Lords Sitting of 20 May 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock. (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Viscount Boyne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend a meeting of the Cabinet tomorrow, Thursday, 21st May, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Health Surveillance
2.32 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What medical and laboratory facilities are available in the United Kingdom to enable contractors using organophosphate sheep dips regularly to follow the health surveillance advice in the official leaflet Sheep Dipping, revised in December 1997.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive's medical inspectors will advise contractors about all aspects of health surveillance. In the rare event that blood or urine testing is thought necessary, occupational health physicians, GPs and suitably qualified nurses should be able to take the necessary samples. Analytical facilities are available in commercial laboratories and some hospitals.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Perhaps I may read to her the instructions given to sheep dipping contractors in the leaflet.
"Contractors using OP dips regularly should seek advice on health surveillance from a medical practitioner who is familiar with the risks of the process and understands the principles of health surveillance".
So far as I can ascertain, in the West Country there is not one GP, not one health authority and not one laboratory that understands what is required as regards cholinesterase blood testing and urine testing for metabolites. In fact, I understand that in the West Country they do not have facilities even for testing pregnant women's urine, let alone complicated tests like those.
1640
Is it not a cynical action on the part of those who compile the leaflets to cover their own backs by saying, "We have given instructions to contractors", when they have not informed the people who will be required to do the work on the ground?
Is the Minister further aware that in a Question for Written Answer that I asked, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, told me that all the people concerned "had been consulted"? It is clear that they had not. I ask the noble Baroness whether she will rectify the situation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for the opportunity to clarify the point. The term "medical practitioner" is used in leaflet AS29 to cover the range of experts capable of advising on health surveillance and biological monitoring. It includes HSE medical inspectors and occupational health physicians. Some GPs offer the service, but it is distinct from their normal GP work. I agree with the noble Countess that there is potential here for confusion. It has already been brought to HSE's attention and HSE will look again at the terminology when the leaflet is next revised.
We would not expect all GPs and health authorities to be knowledgeable about health surveillance in general or whether blood and urine testing for sampling is appropriate. Occupational health physicians and HSE medical inspectors are the people to approach.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that under successive governments the noble Countess has received a formidable collection of meaningless, evasive and entirely boring answers? Could the Minister now stir up in her department, and in other departments if necessary, some awareness of the fact that the noble Countess is right? She has raised the point again and again that there is real danger. Is it not time that a government took action?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise deeply to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, if the reply I gave appeared to be boring or evasive. I tried to answer the Question. The Government are listening to the voices of concern, in particular the valuable work done by the noble Countess on behalf of those affected. Alongside the advice and revision of advice to contractors and the need for absolute clarity raised in the noble Countess's Question, we are also carrying out a study via the Institute of Occupational Medicine. It is now in its third and final phase and the clinical examination of a group of subjects from the survey population is on schedule for completion by 1999. The Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists have formed a working group to advise on clinical management of patients with symptoms that may be attributable to chronic OP exposure.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in her first reply to the noble Countess, the Minister described blood or urine testing being required as a "rare event". Is it a rare event because it is rarely required, because it is rarely known to be required, or because the facilities are not available?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the facilities are available. It is true that biological

1641
monitoring through blood and urine specimen sampling is given less emphasis in the latest version. That is because we believe that it is extremely important that the controls and working practices are sufficient to avoid levels of exposure which would be affected in that way after the event of over-exposure.
It is easy to see that, if such controls are not in place, it is important to rectify the working practices. Health surveillance is intended to ensure that the problem does not arise in the first place. However, I repeat that the facilities are available for samples to be taken whenever the need arises.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Countess dealt with people, especially farmers. I know that the noble Countess also asked a Question for Written Answer at col. WA161 of Hansard for 10th February relating to people such as soldiers who served in the Gulf War. The Question asked then was not completely answered. The Minister says that the Government are listening, but it seems that it goes in one ear and out the other. Please may we have some action?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are taking action, as was outlined in the Question and Answer referred to by the noble Lord. We believe that it is extremely important that such subjects are monitored carefully in great detail. That is why we established a study group.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the leaflet which was the subject of the first Question would be revised the next time it was issued. If the leaflet is incorrect, should not a new leaflet be sent out immediately?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is not that the leaflet is incorrect; the issue is that the term "appropriate medical practitioner" is not absolutely clear. We want to ensure that people are aware that it is the occupational health officer who is the appropriate person to refer to in the event that there is a problem.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I might press the Minister a little further. With the dipping season upon us very shortly, 1999 is not much encouragement for those involved in the process of dipping sheep. I understand—I hope the noble Baroness will clarify this—that the recommendation is that the person concerned should have tests before, during and at the end of the season. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the primary and most important advice is not to undertake biological monitoring unless there is a suspicion that there is misuse of the materials. The primary concern of HSE is to make absolutely certain—the Question referred to contractors—that contractors have in place
1642
the proper procedures. Anything else is a follow-up when something has gone wrong. We believe that to be too late.

Artists on Low Incomes
2.41 p.m.
The Earl of Clancartyasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of welfare to work and other benefit and employment reforms, whether they intend to make special provision for the work of the artist, in particular those artists on low incomes who will not be able to continue their work unless they are given support to do so.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the objectives of our welfare reforms are to reduce poverty, welfare dependency and promote work. Those artists who are able to work will be provided with the support they need to obtain and sustain employment. Special provisions for the artists are not for the social security system. We seek to support artists in other ways: funds are distributed by the Arts Council; we set up the lottery-funded endowment for science, technology and the arts: we encourage a wide range of schemes between the private sector and the arts. That is positive help: welfare dependency is not.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Minister give some thought to the state funding what might be termed the cultural equivalent of "blue skies research": that is to say, the long-term work of some artists whose project is not itself commercial? Will the Government consider that, or will it mean in the end that all artistic cultural work will have to operate under a tyranny of commerce?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, all benefits for people on low or no income are available to artists in the same way as they are available to anyone else. If the artist is working on a project in the long term, in the expectation of payment, he or she could possibly claim family credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit, depending on his or her circumstances.
Young unemployed artists can also be given help to further their careers through the New Deal for young unemployed people. For example, artists could study on an arts-related course in full-time education or on a training option; they could follow the self-employment route of the employment option. In the main, artists can seek support from the various organisations I listed in my initial reply. The Government will support artists on long-term projects, but not necessarily on welfare.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I apologise for rising prematurely; if I am still premature, I shall sit down. Will my noble friend request the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to introduce droit de

1643
suite, which could do for the poverty-stricken artists what the public lending right has already done for the struggling author?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we covered that ground yesterday and I explained that the Government are consistent. They believe that the various support mechanisms for the arts, which I outlined in my reply, are more beneficial to the artists than the droit de suite.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in relation to the answer given a moment ago, will the noble Lord say how employment benefits interrelate with an artist working on a long-term piece of work who could be deemed not to be actively seeking employment?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the artist could be claiming jobseeker's allowance. People claiming jobseeker's allowance cannot expect to hold out indefinitely for a job. They have a period of up to 13 weeks during which they can restrict their availability and job search to the specific type of work in which they are interested. That can apply to artists in the same way as it applies to other people. If the artist's claim for jobseeker's allowance continues after the permitted period has elapsed, he should perhaps broaden his horizons and look for other types of work which will enable him to leave jobseeker's allowance more quickly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will my noble friend at the Dispatch Box tell us how the previous government dealt with this problem?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am afraid that that is not in my brief.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the noble Lord is in explaining mode, will he explain to me and the House how someone with a regular lump sum income can possibly obtain family credit?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, he can claim family credit if he can show that he is working on a long-term project where, though the income is irregular, he expects to receive it. It is also subject to other conditions.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an historical analysis? Does he feel that Leonardo da Vinci would have benefited from social security?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, social security was not invented in the time of Leonardo da Vinci. At that time, I suppose noble Lords opposite would consider it to have been privatised.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that in the past artists who have shown any potential have managed to find wealthy patrons to support them? Is there, in this day and age, a lack of wealthy patrons to support artists?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, there may be a lack of wealthy patrons. That is why the Government set up a
1644
number of schemes such as the National Endowment for the Arts, Science and Technology (NESTA) and the National Heritage Pairing Scheme. Schemes are also run by the Arts Council and local art associations to help artists who cannot find a sponsor.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister consider further the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which has considerable implications? Will he consider whether the 13 weeks own-occupation period under the Jobseekers Act might be applied flexibly in such situations? For example, it would not have protected Jane Austen during the period when five publishers refused the manuscript of Pride and Prejudice.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the department is flexible on these matters and I know that they take them into consideration.

Schools: Non-physical Games
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurstasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the encouragement in schools of non-physical games such as chess, "Go" and draughts.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, on his place in the House of Lords chess team. I hope that he and the team trounce the opposition on all occasions.
The Government recognise the educational value of games such as chess, "Go" and draughts and I very much welcome the opportunities which many schools provide for the pupils to take part in such activities. It is important that young people have access to a range of extra-curricula activities which cover sports, the arts and intellectual games and which enhance the broad and balanced education provided by the national curriculum.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that more or less encouraging reply. Given that the UK Children's Chess Championship currently attracts 35,000 children from over 1,000 schools, and the impressive competitive record of this country, will the Government consider building on those successes by treating chess and other mind sports as valid alternatives to traditional physical sports for children more temperamentally or physically suited to them, perhaps drawing on the successful model used in Holland?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am delighted to hear about the success of the national chess competition for children. As I said, it is important for children to have access to a range of extra-curricular activities which cover sport, the arts and intellectual games. There is no reason why children should not opt for chess instead of, say, football as an extra-curricular activity.

1645
But there can be no question of children opting out of lessons in physical education. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with that. It is a key to a child's health and fitness. It lays a valuable foundation in developing adult skills and will remain a compulsory national curriculum subject for all five to 16 year-olds. But after school hours and at lunch time lots of opportunities for chess would be very desirable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, could children be taught to play snakes and ladders so as to give them a better understanding of party politics?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I would first of all want to know which party represents the ladders and which party represents the snakes.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I understand chess and I understand draughts, but what is "Go"?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is a very good question. I was not entirely familiar with "Go" myself, although it does sound extremely exciting. I understand that it is a territorial board game which dates back several millennia and is thought to have originated in China. But I cannot say to what extent it is now being played by British school children.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, if the Government do recognise "Go", do they also recognise "passing go" or "not passing go"; in other words, by implication, do they recognise Monopoly as being an intellectual game?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have played a lot of Monopoly in my time, but I think I would rather prefer to see children learning to play Bridge. That is a really good mind game which develops critical thinking skills and is an enjoyable social activity. I had even wondered whether we ought to be introducing poker in schools, but perhaps that is a little dangerous. I should perhaps reveal that my grandmother played poker every afternoon of her adult life and made quite a lot of money out of it. So perhaps it is an example of an extra-curricular activity contributing to employability.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, as the captain of the House of Lords chess team, may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, achieved a brilliant win in the match against the Commons last week, the result of which is still being hotly disputed?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, I was not aware of that, but I hope that the outcome of the dispute is a victory for this House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that PE remains compulsory. As the national curriculum has been relaxed for art, PE and music, does it still remain compulsory?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, it still remains compulsory. The national curriculum has been relaxed
1646
for primary school children in order to ensure that our targets for numeracy and literacy should be met. But there is no way that primary schools should stop teaching all these other subjects. The QCA is advising on how a broad and balanced curriculum can be maintained while at the same time ensuring that we meet our very important targets for numeracy and literacy.

Education: Expenditure
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what amount expenditure on education in 1998–99 will exceed expenditure in 1996–97; and whether there will be a further significant increase in the following year.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we anticipate spending on education in the UK to rise by £2.6 billion between 1996–97 and 1998–99. This includes an additional £1 billion for schools recurrent, over and above the plans of the previous administration for 1998–99; and an additional £300 million for schools capital, part of the New Deal for Schools programme of £1.3 billion across the Parliament. A further £100 million for capital projects and education action zones was added in the March Budget. Expenditure for future years will be set following the Government's comprehensive spending review. When noble Lords see the outcome of the spending review they will clearly see our commitment to education.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will she confirm that her Answer means that the Government have already more than matched the yield of the 1p extra on income tax which the Liberals promised so frequently during the last election? Does her Answer also mean that the Government are demonstrating such commendable commitment to education as to mean that the previous government's contribution was grossly unsatisfactory? If I may say so, does that explain why the Opposition kept us here half the night in an example of belated remorse?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that it was nothing to do with belated remorse that kept us here until ten past three this morning. We were having an interesting debate in the Committee stage of the School Standards and Framework Bill. We cannot know what the Liberal Democrats would have spent on education. They have not been in government for rather a long time; neither are they very likely to be in government for a long time. So I think we have to take what they say with a pinch of salt. However, we know that they have often said that they would put an extra penny on income tax and put the proceeds towards education. One penny on income tax would raise £1.8 billion, which is

1647
only 70 per cent. of the increase we have delivered. In the first year alone we are doing £800 million better than that and we have not raised income tax rates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, spending as a percentage of GDP in 1996–97 was 4.9 per cent. Spending as a percentage of GDP on education in 1998–99 has fallen to 4.7 per cent. In the last 11 years of the previous government, spending on education was increased over all of that period by 2.7 per cent. in real terms per annum. Is it the Government's intention to sustain that level of increase in real terms per annum into the future, or even to better it?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, because of the comprehensive spending review, I cannot anticipate what spending on education or indeed on any other part of public expenditure will be in the future. But what I can say to the noble Baroness is that provision for local authority recurrent spending on schools rises by £1,017 million or 5.7 per cent. in cash, a real terms increase of 2.7 per cent. for this year; and provision for schools' capital rises by £320 million over the previous administration's plans for 1997–98, a 48 per cent. cash increase or a 44 per cent. increase in real terms, which I think compares very favourably with the record of the previous administration.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that it is slightly extraordinary that her Answer to the initial Question indicated in some way an attack on the Liberal Democrats, who shared the objective of the noble Baroness to improve education standards in this country? Does she agree, following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is true that the Government are spending a lower proportion of GDP in real terms on education than the previous government did? Will she accept that we will not achieve significant improvements in education unless the result of the spending review is the release of more money to the education sector?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course I want to see more money released to the education sector and I am delighted to have support for that from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope the noble Lord will convey his views on this to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are looking for support from anywhere we can find it.
My noble friend Lord Hardy asked me about the position in comparison with the Liberal Democrats. I gave what I thought was an accurate answer. We are £800 million further up the ladder of educational spending than we would have been after 1p on income tax—in the very unlikely event that there might have been a Liberal Democrat administration.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much additional expenditure will be devoted to raising standards in our schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. The standards fund will support a programme of £505 million, which is
1648
an increase of £200 million over the equivalent programme in 1997–98. Some key elements supported by the fund are £50 million for the National Literacy Strategy—I have already mentioned in Answer to an earlier Question the importance we attach to improving literacy; £22 million for reducing infant class sizes; £100 million for the National Grid for Learning—I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is very important that we introduce IT into our schools; £21 million for improving pupil attendance and behaviour; £2 million for work-related learning; and £20 million for school security.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in between today's two debates, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the G8 Summit. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that the discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and to questions for clarification.

Statute Law Repeals Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, on behalf of my noble kinsman Lord Lindsay, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 in respect of several fisheries. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Scotland Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Travel Expenses: Bicycle Allowance
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I rise with confidence to move this Motion. In January this year the SSRB recommended that a bicycle allowance be introduced for Members of both Houses. This allowance will apply to journeys for which Members can currently claim the motor mileage allowance or the reimbursement of fares. I am told that bicycle allowances are commonly available in the public sector to reimburse the cost of using bicycles on official business and they are becoming increasingly common in the private sector. Based on that, the SSRB concluded,
"It would be appropriate to introduce such an allowance for Members of both Houses".
The allowance is to be set at 6.2 pence per mile to be updated annually in line with increases in the RPI. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House approves the following proposals for the payment of a bicycle allowance to Lords in attending the House of Lords for the purpose of their parliamentary duties or in respect of journeys which they have undertaken by bicycle while on parliamentary duties within the United Kingdom—

(1) In respect of journeys commenced in the year starting with 1st April 1998, the allowance shall be paid at a rate of 6.2 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1998 has increased compared with the index for March 1997.

(2) For each subsequent year starting with 1st April, the rate shall be increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that,

(3) The rate shall be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny (with exactly one twentieth being rounded up).

(4) In this Resolution, the "retail price index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).—(Lord Richard.)

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very grateful—as I am sure the whole House is—for the Leader's limpid elucidation of the Motion before us. I wonder whether he can help me on two matters. The first is this: how do the authorities arrive at the figure of 6.2 pence per mile which, presumably, some authorities calculated as being the true cost of running a bicycle? Secondly, has the Leader of the House taken advantage of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on the Government's team to advise the House as to the proper procedure when calculating these expenses?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not know whether this is the right moment for another speaker to intervene before the Leader of the House replies. This order
1650
applies only to bicycles whereas some of us, when we grow old, may prefer to have tricycles. If so, and bearing in mind that a tricycle—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I too may ask a brief supplementary question? Members of this House who live in London cannot claim for travel to this House. Am I right in thinking that if we choose to ride our bicycles here we shall not be entitled to any of this cycling allowance?
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I wish to ask the Leader of the House a couple of questions on these proposals. First, does he intend to make personal use of this facility? I hope to give him some encouragement in that direction. Secondly, what are the public expenditure implications of this resolution? Thirdly, does he recall that those of us who were in the other place at one time entered into a scheme whereby a fleet of bicycles was kept in the Palace of Westminster? We paid £5 and we could take one of the bicycles home in the evening. I did that once, but never again because I thought that it was highly dangerous.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I totally agree with the last comment made by the noble Lord. The SSRB set the figure at 6.2 pence. I take no responsibility for how that figure was arrived at or what was taken into account in doing so.
In accordance with the well-known Interpretation Act, I am sure that in this case "bicycle" will include "tricycle". The answer to my noble friend's question is that for those who choose to use a bicycle this allowance will be in lieu of what Members could claim under the motor mileage allowance or the reimbursement of fares. That probably answers my noble friend's question, but not very helpfully. I believe that those were the only questions I was asked specifically. Finally, may I say that I have no personal interest whatever in this plan.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what evidence of the actual mileage has to be presented to Her Majesty's Treasury for reimbursement?
Lord Richard: My Lords, peers always claim on their honour. Mark you, if someone lives 20 miles out of London and claims that he is pedalling 500 miles each way, I suspect that someone's eyebrows will be raised at some stage. Subject to such an obvious and clear anomaly, naturally peers claim on their honour.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Information Technologies for International Development
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurstrose to call attention to the case for the promotion of information technologies, especially books, journals and electronic media, for the purposes of international development; and to move for Papers.

1651
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank all those who are speaking today. I should particularly like to say that if I emerge this afternoon without disaster, I shall owe a particular debt to the support and help of my noble colleague Lord Sandwich.
Secondly, I should declare an interest or two. I am a bookseller, and sit on the Export Group of the Booksellers' Association. I also sit on the British Council's Publishing Advisory Committee. My day job is to run the Library Supply division of John Smith & Son, in Glasgow, and I am a shareholder in the company, which has long been a supplier to ODA and DfID projects, and holds the world-wide contract to supply books and related materials to the libraries of the British Council.
I mention this in the particular context of information and development, because many of the council libraries are a shining example both of what can be achieved, and of the demand for it when it is achieved. The library in Bombay, which I visited last autumn, has a book stock of over 60,000 volumes, but shelves for only 35,000. It functions at all only because at least half the stock is permanently out on loan, but there is no difficulty in achieving that. I was in Addis Ababa a fortnight ago, and the picture in the council library there was extremely similar.
It is, however, fair to say that most specialist information centres in the developing world—whether libraries, resource centres, school book collections or multi-media or Internet access points—offer a depressing contrast. The main problem is that collections tend to be undermined by intermittent and fragmentary funding. In many cases, the same gross amount of money, applied more consistently, would work significantly better.
I phrased the subject of the debate to include both old and new technologies, to embody the delivery of information however it is packaged, and to recognise that different packages—a book, a CD Rom or an Internet connection—may be appropriate in different circumstances and different countries. Studies by the World Bank and other international institutions have shown that investment in literacy gives a higher return in terms of economic and social development than any other interventionist aid, but that is only a small part of the story.
In advanced countries, information technologies play an increasingly dominant role in underpinning projects of every type. This input has proved to be very cost-effective. The same has been found to apply in developing countries, when development projects have been supported by a strong information element. But there is a real risk of developing countries being left behind in the emerging information age where, increasingly, economic prosperity is based on access to knowledge. We are witnessing a widening north-south information gap, in both traditional and new media, with the result that the poorer developing countries may well be condemned to isolation and continuing poverty.
Information underpins large sections of the development process. Two key objectives were set out in the White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty,
1652
published last autumn. Important but quite ambitious targets were defined for both basic education and healthcare; and it is hard to see how these can be met without proper local training for the relevant professionals. In other words, effective vocational training sits at the heart of the delivery of these objectives. In education, this means access to textbooks and up-to-date learning resources. In medicine, if doctors and nurses become increasingly out of touch with new developments, the gap in health between the advanced and the developing world will inevitably continue to grow.
This crisis is a matter of concern to many governments and international agencies, particularly the World Bank, which has recently launched a major global initiative to invest in improving the participation of developing countries in the world information economy.
I am concerned that in the above mentioned White Paper, DfID hardly acknowledges this major issue. This is the more surprising given the undoubtedly leading position occupied by the British knowledge and information industries; not simply commercial publishers and distributors, but a wide range of charities and NGOs, many of them producing low-cost materials of great potential value. This seems to me to be an area where this country is particularly qualified to make a real and positive contribution to the development process. In this context, it would be helpful to know what role the Government see Britain playing in the process deriving from the Global Knowledge 97 conference in Toronto.
Historically, Britain had two structured programmes in this field; the Book Presentation Programme (BPP) and the Educational Low-Price Book Scheme (ELBS). Both have been abolished in recent years. I think other speakers may have something to say about ELBS; I am going to concentrate more on the functions previously performed by the BPP. In essence, this programme consisted of a substantial envelope which supported local information resources with modest bundles of money.
I am not critical of the abolition of the programme. It seemed like a good idea at the time. The idea was that information should be dealt with on a country-by-country basis, and built into local projects as appropriate. That seemed logical and consistent, and it is only with hindsight that I think that it was largely mistaken.
It turned out that the BPP refreshed parts of the information infrastructure that country programmes found it hard to reach. In particular, it helped to maintain the currency and quality of materials across a very wide range of institutions. Information collections degrade constantly. We have become worse at preventing this than we used to be. The reason is that aid in general—not specifically from DfID—has become more short term, more fashion conscious, more likely to be composed of large sums of money rather than small amounts. These can upgrade an information collection very effectively, but they cannot maintain it afterwards.

1653
As with diet, so with information; alternating surfeit and famine turns out to be much less good for one than the right amount every day.
I would not want to return to the BPP as it was. Life moves on, and we live in a very different world. But perhaps we should re-examine its strengths in the light of current needs and current technologies, broadening where appropriate, focusing where needed. Most access to information in poorer countries will inevitably be through collective facilities. Only a tiny élite will have individual access to sophisticated information tools in either the short or medium term. Therefore, it is vital to prevent the degradation of collective provision, and of libraries in particular.
I would therefore try to create a structure to look specifically at information management. It would be contracted to a project manager, and would need to control at least some of the funding going to information-based aid. It would have a specific brief to help to maintain the information resources necessary to meet the key priorities set out in the White Paper, particularly in basic education and health. To my mind, the advantages of this approach are as follows. First, money could be allocated in quite small packets without creating loads of small projects, and it would be easier to maintain modest levels of support in countries which happen not to be fashionable. Secondly, licensing is becoming a critical area in all the information technologies, and there will be significant cost advantages in avoiding fragmentation. Thirdly, innovation will be easier if considered as a function of the whole potential market.
Perhaps I may give two examples. First, on-demand publishing has grown into a significant business in the United States in recent years, and pilots have been run in other advanced countries, including Britain. In essence, the user—typically a student—receives a bound book comprising extracts from other publications, tailored to the particular requirements usually of a course. Only the bits needed are paid for and supplied. The final technology is old—a book—but the underlying transactions, dealing with printing and distribution rights, are mostly electronic.
It seems to me that this framework is eminently applicable to international development, and that it could utilise work already being done for domestic use. But I cannot see how it could possibly be developed except as part of a structured programme across a number of target countries.
Secondly, DfID has as a priority the encouragement of local publishing, particularly in Africa. I support this, though I am inclined to think that local distribution is actually more critical than local publishing. But there is no "African Books in Print". In fact, there is no "Indian Books in Print" either, although the English language publishing industry there is quite substantial. The creation of a systematic and effective way of collating and disseminating information about the product, which would have to be international, is in my view the single thing which would do most to develop these industries.
1654
At this point I would like to throw in a modest suggestion. I would have thought that an information management programme of the kind I have described would in many ways be a much better candidate for EU funding than programmes which have actually received such funding. Various problems have arisen to do with big EU projects in the area which are entirely Anglophone, but something like that would work just as well in Francophone or Hispanic libraries.
Finally, I should like to say a little about the ownership of books. They are the cheapest form of information and the most accessible in poor countries. They require no hardware. They are unlikely to be affected by the millennium bug. I have heard the view that, since book ownership is inevitably limited to the relatively well off in poor countries, encouraging it should not be a priority. I do not agree, and when the issue came up in a workshop at the London International Book Fair a couple of years ago the Africans present did not agree either. I think that we should try to do something to give others the choices we take for granted for ourselves and our children. ELBS undoubtedly addressed this issue. It might be useful if the Minister could elaborate a bit more on the Government's very welcome commitment to replace ELBS with something better made in this House on the 9th March. My view is that since a replacement based on producer subsidy is unlikely to find favour, a subsidy will need to be applied at point of purchase, unless the process is to be left to the market. I believe that last course would be very dangerous because the development of advanced world information systems, particularly the Internet, is pushing quite rapidly towards global pricing. It seems to me likely that publishers who are worried by the leakage into their core markets of cheap editions created for poorer countries, may withdraw those editions in future.
My favoured approach is a voucher scheme. Vouchers would be sold to customers and students in key disciplines at a subsidised price; say a £20 voucher for £10. They could be used to purchase information materials locally or by post from any registered supplier. Low-priced editions and Internet traders could naturally be included in the supply. The coupons would be redeemed at face value less a handling charge. The British Council already runs a scheme which administratively is almost identical to this, although without subsidy and for a different purpose. I do not believe that a voucher scheme should stand alone. It should operate alongside other initiatives. There is already a scheme to list and publicise existing low-price editions. There is probably scope for co-operation between DfID and ELST, the new sponsored text scheme that is currently being established. I mentioned on-demand publishing earlier.
To summarise, the relentless growth in importance within advanced societies of the old and new information technologies needs to be mirrored in developing countries. Without this they are likely to miss the opportunities available to them. We need to do more to ensure that the collections of information which already exist do not degrade into uselessness. We should try to help people to own at least the cheapest information materials.

1655
My Lords, I thank you for your patience during this opinionated gallop across the field and I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hardinge for having introduced this topical and wide-ranging debate. The noble Lord has spoken from his considerable experience and expertise as a book dealer, with both his domestic and international dealings. I admit that until recently I would have regarded myself as the classic technophobe, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I have become addicted to "surfing" the Internet. In the process, I have appreciated the huge potential for international development, particularly in education, by promoting this medium to developing countries.
The simple theme of my brief contribution to today's debate is that successful development cannot take place without information. The breathtaking developments in information technologies have provided enormous opportunities for international development; for instance, in trade, education and disaster relief. Like my noble friend Lord Sandwich, I intend to speak today purely on the two issues of the enhancement of education and the potential for dealing with disaster relief through the information technology developed over the past few years.
One of my major interests has been the dissemination of information through the audio-visual medium. Television has continued to develop as a pre-eminent communication. In developing countries, the increase in television ownership and hours spent watching television has been astonishing. Both BBC World Television and the BBC World Service have played a major role in disseminating information to many developing countries. I hope that the Government will continue to support the excellent work of the BBC World Service and consider giving some support to BBC World Television.
As president of the British charity Friends of Television Trust for the Environment, I know that TVE has for many years played a major role in pioneering the convergence of audio-visual communication systems with text in the form of journals; that is to say, we live in a world of video publishing with no borders between the written and spoken word. TVE has focused on highlighting social and environmental concerns to the global audience through the making of numerous programmes. One such programme is the "Hands On" series. Through BBC World Television and other broadcasters, the series has been shown in some 100 million homes around the world. These are five-minute reports which each week highlight successful examples of environmental and developmental entrepreneurship. Television and video are only the beginning. The audio is posted on the world-wide web and pulled down by community radio stations for re-broadcast. Each and every programme goes out with a programme back-up service to provide detailed information on the technology or enterprise featured. This service has been generously supported by the Department for International Development and British Petroleum.
1656
There has been much media coverage about bridging the gap between the information-rich and information-poor countries. Certainly, telecommunications is one of the first sectors targeted by developing countries in their efforts to climb the information ladder. Yet there are enormous differences in access to telecommunications around the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where I spent most of my life.
The World Telecom Development Conference in March this year sought to devise strategies and plans to redress the imbalance. It is a well-known fact that attempts to extend the Internet to the world's poorer countries have been hampered by their antiquated telephone systems. But, thankfully, some broadcasters are now developing technologies to provide fast and reliable Internet access to anyone in Africa, Asia and Latin America under the footprints of several satellites which should be launched by the millennium. There has been much media coverage concerning the bridging of this gap. I believe that at long last we can anticipate some positive results.
The scope for using information technologies, such as geographical information systems through satellite links, should speed up disaster relief. The charity Aid for Aid has been working with British Telecom Laboratories in Britain, experimenting with technology to establish fast data links to download the latest information obtained by satellites from disaster stricken areas. With a major disaster taking place roughly once every six weeks, digitised information could and should provide the key to ensure that there is a swift response.
The Information Society and Development Ministerial Conference, which was held in South Africa in 1996, considered how developing countries could be integrated into the emerging global information society. It highlighted the importance of extending information superhighways to developing countries and establishing a common way forward in promoting the information society. The private sector has played a major role in creating the global information society, but it is important that governments who want their countries to join the information society should not persist in putting barriers in place. The hope is that there will be a continual process of liberalisation in the telecommunications sector around the world.
In conclusion, against the background of Her Majesty's Government's stated commitment to promote the information superhighway and cutting-edge technologies, I hope that more support and emphasis will be given through our aid budget to promoting technical aid in a targeted manner, which I believe will be one of the most practical and cost-efficient options.
3.31 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I am pleased to take part in the debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, for introducing it. I come from a different background from the previous two speakers. It is the access to knowledge, rather than the content of books themselves, upon which I can offer the most comment.

