they been invited to do so rather more rapidly.

771
In conclusion, perhaps I may make a suggestion. Surely, in cases where an asylum seeker has made application in the proper way and waited for an answer for four or five years, unless there are other special factors militating against that person—for instance, demonstrably untrue statements made in the application—there should be some presumption that he or she might well be granted exceptional leave to remain. After four or five years, surely we must recognise that there has been some deficiency in our own administrative system that goes beyond what is reasonable.
This is not the Prague of Kafka. This is not some Comintern bureaucracy of the 1950s. It is certainly true that these people, these applicants, are seeking a great privilege: namely, British citizenship. But that does not mean that we should treat them as if they are of no account, mere manila folders locked in a forgotten filing cabinet.
I hope that the Minister can give some undertaking that something will soon be done to tackle this appalling and rather Kafka-esque situation.
8.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I also wish to offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for putting down this Unstarred Question and for the very able way in which he introduced it in your Lordships' House.
The General Synod of the Church of England debated the issue of asylum seekers in November of last year and, during that debate, they welcomed the Government's commitment to a fairer, firmer and faster system for considering requests for asylum. We are looking forward with great anticipation to the results of the review which we all trust will deliver such a system. The Synod also expressed its continuing concern about the effects of British asylum immigration and nationality law upon those who seek asylum here.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the matter of a backlog and to the fact that the total number of pending applications has in fact fallen from almost 70,000 at the beginning of 1996 to just under 52,000 at the beginning of this year. Although the number of pending applications has fallen, the number of appeals has in fact risen from 1st January 1996, when it was just under 12,000, to 1st January 1998, when my figures give just over 24,000. Surely one of the reasons for this increase in the number of appeals is that the quality of the initial decision was not good enough. Good initial decisions will surely lead to a smaller number of appeals. I have heard a number of lawyers make that specific point.
I have read a number of initial determinations over the years and I have to say that I am astonished at the reasons which are on occasion given during the writing up of initial decisions for rejecting an application. I remember one application which was made where the grounds for refusing it, amongst others, were that the applicant had spoken about his work. He had owned a shop in Nigeria and in one of his interviews he had referred to this shop as a corner store. In another
772
interview he had referred to it as a supermarket. I now walk past corner stores and I try to determine in my mind whether I would refer to it as a corner store or as a supermarket. I am tolerably familiar with the English language, but I do not always find it easy to know exactly which term I would use. For somebody arriving from another country, unfamiliar with our culture, to be expected to have familiarity with that degree of sophistication about our use of language does seem to be extraordinary.
I feel that one of the issues in the making of initial decisions is the giving of time to applicants before they are interviewed. During the passage of the 1996 Act, when the whole matter of people arriving in this country seeking asylum was raised, the then Secretary of State said that it had been suggested that someone arriving in this country seeking asylum is required to give details at the port of entry, giving the reasons why they are seeking asylum. He said:
"All we ask is that, when such people arc asked why they have come to this country, they should say that it is to seek asylum … There is no question of their being required to give details then and there".
There is some evidence that that is not the case, that asylum applicants are being interviewed very shortly after their arrival in this country when they are tired, confused and, on occasions, traumatised. It is very difficult for refugees to give a full and coherent account of why they need protection at this stage. Furthermore, the interview is not delayed in order to allow them to get advice either from community organisations or lawyers. In those circumstances it is not surprising that the quality of the initial decision should be poor and that therefore the number of appeals is rising. I suggest that we need to pay great attention to the quality of those initial decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to benefits and clearly that is causing continuing concern. There are figures suggesting that local authorities are now caring for some 20,000 asylum seekers, mostly in areas where there is already great pressure on services. Churches, particularly around London, and also Jewish and Moslem communities are still providing many basic commodities to asylum seekers. These include hot meals, toiletries and clothing. There are eight day centres, of which six are in churches, which have recently extended their opening hours to three and four days a week in order to cope with the demand from asylum seekers.
It seems to be widely accepted—I believe that this was brought out in the Question which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled earlier this week—that it is cheaper to return to the benefits system. It is fairer to local authorities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, it is less likely to cause community feeling.