1657
The debate splits neatly into three, starting with the promotion of information technologies. We have to look, as always, to the USA, for real promotion. It is only recently that the Secretary of Commerce, William Daley, has told us that he sees IT as responsible for 25 per cent. of real economic growth in the US over the past five years; that it represents 8 per cent. of US GDP; that declining prices in information technology have lowered inflation in the US by one full percentage point; that the US IT industry employs 7.4 million people; that pay in that sector is 60 per cent. above the private sector average; and that the IT sector continues to grow twice as fast as the rest of the economy. That is pretty good promotion.
I turn to the EU. Commissioner Bangemann has always believed that ICT created more jobs than it lost. Many other Commissioners did not agree with him, particularly the Commissioner for Social Affairs. Happily he has changed his mind, because on 16th February this year Commissioner Padraig Flynn told a conference that over 1 million multimedia-related new jobs were expected over the next 10 years; and that the EU software market is now growing at 10 per cent. per annum and producing 50,000 new jobs a year.
I turn specifically to the UK. There were a number of surveys in 1997. In particular, there was one by Motorola. They all basically say that that year only 45 per cent. of UK households had a PC and that only 10 per cent. of households had a modem connecting that PC to the Internet. That was supported by Oftel which, interestingly, went on to state that connections are now doubling every six months. I am not sure from where it got those statistics, but if it is so, we should by now have 20 per cent. of households connected to the Internet, which would be a vast improvement. There are also some McKinsey educational statistics which make interesting reading, but they have not yet reached me.
UK corporates have of course always had large networks. Financial services companies, banks, oil companies and superstores have had sophisticated global networks for some time now. So far as concerns the Internet, that could perhaps be summed up for the corporates in the comment that when the bandwidth doubles the Internet will become interesting.
Books, journals, and electronic media are not exactly my subject. The commercial leader that everyone quotes is Amazon.com, which has yearly increased the number of books advertised over the past several years, yearly increased its revenue from sales enormously, and has yet to make a profit. The good news for Amazon has been that the banks have carried the credit risk. The bad news has been, and still is, that it cannot actually produce just one global list because copyright restrictions cause it to have different lists in each country.
A couple of electronic journal providers talked to the All-Party Internet Group the other day. They explained that 1 million UK registered users read the Electronic Telegraph, and that its owners are working hard to try to provide more personalised content, so that each reader can have access to an increased number of
1658
subjects in which he is interested. That applies also to a journal called Football 365 which has personalised dynamic comment on football with particular emphasis on the team that one happens to follow. Incidentally, 30 per cent. of its readership is abroad.
I turn now to the international development side of this debate. It is well said that there is a direct relationship between a country's wealth and its telecoms network. I once had a large number of statistics on this. I do not have any modern ones, but in 1994 China had nine telephones per 1,000 people; India had seven; Indonesia eight; Bangladesh two; and Vietnam one. Since then, we have read many times how the central government in India, whether the present or the previous one—they have changed several times—have awarded telecoms contracts to this vendor or that only to have the local states cancel those contracts. Of course industry is using satellite, but whether industry's use of satellite will extend access to books in the way I take it the Motion seeks to obtain is less certain.
We then have mobile telephones. Mobiles are, of course, increasing. I am not sure what is the cost of a mobile compared to that of a fixed line, but I suspect that it is higher. I am told that worldwide earnings from mobiles today represent 25 per cent. of total earnings, and that it is predicted that by 2000 they will represent one-third of total telecoms earnings. They are growing fast.
As we have heard, satellites are coming into play. There are eight new consortia gearing up for future mobile-based international communications. Iridium already has 60 of its 66 satellites up and on station. It expects to start work in September this year. Iridium is gearing up for future mobile-based international communications. The problem is that the cost of a mobile phone from Iridium will start at $3,000, and an average long-distance call will be between $1 and $2 per minute. That may restrict the number of people, at any rate at the beginning of those satellite services, who can afford to take them. I am told that the developing countries are keen to have those services—200 mobile operators in 80 countries have signed up with Iridium—because they see it as much cheaper than developing a land-based fibre network.
What of the future? Will communications across the Third World grow fast? I do not know, but costs are key to growth. Internet growth is clearly inversely proportional to costs. The USA is the world leader and often there is not even a local charge. It is interesting that Stockholm is the European leader. It is the only city in the world that owns its own broadband fibre right across the city. It can therefore allow people to link in at very low costs. Today more homes around the world have television than have telephones. Interactive services, in particular cable, will reach a new group of people. So I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John, that interactive TV is likely to be a good way to reach more people.
What can Parliament do? It can give use of information and communications technology a much higher priority than at present. It should accept that it is people like us in Parliament who make or break the

1659
growth of information technology across the world, rather than the technology itself. We are trying to catch up with a people-related problem. Parliament could agree that it is unacceptable that the UK currently lies 10th out of 15 in the European competitiveness league table. That seems poor when one considers that ICT is directly related to improving competitiveness. It is time that we did something about that. Support for the need for the UK to be seen clearly as a leader, not just in Europe but around the world, is essential. Otherwise we shall end up being just a follower.
What action can the Government take to make Parliament more interested in lobbying for this important element in our competitiveness?
3.41 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am honoured to follow the example of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. I echo the last sentiment he expressed. I extend congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, on introducing the debate and on passing on his considerable experience in publishing, about which I hope we shall hear more in the future. I thank him, too, for his kind remarks.
We are all astonished by the power of ICT or IT, whether we discover it for ourselves, from our children, as often happens, or perceive it in others. I remember being surprised twice last summer: first, by finding my 15 year-old nephew doing his homework by browsing on the Internet; and, secondly, seeing a shepherd in remote rural Portugal speaking on a mobile phone—no doubt ordering his dinner! IT appears to touch and to benefit everyone. It combines speed and sophistication with necessity and, like education, we all hope that it will be available to all. But of course it will not. It will more likely enhance the power of the "haves" than empower the "have-nots". We should not delude ourselves too far in assuming that information technology, however useful, can ever become a universal basic human resource like shelter and piped water.
This Government are full of enthusiasm for information technology, and rightly so, partly because of its evident potential in schools, and partly because of the promises which Mr. Bill Gates made to the Prime Minister but on which I understand he has not yet delivered, perhaps because of his current difficulties. We are always hearing from Ministers that the world has become fast-track and that we have to move up a gear into the global information super highway.
Last week, at Chatham House, the Secretary of State, Clare Short, rightly drew attention to the opportunities of IT for developing countries and the power of the Indian software market in particular. There is a saying in India now, "Micro chips, not potato chips", which also reflects the new government's determination to continue with economic reform. All of that is welcome.
There is no doubt that India has seized the advantage in providing software services for many leading industrialised nations of which it is itself one. It is a very good example of global interdependence. But with a government in New Delhi which regards nuclear tests
1660
as a high priority, one wonders how their policies will match the needs of the small rice farmer and the young rickshaw driver starting out in business. It is a far cry from high-tech Bangalore to rural Tamil Nadu, or from westernised urban élites in Asia and Africa to the millions of poor who, despite legislation by their own governments, still have no access to school let alone new technology.
Figures from last year's Human Development Report on education imbalances show that even in India, with eight years so-called compulsory education, the female literacy rate is still only 36 per cent. In Mozambique and Gambia it is only 22 per cent. The figures for Internet users are one per 100,000 people in developing countries compared with 223 in industrialised countries. Of course the situation is improving all the time; the figures show that.
It is revealing to study figures kindly provided by the Library via the African Internet. They show that users in South Africa are now up to 600,000, or one person in 65. Egypt and Zimbabwe have 20,000 and 10,000 Internet users, or one user per 3,000 and 1,000 people, respectively. Most other African countries are below 2,000 users, well below the average of one user per 100,000 people.
Such figures suggest that those who benefit from IT already own cars, pukka houses and existing technology, especially telephones. If we are really trying to help the poor and illiterate in the poorest countries and fulfil the mandate of the International Development White Paper, it may be costly and time-consuming to develop elaborate IT systems within the aid budget when the same sums could have been spent on the relief of poverty. One wonders whether it can really be part of DfID strategy to develop such systems except as part of its own training and distance education programmes.
I know that the British Council and the DUD are looking seriously at this problem because of its philosophical dimension. ICT is an attractive runaway commitment which, through improved information systems, enhances the council's many important education purposes. At the same time, however, it could entice DfID away from its quite steep development targets. It would be helpful if the noble Lord in his reply could explain its role in sustainable development outside the formal sector of education. For instance, who owns, creates and edits the information? Is it appropriate for DfID staff to assist our exporters to improve communications and thus trade relations for our benefit? Or will they ensure that it is primarily for the country concerned?
How can we be sure that IT is not another form of exploitation, like the introduction of large-scale commercial cash crops leading to more dependence on imported technology which subsistence farmers have long resisted as a threat to their livelihood? Who will control the technology? How can we guarantee that it will not get into the wrong hands and become a form of oppression? I do not mean to sound like a Luddite, or dog-in-the-manger, because I am an admirer of IT and use it myself, but I also see problems ahead.

1661
In that context, I was interested in last week's pertinent question by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, about social exclusion from IT and the reassurance we heard from the Government and the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, that electronic commerce can be used to reduce social exclusion. I hope that we can hear that reassurance again today in the context of international development.
I need no persuasion so far as concerns school exchanges. From my time at Save the Children I know that learning across frontiers is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that both the British Council and several NGOs have developed successfully electronic links between schools at all levels of education. But we have not yet fully understood the true educational needs of the poorest. I know of a case in rural Afghanistan where a UN agency delivered heavy unwanted school furniture to a primary school and thus halved the space in which children were able to sit on the floor. In many parts of Asia you only sit on a chair when you have achieved a certain educational standard. We are still learning ourselves when it comes to appropriate education for others.
On the face of it, there are many forms of communications other than IT which need support and which help the poorest communities to identify problems and solutions. There are non-formal literacy classes, and night schools for adults and working children, such as I have seen in India and Bangladesh, where the priorities are often social as well as educational, helping to understand the ownership of land or to locate the source of advice and funding. There are many forms of oral communication used in health and education: posters, video, street theatre and puppets which are highly successful in urban and rural communities. Those will not be done away with in favour of one Internet user in the vicinity. Latin America has a strong tradition of communications of this kind. I am sure, however, that ways of adapting the new technology will be found.
In the sense that it assists the developmental process, I accept that IT, especially e-mail, is now a rapidly growing resource for NGOs and agencies. It is especially valuable to human rights agencies and those who belong to networks and hold electronic conferences. Provided it is properly financed, managed, backed up and serviced, as some noble Lords know in this place, computers should be seen as an efficient accounting, training and management tool.
Health and education professionals can use electronic media to enhance their own training and reflect new experience directly to students or beneficiaries, as they would anywhere in the world. In certain circumstances, such as video or radio, IT can be helpful in directly assisting projects in the field, for example, by providing educational resources and distance learning programmes which are valuable. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John, mentioned, the BBC World Service uses IT for its many English language teaching programmes.
1662
IT can directly help rural development. The Intermediate Technology Development Group, for example, is planning to strengthen the information systems of small-scale producers in Zimbabwe and local government offices in Peru through Internet training. Provided you know what you are looking for and, as has been mentioned, it is well-targeted, you can usually find technical information more efficiently on the net than anywhere else. Unlike most published media it will be updated regularly.
I repeat that these processes are to enhance agencies of sustainable development, not to assist sustainable development directly; to enable the helpers to help rather than empower the poor themselves. We should not forget that the aim of sustainable development is to give the poor opportunities which will release them from that dependence, not divide them from the rest of society with more inaccessible technology.
The Secretary of State said last week:
"In a world increasingly dominated by services, knowledge is increasingly a traded product. If knowledge can be disseminated more easily and more cheaply, location will be less important and if geography has dealt you a poor hand, this need not necessarily be a penalty".
There may be some ambiguity here about the purpose of international development if knowledge is primarily a traded commodity. Section 3 of the Government's latest departmental report on international development restates the universal primary education target by 2015. It records that 150 million primary age children do not attend school and over 900 adults—two thirds of them women—are illiterate.
I applaud the efforts of DID through the Commonwealth to promote distance education and increased access to information through normal channels. But I should also like to ask the noble Lord what steps the Government are taking, while exploring these new technologies, to ensure that the poor themselves benefit from and, where possible, choose for themselves the information they will acquire.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, for introducing this important issue and speaking about it in such an authoritative way from his own direct experience.
I should say straightaway that I cannot speak in any authoritative way about information technology, having just emerged from the harrowing experience of my first lesson in a room upstairs on what is laughingly called a lap-top personal computer. But I have no doubt that the people of the developing world, the people of Africa, will be much more apt pupils in information technology than I am ever likely to be. I am sure that information technology has an important part to play in the development of international aid policy in the future.
On the whole, I share the broad balance of the argument put by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in regard to the place of information technology in overall international aid policy. There are two points I should like to make on these matters. One is of a general

1663
character about the background to international aid policy. The other is specifically about the role of English language text books in development aid policy.
My general point is to plead with the Government not to turn their governmental international aid policy into too much of a rigid dogma targeted narrowly on giving direct aid to the poorest people in the world. I use the phraseology of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, a Minister in the previous government.
The final aim of international aid policy is to relieve the poverty of the poorest people in the world, but the methods of doing that ought to be seen on a wide canvass. The World Bank has already been quoted as pointing out that to invest in literacy is probably one of the most effective forms of investment in the final development of economic and social welfare.
But in my view, the investment in literacy should be made on a broad and balanced educational front with many different aspects, of which information technology is no doubt a part. The illiteracy of the poorest children is one aspect, but the educational campaign must be seen on many levels. Certainly, for the foreseeable future, books are bound to continue to play a major role in that campaign. Nor is the educational element in overall aid policy to be seen in the widest possible way in terms of the groups that it affects. It must not only be seen as being directly related to economic and social development but should be for education in democracy and good governance. These forms of educational help to the poorer countries of the world are as important as direct education in the economic field.
I should perhaps declare an interest as a trustee of a charity which deals with the training of journalists in the third world and the countries emerging from the Soviet empire. The money that is devoted to providing help in training for democratic practices is extremely important. At times, one certainly has the impression that the Department for International Development sees things too narrowly, in a purely economic straitjacket, and does not see the wider considerations that I am seeking to argue.
We are in a fortunate position in this country in that English has become the world language of education. It is said that 800 million people around the world are either learning or are wanting to learn English. The role of the BBC in that has been mentioned and it is an important role. I have the impression—and I hope I am mistaken—that the Government sometimes feel quite defensive about that. I hope that the present Secretary of State, who has an admirable idealism in this matter, is not, as is sometimes reputed, holding the belief that to teach English is some kind of neo-colonialism. English is not a British language or a British possession. It is a world possession. But it is a very great asset from our point of view and we should make the most of it.
The other specific point that I wish to make is about the government-supported provision in relation to books for the third world. A long time ago, I was much involved in the parliamentary campaigns which led to the setting up of the ELBS. I do not believe that because a scheme has worked well it should be considered to be written in tablets of stone. I do not dissent from or
1664
dispute the fact that in March 1997, the previous government finally ended a book provision scheme which had, during its lifetime, done great service. It had run for over 30 years. It had enabled just under 1 million students per year in 54 developing countries to buy text books at one-fifth or one-third of the normal price. All that was at a cost to the taxpayer of about £1.3 million per annum. That was its record and now it has gone.
However, when the scheme was abolished, the former Secretary of State promised this House that long before it finally ceased it would be replaced by something better. That promise was not honoured by the previous administration and I am sorry to have to say that since coming to power a year ago, the new Government have given no indication of what will be the book provision policy or even whether they will have one. The Department for International Development has a working party on books and information which I very much welcome. The previous administration had a working party on those matters. In our debates before the general election, some of us raised the complaint that those working parties did not seem to work with very great dynamism and were not producing results, far less governmental decisions.
I hope that the present Government will not continue that practice. I hope we can hear from the Government—and perhaps from the Minister answering the debate today—that that working party will report quickly and that the Government have ideas about carrying those matters forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, mentioned some practical proposals; for example, a voucher scheme. I do not take a view about the merits of any of those, but I take a strong view from these Benches that the Government should be acting on those matters. The educational element of aid policy is vital. Although it has many different facets, the provision of low-cost books for students in the poorest countries of the world will remain an extremely important matter for many years ahead.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, has initiated a most interesting debate. He has quite rightly reminded us that books and journals are just as much a matter of technology as the computer, and certainly for my part, that is rather more comfortable technology. He spoke also with great knowledge and experience. He is an excellent example of the benefit which your Lordships' House can gain from people with real experience who represent the hereditary element in the working of this House.
He spoke, too, about the work of the British Council, again with real knowledge. I rather felt that, as its deputy chairman, I should be speaking about the work of the council. But, in a sense, there is little I can add to what he said other than to dot a few "i's" and cross a few "t's".
The noble Lord mentioned libraries and I make two points about those. First, the council's libraries are not there to gratify the needs of expatriate communities around the world. Nowadays, they tend to be reference libraries for technical and professional people. The

1665
libraries that I have visited around the world seem to me to be dominated by computer screens and the Internet just as much as they are by books and journals.
The latest figures that I have show that the British Council's libraries have 450,000 members who borrow 10 million books per year. Therefore, I suggest that the council's work lies at the heart of promoting international development through an up-to-date mixture of both new and old technologies.
This afternoon, I should like to draw attention to a rather different world of information technology. It is almost as old as the written word, which is what we have been talking about, and it, too, has been hugely impacted by the advent of the computer. Indeed, I would judge it to be even more impacted than the written word.
I want to talk about the effect of the computer on the world of maps and map-related information. I hope that my noble friend will accept that graphics and spatial representation come within the terms of his Motion. I hope, too, that he will accept that international development, to which his Motion refers, is much wider than third world development on which most speeches have tended to concentrate.
I am speaking about a rather specialised area. Nevertheless, it is an area of extremely wide application. It tends to be talked about under the shorthand of the initials GIS—geographic information systems. Briefly, it is the application of computers to the handling of data which has locational significance; that is, geographic information.
Simplistically, it could be described as computerised mapping, but it is much more than that. It is much more than the conventional data which we tend to expect to find on a map, important though that is. For example, it is estimated that 80 per cent. or so of statistical data which the Government collect routinely—and it is a huge array of data—has a locational or geographical significance. Just a few moments ago, I jotted down some aspects of that. For example, practically all socio-economic data become much more powerful if they can be related to place—population and demography, health, housing statistics, expenditure statistics, crime statistics; in the field of local authorities, planning and transport and the management of their estates; in the commercial field of marketing, warehouse location, factory location, shop location; the command and control systems of the police and emergency services; and in the whole world of utilities. I could go on, but I fear that I should bore your Lordships even though I have 14 minutes.
The paper map was of course a brilliant invention, but it has considerable limitations. You cannot put very many different types of information on a sheet of paper without it becoming extremely cluttered. Therefore, it becomes rather difficult to understand visually the relationships in space between many different kinds of data. Then again, there is the problem which all map users come up against, a kind of Murphy's law, that the area of our interest always seems to be in the corner of the map. It is said that battles always happen in the corner of a map. Then again, distances and especially areas are rather cumbersome to measure.
1666
Modern computer techniques have the ability to free us from all those constraints. It has been said that GIS is to geography and geographic analysis what the microscope was to the advancement of biology or the telescope to astronomy. The invention of a new instrument opens up a whole new world.
The potential of the computer in that area was first appreciated 30 years ago and the Ordnance Survey started experimental work about 25 years ago. The problem then—and indeed the problem until as recently as about 15 years ago—was that recording data in map form and in a way in which they could be usefully analysed consumed huge amounts of memory and processing computer power. The computer revolution in the 1980s and the 1990s, epitomised by the PC, has changed all that. It has completely changed the GIS world.
In 1982, the Select Committee on Science and Technology decided to take digital mapping and the related topic of remote sensing as a subject of inquiry. One of our recommendations was that the Government should set up a committee to look at the handling of geographic information because of the breadth and importance of the subject to government and more generally. A committee was in fact set up in 1985 under my chairmanship and we reported in 1987. We recognised then that GIS was a very important tool both because of its power and the breadth of its application. We therefore saw the need to promote it and hence to identify the barriers that needed to be overcome.
Last year, 10 years on, the Association for Geographic Information, which was established following our report and of which I have the honour to be president, organised a seminar to review progress. For example, the Ordnance Survey had, several years ahead of its already accelerated schedule, completed its main digitising programme. I believe that no other country in the world can claim that, and I pay tribute to an organisation which has transformed itself quite totally in recent years.
However, there was general agreement in our seminar that there remains a problem of poor awareness of the potential benefit from handling geographic information by these IT techniques—a lack of awareness in the private sector and in government both local and national. The latter is particularly important because, as I said, it is government who collect a huge amount of data, much of which remains unavailable publicly; and indeed, which would be extremely valuable. This lack of availability was one of our seven barriers and I regret that it remains so today. As someone said to me the other day, the technology is not the problem nowadays, the information is. The technology is available and affordable, but the information is not.
That leads me on to international development. I should like to begin by saying a few words about Europe. Britain has played a leading part in promoting both the survey side and the pure IT side mainly by way of professional associations. The European issues are somewhat similar to our domestic problems. For example: the problems of awareness and data availability, together with the need to foster good practice; and similar but more intractable problems of

1667
the need for standards and the harmonisation of data and attributes if we are seriously to talk about a single market. Then there is the need for, or the advantage to be gained from, fostering the development of the European GIS industry; an industry which is dominated by the US in regard to hardware and software but where, nevertheless, there is a huge further added value component.
I should like to encourage the Government to pursue these matters with the European Commission, especially through the current proposals which are called the GI2000 and the INFO2000 schemes. Nor should we forget that, in the European connection, the importance of both the old and the new technologies to the development of our eastern European sister countries, which we hope will shortly join the European Union.
I very much doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has been briefed on the applications of geographic information systems in the European Union. Perhaps they are a rather specialised topic. I certainly do not expect him to reply today in any full sense. However, perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to draw my points to the attention of his colleague in government, who I suspect may be Mr. Nick Raynsford at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
More relevant, I suspect, to the noble Lord, and indeed to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, would be the importance of maps and the new technology in the third world and its development. In the post-war world, the Directorate of Overseas Surveys did a staggering job in mapping the Commonwealth and our colonies through our aid programmes. That work has now been wound down, but new problems which require new maps and the use of GIS are emerging. For example, the huge growth of urbanisation and the poor quality of much of the housing and infrastructure. One simply cannot develop housing and city infrastructure without maps and the use of the new technologies. One cannot eradicate poverty without decent housing, water, electricity supplies and streets. There is, therefore, a significant requirement for relevant IT programmes in our aid programmes. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred to GIS in terms of disaster relief, and so on.
The industry about which I have been speaking is estimated now to be worth, globally and world-wide, 14 billion dollars a year. As I said, it is dominated by the US in hardware and software, but I believe that we in the UK are second to none in the applications side and that there is great potential for it in international development, both first world and third world.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I approach this debate from the point of view of a person who uses computers to communicate with several countries, ranging from India to Colombia and including America; indeed, all over the place. My purposes are for business development—in other words, small businesses which may expand into large businesses. At least one hopes that that will be so. I believe that that is a practical way to help people, countries or development. It also helps
1668
me because it diversifies outside this country and also out of Europe. Indeed, one never knows what will happen in the future. However, that is perhaps a different point when considering international development.
One needs to disseminate information widely. One also needs to disseminate training, as well as business contacts, and thereby put people in touch with one another. The big advantage of using IT in that respect is that one can time-shift. One does not have to be awake at the same time as others. One can put out information, or whatever it is, on the Internet or through e-mail and receive answers. In fact, one can organise things much more easily. Moreover, as I hate writing letters, it is a very nice system because one does not need to be nearly so formal with e-mail, and that can be quite useful. However, it is possible to disseminate information very widely and swiftly and keep people up to date with developments. Indeed, the political developments in a country can affect what businesses are having to do there. They may have to adapt very rapidly. Alternatively, if one is trying to expand somewhere new, it can be quite tricky finding out what the real local issues are. To have people on the ground feeding one information quickly can be most useful, and it saves a fortune in telephone calls.
The disadvantage I find with the Internet as a whole—and I am really thinking mostly of that concept—is information overload. There are tonnes of knowledge out there; indeed, whatever you want to know, it is there. As people say, knowledge empowers people to do things. However, if there is too much knowledge available, how does one filter it down and find out exactly what is needed? The purpose is extremely important. It is all very well knowing lots of things, but, if one cannot apply that knowledge to anything one is not doing much good for humanity or perhaps for oneself.
Although everyone talks of the Internet being marvellous, I find it terribly slow. I often become most frustrated and give up, especially if I am getting sleepy, the hour is late, or the Americans have just come on line and the whole process has slowed down. I do not know whether it will get worse as intelligence agents start to use the system. Indeed, people will start instructing them to trawl the Internet for the information they want. That will give them even more of an information overload as regards their learning, and so on.
However, I shall leave the disadvantages of the Internet to one side. I am sure that, as usual, technology will rise to meet the challenge. It may not be great at present, but usually these things catch up with developments if there is a desire and a need to do so. The great advantage is the fact that one can communicate everywhere. Another advantage is that intellectual work can be carried out anywhere. Indeed, ideas suddenly have no frontiers, although some people may regard that as being dangerous because people can be communicating both on a personal and impersonal level worldwide.
Although some people say that the breaking of such barriers can be dangerous and question whether or not we should be filtering out information, and so on, it is

1669
just the same as radio. I am sure that people said the same thing about the BBC World Service. Even though some countries tried to stop it, one can never block out such developments entirely. But did that produce a revolution? No, it did not. Many people worry far too much about whether such things should be blocked.
I view information technology as a great opportunity for the free interchange of ideas. However, time must be available to apply oneself to it. I shall return to the theme of time. If the use of computer-based information technology to publish and disseminate information is to be promoted, it must be made easier. If I had not worked with computers since the mid-1970s writing software, I am not sure whether I would be on the Internet now. Every time my Internet service provider changes hands, I struggle for up to a month to get it to work again. It is amazing how difficult that can be. I know that I am not the only one who experiences problems. The fact is there are better things to do with one's time. It is all very well having this facility but one has to do something with it.
My noble friend Lord St. John made the important point that it is telecommunications that matter. Without a telecommunications channel, you cannot communicate. If telecommunications do not progress satisfactorily, that will undermine the growth of the Internet as a medium. The noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, referred to the bandwidth. This is not just a matter of learning; one has to know how to apply one's knowledge. Those who have to struggle with the technology will not have time to do other things. However, it is the "doers" who create wealth. Most of them feel the need to spend that wealth, and the wealth trickles down. I know that not everyone will agree with that. The Internet is not a perfect system, but then what is? I have never felt that the purpose of a speech is to fill the time provided. I shall allow others to make their contributions.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, for introducing this worthwhile debate. I wish to mention the work of the Computer Office in the House of Lords. The staff there do amazing work to bring noble Lords up-to-date with the technology. As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth pointed out earlier, he is only just gaining access to the world of computers and the Internet. One of the interesting aspects of information technology is its accessibility.
However, if one cannot access a computer, information technology must be viewed at a much more basic level; namely, at the level of books. I know that the subject of the debate is information technology, but in the context of the developing nations we need to consider the use of books. I realised how important books are when I was a backpacker in Africa. I spent a year travelling north from Zimbabwe. I gained some indication of the value placed on books when I finished the book that I had acquired in Harare and was seeking someone with whom to trade it. I came across someone who had two books. I swapped my book by Ben Elton
1670
for a book by Jeffrey Archer. I thought that was a ridiculously high price to pay—I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, was present earlier today—but I feel that I got the better of the deal because the other book on offer concerned the history of the Rolling Stones in which I had no interest at all. However, that was the choice on offer. For many people in the third world there is little choice.
As my party's spokesman on international development, I have had the opportunity to monitor many elections in sub-Saharan Africa. However, it is ridiculous to see a hereditary Peer monitoring democratic elections! I visited Malawi, Tanzania, South Africa and Mozambique. I gained a first-hand view of more village schools than I believe many people will see in their lifetime as most polling stations are situated in village schools. We all have our own view of what a school should look like. Many village schools in Africa are basically a shell. Most schools have a roof but they rarely have furniture. Many schools do not even have a concrete floor. A teacher told me that the school building was no longer used because of the problem of parasites entering children's feet in the school building. Many of the schools have one crumbling blackboard with chalk. Books are a rarity. Their value can be gauged by the care with which they are looked after. We must be aware of the importance of books in the developing world, particularly for people who live in rural areas. This problem of under-resourced education facilities will not go away. The failure of the G8 Summit to address the problem of international debt will result in many developing countries spending money to service their debts rather than spending that money on their education budgets. In many developing countries a lack of books means a lack of literacy. Development in its purest form must be linked to literacy. Without literacy there is no way to break the poverty cycle. The only way to reduce the high rate of population growth in many developing countries is through female literacy. In that way women can learn how to control the size of their families.
I hate to be seen as a Luddite with regard to information technology as I believe it is the way of the future, but if that technology is to become widespread a number of problems will have to be overcome. One of the problems is the cost of the hardware which is excessively expensive. This even poses problems for schools in developed countries if they wish to acquire a fully integrated system. One also needs a reliable supply of electricity. That is something we in this country take for granted, but it is a rarity in many African countries. In many African countries there is also a lack of telephone lines. I remember that I waited six months in Harare to be connected to a telephone line. Of course without a telephone line one has no access to the Internet.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, talked about making cheaper information technology available to the developing world. That will happen only when the developed world realises it has a responsibility to subsidise satellite link ups and cellular phone networks in Africa. Without such a subsidy it will be difficult to develop an integrated network there.

1671
One of the main access points to the Internet and IT is through the British Council. I have seen the on-line services in libraries in many parts of the world—in Africa, Pakistan and even Yemen. That has to be valuable. Although books are of great value, the lead given by the British Council in its work in many of the libraries around the world will mean that others go on-line. Those small pockets will develop, teaching more and more people how to use the technology.
I return to the concept of accessibility. There is a problem. Information technology is available in developing countries, but to very small groups of people. A gap is developing, not only north/south, but within developing countries between rich and poor. Those who have the money in developing countries have access to the Internet; whereas the vast proportion of the population do not.
We live in a shrinking world. One of the great values of information technology is that we are now able to look into areas about which we have received no information previously. I can point to one very real case. I do not believe that there would have been so much newspaper coverage of the situation in Sierra Leone had it not been for my noble friend Lord Avebury surfing the Sierra Leone website.
As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth pointed out, books are presently the bedrock of information technology in developing countries. Unlike computers, they rarely crash. If the Government are to meet their commitments to combat poverty set out in the White Paper, they are going to have to examine how to make books more widely available. I wish to put a question to the Minister which I hope this debate will lead him to answer. I declare an interest as a trustee of the body that produces educational low-priced sponsored texts, based on the old ELBS organisation. Does the Minister see a way of supplying funding in the short term to keep that organisation going? Until some of the texts that it is sponsoring are distributed, there is a cash shortage of between £50,000 and £100,000. That sounds a large amount of money; however, if it is provided, the ELST will possibly be able to supply books to many people in the developing world. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, for introducing this debate. It has been fascinating. I am universally impressed by the skills of the speakers. I hope that I might contribute to it—if only a little spice. I was particularly impressed by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, of the state of the British Council library in Bombay. I wish that we could say the same of our own Library here. Perhaps we can do something about exporting those vast shelves of unused books to people in the third people who would find a better use for them in the third world—though looking at some of the titles, perhaps they would prefer something else!
In spite of the many and diverse contributions to the debate, I wish to concentrate on the theme set by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge; namely, whether an
1672
approach should be taken centrally, by us or under our inspiration, to help provide the core educational book/computer information resource for those who will be involved in educating the educators.
If one looks at the central motivation of DfID, which is now focused on poverty elimination, one gets a good deal of leverage as to what can be done to improve health and education. That leverage is gained by examining what can be done to educate those who will be involved in improving health and education in those countries, and by providing them with the raw materials that they need—principally, information. It is an astonishingly effective way of applying money towards the objectives that DfID has set itself.
Unfortunately, in the White Paper, DfID has confined itself to examining particular ways of delivering help. It states that it wishes to focus on country-by-country plans. There is a trend against those projects which bring benefits in the long term and towards projects that have more immediate effect and more potential for headlines. The sort of projects referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, benefit from being run centrally.
If we are talking about providing a flexible resource so that libraries and colleges in the developing world can have access to the information that they need, we are talking these days about the considerable level of skill and knowledge that is required to help those institutions find their way to the information they need in the most effective and rapid fashion. We are looking at skills in the maintenance and design of computer systems that will not be common in the countries to which we are referring. We are looking at a wide understanding of what information is available, where it can be acquired, and where the best deals are to be found. Even farmers combine into co-operatives for these types of project. This sort of purchasing is much better done centrally.
I do not suppose that it is a task that DfID would wish to undertake itself. It would be best done by a commercial or semi-commercial contractor, depending on what form of project was proposed by the British Council. Whatever happens, there has to be a central project which is sold to the countries concerned. If the task is carried out on a country-by-country basis—as anyone who has talked to DfID in the field knows—that sort of project falls to the bottom of the pile. It never gets done: it is too small; it takes too much time; it is too specialist, and people in those countries do not know how to handle it. A central resource and central budget are required, for which local teams then compete. Then there is something to go for—because any local team wants to bring more resources into the country it is looking after, and the whole project will work that way round.
A project of this sort needs a base load. A project cannot be run to provide this sort of flexible information resource to a whole host of different educational establishments around the third world on the ad hoc basis that "perhaps someone will start it running somewhere". A base load has to be provided from day one in order to develop the systems and expertise and maintain them at a level which is useful. So the system must be centralised if it is going to work.

1673
All these debates suffer from having the Minister speaking last. One does not know what the Government will say about these matters and it is difficult to comment. However, I anticipate that the Minister will say no. He will say no in a nice way, in the way the Government always do—namely, by not saying yes. Anything other than a definite commitment has always meant no from a government, as one can see from the educational book scheme and others. Unless a definite commitment is made to go ahead and take action, it means that the idea is into the long grass and we shall never see it in operation.
The Minister will say no because this Government are interested in, and committed to, country-by-country attitudes. They will say no because the whole pattern in DfID's activities is that the long term is being left alone. Projects such as GIS surveys and pilot studies laying the foundations for good things that may come about five or 10 years down the road are being abandoned and down-played in the plans being made by DID. The pleasant little story about the difference between giving a man a fish and giving him a fishing rod is being forgotten, let alone expanding that idea to providing countries with fishing-rod makers or people to teach fishing rod makers, and the resources to help people teach fishing rod makers. That whole idea seems to be vanishing into the haze. The coming idea is that projects need to be immediate, have measurable effect in the short term, and be focused on the immediate elimination of poverty; the idea of achieving the same end more sustainably and structurally over the long term is going. The whole focus is on eliminating poverty in the short term, without examining the underlying structure.
For all the lip service that they pay to technology, the Government have no real understanding of it and no real interest in it either. In the course of the debate, the Minister's Back Benches have been all but empty. I am delighted to see that there is at least one representative temporarily adorning them. I am also glad to see the Bishop, not that Bishops need to have much interest in the Internet. Having a direct line to the Creator must be a very acceptable substitute.
The Minister must have felt very alone in the debate with no contribution or even interest from his Back Benches. That reflects what is at the heart of the Government: very little fundamental interest in international development or in technology. Any government who understood what technology and information were about would have made a little more effort to improve, for example, the provision of e-mail answers to Written Questions by Members of this House. It has taken them a year to continue to say no. It is totally disgraceful and I am sad to say that it reflects the answer we shall hear from the Minister. Perhaps I am wrong—I should be delighted if that were so, but the facts are against it.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke movingly about GIS and its benefits. But as I am sure the Minister knows, the amounts that will be spent by DfID on such projects are down this year, will be down next year and there are no plans to revive them.
1674
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke, in the voice which I am used to hearing from this Government, of the importance of immediate effects, of his worries about information technology and inappropriate development. I believe those attitudes shown by the Government are deeply misplaced. If the third world is to compete with us, they must have equal access to information. They cannot compete with us if they are kept in the dark. Germany and Japan did not revive after the last war by going back to 1916 technology and staying a generation or two behind; they took advantage of the devastation and their lack of current technology to leapfrog. That is what happened in the Far East and it is what the third world must look to do. It must not get stuck in the past.
I quite agree with what the noble Earl said; people must choose for themselves the information they wish to acquire. That is what the Internet is about; it is what modern technology is about. It is the kind of project which the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, talked about, enabling a library not just to subscribe for a row of dusty old journals for which it has occasional use, along the pattern of the Library of this House, but to be able to choose exactly what information it wants for the projects its people have in hand so that it spends the limited money it has much more effectively than it could on its own. That is the kind of benefit we would hope to achieve from a project of this kind. I should be totally delighted if the Government said, in regard to that benefit, that they also were interested in achieving it, but I should be very surprised.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at least I agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It has been a fascinating debate, probably more fascinating than many of us anticipated. I am deeply impressed by the varied expertise of noble Lords who are experts in both the new technologies and the old. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, he is just about transferring himself from one to the other. It has been an impressive debate.
I have, however, to take issue with the more strategic remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if I may put it that way. I do not believe that his analysis of the Government's approach on the elimination of poverty and development strategy is correct. The White Paper which was received a few months ago commits us clearly to the pursuit of internationally agreed targets that encompass not only poverty elimination but also economic well-being generally, human development, environmental sustainability and regeneration.
Those are broad-brush matters. It is a strategy which addresses many of the aspects of development, although it is true that we have a particular aim of reducing the poverty levels of the poorest in the world. None of those targets will be achieved unless we develop strong partnerships between western developed countries, the development agencies, the voluntary organisations and the private sector. Nor, as the debate has demonstrated, will they be achieved unless we all take advantage of the appropriate technologies at all levels of education and training, in particular to enhance learning by

1675
women, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, which has a profound social impact. Also, learning is important for children and young people. We must increase the general capacity of developing countries to develop their own specialist and professional skills.
In that respect, there are all the range of technologies that have been covered this afternoon: books, journals, the Internet, radio, television, computer technology. All have a significant part to play. We recognise in this House the need to strengthen and enlarge the role of technology.
At the same time, we must recognise that there are fundamental problems such as attaining basic literacy, providing minimal physical facilities and educating teachers to a reasonable level before those levels of technology can be most effectively deployed.
The worldwide advance in information and communication technologies must often seem a world apart for some countries which currently lack the basic infrastructure or resources, such as textbooks and basic learning materials. Nevertheless, the technological revolution is not only inescapable but also gives us enormous opportunities. The question is whether countries have the capacity within their education systems to adjust to change and develop equality of access to information technology without the gap between rich and poor widening.
It is ironic that new technology which has the potential to contribute to meeting all those needs and solving many problems in the developing countries could fall because of the lack of resources, infrastructure and trained personnel to benefit from them.
It is important to stress, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, the vital role education plays in the approach of DfID in both its national programme and multilateral programmes. In addition to emphasising country programmes, we have a strong thematic approach to education in the developing world. As has been promised for some time, the DfID will shortly be issuing 'a new policy paper on education policy and development. Noble Lords will have to wait until towards the end of the summer for it to appear, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will accept that it is not too far into the long grass for a vital programme.
In the meantime, I can record many of the areas in which DfID has already been engaged in education for the developing world. We have recently committed over £100 million to basic education projects in a number of countries such as India, Pakistan, Malawi, Zambia, South Africa and Guyana. However, the emphasis is not solely on basic education, it is also on the need for quality higher level education and skills training so that the developing countries develop an educated population providing indigenous professional workers: teachers, doctors, nurses, entrepreneurs and all other professionals. Those are essential if countries are to sustain growth or reverse the downward trend in their economic development and growth. Our partner countries increasingly identify those levels of education as areas where they need help.
1676
DfID is planning substantial education sector development programmes with countries such as Tanzania, Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Pakistan. The aim is to improve overall sectoral performance at every level of education. The programmes will address fundamental issues such as the basic provision of textbooks, learning materials, and access to new technology and teacher education. We see the programmes as helping countries develop their own policy frameworks for sustainable development and the achievement of economic growth. But many of them are expensive and complex programmes requiring careful planning in partnership with the recipient governments.
Even though we are looking at new ways to deliver our development assistance in a cost-effective way, we still maintain aspects of our tried and established programmes. For example, we aim to ensure that key individuals in the developing world can take advantage of UK academic expertise. Through the Higher Education Links Scheme, funded by DfID and managed on its behalf by the British Council, institutions and colleges in developing countries are "twinned" with higher education institutions in Britain.
Dt1D also supports a range of scholarship schemes aimed at enabling overseas students to study in the UK. That all contributes towards a central commitment to develop education, which approaches perhaps what lies behind the request of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we have a core approach to these matters.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, all emphasised the commitment to new technology which will be needed. We agree that the rapid changes in technology open up enormous opportunities whether in information technology, cable TV or telecommunications.
DfID has supported the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) since its establishment in 1988. Based in Vancouver its purpose is to create and widen access to opportunities for learning by promoting co-operation between universities, colleges and other educational institutions throughout the Commonwealth. It aims to strengthen member countries' capacities to develop the human resources required for their economic and social development. For example, in January this year COL hosted a meeting of education ministers from six southern African countries. The meeting resulted in substantive agreement on resource sharing between the six countries for a teacher training programme.
DfID is funding a number of studies through the Commonwealth of Learning to increase understanding of the problems of introducing new technologies and distance learning. These include a study in Ghana for an electronic library network and research programmes to look at the diffusion of appropriate technology. At CHOGM this year the Prime Minister announced a £500,000 project with COL to develop a new Commonwealth programme directed at literacy training for youth and adults, as well as skills enhancement for those teaching reading to children and others.
Through a UK NGO—Interaid—we are funding a pilot programme that will link schools in Birmingham and township schools in South Africa using the Internet.

1677
This provides an exciting example of how technology can help children and adults in less privileged schools and institutes of learning in the developing world.
There is also other, perhaps less new, but serious intermediate technology to be taken into account. A DfID-funded project in South Africa—ULWAZI—aims to deliver basic education for adults in a variety of South African languages by radio. Only two weeks ago, ULWAZI gained international recognition with a Sony Radio Award for its programme "The Last Voice", which was broadcast by the BBC World Service. That continues, as noble Lords have said, to perform a stalwart role in the whole field.
In the radio field, slightly further back, noble Lords will recall that we supported Trevor Bayliss's clockwork radio—a classic case of old wireless technology with new applications. Those studies and programmes are seen as building blocks towards a greater understanding towards the challenge and cost-effectiveness of new technology in developing countries.
In terms of TV, there is one type of information media that is available, if only on a communal basis, in most of the developing world. In relation to the use of video, more widely a number of training and education schemes are being supported by the department. A move towards interactive TV has a high potential for learning in those countries.
As regards the further development of telecoms, that has not featured largely in the aid programmes either of ourselves or of the EU. Primarily the transfer of telecoms technology is probably best achieved through the private sector. Nevertheless, telecoms and information technology that have access to the information technology that telecoms is bringing, can be highly beneficial. I understand the anxieties of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that it could develop into an exploitative and neo-colonial monopolistic dimension. But it is down to us in the West, in conjunction with the countries of the developing world, to use it creatively to reduce social exclusion and to provide expertise in order that developing countries can both make use of the technologies and begin to reduce costs.
One specific example in a still-high marginal cost area is the mobile phone. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, indicated, they are widely used in developing countries. That is primarily because of the non-existence or unreliable nature of fixed telephone communication systems. Were the costs relating to mobile phones to be reduced significantly, they could be a substantial new means of communicating information. The noble Earl referred also to the use of networks of e-mail in not only productive and enterprise structures, but also in the area of political development of human rights.
In all those areas, new technology is opening up new frontiers. It is part of DfID's commitment to ensure that the availability of new technologies is given access to the developing countries where we have all our programmes.
Probably one of the most fascinating contributions this afternoon was from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in relation to computer-based mapping techniques and
1678
the information presentation in graphic map form to which he was alluding. He is correct that I am not totally briefed in that area of technology. It seems to me that there are substantial potential developments in this area which we should pursue. It is important that progress is accurately monitored and much of that could be done by the kind of mapping techniques to which the noble Lord alludes. One area which has been drawn to my attention where we are already engaged in GIS monitoring projects is where the Natural Resources Institute, together with the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, are already working on a monitoring project in the health arena.
All of those exciting developments in new technology do not remove the vital importance of books and the basic achievement of literacy, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Thomson, Lord Hardinge and Lord Redesdale. There will always be a vital place in the scheme of things for the humble book. However, it is not always the cheapest form of communication these days and may decreasingly be the cheapest form of communication. Nevertheless, we rely very much on traditional means of communication through books and other printed material. Our country education programmes contain a substantial books element, such as allocating over £7 million to books provision in a primary education project in Kenya.
In the health sector, not only are we providing substantial back-up for literacy projects for women, but we are also supporting a medical textbook scheme with a specific priority focus in the health area. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will be interested to hear that we have just received a commission research report on getting books to children in Africa. That addresses the very problems identified by the noble Lord and I am happy to make copies available.
For many years the department have supported Book Aid International—formerly known as the Ranfurly Library Service—an organisation with a worldwide reputation for getting targeted supplies of books to those countries which need them most. Noble Lords may recall that on 23rd April the Prime Minister attended the World Book Day event at the Globe Theatre. On that same day, DfID announced an increase in our support for Book Aid International to £500,000 over the next three years.
The role of the British Council was alluded to in this area by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and we pay tribute to its role in continuing to provide books in many parts of the world. I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that neither my right honourable friend the Secretary of State nor myself have any difficulty whatever in recognising the importance of the English language in the whole transfer of information and education. It is a major advantage which this country has and one that we will pass on to other parts of the world.
Noble Lords have raised the question of the book presentation programme and the former ELBS. The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, indicated that he had changed his mind over the decision to close down the

1679
book presentation programme. Until 1989 it provided substantial quantities of books to institutions around the world. However, the general assessment at that time was that there was little point in maintaining a functional scheme when it was no longer in tune with the geographical and project-focused thrust of the aid programmes. It also proved difficult to manage cost effectively and in a targeted manner. There may be scope for a more limited BPP kind of programme targeted on particular institutions or individuals. However, we would not favour going back to the old scheme.
Likewise in relation to the ELBS, which was ended by the previous administration. I do not intend to go over those arguments. Its original purpose, which was to sell information books and to provide a limited pump-priming subsidy to publishers, was largely overtaken. When the ELBS closed down many noble Lords and others wanted to set up an alternative scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the ELST in this context. We would be prepared to consider any proposals which ELST or other such organisations put forward in terms of targeted books' provision. What we would not wish to go back to, however, is a general book subsidy. Therefore, I fear there is no question of DfID paying ELST a blanket subsidy for the provision of books because the analysis of the destination and receipt of those books tends to indicate that it is not those areas which most need them that receive the greatest benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, raised the question of a voucher scheme. Whereas I understand that such schemes could possibly target assistance to poorer individuals, they would require a very intensive form of local management. If such schemes are to work, it really is for the national governments at the recipient end to start developing them. We do not see a major role for a global voucher scheme in this sense.
As has been indicated by the whole tone of this debate, the challenge to educate and train large numbers of people in the developing world has never been as critical and necessary as it is now and nor have the opportunities which are presented by new technology been as substantial. All our development policies will be geared to the aim of improving sustainable development and the elimination of poverty. The opportunities that new technology can offer will play a very substantial part. We have learnt a great deal this afternoon from the contributions of noble Lords.
Finally, last year the Government produced their general White Paper on international development. We will shortly be producing an education policy document from DfID and that will be published later in the summer. That will take up many of the things that have been identified in the debate and will set our strategy on education within the agreed international goal of universal primary education which we are determined to achieve as a contribution towards the elimination of poverty and sustainable development in the third world.
This has been an interesting debate. I shall certainly consider many of the suggestions put forward by noble Lords and pass them on to my colleagues in government
1680
responsible for the international development programme. The debate has shown the House of Lords at a high level of expertise. My feeling is that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, thinks about the strategy from the Department for International Development, he is very much in tune with the approach we are taking to these problems.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, I cannot imagine how one could possibly sum up the debate. It is one of the characteristics of being in your Lordships' House that one speaks about something one thinks one knows about and there appear not just the world's 10 leading experts on that subject but on related subjects of which one has never even heard.
I should like to thank everyone who spoke. I have learnt a lot. As I am sure that something terrible will happen if I fail to withdraw my Motion for Papers, I beg leave to do so.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The G8 Summit
5.5 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the G8 Summit in Birmingham last weekend. Since they are relevant, the Statement will also touch on the EU/US Summit in London on Monday, and the WTO meeting which my right honourable friend attended yesterday in Geneva. The documents issued at these events have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Statement is as follows:
"I must start by warmly congratulating Birmingham on how it played its part as host. The city looked magnificent and the preparations impressed all the visiting leaders and their delegations. I should like to take this opportunity to make clear to the city council and the people of Birmingham my gratitude for all their efforts, and for their forbearance over any disruption the summit caused.
"After last year's Denver summit, I said that we hoped to make this year's summit smaller, more focused, more businesslike and less formal than some recent summits. I am pleased to report that these objectives were achieved. The new format proved so successful that Germany, which hosts next year's summit, has decided to follow suit.
"This was the first summit clearly for the whole G8, and I was particularly delighted that President Yeltsin was able to play a full part in our discussions.
"The Asian financial crisis of the past year put economic issues firmly back at the centre of the summit agenda. It is vital that we learn the lessons for the future. We must, as far as we can, prevent a repetition, and at least ensure that future warning signals can be seen by all at an earlier stage. We

1681
therefore endorsed a report from G7 Finance Ministers on strengthening the global financial system. This sets out concrete proposals for improving the transparency of the international financial system and national financial data; introducing codes of good practice with publicity for those who fall short; strengthening national financial systems to cope with global capital flows; and involving the private sector more closely in resolving these crises—effectively a set of international financial standards countries can sign up to as a way of rewarding good practice. We asked our Finance Ministers to seek rapid decisions in the appropriate fora and to report back to us without delay.
"We expressed our support for Japan's efforts to revitalise its economy, which will be essential for Asia's economy recovery, and welcomed the launch of EMU.
"We also discussed the wider implications of the Asia crisis, emphasising that economic reform can be soundly based only where political legitimacy exists. This requires political accountability and transparency too. In particular, we issued a message on the urgent need for political reform in Indonesia to accompany economic change. Events since have only served to confirm this.
"We unanimously condemned India's nuclear tests, urged restraint on neighbouring countries, and called on both India and Pakistan to adhere unconditionally to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Non-Proliferation Treaty. There was grave concern at the implication of India's action for international security and agreement that it had reduced India's standing in the world and her ability to play a central role.
"We delivered clear messages on the importance of maintaining momentum in the Middle East peace process, and ensuring a real dialogue in Kosovo that would lead to concrete measures to lower tension and stop violence.
"We devoted considerable time to the problems of developing countries, particularly those in Africa. We committed ourselves to reach the internationally agreed targets for reducing poverty, maintaining a substantial flow of aid and untying it wherever possible to make it more efficient. We supported the WHO 'rollback malaria' initiative, to which Britain will be contributing £60 million. The aim is to cut radically by 2010 the death rate from a disease which strikes above all the poor of the world.
"We also devoted considerable attention to the reduction of the burden of debt on the most heavily indebted poor countries. Birmingham marks a significant step forward in pursuit of this Government's policy of setting targets for the year 2000. In particular, the G8 are now signed up to the Mauritius Mandate target that all eligible highly indebted poor countries are at least in the debt relief process by the year 2000, and to granting interim relief where necessary. Particular attention will now be given to meeting the immediate needs of poor
1682
post-conflict countries, especially those in Africa. We also all agreed to forgive aid-related debt to reforming least developed countries—a step which Britain has already taken.
"We are not satisfied by these steps. I pay tribute to the Jubilee 2000 campaign and its dignified breaking the chain demonstration in Birmingham on Saturday. This is a vast and complex issue which cannot be solved overnight. And we have to mix realism with our idealism. For debt relief to be effective, recipient countries must be committed to policies which ensure the benefits reach the poor. But I am in no doubt that we must do more.
"Birmingham was notable for the extent of agreement on the environment agenda, including our common determination to make the Kyoto Agreement on Climate Change a reality through tough domestic action, developing international trading and other mechanisms, and drawing in the developing countries over time.
"Also on the economic side we discussed our national action plans to promote employability and inclusion; help the young and long-term unemployed; encourage entrepreneurs and make the tax and benefit system more employment friendly while promoting life-long learning. Here, too, there is a growing degree of consensus among the G8. None of us can be content while unemployment remains so high despite our relative prosperity.
"We discussed the growing threat of transnational crime as borders become more open and we all become more dependent on information technology. This requires ever closer co-operation between our governments and law enforcement agencies, including joint law enforcement action. The G8 have made real progress since the Lyon Summit two years ago, but we agreed new steps to make our fight against crime more effective. We endorsed a 10-point action plan on high-tech crime and an intensification of action against money laundering and financial crime. We underlined the increasing dangers of official corruption from the proceeds of crime, and the need for further action against trafficking in human beings, and the rising threat of the illegal firearms trade. A ministerial meeting in Moscow will pursue this further next year.
"We welcomed the forthcoming UN General Assembly special session on drugs and confirmed our determination to pursue a comprehensive strategy to tackle all aspects of the drug problem—production, transport and consumption.
"Finally, we discussed the huge challenge posed by the millennium bug and agreed on further action to ensure the right level of international awareness and preparedness. The UK is contributing £10 million to the World Bank Trust Fund to help developing countries tackle the problem.
"Immediately afterwards, President Clinton, Jacques Santer and I met in London for the six monthly EU-US Summit. Our discussions focused on two key issues: resolving our long-standing

1683
differences over US sanctions on Iran, Libya, and Cuba, and launching a new transatlantic trade initiative.
"Negotiations on the serious problems of extra-territorial jurisdiction raised by the Helms-Burton and Iran-Libya Sanctions Acts have been going on for over a year. The US Administration are now committed to waivers for EU companies under the two Acts and will resist attempts by Congress to push through similar legislation in the future. At the same time, we reaffirmed our joint commitment to counter proliferation and terrorism. As a result our companies can now invest with far greater predictability while we have reinforced EU-US co-operation against unacceptable policies. This was a major step forward.
"These agreements also paved the way for a major new EU-US trade initiative, the Transatlantic Economic Partnership, to remove remaining barriers to trade across the Atlantic and provide more effective co-operation in developing the world trading system.
"Yesterday I was in Geneva for the 50th anniversary of GATT to make clear Britain's continued championing of the cause of free trade. We must continue to resist protectionism, not least in the wake of the Asian economic crisis. A major challenge we face is to manage the movement towards free trade so that all can participate and benefit. Developing countries must be able to take full advantage of the opportunities. I was therefore pleased to announce 10 million dollars of technical assistance to help these countries prepare.
"Finally, I should mention the support I found both in Birmingham and Geneva for the Northern Ireland Agreement. The goodwill towards the people of Northern Ireland was remarkable and heartwarming. They confirmed that stability and peace in Northern Ireland have every chance of being reinforced by a boom in investment and prosperity from around the world.
"It is important that Britain plays a strong, international role in support of sound economic and political policies throughout the world, as a champion of free trade and in the fight against international crime. I believe that the summits contributed to these goals and that the results were good for Britain and for other countries. I commend them to this House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I believe that the good sense of waiting until today before reporting the results of the G8 Summit enabled the noble Lord to show how integral to the overall scheme of things were the other two summits which the Statement touched on and how sensible it is to take the three together.
1684
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I express a degree of disappointment about the results of the G8. We had hoped for something perhaps a little more substantial. Sadly, I am bound to say that they turn out to be a little thin, to say the least.
As always, I have taken to heart the noble Lord's advice to me and, more particularly, to the whole House, when our roles were reversed before the last election. If memory serves me right, he always advised the House to refer to the communiqué rather than to the Statement which the Government produce in the wake of any of these great international events. I have to say to the noble Lord that I am beginning to find that advice more than usually good.
There are a number of aspects which we greatly welcome in all three of the results. I take first the subject of economic growth and trade liberalisation. I hope that we can all agree with the emphasis placed on these important matters. Freeing trade and reducing business regulation are perhaps the single greatest engine to increased prosperity worldwide. Is the Leader of the House aware that we welcome the strong commitment of the G8 to continue trade and investment liberalisation? Does he accept that while the Prime Minister and President Clinton have said that free trade with the United States is firmly on the agenda of both the United Kingdom and the European Union, that aim does not ring true from the pages of the final communiqué of the G8 nor indeed from European Union declarations?
Will the Leader of the House agree with the view that we have expressed on this side of the House that the nations of the European Union have a particular duty to set an example to the world in not erecting new barriers to trade, in opening up the frontiers of Europe to the east and in reaching out for new free trade agreements across the world, and indeed in refraining from threatening protectionist measures against the Union's own members if they happen to disagree with some of the measures being proposed?
The EU-US talks have important ramifications in that context. We greatly welcome what the Statement says about the Helms-Burton Act and indeed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Acts. But can the Leader of the House tell us what specific goals and target dates have been set for concluding detailed agreements on free trade between the European Union and the United States? Many thousands of jobs would result from progress here. Indeed, does the noble Lord agree that that would be one of the best routes to the second declared aim of the G8 Summit of job creation? Can he tell us whether the Government have now accepted without reservation the view that we on this side of the House have long argued, and which the success of the United States and United Kingdom economies in job creation demonstrate, namely, that deregulating and reducing bureaucracy create jobs? Does the noble Lord also agree that jobs are not created purely by the frankly absurd idea of government action plans, even if those plans are given capital letters? Does he accept that jobs are created by individuals and businesses working hard in a free environment, free from unnecessary burdens and interference, and with flexible labour markets?