One of the small points which needs to be made about the National Assistance Act is that I believe I am right in saying that it does not provide cash in hand. How then are asylum seekers expected, shall we say, to telephone in order to ask for help or to travel by the Underground to meet a lawyer? These practicalities need to be taken into account when looking at the kind of needs that asylum seekers have.

773
It continues to be an anomaly that benefits are provided to those who claim at the port, but not in-country. That does not seem to be a reasonable way of distinguishing between the genuine and the unfounded claim. It continues to be the case that in-country applicants have a higher probability of being granted refugee status than those who apply at the port of entry. That surely must continue to cause concern for the way in which benefits are allocated.
I should like to say a brief word about attitudes. I believe it is clear that attitudes generally towards asylum seekers leave something to be desired. The Churches were concerned at the issues surrounding attitudes towards people from Slovakia and the Czech Republic who belong to the Roma community. There are others here from Romania and Poland. Quite clearly, there is some violent persecution of Roma people in eastern and central Europe. A day seminar was held on this issue at the European Ecumenical Assembly in Austria last year. Many Roma have died in the past few years; some have been burnt out of their homes and others denied jobs or schooling. It may be that these asylum seekers do not qualify under the Geneva Convention, but nevertheless it remains the fact that their fears are real, that they are persecuted, that each one of them is a human story and that we need attitudes towards them which do not term them as bogus simply because they do not necessarily qualify under the Geneva Convention.
I was recently at a gathering at Westminster Central Hall at which one or two refugees were telling their stories. There was a huge protest march concerned with hunting going on outside your Lordships' House at the time. An Algerian commented that if he were in this country he would rather be a fox because he would have 30 million people seeking his protection. It did not seem clear to him that he had that number seeking his own protection as an asylum seeker.
Perhaps I may also comment briefly on detention. It is by no means clear that those who are detained are kept in custody on any agreed or understandable basis. Such analyses that have been made seem to indicate that there is no particular reason why those who are held in detention should be so. I underline the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has already made, that there needs to be protection for those held in detention. There needs to be a proper review of their case. They need to be given written reasons why they are there. It must be made clear that they are not simply put there on some arbitrary basis. We look forward to the results of the review with great anticipation. I hope that the review will indeed deliver that fairer, firmer and faster system for which we all hope.
8.46 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in one sense we are all on the same side, all looking forward to fairer and faster, if not necessarily firmer, arrangements for asylum seekers. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his longstanding interest in this subject as well as for providing this new opportunity. Those of us
774
who took part in the asylum and immigration debates should have great sympathy with the Government as they approach this long-awaited review. We trust that the refugee agencies and the refugees themselves, are now pushing against at least a half-open door before it swings back in their face, as is the nature of things. I hope that the Home Secretary, who is not the radical student leader that he once was, will continue to demonstrate that he is on the side of the asylum seekers.
In these few comments I shall assume that the Government's review will be positive in particular as regards detention and entry procedure and that they will reverse at least some of the last government's restrictive policies. For example, I expect the Government to take very seriously the forthcoming report of the Inspector of Prisons on Campsfield. This promises to be a highly critical report. The riot last August was only one indicator of the extreme tension generated by the innate cruelty of a system which locks up in a no-man's land, mainly innocent, disillusioned people who are already victims of appalling persecution, without charge and with limited opportunities for bail.
These asylum seekers are treated in some sense worse than common criminals in that in spite of their own particular form of distress, they are denied a proper hearing or even the regular health and education services available to prisoners, let alone the specialised help that they often need. Can the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, anticipate the review by giving some assurance that asylum seekers are going to be guaranteed an automatic and independent review of their detention, and given reasons for it in writing? Can he also give an assurance that no one will in future be held without a formal charge? Will there be some improvements in bail procedure where the presumption is still weighted against the applicant? Can he also explain why detention—at a weekly cost of about £550 per person—is even necessary in the case of those awaiting an initial decision, as opposed to those who have exhausted the procedure and would be more likely to abscond? On a given day last October, nearly half of the 740 detainees were still awaiting an initial decision. Roughly the same number were detained at the port of entry, which would have entitled them to benefit.