1685
I hope that the noble Lord will also agree that if most of us had promised an action plan to help new businesses and the unemployed, unlike the Government we would not be taking through this House a Bill to impose a minimum wage—something that the Bank of England declared again recently will destroy jobs. Nor, if we had made the thoroughly desirable pledge at G8 to make the tax system more job-friendly, would we have introduced a Budget that will tax billions of pounds out of British industry, parts of which are now sliding into recession.
On the very important question of debt relief, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the enthusiasm that my right honourable friend Mr. Clarke and my noble friend Lady Chalker showed in the past was greatly to be welcomed and that in some ways it has shown us the way forward in this area. I am glad that this matter is being taken seriously. The communiqué mentions the importance of strong national institutions for countries which at the moment are labouring under a great burden of debt. Will the noble Lord recognise that strong institutions, powerfully reformed administrations and the resolution of conflicts—all of which are referred to in the communiqué—must be present in those countries if debt relief is not to have diametrically the opposite effect to that intended? Further, was much said about debt for equity substitution programmes?
On the question of malaria, we greatly welcome the contribution to the "rollback malaria" initiative.
The G8 communiqué also refers to the question of nuclear power plants. Is the Leader of the House satisfied that paragraph 10 of the communiqué gives quite enough weight to the dangers of Soviet-designed nuclear power stations which, as we know, are scattered all over Eurasia? I wonder whether the worrying question which they present for all of us should not be driven far higher up the international agenda than it is apparently at the moment.
On the question of non-proliferation, I understand that G8 members can, as the communiqué suggests, strengthen their own controls over proliferation. However, does the noble Lord feel that the G8 has quite enough influence over other countries which may be potentially far more guilty than the G8 countries in this respect? Is there anything that the noble Lord can do to increase our understanding of what G8 members feel that they can do to increase their influence over such countries?
As I said, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It is inevitable that such meetings should not be wholly conclusive, but I am bound to say that this meeting seems to have left an unusually large number of questions in the air and perhaps wholly unanswered.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating in this House the Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister. Like, I am sure, the whole House, I particularly welcomed the reminder towards the end of the Statement that there was a
1686
widespread expression of good will at both Birmingham and Geneva for the Northern Ireland Agreement. We all hope that that will make a contribution to a successful outcome in the referendum, without in any way acknowledging (if that was thought to be the case) that the G8 was in a position to interfere.
It is, however, difficult to be enthusiastic about the outcome of the summit unless the initial expectations were low. It is yet another case, of which there are so many, of a communiqué being agreed in advance and requiring no amendment as a result of the weekend. The dominant note was discussion and good intentions, not decisions or action plans—whatever doubts the noble Viscount may legitimately have about them. That was never more so than in relation to world debt.
I wonder what will be remembered about this weekend. I am inclined to think that it will be the pop concert, the day spent in the countryside at a stately home, President Clinton in a Birmingham pub and President Clinton teaching the Prime Minister to play golf—all good fun, good for Birmingham, but making very little difference to the world.
It must be said that even on the subjects of the Indian nuclear tests and of Indonesia, there is nothing in the communiqué which could not have been anticipated. There is certainly nothing significant in it about the environment. The communiqué does not take the argument forward one little bit.
However, I realise that it is necessary to be realistic about summits. They are accompanied by a great deal of hype and perhaps if we recognise their limitations we can acknowledge modest achievements from modest objectives. First, we can all welcome what was a more focused summit than some. It will be good news if that form is continued in the future. Secondly, in so far as the summit was meant to be low key, perhaps it is churlish to complain if it succeeded in being exactly that. Thirdly, all of us with experience of conferences of all kinds acknowledge that much that is said in the bilaterals and at the margins of conferences is just as important as what is said under the spotlight in the main plenary sessions. There is always a great advantage in discussions between the President of the United States, ourselves, and our partners in the European Union. Fourthly—I say this with all the qualifications that I have already expressed—I think it is possible to welcome the communiqué so far as it goes, although that is not very far.
If I am wrong about what will be remembered about the Birmingham G8, the real test is whether it has helped us to see how to prevent the poor of the world becoming poorer as the rich become richer. That is the central economic question which the G8 and all of us must face. I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could summarise in a sentence how far he really believes that the weekend summit at Birmingham and the two subsequent events have contributed to that.
Looking back at the G8 Summit—it used to be the G7—I wonder whether it is not time to turn back the clock a little and consider what the G7 was originally meant to be. It was meant to be a meeting of minds on strategic economic questions. There are all sorts of ways

1687
in which world leaders can exchange views and negotiate with each other from time to time, but the original purpose of the G7 summit was to consider the large, central, strategic economic questions, including dealing with third-world debt and helping to prevent the poor getting poorer. Will the noble Lord reflect for a moment on whether we need to return to an even more focused G8 which will consider the central economic questions in a way in which no other gathering could?
5.28 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord for their welcome for large parts of the Statement. It was not an unqualified welcome—indeed, it was a somewhat disappointed response from the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, and a somewhat detailed welcome from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Nevertheless, they welcomed the Statement.
One should not have any illusions about what a summit such as the G8 is and what it is not. It is not an executive body taking decisions. It is a forum within which the leaders of the eight economically most powerful countries in the world can meet, exchange views and get to know each other. We believe that from that have emerged some reasonably positive conclusions. It is no secret that as to some the Government were somewhat disappointed.
I turn to some of the more detailed questions that have been put. The noble Viscount asked whether there had been any discussion of debt for equity. I do not know the answer to that. I cannot find the answer in the communiqué. As the noble Viscount will be aware, one of the problems of repeating a Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place is that he was party to the negotiations and knows exactly whether or not debt for equity was discussed. I shall endeavour to find out. If I discover anything significant I shall write to the noble Viscount.
As to US-EU trade negotiations, on many occasions we have expressed our strong support for WTO and multilateral liberalisation. That is spelt out in reasonably forthright terms in paragraph 5 of the communiqué. The US-EU trade negotiations are bound to be complex and I do not believe that there is a target date. However, we believe that it is a priority to conclude them as soon as we reasonably can.
A question was asked about paragraph 10 and Russian nuclear reactors. Formerly, G7 did a great deal of work on nuclear safety in that particular region. Under G8 the work will continue. This is high on the G8 agenda. The United Kingdom contributed 17 million dollars to the Chernobyl fund to make the sarcophagus safe. So far I believe that a total of 384 million dollars has been raised for that purpose. Although there is still some way to go, I believe that that demonstrates the G8's commitment to it. I do not share the view expressed as to the tentativeness of paragraph 10 of the communiqué.
Debt was a matter raised by both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord. I believe that that was the major disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. The Government have consistently pursued steps to increase
1688
and speed up the debt relief available for heavily indebted countries. I pay tribute to members of the previous government who also pursued that policy. At Birmingham we persuaded our G8 colleagues to make two important commitments: first, to bring as many as possible of the highly indebted poor countries (HIPCs) into the process of debt relief by the year 2000. The Mauritius Mandate target is that 15 of the 20 eligible countries should be in the process by the year 2000. The second new and important commitment was to facilitate debt relief for post-conflict countries such as Rwanda. Both of those are significant and important steps.
However, one should not forget that over the past three years the official creditors of the Paris Club have forgiven 8 billion dollars, more than 5 billion dollars of that going to Africa. Six countries have already qualified under the HIPC initiative for debt relief totalling a further 5.6 billion dollars, of which 650 million dollars has already been received by Uganda. In addition, G8 members deliver some 10 billion dollars per year to HIPCs in development assistance. Therefore, a good deal is going on. I do not disguise from the House, just as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has not disguised from the House of Commons this afternoon, that we would have liked further steps to be taken. The Government will continue to pursue that policy with the vigour that we can and, it is hoped, with continued success.
On the whole, the summit responded positively to the view of the thousands who went to Birmingham to demonstrate their support for debt relief. There is perhaps a slight tendency to understate the importance of the concessions then made. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, almost suggested—not quite—that the G8 should go back in effect to a nice fireside chat when the leaders of the world met together to discuss economic strategy and nothing else. I do not agree. This is a summit at which views are exchanged and leaders get to know each other. I do not believe that it would be very helpful for it to turn into a glorified executive body which took decisions justified on the basis that they represented in the same room 60 per cent. of the world's GDP. I am not in favour of that. It must be structured and focused in order for it to produce reasonable results; it is not enough that they should merely meet.
My summing up of the summit is that it was moderately successful and useful; some progress, but not sufficient, was made on debt.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the Leader of the House in quoting from the communiqué stated that the G8 members had unanimously condemned the actions of India on nuclear testing. His noble friend sitting on his left made a Statement last week in the House that this was the first of three opportunities that the Government would have to try to ensure some focus on this particular problem. Possibly this is the most significant problem that the world has faced since the Gulf War. The Leader of the House went on to say that the G8 was not an executive body and therefore no executive action could follow. Therefore, exactly what happened to the condemnation of India? In reality what does that mean

1689
to the Indian Government who so far have shrugged their shoulders at the world's comments on their actions?
Lord Richard: My Lords, it means that the leaders of the G8 countries expressed a unanimous and concerted view about the fact that India carried out these tests. It was quite important that those eight countries should be unanimous in their strong condemnation of the tests and their desire to see India adhere unconditionally to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United Kingdom has recalled its High Commissioner. It was agreed by G8 that each member should use its own contacts and take its own steps to achieve the end in which all were in favour; namely, to persuade the Indian Government to adhere to those two treaties. That shall be done in whatever way each country believes to be the most effective. Within the EU the matter is to be discussed by the General Affairs Council on 25th May. In both the World Bank and IMF we shall work for a common approach with other shareholders. The G8 members also collectively and individually agreed to urge Pakistan to show restraint and avoid a further escalation of the arms race in the region. In our view and in the view of G8 Pakistan has more to gain from restraint than from testing.
I believe that this is a considerable garnering of international opinion. To understate it by saying that G8 did not impose sanctions on India or take some other dramatic decision at Birmingham is to downgrade it somewhat. After all, these are very powerful countries all moving in the same direction. They are condemning India for its previous actions and trying to persuade it to sign the treaties. If I were the Indian Government I would listen hard to what that group of countries was saying.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, in repeating the Prime Minister's Statement my noble friend referred to the importance of international crime. I would have thought that that would meet the criteria of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in that crime is a matter of strategic international importance. My noble friend referred to the meeting in Moscow in July which is to look at this issue. Can my noble friend go further and say in the most general terms what kinds of agreements and practical actions he hopes will emerge from the meeting in Moscow to combat international crime?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go very much further than I have. I have described the discussions that took place at the G8, and the type of areas in which it is hoped that international discussion and co-ordination may continue to bring benefits. The follow-up meeting will be held next year in Moscow. I do not think that I can take that further.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, I apologise for arriving a few seconds after the Leader of the House began the Statement. In the course of the G8
1690
Summit was there any discussion on Japan—the subject of a short debate in your Lordships' House last night—and, if so, was there any discussion of the current economic crisis in Japan? Did the other leaders offer to their Japanese colleague their encouragement and support in his avowed but somewhat shaky intent to reform radically Japanese corporate institutions and its banking and financial systems?
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course Japan was there. One should not forget that. So to a large extent the discussion took place with the Japanese Government being present. The G8 expressed its support for the Japanese Government's efforts to revitalise their economy, which everyone recognises is essential for Asian economic recovery itself. To that extent, there was discussion. I am afraid that I do not know whether it got as far as looking at the details of the Japanese Government's plans for reforming their corporate financial institutions. There was some discussion of Japan, particularly, as I understand it, in the context of the Japanese position in relation to the rest of Asia.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, will the noble Lord be more forthcoming about the rather disappointing progress on the relief-of-debt-servicing costs on the poorest countries? Like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, he openly accepted that things did not go as far as he hoped they would. It is a subject which has been of great concern to successive governments back to the time at least of my noble friend Lord Lawson. In the past, there have been fundamental differences of principle in the approach of different leading nations as to how that issue should be addressed. In the G8 discussions were some of those differences of principle narrowed, which enabled the 2000 commitment to be made, or did difficulties arise in the practical implementation? It would be helpful to know. If the noble Lord can enlighten us more about that, it might help us to form a judgment as to how much progress is likely to be made by 2000.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is impossible to know what progress is likely to be made by 2000. Before the G8 met at Birmingham, I think that most people felt that it would not make the progress that it did. I accept that there is not unanimity of approach. Certain countries take a more restrictive view than do the UK Government. Their concerns are obvious ones. They are concerned about money, and they have the more legitimate concern—I am not downgrading money, but in the context of the argument I am saying that it is more legitimate—that it is important that whatever steps are taken, the benefits go to the poor in the country, and that the institutions in the relieved countries are capable of handling it. So, yes, there was a difference of approach. My impression—I, of course, was not there—is that the division between those countries which were more restrictive and those which were less restrictive is somewhat less stark now

1691
than it was a few years ago. At least the Government are persuaded that it is worthwhile continuing to push in that area, and that we propose to do.

Civil Aviation
5.44 p.m.
Lord Mountevansrose to call attention to Britain's civil aviation industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a pleasure to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. On the one hand, we are commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift, which did a great deal to kickstart the recovery of Britain's aviation industry after the war; on the other, we can celebrate one of Britain's great success stories—our airline and airport industries. It is a celebration which, since the battles over privatisation, has been largely bi-partisan.
I have no interests to declare, but I express my gratitude to the organisations which have advised me. In concentrating on airports and airlines, I should not wish to overlook the importance of Aerospace, the helicopter industry, general aviation, consultancy, aviation insurance, or aviation brokerage. All those have played their part.
I shall commence by highlighting how far the industry has travelled. I recently came across a 1955 BEA advertisement, offering, in all, 15 services a week to Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm—all using "the wonderful Viscount", and with return tourist fares ranging from £39 to £51 in old money. Given the cosy pool system of those days, SAS probably offered an older plane, but probably had the same frequency and fares and same capacity. Today each of the two carriers offers five or six flights a day to Copenhagen alone. The aeroplanes are between two and five times bigger than those being used in 1955. There are four other scheduled carriers as well as low-cost airlines and provincial routes. The lowest fares in today's money range from £99 to Stockholm to £116 to Oslo.
If one considers inflation which has aggregated 52 per cent. since 1988 alone, airport departure tax, security costs, the costs of new technology and other charges, one concludes that air travel prices have fallen so steeply that what was the privilege for the few has become the facility of the many. In more general terms, CAA figures suggest that air passenger numbers rose by over 800 per cent. between 1966 and 1997 and air traffic movements rose by some 300 per cent. during the same period.
In developing my airline topic, I should explain that I have gone for the concept of airlines, as the old scheduled carriers begat the charter companies—BA gave birth to British Airtours and SAS gave birth to Scanair—the charter companies then changed their nature by going into the "seats only" business. That in turn led to growing demand, creating opportunities for the low-cost airlines.
While there is much to celebrate, there are also problems. The first is air passenger duty. The tax was introduced in 1994 at a rate of £5 for domestic and
1692
European departures and £10 for journeys beyond Europe. It was doubled in 1997. Research by the Council for Travel and Tourism, British Airways, and the CAA suggests that there are already negative impacts upon our tourism industry—an industry which generates 11 per cent. of our jobs and nearly 12 per cent. of our GDP. At the initial rate, the CTT study carried out by Deloittes showed some 250,000 visitors switching from Britain, with a consequent loss of £180 million in foreign exchange.
At first sight those figures seem surprisingly high, but not if one reduces them to 25 visitors spending £18,000. The study showed also that Exchequer earnings would show a consequential fall. The figures were expected to double with the doubling of the tax, and they underline its negative impact.
Another negative impact is that of the low-cost operators where the tax can amount to as much as 35 per cent. of the fare paid by the customer. I hope that ADP increases, tempting though they are, will be resisted at all costs by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I turn now to the prospect of an aviation fuel tax—an environmental opportunity, some might say; a transport disaster I would argue. If the tax were on a domestic basis, it would harm our internal services as passengers would find it advantageous to switch transfer journeys to foreign airports and thus to foreign carriers—via Edinburgh, Schipol or Kennedy rather than London. Our airports would suffer as a by-product. Were the tax to be on an EU basis, it would penalise our short haul airlines while allowing the long haul carriers the facility of bunkering beyond the EU jurisdiction. If it were levied on a global basis everyone would suffer.
Whichever way, I oppose yet another tax on a thriving industry. I oppose it especially on behalf of British operators because they, uniquely among our transport modes, cover all their infrastructure costs.
I wish now to turn to the US bilateral negotiations—Beyond Bermuda 2. At the outset, I hope that they can be decoupled from discussions about the BA/AA alliance. Rather, we should concentrate on our strength in the US-Europe market. We have almost 40 per cent. of the traffic, and in BA and Virgin Atlantic the first and third biggest European players. Nothing should be allowed to reduce that dominance; rather, we should seek to develop it.
We should insist on the right to operate US internal services. Our carriers should be unshackled from that restraint on their commercial freedoms. I hope that the Government will press for such removal. Similarly, I hope that they will press for the removal of the US restriction on ownership. Under EC rules, US interests can own up to 49 per cent. of a UK airline, but British interests can own only 25 per cent. of the voting stock of an American company.
The Government can go even further by attacking the "Fly America" policy which insists that all travel on US government service must be by US carrier. The policy goes further as regards freight and, specifically, mail. US carriers can bid for GPO contracts, and do so to

1693
the advantage of us all. But our carriers are denied the reciprocal privilege. It is a great opportunity for the Government.
Lastly in terms of Beyond Bermuda 2 and of transatlantic traffic, we enjoy one overriding advantage. Heathrow is the hive to which all US bees aspire. If it is to become trade goods we must sell its status dearly.
Further from the airline point of view, there are hidden subsidies which Brussels allows European governments to use to bail out their ailing state airlines. They are airlines which are victims of our success. Between 1991 and 1996 there were nine instances, each of which was to be the absolute last chance. But Air France has had three rescues; Iberia has had two; and Olympic, Sabina and Alitalia have had one each. In total, those rescues cost £6.1 billion at October 1997 rates of exchange, which included a strong pound. Over half went to Air France which competes with several of our airlines on the London-Paris route, the most competitive in Europe. But while our carriers are competing, and satisfying the tensions between shareholder requirement and customer satisfaction, Air France is simply wallowing. I hope that the Government will tackle Brussels on the issue.
Both our airlines and our airports will suffer heavily from the abolition of duty-free concessions, in particular our regional airports since their traffic is so heavily EU oriented. I find yesterday's decision in Brussels very hard to stomach. The base premise for abolition—the single market—simply does not exist. Instead we have, for example, 13 different VAT rates on spirits among the 15 member states. Seven have no excise duty on wine, while the other eight each have different duties. That is hardly fiscal harmonisation. How do we explain to the public the abolition of a benign and enjoyable perk with a turnover of around £4 billion and the potential to lose 147,000 jobs in manufacture, distribution and retail were the perk to be abolished, whereas were it to continue, one could look to produce 30,000 additional jobs?
How does that square with a Europe committed to job creation and regional development as well as to enhanced regional links? Links will instead be distorted against airlines. Although the ferry companies are suffering the same withdrawal of concessions, especially on the Channel, they will continue to benefit from the duty-paid traffic, another example of the collapse of fiscal harmony. All our airlines and airports will suffer. The scotch industry will suffer. So will the family holiday and the low cost carrier. It is a dreadful decision.
Regardless of ownership, our airports see other opportunities for action. The planning system must be re-examined, if only as a pillar in an integrated transport policy. Our preoccupation with planning minutiae, environmental and social issues, seems uniquely British. Terminal 5 now has the longest planning inquiry on record. Our European competitors in Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Madrid and Athens must be rubbing their hands with glee as they get on with their expansions.
More locally, many of our regional colleagues look for greater integration into local planning guidance structure and unitary development plans. They seek an
1694
easing of financial regimes so as to develop their core businesses and transport access links, thus contributing to an integrated transport policy as bus, heavy rail and light rail do at Manchester following the quite exceptionally admirable work done by BA at Heathrow in respect of proposed rail accesses, extended rail accesses, wider rail accesses and coach integration. They have many opportunities. Let us try to lift some of the restraints.
I have a number of topics under the heading any other business. The alliance between BA and AA is worth a debate in itself. I hope that it comes to pass.
Air traffic control is important. Great progress has been made in improving European flows, but more needs to be done. Our own ATC system is among the best and safest in the world but one must be concerned about Swanwick and in particular any delays which may arise from the audit of management and software problems. I hope that the Minister will join the ATC unions in denying the scare stories that were circulated in this context, and will be able to give us some idea when operations will commence.
One would like to see national air traffic services given more financial freedom. There is the problem of runway capacity in the south-east. RUKATSE—I think that it was issued in 1994—and the subsequent Select Committee report are gathering dust. There are concerns about the safety of foreign companies flying charters for British tour operators. There are concerns about slots at Heathrow. And there are the long-awaited integrated transport proposals. Dare I ask the noble Baroness when we shall hear them? I beg to move for Papers.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the speakers who will follow are competent to discuss the civil aviation industry from a number of aspects: that of management, and from their broad experience. I wish to bring to the House my experience from a consumer's point of view. At the end of the day, that should be the overriding imperative of any airline: to serve the interests of the consumer.
I recently travelled on a long-distance flight. Four days later I was diagnosed as having a deep-vein thrombosis. That brought me into contact with a number of situations. I discussed my circumstances with colleagues in this House. They advised that I should have done this, that or the other. I profess that I was ignorant. Every previous flight had been a joy and a pleasure; and I pay the highest tribute to the competitiveness and the vigour of British airlines and tour operators. What happened to me, and the publicity that followed, caused a number of people to write to me. They told me of their own experiences and I should like to share some of those with the House. Dr. Dale Egerton wrote,
"my wife, Ann, suffered a major pulmonary embolus whilst disembarking from a British Airways flight from Cape Town, in February; she was very lucky to survive. I enclose a copy of the letter which I sent to British Airways, giving a summary of the incident. As yet, I have not received a reply".

1695
The letter sent to British Airways was dated 17th February. By 8th May no reply had been received. When I read Dr. Egerton's letter it seemed to me that he knew what he was talking about. The letter continues,
"It seems that air-travel is an obvious predisposing factor to blood clot formation, but I believe the risk could be greatly reduced, if not totally eliminated, if passengers were given appropriate advice (which is currently given to the crew). The advice I would give is as follows:
—Avoid dehydration. A lot of water and very little alcohol should be taken throughout the flight.
—Frequent movement. The legs should be able to move freely and often, with short walks every hour.
—Take Aspirin, providing there are no contra-indications, e.g. a passenger with a known gastric ulcer.
—Do not take sleeping pills as this reduces movement.
—In addition to the advice above, I think airlines could also do a lot more themselves to help reduce the risk of blood clots developing in passengers:
—Increase the leg-room in all classes, for all seats.
—Encourage passengers to drink a lot of fluids, not alcohol.
—Discourage from sleeping for long periods, instead walk around for a few minutes or exercise the legs often.
—Keep the cabin temperature at a constant comfortable level.
—Ensure that an adequate number of oxygen bags are used to keep the oxygen levels within normal limits".
I thought to myself that it would be a marvellous service if it was somebody's responsibility—perhaps a government department, the CAA, the airlines—for such simple, cogent advice to be given to airline passengers, provided it is validated. I am not a doctor, but that advice seems to be common sense. Perhaps all passengers, not only those on long flights, could be given some general advice on simple measures to be taken to avoid health problems. I am indebted to Dr. Dale Egerton for writing to me.
In the Daily Telegraph on 18th April a lengthy article appeared with the headline:
"Blood clots linked to air travel: Can flying damage your health? A new study finds strong evidence".
Before my own experience I may well have just turned the page and not been interested. The article relies heavily on Mr. John Scurr, a senior consultant in the Department of Vascular Surgery at Middlesex and University College Hospitals. He said that the results of the research referred to in the article came as no surprise to him. The article reads as follows:
"Researchers examined 134 patients who developed blood clots, known as deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), and found that 33 had travelled by air for four or more hours within the past month. A further 33 had been on lengthy car, train or boat journeys.
Symptoms usually appeared within four days after the flight but some were up to 31 days later. In 50 per cent. of cases the condition is fatal".
I shall select other extracts from the same article:
"Cramped seating in many airlines' economy class has also been blamed, but Mr. Scurr says his patients have included business-class passengers.
"He treats more than 400 people a year who have clots, and estimates that 25 per cent. have flown in the month before becoming ill.
"European Union statistics indicate that 90,000 people a year in Britain develop DVT but Mr. Scurr believes the true figure is much higher. 'It is nearer one million, with a significant percentage due to air travel'".
1696
I cannot validate any of that but it is the view of somebody who seems to know what he is talking about. I believe that the airlines should take what has been said very seriously.
A company called NZ Health Products Ltd. of South Woodford in London wrote to me:
"We were very sorry to hear of your ill-health whilst flying recently. We have long advocated the dangers of blood clots forming during long flights and have mentioned this specifically in our brochure. We have pleasure enclosing a sample of Jet Ease, the unique vitamin food supplement from New Zealand".
I know nothing of this product but from the knowing winks and nudges from the Benches opposite noble Lords have obviously formed a view as to the basis of this leaflet entitled,
"Travel Tips. Techniques on how to stay healthy when flying".
I wish somebody had drawn that leaflet to my attention before my flight.
Mr. Thomas of 61 Lime Tree Avenue, Rugby, wrote to me:
"Referring to your reference to DVT in the Telegraph today, I can tell you that not very long ago, surgeons when operating would often strap the patient's feet to a very simple machine based on an electric motor and a reciprocating paddle which would "pedal" the feet slowly twenty to thirty times per minute and thus prevent the pooling of blood in the leg veins and thus avoid thrombosis. A similar effect can be obtained on aircraft by consciously flexing the ankles up and down at least every 15 minutes for 15 seconds but sleep will obviously interfere with this."
The mind boggles at how some people can, from their experience, draw relevance from a situation. If there are one million people in this country who are affected in one way or another, this is not merely idiosyncratic. It is a real experience.
Mrs. Deacon from Branksome Park, Poole, wrote to me:
"What all airlines must do is provide better seating and room for passengers to move around the aircraft at regular intervals. I fear this will never happen unless it is mandatory. One is prevented from walking up and down the aisles but a regular procession of drink trolleys, duty-free meals, newspapers, etc. often do. It should he perfectly feasible to have a shop or bar at one end where passengers could take it in turn to walk to. In any case, alcohol is dehydrating and therefore increases the risk of DVT."
Mrs. Trench from Beeston in Nottingham sent me voluminous correspondence. She writes:
"I am sending you copies of our correspondence with the CAA and also with British Airways—Robert Ayling's Office. Both sets of letters were written by my husband as it was he who actually fainted and his name is Eric Rowe".
She kindly sent me the correspondence, which is still ongoing. This lady is persistent because the health of her husband was put at risk.
I am not an alarmist. I am not someone who wants to say, in a panic, that unless something is done a great tragedy will occur. But from my own experience, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that that situation should be investigated.
I do not know whether this matter should be dealt with from the point of view of transport, health or trade and industry. Perhaps the Minister will consult with her ministerial colleagues to see whether something worthwhile can be done to protect the consumer. It is all very well to have the finest airline in the world, which

1697
I believe we have, and the best and cheapest services through our tour operators. But if in ignorance we are aiding and abetting an attack on the good health of the people of this country, we should do something about that. I am happy to leave the correspondence for the Minister so that she and her colleagues can consider it. There is obviously some urgency about this matter. However, if the department were to consult with the airlines and tour operators and the matter was dealt with honestly and openly with an admission that there is a problem, then some solutions may be found.
Before I sit down I should explain that, for the first time in 14 years in this House, I regret very much that I may not be here for the Minister's winding up speech. However, I shall certainly be here to listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, this debate, admirably initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, clearly covers many aspects of this subject ranging from the manufacture of great aircraft to consumer protection and the dangers of thrombosis. I should like to confine my remarks to the issue of the traffic rights pertaining to the air transport industry, in which I worked for many years. In surveying the scene today, it seems another world from the tightly regulated system that held sway when I first joined the airline business, a system whose bible was Stephen Wheatcroft's book, The Economics of European Air Transport, published in 1956. However, even in that post-war world of state planning, there were glimpses of what was to come and, indeed, my first job was in the promotion of the first service ever permitted to undercut the tariffs of BOAC. This was the so-called Safari Service, operated by the small independent airline Hunting-Clan, a service which took four days to reach Johannesburg, with three very pleasant night-stops on the way.
Another inkling of the future was a paper I prepared for BOAC itself in 1966, pointing out the radical implications for air transport that lay in the terms of the EEC treaty, which Britain had not then joined; though at the time the concept of complete European air deregulation seemed as remote and unreal as did that of European political union.
However, that concept has finally become a fact a generation later, with the freedom now accorded to any EU airline to operate services between any pairs of points within the Union, whether on international or domestic sectors. Britain was the prime mover in this achievement, and British Airways has led the way in its investments in Deutsche BA and Air Liberté. And it is on sectors involving British points that new low-cost operators have been most active. Easyjet, Debonair, Ryanair and Virgin Express have established themselves at Luton or Stanstead, and now British Airways is about to launch its own no-frills operator, Go, whose first service is on Friday. Speaking of no-frills, I recall that the original concept of the BEA Shuttles was for absolutely no cabin service in flight, but that this admirable aim was frustrated by the unionised demand for a full cabin staff whatever.
1698
What we are seeing is in some ways a repetition of the deregulatory scene within the United States over a decade ago, though the general consensus seems to be that the European lurch to low-cost scheduled-service operators will be less dramatic, and their eventual market share less than the 30 per cent. which at present pertains over there. Specifically, on London-Brussels, where Virgin Express operates services for Sabena, it remains to be seen to what extent business travellers will condone the no-frill flights, though certainly it is significant that total traffic on this sector grew by 15 per cent. last year, despite the competition of the Eurostar trains. Generally, London enjoys lower fully flexible fares than does any other city. And besides all this there is the large and thriving charter-flight market.
The crux of the problem for the future development of British air transport lies not so much in the financial and commercial enterprise of those who run the airlines as in the restrictions imposed by airport capacity limitations. Heathrow, with its present throughput of some 56 million passengers annually, is already over capacity, a situation that will be alleviated only as and when the fifth terminal is in operation, probably not for another six years. Traffic at Gatwick is growing rapidly, and it too may be expected to be at capacity levels within a very few years. The tremendous pressure on Heathrow, the world's premier international airport, is managed by a system of time-slot trading between the airlines. This provides an efficient market mechanism for the optimal economic use of these slots. It is to be hoped that the EU commissioners, who are at present scrutinising this system, will endorse and legislate for it rather than impose an administrative framework which would restrict economic potential and, I suggest, be at variance with the principles that have brought about deregulation in the air.
Another aspect of the pressure on Heathrow and Gatwick is the intensification of interest in services to regional airports. This is, in itself, a desirable development, and one that has for long been supported by successive governments. But there are two factors in it that are injurious to the interests of British air transport operators.
The first is that, taking advantage of the congestion at Heathrow, European airlines are exploiting services between British regional points and their own hubs, notably KLM UK with its flights to Schipol, thus seeping long-haul traffic away from London. In the deregulated EU environment, there is nothing that can be done about this, other than to relieve the situation at Heathrow by granting slots for short-haul domestic flights at the expense of long-haul flights—obviously an uneconomic substitution.
The second factor relates to routes from the regions to points outside the EU. These are regulated by bilateral treaties between governments. But pressure is growing for the Government to grant rights to foreign airlines unilaterally, that is to say, without complementary benefits to British airlines. There have indeed been instances in the past when advantages were given to foreign airlines against our own, but they were always justified by some specific economic or political advantage for us. To grant rights without any assured