Unlike the previous government, I am sure that the Minister will accept that more genuine refugees have emerged after entry than were immediately identified at the port, and yet these applicants are deprived of benefit. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government intend to relax the rules which insist on port of entry applications and which take no account of the confusion and incomprehension of refugees when they first arrive, as the right reverend Prelate has already mentioned? It seems unnecessary to present all over again the arguments that were well made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and others when in opposition. An important amendment was carried in this House on that issue two years ago, with Labour support. It would be comforting to hear that the Government will be making at least the changes which they supported on that occasion.

775
We should be aware that unaccompanied minors, under the age of 18, have continued to be detained by this Government in spite of frequent denials. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, confirmed in a Written Answer on 27th November last year that four out of 11 were released from Campsfield last year; but I understand that in spite of representations, there are still two 15 year-olds there from Angola and Afghanistan. Another 15 year-old was among those taken at random after the riot and charged, apparently without much evidence, and he has since attempted suicide.
There was another case of three small children about to be sent back to Nigeria, unaccompanied. There was even a case of an 11 year-old who went as far as the adjudicator before his age was recognised. Where age is in dispute, the IND has, I believe, been apt to take the ages given in forged identity papers for granted; and officers are, perhaps understandably, not always ready to refer cases via the Refugee Council's children's panel, then to a solicitor, and so on to a paediatrician, a procedure kindly explained in the Home Office Minister's subsequent Written Answer last week. Can the noble Lord confirm that at least that referral procedure can be accelerated or improved because it discriminates against unaccompanied minors?
Others have mentioned the position of individual nationalities. I should like to comment only briefly on some of the more recent arrivals from the world's worst trouble-spots. I should like confirmation that the dreaded "white list" which is still in use for some nationals will soon be abandoned—although I of course welcome any countries which come off the list in the meantime. Others have mentioned the extended leave to remain procedure. Will the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, argued, use that procedure more generously to assist Algerians and Sierra Leoneans, as was done successfully, to the great credit of the last government, with Somalis, Iraqis, and Afghans, as well as new arrivals from the former Yugoslavia?
Out of 1,880 decisions on Algerians in 1996, only 30 were given asylum, and only 15 were given ELR. The figures for 1997 were that out of 765 decisions, 105 were given asylum—that is, 14 per cent.—and five were given ELR, representing 1 per cent. Perhaps we thought that it was a French responsibility or perhaps we simply underrated the urgency of those cases. Given what we now know of the causes of persecution and the nature of torture in Algeria, it looks as though we may have deported large numbers of legitimate asylum-seekers, to what suffering we cannot tell.
Figures like that do no credit to us as a nation, and there can be no pride in preserving asylum and immigration laws which were principally designed by the last government as a deterrent, effectively to keep people away rather than welcome them in. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that the original UNHCR guidelines for admitting Algerians have been revised and now include all those who have a legitimate fear of persecution, including sympathisers or associates of the FIS.
776
Here, I should like to quote from a letter dated 4th February this year from the London office of UNHCR to the Minister responsible for immigration. The letter states:
"UNHCR would strongly support the Government in not removing rejected Algerian asylum seekers under United Kingdom Immigration procedures, except where it is established, beyond doubt, that the presence of a particular asylum seeker is a danger to the national security of the United Kingdom. In such circumstances, the responsibility on a Government not to return persons to a country where they may be subject to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment will also have to be weighed".
I understand that Germany is reconsidering its position on the deportation of Algerians and that Bremen and Nordrhein-Westfalen have recently suspended deportations.
As we are talking about people, I shall also briefly provide three case studies, not of torture victims which certainly exist, but of ordinary Algerians who seek our protection. The first two come from the Karibu centre in Vauxhall. The first is from an unnamed refugee who said:
"I left Algeria … because of the dangerous situation there … Because I worked with the government I was threatened by the Islamics, but … I was also at risk from the government. For this reason I was forced to leave … as quickly as possible. There are many other people … in a very dangerous situation … I am a young man and I am innocent. I am on nobody's side—neither the government's nor the Islamics … I only want to find … law, democracy, freedom of expression, and above all peace. In my opinion England was the best place to find these things".
Rashid said:
"My brother is in jail … I haven't seen him for ten years … My application for asylum has been refused and when I go back to my country I will be faced with danger. My brother is against the government and for this reason he was put in jail, When the police come to your house and take a relative away, we don't know if they will ever return".
The third quotation comes from a report published by the Refugee Council, and written by a social worker about a 28 year-old army deserter called Ismail. It states:
"Accommodation: sleeping rough … Daily life: does not talk about life here. Reported assault … when trying to use soup kitchen intended for 'UK homeless' … was beaten, a dog was set on him, and his ear was cut with a knife … he is obviously very disturbed … but refuses to see doctor … He moves around constantly. He is still very obviously in need of specialist support … Note … Ismail was found accommodation by the local authority. However, he then received a negative decision on his asylum claim".
Finally, as other noble Lords have said, we are looking forward to a drastic revision of the backlog "shambles" as the Economist graphically described it last week. It is widely accepted that delay has become an incentive for new asylum-seekers, which cannot be part of government policy. There have been various suggestions for reducing the backlog, of which ELR is one, and I am confident that the Government will respond to growing public pressure.
However, if the Government intend to enter a new round of heavy primary legislation, it will be many more months before they can meet all those obligations. I am sure that we all agree that there are some immediate measures which can be taken this year to bring comfort to the important numbers of genuine refugees whom we are all trying to identify.

777
I would add, in conclusion, that if benefits can be restored as soon as possible to relieve the local authorities, as was hinted at during Questions on Monday, instead of increasing the National Assistance Act payments which, as has been said, end up more expensive, surely the Treasury too will be happy.
8.58 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for tabling this Unstarred Question. At this time last night I was having dinner with the officers of Hampstead Liberal Democrats, to whom I had just been speaking on welfare reform. As your Lordships may imagine, there were a considerable number of people around the table who had originally come to this country as refugees and who are now among its most distinguished and successful citizens. It reminded me once again how much this country owes, and has owed over many centuries, to those who have been former refugees. I once had the privilege when I was in the United States of belonging to a very high quality academic department, 25 per cent. of whose members had started off as refugees from Hitler. We should not forget that positive attitude.
When I look at present policy, I see in it three general areas of error to which I should like to call attention. First, I believe that recently policy has been based on a mistaken objective. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, the objective is to deter potential asylum seekers. I believe that it was first stated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on the behalf of the then Government. It was stated from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on 27th January. It appeared to me to be restated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on 30th October when he said that it was a mark of the success of the Home Secretary's treatment of the Dover incident that numbers of applications had over a few days dropped from 28 to nine. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, strenuously resisted that interpretation of what he said. For the time being, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is a point to which I may return.
The trouble with deterrence is that it is in the nature of the case that one cannot distinguish between a genuine and a bogus asylum seeker before a hearing. We do not now have any Witchfinders General. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, from everything I have seen of her, has shown no sign whatever of deserving so ungenerous a title. She is one of the most courteous people I know. Without the aid of a Witchfinder General we simply cannot possibly tell. Therefore, deterrence, like the biblical rain, must fall equally on the just and the unjust and until there is a hearing that must remain the case.
Under the UN convention of 1951 we are bound to receive applications from people who claim to be refugees and to treat them as such up to the time of the hearing. That is incorporated by Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which was passed by the previous Government. That Act provides that nothing in the immigration rules may contain anything
778
that is contrary to the 1951 convention, which means that nothing in the immigration rules may be intended to deter applicants. I am not a lawyer but I should like the courts to determine whether the objective of deterring applicants for asylum regardless of their genuineness is an illegal objective.
My next complaint is that the present system is an expensive and time-wasting method of determining applications. On 27th January the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, told me that there was no such thing as a culture of disbelief within the Home Office. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here to answer the point. I should have enjoyed the exchange. I am sure that he will find a way of doing so shortly, and I look forward to it. The suggestion that there is no culture of disbelief within the Home Office appears to come within the very limited category of self-refuting statements.