1699
reciprocity would seem to be unwise, and a CAA report which attempted to analyse the issue was definitely ambiguous.
Relevant also to the generation of international traffic by British operators, is the system of alliances between major airlines, by which code-sharing arrangements enable airlines to sell seats on each others' flights. Virgin Atlantic is, together with KLM, Alitalia and Air France, in alliance with Northwest and Continental, and other powerful alliances have been set up by other European and American carriers. But the great unanswered question is whether British Airways will receive regulatory approval for its alliance with American Airlines. In the broader interests of British air transport, I sincerely hope that these will be forthcoming. The multiplicity of airport gateways in North America and Europe has had the effect of diminishing the inherent advantage previously enjoyed by British airlines by reason of our geography, and it is essential that we should be able to counter the market force of groupings such as the Lufthansa-led Star Alliance.
I recently visited Dubai as a guest of Emirates, the leading airline in the Gulf States, whose capacity exceeds that of Virgin Atlantic. I had the thrilling experience of an hour in their flight simulator, in which I managed to land a Boeing 777 at Dubai in a sandstorm. I was immensely impressed by the professional efficiency of this extremely profitable airline, which operates from a base of total deregulation, for Dubai has a policy of completely open skies to all airlines, twenty-four hours each day. Such a policy could never apply in Britain, but it shows us what we are up against in the increasingly competitive industry of air transport. For us, rather than perhaps for Dubai, all sorts of environmental considerations are important and act as a constraint to the uncontrolled expansion of the industry.
Popular opposition to the provision of new airports, additional runways and terminals and aircraft noise is now a firmly established factor for our policy-makers. I expect that public attention will increasingly turn to the pollution of the atmosphere caused by the fleets of large aircraft which perpetually cruise over our fragile planet, calling at the very least for cleaner engines than exist at present. In the meantime, we await with interest the Government's forthcoming White Paper on an integrated transport policy and trust that it will cover in sufficient depth the specific problems of air transport.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before I begin, I should declare an interest as I am a director of British Airways. However, I shall not deal with British Airways in my speech. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mountevans for initiating today's debate. The British civil aviation industry is one of the success stories of the British economy. Yesterday, during Question Time, a visitor to this House could have been forgiven if he or she went away thinking that this country had a woeful record in business and commerce, based on the McKinsey Report which analysed British productivity compared with the so-called "earth shattering" success stories of other European,
1700
North-American and Far-Eastern economies. Today's debate can—as indeed it should—show that there is a great deal in which we can take pride; indeed, it has probably already done so.
The history of British civil aviation is so exciting. Indeed, some of us remember the much earlier pioneering days of helmets and goggles. We were cogently reminded of those early days by the fascinating speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. However, it is not just the history that is important. The industry has led the world in so many areas and it is highly respected throughout the world. It is gratifying to note that the industry is also highly regarded here. It provides jobs and careers in a sector which is at the leading edge of technology. Young people apply to join the industry in their thousands. One statistic that I find absolutely staggering is the figure for staff turnover in British Airways—it is less than 2 per cent. per annum. That surely indicates that the industry is not only attractive to jobseekers but also that when people get jobs in it they want to stay and develop with the company. In every part of the industry the skills base of those employed is constantly being uprated and products developed by the industry, especially in the areas of safety, are sold and highly prized world-wide.
However, the success of the industry is achieved under very difficult circumstances, some examples of which have already been given this evening. In fact, it is successful despite many obstacles—obstacles which, in some cases, are peculiar to the official British attitude towards business operations when interlinked with our membership of the European Union.
I am not about to fall into the trap of special pleading, nor do I wish to complain about unlevel playing fields—a metaphor which is particularly inappropriate when discussing civil aviation. However, I am taking the opportunity offered by the debate to draw attention to a particular problem which is mirrored in so many other sectors of the economy. We consistently insist on applying every single dot and comma of every international/European directive, while being wholly aware that we are alone in being so meticulous. When it comes to EC laws or directives, we play the game of cricket while most other countries play a mixture of hockey and tennis on a rugby pitch.
There are two very live issues affecting the industry at the moment. They are matters of deep concern to the airlines. Both are fairly technical; both refer to EC directives and, because of this, I alerted the Minister to the fact that I wished to raise them. The first concerns ticket notices and passenger liability and the second concerns ground handling. As I said, these are technical issues but are symptomatic of the almost unseemly haste employed by our Government—indeed, I have to say, whatever government—to bend over backwards to comply with any directive issuing forth from the Commission: even, in one case, uniquely underpinning the EC regulation with the proposal to introduce criminal sanctions or fines if the EC regulation is not complied with. I emphasise the word "uniquely".
When it comes to such issues, it beggars belief that we can still be branded as being the "bad boys" of Europe and accused of being anti-communautaire. In

1701
one case that I shall describe, we are even more communautaire than the EC requires; indeed, at some significant cost to the industry. In another case, we are the only ones who are communautaire, as far as I can ascertain.
In raising these issues, I do not expect to receive a detailed response—that would be inconsiderate of me—but I do hope that, by flagging them up, I shall have some comfort that they will be re-examined sympathetically. I honestly believe that they represent an attitude which can, unwittingly, cause damage to the industry, an industry of which we should be very proud.
I shall briefly and simply—I hope—detail the situation. I shall refer, first, to liability notices on passenger tickets. As we know, all passengers have tickets when they fly which contain a massive amount of small print on the back. I hazard a guess that I am not alone in your Lordships' House in studiously avoiding reading any of that small print. It is sufficient for me to know that I have a booking, to know the time of the booking and to leave the rest to the airline. Some of that minuscule print relates to limited liability in the case of injury or death. The limit on liability was fixed decades ago under the terms of the Warsaw Convention, and is totally unrealistic now. Some airlines, realising that the limit on liability was not acceptable in today's world, decided to accept the principle of unlimited liability. That agreement, in the case of some airlines, came into force last year. At this point, the EC followed suit and will be introducing its regulation on unlimited liability on 18th October this year. That is fine, and there is no problem there.
There is no problem there except for the fact that the EC has drawn up the regulation in such a way as to impose differing requirements on EU airlines compared with those for non-EU airlines. For EU airlines, the EC has decided that the wording of its regulation—or, at least, some of its wording—should be included on the tickets. This raises two practical problems. First, there is no room on the tickets for the amount of small print that the EU wishes to see included; and, secondly, there is a stock of some 15 million tickets in this country which will become obsolete. Do we really need to have all that information on the ticket, or all the cost of reprinting 15 million airline tickets and throwing out perfectly usable tickets for the want of yet more small print?
However, the Government have gone one step better. They have decided to create a criminal offence, or impose other sanctions, in respect of non-compliance not on the question of unlimited liability but on the question of putting the information in among the small print on the tickets. No other government are planning to impose such draconian measures. No other EU member state is likely to introduce such legislation, so why are we? It can only lead to further criticism of the Government wishing to lean over backwards to comply with the EU and prove that we are the "goody two shoes" of the European Union.
We have a successful industry, so let us not take any unnecessary action to damage that position. There are no similar requirements in national law requiring
1702
suppliers of any other goods and services to inform customers in advance of the fact that their rights to compensation are as they would expect and not artificially limited. When we purchase a rail ticket, are we confronted with masses of small print telling us that it is unlimited liability? I shall leave the matter there.
I turn now to my second issue; namely, the European ground handling directive. The directive, which was adopted in October 1996 and passed into UK law in October last year, was supposed to open up ground handling markets around Europe. These markets are an area of peripheral civil aviation activity that has been described as,
"the last bastion of protectionism and anti-competitive practices in the aviation industry".
Together, British Airways and the UK Government pushed for a liberal handling regime and both were disappointed when the directive materialised. However, the UK was one of the first member states to transpose the directive into national law and is the only one to implement it in a way consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the law. This situation, once more wishing to be the "goody two shoes" of Europe, could have the effect of reducing the amount of competition at European airports as well as reducing the ability of UK carriers to benefit from cost saving opportunities at our own airports.
What has actually happened is that some member states are only slowly, if at all, opening up their markets, thereby penalising the UK airlines operating to those countries by not making improvements in cost and quality, while in the UK foreign airlines are benefiting from the already liberal (much more liberal than any other country) regime. But, worse than that, UK airlines could be caught by some of the more restrictive clauses in the directive.
Of course, the UK authorities and airlines should comply with European rules, but the UK authorities should interpret the directive in the same way as other member states—pragmatism rather than dogmatism should be the catch-phrase (or soundbite).
The ground handling directive is an example of poorly drafted, ill-thought-out legislation that serves neither the industry nor its passengers. The Government should ensure that unwarranted costs and restrictions should not be imposed on United Kingdom airlines as a consequence of a poorly drafted and inadequate directive. We have a fine, thriving, admired industry; let us keep it that way.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, on achieving this debate. As he said, it has taken him three years to win the ballot. The Terminal 5 inquiry has been going on for about as long as that. The Transport Committee in another place is examining regional air services. The European Select Committee of your Lordships' House is about to start to investigate responsibilities for negotiating bilateral or multilateral rights outside the European Union. This is an interesting time. I am sure that, as the White Paper on an integrated transport policy is about to be

1703
published, my noble friend the Minister will not give us too many answers. Nevertheless this is a good time to debate a few of the issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said that 147,000 jobs in the production and retailing of duty free goods would be lost if it is abolished. As I am sure he is aware, I do not agree with his view on that. I believe that the sooner duty free is abolished, the better, and that people should pay the true cost of travelling from a terminal. I never buy duty free and I am happy to be subsidised by those who do, although it is not really fair. But will people stop drinking simply because they cannot buy their drink duty free? They may save a couple of pounds on a bottle of whisky, but I am sure that if they cannot buy it duty free they will buy it elsewhere, and someone will still be employed to produce the whisky and to sell it. It will be sold in a supermarket rather than in an airport. I am not persuaded that more than 100,000 jobs will be lost if duty free is abolished.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton made a fascinating speech from the customer's point of view. We should start from the point of view of the customer. In that respect air transport is no different from road or rail; it is a form of transport which moves people and goods around. I wish to examine the framework of air travel and reliability. National transport statistics show that in the past 10 years UK international air traffic has grown 84 per cent. and domestic traffic 72 per cent. That is a big increase and it is forecast to continue. It is interesting to note how the Government have directed or have not directed policy during that period. Later tonight we shall debate the roads programme. Until recently that has been a "predict and provide" policy. As regards rail travel, the Government provide funds through the franchising director for certain socially desirable services but they also encourage new services and fair competition through the regulatory regime.
However, air travel is more of a free-for-all. Commodities in short supply are capacity, slots and air traffic control space. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to that. To my knowledge there is no government subsidy for air travel, apart from certain flights to the Scottish islands. I wonder whether the Government should not provide some kind of a policy framework within the integrated transport policy in which certainly domestic, and perhaps European, air services should operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned the role of Heathrow. However, there are tensions at Heathrow. Heathrow is seen as a hub. I have often heard people speak as if the success of UK plc is based on the success of Heathrow. Many international flights land at Heathrow. Many passengers just change planes there—which is of great benefit to BAA—and some passengers disembark there. However, from the point of view of the UK regions—Scotland, the south west, perhaps Wales and the north east—I wonder how the customers in those regions feel if their feeder services are no longer allowed to fly to Heathrow because the international flights pay more for the slots. One can hardly call those services feeder services if one cannot fly on from Stansted—lovely though it is—or from Gatwick, which is also a great airport. I do not know what the answer
1704
is. There is a government contribution to the train services in Scotland which run to Inverness and such places as it is thought to be socially desirable to make that contribution. I wonder whether there should not be a similar process as regards certain regional feeder services if that is the only way that they can obtain convenient links to Heathrow, which we probably all believe is the centre for all international air travel.
I have heard it said in Scotland that the previous government were less than enthusiastic in encouraging direct international flights from Scotland either to the Continent or across the Atlantic. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned this. I believe that many people in Scotland would say, "We do not mind who runs the flight as long as there is a flight. We do not like flying to Heathrow if we can fly direct". I question why so-called foreign airlines should not be able to fly direct to the regions if our own airlines do not want to do so. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament will negotiate some of those rights. Perhaps we shall hear something about that later. I do not always like using the word "regulatory" but I wonder whether there should not be some kind of process to ensure that the needs of the regions are met as regards the search for slots or as regards possible support for certain services.
We all start from a history of countries having their own airlines which seek to project the image of a state around the world. That is in some ways a "macho" image. We have eight or nine UK airlines according to the latest statistics. I am sure the Government take into account the views of all those airlines when negotiating slots. In my view competition is important. I am certainly not persuaded that the BA/AA alliance is all that it is made out to be, as I understand it. Perhaps we shall be given more details on that. Competition results in lower fares. At Easter I went to the United States. I was struck by the difference in fares as between different cities in the US. Some of them have crept up again to pre-deregulation levels; others have gone up and subsequently come down again when a low cost airline has competed with them. We shall need to bear that in mind as deregulation is introduced into European air travel to ensure that the benefits of competition are spread as widely as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, complimented Emirates Airlines on its competitive policies, but he said they could not apply to the UK or in Europe. Why is that? I cannot see why the benefits of that competition should not apply here too.
I now wish to consider reliability from the customers' point of view. Reliability appears to be deteriorating from the point of view of the average traveller. At best that is irritating and at worst it can have serious consequences for some people. The railways have frequently been criticised in this House and elsewhere for bad timekeeping. The average now is that 90 per cent. of trains arrive within five minutes of the stated time. Representatives from Virgin Trains spoke about this matter in a committee room in this House earlier today, and about their achievements in relation to journeys of between two and four hours. That is certainly an improvement on the past average. And compensation is usually paid if trains are an hour or so late.

1705
The 1997 report of the Civil Aviation Authority states that 12 per cent. of departures—not arrivals, but departures—were delayed by more than 30 minutes. The figure has risen from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. in the past three years, and is therefore getting worse. Transport statistics indicate that, of arrivals at London airports, 74 per cent. of scheduled flights and 47 per cent. of charter flights arrive within 15 minutes of the stated arrival time. Those are a great deal worse than the figures for trains. I know that the situation is very different; but from a passenger's point of view it is a matter of a service for getting from A to B.
I have never seen much of an offer of compensation when airline services are two or three hours late. At the start of our parliamentary visit to the United States at Easter, we were three hours late leaving, and we were offered a cup of coffee worth £4, or some such—which was very nice, but did not help very much. The system is complicated to operate, and it is easy to blame others: the airlines, air traffic control, crew problems; and of course safety considerations. Safety is always said to be paramount. I hope that the term is used genuinely. I was on a train last night which came to a standstill at Ealing Broadway at half past one in the morning "for safety reasons". I could not see what the problem was; but that is another issue.
I am sad to say that on the airlines a certain arrogance sometimes creeps in when the services are late. There are fewer apologies to customers and apparently less care in recognising that passengers want and need to arrive on time. Although the system is complex, passengers need to be taken into account. I hope that some of these issues will be mentioned in the forthcoming White Paper.
Air transport needs to be integrated in policy terms with ground transport—who can fly where, and when, the allocation of slots and capacity. It needs also to be integrated in planning terms with ground connections at airports for passengers and staff. Certainly BAA at Heathrow is making strong moves to get staff to use public transport as well as passengers. But the numbers are large.
The Heathrow Express to Heathrow airport is a great start. The Manchester airport link is important in both directions. But it is more important to have new services running on that line. The link itself is no good without the services. The station at Luton airport is about to open, and I believe that a new northern link from Aberystwyth to Stansted is starting next week. It is also important that public transport bus links are developed and that bus facilities for passengers arriving at airports are improved, as they need to be at Heathrow.
I very much welcome this debate and look forward with interest to my noble friend the Minister's reply, and to the White Paper, which I hope will be published shortly.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Mountevans on securing this opportunity to debate Britain's civil aviation industry. It
1706
is the first opportunity that we have had for many years and is extremely welcome. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his extraordinarily interesting speech. Frankly, as one who spends an enormous amount of time either between here and Scotland or travelling to other parts of the world, I also found his remarks rather depressing—in particular for those of us who are often stuck on very long journeys, his idea that alcohol might disappear altogether. It rather helps in keeping some of us going.
I should like to concentrate entirely on the helicopter industry. I am chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board, which is the trade association for civil helicopter operators in this country. I am also chairman of the European Helicopter Association and a council member of the Air League. I therefore declare an entirely non-financial interest in each of those.
When I made my maiden speech on this subject in your Lordships' House some 20 or more years ago, I was a professional helicopter pilot, operating mostly over the North Sea in support of the energy industry. It was obvious then that without the use of helicopters the exploration and exploitation of off shore oil and gas reserves would not have been so straightforward. Their operation in weather of all kinds, day and night, and currently flying up to 300,000 sectors annually, which technically generates well over half a million air traffic movements per year in the United Kingdom European Economic Zone alone, is a substantial feat. The volume of traffic, the harsh conditions in which helicopters operate and a pretty inspiring safety record reflect the professionalism and high standards of the operating companies and their staff and the proper demands of the oil companies themselves to secure the safest possible procedures.
Constant liaison takes place to improve all aspects of the service and safety through co-operation between helicopter operators, the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and the Civil Aviation Authority, especially with national air traffic services and the safety regulation group.
In any industry, the relationship between commercial organisations and their statutory regulatory authority can be a tense one. I should like to assure the Minister that the commercial helicopter industry has considerable respect for the role and integrity of the Safety Regulation Group of the CAA. I and my colleagues have regular meetings with the group. We all share a common cause and purpose in ensuring that the overriding matter of safety is treated maturely and realistically in both operational and airworthiness areas. Our dialogue is sound, and I genuinely believe it to be constructive.
There is perhaps one wrinkle that I should air. Unlike most European national aviation authorities, the safety regulation group of the CAA must recover all its costs through levying charges on those whom it regulates. It will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness to know that that inevitably leads to some resentment of the authority by the industry. Small companies find it irksome and difficult to pay the additional charges for the privilege of being regulated—and frankly, also for the sometimes seemingly bureaucratic manner in which

1707
this regulation has to be conducted. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will do whatever she can to ensure that the costs associated with this regulation are minimised wherever possible. As matters stand, the charges have a varying but frequently harsh impact on the commercial side of some helicopter operators' activities.
The commercial helicopter industry also conducts diverse over-land operations. These tasks are essential to the efficient functioning of a modern economy. Many of them are tasks which could not be undertaken without the use of helicopters, at least not as efficiently or as cheaply. Pipeline surveys, powerline inspection and maintenance, photography, surveying, lifting loads to places inaccessible by road and track—all are examples of the way in which helicopters are flexible tools and provide reliable and economic service to their customers.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is not in his place. If he were, I am sure he would agree with me that modern filming and the resurgent British film industry would be hard-pressed to survive without the extra dimension provided by aerial photography, much of it from helicopters. And indeed, your Lordships will be well aware that news gathering techniques increasingly rely on helicopters.
Air accidents, whether they be of helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, make for tragic headlines, and they are deeply regretted. The helicopter industry works closely with the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to determine the cause of any accidents involving helicopters. But it is worth noting that in recent years very few accidents have been caused by mechanical failure. Helicopters have become increasingly reliable and safe. Huge investment has been made by manufacturers and designers to ensure that the very highest standards of engineering are incorporated in the design and subsequent manufacture. Many advances in gas turbine technology and in systems for monitoring the health and usage of all sorts of components in helicopters have produced a much more reliable vehicle than even 10 years ago.
The causes of accidents are generally complex and cannot be put down to one factor. But it is a sad fact that, inevitably, there are some accidents which would not have occurred had their crews obeyed existing rules and carried out correct procedures. Any accident is likely to generate adverse comment on the safety and integrity of helicopter operations, as they would for fixed-wing aircraft. That can be to the detriment of the industry. But I question whether further regulation is needed. Rather I suggest that, where possible, simplification of the rules, coupled where necessary with a tightening up of piloting standards, would be a far better and more reliable approach. There is no excuse whatever for poor airmanship, and yet from time to time I am afraid we see examples of just that. It generates bad publicity and damages confidence in an increasingly mature industry.
One area in which there has been considerable growth in helicopter use in recent years has been in police forces and in helicopter emergency medical services.
1708
The flexibility and speed of response by helicopters to activities in support of the police have enormously improved some operational policing techniques. Modern equipment is allowing this to develop at a pace and at a cost which police authorities find not only operationally attractive but also cheaper than some of the surface options they would otherwise have to employ. Ambulance services are increasingly looking to helicopters to provide vital back-up to ensure the care which patients rightly expect as techniques for treating them rapidly and transporting them safely become fully developed. Again, in both those roles the very highest standards are maintained by the industry and encouraged by the regulatory authorities.
By their very nature, police and air ambulance operations are rarely pre-planned. There exists a proven risk of collision with fast, low-flying military aircraft. Systems exist for planned operations by others, such as those involved in pipeline inspections, to minimise risk by notification procedures. But fast jets operating at low level are something of a liability, particularly for those operating un-notified emergency sorties. It also happens from time to time with planned sorties. The civil helicopter industry seeks to minimise any risk. We conduct frank discussions of the problem with the Ministry of Defence and particularly with the Royal Air Force. We have to find safe ways of sharing low level airspace. One measure which will help enormously is an effective collision avoidance system fitted to military aircraft. I very much hope that this will emerge before too long and prove to be a useful adjunct to other techniques, which are being employed to provide warning and enhance visibility. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could say whether she knows what progress is being made. I am sure she would agree that it would be a tragedy to have further collisions of the kind which, from time to time, have occurred in recent years.
Having been involved in planning applications for helicopter landing facilities, I am well aware of views on the environmental impact of helicopter movements and the need to minimise the impact. Thankfully, the application of new technology is beginning to have a marked effect. It is now increasingly possible for a modern helicopter to be flown in a considerate manner over a congested urban area at heights of 1,500 feet or so in a way which is rarely heard above the ambient noise level. Take-offs and landings can also employ techniques which minimise noise nuisance.
If the environmental and operational issues can be addressed adequately, one has to pose this question: can helicopters contribute to future integrated transport systems for the benefit of a wider community? Certain operations have demonstrated that they can. I would cite the service operated by British International Helicopters from Penzance to the Scilly Isles as a case in point. It has carried over 2.5 million passengers in the past 30 years. We now see new ventures in other parts of the world operating in much the same way.
But helicopters require suitable landing facilities and for all-weather operations, in particular, they require access to suitable air traffic control systems. As quieter helicopters are introduced and enjoy wider service, it is

1709
essential that properly pre-planned and well-sited places be found in many large city areas. Helicopters with twin engines, operating under what we call performance class 1, can either land or fly away safely on one engine should the other one fail. In any case, that is an extremely rare occurrence.
Of course, helicopters can operate out of small spaces compared with the huge infrastructure needed at major airports. The arrival in commercial service in only a few years' time of the GKN Westland/Agusta EH101 opens the way for much larger scale, economically viable, inter-city operations; not only inter-city, but also linking airport with airport and city centres.
So-called feeder/reliever airports to serve Heathrow, Gatwick and other major hubs could also usefully benefit from helicopter services integrating with fixed-wing traffic. We all know the practicalities and difficulties of planning airport extensions, so simply using existing smaller airports to serve major hubs seems to me eminently sensible. The UK economy cannot afford to miss out. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could say what is the Government's view on these feeder/reliever airports.
We shall also shortly see the introduction of aircraft which can not only land and take off vertically but also operate with much the same cruise characteristics—that is much faster than helicopters—as fixed-wing aircraft. The introduction of the tilt-rotor aircraft should be able to supplement transport links in an even more enhanced way.
However, it is disappointing to understand that for the millennium celebration facilities at Greenwich no regular helicopter landing sites are to be available—that is, to the best of my knowledge. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, could give some indication as to whether the subject of rotorcraftas they should perhaps more correctly be called nowadays, as technology develops and encompasses the tilt-rotor aircraft I mentioned—is likely to be considered as part of the much heralded integrated transport strategy. It could possibly feature in the White Paper, although perhaps that would be hoping for too much. If it is possible, that would be a way in which the comprehensive strategic policy guidelines for the location of heliport facilities in the national interest can best be considered.
Through their special characteristics, flexibility, improved technology, safety aspects and their increasing economic viability in so many fields, I do not believe it is an exaggeration to describe rotorcraft as economic force multipliers. They are not toys or luxury vehicles simply for the rich and famous. Rather they are tools, which, if properly exploited, can be an increasingly valuable economic aid. Their use requires sensible regulation, but not over-regulation, high standards of training and supervision, the minimisation of excessive cost to those who operate them and a sensibly liberal operating environment. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would confirm that this is an aim which the Government share and will encourage.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for introducing this debate to the House this evening. I have to declare an interest in that I am a private pilot who has the privilege and pleasure of enjoying flying in United Kingdom airspace. It is from the perspective of air traffic control of the airspace that I wish to say a few words.
I begin by saying that I have the utmost regard and respect for the manner in which air traffic controllers undertake their duties. It is a very demanding, stressful job and in my experience it is always undertaken with the utmost skill to ensure the safe passage of aircraft through United Kingdom airspace.
Safety is the overriding duty of the air traffic controller. Nothing that the air traffic controller does should compromise the safety of the aircraft. It is an activity where one mistake can cause a major disaster. In the London area, for the years 1996 and 1997, there were 24 airprox incidents: that is, incidents where, in the opinion of experts, the safety of the aircraft has been compromised. Of the 24, 12 involved controller error; 10 of the 12 incidents were categorised as bearing a risk of collision. It is no defence to relate those figures to total aircraft movements, as is sometimes done. Another way of putting it would be to say that in the past two years we almost had a collision every other month over the London area.
The British aircraft industry would be in dire straits if the air traffic controller did not have the correct information on hand to advise and sometimes instruct the pilots of aircraft. It is not just the risk of collision that is of concern. British Airways sets great store on punctuality. It is a key to its business. The imposition of delay impacts upon passengers, especially transfer passengers, and can result in extra direct costs such as fuel burn and crew costs. Most noble Lords will have experienced stacking delays over London when travelling by air. Estimates made by British Airways indicate that in the past year £50 million has been lost due to air traffic delays.
Air traffic in the UK is increasing at 5 per cent. per annum. Delays to aircraft movements are increasing due to the fact that current air traffic facilities are operating at full capacity. It is estimated by National Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS), which operates the air traffic control systems in the UK, that delays will increase this summer—a further acknowledgement of the current burden with which the system and staff are having to cope. The problems have long been anticipated and in 1988 the Swanwick project to enhance the UK's air traffic systems was born using technology described as,
"more advanced than anything that is being tried in the world".
The project should have been operational by January 1996. The reality is that the project has been a catalogue of mistakes and incompetence. The mistakes have been such that the project has been the subject of much parliamentary scrutiny, the latest being a report of the House of Commons Environmental, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Fourth Report, dated 27th March 1998. In the report there was evidence that the project could be showing early signs of disaster.

1711
Evidence was given by Dr. John Riley and Tony Collins of Computer Weekly. Those gentlemen have made studies of computer disasters and now recognise the tell-tale signs of possible disasters. They recognised several indicators in the project.
In the report there was evidence of a lack of direct involvement of the air traffic controllers until a system had been delivered by Lockheed. The involvement of the air traffic controllers resulted in the discovery that the original specification given to Lockheed in 1992 was inadequate and had to be amended by NATS.
There has been repeated missing of internal deadlines, despite assurances by the management that all was well. An important example of that was given directly to the sub-committee when, on 19th November 1997, a statement was made by the chief executive of NATS that the training and development unit (TDU) had passed all technical tests. That was important because it meant that there could be simulation of the operational system and air traffic controllers could be trained. However, within a few weeks—in December—it was established that the system was not stable. That stage had been described by the chief executive as one of the key remaining activities. There is a desire to push ahead with the acceptance tests before all the known bugs are removed, and here I remind your Lordships that this is a life support piece of software that is being developed, not a computer game.
There is strong resistance to an independent audit. A project that is going well will experience complete openness and thus, when there are specific problems, discussions can take place, solutions be found and expectations adjusted if required. Where a project is going badly, experience shows us that there are generalities, perhaps bridges to cross, and expectations are maintained to the end.
The excellent committee report concluded that there should be an independent audit to run in parallel with existing work to establish answers to questions relating to safety; whether the system should be abandoned; the estimate of future traffic requirements and whether the same system should be used in Swanwick and the new Scottish centre. That was in March 1998. What NATS is not asking itself is whether or not the project is feasible. Does it fulfil requirements? There is too much concentration on specific problems rather than the project as a whole.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the method used by Barclay's Bank when it develops complex systems. There is a regular review of the feasibility of the total project. If there are problems, then expectations are reduced or the project abandoned. When a system is going live, there is an hourly review of the project as to whether it should continue or be abandoned. The bank is aware of the consequences of disaster. That does not happen in the public sector because it is not politically expedient to abandon a project. It is assumed that the project has to work.
There is evidence in the report that the main conclusions as to the viability of the project could be established within a very short period. Under one month has been mentioned. I draw the Minister's attention to
1712
the ASSIST project in the committee evidence and the CROESO findings in Appendix 1 and 2 of the committee's evidence where, in two weeks, it was established that a six-year project involving many tens of millions of pounds had to be abandoned.
The advantage of a quick audit is stated by several computer experts in the report, though the chief executive states that such an audit could take up to two years. To my mind that shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the chief executive of the objectives of the audit.
By the examination of quality assurance reports and the high level, non-technical progress reports, the audit should establish whether the system is under control and thus deliverable. The British aircraft industry is entitled to such reassurance, given the previous disappointments. I urge the Minister to undertake such a course of action.
I shall finish with just two other observations. Although the management expect the start date to be winter 1999–2000—just 18 months away—no start date has been announced. There is a fall-hack plan of a year's delay. The existing system will be unable to cope with the traffic unless the North Sea is resectorised to ease the traffic loading. Such a procedure takes between 18 months and two years. Can the Minister confirm that the North Sea is being resectored in case the year's delay is put into effect so that the existing system can cope?
Finally, the most recent announcement on 13th May by the chief executive of NATS stated that the system acceptance tests had been concluded and that the system performed so well that there were unlikely to be any fundamental problems with the design and the system meets the standard required. From that I put to your Lordships that one is led to believe that we have a working system. However, I understand—here I should like the Minister's confirmation—that the system has been tested only on a stand-alone basis. That resulted in the final payment of the £167 million fee being paid to Lockheed. It would appear that NATS is in danger of being dictated to by the sole supplier of its software.
But the system has yet to complete one of the three key activities as outlined by NATS in its evidence to the House of Commons committee; namely, the test and integration of the software into the NATS infrastructure—that is, the feed into the radar systems, communication systems, adjacent air traffic systems, system failure tests, and so on. So how can the system be described as technically complete or unlikely to meet any fundamental outstanding problems before it is tested in such an integrated environment?
Perhaps this is the meaning of the final paragraph in the progress update dated 13th May when the chief executive states,
"there are still some important bridges to cross".
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has introduced a most interesting and varied debate. We have had the usual expert contributions from various people with specific

1713
experience, such as the noble Lord who has just spoken. I shall return later in my speech to the subject that he raised.
It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, give his robust defence of the free market. However, I am sure that he will not expect me to agree with every single word he said in the course of his speech.
I should like to give a brief resumé of the Liberal Democrat view on the subjects that have been touched on. I agree with what the noble Lord said on the US-UK negotiations. They have dragged on for a long time. It is not right that we do not get cabotage within the United States and that our airlines are more restricted there than US airlines are in Europe. We should do something about it with the greatest rapidity. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that have been raised on that subject from a number of different quarters.
I agree with the noble Lord's views on the subsidies within the European Union for state airlines. Those have been allowed to drag on for far too long. I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said about compliance in this country with EU legislation. It is what I think Commissioner Martin would call "gold plated", whereby a very thin document arrives from the European Union and by the time it has been through our system it is very thick and has become five volumes. For example, adding criminal penalties to something which is in many ways far from the criminal law is an outstanding example of the idiocies to which we are sometimes subjected; and that comes from someone who is and always has been a convinced European. It has nothing to do with whether or not one favours the European Union, ever closer union and so on.
I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the BA/AA merger. It has an anti-competitive ring to it. We feel that a more competitive approach should be encouraged. For that reason we are also interested in looking again at slot allocation between different airlines.
The size and importance of the industry, a point to which both the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made reference, is incontestable. One can describe it in a number of different ways. One can say that during every 24-hour period 5,000 or more flights pass over the United Kingdom; or one can say that two years ago 23.7 million visitors to the United Kingdom arrived by air and spent about £12 billion; or one can say that 160 million passengers passed through UK airports in 1996. There is also rapid growth in the freight business, which is worth more than £330 billion to the various companies involved. There is a growing likelihood of all-freight aircraft as opposed to the current position whereby 60 per cent. of freight is carried in passenger aircraft. There is a tremendous dynamism within the industry which brings great benefits to the United Kingdom economy.
However, as with all other industries, one has to ask oneself about the downside. The civil aviation industry damages our environment. We have to tackle that
1714
damage just as we do with other forms of transport. The damage comes in a number of different ways. There is damage at high altitude to the ozone layer; there is air pollution at ground level; there is noise; and there is the disbenefit brought to the surroundings of any airport by ground transportation, as the Americans call it, to and from the airport.
For many years I have lived in Surrey. I have one airport to my south east and another one to my north west. I can tell the House that there is nowhere in east and central Surrey where one is free of aircraft noise. The problem has been growing considerably in the 15 or so years I have lived in Surrey.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, was wrong when he suggested that concern for environmental considerations is unique to this country. On the contrary, it was agitation in the United States, which started when the big airports in New York began to expand some 20 or 25 years ago to something like their present size, that resulted in air noise certification being part of the basis on which any aircraft could be produced. I have played my tiny part in that fight. We were told at the time that it would be impossible to make aircraft quieter. However, the fact of the matter is that if governments impose sensible regulation on a gradual basis mechanical change can be achieved which will assist in the reduction of nuisance and pollution.
We would support work to introduce a tax on aircraft fuel on an international basis. It goes without saying that one cannot do it on a national or an EU basis, but why should aircraft fuel as distinct from any other fuel be untaxed? It does not make sense. I think we have to go down that route. It would have the effect of ensuring that aircraft manufacturers paid more attention to the efficiency of their engines. It would increase the pressure on them to make their engines more efficient. I am not saying that they are not becoming more efficient anyway but it would increase that pressure in the same way as a fuel tax has had an effect on the efficiency of car engines. In the United States, where fuel has been less heavily taxed, the large car is still part of the scenery, which is much less the case in Britain today. So one can achieve things by regulation.
One can do other things. One can encourage rail travel for shorter distances. The Channel Tunnel assists in that ambition. Short-haul aircraft are pro-rata more polluting than long-haul aircraft because most of the emissions take place on take-off and landing. If we can make it easier for people to take short and medium journeys by rail then there will be an environmental benefit. Equally, we must press for better rail access to airports, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned.
I turn now to the matter of London Airport and Terminal 5. I very much hope that if permission for the terminal is granted one of the conditions will be that more money is spent by the developer—part of the planning game process—in improving rail links to Heathrow, and particularly from my point of view, from the south, the south-west and the west. From those directions it could be relatively easy to approach Terminal 5 in particular by rail. I am glad to see that a

1715
new consortium has been formed to investigate this in partnership with a major engineering company. I hope that that will take the matter further.
Reference has already been made to Terminal 5 and to the length of the enquiry. The reason it has taken so long is that airports policy is being made by the enquiry. There is no overall policy background or context for a discussion as to whether or not there should be another terminal at London Airport-Heathrow. As a result, a start has had to be made from basics. There were long discussions about employment and housing policies, needs and statistics before the inquiry reached the mundane issues which interest you and me a little more, such as whether the M25 will still function if there is a Terminal 5. It has taken an immense amount of time. It is an open secret that the British Airports Authority has spent something like £100 million on that inquiry.
Those who have objected are minnows in a pond—and I include the county council on which I used to serve—compared to the main promoters of the scheme. It is still going on. I wish to encourage the Minister to tell us how—and other noble Lords have made this point—the planning of airports is to be incorporated into an integrated transport policy to be set out in the Green Paper when it arrives. I know that the Minister cannot anticipate the Green Paper, but an indication that at least the matter has been considered would be very welcome.
A Transport Committee report entitled UK Airport Capacity of May 1996, included the following conclusion,
"Far more information is needed before a coherent airports policy can be devised. An approach which relies on forecasts of increasing demand while making limited assessment of the economic effects of aviation or the local and global environmental costs it imposes is in conflict with both the policy guidance issued by the Department of the Environment and the UK's international commitments to sustainable development".
I could not possibly put it better, which is why I have quoted from that particular report. Those are precisely the considerations which should be taken on board.
The last subject is safety. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, brought that very much before us in his discussion of the Swanwick centre and the failures. There is an increasing rate of near misses of a dangerous kind. I believe they are called "airprox incidents". My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Tom Brake, has been pursuing this matter through parliamentary Questions. Airprox incidents have increased more than three times over the past five years. So there is mounting dismay at the delays to the completion of the Swanwick air traffic control centre. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more about that and her Government's attitude to it, if only because that will enable me to do what I have been asked to do, which is to remove my Unstarred Question from the now ever-lengthening list of such Questions.
But there is a more serious objective. Air traffic is a great boon and a benefit to many people. It is part of our way of life, but it must be sensibly controlled both from the environmental point of view; from its effect on the lives of people who live near airports and from the point of view of air safety. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that progress continues to be made in
1716
the direction of a single European air safety regulatory authority, which is a subject that we discussed in this House not very long ago. I look forward to the Minister's responses to the many questions that have been raised during this debate.
7.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mountevans for introducing this subject for debate and for the manner in which he did so. The noble Lord remarked on the 50th anniversary of the Berlin airlift which took place during the time of my grandfather's administration. How far the industry has moved since those days!
I also have a sense of déjà vu because when I last came to the Dispatch Box last July we were debating aerodromes and we are now debating the civil aviation industry. When the Minister comes to reply I do not expect that many noble Lords anticipate a preview of the results of the integrated transport review. However, I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to know if their concerns will be covered in the White Paper and they would also like to know when it will be published.
When the White Paper is published my noble friend Lord Brabazon will be taking a close interest in the aviation parts of it. I also know that he regrets being unavailable for this debate.
Aviation is one of the industries where Britain leads the way. We have one of the top international airlines in the world and in Heathrow the world's number one international airport. My noble friend Lord Mountevans mentioned the international strength of BA and Virgin Atlantic. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain mentioned the low staff turnover at BA. I believe she said that it was 2 per cent., which is quite remarkable.
The industry generates 1 per cent. of GDP and has 500,000 jobs directly or indirectly. I understand that 50,000 people owe their living to Heathrow alone, making it a highly significant employer in that part of London. In addition, one-third of western Europe's top companies have their headquarters located in London which is more than twice the number in any other EU country.
I looked forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I was not disappointed. Sadly, he is not in his place. He raised some interesting concerns regarding the health risks of air travel. The appropriate advice that he read out did seem to be commonsense. However, I am not sure how passengers would react to being woken up in the middle of a long-haul flight. It will be interesting to see how the airline industry reacts to his suggestion as regards the provision of information.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain raised the issue of liability notices on airline tickets. It is an extremely complex subject and I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the problem so succinctly. My noble friend also raised the issue of ground handling regulations. In a nutshell, it appears to be the standard British Government machinery procedure of over-implementing or gold-plating any EU directive. This problem of departments over-implementing EU

1717
regulations keeps reappearing. Why do we do it to ourselves? I well recall the campaign to allow holders of vocational driving licences to retain their licences while the EU sight standards changed. There was pure over-implementation but, fortunately, the campaign was successful in the end. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made some very helpful comments about the gold-plating of EU regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that there are no subsides for air travel. He is right. Air passengers pay air passenger duty, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. The noble Lord seemed to be suggesting some kind of subsidy for "desirable" air travel routes. I believe he referred to feeder routes to Heathrow. I hold the noble Lord in high regard, so I was a little surprised by his comments. I thought that we wanted to move away from subsidies for any form of commercial activity.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur raised some important points about helicopters. He referred to the difficult issue of regulation, but he recognised the need for it. I seem to remember that similar concerns were aired during our debate last July. My noble friend also raised the difficult issues of safety regulations and planning consents.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, raised the important issue of NATS and in particular the Swanwick new en-route centre. The noble Lord explained the background and activities of the Select Committee in another place. I am sure that noble Lords will have read its report carefully. As many have said inside and outside Parliament, progress is now a little more encouraging.
There seem to be two important issues. The first, which was of great concern to the Select Committee, is whether or not the system will actually work. The Minister, Parliament and the public need to be confident on this point. However, with the challenges that NATS faces, a long-running and exhaustive inquiry by outside "experts" is likely to be counter-productive. At this stage, we do not need to know what, if anything, has gone wrong or, if something has gone wrong, who is responsible. The question is purely a technical one at the moment. It is whether or not the technical problems are soluble within the approximate timescale expected by NATS. If the Minister does instigate an inquiry, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to complete it in less than a month. The terms of reference ought to provide for that. What is the view of the Minister regarding such an inquiry?
The second problem is the perceived need to separate the regulation of NATS from provision of the service. Currently, both come under the CAA. The conflict of interest is obvious. Some form of privatisation, or possibly corporatisation, of the service provision has much to commend it. The Canadians may have found a solution.
One of the most difficult tasks in managing the civil aviation industry is the allocation of slots at the main London airports, particularly Heathrow. Many noble Lords have covered that point. The Bermuda ii
1718
agreement is highly restrictive. It is ironic that our liberal regime creates more complaints than on the continent due to the number of operators actually able to operate in the UK, even out of Heathrow. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in his very interesting speech, talked about liberalisation and the new low-cost operators, among other things.
The BA/AA alliance may be necessary to secure access to US markets without the need for primary legislation in the US to undo the ownership rules. On the other hand, the Government will have to be careful not to undermine the competitive position of other operators, not least Virgin Atlantic. My noble friend Lord Mountevans explained the challenges which the Government face in the US. But when the Government negotiate these matters they do so with a unique negotiating leverage. This is due to the US carriers' desire for access to London Heathrow and for the right to operate services from the UK into Europe and beyond. I trust that the Government will negotiate with a view to securing the best possible deal for the UK airline industry as a whole.
The last issue I wish to address is the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry and our planning process, on which many noble Lords have commented. In 1946, the first few commercial passengers queued up at a trestle table outside a canvas tent in order to check in at Heathrow. We now have a high technology airport, handling 58 million passengers a year. At what point in an airport's development do we call a halt and reject further growth? Is it now or should it be when further development is physically impossible without taking more land for the airport?
I do not propose to rehearse the arguments for and against T5 or even to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry. What concerns me is that nearly as much money, and therefore resources, is being spent on this inquiry as the main political parties spent on the last election when we were selecting a government. More money is being expended on this inquiry than would be required to run your Lordships' House for nearly two years. I do not believe that your Lordships would take many months to decide whether T5 was desirable, even if it is necessary to start from first principles as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
I am not suggesting for a moment that objectors' valid concerns should be smothered. Indeed, by any standards the objectors themselves have spent vast sums. However, because of the economic imperative of T5 to BAA, BAA is prepared to spend whatever is required for a successful outcome to the inquiry.
At the same time as we are dithering over T5, at Paris airport the French are spending £4.5 billion on two more runways and two terminals. I understand that originally the fear was that T5 would be fouled by the 1997 election. Now, apparently, it is the next election which may foul the decision-making process.
Is the Minister satisfied with the current planning regime or does she see scope for improvement, particularly in terms of the speed and economy of the process? Can we expect anything on this point from the integrated transport review?

1719
The Government must ensure that their airline policy can demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that all airlines can compete on equal terms within a European single market and, most importantly, with the US. We look forward to the White Paper when it finally arrives.
7.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, like all who have spoken, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for initiating this extremely interesting and wide-ranging debate. The nature of the debate makes trying to give a comprehensive response from the Dispatch Box all the more challenging. That challenge is intensified given that we are shortly to produce a White Paper, the contents of which I cannot anticipate tonight; since the Government are working on their response to the Select Committee's report and since, as has been pointed out, the terminal 5 inquiry is ongoing. So there are a number of constraints on what I can say to the House tonight and on how many questions I can answer, but I shall do my best to deal with the detailed points.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, took a self-denying ordinance in introducing the debate when dealing with the aerospace industry. I was slightly disappointed, given that that is the only area of this subject of which I have any personal experience. I had the privilege to represent Hatfield in another place for five years, so for obvious reasons I am very interested in the civil aircraft construction industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, rightly emphasised that our civil aviation industry is one of the most successful in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made the same point. That position has not been achieved without the hard work of both employees and managers, combined with a real spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship. I begin by paying a tribute to the efforts of all those who work in the civil aviation industry, and I commend them on their success.
Our open economy and geographic position create particularly favourable conditions for civil aviation, which stimulates economic growth, world trade, international investment, and tourism. Civil aviation is a rapidly growing industry, with demand for world-wide air travel expected to increase at over 5 per cent. annually well into the new millennium.
Our airline industry has doubled in size over the past 10 years. British Airways is one of the most successful airlines in the world. It transports the greatest number of international passengers of any carrier. Despite its prominent position, it has not been sheltered from competition. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, other scheduled UK carriers have challenged incumbent airlines head-on, increasing choice for air travellers and maintaining downward pressure on fares. Virgin Atlantic and British Midland with their flair for innovation and service have played an important part and set an example for the rest of Europe. Another example of the dynamism of the UK industry has been the recent arrival of what are sometimes called "no
1720
frills" carriers such as EasyJet and Debonair. These provide yet further choice for passengers and bring air travel within reach of many more people.
Within Europe's highly competitive charter market UK operators have earned an enviable reputation. UK charter companies carry around 40 per cent. of total charter traffic in the European Union and enable increasing numbers of UK residents to enjoy affordable holidays at a growing number of overseas destinations. Heathrow ranks among the largest international airports in the world, handling 56 million passengers in 1996. It is by far the busiest airport in Europe, while Gatwick is the sixth busiest and is larger than both Madrid and Rome. The large number of destinations served by London's airports help maintain the capital's position as a leading financial business and tourism centre.
But aviation is not just about London. Our regional airports have been growing more rapidly than the London airports over the past two decades. Notable among them is Manchester, the eleventh largest European airport, which last year was voted the world's most popular airport in an international survey. Its second runway, now under construction, offers potential for further development both as a major European airport and as a driving force in the economy of the north-west. In short, there is no doubt that the story of UK civil aviation reads well. But success brings challenges, particularly in reconciling economic efficiency with environmental concerns as recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. The potential conflict is especially acute for our small crowded island. In line with policies elsewhere, we are committed to ensuring that the development of our aviation industry is sustainable. We are acutely aware of the problems caused by aircraft noise. We have issued a preliminary consultation paper on night restrictions. We are also preparing a supplementary paper on proposals for stricter day and night-time noise limits at the three airports where we exercise direct control on aircraft noise: Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
Civil aviation is responsible for about 2 to 3 per cent. of global man-made pollution. We have been pressing for a proactive approach within the International Civil Aviation Organisation in conjunction with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are at the forefront of moves to establish a stricter global standard for emissions of oxides of nitrogen from newly-certificated aircraft and other measures aimed at constraining the polluting effects of civil aviation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, expressed concerns about the possibility of aviation fuel tax. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out, the current exemption from taxation on aviation fuel is anomalous. The UK, together with some other European countries, has questioned its continued validity. We have pressed for action within ICAO and have also supported a commission study into the effects of removing this exemption within the Community. That study will be published at the end of this year. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, that a major concern will be to avoid distortion of competition between carriers or transport modes.

1721
A number of noble Lords have referred to the pressures and problems arising from congestion at airports in the south-east. The Government welcome the fact that regional airports have been able to meet more of local demand in recent years. Passenger numbers at regional airports totalled over 48 million in 1996 and are growing more rapidly than at London airports. Passenger numbers have increased by 86 per cent. between 1986 and 1996 compared with an increase of 75 per cent. at London airports. We look forward to this trend continuing.
Airports make an important contribution to the prosperity and regeneration of their hinterland and regional economies. We also recognise the potential for an even bigger contribution. Every year, millions of people from the regions have to travel via the London airports, particularly for scheduled flights. There would be great benefits from meeting more demand locally: a significant contribution to regional regeneration; a reduction in long car journeys to the London airports; and some easing of the pressure on congested airports in the south-east. The Government's integrated transport White Paper will set out the framework and the starting point for airports policy both nationally and regionally. Issues relating to regional airports and their counterparts in the south-east will be considered in more detail once that framework has been set out in the White Paper. I have been asked twice this evening about the date of publication of the White Paper. In Civil Service language, we have moved from "at some point this year" to "soon". Noble Lords will require a lexicon to interpret exactly when that will be. Everyone eagerly anticipates the integrated transport White Paper. I am fascinated how in today's debate the importance of integrating modes and looking at links with land use planning, for example, has come up again and again. To look at this in the context of integration is a very important and timely development.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked why we should not allow foreign airlines to come to regional airports even if UK airlines did not want to put services on those routes. He was particularly interested in the Scottish context. I must inform my noble friend that even after devolution, responsibility for international relations will remain with Westminster. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was concerned that air services from the regions should not be constrained unduly by congestion at the London airports, but acknowledged the problem that arose if profitable long haul services from London were replaced with less profitable short haul services. He demonstrated very well the difficulty of satisfying all of the interests in this field. In considering liberalisation at our regional airports, we shall bear in mind the plea of the noble Lord that we must not unwittingly give away valuable negotiating cards in the interests of liberalisation without ensuring that reciprocal concessions are made by other countries.
I turn next to an important matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. They were concerned about the planning of major new airport infrastructure. They asked whether there would be any change in planning policy in this
1722
respect. They both described some of the difficulties that have been well illustrated in this field. In our policy statement Modernising Planning, we made it clear that we envisaged change. For major new infrastructure projects of national importance, explicit national policy statements on need and site criteria will be published well in advance of any proposal being brought forward. Public inquiry procedures will be streamlined, in particular by giving the Secretary of State power to set a firm timetable for the delivery of the inspector's report. Where appropriate, Parliament itself will be asked to approve the broad principle of a project, so that only matters of detail and local interest need to be examined at a public inquiry. I hope that that will meet some of the concerns that issues of national importance have been debated in the incorrect forum while at the same time recognising that local concerns must be properly aired and considered.
I turn to the question of access to airports which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley among others. One of the central themes in last year's consultation paper on integrated transport was the need to reduce the nation's dependence on the car and lorry by providing genuine alternatives and promoting greater use of more attractive public transport. Airports are major destinations in their own right and have a significant role in promoting the use of public transport. The Government want to send clear signals about the direction of the new approach and the overall policy context for individual decisions. The crucial need is for each airport to work with other local players in devising and implementing a strategy which meets local needs. There have been good examples in this field. In the integrated transport White Paper, we intend to set out in broad terms what we believe needs to be done and how it might be achieved.
I turn now to the issue of US/UK aviation relations raised by several noble Lords. They are of vital importance to the UK's civil aviation industry as a whole. The UK Government are committed to liberalising services between this country and the US. That must be a balanced liberalisation which acknowledges the concerns of both countries, not a one-sided arrangement which benefits only US carriers. I hope very much that we shall be able to conclude a satisfactory new agreement with the US before the end of this year.
In our dealings with the US, we are of course mindful of the experience of US deregulation. While deregulation may be good in principle, there must be adequate safeguards to prevent larger carriers from driving off smaller innovative airlines by unfair means. The US Government have recognised that and recently produced proposals for dealing with anti-competitive practices. The UK has long argued for effective competition safeguards. We will be insisting on a proper competition regime for any new UK/US air services agreement to ensure that UK carriers have a fair opportunity to compete.
As far as the proposed British Airways /American Airlines alliance is concerned, to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred, the UK and EC regulatory

1723
investigations are at a delicate stage. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot comment on the detail of those investigations or their timing.
I think the whole House listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. He set us all to flexing our ankles as we sit on these Benches. It is a sensible thing to do. He made the serious point about passengers' understanding of the risks while flying and how those risks might be reduced. Many airlines, and BA in particular, take such matters seriously, and offer their passengers advice on how best to conduct themselves on long flights, through leaflets at the back of seats. They include advice on matters such as healthy eating, and I am afraid I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, not drinking too much alcohol during flights. I take the point also that not everyone understands or has access to that information. I shall draw my noble friend's remarks to the notice of the British Air Transport Association and to the CAA, as the industry's regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, raised the issue of helicopters. I was particularly encouraged by his support for the work of the Civil Aviation Authority's Safety Regulation Group. He went on to draw attention to the costs of safety regulation, and the burden they place on the helicopter industry. Equally, I am sure the industry as a whole would recognise the commercial value of operating in a safe and well-regulated environment. As far as the level of costs is concerned, the Government are committed to the "user pays" principle, by which the Civil Aviation Authority is required to recover all its costs from the industry. The Civil Aviation Authority consults industry annually on the charges it makes and has had a good deal of success recently in keeping down its costs, despite the ever-increasing volume of traffic. It will continue to endeavour to keep the costs down to those which are essential.
The noble Lord spoke also of the need for an effective collision avoidance system for military aircraft. The Ministry of Defence is considering the procurement of a collision warning system for military fast jet aircraft. That is being examined as part of the strategic defence review. Furthermore, the fitting and use of aircraft collision avoidance systems will become compulsory in Europe for large passenger aircraft by 2000 and smaller aircraft by 2005. That should help to reduce the human-error factor.
On a slightly different regulatory tack, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, raised the point about the Government's attitude towards complying with certain European directives. She received some support from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. We are not talking about gold-plating here. I agree that we in the UK have implemented the ground handling directive carefully and properly, and that the position is more patchy in some other member states of the EU. However, the directive is delivering benefits for UK airlines operating in Europe; for instance, in opening up the ground handling market at Frankfurt Airport. The Government will continue to press the European Commission to take vigorous action to ensure that the directive is
1724
implemented quickly and properly in all member states, which should help to ensure the level sky, if not the playing field, to which the noble Baroness aspired.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, also mentioned the recent Community measure on air carrier liability. That provides a welcome increase in the levels of compensation paid to travellers injured or killed in air accidents and their dependants. Though, as a Council regulation, it has direct effect in the UK, we are obliged to prepare implementing legislation to eliminate areas of conflict with existing national law, and to impose appropriate sanctions for non-compliance. As far as the information requirements set out in the regulation are concerned, I understand that discussions are taking place between the industry and the Commission with a view to finding an acceptable common form of words.
The abolition of duty free sales, was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who took different views on the issue. At the ECOFIN meeting yesterday, a number of finance Ministers made it clear that they opposed any re-opening of the 1991 decision. That meant that there was not the unanimity needed to change the decision. The UK wished to see a Commission study into the effect of abolition, but there was no majority in favour of that either. We shall have to live with that decision. Meanwhile, some of the concerns of the transport sector are being addressed through discussions with the trade on the operation of a duty-paid regime post-1999.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, talked about air passenger duty. I should point out that air transport continues to benefit from duty free fuel. In the UK, unlike most other European countries, VAT is also levied at zero on domestic journeys. Certainly, there is little evidence that air passenger duty is constraining the industry: UK airports report continuing passenger growth and there was a 7 per cent. increase in the overseas package tour market in 1997.
The important issue of safety was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Glenarthur. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about airproxes. Of course any risk-bearing airprox incident is one too many. The National Air Traffic Control Services and the Ministry of Defence carry out the most stringent investigations into all such incidents which are judged to bear a risk. The appropriate lessons are learnt. I agree with the noble Lord that we can never relax vigilance in that field. He also mentioned, as did other noble Lords, the new air traffic control centre at Swanwick. Concerns have been expressed. I listened carefully to what was said on that issue. I hope that noble Lords will understand that while the Government are considering their response to the Select Committee's report, I cannot respond in detail. I assure noble Lords that the Government are taking the report seriously and will be publishing a response shortly.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that the so-called Clacton sector to which he referred is being resectorised—that is a horrible word, but I am sure he will understand what it means—which will help to provide the extra capacity needed until the Swanwick centre comes on stream.