In Canada, approximately 70 per cent. of applications for asylum are found to be genuine. In this country the last figure that I had, including exceptional leave to remain, was about 19 to 20 per cent. I see no reason to believe that applicants for asylum in Canada are that much more honest than applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom. That difference must in large measure be a difference in the way that those applications are treated.
I was very interested in the example given by the right reverend Prelate of the man who referred to a supermarket and a cornershop. There are at least two shops within a few hundred yards of where I live to which either description can perfectly well be applied. I believe they say that the correct title is "mini-market", but I can quite understand that that title may not be familiar in Nigeria. It is a pretty good example of the culture of disbelief.
During the year of the murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa I believe that there were 1,494 applications for asylum from Nigeria. It was certainly in the high fourteen hundreds. Of that number, five were found to be genuine. That appears to me to offend against the law of averages. In 1992, 95 per cent. of applications from Sri Lanka were found to be genuine. In 1996, the figure was 1 per cent. I do not believe that there has been a sudden outbreak of dishonesty in Sri Lanka on quite that scale. Those figures must indicate a spread of the culture of disbelief.
Disbelief takes a good deal of time. It leads to lengthy hearings, extensive checks of points that may be quite clear and a high rate of refusals followed by a high rate of appeals. It also demands considerable manpower. At the same time, during the past year the Immigration and Nationality Department has shed 271 posts. I say again what I have said many times: efficiency is not efficient. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, argued very persuasively, this is an area in which the pursuit of saving is likely to lead to considerable additional expense, not to mention inhumanity.
The same arguments apply to the question of detention. I know that we are frequently assured that no one is detained without good reason but, since no written reasons for detention are given, that proposition is entirely unverifiable. Dr. Christina Pourgourides, who

779
did research on detainees in Birmingham, identified 16 cases of individuals—I quote from memory and I cannot answer for the accuracy of the figure—who appeared to be suffering considerable mental stress as a result of detention. She asked the Home Office for what reasons they had been detained. The investigation led to the majority of those people being released on the grounds that their detention was found to be unjustified. Not every asylum seeker can enjoy the attentions of Dr. Pourgourides. Until reasons are given for detention we cannot know how many such cases there are.
In 1628 this House and another place resolved that in English law nobody should be detained without cause shown. I believe that we see here quite how right they were. We should not treat asylum seekers as lesser breeds without the law but recognise that they are entitled to the same rule of law as everybody else. We should have written reasons for detention and every detention should be reviewed by a judge. That would not only involve more humanity but a good deal more saving.
I wish we could have here what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, describes as "joined-up policy". On the case of the Roman, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby—who regrets her inability to take part in the debate—had the shrewd idea of putting down a question to the Foreign Office instead of to the Home Office. As non-discrimination is a condition of entry to the EU, the Foreign Office were seized of the question and gave answers which more closely resembled the views of the right reverend Prelate than the views of the Home Office.
One of the countries with the biggest backlog of applications which have not been accepted is Iraq. We all know what the Prime Minister and others have had to say in recent days about the Government of Iraq. It creates a presumption that a high proportion of the applications from Iraq might be genuine. That is another case where I would like to see joined-up policies.
We talk about a global market. We have complete free movement of capital: we do not have any equivalent free movement of labour. That inevitably tilts the global market in favour of capital rather than labour. That inevitably leads to a pressure for lower wages, which may increase the burdens on the social security system quite as much as other measures which are addressed when it is reviewed.