1725
During the past few months, we have had a particularly prominent role in Europe through our presidency of the European Union, during which aviation has formed a major component of our transport agenda. We have given priority to safety-related issues. Much work has been done to prepare for negotiations which we hope will lead to the establishment of a new European aviation safety authority, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
In the field of air traffic management, we have been paving the way for Community membership of EUROCONTROL. We hope a mandate for negotiations will be agreed at next month's Transport Council. Community membership should allow the European Union to pursue its proper interest in this important area of aviation infrastructure. We have also worked on improvements to the rules governing computerised reservation systems; and have started to look at changes to the system of denied boarding compensation, both of which are useful consumer protection measures. I think that the interests of the consumer have been highlighted in today's debate. We shall not be able to judge properly our success until after the next Transport Council on 18th June. However, at this stage I think we can reasonably claim that during our presidency we shall have made a substantial contribution to the development of the Community's aviation policy.
I hope that I have left noble Lords in no doubt about the significance the Government attach to the civil aviation industry. It plays a vital role in our economic prosperity. We have a challenge to create conditions for its development which are sustainable in the longer term. It has been a well informed debate in which noble Lords have drawn attention to some of the problems faced in the short and longer term. We shall bear in mind the views expressed as we develop policies on civil aviation.
8 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, my pleasure at the opportunity to move the Motion has been sustained by the quality and variety of the contributions of noble Lords. Even if I cannot agree with every sentiment, and I would not expect the Minister to agree with every one of mine, I am grateful to all who have taken part, and especially to the Minister—I think that I speak for all when I say this—for her reply. It was detailed and wide-ranging. We appreciate the many constraints under which she spoke. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1998
8.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th May be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
1726
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, this is a formality through which we go every year. The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services. The House will be aware that since 1961 an Armed Forces Bill has been brought before the House every five years, with the primary purpose of continuing in force the Acts that provide the disciplinary powers of the three armed services. Each Armed Forces Bill is an opportunity for both the services and Parliament to review service discipline.
Between each five yearly Bill, this disciplinary code is renewed annually by the continuation order procedure, involving an Order in Council which is approved by resolution of each House. The House will be aware that the last Armed Forces Bill was considered and enacted in 1996. I am asking the House today to give the necessary annual renewal to the discipline Acts by agreeing to the order. That completes the formal part of what I wish to say to your Lordships.
I wish to take this opportunity to touch on a few things that have happened since the last time I addressed your Lordships on this subject; advise noble Lords on the progress in the Ministry of Defence on certain matters which might be termed social problems; and update your Lordships on changes to the service discipline structure which have been agreed.
Last year noble Lords will recall that I mentioned that we were examining the recommendation that membership of courts-martial be extended to warrant officers. I am able to advise the House that it has been agreed that membership of courts-martial trying other ranks be extended so warrant officers may also serve on them. The requisite legislative changes will be made in the next Armed Forces Bill in 2001.
During the passage of the last Armed Forces Bill in your Lordships' House, there was discussion about the introduction of a pilot scheme for a military provost guard service. The trial period of the military provost guard service is successfully coming to its end and a full report will be provided, initially to another place, in due course.
We at the Ministry of Defence are still concerned with the problems of racial harassment and bullying which have occurred from time to time. We are delighted that on 25th March of this year the Commission for Racial Equality decided to abandon altogether the question of legal action against the Household Cavalry. As a result of the considerable efforts that have been made over the past two years, across all three Armed Services, we are now in a situation where Sir Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the CRE, has gratifyingly described our performance as,
"a model of leadership in action".
We are delighted with the excellent progress which has now enabled the commission to recognise the willingness of the Armed Forces to make real and permanent progress in this field. In particular, we have agreed a five year partnership with the commission, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the

1727
House. Its purpose is to ensure continued compliance by the Ministry of Defence within the action plan which was annexed to the 1996 CRE-MoD agreement to promote racial equality within the Armed Forces. I think that noble Lords will wish to join with me in congratulating all ranks on what we have achieved so far.
We are also pressing ahead in our determination to seek further employment opportunities for women in the services. From 1st April of this year, the number of posts open to women in the Army increased to 70 per cent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 27th October last year commissioned a review of all those areas of employment currently still closed to servicewomen across all three services in order to see whether or not it will be possible to expand employment opportunities. That review is nearing completion and Ministers will be considering its recommendations in due course.
Another important element in these matters is training. All the services are agreed that equal opportunity training must be consistent across all three services. That is why the tri-service centre being established at Shrivenham is so important. The centre began to provide training for service advisers in March this year. I am pleased to say that by the end of this month a series of five-day courses will have been run to which a total of 73 personnel will have been trained in such issues as behaviour and personal perceptions, as well as service equal opportunity policies and legal responsibilities. We aim to train no fewer than 900 trainers and advisers in this financial year.
In terms of senior officer training, your Lordships will recall that I mentioned on 17th March of this year that this was being made mandatory for service officers of the rank of brigadier and equivalent, and above. We anticipate that the first courses will begin later this year once design work on them has been completed. The aim of the course is to enable senior officers, service and civilian, to implement the department's equal opportunity policies and to understand the role of leadership and personal example, starting at the very top with the Chief of the Defence Staff and his Chief of Staff colleagues, in developing a culture throughout the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces which encourages fair treatment for everyone.
I conclude my brief contribution by paying the normal and very well deserved tribute that all Ministers like to pay to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. We are all aware of their professionalism and dedication. The fact that so many services from around the world send their forces to this country for training is probably the most vivid testimony one could have to the standards and morale of our services.
To ensure that our services can maintain those excellent standards for which they are renowned, it is absolutely vital that they have a suitable environment in which to operate. That is essential for good morale and discipline. That is what the Service Discipline Acts seek to provide. I therefore invite your Lordships to approve the order before the House.
1728
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th May be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Gilbert.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the background to the order. Before making any comments, I have to declare an interest as I am currently commanding a TA REME Recovery Unit. We operate under the 1955 Act.
The House usually takes the opportunity to debate defence with the order. We have had many defence debates recently. Suffice it to say, we are well aware that there will be changes to the various service discipline Acts at the time of the quinquennial review. No doubt the House will debate the measures according to their merits, as suggested by the Minister.
I am grateful for the Minister's comments on G1 matters. Many noble Lords will be aware that recently I had the opportunity to make some small contribution to the regular Army's efforts. I was enormously impressed with its capability and with the way it looked after me. I can assure your Lordships that the regular Army is in fine fettle even though it is under extreme pressure. As to the order itself, we welcome it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I too do not wish to detain the House. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has remarked, we have had a number of debates on this issue and I had a chance to welcome the report from the Commission on Racial Equality some weeks ago. We all welcome that report.
The balance between discipline and justice always has to be delicately drawn. The concern with racial harassment and equal opportunities in the services is clearly to be welcomed. As a party we have remarked that, as more women serve in the services, the increasingly delicate issue of sexual harassment has to be taken on board. But there is also the question of sexual orientation which has not yet been fully grasped by the armed services. That is a matter which has been overzealously pursued by the military police and others in the past. My party is committed to subjecting that to the equal opportunities approach in the armed services and shifting the attitude of the military authorities to it. Apart from that, on the larger issues we look to the quinquennial review in 2001. On that basis we are happy to support the current order.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question about the future of courts martial for sexual misconduct. Reports of these occur regularly in the newspapers and one reads that they are apparently in the public interest. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that these courts martial should be held in private. No other industry puts its staff on trial in that way. I have the impression that the Armed Forces are made a fool of by this process. I well understand that these are offences within the military legal code but I wonder whether they can be conducted in private?
Lord Gilbert: I am grateful to noble Lords for their brief contribution to this debate and for the general

1729
support given to this order. I took seriously what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about the Army being under severe pressure. That is a matter that concerns us in the Ministry of Defence, but such research as we have done has informed us that this fact is not readily recognised by the general public.
That is a serious matter which we hope to address in the future. People outside this place, outside the services and the Ministry of Defence do not understand what "overstretch" means. They understand overstretch when it comes to people working in hospitals, for example, because they see it and it impinges on their lives. But they do not understand what it is when we talk about the services being subject to overstretch. That is a matter to which I and my colleagues shall devote a considerable amount of effort in the months ahead. I am sure that I shall have the support of this House when I say that I hope all noble Lords will do everything they can to persuade members of the public that they know what overstretch is and why the services are suffering from it.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned the question of sexual orientation. He is well aware that there are a couple of legal cases of some importance going through the courts outside this country. The services are waiting to see the results of those decisions.
As to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, these matters are extremely unfortunate. One regrets and deplores every one of these courts martial. His suggestion is an interesting one but I do not think that it will commend itself to the services. Like the general public, they would far rather see justice being done in these matters in public. I shall report his remarks to my colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, but I do not think that I can encourage the noble Earl to think that they will be particularly enthusiastically received. With that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution) (SOLAS) Order 1998
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am pleased to seek the approval of the House for the Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution) (SOLAS) Order. The order is purely a legal technicality to enable the making of regulations in a situation where the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974—commonly known as SOLAS—contains provisions relating also to the control of pollution.
We implement SOLAS, which, as its name indicates, relates to safety at sea, by means of regulations made under Section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The powers in that section, although very wide, only
1730
enable regulations to be made which deal with the safety of ships and the safety and health of persons on them. They do not enable regulations with the purpose of controlling pollution. This order will provide that facility.
The need for the order has come about because recently SOLAS was amended to require ship operators to comply with the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, commonly known as the International Safety Management, or ISM, code. That code requires operators to have in place a "safety management system", defined as a structured and documented system enabling company personnel to effectively implement the safety and environmental protection policy of the company.
The ISM code has been developed over a number of years at the International Maritime Organisation and was adopted at the 18th session of the IMO Assembly in November 1993. The objectives of the internationally agreed mandatory application of the code are to ensure, first, compliance with existing rules and regulations—the code introduces no new technical regulations—and secondly, effective implementation and enforcement thereof by flag administrations.
The adoption of a new chapter to the SOLAS convention, Chapter IX, makes the ISM code mandatory in two phases, depending on ship type, on 1st July 1998 and 1st July 2002. The UK was instrumental in the development of the code and fully supports its implementation.
It has long been acknowledged, from the examination of maritime accidents, that the human element is a causal factor and the intention of the ISM code is to address this aspect. Previously a vessel's safety and pollution prevention capabilities were judged primarily on the condition of the ship, provision of equipment, and certification of key personnel. The ISM code requires that the operational and managerial expertise, both on shore and at sea, are adequate to operate vessels safely to internationally agreed standards. It also places a responsibility on flag administrations to undertake checks, that is audits, to ensure that ships flying their flag, and furthermore the companies which operate them, comply with the code.
Following the tragic loss of the "Estonia" our partners in the European Union recognised the significance of the code in relation to ship safety by bringing forward the date for compliance with the code by two years to 1st July 1996 for sea-going roll-on, roll-off passenger ferries. This was done by Council regulation EC No. 3051/95. As a point of interest, I am pleased to report that all UK registered ships in that category complied by July 1996.
As with many international agreements domestic legislation has to be put in place to implement those agreements. It is intended, therefore, that a statutory instrument, the Merchant Shipping (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations, should be brought into force on 1st July 1998 under the negative procedure. Those regulations will make it mandatory for companies and ships to comply with the ISM code. They

1731
set out requirements for companies and ships to be in possession of the appropriate certificates. They provide a power to suspend services and for penalties where offences are committed in contravention of the regulations.
It will be appreciated that it is essential that the ISM code regulations be enacted for a number of reasons. For example, the benefits of the code will be to minimise the scope for poor human decisions which contribute directly or indirectly to a casualty or pollution incident, with consequent significant improvements in safety and pollution prevention. The code will lead to enhanced safety standards and will help to eliminate sub-standard shipping. It is welcomed by responsible operators who can see the benefit to the maritime industry. Also, as a signatory to the SOLAS convention, the UK is committed to implementation of the new chapter. Failure to do so would mean that UK companies and ships could not be certificated, with the consequential disadvantages of being unable to trade internationally, and foreign ships entering UK ports would be free from such commitment.
However, as indicated previously, in view of the fact that the code also deals with the control of pollution, Section 85 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is not on its own wide enough to allow us to make the ISM code mandatory. So this order is being made under Section 128 of that Act. The section allows orders to be made—which in turn can allow regulations to be made—to give effect to any international agreement,
"which relates to the prevention, reduction or control of pollution of the sea or other waters by matter from ships".
This order names SOLAS as such an agreement so far as it relates to control of pollution. The regulation making the ISM code will thus be made under the two enabling powers—the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and this Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution)(SOLAS) Order. However, I should emphasise that this order is not just for the purpose of implementing the ISM code. If at any time in the future SOLAS is amended in any way which covers pollution also, then this order will enable regulations to be made to allow such an amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, was sufficiently considerate to raise one particular question with me and for the convenience of the House, I shall answer it now. This order will enable us to implement international obligations and is not the result of a direct recommendation of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. As the House may remember, effect was given to some of those recommendations in the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 which amended the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
However, I should say also that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his report, was entirely supportive of the ISM code and agreed with the recommendation of the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents following his investigation of the "Braer" casualty that the ISM code should be implemented by the shore management of shipping companies as a matter of urgency, even before it became mandatory. I commend the order to the House.
1732
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose and the need for the order. On these Benches, we are entirely content with it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for her detailed explanation and also for her courtesy in responding to my query at very short notice. We certainly support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
8.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before proceeding to the detail of the order, I would like to pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade. For many years the brigade has played a vitally important role in the life of Northern Ireland. Firefighters have responded, under particularly difficult circumstances, to all types of emergencies with impartiality and dedication second to none.
This order would amend the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain with respect to legislation dealing with the fighting of fires at sea and, in relation to firefighters' pensions, will provide a specific power for determining appeals. It would also enable a change to be made to the means by which certain nominations are made for membership of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland.
Article 3 would make it possible for the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade, any fire engine, appliance or equipment to be used outside Northern Ireland at sea. That is designed to bring Northern Ireland into line with the comparable law in Great Britain.
Article 4 is necessary to clarify the basis upon which the department can consolidate the existing firemen's pensions scheme in Northern Ireland and introduce a new scheme should that be appropriate. The amendment would provide for the determination of questions arising under the pension scheme and for the means to appeal against decisions relating to such determinations.
Article 5 concerns the membership of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland. The authority currently consists of 17 members appointed for four-year terms. At present Belfast City Council and the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland are the only bodies with nomination rights: each has the right to nominate four members.

1733
However, a review of the constitution of the authority recommended a change to the method of nomination. Accordingly, this amendment would extend nomination rights by introducing a procedure whereby appointments would be made following consultation with all district councils and associations representative of councils. The new procedure would first be effective for appointments to the authority in 2001. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this order puts in place several useful improvements to the arrangements for fire cover in Northern Ireland. In particular, the third provision, which makes new provision with respect to members of the authority to be nominated by certain councils and associations, is in the direction of devolving government rather more to the people of Northern Ireland. In that sense, it is well in tune with present trends and is extremely desirable. I am content with the order before the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Building
8.27 p.m.
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they recognise the economic and environmental advantages of appropriate new road building; and what action they will take.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate this evening. Both this Government and the previous one have been under much pressure from single interest groups to delay and discontinue road building and road improvement schemes throughout the UK. I have to say that such groups are often more interested in opportunistic media attention than they are in recognising hard facts.
They have cleverly exploited a public mood swing which one can almost date from the time of the Department of Transport's appallingly insensitive handling of the Winchester bypass. It is not surprising that this act of environmental vandalism gathered new recruits to the anti-road lobby. But in these matters it is so much easier to give criticism than acclaim. By contrast, I wonder now if all those who held up the development of the Okehampton bypass for years, and with it the economic resuscitation of the south west, would, if they travelled that route today, honestly argue that it had done any great environmental harm. But it has brought huge positive benefits to the whole of the south west and scenic pleasure to the millions of motorists who now use it.
In instigating this debate, a number of us felt that it is high time that the positive advantages of appropriate road building were acclaimed; time that the dogs that do not bark were listened to—30 million car drivers. That is hugely more than the relatively small membership of the anti-road lobby.
The positive case for driving is too rarely put. The car is a great liberator. Every young person longs to own one. The elderly dread the curtailment to their lives that withdrawal of their licence would bring. Millions of people depend on them to get to their jobs and public transport could never offer a feasible alternative.
Our roads are vital economic arteries and the prosperity of the nation relies on the velocity of the exchange of goods. As the standard of living rises inevitably, so does the use of transport in all its forms. Above all, the car brings individual freedom and not least has emancipated the lives of many poorer families whose expenditure on their car is their highest priority after food. Clobbering the driver with unnecessary economic disincentives will diminish and not improve our quality of life. As an editorial in the Telegraph said recently,
"to be anti-car is in varying degrees to be anti-freedom, anti-family and anti-prosperity".
I am not for one moment suggesting that we should spend less on rail transport and on public transport generally. Indeed, we should spend substantially more in these areas, but the fact is that there is no way that they can relieve more than the smallest percentage of the growing goods and passenger traffic from our present road system. The rail operators project that, even when their lines are running to full capacity—and that will not be until some 10 years' time—they will be unable to divert more than a small amount from our road system. Yes, their market share will double from 5 per cent. to 11 per cent., but during that period traffic growth on the roads will substantially exceed that figure, leaving 90 per cent. where it is.
Therefore, those who advocate a switch to rail should both look at the figures and the practicalities and remember that a rail journey is a three-part journey, and that getting passengers or goods to a railway station in itself creates substantial local congestion and often overall longer journeys than by door-to-door routeing.
In the last Budget, the Government raised taxes on road fuel, which will now bring in an additional £2.5 billion a year over the existing £28 billion that they already recover from the motorist—that is a total equivalent to over £1,000 per driver per year. That increase was dressed up by the Treasury as part of our obligations to reduce CO2 emissions, but the tax in itself was unnecessary as our obligations could have been met far more effectively, and in a completely CO2-free way, had the Government authorised the building of a further nuclear generator. France is only 50 miles away and meets all its obligations through its nuclear programme.
In practice, fuel taxes are not only inflationary, as we observed in today's announcements; they are also regressive. They make transport sensitive industries like forestry uneconomic and they particularly hit hard the poorest members of the community. It is surprising that a Labour Government cannot see this more clearly and recognise the importance of the car to working people.
In such a short debate it is not possible to cover all the ground, but I am indeed most grateful to see the Minister here at all this evening. She will know that her life and the lives of her colleagues consist as much as

1735
anything of seeing delegations of MPs and their constituents demanding bypasses and road improvements. It is a pleasure to see the Minister. I warmly thank her for finding the time.
The Minister will know that recently the law abiding citizens of Audley Edge—tired of traffic and pollution—were moved to take direct action to protest at the withdrawal of the agreement by this Government to build their bypass. Theirs is one of 500 bypasses awaiting approval. The Government's response is to reduce the bypass programme to two a year, which will hardly make the need or the problem go away.
It is also disingenuous to argue that roads create more traffic and are therefore not beneficial. They often create more traffic by taking substantial traffic off alternative roads. Can anyone seriously suggest that London could exist without the M.25, London's bypass? There are hundreds of examples of unfinished road schemes throughout the UK, whose completion would add immeasurably to the lives of our citizens. For example, the A.1 is of great significance to the economy of the country. Over half the journeys on the A.1 are made for business purposes. There have been some improvements over the years, but these are not being fully enjoyed while serious bottlenecks remain on the unimproved sections, thus creating hugely polluting tail backs. Cost-benefit analysis of improvements to the A.1, according to the 1993 DoT report, all show a sound return on the money invested in the construction due to the relief of congestion and the savings from reduced journey times.
Where single carriageways have been upgraded to motorway standard, the accident rate is between two or three times lower than before, resulting in the savings of many hundreds of accidents and lives per section. Overall, it is 382 miles long and currently only 88 miles are to motorway standard. It is farcical to argue that this road, one of the premier commercial arteries of the nation, should remain unimproved.
Let us take also the A.66, which is the key cross-Pennine road. It is of strategic importance, yet it is often impassable in winter and the road changes from single to dual carriageway nine times along its 50 mile length, giving it a very poor safety record. Here, again, there is every economic and environmental case for its improvement. Throughout the north of England and southern Scotland the improvement of the A.66 is seen as vital to the local economy and is key to making better use of the ports in the north east. Its improvement would deflect much of the goods that are currently trunked to the south of England via the overcrowded M.6.
The trans-Pennine links from the A.1 to the M.6 are wholly inadequate and their completion would bring big benefits to the high unemployment areas of the north east. Roads are the arteries of commerce. Surely the Government must recognise the universal support for the upgrading of this road, not least by the local authorities of their own persuasion in that area.
I turn now to rising fuel duties. These are a sizeable financial gain to the Treasury. Indeed, yield from fuel duty has risen from £11 billion in 1992 to a forecast £21 billion in 1998. So it was not as if the Government
1736
could not afford it. The duty on unleaded petrol has gone up by 88 per cent. since 1992. Out of this huge sum of £30 billion taken from the motorist in one way or another, only £2 billion a year is spent by local authorities on road maintenance. At current levels of expenditure, it will take 115 years to resurface the road system of this country. Is it surprising that it is collapsing? If ever there was an argument for a stitch in time saves nine, it is on the roads where today's false economies will make for tomorrow's major expenditure. But, instead of recognising this, the Government have cut the present road building allocation to a miserly £1.8 billion, a yet smaller figure than they have raised by the additional tax in the last Budget.
Frankly, that is completely back-to-front in terms of the economic needs of this country, the economic needs of a modern expanding economy and the simple requirements of people's everyday lives. The pretence that there is an alternative is seized upon by governments as an excuse for taxing motorists. But the bulk of the proceeds are neither spent on public transport nor on roads. An excellent paper by the Centre for Economic and Business Research has shown the substantial economic and environmental gains that come from appropriate new road building.
A more honest policy would recognise that fact and accept that road transport will continue to be the main form of transport; but, perfectly properly, coupled with this, the Government should seek to encourage the use of alternatives: yes, of course, the switch to rail where appropriate, the switch to public transport where feasible and the continuous development of cleaner fuels, more fuel efficient and quieter cars, toll roads and traffic calming measures generally, while recognising that even an improved public transport system can only marginally relieve the problem. Realistically there is simply no way that bulk road traffic can be transferred onto the rails or canals, and it is Luddite to pretend it can. We simply have to learn to live with road transport and, within reason, accommodate it.
The Government are long on good intentions but short on credible alternatives to road transport. If the leaks are anything to go by, the forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport systems is, in practical terms, more likely, through the increased congestion and pollution that it will fail to relieve, to do more harm than good. Without a comprehensive and well-maintained road system, both the personal freedom of our citizens and the competitiveness of the United Kingdom will be severely and quite unnecessarily restricted. To pretend otherwise is to fly in the face of reality.
In debates on Unstarred Questions no time is given for me to reply after the Minister has spoken. So I would like to use this opportunity to thank all of those who have come to the Chamber tonight. I hope and believe our deliberations will have an effect. I would particularly like to thank the Minister who I hope, will find some encouragement from this debate, knowing that her beleaguered and embattled department has the goodwill not only of most of those who are here today but most of the 30 million motorists who rely on their

1737
cars. I hope she will go forth strengthened in her determination to improve the transport systems of this country, and the road transport system not least.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vinson spoke of the huge amounts road users contribute to the national Exchequer and stressed how small a proportion of that sum is actually spent to improve road transport. Successive governments have cheated road users for years—about 70 by my reckoning for it was in the 1920s that the government of the day decided to call open season on the relatively small numbers of Britain's drivers and diverted all but a pittance of the tax they paid to other government departments. That game has been going on ever since.
Drivers pay £20 billion more in taxes each year than the sum that is invested in road infrastructure. That is not fair and never has been. I should record that there was an outbreak of decency and fairness back in 1984, when schemes were introduced to make those parking in towns and cities pay for the privilege. I refer to the Road Traffic Regulation Act. Section 55 of that Act—which I have carefully looked up—specifically states that all surpluses from parking revenue must be used for better traffic management and to improve parking facilities. That is quite right too! Alas, that small swallow did not make a summer of fair dealing for the motorist. The tax snatch policy continued and actually got worse. This Government in less than a year have imposed the biggest ever increase of petrol tax—38p a gallon. In no single year since motoring began has there been such a swingeing increase. However, I do not think the ordinary motorist realises quite how much more petrol costs in "Cool Britannia", because increases are quoted in litres not gallons. Some 4p or 6p a litre increase sounds a mere flea-bite and nothing to worry about. However, a litre is only a jugful of petrol. You try filling up your car with one litre of petrol and see how far it takes you. The reality is gallons; to talk of litres misleads.
If the French government had taxed so heavily and given road users so little in return, there would be rioting in the Republic. The streets of Paris would be jammed with people, screaming, shouting and waving banners. All trunk roads in the land would be solid with parked lorries. Here, there is not a peep, or not for the moment at least. But both the AA and the chambers of commerce report steadily growing anger. I warn Ministers to watch out. No wonder there is such anger when we not only have this blatant unfairness but the Minister has started to bully. First, he gave a hint some time ago that there might be a legal ban on having more than one car per family. We have not heard much about that since. The people of Birmingham would not be happy if that ban were enforced. I doubt whether families up and down the land would be happy either.
Now there is talk of "introducing punishing measures" to force commuters on to public transport. I have news for the Minister. People will turn to public transport only when it is less expensive than using their
1738
cars and when it is reliable, regular, comfortable and convenient. Then they will use public transport and will be happy to do so. Why not spend some of the tax revenue on improving public transport? If the Government used more of the tax they collect from road users to improve public transport they could have their wish come true.
I now turn to a particular problem in the West Midlands, which is the great heartland of British industry. Industrial productivity was mentioned at Question Time yesterday but transport was not mentioned at all. But I must tell your Lordships that successful industrial effort depends to a great extent on the efficient transport of raw materials, components and finished products. These things must be transported efficiently and quickly. But, daily and hourly, industrial achievement in the West Midlands is hampered and trammelled by traffic jams on the M6 motorway, particularly from Junctions 4 to 11.
The M6 is one of the main strategic arteries in the UK trunk road system. It is the only direct, high standard route between the east and south east of England, to the north west and Scotland. At the point where it connects with the M5 it is the main route between the north west and the south west of England. It is also a vital road to Wales. But anyone who uses that road knows to his cost that it frequently takes two hours to travel the 24 miles between Junctions 4 and 11. I am not talking about the rush hour; that can happen at any time of the day. I do not mention that simply because I have experienced it many times myself; I mention it particularly because of the consequences of that awful delay for industry.
I am told that the M6 was designed to carry 70,000 to 80,000 vehicles per day. It now regularly carries 140,000. The need for the northern relief road is absolutely overwhelming. I am grateful to the Minister for listening so carefully. She may have heard my next point mentioned by others. There is an anti-road lobby using every legal trick in the book to stop the construction of the northern relief road. I have no objection to people working within the legal framework of the land, but sometimes it can be used deliberately to stop a project. I am told that at the moment there is a legal challenge to try to get officials to reveal details of penalty clauses. That is intended to thwart the project. I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind what is going on and to stop it.
In a spirit of helpful goodwill to the Government, who I know must be seeking ways to relieve the dreadful and increasing congestion on Britain's roads, I ask the Minister to consider my next two points. Both points have been inspired by American practices. First, could we not look seriously at giving cars with two or more persons in them the benefit of using a designated lane? A few days ago I read that Leeds is experimenting with this. It will be interesting to learn how that experiment turns out. However, I believe that only bus lanes are being used and therefore the experiment can only take place over short distances. There are a few four lane sections on our motorways and undoubtedly, as time goes on, we shall have to widen motorways. I warmly commend the notion of using the extra lane to encourage

1739
people to travel with others in their cars. In that way we would get rid of congestion and there would be fewer cars on the roads. Incidentally, could we do more to persuade motorists to use the middle and left lanes rather than using the fast lane all the time?
My second suggestion relates to country roads. Most of us, perhaps all of us, have suffered in a queue behind a slow-moving vehicle on a country road. It may be a tractor, or a very venerable car with an even more venerable driver behind the steering wheel. It is absolutely maddening. I have seen many a delay caused. I believe that we should adopt the rule that applies in America. If any driver has more than five vehicles behind him, he has to pull off and let those vehicles pass. There are plenty of places where cars could pull off the road. I suggest that idea to the Government for consideration.
As the whole country knows, this problem is great, and is becoming worse. I wish the Government well in dealing with it. The suggestions I have made are a genuine attempt to help.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. The two contributions that I have heard so far, from the noble Lord himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, would have been more appropriate if this debate had taken place two or three years ago. The criticisms that I have heard so far of this Government's policy were all on matters started by the previous government over the past few years: the new road building programme collapsed; the trunk roads maintenance programme was slashed; and local authority finance for maintaining local roads was also slashed. And I believe it was the previous government who introduced the annual increase in the fuel price of 6 per cent. above inflation.
To explore those points in more detail, in the 1990s programme the previous government had a £20 billion plus, 500-scheme, "predict and build" roads programme. Ministers at the time boasted that it was the biggest roads programme since the Romans—quite a boast! By the time they left office it had been reduced to £6 billion and 147 schemes. They concluded that they could not build themselves out of congestion.
The budget for trunk road maintenance was slashed to £200 million in 1997–98. The then Transport Minister, John Watts, giving evidence to the Transport Select Committee in another place, said that it was inadequate. He said:
"we have had to make a lower provision for maintenance and for network enhancement than would reflect our real priorities".
So we have seen it all before. The worst cases were Twyford Down and the Newbury bypass. Both schemes were pushed forward by the previous government. Another Conservative Minister of Transport, Steve Norris, was quoted in the press as saying of the Newbury by-pass:
"I believe we could have left all this countryside alone. I don't think this route should have been used. I think it is fair to say that the formula was more motorist based than it should have been and it didn't apply the same kind of cash value to environmental considerations that it did to motorists' inconvenience".
1740
That says it all.
This Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, refers back to the "predict and provide" policies of the previous government, who, some three years ago, produced some fascinating maps of congestion on the motorway and main road system in the year 2015. They are very difficult to see, because they are in colour, but they indicate that between six o'clock in the morning and midnight on every day of the week there would be severe congestion in 2015 between Preston and Maidstone. So whether as a country we want to go on building through "predict and provide" I do not know. I do not believe that we can afford it financially, environmentally or politically. On the environmental side, there has already been a pollution warning this year. As we all know, most of the CO2 pollution in this country comes from the motor vehicle.
A very interesting report was produced by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA). It is an independent committee advising governments on how to assess demand for road transport. It challenges the long-held belief that new roads to an area encourage economic development. Over the years, economic development officers and others around the country have said, "We must have a new road for economic development". The interim report, Transport Investment, Transport Intensity and Economic Growth, goes into some detail, and I shall not go through it all. It states that the case is not proven either way for or against roads as generators of economic development. One can see the reasons behind that. Exports out of a region are easier; but imports into a region are easier as well. The same applies to people driving in and out for employment.
The report also states:
"The state of the art in local and regional economic impact studies is underdeveloped; the pervasive, often implicit assumption that the benefit of improved accessibility will always accrue to the target area may often be misplaced".
The report is available in the Printed Paper Office and is worth reading.
I believe there is another way. The key is to reduce the use of cars, not the ownership of cars. Let us make better use of existing roads for cars, lorries, buses, cyclists and pedestrians. They all have a right to the road space. It is not just a matter of cars. We have heard a lot about cars during this debate, but very little about other potential road users. It is a question of enabling people to get about. One has also to consider what it is like for those who do not have access to a car and who have to travel by bus, or walk or cycle. We have to make provision for their needs as much as we do for the motorist.
In the cities, there is the problem of bus lanes and enforcement. It is a matter that we have discussed many times in this House and I shall not go into it tonight. There are the problems raised by bridge closures. The subject of Hammersmith Bridge has arisen occasionally in this House.
An interesting study on bridge closures states that when a bridge closes or there is some other traffic constraint, only 75 per cent. of the traffic finds another

1741
way. The other 25 per cent. does not go at all, or uses public transport. That can be taken as a reductio ad absurdum; however it does not always mean that we need to build more roads to get people around.
We discussed the matter of cycling earlier today. More people in London would cycle if it was less dangerous to do so and there was less fear of being run over. I live in Oxford, where many more people cycle and the cycle lanes are quite good.
But there are also problems for pedestrians on the roads, apart from pollution. There was a fascinating and moving debate in another place on 13th May, which I commend to your Lordships, about a fatal accident involving pedestrians.
There are other solutions in towns, such as lower speed limits—20 m.p.h., or even 10 m.p.h., in certain areas—which I hope the Government will consider. As we all know, speed kills. The passengers are protected but not those outside. Pedestrians and cyclists have their rights as well.
I welcome the Government's extra contribution in relation to country buses. I also wish to mention an interesting pilot study taking place in Wiltshire: the "Wigglybus". The bus follows a fixed route and timetable. People telephone in advance to its control and are given an approximate pick-up time when the bus will go off its route. If the bus is late, the bus driver will telephone people. It appears to be an interesting contribution towards helping those in the countryside who do not have access to public transport. I wish it well.
I wish to speak briefly about freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Rail transport can take quite a lot of long-distance freight off the road. It does not all have to go by lorry via the M.6. Rail freight is competing more and more in that line. I shall not go into further detail now.
Much more could be done in the way of lorry restrictions in towns at certain times. Maybe we could even look at urban distribution centres on the outskirts of towns, not the centre, with smaller distribution lorries.
One must not say that no new roads will ever be necessary, but there is concern that any new scheme is not only turning itself into a traffic generator but also moving a jam a few miles up the road to the next roundabout. That was going to happen on the M.40 until the Government—luckily for me and I am grateful—cancelled the White City westward scheme which did not seem to me likely to do much good.
It is against that background that I welcome the Government's new appraisal framework for new roads which enables different solutions to be compared against a much wider basis for criteria. They include safety, the environment, accessibility, the economy and integration. I am sure that will in the end be a much better and more objective assessment of whether new roads are right or wrong and whether some other measures should be introduced instead.
1742
I conclude by commenting that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was beleaguered. I see totally the opposite. I see the emerging policy as a breath of fresh air. I see the Government asking difficult questions which the previous government ducked for years. They cut the roads budget without proposing any meaningful alternative for public transport or freight. I hope that the forthcoming White Paper will not only confirm those cuts but also propose some exciting initiatives to be the carrot that goes with the stick.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Vinson for introducing the debate. I was a little alarmed by what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said. The first half of his speech seemed to be taken up with what the Conservative Government talked about. I was under the impression that it was May 1998, not May 1997, and we have had a Labour Government for a year. I am delighted and hope that they will get on, not worrying about what happened in the past but looking at what is happening today and tomorrow.
This debate is all about the environment and pollution of the environment. It is rail against road. War has been declared on the motorist by various governments for many years now, as my noble friend Lady Knight said. We must do something about it. The whole road building programme has been thwarted. Environmentalists say that more roads mean more vehicles; more vehicles mean more jams; more jams mean more pollution. The anti-brigade, epitomised by the media as Swampy and his ilk, claim that roads destroy the countryside, destroying trees and the peace and tranquillity of the rural environment.
In fact, it seems to me that with the few new roads that are being built at present more trees are being planted than were ever destroyed. Of course roads should not go through areas of natural beauty or sites of special interest. That is vital, because the environment is important and we are becoming much more environmentally aware.
Traffic is growing by 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. each year. I have to declare an interest as both a car driver and an HGV driver, driving some 50,000 miles each year. I contribute towards some of the traffic jams. Pollution is growing in the towns, villages and cities of our country. They are being polluted by the passing motorist. It is the stop, start, move slowly, "I'm in a jam", syndrome that maximises pollution. It is not the person going along at a steady speed. They produce pollution, but not nearly to the same extent.
In an ideal, pollution-free world, rail transport would go everywhere. Beeching saw to that a long time ago. There would be the horse and cart to finish the journey. But were we not there years ago at the start of the century? We have progressed since then. Or is it progress? We no longer live in an ideal world. Now huge areas of the United Kingdom have no railways at all. There is no alternative to the roads. Every train journey, whether it is by passengers or goods,

1743
necessitates another journey by road at each end. Roads are a necessity, not a luxury. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact of life. New roads built in the right places to take pollution out of the towns and villages and away from environmentally sensitive areas are needed.
Lorries must deliver goods. The public demand fresh food delivered daily. Businesses demand components delivered every day. Factories demand products to be delivered as quickly as possible. They cannot wait for a lorry to come and pick a product up, take it to a rail depot, perhaps for it to be delayed because a passenger train leaves first. When it arrives at the other end, the lorry may be late; it may miss the train, and the whole thing may go wrong.
Therefore, some new roads must be built. In my part of the world, the west of Scotland, 40 per cent. of all Scottish exports begin their life. If you want to transport goods from my area to England or from the west coast of Scotland to the east you have to go slap bang through the middle of Glasgow and pollute it. The M.8 cannot cope, especially near the centre of the Kingston Bridge. The traffic is very much stop-start, as it is on the M.6. If you drive to London from Scotland, I can assure you that if you get the M.6 at Birmingham right you will get the M.25 at London wrong. It is an absolute nightmare, unless you drive through the middle of the night, which I have started doing.
We are lucky that Scotland is one of the few parts of the country where a road is being built to motorway standards. That is the A.74 and M.74, which are about to become the M.6, which goes all the way to Glasgow, ending just short of the city. There is a 4.8 mile break between there and the other side of Glasgow, so all traffic has to go through the middle of Glasgow. Surely that is nonsense. It is destroying the confidence of business in the west of Scotland. Building the road would improve air quality in Glasgow and benefit the environment by easing congestion. It would take traffic away from all the bottlenecks and make journey times quicker and shorter and therefore cause less pollution.
It must be obvious that by building certain roads we can improve the environment and at the same time we can boost the local economy by encouraging business expansion and thereby employment. Those are both very important planks in this modern day.
Roads are the key, whether we like it or not. Trains, planes and boats, however attractive in theory, just do not go where people live. They do not convey goods at sufficient speed and they do not deliver to the factory gate, the shop or the business. The pendulum of what is environmentally friendly, what is green, has swung too far in the opposite direction now. Sensible road construction is a must, to help keep the country moving, to clean up pollution in our urban areas and to provide transport in our rural areas. We must not be frightened to stand up and say so against the vocal but minority anti-brigade that exists today.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Vinson for introducing
1744
this extremely important subject. Whether or not precise points have been covered so far, I feel it necessary to reiterate them.
The extreme populist view covering the whole party political divide is that no new roads should be built, all freight should be carried by rail, and everyone else, apart from oneself, should be carried by public transport. That is an extreme view, but the average view is not that much more watered down. The same people do not realise that gridlock will occur, if it has not occurred already; jobs will be lost; and certain towns and villages will suffer.
Major employers have already moved away from towns where the road infrastructure is poor. I take as examples two towns on the south-east coast, Eastbourne and Hastings. Some years ago Eastbourne had a major employer who moved out because of the road structure. Hastings is around 75 miles from London but although the railway is electrified the journey still takes one hour 45 minutes. Even in times of high employment, unemployment there was always higher than the national average. The A.21 is abysmal. I agree that the last government did not upgrade the road. Unfortunately, any mention of a new road or bypass being built brings blood to the head and all reason goes out of the window for the greater percentage of the population. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the last government severely reduced the road building programme and this Government may be worse.
So far perhaps I have over-generalised. However, I have a few more generalisations to make before I get down to specific issues. I am not advocating wholesale new roadbuilding. It must be done in a planned and structured way. The original road system grew haphazardly around the towns and villages. There was rail building in the middle of the last century. Routes proliferated and in the middle of this century many had to go because they were uneconomic. In hindsight, some routes should have remained. Possibly more should be done on existing roads and even motorways to give priority to public transport and freight. Certain traffic calming devices have been introduced and have proved successful. But even some of those defeat the object because they impair emergency services.
I consulted two bodies. One was the Confederation of Road Passenger Transport. It gave me a mere outline, being a member of the Road Federation Authority and not averse to a bit of road building. It does not have a strong view. However, having been acquainted with the industry, I feel that I must do some public relations for it. Long distance road travel will always be cheaper for those on lower incomes and more suitable for some very senior citizens who can no longer cope with large stations and city terminals. They prefer the confines of a bus or coach, especially when essential facilities are provided together with refreshments brought to their seat.
For the rest of my intervention I turn to the views of the Road Haulage Association which, together with the Freight Transport Association, has most hauliers and firms with large transport departments among its

1745
membership. The road haulage industry plays a pivotal role in the United Kingdom economy, carrying over 80 per cent. of all domestic freight. It is worth noting that 20 years ago more vehicles carried less tonnage of goods, demonstrating how the industry has improved its efficiency.
We should also remember that the haulage industry is a service provider. Hauliers do not make journeys for the sake of it. Therefore, if society wishes to reduce the number and frequency of trucks on the road, haulage companies could probably accommodate their wishes. However, there would be some very significant consequences. For example—this point was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rowallan—if we stop goods being transported by road from abroad and other areas of the country, there would be less choice available in our shops. If we ban heavy vehicles from an area at a certain time of day, the need for that delivery does not go away; it will simply have to be made at another time which will give rise to a new area of complaints. If it is in the middle of the night, the residents will know when the goods are being delivered and further complaints will arise.
If we introduce weight limits in certain areas, that will result in a large number of journeys by smaller vehicles instead of one journey by a larger vehicle. It is also important to remember that haulage companies do not operate solely in the United Kingdom. Many operate all over the world, competing with foreign companies for business. United Kingdom companies must remain competitive for the good of our economy.
I move straight on to the congestion issue. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to a document published last year—What Role for Trunk Roads in England. It was introduced by the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment. It is a consultation paper with a foreword by the present Deputy Prime Minister. One also has stress maps, which make uncomfortable reading. The stress map for 1996 looks bad enough but, as has been mentioned, traffic stress in 2016 shows an awful line from Preston to well beyond the M.25 going almost to Dover.
The document suggests all kinds of remedies. However, if the stress map is true, the position is really too horrifying for words. Although comparisons are often odious, I have a chart showing the percentage of major links congested for more than one hour per day. About 11 per cent. of our routes are congested for more than four hours; in Belgium, the figure is under 2 per cent., in France, under 4 per cent., in Germany, about 5 per cent., and in the Netherlands, about 5 per cent. That is worrying.
The RHA has some good ideas about what needs to be done. First, it suggests making use of existing infrastructure. There is a range of tools available that should be considered, including increased use of technology—such as variable message signs and speed limits, which are working quite well on some of our major roads—and the introduction of more draconian measures such as restricting the number of entrance/exit junctions. Too many people are using trunk roads just to go from one gate to the next. Secondly, it believes
1746
that action is needed on managing demand. A combination of sticks, such as more stringent parking restrictions and pricing policies, and carrots, such as improvements to public transport, are required. Ultimately the Road Haulage Association believes it may be necessary to ration road space, giving priority to "essential traffic" over other types of traffic. That has to be enforced if it is to be of any use at all. Thirdly, it suggests action on infrastructure investment. There will remain circumstances where road improvements will provide the only viable solution and in such cases the necessary investment must be made. The priorities for investment must be removing congestion and accident blackspots, maintenance of existing roads and network enhancement projects.
This does not mean to say that all funds must come from the public purse. There may well be many other alternative sources of funding which have not been exploited. But some initiatives are unlikely to be forthcoming unless the Government give a clear signal.
I appreciate that there are no easy solutions to our problems. But we must first educate the public and alleviate their fears and apprehensions about new roads. Our future well-being and existence depend on our road structure being efficient, and when and where necessary new roads may be the only option.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I start by declaring that I am not Swampy. On the other hand, I partake of the tendencies of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In fact, I am strongly of the view that he has been reading our policy documents—either that or we have come to very similar conclusions by some mental process of getting closer to each other. In any case, I am on his side in the argument.
The importance of transport within the economy is simply not contestable. It is particularly important to certain industries. I would suppose that distribution and tourism are probably the two at the top of the list. But that does not mean that one goes straight back to predict and provide without asking the other questions which surround this issue. One of the questions which occurs to me is: does all this transport have to be provided by road and by car or HGV?
Interestingly, a recent report from the AA, which was sent to me because of the debate, brings some up-to-the-minute assessment from local government economic development officers, who are supposed to know what is going on in their areas—and probably do—as to the current importance of transport issues in all British regions as economic concerns also rise.
In general, both employers and employees put congestion at the top of their list of transport-related worries or issues. Whereas 24 per cent. of employers mentioned the need to increase investment in trunk roads, 50 per cent. of employees—and there are many more people who are not senior managers than those who are—pointed out that poor public transport means that there is no alternative in their area to the use of a private car, with the long delays in journey times and the congestion that that brings.

1747
Interestingly, those living within any given region tended to have concerns about the lack of public transport available to them within the region while those travelling between regions tended to say that motorway congestion or the lack of capacity in main roads was a problem. That at least suggests that different strategies are required at local and national levels.
I hope, think and pray that passenger rail services are beginning to respond to the need to adapt to the new way of looking at transport and serving transport needs. Certainly in my part of the world there are old carriages and pretty scruffy stations, but the numbers of people using rail travel are increasing. That is a purely personal impression, but I believe that more people, especially in non-peak hours, such as folk going to London or visiting their friends, and not necessarily commuting, are using the trains. Commuter trains, as they always have been, are jammed to the gills.
So I believe that rail has a role to play in long-distance passenger transport. I often think of people who complain about terrible delays on motorways. They are sitting right next to a railway which in 90 cases out of 100 will take them, as predicted, to their journey's end in the city centre without the delays which they complain about. In so doing they can read their papers, work or sleep en route according to their fancy.
Until very recently few people thought that rail could play a significant role in freight transport. But I see slight glimmers of hope that, with new management and new ownership of the freight companies, there is a new dynamism and competitive spirit in the approach of the rail industry towards the carriage of freight. I do not believe that that will solve all the problems. If noble Lords do not already know it, I can tell them that, if anyone suggests that a rail line which passes Mrs. Snooks's house should be upgraded and the speed and weight of the trains going by should be increased, she will be just as angry as she would be if someone suggested that the use of the road past her front door should be increased. One does not solve planning problems by offering people alternatives, although I have no doubt where my backing lies. In the broader view no doubt we could transfer more freight to rail and that would be enormously beneficial in a number of different ways.
I now turn to economic benefits. Are there any economic "disbenefits" to our current situation? There has been some dispute about that. Various people have mentioned the relevant SACTRA report. I merely point to the way in which cheap road transport over the past 40 or 50 years has changed the location of manufacturing. The brewing industry is a case in point. There is far greater concentration of manufacturing, which has inflicted disbenefits in the places from which the breweries have retreated in order to achieve that concentration. There are also environmental disbenefits, because both suppliers and distributors of finished goods have to travel further to reach the manufacturing centre. There are some wonderful cases of that kind involving the transport of milk and strawberries all over Europe in
1748
order to make strawberry yoghurt which is then shipped back to where the strawberries came from. However, I shall not trouble Members with that.
Even from the economic point of view, there are certain disbenefits. The just-in-time approach is not the cause of the demand for road transport. It is the availability of road transport which has made it possible to have warehouses on wheels. Again, that has totally changed the way in which people work, but perhaps, given that a technical shift has changed things once, another technical shift could change things back again. These are not fixed factors in our lives. We can alter our attitudes and behaviour. Indeed, we shall do so when the technology changes.
The county of Surrey is one of the most congested counties in England. We predicted years ago—I almost echo the words that I used in that report—that simply providing for the predicted amount of traffic was neither economically feasible nor environmentally desirable. Those words are almost identical to the words that appeared in the report seven or eight years ago. I am pleased that noble Lords have read it.
I have another question. What about the SACTRA effect? The 1994 report suggested that the more roads that are created, the greater the increase in traffic. Road schemes can be analysed according to the cost/benefit analysis to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred. One of the problems with that is that it undervalues undeveloped land. How can you value such land? How can you see an SSSI in terms of pounds and pence? You do not; you cannot. Such areas tend, therefore, to be trampled underfoot in the interests of other things, one of which is the reduction of congestion and the pursuit of improved journey times. In fact, experience of large numbers of road-building projects has shown that the reduction in delays and the improvement in congestion resulting from road improvement schemes can last for as little as three years or as long as 20 years. In the end, however, the road fills up again.
The idea that all road improvement schemes offer relief to surrounding areas was totally and utterly disproved by the brilliant efforts of the county council of which I used to be a member. It demonstrated that efforts to widen the M.25 all the way round London, as was originally proposed, would result merely in increasing congestion on every road approaching the M.25 and over a wide area stretching from Beaconsfield to Guildford and half-way into west London. The effect of attracting traffic on to the M.25 has increased congestion as everyone tries to reach the motorway. Those figures were finally accepted by the department and the Highways Agency. I hope that we have disproved the idea that all roads are always economically successful, even on the narrow approach of the cost/benefit analysis.
How do we balance our environmental requirements and our need for transport? We must consider all the suggestions put forward by noble Lords. I agree about the importance of good road maintenance. Bad maintenance of roads reduces the amount of space available on our roads. I agree that we must also

1749
consider the difference between what happens on a by-pass and what happens in a town. There is no point in having a by-pass if traffic is not stopped from going through towns. Failure to do that simply increases the amount of traffic everywhere. It is a question of granting space to people, not cars, so that locally they can walk and bicycle rather than get into their cars, as many do, to pick up fags or a local newspaper. To use the motor car for that purpose is crazy. We should not be against car ownership but, rather, the irrational, greedy use of the car which helps to destroy our environment.
9.29 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Vinson for tabling this Question, thus giving noble Lords the opportunity to discuss an issue which is neither fashionable nor sexy. Certainly it is not high in the popularity stakes. This has been a fascinating debate and I thank my noble friends for their positive suggestions.
In recent years the environmental lobby has been hyperactive and dedicated in its attack on roads and travel by private vehicles. So it has been refreshing to listen to speeches in support of appropriate road travel by both commercial and private vehicles.
Like my noble friend Lord Vinson, I understand the importance of rail services and wholeheartedly support the need to encourage travel on high quality services where the customer comes first. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, has just said, we all know that for many people that is not possible, particularly those who live in the country. They depend on the car for their daily round: carrying the shopping, taking the children to school and numerous other outings and visits to doctors, dentists, vets, etc., in addition to social gatherings—essential trips that are not possible by public transport. It is easier for urban dwellers to travel by bus or train, but even then for an elderly or incapacitated person it is so much easier, and for some so much nicer, to take the car. We should never forget that for some severely handicapped people the car is a real lifeline.
The subject of roads seems to generate perhaps more heat than any other, quite literally. I am sure that we have all been stationary on a motorway bemoaning the growth in the number of cars on the roads, the consequential stagnation in the flow of traffic and the pollution such traffic jams cause. Yet not many of us would be willing to give up the privilege of owning and driving a car.
As a magistrate, only too often I hear how essential it is for a defendant to keep his driving licence. There is no doubt that we have all become psychologically dependent on our cars. Due to illness, my husband was not allowed to drive for six months. It altered both our lives considerably and the loss of freedom and independence made us realise how precious it is to have a driving licence. We were on holiday abroad on the day that the licence was restored. I shall never forget my husband saying what a lovely day we had had but that it seemed a bit of a waste when he could have been driving.
1750
We accept the car as a necessity in everyday life. That is certainly a far cry from the days when people had only 14 days' paid holiday, usually taken in one go at the seaside with the family who had travelled by train to their chosen resort. Today people have four to five weeks' holiday, some of which is spent abroad and some here in the UK, and enjoy short breaks and one-day outings. The leisure industry is now big business. Tourism is one of our major industries. It is therefore essential for internal tourism and for visitors from abroad that we have an infrastructure that enables people to travel in comfort on our major roads.
The AA has produced figures which show how the Treasury has short-changed the motorist with more and more tax on the premise that it is of benefit to the environment. However, it seems to have little impact on the motorist who may do his "bit" by replacing his vehicle with one that is more fuel efficient. There is very little evidence that fuel price increases have more than a marginal effect on traffic volumes. As my noble friend said, vehicle taxes are becoming a bonanza for the Treasury, rising from just over £11 billion in 1992–93 to an estimated £21.5 billion in the current year. We were, therefore, horrified to see the Government's policy on the accelerated review of 12 major road schemes.
I understand that a decision on the remaining projects under consideration by the Government will be published in a White Paper in the next few weeks. We can only hope that there will be no further curtailment of the programme. There are very real problems in the areas concerned, and as a fellow West-Midlander perhaps I may, like my noble friend Lady Knight of Collingtree, refer to the dreadful situation on the M.6. I am sure that anyone condemned to usage of that road will agree that the serious congestion that exists for most of the day must be addressed. Of course there are other examples, including sections of the M.26 and the M.62 and, as my noble friend Lord Rowallan said, the M.8.
Many cities, towns and villages have benefited enormously from the building of a bypass, so eliminating the misery of heavy goods vehicles thundering through narrow streets causing chaos for the local inhabitants and damage to much loved buildings. I hope that the programme to be announced will give others similar relief.
My noble friends have highlighted many of the difficulties caused to industry by an inadequate national road network. The British Chamber of Commerce has stated that its members cite unsuitable roads as the biggest transport problem they face, with 88 per cent. of its members complaining about congestion and suggesting that the cost to small business is in the region of £6 billion.
Today's need for a successful economy is dependent upon a good road network. There is evidence that road improvements have a very positive impact on regional economies, by encouraging inward investment and assisting local businesses to become more competitive and so expand their markets. I am sure we have all witnessed the development of brown and even greenfield sites and seen how the road links are a vital

1751
component of any such project. Good access to motorways is always stressed to potential tenants as a plus factor. As my noble friend Lord Teviot said, that is what business demands today, and we must respond.
Before the general election, the Labour Party criticised the reduction of the programme set out by the then Conservative government. It promised a better network of roads throughout the country. Now it seems that the Government are reneging on a promise to voters. We need those appropriate road projects to enable us to have more jobs, more prosperity, and a thriving economy for all our people. We realise that there are no easy solutions, but we hope that in her reply the Minister will give us good news.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for introducing the debate. He was generous in speaking of my courtesy in being here—not that I was given a great deal of choice in the matter—although it is a rare and pleasant occasion for me to be answering at the Dispatch Box on a subject that is also my ministerial responsibility. I am tempted to throw away the prepared speech and just to answer some of the points that have been made this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, accused the Government of reneging on a promise. The promise in the Labour Party manifesto which relates to the topic that we are debating was that we would conduct a comprehensive review of the previous government's roads programme, based on the criteria of safety, accessibility, economy and environment. That is what I have spent a great deal of the past year trying to do. We shall be publishing the results soon, after the publication of the integrated transport White Paper.
I have to take issue with the characterisation of the department as beleaguered. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the "Department of Transport". We are not the department of transport. We are the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That means that we have to consider the issues of transport, and the road and trunk road network in an overall context.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On these documents that I have in my hand, the two departments have been put together.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. At the beginning I believe that we had some trouble in putting the logos together. The Prime Minister clearly asked the Deputy Prime Minister to take control of an overall department.
The point I sought to make was that we are trying to look at complex issues in a holistic way. I do not think it helps anyone in the debate to caricature the approach of one side as anti-car or anti-motorist, and the other as pro-environment. These are balanced issues that will need a balanced approach.
That has become clear in the course of the debate. It has been pointed out that the scale of the problems that we face in this country are enormous. Congestion was
1752
an issue that we undertook within the manifesto to address. Many of the organisations which have been in contact with the noble Lord recognise that a simplistic approach of attempting to build one's way out of the problems of congestion by producing more road capacity is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Fundamentally, it is not acceptable because it does not work. We cannot build at the rate at which traffic growth is predicted. That means we have to be more innovative and more wide ranging in the armoury of weapons that we bring to the problem.
It is important that we consider policies towards the road network in the context of an integrated transport policy. We have to look at different modes of transport, and at the real opportunities which will be of enormous environmental benefit, for example, in transferring road freight to rail.
Not only must we look at different modes of transport: we must also look at land use planning, and the need for journeys in the first place. Considering, for example, the creation of out of town shopping centres, many of us would challenge the effects of that policy not only as regards demand for road transport, but also in the light of the effect on the health and prosperity of town and city centres.
Nor can we ignore the effect of increases in road transport on CO2 emissions and global warming, and on local air quality, in particular within cities. How one addresses that problem requires a range of answers. In the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force we are looking at how we can utilise improved technologies so that we minimise emissions. Noble Lords who spoke have sometimes been scathing about fiscal measures. However, there are important fiscal measures. We talked about them in terms of VED rates for cleaner, more fuel efficient cars, which can have a significant effect. No one in this Government is crudely anti-car, anti-motorist. I have to say to the noble Lord that there was never a suggestion by anyone that it would be illegal to own a second car. In this country we have lower car ownership than in many Continental European countries, and higher car usage. We have to ask ourselves whether that is sustainable in the interests of the economy, of a functioning road system and of the environment.
That is where the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about public transport come into play. We are talking about giving people greater choice as to how they make the journeys they need to make. In order to give them real choice, yes, there has to be reliable public transport. It has to be safe, efficient, and priced so that people can afford it. I should also add that it has to be innovative, such as the Wigglybus to which my noble friend referred. We must not write off rural areas as incapable of being provided with public transport.
Much concern has been expressed tonight about the needs of the motorist. We must recognise that one in three families does not have access to a car. We have to provide choice, not only for people who do not have cars to use but also for people who do not want to be forced into making a car journey. In that area it is important that we look at the number of trips made by

1753
car that are not the inter-urban journeys which have been referred to but are very much intra-urban journeys of below two miles.
We must ask ourselves in whose interest it is that twice as many schoolchildren are being driven to school than was the case 10 years ago. I say that not simply in terms of congestion—the fact that 25 per cent. of journeys being undertaken in rush hours in many of our city centres are journeys to school—but in terms of the future health of a generation of children. These children do not even get the exercise of walking to school or experience the confidence which comes from being out on their own. We can get into a vicious circle of streets being deserted, parents concerned about security driving their children to school, emphasising and recreating the problems that were there in the first place.
There is a whole range of issues that we can bring to this area. I make no apology for the roads programme in that context. We have to look at priorities. But I should like to make it clear that we recognise that the road network is a key part of our transport system and of the economic fabric of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said that we should not talk about the last government, we should talk about this one. I certainly shall talk about it. I shall talk about putting £300 million into trunk road maintenance this year rather than the £200 million that we inherited from the last government and starting to put right some of the under-investment in maintenance.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me as she is making such an erudite and agreeable speech at this time in the evening. But I am anxious that the Minister does not dodge the issue of the huge demand for bypasses from constituents all over the country and their MPs. These are measures which reduce pollution and improve the local environment and are of great importance. I hope the Minister will be able to deal with that matter.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. We are very tight for time and the Minister does have the opportunity to reply to many points that have been put.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly reply to the noble Lord. I shall not bypass the issue but I have to say to him that all the schemes within the programme—and they are varied schemes from large motorway widening to small bypasses—are being assessed against the criteria. As the Minister with responsibility for road safety, I am aware of the effects on road safety that can be provided by targeted investment in improving the trunk road network. We
1754
have to be careful that we do not have a scatter gun approach here. We are developing a new appraisal framework that manages to assess the value of schemes—the value to economic regeneration, to road safety and to the environment. There are schemes which can improve air quality and the environment of people within villages which have a huge amount of traffic going through them. It is absolutely understood and I am under no illusion about the lack of support locally for individual schemes because I sit and listen to that a great deal of the time and receive letters about it.
I was rather surprised when the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said how distressed she was about the accelerated review decisions. Early on, we tried to take decisions which were extremely urgent. I was not sure whether she was distressed about the decision to go ahead with the A.13 scheme or the Birmingham Northern Relief Road to which the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, referred and said there was a great need for it. We recognised an overwhelming economic need to deal with congestion in the short term, the here and now, and not on the basis of predict and provide. The noble Baroness will understand that, because of the proceedings now taking place, I cannot comment on the court proceedings. I did not know whether she was concerned about the decision to cancel the Salisbury bypass. In that case, we felt that the weight and the scale of the balance went the other way and the environmental damage was too great.
As regards the SACTRA Report, there are differing interpretations of the effect of road building schemes on local economies. That should make us all aware that we are not dealing with black and white issues. Not all road building creates economic growth, just as not all taking away of road schemes will help the environment.
We need to take a balanced approach. This Government are fulfilling their responsibilities as regards assessing very carefully against open criteria in an exercise that has had a huge response. Ministers have gone to the regions and those in regional offices have talked to people within their areas about their priorities for schemes. I have met MPs from all the different regions to discuss their schemes with them. We shall be extremely open about the appraisal framework and the values that have been taken into account in making decisions as to which schemes should or should not go ahead.
I conclude by saying that we are aware that there is much support for tackling the problems that have been described this evening in some areas and in some cases by additional investment in road improvement schemes. But we must look at those demands for investment in the whole context of dealing with this country's transport problem in an integrated framework.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.