Nobody is suggesting complete freedom of movement of labour, but in a global world the amount of restriction we now have on mobility is coming to look uncomfortably like the 1601 Poor Law, in which the poor and unemployed were whipped back to their home parishes, which were then responsible for relieving them. If people are to be sent back to their own countries and not allowed out, something must be done to make it tolerable for them to live there. Otherwise it is like locking the door of a burning building with a number of people inside. One sometimes wonders whether that is what the world is conspiring to do to the Kurds. In the case of Algeria, I am extremely glad that the Foreign Secretary has recognised the need to review conditions
780
there. If a restrictive approach is to be taken, then a human rights foreign policy must be a necessary concomitant of it. We need this reviewed over a wider canvas than the Home Office alone can provide. We badly need some joined up policies.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for introducing this debate. It is a pleasure for me, as always, to follow my noble kinsman Lord Russell. I ought to warn him against advertising some of the more Draconian policies put forth by different governments in the 16th and 17th centuries. He sometimes suggested such things when we were in office—I suspect to frighten us to take up the suggestions he put forward. One sometimes suspects that new Labour might not have the same fears, might take his advice and might follow the policies suggested by my noble kinsman.
I offer my felicitations to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for having to respond to this debate. I congratulate him on the versatility of what he will have to cope with today. He started today replying to a Question on defence land sales. The noble Lord will remember that we first met when he came to see me as a Member of another place about his concerns about Ministry of Defence land disposals in his constituency.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell stressed that we have a proud record in this country of giving refuge to those fleeing genuine persecution. I underline the word "genuine". Like him, I pay tribute to all those who have arrived in this country over the years, fleeing from genuine persecution, for the terrific part that they have played in the development of this country. I suspect that the forbears of my noble kinsman were not fleeing persecution when they came here but were probably arriving as invaders at one time or another. My history of the Russell family does not go back far enough to remember how and why they did arrive.
It is right that we should provide refuge to those fleeing genuine persecution, but we feel that our asylum procedures have been abused in the past, are still being abused, and are being so to an increasing extent. The Home Office is conducting a review of its procedures and it is important that in doing so it looks carefully at the changing world situation and the increasing growth of oppression throughout the world. It might be that often there is a case for tightening up our procedures so that we do not have to submit to increasing numbers of refugees, genuine or not, coming to this country. I refer in particular to the rapid rise in the numbers coming to this country, whereas throughout western Europe the growth has been less. Perhaps the Minister can confirm the figures.
I am advised that of those claiming asylum in this country in the past year only some 6 per cent. were deemed to be genuine refugees and that 3 per cent. of appeals were upheld by the independent adjudicators.

781
I appreciate that my noble kinsman Lord Russell has given different figures. He quoted a figure of 19 per cent. and it would be useful—
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation. One figure includes exceptional leave to remain and the other does not.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that point. I should be grateful if in response the Minister, with the authority of the Government, could give a figure which would satisfy us all so that we are able to quote a valid figure.
In answer to the Question asked by my noble kinsman on 27th October last year, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made it clear that the length of time taken to process a claim could make it more attractive to make that claim. I believe that we would all agree with that assertion. We continue to believe that it is vitally important that we do all we can to reduce the number of bogus claims. That is why, despite opposition from the then Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, we made the necessary changes to the benefit rules. We believe that it is also right to do everything possible to speed up the process by which the claims are dealt with. My noble friend Lord Renfrew dealt with that matter in some detail.
In October, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, informed the House that there was then a backlog of some 50,000 cases with the Home Office. I should be grateful if tonight the Minister could update those figures, giving either year ending or current figures. It is four months since the Home Office announcement. Has the figure declined? The figures I have are 70,000 applications for 1995 and 57,000 for 1996. Can the Minister confirm that those figures are correct and that there was a rapid decline in the number of people seeking to have their cases dealt with by the Home Office? In other words, can he confirm that the changes announced in 1996 by my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard reduced the figures and that the reduction to 50,000 is part of a continuing trend which started in 1995? I refer not only to the benefit changes but also to the extra money which he provided to the Immigration Directorate within the Home Office.
Reference has been made to the inter-departmental review mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in response to a Question asked on 30th January. I appreciate that there is still some time to go before the review makes its pronouncements. However, it would be useful if the Minister could comment on its progress and say what the Government hope to receive from it. Perhaps he could also comment on the consultation with immigration advisers, announced by the Home Office, which began in January and is due to conclude in March. We should be grateful for that.
I appreciate that we have given the noble Lord a great deal to respond to, but I am sure that with his usual tact and skill, he will be able to respond to most of the points that have been put before the House. If the Government
782
Continue—and I sincerely hope they will—the policies which we were pursuing, they will have the wholehearted support of noble Lords on these Benches.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for initiating this debate. The breadth of opinions expressed has served to underline the great interest of the House in asylum-related issues. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to re-state the Government's commitment to an open and collaborative approach on asylum matters. I thank the noble Lord also for the kind remarks which he made about what the Government have already done.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, my difficulty is in replying in the time available to me to all the questions which have been raised. First, I should like to deal with the present situation because in some ways, while we have all enjoyed the debate in relation to the review that is taking place, I am in some difficulty in replying to the questions raised because that review is still under way.
That study is part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. It is looking at the whole problem of delays, backlogs, costs, procedures at determination and appeal, the state of welfare provision and the problems of enforcement. I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the study is being done not just by the Home Office but by several of the government departments concerned with asylum seekers and refugees. The study team has been taking a wide range of views from both within and outside government, including from the Refugee Council and other asylum interest groups. The breadth and depth of the asylum study team's task has reflected our recognition at the outset of government that the asylum system we inherited was in need of radical overhaul, and I believe that is agreed by all noble Lords who have spoken.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the Government have been all too aware of the consequences that resulted from hasty, impulsive and half-baked attempts to solve the problems of asylum and immigration control which were employed by our predecessors. The sensible way forward had to be a measured careful and comprehensive study of the asylum process. That is what we are doing. The study which is one of several Home Office spending reviews has yet to finalise its work but hopes to do so in the near future. We shall then consider its findings very carefully.
I am sure that noble Lords will understand my difficulty in relation to that review because it covers many of the issues raised by noble Lords. I am afraid that I am not in a position to comment on the detail of a study which has yet to be finalised and considered.
However, I can say what the aims of the study are: first, the creation of a strategy for dealing with asylum and immigration which is responsible, properly thought out, comprehensive and enduring; secondly, the need to show a real commitment to protection issues, linking our asylum policy to a broad and active human rights agenda—and that is what has been called for this

783
evening; thirdly, the development of our strategy in an open, listening and consultative way on both policy and service issues, driving up standards and injecting a new responsiveness into the culture of decision-taking. In other words, what I am saying is that I hope there will be a sympathetic approach to this matter. I know that often there will he a demand for such an approach. There has been such a demand from the House tonight. All I can say is that the Government are giving it a high priority. Our response will be governed by the fundamental need to give protection to those who need it while dealing quickly and firmly with those who have no valid asylum claim.
As regards some of the improvements that are sought, and have been asked for tonight, we need quicker decisions, both initially and on appeal, and we need to be open in our consideration. Delays are bad enough in themselves but are worse when they leave the justified claimant in a limbo of anxiety and fear, as has been mentioned tonight. But quicker decisions on claims which have no validity are also important, not least because they clog up the system and hold up progress on the more deserving cases. That point was made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. The noble Lord asked me what number of cases are determined each year by each asylum case worker. I am afraid that depends on the individual circumstances of each case that is dealt with, not least because cases vary, although most of them are complex. I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
Other speakers have asked about benefits. We have inherited much of the present position with regard to benefits. We need an effective strategy which provides support for those who really need it, but yet at the same time does not encourage abuse and which makes sense in relation to the wider provision of accommodation. We have to find the right solution, but I am afraid that will take some time. This, again, is a key priority for the study team and for the Government.
Before I respond to individual points that have been made, I shall refer to progress that we have made on other issues. We have abolished the primary purpose rule which had been the cause of so much suffering. We have also introduced an unmarried partners concession which will benefit those in longstanding relationships. Following the Chahal case we set up a proper review structure for deportation cases. We have also introduced a Bill which will give further effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights. These are early days but we are considering other matters in relation to the comprehensive review.
I have already referred to the matters that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. As far as I am able in the time available to me, I shall also respond to other points made by other speakers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon asked about attitudes in relation to asylum seekers. We are bound by, and apply, the United Nations convention in relation to this. All asylum seekers are carefully considered against the criteria set by the convention relating to the status of refugees. When an asylum applicant does not meet the
784
convention criteria for recognition as a refugee, consideration is given to any humanitarian factors which may justify the grant of leave to remain in the UK.
The right reverend Prelate also asked about the port of entry. No port asylum seeker will he interviewed in connection with an asylum claim unless he has signed a declaration to confirm that he is feeling well; that he is ready to answer questions; that he is happy to be interviewed in a specific language; and that he understands the interviewing officer or the interpreter. We are trying to ensure that that is carried out at the port of entry. As the right reverend Prelate said, many of the refugees are in a state of shock at that time. We are trying to ensure that people are not interviewed unless they agree to take part in an interview.
The right reverend Prelate also asked about the Romanys. We have taken the view that the Czech and Slovak republics—I agree with the point he made—in common with other countries in eastern Europe do encounter discrimination and harassment from some elements of the community. However, we consider that, where there is no evidence that that attitude is generally endemic or condoned by the authorities of the country concerned, the applicant should seek the protection of those authorities rather than international protection.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As usual, he made an extremely witty speech. He dealt sympathetically with the position of refugees and called for many of the provisions which I hope will be covered in the review being undertaken. As I said earlier, the matter will not be considered merely by the Home Office but by quite a number of departments.
As I am sure the noble Earl will agree, this country has a long and honourable tradition of accepting refugees. But it also has a responsibility to protect the integrity of its immigration control against those who would seek to abuse it. We need to achieve that balance. I am hopeful that, when we have considered the review, we shall have the "joined up" policy for which the noble Earl asked in relation to it.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked me a number of questions. In regard to the abuse of Campsfield House, the report and recommendations are awaited. Full consideration will be given to all the points made once we have received the review and once it has been published.
The noble Earl also asked about detention. The initial decision to detain is always taken at a level no lower than chief immigration officer. It is subsequently reviewed regularly and at an increasingly senior level within the Immigration Service. As I said, the reasons are explained orally to detainees in a language that they understand, with an interpreter present if necessary. The desirability of an independent review of the decision to detain was referred to, as was the provision of written reasons for initial detention. Ministers are currently considering the recommendations drawn up following wide consultation. So again, I hope the noble Earl will accept that the matter is being examined under the terms of the full review.

785
In relation to the issue of bail, we have to re-examine the advantages that occur. But it is true that in many cases in which bail is granted it does not work very well. Again, that matter is being examined in relation to the review.
The noble Earl asked how many children are detained and pointed out the undesirability of detaining children. My information is that at 12th February no persons were detained under Immigration Service powers who were accepted by immigration as accompanied minors. There is always a difficulty in ascertaining a person's exact age, but that is the information I have received. In relation to Algeria and Iraq, all asylum applications are carefully considered against the criteria set out in the United Nations convention. The "white list" and other provisions under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 are all being reviewed as part of the examination of asylum procedures.
I now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I wish to belatedly thank him for the help that he gave to me in relation to land disposal, and I was grateful to him at the time. Today he asked me several questions on statistics. Those I have are that in 1997 only 11 per cent. of initial decisions were to recognise the applicant as a refugee and grant asylum; 9 per cent. were refused asylum but granted exceptional leave, while 80 per cent. were refused outright. The noble Lord also asked me about the rate of appeals. In 1997 special adjudicators determined 21,090 appeals. Provisional information indicates that only 5 per cent. were allowed and
786
approximately 85 per cent. were dismissed. The rest were either withdrawn or referred back to the Home Office.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about the applications outstanding. As at 31st December 1997, 51,795 applications were outstanding, which compared with 57,405 a year earlier.
I thank everyone who has taken part. I wish we had known the full results of the review and studies that have taken place and that I could say a little more in relation to all the points raised. If I have not replied to any Peers, I shall of course write with the necessary information, so far as I can. I stress again that at the end of the review we look to provide a service which is open. That is a significant part of the initiative to make the Government, in relation to this as to many other issues, more responsive and accountable.

Audit Commission Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with an amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill ordered to be printed as amended.

Tyne Tunnels Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock.