Lords Sitting of 27 January 1999

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

Complementary Therapy: Funding
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the recent reductions in funding for complementary medical treatment on the part of health authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government recognise that many people find complementary therapy helpful in treating or alleviating various conditions and that it is being increasingly used in the NHS. There will always be changes in the pattern of local health care provision, but the evidence we have does not indicate that there have been any large-scale cuts in the funding of complementary medicine by health authorities this year. However, we shall be studying the use that the new primary care groups will be making of complementary medicine from April onwards.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Nevertheless will she not accept that for many people working in the field there appears to be a pattern of reductions in funding, as I suggested to her predecessor at the Dispatch Box last June when I asked why the Homerton Hospital had closed down what had been shown to be a successful acupuncture service? Is she aware, for example, that in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority a group of patients is being denied further treatment at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital when the treatment had been shown to be helpful to them after conventional treatment was unsuccessful?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, yes, I am aware of the decision taken by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority to cancel its contract with the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital. It is the responsibility of health authorities locally to assess health needs and to ensure that they are met for the local population. However, we believe that once a patient has started a course of NHS treatment the expectation is that that course will be completed unless there are clinical reasons to stop. We have no evidence of widespread cutbacks, but we shall be looking at the development of primary care groups.
1010
Perhaps while I am on my feet I may, with the leave of the House, offer congratulations from all sides to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on becoming a father again today.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the light of the report from the Foundation for Integrated Medicine published a year ago and the growing popularity of complementary medicine, will the Minister agree that there is a strong case to be made for the Department of Health to issue guidelines on complementary medicine? Furthermore, is there not a good case for the new National Institute of Clinical Excellence also to be involved in the process?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is important that we work with the foundation, as the department is doing, in its programme of research in this area. Guidelines can be of enormous help to commissioning groups. It is important that, whether through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or elsewhere, we have evidence on which to ensure that sound purchasing decisions are made. I understand that the work being undertaken jointly with the department at Exeter is in its early stages, but before too long it may well lead to the development of the guidelines to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the enormous public interest in complementary medicine? Is she also aware of the desire of people to be reassured that complementary techniques are both safe and effective; that practitioners are responsible and reputable; and that if something goes wrong there are proper systems for redress? Are the Government planning any system of regulation for complementary medicine practitioners?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The route of self-regulation has been led by the osteopaths and chiropractors, but other professions may be interested in gaining statutory recognition, including the complementary medicines profession, thereby giving the public reassurance, to which my noble friend referred. I hope that the powers which we shall seek in the NHS Bill to enable us to break the current log-jam of legislative proposals from the professions for enhancing self-regulation may well give an opportunity to recognise emerging professional groups.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the funding of the National Health Service is improved and helped by the instigation of private insurance for medical treatment? Does she further agree that the last change in the arrangements for paying for private medical insurance was a mistake?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is wide of that on the Order Paper, but I am happy to answer it. No, I do not agree with him.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in addition to the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health

1011
Authority, 10 others have withdrawn or blocked their funding of homoeopathic medicine? While I am much reassured about her comments on forthcoming consideration and the prospect of guidelines, can she do anything to help to relieve the present problems?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, a wide range of complementary medicines is increasingly being used within the NHS. A study in 1997 by Sheffield University showed that 40 per cent. of general practitioners provided NHS patients with access to complementary medicines. However, it is important that at local level—whether it be primary care groups or health authorities—local decision-making should reflect the priorities of local people in the provision of services.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the protracted correspondence that I had with her predecessor in the previous government and with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in this Government about the provision of environmental medicine? Is she aware that some health authorities allow treatment by environmental medicine but others do not. Some are withdrawing funding in the middle of a schedule of treatment. Will she please comment on that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly investigate the instances to which the noble Countess referred. As I said earlier, we do not believe that it is proper to withdraw treatment in the midst of a course. If that is happening, I shall certainly undertake to investigate it.

International Criminal Court
2.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we intend to be among the first 60 states to ratify the court's statute. We shall introduce the necessary legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that half loaf. Does she agree that when we have an effective jurisdiction which reflects the collective conscience of the international community we shall be spared those repeated arguments about extradition? Since the Government greatly augmented the respect in which they are held by the lead they gave in the negotiations leading to the statute, would it not be a pity to appear now to have lost a sense of urgency?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not lost any sense of
1012
urgency. I remind my noble and learned friend that the Bill will be a substantial and complex piece of legislation. It must be properly prepared. It would be quite wrong to rush it. My noble and learned friend is right. The United Kingdom Government played a prominent role in negotiating the statute. We are extremely anxious to be among the founder members of the court. I hope that it will resolve extradition issues and, indeed, other issues which cause so much difficulty at present.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that although it may be a complex piece of legislation, it will receive the support of all sides of the House and will therefore pass very quickly into law? Does she not agree also that the quicker we have in place national procedures, the more likely we are to avoid the time, expense and embarrassment which have afflicted us recently?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we greatly welcome the cross-party support for the court. As I hope I have made abundantly clear, we wish to see early ratification of the statute. We were extremely pleased about the support we received from the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place. However, I should say to the noble Lord that the Bill must include a great number of provisions; for example, provisions for co-operation by law enforcement and other authorities with the court on a wide range of matters. It is already an issue for consultation among officials and among Ministers. Therefore, work is under way on the legislation.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there would be greater popular support for such a court if the existing tribunal, which is supposed to be investigating war crimes in the Balkans, was not impeded in its work and managed to get hold of the people against whom charges are likely to be made?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we all wish to see the tribunal operating in the way the noble Lord suggests. I do not believe that the Government have been negligent in any way in the pursuit of those who are wanted. As I have told the House four times now, we shall be pressing ahead as quickly as possible. I do not believe that there is, as the noble Lord suggests, a lack of popular support for the statute. There is cross-party support in this House, in another place and in the country as a whole.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, what support are the Government receiving from the United States over the arrest of persons who might be charged with war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere? Is there any possibility of the United States reconsidering its decision not to ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the position of the United States in relation to the ICC is well known to your Lordships. The United States has

1013
expressed some misgivings about what it believes to be the possibility of its servicemen being open to charges under the ICC. We do not believe that that is the case. We have servicemen serving abroad and we believe that adequate safeguards exist. We have been talking to the United States. There have been three visits by officials from this country to try to persuade the United States to think again. We shall continue that lobbying effort, as I am sure will many other countries. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that so far 74 countries have signed up to the statute.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in view of the magnificent role played by this Government and the Canadian Government in giving the lead on this issue, are efforts continuing to try to persuade India and Israel as well as the United States so that those three great democracies, with their commitment to the rule of law, also support the International Criminal Court?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his kind remarks about the lead which the Government took. I pay tribute to the extensive work undertaken not only at ministerial level but, very importantly, at official level. I can assure the noble Lord that the United States is not the only country being lobbied to sign up to the statute; many countries are being lobbied, not only by ourselves but by many other signatories who want to see as many as possible involved. I remind the noble Lord that in Rome last year 120 countries voted for the statute. So far 74 have signed up and we hope that many more will do so. The signing has not lost momentum; countries are still signing up month by month.

NHS Trusts: Board Vacancies
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many positions for non-executive directors of NHS trusts are currently vacant and what number have been unfilled for three months or more from the date of vacancy since the general election on 1st May 1997.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are currently 165 vacancies for non-executive board members of National Health Service trusts. Of those, 118 are ad hoc vacancies arising predominantly from unplanned events during the year, such as resignations. During 1998 there were 555 planned vacancies as terms of appointment expired. Of those, only 15 have been vacant for more than three months. The equivalent figure for the 1997 appointments round is estimated to have been 108.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that there are increasing demands all the time on the non-executive directors of national health trusts? For that reason vacancies are much more damaging than they may have been in the past. Can she tell us whether any vacancies
1014
have remained unfilled for as long as 12 months since the general election? Also, is there now a better balance between the political appointments? Immediately after the general election we had a great wave of Labour councillors appointed.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I fully accept that we make great demands on non-executive directors and chairs of trusts and I pay tribute to the work that they do for the National Health Service. I can reassure the noble Baroness that only 14 posts have been vacant for more than a year, and those were left open deliberately and for legitimate reasons; for example, when a merger of trusts is anticipated, it would be inappropriate to appoint people to a new job for them to have to fall out of that job soon afterwards.
Political balance ought to be put into proportion. We have improved the balance on boards. We now have 51 per cent. of women on boards as against 42 per cent. before the election; 10.5 per cent. of appointees are drawn from ethnic minorities as compared with 5 per cent. before. That has been a great improvement in balance. There are still more people declaring a political activity on behalf of the Labour Party than on behalf of the Conservative Party. However, of all board members who declared any political activity, that forms less than 20 per cent. Four out of five board members declare no political activity at all.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the position in relation to vacancies for chairs of NHS trusts is equally concerning, perhaps for some of the same reasons? The north-west region has a specific problem in so far as it has six vacancies of chairs. Is urgent action being taken by the department to fill those vacancies?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, obviously unnecessary delay gives cause for concern. My original Answer ought to reassure noble Lords that we have made a great deal of progress since last year when there were unacceptable delays. I recognise that some appointments in the north west have been more difficult than others. But there is a balance to be struck. We want to do everything we can to have timely and quick appointments, but it is most important to get the right person for the job. If that takes a little longer, then we must wait.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many members of the non-executive committee are independent of any political party whatever?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, slightly over four out of five.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the appointments that have so far been made indicate a better balance now than when the last government left office? I am talking in political terms.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have managed to put a greater focus on local involvement and look for

1015
people who have demonstrated commitment to their own communities. We have drawn on a wider range of people than perhaps had been drawn on in the past. We have not significantly changed the balance in your Lordships' House, where I understand seven noble Lords currently serve on NHS boards, five of whom declared political activity for the Conservative Party, one for Labour and I believe one is a Cross-Bencher.
Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Government ensure that when local authorities are asked by the Department of Health to submit nominations for NHS trusts boards the approach is made to the local authority chief executive? That will give representatives of all political parties an opportunity to put names forward. Does the Minister agree that it is not acceptable for the department to contact only the leader of the local authority, as happened, for example, in 1997, thereby making it all too easy for opposition or minority parties to he bypassed in the nomination process?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Earl that in 1998 and 1999 the department wrote to council chief executives. He is right to pinpoint that a mistake was made in 1997 when officials wrote to council leaders rather than chief executives. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State acknowledged that mistake and took action to make sure that it was not repeated.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that one of the problems that existed prior to the general election was the concern by many local communities that many non-executive directors of National Health Service trust boards were living outside the local areas? Can she also confirm that all appointments since the general election have been filled by people living in the area of the trust?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can confirm that there was some concern about imbalance on boards in the past. There was perhaps over-representation of business and professional people and under-representation of patient groups and those involved with their community. There was also concern about people living outside the area. We have made it clear that we expect, except for the rarest exceptions, non-executives to live in the area served by the NHS body involved.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am pleased that there is now a better balance of the sexes and ethnic minorities on these boards? However bearing in mind the reports of bad treatment of older people, about which we have heard recently, and that people over 65 now represent between 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. of the population, can my noble friend assure me that they too will be represented on these national health boards?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can certainly assure my noble friend that there is no cut-off date or age bar on membership of the boards. We need a balance. He is
1016
right to articulate the needs of people who can identify with those of an older generation. But we all have a responsibility, whatever our age, to make sure that services for older people are appropriate to their needs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister said that we now have a better balance of more local people and less business or similar professional people. Is she aware that some trusts which have had very successful solicitors willing to give up their time for this small honorarium, and now no longer have them, are obliged to invite them back in a voluntary capacity as observers because their expertise is so badly missed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not like to denigrate, in any way, the contribution that can be made by individuals and individual professional groups. However, it is important that we have a balance here and that all sections of the communities that are served are well represented. I believe that we have made great progress in doing that.

Mobile Telephones: Transmission Masts
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue guidance to planning authorities on factors to be taken into account when applications for constructing transmission masts for mobile telephones are being considered.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, planning guidance on telecommunications development has been published by each of the three territorial departments, and in England by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This includes guidance in respect of mast development.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Are reports correct that many more masts are needed for the wider use of mobile telephones? Because they give rise to aesthetic objections, are the Government supporting efforts to locate them where they can be disguised; for example, as trees or adjuncts to farm buildings? It seems that special arrangements are no longer needed for transmissions from the Red Lion in Whitehall.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have never been involved, in any way, in transmissions from Whitehall or London. As the noble Lord will know, my home is in the north. We believe that it is extremely important for local residents to have an opportunity to comment on the proposed installation of telecommunication masts. For that reason, following the consultation announced on 29th December, it is proposed that a 42-day prior approval period be available in future in all parts of the country to allow

1017
people to comment. I cannot comment on the feasibility of disguising such masts as trees, but I am sure that other noble Lords can make suggestions.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Government make sure that the guidelines indicate that masts should be sited so that they cover the widest possible area, especially in the hills in Scotland where they call be absolutely vital to people who get into difficulties and who rely on mobile telephones to send for help? There are far too many "dead" areas at present?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, makes the extremely important point that such areas should be covered, and I agree. For that reason, the Government are committed to meeting the need to provide adequate cover while seeking to protect particularly those areas to which she refers, which include some of the most beautiful in the country.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some masts are already disguised as trees and that the process should be encouraged? Do any of the guidelines to local planning authorities include the suggestion that where planning permission is given for a mast it should be conditional on the willingness of the applicant to share the mast with other companies who also want transmissions in the area? That would reduce the amount of ironmongery in the countryside.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is possible in certain circumstances to insist on mast sharing. However, that may cause problems, and local concern, by leading to even larger installations. I am very interested in, and look forward to receiving, as I no doubt shall, pictures and descriptions of trees which turn out to be masts.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the present arrangements provide for an adequate separation between the sites of such masts and residential development?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the policy adopted is taken in concert with detailed advice from the Health and Safety Executive. We are aware that there is concern, and we ensure in the planning guidance that due regard is paid to the latest possible information.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, is it not grotesque to try to disguise a mast as a plastic tree and can the Minister discourage that? Secondly, can she give an indication of how many more masts are required to give the country full coverage and when that is likely to be completed?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I do not have details of how many masts will be needed to ensure that the blind spots across the whole country will be covered. If it is possible for me to write to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with that information, I shall do so. I am delighted to say that within the terms of the
1018
guidance given to local planning authorities, it must be for individual authorities to consider whether or not plastic trees would be of benefit to their local community.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are some masts very effectively disguised as coat hangers outside the Peers Guestroom which, when I passed earlier today, were covered with mobile telephones, all ringing?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has given us a most interesting piece of information. I am quite sure that if anyone is interested in espionage, they now have information as to where to collect much political gossip.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the need to resolve the situation is becoming rather urgent? There is a proliferation of masts and, even worse, wind farms, over some of the most beautiful areas of Britain. I hope that she can expedite the consultation and that action can be taken this year before the situation deteriorates further.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are responding to the concerns raised as urgently as possible, in particular, the need to extend the time for local residents to have due opportunity to put forward their views. As regards wind farms, the Government are supportive of renewable energy. However, that does not mean that there is a special presumption in favour of wind farm energy development. Any wind farm application would be subject to a full planning application.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Berkeley and the Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws set down for today shall each be limited to three hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract and the Baroness Gardner of Parkes be added to the Panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport
3.8 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley rose to call attention to the White Paper A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone (Cm 3950) and other related transport matters; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have a transport debate in your Lordships' House. This will be the first such debate in your Lordships' House since the publication of the White Paper and the first since the general election. The number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak is evidence of the interest in this subject.
The White Paper represented a decisive switch in policy; a policy which, at government level, had belatedly realised that reliance on the motor car was unsustainable in land use planning terms, environmental terms and in terms of quality of life. This realisation by the previous government was not brought about by any policy switch—to my mind, they did not have a transport policy to switch—but rather because of a unique coincidence of objectives from the more vocal and aggressive anti-road protesters and the Treasury, which did not want to pay for any more roads. Unfortunately, however, the previous government did not put anything in place, apart from stopping road building. I see the White Paper as designed to fill that vacuum.
The White Paper concentrates on integration: integration of modes for passengers; integration of modes for freight—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and of the Piggyback Consortium—and a move to rebalance competing demands on road space in favour of pedestrians, cyclists and buses, with a reduction of space for other road vehicles. It is a policy document and, as such, has been criticised for not containing much detail or "action". However, I understand that 84 of the 94 measures in the White Paper can be implemented without legislation and that a start has already been made. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say a little more about that.
I see the White Paper as covering both national and local issues. Many people feel passionately that to achieve the necessary change to implement those measures, there needs to be a massive programme to shift people's attitudes: to transport, to the needs of others, and to the quality of life. That is why people need to see results. They need to see the carrot offered before the stick is administered. Dare I say this, but I hope that Ministers will ensure that in their own departments and in local and regional authorities around the country, the White Paper's policies are not diluted into old thinking and put into the "too difficult" category. Politicians and officials must start to question and to think the unthinkable. Some such policies will take years to implement; all the more argument for starting now.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few examples to encourage debate. First, I believe that policy-makers at all levels should try out their own policies at first
1020
hand. Some noble Lords may have read in the press last week that the whole board of China Airlines intends to be in the air at midnight on 31st December this year so that, if the millennium bug has not been sorted out on their planes, they will be the first to experience it.
Coming to perhaps a more parochial level, how many national and local politicians regularly use public transport? I know that many of your Lordships and many Members of another place use buses and trains in London, but how many try out regional rail services or use local bus services? How many know where their local bus stops are? Do they know where the trains and buses come from? Do they know how to get a timetable? Many people need to know how to get a wheelchair on to a bus or train. How do you manage if you cannot see? I know that many able-bodied passengers on London's buses have trouble in standing upright, given the way in which some of the bus drivers brake. That needs sorting out.
In a quick review, I shall try to cover some of the main subjects of the White Paper and to concentrate on attitudes and solutions to many of the problems identified.
The days of predicting and providing for the perceived needs of road transport have, I hope, been put to bed for ever. I hope that the Government now accept that new roads do not always bring economic regeneration. In fact, some of them do the opposite. However, occasionally individual schemes seek resurrection, as we heard in your Lordships' House yesterday when we discussed the A.40 in north-west London.
Perhaps I may start with air transport where the policy of predicting and providing is still around. Why? The air operators argue that they must provide increasing air services and terminals to keep up with those offered by other areas and other countries. That is the argument for Terminal 5. It will still be many years yet before we get the results of the public inquiry into that. However, the same arguments were used 10 years ago with regard to roads to the regions and motorway building.
What is missing is a policy of providing surface transport to, and between, the airports. If one compares the provisions at Heathrow, which has two railway links to London, with those at other major airports, such as Schiphol, Zurich, Frankfurt and Paris, one sees that those airports have intercity rail links to many other parts of those countries. They have had such provision for some time. I know that we have such a link at Gatwick, but there was a railway at Gatwick before the airport, so that does not really count. We still do not have a connection between Gatwick and Heathrow. The problem is: who pays? I would argue that those developing the airports should pay for the substantial amount of public transport that is required, and not the state.
Perhaps I may turn quickly to shipping and the waterways. The White Paper mentions the need to encourage the diversion of freight to water from road. I look forward to the plans for reviving the shipping industry. I hope that my noble friend may be able to tell your Lordships when those plans will be published.
I also welcome the new ideas for regenerating the Thames so that we can see more traffic on it—not just to the Millennium Dome, but to many other locations. I hope that those plans will include the use of the Travelcard on river services. That is extremely important.
Local transport is high on the agenda of the White Paper. We have now had the first daughter documents in the Draft Guidance on Local Transport Plans and the proposals for congestion and parking space charging. I welcome them because they put the White Paper's plans into practice. The idea of reallocating more space for other road users appears in the White Paper, but I still detect a fear of reducing road space in towns for cars. I believe that the Government have commissioned research which indicates that restricting road space has far less effect on reducing road traffic than was originally thought. If reducing road space for cars and allocating it to other traffic helps the buses to operate a better quality service in continuous bus lanes, allows cyclists to move more safely, and encourages walking without fear of being drenched by vehicle spray whenever it rains, surely that is not a bad idea for starters.
Traffic planners must consider equally the needs of all users of the highways. Therefore, I welcome the announcement in December by Glenda Jackson, the Minister for London, of an extra boost for London's public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. The Government announced that £27 million would be devoted to public transport and local projects out of a total of £84 million. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell me what the rest of the money is to be spent on. I hope that it is not all to be used for new roads.
I turn now to congestion and to parking charges. They are an essential part of the overall package. We, as a nation, are very attracted to our cars. A car is a fantastic freedom and offers flexibility for many people who have often worked hard for it. I do not think that that comment applies to those who have company cars. We have more company cars per head of population than any other EU state. It will be difficult to find an incentive for company car users to use public transport when they have not only a free car, but often free petrol, free maintenance and free parking at work. I hope that the Treasury will look again at revisions to the system. I do not see any argument for keeping the company car system. If people need to use a car for business, they could buy one themselves, lease one, or get a loan from their companies.
I know that the car lobby will complain bitterly, but I do not think that the car lobby should make the Government's policy for them. The freedom to use a car is a great freedom, but it counts for little when one is stuck in a traffic jam for hours on end. I believe that everybody now accepts that some restriction is essential. I should like that restriction to be introduced in a more measured and planned way and not merely to be the result of congestion. Therefore, I believe that congestion charging and non-residential parking charges are very important in terms of constraining the number of cars on our roads at peak periods. I hope that the
1022
Government will resist the temptation to add more and more exclusions to the list of those who do not have to pay or who can enter freely—that is, obviously apart from the emergency services and disabled people. I believe—the AA's research has confirmed this—that congestion charging will come about and that people will accept it, provided that the money raised from the charges is put back and is invested in transport projects.
About a year ago, the Deputy Prime Minister launched a project seeking green transport plans for all government departments. I hope that that will continue. I hope that we shall see its effects at the planning stage. When a local authority or local health trust says, "Let's have fewer larger hospitals on greenfield sites, fewer schools and fewer county courts", it should consider the extra costs of that, including the full environmental cost of the transport that will be needed so that people can get to those places. Those costs should be added to the financial analysis.
Finally, I turn to rail. I shall leave the subject of cycling to colleagues; I am sure that it will be raised because it is extremely important. Rail traffic is growing. Passenger traffic on our railways grew by 7 per cent. last year, and freight by 12 per cent. Ministers said recently that in the first half of this year rail freight had increased by 16 per cent. and that the Government intend such growth to continue. They inherited a system which was the product of the unseemly rush to privatise. That may have resulted in some of the highly critical problems of delays.
However, at the moment the structure does not encourage growth and new services. People have come up with many new ideas but I think the most important point is for the new strategic rail authority and the new regulator to tackle the policy of the infrastructure provider, Railtrack. It has just been discovered that many signal boxes are so old that if they are touched there will be an accident. However, Railtrack knew that when it took over the signal boxes from British Rail four years ago. Why has that suddenly been discovered? Why has Railtrack not done something about that?
Railtrack has a licence obligation to enhance capacity ahead of demand. It is not investing and, sadly, it tends to say that maintenance is the same thing as investment. Of course that is not the case, maintenance is a matter of just keeping the system going. Railtrack has taken 12 months to sort out a signalling project in Leeds because it required a 12 per cent. return on its capital as it could not get any guarantee that trains would use the lines after the present franchises expired. That seems an extraordinary submission.
Railtrack has just announced that its cost estimates for a service from Heathrow to St. Pancras—which apparently, up until now, was not supposed to incur any infrastructure costs—have risen from nought to £210 million in two years. That is not very good estimating, is it? I note that, sadly, Railtrack seems been unwilling even to maintain existing infrastructure or to improve it to modern standards. One of the challenges facing the Government is to assess Railtrack's investment and, if it discovers Railtrack is not investing, it should make it do so. I see little difference between

1023
Railtrack as a public utility, a monopoly utility regulated in the usual way, and the utilities that provide us with gas, electric, telephone or water. They should all be treated in the same way. I hope that the new regulator will do that.
I think what is missing is the entrepreneurial spirit within Railtrack. A fantastic growth in rail traffic is forecast. Railtrack should seek it out, encourage it and demonstrate that it is a world leader in operating a reliable, modern infrastructure which is responsive to customer needs. I should like to see Railtrack do that, but it obviously has not done it yet. Let us hope that happens soon.
I shall not dwell to any great extent on rail freight. However, rail freight is happy to compete with road freight, but road freight must abide by the law. I have received a letter from a traffic commissioner who is responsible for issuing licences to lorry operators. One such operator had committed an offence and had his licence revoked in 1995. The commissioner had recently refused to grant a new licence. The operator indicated that the would continue to operate without a licence. It is interesting to note that that operator's main customer is the Ministry of Defence. That matter needs to be investigated. Enforcement, which should include impounding, is essential. I have been pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Whitty speak of the "Kill your Speed" initiative. The police need resources and they need to obtain revenue. We need to enforce that initiative.
The White Paper mentions change. I believe that the majority of the population will welcome it. A change in attitude to transport must come about. Local authorities and local government have a major role to play in this area. However, let us not forget the needs of pedestrians and cyclists who have just as much right to highway space as road vehicles. Unlike car occupants, pedestrians and cyclists are not encased in a steel box and they are vulnerable in an accident with a road vehicle. As I say, pedestrians and cyclists have just as much right to get around safely as those in road vehicles. Let us not forget the needs of the 30 or 40 per cent. of the population who do not have access to cars. All these measures cost money. I believe there is evidence that the public will pay congestion and parking charges if that money is reinvested in public transport, and with no time limit. Now is the time for action to implement these bold measures. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when my party was in government integrated transport was very much the buzz word. Therefore I looked forward to reading the White Paper that had been promised. However, there is no definition of integrated transport in the White Paper and any reference to it can only be described at best as peelie wally. It is no wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had to broaden his speech to include other transport issues. I welcome the debate and I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments on transport.
1024
Although the White Paper is fairly repetitive, many of its ideas are continuations of those developed by my party when in government. I am glad that we should have been of help to the right honourable gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull East having done so much of the thinking for him. The Government issued a subsequent publication on shipping entitled Charting a new Course, which is full of good intentions. However, where are the targets? How many new officers and ratings do the Government expect to have registered with the British Chamber of Shipping in 10 years' time as a result of their policies? How much extra tonnage in the UK fleet? There are no targets and little has been done in the way of proposing concrete measures for the shipping industry. Who will have the experience to train the recruits of the future to maintain the high standards of our fleet?
As regards London Underground, the White Paper says so little that I missed it the first time. What are the Government's views on the Underground? What are their thoughts on the Chelsea-Hackney Line? There is much potential there to get people off the roads in London. However, there is no mention of it in the White Paper. What can the Minister tell us with regard to private enterprise and the money it has made available? Or is it the Minister's intention that private enterprise should provide the infrastructure for the Underground and that Jimmy Knapp should run the trains, or not as the case may be? What about investment for the Underground? The previous Conservative government increased investment four times in real terms between 1979 and 1997. Can the Minister confirm that the Labour Government will continue to increase expenditure at that rate, or do even better?
I turn to aviation. I hope the Government will bear in mind that many of the good intentions with regard to reducing noise and controlling airports mean that the industry could suffer unless restrictions and standards imposed on our key hub airports are repeated throughout Europe. This is a competitive area. We have a successful United Kingdom business which earns a great deal of revenue for the country. If pressures are applied to it which are not applied in Europe, we shall see our standards decline and the European airports will be only too pleased to receive traffic that should come to Britain. One of the most stupid sentences in the White Paper concerns a 30-year plan for aviation. When one considers the changes in aviation that have taken place over the past 30 years, how can one predict what will happen in the next 10 years, let alone the next 30? However, if planning procedures continue to stifle opportunities in this country, perhaps a 30-year plan becomes a little more realistic.
As to roads, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that for many the car is an essential item of daily life and not a luxury. It appears that much of the consultation was carried out in urban areas. How much was carried out in rural areas where there are no opportunities to use public transport? Despite the emphasis on local solutions, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, welcomed—I also welcome it—why will investment by local authorities decrease in real terms next year? If one adds to that the Government's

1025
ideas for de-trunking, thereby giving local authorities more roads to maintain, surely congestion will only get worse and not better. When the Government are saving £700 million annually on motorway and trunk road infrastructure improvements, why is only £75 million being invested in encouraging people to transfer from road to rail? There are good points in the White paper but there are many questions that need to be answered. The Government have not yet reached a satisfactory standard.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Earl in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this debate. He is an acknowledged expert on transport matters. The House always listens to him with great interest. The noble Earl applied the Scottish adjective peelie wally to the White Paper. There are many adjectives one could think of in connection with the Deputy Prime Minister, but that is hardly the one that comes first to mind. The Deputy Prime Minister deserves credit for a White Paper which has a broad thrust and coherence about it. I want to concentrate on the vital role that cycling can play in achieving the Government's aim of an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution.
I found in the days when I used to travel around London from one meeting to another that cycling was by far the most reliable means of arriving on time—much better than taking the bus, a taxi or the Underground. And it was good exercise into the bargain. Cycling or walking to work on a regular basis is one of the best contributors to good health, far more worthwhile than the practice of a hospital executive I heard about the other day. He took his health seriously. He believed in getting into his company car twice a week and driving to a gym in order to sit astride a stationary bicycle.
The figures of our travelling habits are very revealing. Seventy-five per cent. of all journeys in the United Kingdom are of less than five miles; 86 per cent. of journeys over one mile are made by car; and 61 per cent. of car journeys are of less than five miles. Even a modest shift from these staggering statistics would be very good for the national health.
Since the national cycling strategy was born two-and-a-half years ago, much positive action has taken place at national, regional and local levels. But there is still an immense amount to do. It is becoming clear that the target accepted by the Government of doubling the cycling levels by 2002 may not be met. There is an urgent need to look generally at the resources being deployed in this area of transport policy.
Let me conclude by asking the Minister three questions. He can perhaps reply to them at the end of the debate. If not, perhaps he will write to me. First, as regards safety, the White Paper says:
"we wish particularly to improve the safety of more vulnerable road users, including cyclists and pedestrians … in a way that is consistent with encouraging more cycling and walking".
In the light of that statement, what measures will the forthcoming road safety strategy contain to improve cyclists' safety while also supporting greater cycle use?
1026
I would add to what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said about the use of cars. I notice that Mr. Kinnock, speaking as a European Commissioner, talked the other day about the great need for car design to take account of pedestrian and cyclist safety. I hope that the Government will encourage people to take on the car lobby in that respect and encourage it to emphasise in its advertising a good deal more of the safety side of cars rather than the sexual side, which I notice appears in most television advertising.
Secondly, the White Paper talks about local transport plans. The way in which local authorities plan for transport is being radically changed for the better by the White Paper. What mechanisms will the Government introduce to ensure that these new local transport plans deliver additional funding to cycling provision?
My third question concerns integration, a word that is used a good deal. The White Paper rightly supports an integrated policy generally and an integrated policy in relation to cycling. How will the proposed strategic rail authority deliver greater integration for cyclists? And how will it liberate them from the hazards that they find among railway companies when trying to make journeys associated with cycle travel? If the Government can produce an improvement there, they will earn the blessing of the entire cycling community.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I also welcome this debate on transport initiated by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
The transport system is absolutely vital for the economic performance of this country. If we neglect it, our performance will fall behind that of our competitors even more than at present. Getting the transport system right is essential.
It is right that the White Paper argues the need to use congestion pricing to discourage the excessive use of cars, particularly in congested urban areas. If that is to work, we must ensure that the rail system is enhanced in a way which allows people to shift the emphasis of their activity from road to rail, both in regard to passenger and freight transportation. Promoting the rail system is essential.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley was absolutely right to highlight the essential role that Railtrack, the monopoly provider of the key rail infrastructure, will have to play. The White Paper talks about a better deal for everyone in the transport area. One group which has clearly had a wonderful deal over the past few years is the shareholders of Railtrack. The share price of Railtrack has gone up four times since privatisation. One wonders whether that is not a signal that something is amiss. My remark is not motivated by jealousy, or anything of that kind; it is merely a question as to what has transformed the company's prospects over those years.
It is worth reflecting on the nature of the privatisation of rail. We are confronted with a highly fragmented rail system, with very little effective competition in all but a few areas. That was not the original aspiration, which was to create effective competition. It was not possible

1027
to do that. The consequence is that rail now poses a quite different regulatory problem from that of other sectors. In telecoms we see significant competition over large swathes of the industry, growing ever greater; the same is true, and will increasingly be true, of electricity and gas. It is fair to say that we do not have competition with water, but we have a rather simple industry structure. In rail we combine a lack of competition with a very complex industrial structure, and it is a real challenge therefore to manage it.
That is why the White Paper is entirely right to argue the case for creating a strategic rail authority. This is an industry which requires effective co-ordination far and above that required of and provided by the regulator in the other regulated sectors. The strategic rail authority will have a hard time in trying to make the rail business work as well as it should, as will the rail regulator. The acting rail regulator, Mr. Chris Bolt—who, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will be delighted to hear, is an avid cyclist (he arrives at all his meetings with his helmet as an essential part of his business accessories)—has a very important role to play. He is right to have made some tough statements recently in respect of the performance of Railtrack and other industry sectors.
The key to the regulator's problem is to get incentives right. My noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned the Chinese approach in relation to the Y2K problem. Without going entirely down that road, it is important that the regulator aligns incentive appropriately. That involves paying an appropriate cost of capital to the regulated monopoly part of the business. There is a danger, I believe, that some regulators might be too tough in that area.
More importantly, it is crucial that, whatever return Railtrack gets, it should be given in a way that provides Railtrack with incentives to invest and modernise the rail infrastructure. That is not the case at the present because Railtrack's return is largely independent of the passenger traffic along that infrastructure. That remuneration system will not encourage Railtrack to invest in expanding the network in order to ensure an efficient system that avoids delays and congestion. We have to get that incentive structure right if we are to have a modern rail system fit for the next 10 to 20 years.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we are all dependent on the free movement of goods and services as well as personal mobility for the quality of our lives. Economic growth brings yet more movement and the reality is that we all prefer to face the problems created by growth rather than the problems of recession which would almost certainly reduce transport demand. Transport demand, therefore, is likely constantly to change and grow.
Even since this White Paper was published last summer matters have moved forward, with the publication of the London Bill and plans for possible congestion and parking charges in London to provide funds to be used to make public transport more attractive and effective within London. It will be
1028
essential to ensure that the funds raised by these means are retained and used locally and not lost in the maw of the Treasury, as the London Bill appears to imply might happen. Local charging and improvement of local conditions must go hand in hand if the local economy—initially in London—is not to be damaged and the acceptability of these additional revenue streams is to continue.
I have been fortunate enough to see a brief from the Boots company, with which I hasten to add I have no connection at all, which illustrates the complexities in this area. Boots operates 1,400 pharmacy stores as well as 290 opticians stores and 400 specialist cycle and car maintenance stores through Halfords. It is committed to existing town centres. It comments:
"The vitality and viability of town centres should be an explicit requirement of local transport plans".
It relates its experience in Edinburgh, where trading in its city centre store has shown a noticeable deterioration as the result of traffic restraint measures in Princes Street. Anecdotal evidence from other traders supports that. Driving traffic from a town centre may help to improve the environment there, but if the centre becomes uneconomic and trade moves out, I doubt very much whether that will be seen as an improvement in the longer term.
Boots also comments that it has worked very hard to improve transport arrangements for its 6,500 staff at its Beeston headquarters near Nottingham. Its work includes improved facilities for cyclists, which should please some, and a computer assisted car-sharing programme. It also assists local bus services as well as a shuttle bus from the nearest station. But it is interesting to note that these last actions have resulted in a tax assessment from the Inland Revenue for £500,000 because the company is providing a benefit in kind. Clearly, I conclude that co-ordinating and restraining the Treasury's appetite with the needs of the environment has not yet been wholly achieved.
I find it somewhat surprising that, while the White Paper pays lip service to technological development, the Government appear reluctant to take steps to encourage changes that might dramatically improve the atmosphere. The modern diesel engine is very efficient and produces dramatically less pollution than its forebears. It uses up to 30 per cent. less fuel than petrol engines, and a wider fuel excise duty differential between petrol and diesel could rapidly produce greatly reduced CO2 emissions by getting this changeover under way. City diesel, with its very low sulphur content which improves exhaust catalyst performance, would also help. City diesel will not generally be introduced until 2005 under the European Union auto-oil programme. I have to ask the Government whether this date could not be brought forward. By that time we shall begin to see the first fuel cell-powered vehicles coming on to the market, with all the scope that that technology provides for dramatically reducing pollution.
These changes will happen whether or not the Government sit on their hands. However, they will happen sooner and the benefit will be felt more rapidly,

1029
if the Government take appropriate action. The White Paper itself is long on discussion, but it is just that—a discussion paper.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this vital debate. The Government have produced a White Paper on integrated transport which should show the framework for a United Kingdom transport plan. However, this paper deals mainly with England, and I would like to include in my contribution to the debate detail which is to be found in the Scottish White Paper which was produced concurrently with this one and is entitled Travel Choices for Scotland. I look on this debate on United Kingdom transport from a Scottish perspective, where a good public transport system is essential for business and employment, particularly in the more remote areas.
When devolution is completed and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Irish Assemblies have been formed, the greater majority of transport responsibility will be devolved to those three bodies. I believe that, although responsibility and control are devolved, there should still be an infrastructure of transport networks which are more centrally co-ordinated. I use the word "co-ordinated" rather than "controlled" because, although the road and rail networks will be paid for and controlled by devolved authorities, they do over certain routes provide a link not only within the United Kingdom but on to the Continent as well. I am not only referring to the west coast main line or the A.1 but to routes such as the E.18 which links Coleraine in Ireland in the west to Leningrad in the east.
My point is perhaps better illustrated on page 161 of what I shall refer to as the English White Paper, which should show the principles of the UK transport network as described on page eight. Page 161 shows a map of most of the United Kingdom but shows only what are described as core national routes in England. Although the routes will be paid for and administered by the devolved administrations, it is in my view a major weakness that the document which pertains to show the basis for an integrated United Kingdom transport network does not acknowledge the existence of the major link roads that connect England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For some reason that has been possible for the railway map shown on page 162, although Northern Ireland, with an inter-European rail link, has been omitted altogether.
I am in complete agreement with the Government on their intention to reduce pollution and congestion by transferring more road freight to rail. However, I would suggest that the rail infrastructure is going to require a considerable investment not only to enable the tracks to carry the extra traffic but also to existing structures such as bridges and power cables to allow for the most effective intermodal freight system to be used.
The paper clearly favours rail transport, and the instigation of the strategic rail authority will provide a useful control. It is particularly encouraging from
1030
a national perspective that the Scottish Executive will be able to instruct the strategic rail authority on matters concerning trans which start or finish their journeys in Scotland. However, the commission for integrated transport will have only representatives from the devolved countries. This organisation will only be able to advise government on transport matters. I suggest that instead of advising, it should recommend actions on a national basis on integrated transport matters.
Finally, I wish to mention the trans-European networks. The United Kingdom White Paper refers to the Government's intention to continue work with the European Union on a development of trans-European networks. It is perhaps an omission that the only routes currently being bid for are both rail oriented. There is no mention of trans-European networks in the Scottish White Paper, and they receive only a brief mention in the one published for the United Kingdom.
I return to the E.18, to which I made reference earlier. This route is an essential road link through Scotland, where it is known as the A.75. It links the ferry port at Stranraer to the M.6 at Gretna. It links Northern Ireland to England and Europe using the shortest sea crossing, and is therefore favoured by many travellers. It is already eligible for trans-European network funding, provided that is matched by government funding. The route not only provides a European road link which cannot be replaced by rail unless a new modal freight facility is built or a new rail link is completed for approximately 80 miles from Stranraer to Gretna; it is also the key to the sustainable existence of rural business and industry in an area where there is already high employment. This would not be an example of planning and providing. It would merely be a question of improving the infrastructure of the existing road.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not a transport expert. However, I am, like all other Members of this House, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this debate. I have no specialist knowledge, but I suffer the frustrations of being a public transport user each and every day. I can tell the improbable but true tales of misery, and much more, of life on the London to Brighton line. I can tell the House that it has become no better since the line was privatised, and certainly not since Lord Olivier enjoyed his kipper breakfasts on the Brighton Belle 30 years ago, when he used to make journeys to this House.
My primary interest today is to raise the importance and significance of local transport strategies and the key role that can be played by local authorities. My council covers a population of a quarter of a million, and the wider city a third of a million. It is a complex and difficult sub-region for public transport to navigate. It has a road network constrained by the valleys which comprise our city and the seascape which is our shining glory and a major attraction. Brighton is an incredibly popular place. It attracts more than 7 million visitors a year.
Brighton has a host population which, unlike the rest of the affluent south, is not so car-dependent. Less than 50 per cent. of our residents are car owners. Many used

1031
to see that as a problem. I see it as an opportunity. Because of the built-up and congested nature of Brighton and Hove we need to reduce car dependency and strike a balance between the needs of car users and the overriding need to protect and enhance the quality of the urban environment which makes our area so special.
Many years ago, in the 1970s, transport planners foresaw an opportunity to connect our suburbs to the city centre. However, it would have meant the wholesale demolition of some of the most interesting and attractive inner urban areas. That approach was resisted and, although we have suffered the inevitable consequence of congestion, we are now finding solutions which are much rehearsed in the White Paper.
In the early 1990s, when we still suffered from some of the problems that represented a hangover from the "car is king" era, the council, together with East Sussex, decided to reverse long-term trends in bus usage and try to promote buses as an environmentally sound approach.
The strategy that has since developed relies on a range of factors: cheaper buses; frequent services from all areas; accessible, user-friendly services; integration with the rail network; the development of clean technology buses; and road space reduction. That strategy is now bringing benefits. Between 1994 and 1998 we saw year on year increases in the numbers of passengers for the first time, at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum; 25 per cent. more people now use the local bus network. No other conurbation in the United Kingdom can boast that record. Last year saw major disruption to services as we extended our priority network, and passenger numbers still held. Towards the end of the year when the work was completed numbers again began to rise, with an 8 per cent. increase between September and December to the Churchill Square area of the shopping centre. It was an amazing increase. We have now developed with our major bus provider, Brighton and Hove Buses, a quality partnership. The result has been METROLINE—a high-quality, high profile route branding/tube network imitation which makes the bus network easy to use and easy to understand.
That approach has not been without its problems, and there are certainly lessons to be learnt. I would argue that we need both carrot and stick—we probably need more stick than carrot. Public transport must be given priority if it is to provide a speedy, efficient alternative to car-borne city centre traffic. A clear communications strategy must be adopted to persuade and inform local residents of the need to use public transport and to promote the need for environmentally friendly strategies.
Consultation is essential. We need to take the business communities with us. It is essential to work in close partnership with the police, the Highways Agency, the health services, taxi and bus operators and major employers. The final lesson that we have learnt is that it is also necessary to be brave. There are some green lobbyists who will never be satisfied. We must watch out for special pleading near local election times, and we must beware of all those who accuse councils of being anti-car—they usually have no idea of a strategy;
1032
their idea of balance in transportation terms is simply to retain the status quo. If we adopt that model, if we listen and learn from those lessons, I believe that we can have local transportation strategies that will, first, halt the decline in public transport and, secondly, bring more people onto our bus and rail networks, to the benefit of all, but more particularly of our urban environment.
3.57 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this important subject for debate. Before saying anything substantive, perhaps I may remind the House that I have an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. Also, I am speaking from the Back-Benches, not for Her Majesty's Opposition.
The Government recently had a difficult decision to make regarding maximum lorry weights and the EU directive imposing an extremely "un-road-friendly" 40 tonne vehicle upon us. Despite the conclusions of the 1994 report of the Select Committee on the European Communities, the Minister has opted for a "road-friendly" six-axle 41 tonner rather than the opportunity to introduce a highly efficient and environmentally friendly 44 tonne vehicle—a vehicle that is physically no larger than the current vehicles. In other words, he has foregone an extra three tonnes of maximum payload and introduced a vehicle that will be unique to the UK market. So much for the Single Market.
The reason for that is apparently to relieve competitive pressure as regards the railway industry. That is indeed understandable; however, it has to be recognised that the cost is considerable. The Esso company alone, using 44 tonners, would save over 2 million road miles per year compared to 38 tonners. In addition, it would be able to reduce its fleet size by 20 per cent., with 35,000 fewer movements. As the Esso fleet largely delivers to factories and retail outlets, almost none of its road traffic could be transferred to rail. It is gratifying to see the enthusiasm and the regeneration of the rail freight industry since privatisation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his efforts in promoting the industry and organising his group. He has been doing much good work in this House.
Noble Lords will be aware that the road haulage industry is extremely competitive and easy to enter. There is nothing wrong with that; however, unfortunately, the industry also attracts cowboys and illegal operators, and has done so since the days of a man with a horse and cart.
A charitable view is that some enter the industry wearing rose-tinted spectacles. Frequently, new entrants have no realistic idea of the cost of their operation, the depreciation, maintenance and tyre costs. They therefore unwittingly charge less than the cost of the operation. Inevitably they end up sailing very close to the wind and eventually either go out of business or operate illegally. Typical examples of illegality are to employ drivers claiming unemployment benefit, taxing vehicles at the wrong rate, overloading, driving excessive hours and falsifying tachograph records.

1033
Those illegal activities can result in the licensing authority withdrawing the operator's licence, but unfortunately many will continue to operate without a licence and with relative impunity. If, however, their vehicle could be impounded by the authorities, this would provide a major deterrent to illegal operation.
As noble Lords will be aware, there has been much discussion and consultation on the matter. Unfortunately, the Government have not found parliamentary time for a suitable Bill to allow for impounding. I therefore intend to help the Minister by introducing a suitable Private Member's Bill. I am currently receiving expert help in drafting it. It will provide that in future, when the authorities detect a vehicle being operated without an operator's licence, they will be able to impound it. This will go some way to reducing unfair competition in the industry. I will leave further discussion to the Second Reading debate.
However, the Bill will be a non-starter and cannot actually be implemented until the joint enforcement database initiative (JEDI) is up and running accurately. Also, it may be necessary for the Minister slightly to change the procedure for operators adding vehicles to their licence. The DTI has been making much of electronic commerce, and with good reason. I hope that it will soon be possible for operators to notify the licensing authority of changes electronically. The future with IT is exciting, but of course it will still be necessary to retain postal transactions as well for small operators.
I believe that if we can eliminate cowboy operators from the road transport operation, the basic rates available to the industry will rise. That would help the rail industry to undertake transport tasks ideally suited to it, and for road transport safely, legally and profitably to undertake tasks not suited to rail transport.
4.2 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I shall expand on the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in that it is widely considered that diesel, when compared with petrol engines, will emerge as the better option, long-term, for various reasons. Diesel vehicles use 25 per cent. less fuel which equates to 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. saving in CO2 emissions and this gap will be maintained as technological advances will affect both types of engines.
Improvements in emission control techniques, particulate traps and low sulphur diesel fuel provide good grounds for expecting that emissions from diesel engines will be equal to or better than petrol engines by 2005. However, I know of one manufacturer which is developing a zero emission diesel engine. I cannot recall anyone committing suicide using diesel exhaust gases, yet everyone here today will have heard of suicides from petrol exhausts. Diesels produce half the level of hydrocarbon emissions including the proven carcinogenic benzine. One Swedish study has shown that petrol station attendants had three times the expected level of leukaemia caused by benzine. This highly volatile carcinogenic vapour displaced, when filling a petrol tank, contains 3.5 million parts per billion
1034
of benzine compared with the Government's target of 1 part per billion. So, when filling up your petrol tank, it is wise to wear a gas mask.
Diesel engines also produce half the level of ozone precursors compared with equivalent petrol engines. Studies have shown that oxides of nitrogen increase with increased mileage in petrol cars, but fall slightly in diesel-engined vehicles. So, after about 30,000 miles, diesel engines produce on average less nitrous oxide. That illustrates the gulf between theoretical and actual emissions of petrol engines.
In order to provide further food for thought, I continue. Because of a rich fuel cold start, short journeys of less than five miles which make up 61 per cent. of all journeys are more inefficient in a petrol-engined vehicle. Because the catalyst does not work properly until it is hot, it produces excessive pollution and emissions. Diesels are at almost maximum efficiency as soon as they are started. Consequently, a petrol-engined vehicle which might average 50 miles per gallon under normal driving might only achieve 20 to 25 miles per gallon over short distances, whereas the 50 mile per gallon diesel will almost always achieve 50 miles per gallon, irrespective of the distance covered.
The statement that diesel exhaust fumes are a serious health threat has been repeated so often in recent years that it has become accepted as fact. The view that the use of diesel vehicles should be discouraged assumes that particulate emissions are so harmful as to outweigh all the areas in which diesel emissions are lower—for example, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, benzene, ozone precursors and carbon dioxide—and also that diesels are the principal source of PM emissions. But both assumptions are flawed. Diesel vehicles produce only a fifth of total particulate emissions with the main sources being industry, power generation, domestic fires, bonfires, construction, quarrying and agriculture. Although diesels produce about 20 times as much PM 10 by weight as petrol vehicles, the vast majority is accounted for by comparatively heavy but innocuous particles in the 2.5 to 10 micron range.
It is very surprising that there is hardly any published information comparing petrol and diesel emissions of PM2.5, but I am led to believe from an impeccable source that one eminent independent research and development company has measured PM2.5s from petrol engines and shown them to be four times the level of equivalent diesels. It has also been shown that, in the south-east, wind-blown particulates of the size 2.5 microns can be formed from pollutants coming from the continent and not directly from vehicle exhausts.
One American study of deaths due to high pollution levels has indicated that industrial pollution is the cause and not diesel pollution. There are very few diesels in America. But the media have extrapolated figures from this study in a grossly inaccurate and scaremongering way.
There is no epidemiological evidence of diesel fumes being dangerous and your Lordships will be interested to learn that at the Merton bus garage, workers were found to have slightly lower than usually expected levels of respiratory and heart disease.

1035
But the whole picture is more important than anything. We should be more worried about global warming which might affect everybody than the effect on a few people worldwide.
I had hoped to have time to ask the Minister whether he intends to implement the excellent recommendations contained in Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's Thematic Inspection Report 1998 which concedes that traffic policing has been neglected for far too long. I had also hoped to be able respectfully to suggest that the daughter document to the White Paper on road safety be published before public support for it is lost.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this important debate. I am pleased to be one of only two women taking part—both from the Liberal Democrat Benches—because women are important transport users.
I want to talk about integrated transport in London, not as a transport expert but as an enthusiastic user of public transport. I have not sought a House of Lords car parking permit, not to be morally superior, but to do as I would be done by.
I daily, or almost daily—and I shall come to that—share the experience of millions of other Londoners, travelling mainly on the Tube and buses rather than by rail. We need to remember that this rail, Tube and bus network is a fantastic asset for London, and we are especially lucky to have escaped the horrors of bus deregulation that the previous government inflicted on other parts of the country.
However, the network could be so much better. It was horribly neglected by the previous government, no doubt because it was in the public sector—the public sector was regarded as bad—and because leading members of the government did not use it. Perhaps I may recommend the experience of a 14-minute wait at the Angel on the Northern Line or the Piccadilly Line at King's Cross at 8.45 a.m. You can only get on the fourth train to arrive and the crowding on the platform is frankly terrifying. This Government's attitude is more enlightened but it needs to be pushed harder.
I wish to highlight two issues particularly this afternoon. The first is the need for adequate funding. The Government say that their plans will bring £7 billion in investment in the Tube over 15 years, presumably a mixture of public and private money. Can the Minister give an assurance that the income raised from congestion charging or taxing office parking spaces in London will be additional to government grant towards London's public transport system and will not be used to justify cutting the Treasury contribution? Linked to that, while I understand that the Government have given an oral pledge that the mayor will keep the proceeds of congestion charging for the first 10 years, Londoners want a guarantee that the money they pay will never be swiped by the Treasury. Londoners want their money to be used to improve public transport, either through investment in the network or value-for-money fares.
1036
London's fares are the highest in the world. It costs £1.40 to travel one stop on the Tube or £1 to travel four or five stops on the bus. These Benches call for a reduction in fares in real terms by keeping rises below the rate of inflation. This can probably be done only if the mayor can subsidise fares from road pricing or parking charges.
The Government's solution to the future of the Tube is completely unsatisfactory. The former chairman of London Transport, Mr. Peter Ford, told the Transport Sub-Committee of the other place that the public/private partnership would cost £1 billion more over 25 years than the public sector option, which the Liberal Democrats favour, of keeping the Tube tracks and trains in public ownership but allowing freedom to borrow on the commercial market. Will the Government publish the Price Waterhouse costings so that we can all see them?
There are also great worries that a non-integrated Tube may become a disintegrated Tube. If there are three private track owners and one public operating company there will be five interfaces. Will safety be guaranteed in those circumstances? How is it that Railtrack, which is so castigated (by this Government among others) for its poor performance and latterly has revealed that its signal boxes for London commuter traffic at crucial locations, such as Dartford, Guildford and Tottenham, are so old and fragile that they must not be touched, is rumoured to be the Government's favourite to operate the Tube track?
The greater London assembly and mayor must be allowed the resources to plan for increases in the capacity of London's transport network. There is no Crossrail and Chelsea-Hackney line in the pipeline. Why does the Heathrow Express go to Paddington, where it connects with a very infrequent Circle Line service, rather than there being an efficient Crossrail?
The best prospect for short-term capacity increases lies in buses. But can we please have better buses than the current one person-operated vehicles, which are very noisy and whose design is horrible? Can we also have a flat fare on buses, which would be welcome? I believe that that is a matter that London Transport is considering.
There needs to be a long-term strategy for increasing capacity, including new bus routes, matching transport investment to areas suitable for population growth so that transport assists in the attainment of urban regeneration and sustainable development, and does not undermine it. We have much to learn from continental cities in areas such as car pools, bike hire and integrated ticketing. That is my second point.
I said earlier that I travel almost daily on London Transport. It is not quite worth my while to buy a travelcard, so I must buy single tickets. Ministers encourage flexible work patterns and part-time working. They also urge Londoners to leave their cars at home for a few days a month. They will not find it a happy experience. There are no carnets for the bus; one cannot interchange between Tube and bus on a single ticket; one cannot even interchange between buses; and one

1037
cannot buy a one-day travelcard for the bus. We are two or three decades behind continental cities in the area of ticketing.
Until we have a first-class, consumer-friendly public transport system Londoners, who expect and receive efficiency and comfort in other areas of their lives, will not be tempted to use London Transport.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, our grateful thanks are due to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for initiating this important debate. He has advocated with conviction the need to get as much freight as possible on to rail to ease the congestion on our overcrowded road network. This principle is part of an integrated transport system. Calls for such a system have been repeatedly made over the years. They have appeared hardly more than empty platitudes for little has been done.
Things, however, have changed. First, we now have a Labour Government with a huge majority in the other place. Secondly, the transport portfolio has altered considerably. Not so long ago the Transport Minister was not even a member of the Cabinet. There is now a new concept with an omnibus ministry headed by the redoubtable Mr. John Prescott. In addition to being Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions he is Deputy Prime Minister. The transport portfolio therefore now has clout which hitherto it has tended to lack.
Nevertheless there is a need to recognise the reality of the transport situation in Britain today. In 1996, for example, of the total inward goods movement 91 per cent. was accounted for by road. A similar situation obtains in passenger transport of which some 94 per cent. is estimated to be accounted for by road. The vast majority of this high percentage is accounted for by private cars. To make any impact on the situation, whether in respect of freight or passenger transport, there is a mountain to climb.
I shall give a local illustration of the problem. In Newport, which I represented for 10 years in the other place, there are now excessive delays on the M.4 between junctions 23 and 28. These are expected to worsen significantly as traffic volumes increase as a result of both rising car ownership and greater economic activity further west. The resulting bottleneck will jeopardise continuing investment in South Wales to the west of Newport. That area badly needs new investment. Newport county borough council has called for the provision of an M.4 relief road. The scheme is now subject to review under a common appraisal framework. I understand that the study is to be completed by the spring of this year.
There is opposition to the proposed relief road from the environmental lobby. While not doubting the sincerity of the individuals and groups concerned, I believe that economic reality points to the need for the early construction of the road. My understanding is that removal of the need for the proposed new relief road at Newport by the transfer of freight from road to rail would require another eight freight interchanges equivalent to the one presently being built at Wentlooge
1038
on the outskirts of the town. Such a proposal is unrealistic. That is an example of what I mean by the need to climb a mountain. I urge the Government to give the go-ahead to the new road without further delay. I am glad to have had the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on initiating this wide-ranging debate. Nowadays I have only a non-motorist's interest to declare and therefore I find much to welcome in the White Paper. We find in it some old familiar friends already discussed but there are other aspects such as the emphasis on the alleviation of congestion, transport integration, the viability of public transport and seamlessness. I welcome the evolution of the strategic rail authority. I hope that it will be rapid because, in common with many others, I should not like to see the traffic growth prospects of EWS, or passenger franchise operators, becoming mired by concerns about the future regulatory regime which in turn may impact on innovation, marketing, the ability to raise capital, the ability to invest—no longer constrained by PSBR—and the viability of the equipment supply industry.
In the context of the White Paper I also hope that we shall see progress, as did the Swedes, in levelling the playing field as to the costs of the road and rail infrastructure.
I welcome the increased involvement of regions, other authorities and planners although I am disappointed that the counties are not becoming PTAs. I give one example. In the Isle of Wight consideration is being given to turning the existing rail franchise—the smallest, leanest but, sadly, one of the most heavily subsidised—into a light railway and integrating it with the existing preserved railway. Light rail gets a fairly raw deal in the White Paper. I am sorry about that. I believe that we should build on Tyne and Wear's recently improved extension to Sunderland which shares Railtrack facilities.
My main regret is that the White Paper almost overlooks practice abroad. There are some 30 references to European or other international commitments; they are not totally relevant to the passenger or the freight shipper. There are 10 references to best operational practice. I believe that there are only two references to transport practices in the world beyond Europe; and there are almost no references to such practices to be found in the index.
Against that, I place great store by the commission for integrated transport which is charged with identifying and disseminating best practice. Perhaps we should add encouragement or even enforcement to its remit, as the noble Earl, Lord Stair, implied. What can be considered best practice? Is it the use of colour in the Dutch timetable to make it more accessible to the visibly impaired? Is it the use of minority languages such as Arabic and Turkish for those whose mother tongue is not Dutch? We should look at the Dutch all-mode nationwide strip ticket for once-off journeys. You buy

1039
the equivalent of 10 journeys and can use the ticket on any transport anywhere in the Netherlands. We should also look at the Dutch use of taxis as a complement to, or replacement for, unviable bus services.
I turn to Norway, a country with which I am most familiar. The national timetable lists all public transport, cross-indexing it by maps, index or the schedule tables. Where operationally practical, long-haul transport connects. That means that a boat which has travelled for seven days connects with a train which is travelling 400 miles, even if the boat is delayed, within a reasonable margin. Short-haul services also connect. A national transport map adds to the information provision, as does a national fares manual. Is there a bus at Aviemore that will take me where I wish to go? Perhaps national parallels here are too ambitious, but those relating to smaller areas are worth considering.
The means to such ends lie with the strategic rail authority and CIT which I hope will be up and running in time to influence the welcome national travel information service. All those factors will enhance public transport and make it more attractive. That will encourage change in our public transport habits.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on initiating the debate and speaking so well. I wish to put on record my great appreciation of our close work together on the transport sector during the years in opposition. I also welcome the constructive and coherent approach of the Government to transport, an area of policy which was so neglected during the 18 years of Conservative government. Their concept of pilotage of this sector was, I think, characterised by an irresistible urge to ensure that the transport ship landed on the rocks. In that they certainly succeeded.
I wish to devote my remarks to the issue of shipping. The Government issued a White Paper on shipping—and a very good one, too. In contrast to our predecessors, clearly those in charge of our transport policy believe in the industry. The former government did not. They allowed the industry to founder. They took over a bequest of nearly 1,300 ships of over 500 gross registered tonnes. They left behind a bequest of just over 200 ships. That was their way of honouring an industry which has meant so much to this country—a country which has been dependent on, and should be interested in, the industry to a much greater extent. So much of our trade is dependent internationally upon shipping. British shipping should be playing a critical part; the former government neglected it.
They applied piecemeal measures to try to mitigate some of the problems, but those failed miserably. We have failed to recruit the cadets whose skills and seamanship are needed to build that role in the future. There was a failure, too, to ensure that the maritime-related industries which depend on people who have served at sea are properly manned. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating as regards the White Paper. Will the resources be available? The document shows a critically important belief in the industry and a
1040
determination to see it revived. We did not experience that during the previous 18 years. In consequence the former government carry a huge burden of debt to the people of this country.
There is a crisis in recruitment. The paper indicates ways in which it can be tackled. It is important to continue and enhance the attack on sub-standard vessels. Most of the problems come from open registries. New initiatives need to be promoted by the Government in the European Union to ensure that port state control becomes much more effective. That requires additional resources.
Unfair competition results from sub-standard vessels, from flags of convenience. We hear much from the party opposite about its belief in fair standards of competition—but not apparently in relation to shipping. We hear very little from it about the need to enhance the role of coastal shipping which is environmentally enormously advantageous. I must declare my interest as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea, of which my noble friend Lord Callaghan is the president. As the paper indicates, we should ensure the environmental friendliness of shipping.
I conclude with reference to some of the issues which I believe are so important in the paper. I refer to the establishment of a national trust fund to co-ordinate industrial funding for seafaring training. Why did the former government not introduce it? I refer also to increasing the number of training berths for British seafarers; developing levy schemes for non-training companies; revising and improving the terms of the crew relief costs scheme; providing improved social security protection for UK seafarers; and considering the launch of a UK tonnage tax system. I believe that all those represent the way ahead. In the interests of our overall trading position, the means have to be found to ensure that the industry is made more meaningful in the industrial and economic life of this country. We have shown a will to implement the scheme. I hope that that will be translated fully into action.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may draw to your Lordships' attention that several speakers have spoken well into a sixth minute, and my noble friend the Minister will he unable to answer questions fully if your Lordships leave him too little time.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I am afraid I find the White Paper—all 170 pages of it—a rather depressing document. Clearly its authors have tried hard to please everyone and to provide some solace to the multitude of different interests on which a transport policy inevitably impacts.
I suppose, again, it is inevitable that it has an anti-motorist flavour. There is talk of road-user charging and phrases such as "parking enforcement", "parking control" and "parking restraint" are sprinkled about the text. Planning policy in future, it states,
"should ensure that car parking space is limited to the minimum necessary."

1041
There will he a new parking charge on workplace parking.
However, the beleaguered motorist is accustomed to taking such flak and of course the Treasury's ban on tax hypothecation means that the motorist cannot even have the satisfaction of knowing that the extra financial burdens will be spent on improving the road network. Indeed, "improving" is a word that scarcely appears in the document. The buzz words, as far as the road network is concerned, are "maintenance" and "management", as in:
"We are giving high priority to maintaining and managing the nation's transport infrastructure"
or
"our road network is largely complete. Maintaining the trunk road network will be the first priority in future"
or
"make the best use of the roads we already have by investing in network control and traffic management measures and in minor improvements".
Why only "minor" improvements? What is meant by the sinister phrases "network control" and "traffic management measures"?
I would have liked to see an admission that our trunk road network is far from perfect. I would have liked to see some strategic improvements acknowledged and targeted. To give but two examples, what has happened to the once-promised upgrading of the A.1 to motorway standard all the way from London to Newcastle? What about a serious east-west motorway link to the east coast ports of Harwich and Felixstowe? The noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, has given another example in Wales.
There is a similar absence of strategic targets in the case of the railway network. There is a map showing the 15 key bottlenecks in the rail network, as identified by Railtrack, and there is mention of Railtrack's commitment to solve these problems by 2006. There is to be a new strategic rail authority, which we are told will promote better integration—which is to be welcomed—and interchange, and which will get better value for public subsidy in terms of fares and network benefits. But there is little mention of improving the network; for example, once again by an upgraded east-west access to the east coast ports.
The Channel Tunnel high speed link and the west coast main line modernisation are quoted as priority projects, in conjunction with the European Union's trans-European networks. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Stair, has already pointed out, there is no discussion of how these two projects are to be continued elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is little discussion about the problems of differing speeds for passenger and freight trains and the implications of this for increased freight usage of the existing network and, in particular, of the Channel Tunnel. There is little discussion about perhaps moving stations out of town centres to parkway locations, giving easier parking to commuters and freeing town centre parking for shoppers, with suitable shuttle bus routes in between them.
1042
Perhaps I have been too critical. I recognise the enormous problems involved in defining any transport policy. I recognise that a great deal of work and analysis has gone into the production of the White Paper. I give a cautious welcome to the proposals to devolve transport policy to the regions and, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this vitally important subject today.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the specialised report entitled British Shipping; Charting a new course, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has referred, sets out starkly the problems facing the industry, but insists that Britain can still maintain a strong presence in shipping. Its 33 recommendations for action all conform to accepted international practice and current EU guidelines on state aids.
There are three areas on which I would like to concentrate. First, I must declare my interest as a trustee of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. The Government have allotted something like £18.6 million to the Support for Maritime Training scheme over the three-year period from 1999 to 2002. SMarT has offered funding support for 643 new cadets in 1998–99, but ship owners are not taking up these available funds. This year's cadet intake is only 440, and of those something like one-fifth will be lost by natural wastage in the first year alone. But we should be recruiting at least 1,200 cadets a year and so I ask my noble friend on what assumptions of training requirements and uptake is the figure of £18.6 million based.
My next point relates to improving the cost environment. In the United Kingdom employers' national insurance contributions constitute something between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. of employers' social charges. The reduction to zero of employers' social charges in respect of seafarers is permitted under the European Union's maritime state aid guidelines, which acknowledge that,
"Maritime transport presents a special case".
More than 10 European Union countries provide remission of contributions, but the United Kingdom Government flatly asserts in the report that,
"exception on a sectional basis is irreconcilable with the principle of universality".
My question is this: what is so fundamentally different about the United Kingdom system as to require us to forgo the legitimate benefits which have been grasped by our European competitors?
My third point concerns the effect of the fiscal environment. Paragraphs 121 to 125 cogently summarise the overwhelming case for modifying the United Kingdom's fiscal regime to make it possible for our shipping to compete and flourish in a world where, as the report itself puts it,
"It is now normal for countries, including other European countries, to create a substantially tax-free environment to retain and to attract fishing investment."

1043
The results are documented in the report. It spells out the disincentives in the United Kingdom to shipping investment and it describes the action taken by our competitors. It concludes by saying that:
"The Government will discuss fiscal options with the industry in the context of the pre-budget consultation and without any commitment on implementation."
I realise that my noble friend cannot disclose what will be in the Budget, but will he assure your Lordships that his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will use all the clout—which was a word referred to earlier—and also the charm for which he is well known—I almost said notorious—to get the Treasury to grasp that if we are to seize the great opportunities open to us, British shipping companies really must be put on the same footing as their competitors.
This is no academic debate. P&O is in the process of deciding under which flag to place two new cruise ferries. If the Budget fails to deliver, those vessels could well go to the Dutch flag. The reasons for that can be read off Chart 5 of the report, which compares fiscal regimes to Britain's serious disadvantage. Again, Stephenson Clarke is considering flagging out four cargo ships used in the coastal trade and replacing British crews with Polish officers and Polish ratings—on ships operating around Britain's coasts. It would indeed be a tragedy if the Treasury were to spoil the brave new shipping policy spelled out in this report for the sake of a ha'p'orth of fiscal support.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords and I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate because, as your Lordships will be aware, transport has long been an interest of mine. Judging by the length of the speakers' list, it is the interest of many other noble Lords also present, as indeed it should be. The transport of people and goods has a daily effect on the quality of all our lives. There is no denying that.
That is reflected in the size of the White Paper. Whether the rest of the Government take the issue as seriously as the Deputy Prime Minister is a matter for speculation. However, although it is true that, as yet, no legislation has been introduced to take forward these proposals, I will, if your Lordships will forgive me, leave it to others to speculate on that. Therefore, I would like to concentrate on an area of the White Paper which, initially at least, does not require any legislation. That is the role of the bus.
At this point, as usual, I must declare an interest, having a long connection with the bus industry. It is for that reason that I shall confine my remarks today to the role that the bus will play in the transport system of the next century. I welcome greatly the enhanced role given to buses by the White Paper through a system of quality partnerships. There is no doubt that a system of efficient bus networks will go a long way to easing congestion, improving air quality and regenerating our towns and cities.
However, those improvements can be achieved only if both local authorities and bus operators play their part together. It is no use operators investing in new vehicles
1044
if there is no infrastructure for them to run on. People will be persuaded to leave their cars at home only if they know that the bus is going to give them a better quality of journey. The door-to-door service that the car can very often offer must be replaced by a pleasant, congestion-free ride.
The key to providing this quality journey is partnerships, or what is now popularly known as quality partnerships. These are partnerships between local authorities and bus operators aimed at achieving the improvements I have already mentioned. They cover such areas as improved and more accessible vehicles; better ticketing; better information; and improved infrastructure leading to better reliability. All those are key elements in improving the service to the passengers.
A number of quality partnerships, many of which I must say were initiated during the previous government's term of office, already exist up and down the country. The results in terms of reduced journey times and increased passenger numbers are impressive. That was demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. At this point I should add that these partnerships are not restrictive in any way. Far from it. More than one bus operator can join and the police and other enforcement authorities are also welcomed with open arms. There is no point in having bus priority measures if they are not enforced. Increased quality is key to providing a bus service for the 21st century.
However, that quality standard must be there for all to aim at. The competitive element, even in an atmosphere of co-operation, is still, in my view, vital to providing passengers with the services that they require. The Government have stated their intention to place quality partnerships on a statutory footing. On the face of it, that is to be applauded. However, I issue a note of caution: do not make them too prescriptive, otherwise one restricts the operators' ability to react to changing passenger needs and demands. In legislating, the Government must not underestimate the very real benefits that voluntary quality partnerships have already brought.
My second note of caution is related to the proposal to bring forward quality contracts if the quality partnership approach is not providing the improvements required. Quality contracts are no more than franchising by another name. There will be no incentive to improve the quality and quantity of services, and the working conditions of those who operate the buses will suffer. This will ultimately result in a poorer service to the travelling public. There is no more important person than the passenger. I believe that the quality partnership approach will give passengers the best possible service. I therefore congratulate the Government on their recognition of this, but ask them to approach any proposed legislation with caution.
4.44 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the private motor car, which is associated with so many of the social and environmental problems of our times, is the subject of a powerful mythology. It is a personal convenience and an adjunct to our busy lives. But it is also a symbol of personal freedom and personal aspiration and it engenders some strong emotions.

1045
Although the car symbolises individual autonomy, its use is everywhere subject to rigorous social control. This paradox confuses us and the manner in which it is resolved varies quite markedly between neighbouring European countries.
In this country, we have controlled the car less than many of our neighbours and much has been sacrificed to make way for it. In particular, we have destroyed systems of urban public transport which other countries have retained. Our errors in that respect were highlighted recently by the revival of the tramways in some of our cities.
City dwellers have always dreamt of seeking refuge in the countryside to pursue a quieter and more congenial life. Acres of suburbs have been built in this century in an effort to move out of the urban centres into leafy surroundings. When the programme has proved self-defeating, the idea of the accessibility of the countryside and its open spaces has often been sustained by the placement of the motor car on a hard concrete apron in front of a suburban dwelling. The car is a symbol of an enduring longing.
I remember that in the 1950s and 1960s much of the advertising of petrol companies made reference to the myth of the countryside. Our schoolrooms were adorned with exquisite posters showing how the English hedgerows varied with the changing seasons. Those posters were provided by the Shell petrol company. There was an innocence in all that. Nowadays, it is widely understood how inimical the products of the petrochemical industry are to the traditional appearance of the countryside. Those products include not only petrol but fertilisers and pesticides. Today, such advertising would be seen as a flagrant denial of this reality.
However, the subconscious works differently and it still harbours the myth. Politicians understand the myth of the motor car rather well. In the past, all political parties have paid obeisance to it. They have made great sacrifices of public money to appease the motorist. The previous government went further than most. They built trunk roads and by-passes. They attempted to hasten the progress of traffic through urban areas by means of road widening schemes and red routes. They did all that in the face of mounting evidence that the money spent in facilitating the flow of traffic is largely wasted. It encourages more cars to enter the network and it leads to increased congestion. I hope to answer that argument later.
The access of individual users to a limited resource must be regulated in pursuit of the common good. Surely, this idea is a simple and widely recognised truism. But so subversive was it of the ideology of the previous government that they spent most of their time in office denying it. It puts one in mind of the story of King Canute; only these are waves of traffic we are talking of.
The present Government are radical and reforming. They are not bound by any set of outdated ideological precepts. A sign of this is the manner in which they feel able to approach the problem of devising an integrated transport strategy fit for the 21st century.
1046
I have in hand the Government's draft guidelines on local authority transport plans issued last November by the DETR. Among other matters, the guidelines deal with the question of the reallocation of road space which might be made free of traffic and used for pedestrians, cycle lanes or given over to public transport. I am sorry to say that the guidelines show a degree of diffidence and caution which is liable to make them ineffective. The document asserts that it is too early to draw conclusions about the effects on traffic of reducing road capacity. The fear is expressed that by imposing restrictions in one part of a traffic network one might create congestion elsewhere.
That is an old caveat which does not stand up to examination. The idea can be refuted easily. We know that by facilitating the flow of traffic one usually succeeds only in adding to its volume. From the assumption that the effect works in reverse, it follows that by restricting the flow of traffic one will succeed in diminishing its volume. That consequence has been observed time and again. When highway capacity is restricted, traffic tends to evaporate. Research has shown that about half of the displaced traffic simply disappears. So common is that experience that it has become one of the verities of modern transport planning.
If we have the courage of our convictions and if we set about reclaiming some of the urban territories which we have surrendered to the car, then there is ample reason to suppose that our efforts will be fully rewarded. Indeed, we may succeed in establishing within the hearts of our cities the open spaces for which we long.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this subject today. It is high time that the House had the opportunity to debate this important issue.
Anyone interested in transport integration should visit Switzerland where one's transport needs about that beautiful country are catered for to an extraordinary degree. Back in the 1950s, that was in stark contrast to the position at home in Leighton Buzzard where nationalised buses competed with nationalised trains to nearby Luton. The train service involved a change at Dunstable which was not always available due to original lines belonging to separate companies. No one had thought to integrate the service.
So where are we now? Sadly, the Swiss model is still largely absent. People are still being carried about in some places in trains largely designed by the Victorians. One still sees freight yards, albeit largely concerned with infrastructure maintenance, full of wagons similar to those that I used to see at Leighton Buzzard, although at least today they have continuous brakes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said in his excellent speech on the Second Reading of the Railways Bill in June 1993:
"The problems which face British Rail are not problems of line management; nor are they problems of public versus private ownership. The problem is the price we pay for a succession of governments who have refused, at great cost to the nation, to provide clear and attainable objectives or any kind of consistent investment programme".—[Official Report, 15/6/93; col. 1446.]

1047
He pointed out also that nowhere in the world do passenger railways financially break even and it therefore follows that public support is likely always to be necessary. Freight carrying by rail demands little subsidy but requires encouragement and a level playing field. Worldwide freight railways, although declining, have the ability to be profitable. Some dedicated routes with captive markets are markedly so.
So our railways are now in private hands and an opportunity has been presented to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Much has been achieved. Substantial investment in passenger coaches and freight locos and wagons is in place to meet the demand created by a 15 per cent. increase in passenger mileage and a 25 per cent. increase in freight tonne miles over the past five years; and that is growing fast.
The rail freight industry, dominated by two main players, is looking to substantially increase its business further and great savings are being made in overall costs by streamlining services and providing one-stop shops for customers' inquiries which has enabled the service to be better delivered.
The passenger companies continue to offer improved services with new services providing connections where none existed before. One can cite Connex's Rugby to Gatwick service. There is an exciting proposal by GB Railways, via their Anglia Railway subsidiary, to introduce services connecting Ipswich with Watford and also Basingstoke via the Feltham gateway to Heathrow. There is also planned a Waterloo to Southampton premium service in direct competition to South West Trains which will also serve Romsey, a growing town cut off from London by rail for the past 30 years.
Thus can privatisation be seen to be successful. However, performance has not been good enough and urgent action is needed to ensure that such innovative service can be created and that our freight companies can achieve their goals, especially in the field of reducing dependence on our roads. One of the most effective ways of achieving that is by the use of piggy-back services which involve the carriage of road trailers on flat or adapted rail wagons. The practice is widespread abroad but is constrained here by a restricted loading gauge. The passenger companies are also identifying constraints in the infrastructure which is holding back their plans. Despite published investment figures of some £15 billion over the past five years, much needs to be done. It is vital that Railtrack continues with that investment.
Unbelievably, it seems to have decided that it must operate under the same constraints as its predecessors—British Rail. I refer to the resignalling of the route from Nuneaton to Peterborough which has been deferred, and the lack of piggy-back gauge enhancement within the West Coast Main Line upgrade. Railtrack seems unwilling also to commit itself to a London-avoiding route for traffic which needs to connect Glasgow with the Channel Tunnel.
1048
In evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, whose report was published last March, the Deputy Prime Minister recognised that,
"there is concern that freight facilities are not being provided to achieve piggyback which is an absolutely crucial part of getting the movement of freight from road on to rail".
Perhaps that is why it is seen to be necessary to set up a strategic rail authority to provide better direction in those matters.
That move is widely welcomed in the rail industry, and it is particularly unfortunate that the behaviour of this House in the matter of its so-called reform is somehow to be held to account as regards the achievement of the necessary legislation.
I shall leave it at that. I was extremely happy to see the privatisation of the railways because I could see the opportunities for growth and improvement that the process could provide. That it does not seem to be working is tragic. I feel that the train companies, both passenger and freight, are doing their hit. There is much positive thinking, although some of them have a funny way of showing it. If their investment is to founder because it must operate on out-dated and under-maintained infrastructure, one must question where Railtrack's priorities lie. The Government have a crucial role to play in that respect and I hope that they will quickly fulfil their responsibility to the industry.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has given us an opportunity to discuss this important subject. However, I shuddered, just slightly, when he echoed the current shibboleth that predict and provide was dead. However, I noticed that he really meant that predict and provide for the roads was dead. Later in his speech, it seemed that predict and provide for railways is still alive.
The truth is that you must predict and provide. But what matters is what you predict and what you provide. In that respect, perhaps I may react to a comment made by my noble friend Lord Hanworth who spoke of the "verities" of planning. I do not want to go into the detail of what he said, most of which was wrong. But one of the eternal verities of transport planning is that roads are necessary, and that includes by-passes and things of that sort.
I do not wish to talk about the generalities of this subject which is far too wide for me. I merely wish to deal with one important point in the White Paper. The White Paper quite rightly mentions the state of the road network and the need for increased investment in maintenance. It states:
"If maintenance is delayed too long structural damage is done and much more expensive and highly destructive repairs are required".
That is correct.
The Minister will perhaps be aware of the annual transport survey published by the Institution of Civil Engineers. I should declare an interest as a fellow of that institution. I am a great believer in building roads. I like concrete in most places. The findings of that survey are alarming. It reveals that the backlog on road maintenance stands at about £4,900 million. That was the figure for last

1049
year. That was 20 per cent. greater than it was the year before and that was 20 per cent. greater than it was for the year before that. Therefore, there is a large backlog which is increasing by something like £800 million per year. That is a burden which is extremely severe for the local authorities because there are apparently something like 350,000 kilometres of roads in Great Britain of which 96 per cent. are the responsibility of local authorities and not of central government. That is something like 330,000 kilometres.
Investment in maintenance and improvements has been neglected for some time. I do not blame any specific government for that; they are all equally guilty—though some had longer to do things than others. But the Government are not wholly to blame. Some local authorities themselves are culpable. The ICE survey indicated that local authorities frequently appear to divert funds provided by the Government in the standard spending assessment for road maintenance to support spending on "front line" services that have greater political prominence and voter appeal; for example, education and social services. We know that those are important, but if money is provided for road maintenance, that is where it ought to go.
We know that help is at hand in the form of the various proposals that the Government made in relation to road charges, congestion charges and taxes of one kind or another which are to be hypothecated. I have a philosophical doubt about hypothecation. I contribute a fair amount of tax to the Government through malt whisky and I do not feel that that tax should necessarily be devoted to distilleries; but I see the point. If the money cannot be found any other way, it must be found through those charges.
The danger is that local authorities sometimes misuse the funds and apply them to other, no doubt good, purposes, but outwith what would be the hypothecation. It will require serious policing on the part of the Government. I wish them well, as I always do as the House will know, but their aim for an integrated transport system is grandiose. I hope that they achieve it, but I should like them to get the incremental bits right first.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this debate and for his opening remarks on the one area that I intend to address today; that is, the disabled.
An integrated transport system may well help to solve the problems of the disabled in this country as well as the able bodied, but it will be more difficult because they have specialist needs. Those specialist needs will mean that it will take longer to resolve their problems. For instance, taxis and buses are being made available to the disabled incrementally.
We must remember that the "disabled" is not just one group. Those with a visual impairment and those in wheelchairs have different needs, thus greater degrees of technical difficulty arise when providing the various types of transport. We must bear in mind also that when we are striving towards an integrated transport system
1050
there will be a time lag between the different stages. And we must take account of the fact that those who are wheelchair bound will still need to use cars if buses, taxis and trains are not accessible to them.
I do not make a special plea. I merely say that disabled people have the right to be able to move around the country in the same way as the able bodied. I hope that the Government will keep the issue under review so that when trains and buses become accessible to all the groups within the disabled lobby, they will then be able to withdraw the car from front-line use or indeed altogether in certain situations.
When thinking about the disabled, we must think in a slightly lateral form. For instance, when we encourage cyclists, we must ensure that there is some way for someone who is blind to be aware that a cyclist is coming. I am sure that we have all been on a pavement when a cyclist who should not be there comes careering along. They are not the only problem. But when one is in a wheelchair or has a guide dog they are an even greater menace. We must draw attention to that problem at every stage of the process. There is no way we can ignore it if we intend to achieve this legislation covering the whole of society and also avoid conflict with the disability civil rights legislation which is currently going through your Lordships' House. We must bear that in mind.
I leave noble Lords with one final thought. When one goes to Clapham Junction station one is told to "Mind the gap"—it is more than one foot in width and about two feet in height on a number of platforms. In fact, it makes one feel like putting a flag on the platform when one alights from the train. When those sorts of problems are solved, we can start to think about getting rid of the car for all sections of society, and let us hope that that will come quickly.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate but must apologise to him because the speech I intended to make has gone and I am starting afresh.
I could have spoken at length about the sins of the previous government and the failure of railway policy over the past 20 years; but my noble friend Lord Currie of Marylebone made a powerful case for the early introduction of a strategic rail authority and I no longer need to go into that. I should therefore like to speak about the fundamental change that has been undertaken and which was started by the previous government—I give them credit for that. I am referring to the change in planning guidance issued by Selwyn Gummer when he introduced the presumption against new out-of-town retail shopping developments.
I hope it is accepted that that was the beginning of the realisation that we have turned our backs on the North American model and embraced a European and Japanese model, for the fundamental reason of population density. Out-of-town shopping and green-field house building make sense if one has enormous wide open spaces on which to build and everyone has a car in which to reach them. But on our

1051
overcrowded isle, where 30 per cent. or more of the population has no access to a car, we need to develop new ways of living, working, shopping and travelling. We can learn from our European colleagues that communities with better public transport systems can have higher car ownership with less car usage and less congestion, in which case everyone benefits.
We can see that major investment in modern railway networks such as those we see in France, Japan and elsewhere, can pay dividends in better inter-city travel. But we can also learn from our own experience. Major public infrastructure projects developed by local authorities, such as Manchester International Airport, can make a contribution to our nation's international air links, enabling people to fly overseas from the region without having to travel to Heathrow. We can also learn from the local plans such as that for Brighton and Hove described by my noble friend Lord Bassam.
I welcome the Government's New Deal for Transport. The concepts of integration and improvement for public transport are the right ones to lead us into the future. As an ardent car owner, I do not believe that these broad thrusts of government policy should be seen as being "anti-car". It will not be easy, but I salute this Government for firmly signposting the road down which we need to go.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I have one or two things in common with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, not least the view that more should be spent on the transport infrastructure in this country, both road and rail. Both are the economic arteries of a modern state and we neglect them at our peril.
It is sometimes said that there is no money available for such activities. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that some £30 billion is taken from motorists and motoring activities which, if divided by the 30 million motorists in this country, means that each motorist pays, over and above his normal income tax, some £1,000 towards the transport infrastructure. Masses of money is available; but governments of all parties have not cared to allocate it in the way that many of us think they should.
A number of speakers tonight have advocated transferring freight from road to rail. That is obviously desirable, but one has to ask to what degree it is practical. The rail transport bodies state that it will take between eight and 10 years to upgrade the existing rail network to carry double the amount of freight that it carries at present. That sounds absolutely marvellous until we look at the figures. Already, 90 per cent. of freight is carried by road and 10 per cent. by rail. If we were to double that to 20 per cent. and take 10 years in which to do it, growth in the economy—the underlying reason for the increase in transport activity—would meanwhile have been the same. We would therefore finish up in 10 years time with roughly the same proportion of freight—approximately 90 per cent.—being carried by road. It is madness to suggest that we can neglect our highly important road infrastructure.
1052
Few modern nations would regard the A.1, a major trunk road, as a road which is virtually finished. That road is single carriageway over much of its length, it has bottlenecks at roundabouts in many instances, causing highly polluting tailbacks at great economic cost, and cross-over points which make it extremely dangerous. I cannot think of any other nation in the world which would tolerate that and not upgrade the A.1 as a national priority.
The fact is that the public want roads. Their demand is not incompatible with the White Paper, which has one enormous omission. Page 14 states,
"The New Deal for Transport means: cleaner air to breathe by tackling traffic fumes; thriving town centres by cutting the stranglehold of traffic; quality places to live where people are the priority; … easier and safer to walk and cycle; revitalised towns and cities through better town planning".
Every one of these sounds marvellous, but do noble Lords know what each of those towns is asking for through their democratically elected representatives? There are currently 500 bypasses on the waiting list. Such bypasses would solve the very problems mentioned under this heading. I have read the White Paper from one end to the other and cannot find the word "bypass". This is meant to be a modern transport document. That is an extraordinary omission.
The White Paper is long on waffle and short on credible alternatives. Many of us, on any fair analysis, would regard it as a triumph of prejudice over necessity. It is typical of this Government; it spins loud and the realities are unresolved. The real problems will remain unless much more is done for our transport system—both road and rail—than this document advocates. It calls itself A New Deal for Transport. It is a poor deal for transport and I hope it will be regarded as such.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am the second to last person who will have the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for instituting the debate and also for his excellent and wide-ranging opening speech. It has stimulated an extremely interesting series of contributions from many Members of this House. I shall take great pleasure in reading them in detail tomorrow in Hansard. Among them were those from my noble friends Lord Thomson, on cycling; Lord Addington, on access for the disabled; and Lady Ludford—or should it be "Sister Ludford"—on travel problems for Londoners.
In approaching the debate I have selected a few subjects for praise or query, particularly those which indicate action or inaction since last July. The success in implementing the White Paper will remain the test of its viability. However, I was greatly tempted to spin with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, down the paths of local government expenditure on road maintenance.
Some interests have been critical that much of the "new" money available to implement the White Paper has been recycled. I welcome the fact that transport money has been recycled into new transport uses rather than into the Consolidated Fund, as has often happened in recent times. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley,

1053
I am concerned about taxation on company cars, which promote extra driving and add about 2 billion car miles per annum. Taxation on private mileage would be welcomed by London First, but the Government have backed away. Even if taxation on private mileage is not feasible and not accepted by all, among other possibilities the Government could introduce a flat rate of tax irrespective of mileage. I wonder whether DETR Ministers are content with the current taxation scheme for company cars and whether they would welcome changes to the scheme for tax relief on the use of private cars for business purposes. I look with hope at the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
There are further inconsistencies in the tax treatment of commuting costs. Car parking at work has not been taxed since 1988, although a space in London is said to be worth £5,000 per year. Yet the benefits conferred by green commuter plans, such as subsidised bus services, public transport tickets and cycling allowances, are taxed. Some companies have even been told that long-established benefits, such as works buses, are taxable. Experience shows that closing down such services merely increases commuting by car. An interesting little sideline is that although cycling allowances are legal for Peers and MPs, they are not legal for councillors. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, drew our attention to the example of Boots as an excellent employer. From the point of view of social equity as well as environmental strategy, such inconsistencies seem malign. What plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure that these anomalies are removed? Will "joined-up thinking" soon extend to the Treasury?
We support the tax escalator on fuel duty because it taxes car use rather than car ownership. However, as many of us know, in rural areas such a tax on car use causes problems which could largely be solved by reducing vehicle excise duty, which is a tax on ownership, to nominal levels for the smallest and least polluting cars. Can the Minister assure us today that that option for VED is still under discussion?
I turn to the subject of hypothecation. The DETR is to be congratulated on persuading the Treasury to accept hypothecation for public transport uses of revenues earned by local authorities. That is a revolution in Treasury practice. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities have broadly welcomed those proposals?
I should like to point out a couple of flaws in the scheme; first, that pilot authorities may retain the proceeds for only 10 years, and secondly, the Government,
"will make an announcement about the retention of proceeds from schemes brought forward after the pilot phase in due course".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/98; WA.442.]
That answer was given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to my honourable friend Mr. Baker.
I should also like to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the Greater London Authority Bill and the apparent inconsistency of allowing provision for net proceeds from congestion charging and levies on workplace parking to be passed to the Secretary of State and thence to the Consolidated Fund.
1054
I cannot welcome with the same enthusiasm another initiative under the White Paper, motorway tolling. I understand that the Government are to encourage local authorities to bid for a trial of tolling procedures. My view is that motorway tolling could have the perverse effect of moving heavy traffic flows and heavy vehicles off the motorways and trunk roads, where they belong, and on to unsuitable A roads where they would cause real environmental damage. Can the Minister confirm that those noxious side effects will also be carefully studied along with the availability of technical apparatus?
The Minister will already be aware that we on these Benches have consistently supported Private Member's Bills which task the Government with the setting of targets for the reduction of road traffic. Our view is that the Government need to set an overall target as a context for action at a local level. It is therefore dispiriting to read in a Written Answer by Dr. Reid in another place on 20th October 1998 that the Government still see a national target, if at all, as merely a sum of all the local targets that local authorities will establish under their local transport plans. It will be for local authorities to standardise their recording procedures for measuring and forecasting traffic flows. On the other hand, it is to be done by building on the data collected for national surveys. An assessment framework will then he put in place with the assistance of the Transport Statistics Liaison Group, an excellent body, and finally the commission for integrated transport will have a go at it before the report to Parliament on traffic reduction targets is presented late this year.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Government have got themselves in a tizzy on this matter. Can the Minister confirm that motor vehicle emissions are the fastest-growing contributors to air pollution and to global warming in particular? Does he agree that a national target for traffic reduction would be a useful tool for measuring success in achieving our Kyoto targets in this respect?
I turn now to the subject of concessionary bus tickets for pensioners. One of the most welcome promises in the White Paper was that the Government would guarantee a minimum 50 per cent. discount on bus fares for all pensioners. However, it seems that nothing may be done to redeem that promise in the coming financial year—and despite the fact, trumpeted in recent Government press releases, that an extra two people on every bus journey could revolutionise the fortunes of the bus industry. I hope that the Minister will assure me that that measure will be implemented in 1999–2000—that is, in the forthcoming year. On Treasury estimates, it will cost only £25 million.
Perhaps I may add that about 71 per cent. of parishes have no bus service. I have spent a lot of time in, and have a good deal of experience of, community transport initiatives such as many counties have initiated. I welcome the Government's decision to put part of the £50 million into such schemes. Can the Minister assure me that that extra money will not merely substitute for the existing funding of existing schemes?

1055
In preparing for this speech, I became aware, not for the first time, of how hard it is to track the progress made in implementing the measures contained in a White Paper. There is still a lingering feeling among many observers that implementation is not going ahead—and certainly not fast enough. However, the introduction of a Bill to establish a strategic rail authority may go some way towards satisfying at least some critics. I should like to associate myself with those who have supported that idea and to say how interesting I found the speech on that matter by the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, which I shall read with interest tomorrow in Hansard.
Nevertheless, looking across a huge series of predicted dates for pilot studies, consultation papers, draft and final guidances, and daughter papers, it is extremely hard for anybody who is not served by a department of state to keep track of where the implementation has reached. Some cynics might reply that that is the point of the exercise. I prefer to believe that it is not.
However, the White Paper represents an immense and, as we have heard, controversial change in British policy on a matter—transport—which affects every citizen and every business in the country. Does not such a policy merit a new way of reporting back to Parliament and to citizens? Would not a regular update, a simple end-of-year report on the initiatives taken, the money spent and the projects and work completed, be a splendid way of keeping friends on board and convincing doubters? Will the Minister at least tell us today that he is willing to consider such a proposal?
5.25 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this opportunity, long overdue, to debate the Government's White Paper on integrated transport, A New Deal for Transport, and I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing the debate. In view of the interest in the debate and the importance which the Government attach to this issue, it is slightly unfortunate that we should have to have a time-limited three-hour debate on the subject rather than a full-blown, unlimited debate in government time. However, I am grateful for small mercies.
I am also glad that the Motion mentions "other related … matters". I shall therefore take the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Spending Review and on the roads programme, as mentioned in the White Paper.
The current debate about transport needs to be put in its historical perspective. When we Conservatives took office in 1979, huge subsidies were being paid to a long list of nationalised corporations that controlled the nation's transport at that time. Services were often disrupted by disastrous industrial relations. Customers faced an attitude of "Take it or leave it"—and often of just "Leave it".
Mercifully, the picture is better today. The Conservative policies of privatisation, deregulation and composition have dramatically reduced subsidies and
1056
increased investment. Transport services now reflect the needs of customers rather than those dictated by politicians and bureaucrats.
There is no doubt that in transport, as in many other areas, British thinking in the 1980s and 1990s has strongly influenced numerous reform programmes across the globe. British transport companies have demonstrated their ability to deliver quality services and high levels of investment. Foreign governments naturally look to them to invest in their privatisation and liberalisation programmes. One should not forget the success we achieved in bringing in investment from the private sector. The Channel Tunnel is perhaps the most notable example. Indeed, I first met the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when he was involved in that project. Other examples across a range of transport sectors include the Dartford and second Severn crossings and the Heathrow express rail link, to which reference has already been made.
The previous government's record of public investment in our rail networks was far from miserly. Between 1979 and 1997, we invested £16 billion in our national railways and £8 billion in London Transport. Following privatisation, the passenger operators are investing £2.5 billion in new rolling stock, and Railtrack is investing £18 billion in upgrading track, signalling and stations.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the previous government introduced grants for private freight sidings and track access charges. Much has been made of that by the present Government who seem to think that they invented it, but it was there before. When my noble friend Lord Freeman was the Minister in charge, he regularly received complaints from the Rail Freight Group, of which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is, I believe, the current chairman. Its director demonstrated that British Rail's high haulage charges and restrictive practices were causing rail freight traffic to decline to the detriment of its members' businesses. That is why we privatised British Rail's freight business. The English, Welsh and Scottish Railways company is investing heavily in new locomotives and wagons as it continues to grow its business. Freight tonne miles since privatisation have risen by some 25 per cent., which is an excellent and practical example of how introducing private investment helps to tackle congestion.
The Government's alternative to privatisation is the so-called public-private partnership which in reality is a rebranding of the private finance initiative. However, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, the current London Underground infrastructure fiasco shows that the private sector is reluctant to invest in this most complicated of the Government's schemes. Like other noble Lords I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how this scheme is progressing. What progress, if any, is being made? When can we expect some announcements about private sector interest in running the London Underground infrastructure? When can we expect something to happen? It seems to me that there is a real danger that the next election will come and go before anything has happened with regard to the Underground. While we are on the subject of privatisation, can the Minister say where we are as regards National Air

1057
Traffic Services? That is a sector which is badly in need of investment. The privatisation has been announced, and yet as far as I am aware there are no plans for legislation and no proposals yet to implement that.
Economic success breeds its own problems. As noble Lords have said, increasing prosperity means that ever-increasing numbers of people are able to afford the freedom, the choice and the mobility conferred by the car. Some noble Lords have criticised increasing car ownership. However, I am bound to say that I am extremely proud to have been a member at one time of a government which through economic progress vastly increased the incidence of car ownership. Whatever else may be said, I am proud of that fact.
The previous government initiated a major and ongoing national transport debate. The 1996 Green Paper Transport: The Way Forward suggested potential solutions to the problems of increasing road traffic, such as congestion, noise and pollution, damage to landscapes and road traffic's contribution to climate change. I am glad that the White Paper makes extensive reference to the previous government's efforts in that area. This Government have promised they will address these issues. However, to date their actions show that they are incapable of satisfying the increased expectations created by their rhetoric.
Last year's comprehensive spending review virtually froze overall transport expenditure for the next three years. The Government's "spinning" skills present a £1.8 billion reallocation of expenditure within the department as an increase in investment! In fact, there is only one new Government policy—to tax the motorist and road user. Fuel duty will rise by 6 per cent. per annum in real terms, even if the market price rises. As my noble friend Lord Vinson said, the road user will pay over £9 billion in extra fuel taxes in exchange for no overall increase in transport expenditure. It is little wonder that the Road Haulage Association seeks an essential user rebate, as its members are suffering from ever-increasing foreign competition from countries with lower fuel duties.
The White Paper A New Deal for Transport is no new deal at all. It claims credit for innovative schemes facilitated by Conservative policies but offers no new solutions or ideas. That is why no transport Bill was announced for this Session of Parliament. Even Friends of the Earth has labelled the Government's approach as "carry on consulting". It could, however, have been much worse. Ministers have recently confirmed that there are no plans to revert to nationalisation and state monopolies. That is welcome. The major feature of the Government's plans is to introduce non-residential parking taxes and so-called congestion charging. However, the Breaking the Logjam consultation paper demonstrates that there are many technical and practical issues to be resolved. It seeks answers to no fewer than 47 questions. That is again a case of carry on consulting.
Despite the complexity of its road networks, London is to be the laboratory for the Government's road tax experiments. The capital will pay a high price for the Chancellor's abolition of financial support for London
1058
Underground from early next year. Passengers can expect more real fare increases in contrast to the real reductions resulting from rail privatisation.
The Government have promised that the new revenue streams will be "hypothecated" for investment in transport. However, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and other noble Lords have said, the Greater London Bill shares the tax revenues between the Secretary of State and the Consolidated Fund. This must be part of the Deputy Prime Minister's new relationship with the Chancellor, but it is not a beneficial one for the travelling public. We shall certainly wish to raise this issue when the GLA Bill is before us. I hope from what he said that we shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when we do so.
While I am on the subject of the Chancellor, I must mention that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred to the situation of Boots and the Inland Revenue. I hope that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister can get their act together because if we are to have an integrated transport policy there can be no possible excuse for the behaviour which my noble friend described.
Any integrated transport policy must also include responsible investment in our road network, as my noble friend Lord Vinson said. A New Deal for Trunk Roads sets out 39 targeted schemes but does not commit the Government to start them before the next election. The buck on a further 50 schemes, including most of those withdrawn from the national programme, has been passed to regional planning conferences. Many vital schemes, for which there is no public transport alternative, have been mysteriously deferred. Clearly, the real reason is lack of funds as all the developer-financed schemes were given the go-ahead. I hope that the Minister, who has responsibility for roads, will comment on that issue.
In conclusion, we on this side of the House believe that transport users, operators and customers deserve better from this Government. They do not offer new deals, only the raw deal of lower investment and higher taxes. It is a case of jams today, taxes tomorrow. Our research shows, not surprisingly, that transport is one of the major concerns of voters. We on these Benches will subject Ministers and their policies to intense scrutiny because our transport legacy to this Government is one of which we are immensely proud and we do not wish to let them squander it.
5.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I, too, wish to thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for initiating this debate. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part. It has been a good, wide-ranging debate. Six months after the White Paper was launched I am glad to indicate progress on it and to engage in discussion on it. However, a vast number of questions has been asked. I shall speak as fast as I can, but one or two noble Lords may have to be content with a letter from me answering their points.

1059
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, gave an historic overview of the situation. I disagree with him slightly. I pay tribute to those in the previous government who, in the final years of their period in office, recognised the terrible situation facing transport. However, the fact is that they recognised—as we recognise—that there are two enormous strategic problems which are largely the legacy of the previous government's early years in office. That is not entirely the case as some of the problems are a legacy of the ineffective delivery of public transport by the nationalised industries. Nevertheless, there are two enormous problems.
First, despite what the noble Lord said, there was serious under-investment and gravely inappropriate investment. Investment in roads often led to the creation of problems rather than to their resolution. Part of the previous government's obsession with deregulation led to a highly fragmented, unregulated industry which did not provide competition, but rather created new monopolies which rendered no service to the public. I refer, for example, to the bus industry.
Secondly—this is perhaps equally important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out—we inherited an enormous environmental problem. Increased reliance on road transport makes a substantial contribution to CO2 emissions. Whereas in the fields of energy and industrial usage, CO2 emissions have decreased and are decreasing, CO2 emissions from traffic are increasing at a faster rate. In order to meet our Kyoto targets and to save the planet from an ecological disaster, here and in the rest of the world, we must cut back on traffic emissions. That means, unfortunately, we must cut back the use of the car and we must switch both freight and passengers from road transport to other forms of transport. We cannot continue with the current level of car usage. I do not regard that as an anti-motorist statement. The last thing that is helpful to motorists is to do nothing and to change nothing. It does not benefit the quality of life of motorists any more than it benefits the economy or the quality of the environment for people to be stuck increasingly in traffic jams and to have increasing congestion and pollution and a decreasing reliability of services and of the delivery of goods for industry.
This is not against car ownership and the freedom that a car provides. It means that we have to cut back on the unnecessary use of cars on long journeys when there is an alternative and, in particular—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said at the beginning of the debate—for shorter journeys where walking and cycling is a real alternative. More than 50 per cent. of cars on the road at the peak time of ten to nine in the morning are dropping children off at school. That is being done by a small minority of parents. We know and understand the reasons for them doing so but, for the most part, it is unnecessary. There are real alternatives in the areas of walking and cycling, as well as in the bigger, infrastructure-heavy areas of railways, and waterways for carrying freight.
I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Cobbold and Lord Vinson, who see this as a policy directed against the motorist. It is not. Where the use of a car is
1060
appropriate, we will be improving the quality of life for motorists, not the opposite. Our policy is directed at reducing the degree to which we are creating problems for ourselves by providing road space which contributes to our economic and environmental problems.
I should go through the areas in which we have followed up the White Paper. We have provided fiscal incentives for buses and cleaner vehicles. Despite what the noble Lord said, the comprehensive spending review provided an extra £1.8 billion over three years for public transport and local transport plans. We have also provided £150 million over the next three years for rural transport, the neglect of which under the previous government—which was supposed to be the friend of the countryside—so drastically reduced the opportunities for people living in our rural areas. We have now introduced the basis on which local transport plans will be introduced and we will be publishing firm guidance shortly.
We are establishing the commission for integrated transport; appointments will be made shortly. We will shortly establish a strategic rail authority and give it legislative backing at the first opportunity. We are introducing powers for London on road user charging and workplace parking levies; we are consulting on a national scheme and legislation will be introduced into this House shortly. We will shortly be issuing other follow-up documents and guidance on rail policy, on roads review—which we have already done—and on areas such as shipping, road safety and freight.
In the Budget we also provided additional financial support for rail freight as well as for rural buses. We have appointed the chairman and the new franchising director of the British Railways Board and we will be giving them greater powers. We have prioritised in the road review—for the first time for some time—the wish list we inherited. We have concentrated on the real priority areas in terms of road building, traffic management and road maintenance. It is a change of policy which some noble Lords do not agree with. It is, nevertheless, a clear strategy and not a wish list.
We cannot be accused of not taking action on the White Paper or of the White Paper being mere words. We are turning those words into action every day in the department under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, attacked the way in which we were dealing with roads. Let me deal with that immediately. I make no apology. Our position on roads means that we are building fewer new roads and undertaking fewer major road-widening schemes than those envisaged by the previous government—although they had not provided the finance for them. We are doing that because we want to see a strategic approach to transport which takes traffic away from roads.
Nevertheless, we are undertaking a large number of important new road schemes. Thirty-seven new schemes will be started, the majority of which have start dates. In response to my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, we are providing substantial additional resources for the maintenance of our trunk roads. The budget will rise

1061
from £650 million this year to £780 million in 2002. We are also reversing the downward trend in real terms of the SSA provision to local authorities for their roads, and we are committed to restoring the cuts in local authority maintenance schemes. I speak principally for England. Nevertheless, parallel arrangements are taking place in Scotland and Wales.
This is a new integrated approach to roads which recognises the environmental as well as the safety and economic aspects of road transport. It also envisages a major new role for the Highways Agency. This was described as sinister by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. It is in fact a rational approach to the rationing of space on our roadways. Instead of simply being a road builder and a road procurer, the Highways Agency will be heavily involved in traffic management, network control and providing better information for drivers. At some future date it may well have a role were we to introduce charging on our trunk roads.
We should recognise the amount of traffic on our roads. It is vitally important to drivers—whether commercial or individuals—that they should have reliable journeys, not journeys which are disrupted by congestion and unexpected road-works. It is therefore important that the control of the road network rests in more rational hands. The Highways Agency will be developing the technology and introducing new schemes based on technology—and pilot schemes have already been introduced in parts of the network—in order to improve the quality of journey, the quality of information and the reliability of journeys.
Normally when I discuss roads policy, I am faced with a barrage of questions about particular roads. It is a sort of reverse of the NIMBY aspect; everybody agrees that we should build fewer roads, except theirs. There was not much of that today, I am very glad to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, asked in general about by-passes. There are some by-passes in the programme and I recognise that some by-passes will have to be built as the only solution. Nevertheless, we are not going to build 500 by-passes; we shall have to find new ways of meeting the problems of congestion. Most by-pass building creates greater environmental problems than it resolves. We are therefore committed to meeting the priority demands for by-passes, but we will not engage in a policy which is based on meeting every demand for a by-pass.
I think it was also the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who mentioned the A.1. Although we are not dualling the whole of the A.1, significant parts of it are being improved under our immediate programme. Other parts will be covered by multi-modal studies over the next couple of years.
I was asked about the M.4 by my noble friend Lord Islwyn. I understand that the Secretary of State for Wales has looked at this problem and that the report is expected shortly. I am afraid that I cannot give him any further details on that aspect of the M.4. I recognise the complexity of the problems.
I turn now briefly to the local transport plans envisaged in the White Paper. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bassam for explaining the situation in
1062
Brighton—which, as always, is a model council in these matters. I nearly said a beacon council, but that has yet to be awarded.
The transport infrastructure and the delivery of transport services are central to the role of local authorities and to our integrated transport approach. The example of Brighton and a number of other local authorities in relation to providing in partnership with the bus providers a better bus network—a quality partnership between the local authority and the private bus operators—has an enormous amount of attractions.
For most people, buses are the main alternative to the private car; for many people they are the only option. It is not only in Brighton that 50 per cent. of households do not have access to a car. In London it is more than 40 per cent. When we say "household", by and large that means one person in the household and, in general, it means that the woman in the household does not have access to the car. Therefore, in practice, the majority of our population do not have the option. Such people need buses in their urban areas and they need access to those buses—particularly, perhaps, the more disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled, who were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and pensioners, who were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. They need cheap, accessible, regular and reliable bus services. The local transport plans and the relationship with the bus companies will be the means of developing those services. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for referring, from the private sector's point of view, to the importance of those quality partnerships.
One aspect of local transport plans, and also of national transport plans, will be the introduction of powers in respect of road user and workplace charges. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was concerned that such charges, when introduced in urban areas, might have a detrimental effect on city centre businesses. Those decisions are down to local authorities in consultation with local business. But it is very frequently city centre business which suffers so severely from the congestion and the inability to access the city centre which excessive car traffic produces. It is important that local authorities make their decisions in the light of local circumstances and they must reflect the views of their local businesses when reaching their decisions. The introduction of road user charges and the use of that money, hypothecated back, at least for the first 10 years, to transport schemes in the locality, will greatly improve the vitality of the centres of our cities and towns and provide a better environment for business to flourish in.
Although I am in integrated transport mode, I am tending to deal with these issues in a slightly compartmentalised, rather old-fashioned, way, so perhaps I may go on to railways at this point. My noble friends Lord Berkeley, Lord Currie of Marylebone, Lord Monkswell and others raised points in support of the introduction of a strategic rail authority. My noble friend Lord Currie commented on the role of the regulator. It is very important that in our new system the regulator has substantial powers, particularly powers in relation to the provision of infrastructure—in other words, the interface with Railtrack.

1063
There are problems, to which, obliquely or directly, a number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, among others—referred, about the performance of Railtrack in terms of delivery of the infrastructure for the network. The strategic rail authority will provide the leadership and direction that Railtrack as well as the operators will need to ensure that the railways are run in the public interest and for the economic well-being of the country as a whole. We shall be looking to the regulator to monitor Railtrack's investment and to take appropriate action to ensure that the network is maintained.
One other aspect of public service transport is London Transport. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has become the putative Member here for the Northern Line. I appreciate that there are problems in London Transport, partly from underinvestment and partly from poor delivery of services. The strategic operation of London Transport will, over time, when we adopt the legislation setting up the Greater London authority, move to transport for London with a much more strategic role for the mayor and that organisation. It will cover buses and tubes, strategic roads, the infrastructure, and provision for cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.
Anxiety was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and others about the funding position of London Transport, particularly about the situation regarding the PPP. That PPP is a complex negotiation. Negotiations are continuing but it will bring in an estimated £7 billion of private sector investment over 15 years and thereby also reduce the direct call on the public purse. It will address past underfunding and past inappropriate funding within London Transport. We will see a massive new partnership between London Transport itself and the private sector under the general strategic authority of the new Greater London structure. If the PPP is not completed before April 2000, no grant will be provided after that date because the PPP will be financeable without any further grant. We will therefore be providing, one way or another, the finances that are needed in the transitional period for London Transport. We have announced an additional £365 million for the next two years for investment in the core network and for preparing for the PPP.
I shall move briefly to the air. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others referred to airports policy. We will have an opportunity to debate civil airports policy next week, so I shall not detain your Lordships for long on that. One aspect of integrated transport to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred was surface access to airports. It is vitally important to ensure that we have public transport services to all of our major airports. In London, for example, only 30 per cent. of journeys to the major London airports are by public transport. The aim of BAA is to increase that to 50 per cent. at Heathrow and 40 per cent. at Gatwick. We intend to support that.
Perhaps I may now move on to sea transport. My noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Murray of Epping Forest and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to shipping. I agree with my noble friend
1064
Lord Clinton-Davis that this area, despite being a private sector area, was totally neglected by the previous government. Our document, British Shipping, Charting a new course, gives a new direction in order to foster an efficient UK shipping industry, to improve skills by promoting employment and training, as requested by my noble friend Lord Murray, to encourage UK ship registration and to facilitate shipping as an environmentally useful form of transport. The fiscal and support systems referred to by my noble friend will be considered in that context.
I would not wish to sit down without responding to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble friend Lord Simon about road safety. We talk a lot about providing roads and we talk a lot about motorists and the alternative to motorists. However, one of my central responsibilities in my executive capacity is to deal with road safety. In response to those questions, in the next few months we will be introducing a major statement on road safety. We have widened that brief so that it will cover a number of areas as well as new targets. It will not only cover areas that are traditional road safety areas but also issues of road engineering, vehicle standards and the whole question of speed policy and speed limitation. It will also look at the delivery of better road safety in terms of the role of local authorities in transport plans and in terms of the police, penalties and enforcement and information and education on road safety. It is important also that motor manufacturers as well as civil engineers and road safety operators are engaged in that process. It will be a wider document than perhaps we envisaged a few months ago.
Cyclists are among the more vulnerable people with regard to road safety. We have a clear commitment to improve facilities for cycling. Substantial expenditure and help to local authorities in that area are part of an overall strategy.
I was asked some questions on taxation. There was some feeling that the motorist is paying too much. I would say that in that area, relative to other countries, we have perhaps grasped the nettle earlier than others, but it is a road that probably most countries are going down. In fact noble Lords may have noticed that the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, said just the other day that, in terms of fuel duty and other green taxes, the British had perhaps shown the way to the rest of Europe. I am sure that that will follow. The Road Haulage Association and others feel that any competitive disadvantage on that front alone will shortly diminish.
Other aspects of company taxation were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. In relation to company car taxation, it is widely recognised that there is a perverse incentive in the current situation. The Chancellor is examining the matter, together with the introduction of an environmentally sensitive structure under the VED, and it is intended to introduce changes in that area. So "joined up" government has reached the Treasury as well.
One aspect of that was raised by my noble friend Lord Simon in relation to diesel fuels. We are examining all the evidence in that area. Diesel has both

1065
downsides and benefits. We are concerned in particular about the use of most forms of diesel in terms of the production of particulates and the disease that they cause. Nevertheless, in some instances we need to look again at the newer forms of diesel.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to a Bill that he is to introduce in relation to illegally operated lorries. This is a serious problem. The penalties that presently exist are not sufficiently direct, and I shall welcome the Bill that he intends to introduce. The Government will help him—in so far as he needs any help; I am sure that he has his own resources in these matters—to deliver that Bill. It will greatly help the legitimate road haulage industry against the unfair competition of unlawful operators.
I must conclude my remarks. When I read Hansard, there may be many points on which I shall need to write to noble Lords. In response to the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we should look at the possibility of a rolling report on our delivery of transport policy, I agree that at intervals we should attempt something along those lines. I shall be discussing the matter with my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister to see how that can best be done. In the meantime, perhaps noble Lords will excuse the speed and scantiness with which I have dealt with some of the issues raised. I hope that on a careful reading of the report on this debate they will regard my reply as a brief attempt at answering. I hope it will be enhanced by further correspondence with some noble Lords.
Once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this debate and thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords sincerely for their excellent and thoughtful contributions. The White Paper is inevitably wide-ranging and the contributions have covered more or less every subject. The debate has demonstrated the expertise and knowledge of all Members of this House at its best. I wish in particular to thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for his high-speed response. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The British Council
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws rose to call attention to the role and future of the British Council; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in opening, I should declare an interest. In August 1998 I took over the chairmanship of the British Council. I am of course mindful of the Addison Rules, with which I shall dutifully comply.
Since becoming the chair of the British Council I have discovered that the role involves at least one occupational hazard. Sure as fate, when I sit down at a dinner or attend a reception someone will inevitably ask me: "So what does the British Council do?"
My normal reaction is to ask the questioner how much time they have. To cram the activities of the Council into a mere soundbite would do it a disservice. But in this debate I am lucky to have slightly more time. Many noble Lords know a great amount about the Council in general. Some will be familiar with the detail of particular areas of the Council's work. But I am sure that many of your Lordships will feel, as I do, that there is always more to be discovered about the activities of what Chris Patten described as a "disgracefully unsung and under-utilised national asset." My intention is to outline for your Lordships the role of the Council, and the many activities it is involved in now, and, secondly, to open the continuing debate on the future of the organisation—a future which, at present, is far from certain.
Any organisation is more than the sum of its parts. Each successful organisation is founded on an ethos, a set of values which provide the cement that holds its disparate parts together. The British Council is no exception. It is founded and maintained on a belief system that invisibly operates as the guiding hand within the organisation itself. It is never easy to dissect such values, the straplines of consultants rarely do justice to the simple yet subtle principles on which the British Council is based. But there is one aspect that acts as a uniting force for the Council in all its activities.
It is summed up for me in the words of the late Professor Jack Lively, the husband of that wonderful writer, Penelope Lively, who serves on the British Council board. The professor had a long association with the Council and used to speak of his life's work as participating in the "great conversation of mankind." That is what the British Council does. It is in the front-line of that great conversation. All its activities from education and good governance to arts promotion and publishing go towards improving the quality and verve of that world-wide conversation.
Nowadays, the academics and commentators speak of "people to people diplomacy". Unless you know the jargon such a concept can seem puzzling. Archbishop Tutu has a different word from his own language; it is "Ubuntu". That can be quickly translated as "people richness", but it contains all the shades of meaning around the concept that all of us grow through our contact with others.
At the heart of the mission of the British Council is a belief in the vitality of meaningful human contact. That means treating people with decency; it means mutual respect; it means fairness in all our dealings; it means the celebration of our differences from which grows the virtue of tolerance. The values we treasure in Britain are, thankfully, no longer exported at the point of a bayonet. Instead, they are shared in that great conversation.
It would be a mistake if anyone thought that Britain's role in that conversation was of marginal value. While it is true that there are few votes in cultural diplomacy, the advantages to our country of an organisation like the British Council are immense. And it is viewed jealously by other nations, as I found only last week, when the

1067
American Ambassador and the former French Minister for Culture, Jack Lang, both expressed their admiration for the Council.
The skills for participating in the world conversation come in many ways, particularly through education. Education changed my life and I believe that we should be providing that opportunity for more people. The British Council is Britain's major agency for promoting education throughout the world. In partnership with others it works to bring students to Britain; that role alone contributes some £2.5 billion to our economy and it is a growing market. Overseas, the Council is a major player in the teaching of English and it is the body which manages examinations in English for students around the world. Increasingly the Council is also involved in further education and training in the developing world.
The British Council's cultural relations work goes hand in hand with its educational effort, all of which corrects wrong or outmoded perceptions of Britain overseas—a modern Britain which is diverse and multicultural and full of vitality. The brilliance of our arts exhibitions, the challenge of our conferences, the tours by amazing writers, the magic of our theatre, the academic exchanges, the scientific and technical co-operation all provide a positive environment in which our trade and investment interests can flourish. And through the Council's work, its cultural and academic links, we also export British values to the world. An old-fashioned idea? I do not think so.
I am by profession a lawyer who specialises in human rights. I do so because my own educational, family and cultural background emphasised to me the importance of respecting the dignity of each person and of being true to oneself. Many of the rights we claim as human beings, many of the principles enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights owe their birth and development to Britain. Even though we ourselves have only recently enacted human rights legislation, we have been at the heart of the great human rights debate since its inception.
When we talk of freedom of speech, a freely elected Parliament, a media free of censorship, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the concept of public service, we are speaking of things that we in Britain see as fundamental, even if we do have occasional falls from grace. Around the world there is massive demand for insights into our government, our democracy and our legal system. Through its programmes in good governance, civil administration, law, gender and human rights the British Council provides in large part the ethical dimension in foreign policy. In 230 offices and 109 countries around the world this work is being undertaken with great sensitivity and subtlety. Moreover, because the Council is a trusted partner, and seen as an organisation with integrity, it often has a unique access on which to base these programmes.
The scope of the programmes is impressive, ranging from work with the Palestinian legislative assembly on the troubled West Bank, to helping women in Nigeria play their part in their country's politics. Globally,
1068
women's aspirations are changing: women want educational opportunities, they want to participate in decision making, they want an end to domestic violence. The sharing of expertise and national experiences is invaluable, and the British Council has been playing a considerable part.
In Brazil and Russia we have been involved in penal reform projects, bringing together prison governors, police officers and experts from our different countries. In China the Council recently arranged an example of a British trial but with a Chinese jury. Questions about why we had such a high standard of proof and about the presumption of innocence are essentially questions of human rights; that experience has led to a whole programme of further legal links.
Conflict resolution is of growing importance as we find new ways of resolving our disputes without recourse to bloodshed and as an increasingly important way of ending violence in productive dialogue. The Council is present here as well, whether teaching "peace-keeping English" to the military who must often maintain a fragile peace in the flash points of the world or working with young people in strife torn areas.
Many people suspect that the British Council works only in far away countries, remote from the everyday concerns of the British voter, but I have just returned from Belfast where the Council has organised a very impressive youth programme. Working across the divide in the community with initiatives such as the "Spirit of Enniskillen" and "Speak your Peace" the Council has brought together youngsters from Cyprus and Northern Ireland, brought together teachers from the West Bank to share their experiences with teachers in Belfast and Derry. Seeing the bigger picture brings insights. Difference melts when people discover new ways of seeing.
Fostering academic, scientific and technical co-operation is a major part of the Council's work. We do that in exchanges, shared research and international conferences. Again, some of the manifestations of this work can be surprising. I saw its stunning impact in China, bringing together astronomers from both our cultures, and the collaboration there of young Chinese and British townplanners to restore the heart of Beijing.
Many of your Lordships will know that the British Library is the largest in the world but it came as news to me when I visited Paris recently that the British Council acts as a conduit between the Library and international scholarship. We manage 98 per cent. of the Library's French market alone, while facilitating research and making the riches of our collection available to a wider world.
Of course any conversation presumes an exchange of views, an appreciation of what the other person says, and the benefits of our "people to people" dialogue are far from one way. British students, academics, scientists and even politicians gain immeasurably from their contact with a wider world which is often facilitated by Council sponsored or managed programmes. Britain benefits from the perspective of other countries expressed in the many conferences and opportunities the conversation of mankind offers for real and constructive

1069
dialogue. As many noble Lords know, we are never too old or too brilliant not to learn from others. Sometimes in the very challenge of explaining our own attempts to solve problems, whether legal, scientific or whatever, we discover new solutions for ourselves.
Throughout that world the Council works closely with our sponsors, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The link with the Foreign Office is a productive alliance in Britain's interest, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Symons, one of our great supporters, is here to reply for the Government.
But here comes the sad part of the story. It is not a secret that the core funding, the Government grant to the British Council, has had a chequered past. Due to reductions the Council has suffered a 13.6 per cent fall in the real value of the grant and lost 26 per cent. of its UK based staff over the last five years. Uncertain funding, stretched finances—and that over a period of the last two decades—carry a price for the work of the Council and the dedicated staff who carry out that work overseas and at home. While the funds decrease so the demands for the Council's services increase, and not only from our partners around the world. The Government have continually stressed the importance they place on the Council maintaining and even expanding its overseas network. There are always discussions taking place on proposals to open new offices in new countries, but the funds rarely follow the wish.
As a result, in trying to meet government expectations the Council has been cutting its own budgets in one region to meet a geographical priority in another. This is often robbing Peter to pay Paul and it cannot go on forever. Over the last 20 years the Council's activities have expanded by 40 per cent. while the grant languishes behind with a mere 10 per cent. rise over the same period. In many countries there is now a real danger that consistent underfunding will endanger the quality of the work the Council does. Falling investment and low levels of IT capacity are some of the other consequences of underfunding. Onerous demands on staff and an endless atmosphere of mending and patching permeates the Council. So far, in true British tradition the Council always manages, but this cannot go on forever. Like metal fatigue which eventually will snap the toughest iron bar, the Council is heading for a crisis if this starvation of resources continues.
The Council is very grateful to the Government for the recent comprehensive spending review allocation of £6 million over three years. But the CSR settlement roughly equates only with level funding over the short term; there is insufficient for the Council to embark on a new programme of work for the millennium with the confidence and security it needs. The Council is in good heart because it is full of committed staff who are mindful of the Government's pledge of support before the last election, a pledge which I hope the noble Baroness will be able to reiterate this evening.
The British Council provides the people of the world with a key to Britain. It introduces people to who we are. It creates the subsoil in which our commercial interests can bloom. It is about forging the links and
1070
creating the many different interfaces between peoples. It is not about Britain telling the world how it is done but about Britain as the convenor of opportunities for the movement of ideas. Noble Lords know that the benefits of participating in that "conversation of mankind" are considerable, but I also believe that the work of the British Council contributes to making the world a better place. A college in South London has as its guiding principle the statement "Students fit for the world; a world fit for students". I think that sums up the British Council and it is why the human rights work links with the education work which in turn links with our arts work which links with the information work and which connects to the Council's development work. It is all of a piece.
Noble Lords know that I am proud and privileged to be the chair of the British Council. I look forward to this debate as an opportunity to hear your Lordships' advice and views on the Council's role and future. I am grateful that so many of your Lordships have demonstrated your interest and support by putting your names down to speak. A debate in your Lordships' House is yet another vibrant part of that "conversation of mankind". My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will wish to join me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, not only on the elegant, emphatic and determined manner in which she has just spoken about the British Council, but also on obtaining the debate today. Above all, I congratulate her on becoming our new chair of the British Council. I know that we all wish to congratulate her and wish her the best of luck and success in that important job.
I said "our" on purpose because I have been privileged for the past six years to have been, first, a vice-chairman of the British Council and now I have been asked to stay on the Council's board for another year which ends in a few months' time. Therefore, I served under the chairmanship of Sir Martin Jacomb who led the Council with strength in difficult times and, more recently, under the chair of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
Tonight I do not wish to spend my few minutes delivering tributes and compliments to the British Council. I am sure others will do that. I wish to develop the theme about which the noble Baroness spoke in her concluding few minutes. During the six years I have found that the Council has constantly been pulled in two different directions. We have been encouraged to expand in our English language teaching and training, to work for new development and training contracts, to open new offices in different and difficult parts of the world. We have been patted on the back by successive Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. Yet at the same time we have always been constrained by reductions in our grant-in-aid. As the noble Baroness said, our home-based staff has been cut back by the remarkable figure of over 25 per cent. at a time when we are expanding in different parts of the world.

1071
However, we now have three years' assured funding with minimal increases in grant-in-aid year by year. But the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for whom I have great respect—I was a Minister in that department for four years—is now our only paymaster. That means that if subsequently there is a reduction in the grant-in-aid in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office almost certainly it will pass on a proportionate reduction to the British Council. As to objectives, I believe it is very important that the British Council should not become, with one paymaster, just an elegant tail to be wagged by the handsome Foreign Office dog.
We now have a new chair and are looking for a new director general. It is very important that those two leaders of the Council should sit down with the Secretaries of State for Education, Foreign Affairs, Culture and International Development and think very hard about where the British Council is to go to over the next 10 years. For example, I am astonished that the British Council contracts signed with the Department for International Development in 1997–98 were 71 per cent. lower than for the previous year. So far I have not heard an explanation for that fall that I find very satisfactory.
My Lords, think of the possibilities ahead, for example the growth of the Internet where English is the common language and the British Council is the past master in teaching and training in that language. Think also of the growth in postgraduate students who attend our universities, many of them brought here, advised to come here or assisted to get here by the British Council. For the first time last year there were more than 200,000 overseas students in further education in this country.
Faced with these tremendous possibilities, the Government cannot let the British Council continue on a strategic timescale tied to a string of uncertainties, with the marketing director of the Government encouraging the Council with one hand but, at the same time, the finance director pulling back with the other. That is grossly unfair, not only to the dedicated management of the Council but to the 4,000 people overseas who work so loyally for the Council and who are encouraged to believe that there is huge growth ahead.
I hope therefore that the Government, with the new chair and director general, will decide shortly and make quite clear whether this is to be a static organisation that lives within its present means or one that can expand rapidly in both revenue-producing activities, where it badly needs to build up reserves, and in grant-in-aid to spread the message about contemporary Britain round the world.
Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to have just one more minute. In the past I have had the privilege of visiting St. Petersburg, Leipzig, Shanghai and Tashkent to look at new, rebuilt or redeveloped British Council offices. I remember particularly my last visit just a few months ago to open a new information centre in Sarajevo. It was nothing grand. It comprised four rooms in a battered building two or three blocks away from where Franz Ferdinand was shot and killed, an event
1072
which started the First World War. It had some books, not many, and just a few PCs which told people about the opportunities in Britain today. The startling aspect of that opening was the number of people who came: the deputy foreign minister, ambassadors and university professors who, for the first time for years, were re-establishing contact with Britain. To me that was very symptomatic of what the British Council stands for. We were lighting one candle in the darkness of Bosnia—a first sign of renaissance of hope and spirit. I believe that that is why the British Council is so important, not just to Britain but—dare I say—to the world.
6.24 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness. In the short time that is allowed to me I shall speak about audio-visual communication—television, film and radio—as it relates to the British Council. Using terms usually adopted in film criticism, I believe that the speech of the noble Baroness balanced admirably style and content. I very much liked her remark about the great conversation of mankind. In this century the great conversation of mankind has included more and more communication through radio, film and television.
We know that in the great battle over GATT audio-visual products were of extreme importance to the United States and France in particular. Both countries support their audio-visual products through agencies to an extent that is not possible here. They have very good reasons for doing so. In the case of the United States, that industry is, next to its great aviation and agricultural industries, probably the most important one in terms of exports. When its films go out into the world with their great economies of scale behind them they have already made or lost the money in the US, but it is important that they are launched in a way that is consistent with what the United States wants to show the rest of the world about its society and country. It does that very effectively. There is probably not one American embassy in the world where the release of a new American film is not accompanied by a great deal of effort and expertise, perhaps even with the involvement of the ambassador and his staff. In France, Alliance Francaise has backed French audio-visual culture in a way that is impossible for us because of the importance of that activity to France and the amount of government subsidy available.
In this country I am full of admiration for the way in which the Council has, within the constraints of its very limited budget, tried to support British film, television and radio. When I first spoke about film in this House in 1984 it was at a very low ebb. Attendances were low and very few films were being made. Today the picture is entirely reversed. Annual audiences are now up to 140 million from a low of 60 million in the 1980s. Thanks to lottery funding and the interest and support that the Government now give the industry, a great number of films are being made. Many of them represent important aspects of British life which are important in the context of the great conversation of mankind.

1073
I have seen a good deal of what goes on in France. My good friend Barbara Dent in Paris has done a great deal in France. Noble Lords may not be aware that in France there is a British film festival every year in Dinard. That has taken place for the past 10 years and each year it increases in importance. The festival has both British and French jury members. British films are shown there. It has become a very important event.
Initially the festival was supported by the British Council in conjunction with the town of Dinard and the Ministry of Culture in France. That has been enormously successful. I am full of admiration for the Paris staff in getting it off to such a good start and for the state in which it is now. I hope to see that repeated in other parts of the world if possible. What is required is money. In no way can the British Council cover everything.
Perhaps the noble Baroness could step in and stop some of the bleating about how little the British Council does for the film industry by people who are ill-informed and ungracious. If she can encourage greater dialogue between the British Council and the film industry within the limited budget, it would be enormously important.
I was told recently by a leading film producer—perhaps the godfather of all film producers—Anthony Havelock-Allan—that he saw a film which is now on show in cinemas called "Shakespeare in Love". He said that it will be a watershed. It will have the same effect that "The Private Lives of Henry VIII" had in the 1930s. It shows what Britain can do at its best, what it should be doing and what the world should see that it is doing. The Council must have a role in that. But beware! The Americans will be watching. They did so in the 1930s and saw that there was a danger to their own business. Let us hope that the British Council can help to push forward the endeavour of the film industry. It is so important to us.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for initiating the debate. I wish to draw attention to one aspect of the British Council's work, but one which highlights the question of what the British Council is for. I believe that my noble friend Lord Freyberg will outline the significance of the work of the visual arts department in a little more detail, but I wish to draw attention to the cuts that have been made, and suggest an idea to the Government.
In 1990, an artist friend of mine visited what was then East Germany on a British Council grant. He tells me that that visit changed his whole outlook, not only in relation to his work as a painter but in terms of his relationship to where he lives in a particular region in Britain, South Yorkshire. He went on subsequently to work with artists from various countries in central and eastern Europe in the organisation of exhibitions and exchanges between his region and theirs. But now the visual arts department has no money for grants for artists. From funding of £100,000 a year—it has to be said not a great deal of money—for 100 grants drawn from 600 applicants, it is down now to zero funding.
1074
The visual arts department's present remit of expanding appreciation of the so-called best of British art should be changed. We should be ditching the one-sided flag waving. Perhaps the noble Baroness implies such a change with her use of the term "conversation". The stated aim, I believe, should be to encourage the interchange of ideas between Britain and other countries, between artists, cities and regions. What would such an interchange entail? In practice, there should be the possibility for artists, most of whom are poor, from all age ranges and living in every region throughout Britain, to have the chance to travel abroad and engage in that form of exchange, to absorb ideas from abroad and to use that experience to bring back possibilities. In practice, once contacts are made it then becomes much easier for exhibitions, for example, to follow; and the aim should not just be about the funding of one-off events but also about maintaining a continuity of such a dialogue. That inter-regional engagement is not something tagged on after the individual work of art is made—what is normally considered to be the exhibition stage—but is part and parcel of the artist's work. And because of that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should be desperately interested and involved in that practice. I direct my remarks as much to it as to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who will reply.
The British Council, with its network of offices—there are over 100 in more than 80 countries—should be in a perfect position to facilitate such an exchange. Otherwise it is a tremendous waste of what should be culturally an extraordinarily important resource—and with IT even more so. I refer not just to the physical presence of those offices in particular countries, but to the expertise for providing an introduction to the culture of a region—contacts, translators, knowledge of possible venues for exhibitions, and so on.
Because I am an artist and because of the current atrocious funding of the visual arts department I have concentrated on this aspect of culture. But we could as easily be talking about poetry and writing, music, film making, and so on. We are told that the Government intend to work more between departments. Here is a chance for them to do just that. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the British Council and NESTA should join together in what could be an immensely exciting and creative cross-departmental project.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: My Lords, it is with particular pleasure that I speak in this debate. I passionately believe in everything that the British Council stands for and I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to its achievement.
In the early 1960s I had the opportunity to study and to travel in Russia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia through British Council scholarships. This was at a time when travel to that part of the world was not so easy and it gave me a unique insight to those countries in a way that would not otherwise have been possible. It is entirely fitting that more than three decades later I find myself working with the British Council on a project

1075
which brings young people from eastern European countries to Britain to study our democratic institutions and the practice of good government. I cannot help but think that there is a kind of symmetry at work here.
The Council is developing an expertise in the field of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy, and the project is the John Smith Fellowship Programme which is my own personal memorial to my late husband's political life. The British Council is acting as manager of the programme and I have been deeply impressed by its professionalism and expertise. The programme aims to strengthen and deepen democracy through study and placements for young people around the world who have committed themselves to a career in the public service.
I cannot stress enough how important this programme is for ensuring that democratic values which we in Britain take for granted are shared with young people who may be the future leaders of their countries. Fellows who have benefited from this programme include young men and women from Russia, Georgia, India, South Africa and Uganda.
As with all good programmes, the benefits are far from one-sided. We learn from each other and I am sure that the senior politicians and civil servants who meet the fellows benefit from their youth and enthusiasm; and the young people benefit from seeing the inner workings of our democracy.
The values of the John Smith Fellowship Programme run parallel to those of the British Council. The Council worked in particular among the young, or, as they call them, the successor generation. The Council is committed to promoting the best elements of our democracy: respect for human rights; public service; and the rule of law.
I hope your Lordships will forgive the rather personal nature of this contribution, but I am sure that other noble Lords will speak of the Council's excellent work in other fields. I wanted particularly to pay tribute to the individuals with whom I have been so fortunate to work in recent months. It is a collaboration which my husband would have found entirely appropriate as he, too, was a great advocate of the work of the British Council. I hope that the Government will ensure that the British Council has all the support and funding it needs to continue this vital work.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, as her deputy, it is a real pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—I prefer on this occasion to call her "my noble friend"—on her important and inspiring speech. Clearly the council will have an exciting time under her leadership.
When considering my speech today, and with my time with the Council drawing to a close, I thought that I would reflect a little on the huge changes that I have seen over the almost 20 years in which I have been involved with this great and uniquely British institution. My remarks are of course entirely personal.
1076
I think without any doubt that the most important change in those years has been the collapse of the Soviet empire and the huge opportunities that opened up for the work of the Council. The Council reacted speedily, imaginatively and comprehensively, and I am glad to say that this was one occasion when the government of the day were supportive and we all sang from the same hymn-sheet. This is a story of which we can all be really proud.
A major change of a rather different sort has been in the whole field of development aid. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s in this and in most western countries, bilateral aid has been steadily cut. Nevertheless, in those years the Council managed to build up a considerable capacity in the field of education. That became a major activity and was, I believe, a considerable force in fostering development. Nowadays there have been changes, and the demand for the Council's services is now severely reduced. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred to this, and I think I should leave it there, but I am afraid the outlook on that front is rather bleak.
My third example is again completely different, and it concerns the information technology explosion which has taken place and which has widespread significance for the nature of the services that we deliver. I will limit myself to one example, which is rather like that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In my case it concerns our overseas libraries, arguably the best-known activity of the British Council. Nowadays, if you go into a library of the British Council, what will chiefly strike you will be the computer screens rather than the books. This was certainly my impression when I reopened the Islamabad Library a couple of years ago. It is in this field, I suspect, that the real cultural revolution has yet to come, and I am sure that the Council will be ready, as it always has been, to embrace it.
Looking back, what impresses me is the almost Darwinian capacity of the British Council to adapt to changing circumstances, and in particular to adapt to the almost continuous barrage of cuts and investigations. I came in immediately after the 1979 Berrill Report cuts and I nearly went out after the 1995 cuts, such was my dismay. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have, not unnaturally, also referred to them. The fact is that no organisation can cut its headquarters staff by 25 per cent. and its activities by 26 per cent.—incidentally already having cut its overheads by a further 25 per cent. in the two preceding years—without having considerable morale and managerial problems, from which I think we are still suffering.
Overseas, the British Council, particularly in Africa, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, is now very thinly spread indeed and this is unhealthy for everyone. More worrying to me is the huge change in the balance between our grant-funded services and what I would loosely call our commercial activities, English language teaching being a major component. Five years ago our grant was 55 per cent. of our operating income: last year it was 35 per cent. This is giving rise to all sorts of risks and management tensions, which I have not time to go

1077
into: nor do I think it would be appropriate to do so. However, the big question is: is not the tail beginning to wag the dog?
In conclusion, what do I see as the lessons from all these years? I have referred to the Darwinian capacity of the Council to adapt, Equally, following on from that, what the Council really does need is a period of government policy stability and, in real terms, funding stability. I gladly acknowledge that we now have three-year funding, but it is at rather a low level. Let us not forget that our competitors, France and Germany—and, believe me, they are competitors—spend nearly twice as much as we do on cultural activities and cultural relations, and 90 per cent. of their funding comes from government. We do things on a shoe-string and yet our effectiveness is much envied throughout the world. Just think, my Lords, what we could do with their budgets!
6.44 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I wanted to take part in this debate because I believe passionately in the value and work of the British Council. At the same time, I am aware that its importance is greatly under-valued by almost everyone.
In the last few years, I have visited some outposts of the British Council—Beirut and Damascus, for example. I have been impressed not only by the work done but also by the quality of the people who do the work, in particular the country directors, who are often Scots incidentally, and a large proportion of them women.
As we know, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has pointed out, the remit is very broad and individual country directors have considerable discretion as to how they spend their limited budgets. But whatever projects are taken on, they will all be helping to give the citizens of those countries a better understanding of Britain, its culture, its language, its opportunities and its values.
Many supporters of the British Council feel that they can best justify its importance in terms of the number of export orders, foreign investment or extra numbers of visitors or students to Britain. These are indeed important and impressive, but I personally feel that its most valuable role is far less measurable. It is to build bridges over the cultural gaps that divide us from many countries in the world. So often cultural differences and cultural misunderstandings are responsible for the fear, the suspicion and, in extreme cases, the hostility that exists between nations. This creates the "them and us" syndrome, particularly apparent in respect of some of the Moslem countries.
Why do we in the West know so little about Islam and its culture? Why do Moslems know so little about our culture? I was impressed by the British Council's attempt to address the problem when I was in Syria. The country director there had organised a British production of Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" in the Roman amphitheatre in Palmyra. After that it continued on tour and was attended by more than 30,000 people. The arts, and particularly the performing arts, are one of the
1078
most effective vehicles for establishing cultural understanding; and this is something that the British Council actively pursues all over the world.
However, it is not just engaged in selling Purcell, Shakespeare or the revitalised British cinema, as so eloquently explained by my noble friend Lord Falkland, to other nations. It is also engaged in the reciprocal role of encouraging and facilitating artists from other countries to perform over here. For instance, in April this year it is laying on a major conference to explore the relationships between Britain and Islam to coincide with a major nationwide festival of Islamic art which runs until the end of July.
It is most effective when there is a cross-fertilisation of British and foreign performers working together—for instance, the National Theatre of Uganda working with the Royal Court, or a Scottish jazz group performing with African musicians in South African townships. Of course, our embassies around the world have the job of promoting the best of British art and British culture within a particular host nation, but by necessity they are seeking to impress the heads of state, the politicians, the princes of industry and the top educated people. The British Council can do something more valuable. It can reach the hearts of ordinary people and sometimes, maybe, the country's leaders of tomorrow. The more foreign people who can enjoy and feel comfortable with our culture, the better.
The importance of the British Council's work cannot be under-estimated. I do not believe that any government can spend too much on promoting cultural exchange and understanding between ourselves and the people of other nations. Just because the value of the Council's work is little known in Britain and has few votes attached to it, I would like the Government's assurance that they intend to fund the British Council generously in the future.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest; namely, the privilege of serving under the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, as a member of the board of the British Council, a non-pecuniary interest, and also being chairman of the Council's Scottish Committee.
There is a nice Chinese political slogan, "walking on two legs". It can cover many different policies. Broadly, it means trying to do two things more or less at the same time; two things which do not look as though they are the same but which you are trying to argue are nevertheless going broadly in the same direction. I would argue that the British Council is a classic example of walking on two legs and doing it successfully, both internationally and domestically.
Internationally, all Members of your Lordships' House will have had experience of the British Council around the world. So have I over many years. I have been tremendously impressed and have met so many people who have been touched by the Council. Sometimes the influence has gone subterranean only to emerge 30 years later, but it is invaluable.

1079
One of the great virtues of the British political system when it is operating well is that the Government are capable of funding and supporting an organisation which they do not seem to run. The British Council is a classic example of that. That is its virtue; it is walking on two legs. When the dialogue on the official leg becomes blocked and political relationships turn sour, there is still the cultural leg on which you can rely. "Walking on two legs" is something which the Council does superbly. It is enlightened self-interest from the British Government and long may and should that continue.
I argue also that the British Council helps us as a nation to walk on two legs. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, there is a great movement of cultural diversity within the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may take Scotland as an example. The British Council in Scotland, under its energetic and hard-working director and staff—incidentally, the director is a Scots woman and one of those who stayed at home—does a tremendous job in promoting two aspects. The first is Scotland's excellence in broad-stream British culture. The second, which is particularly apparent at present, is the Scottish aspect of culture, law and education which is in a process of dynamic growth. The British Council in Scotland can promote those aspects to the benefit of both Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is diversity within a broader unity.
Perhaps I may give two examples of what is undertaken by the British Council in Scotland. First, Scottish education and training was set up by the Scottish Office, Scottish Trade International and the British Council. It sent a mission to South Africa in August last year in order to promote Scottish higher and further education. It was led by the principal of Glasgow University. There were a large number of people on the delegation from Scottish universities and colleges of further education. It also took with it the Strathclyde Youth Jazz Orchestra under its ebullient musical director, Bobby Wishart.
The South Africa Daily News carried the splendid headline,
"Och aye, what a breath of fresh air".
Allowing for exporting the vernacular, the message was clear: here was something young and dynamic which went with the promotion of Scottish education. That programme is planned to bring in approximately £15 million in overseas earnings by next year.
Another organisation set up in Scotland is the Scottish International Resource Project. It takes people who have come to Scotland and have undergone post-graduate training and attaches them to a Scottish business or organisation in order to show them how it works in practice and to give them a friend for life. Recently, a young Vietnamese who came from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Mr. Tran Ngoc Ca, gained a PhD at Edinburgh University and was then attached to Scottish Enterprise's oil and gas team in Aberdeen for 18 months. He worked with a consortium of oil companies to help them to break into the Vietnamese market. They did so successfully and he remains in touch. He is a tremendous asset.
1080
I conclude with one thought; that all this is produced on a very small budget. I will not quote the budget for Scotland but it is very small. Another slogan which operates closer to home is, "you can't get owt for nowt". We have a wonderful organisation which if we did not have it we ought to be inventing. It is very successful and deserves support. I hope that through this debate and a wider understanding of what the British Council does it will be appreciated in the community and we will have support from the Government.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is clear that all noble Lords believe that the British Council is a good thing. If all the plans outlined by the noble Baroness are fulfilled, that will be even more true. I thank her for introducing the debate and congratulate her on all that she has achieved.
My first memory of the British Council was going as a family with my mother a long time ago to a house in Southampton. It was owned by the British Council and there we helped to entertain overseas visitors and students, many of whom were connected to Southampton University. Things have changed since then and there are no branches left.
Long after that experience, and as a member of the Council of Europe's parliamentary delegation, I was able to see at first hand the benefits brought by the British Council opening up in Budapest, Bucharest, Prague, Warsaw and other cities which emerged from behind the Iron Curtain. However, today I wish to focus my few minutes on Latin America since, as president of Canning House, I am aware of what is being done there and of its importance and relevance to our effort to improve and increase the trade, commercial, education and cultural links between this country and Latin America.
Latin America's share of the British Council funding is 9 per cent. of the global overseas spend. In terms of size, the Council's biggest operation is in Brazil, followed by Mexico, Argentina and Colombia. These countries are major economies and vital markets for us. Although economic and political circumstances in the region have improved in the past few years and modest expansion has been possible in the four main countries, in Bolivia and Cuba the current financial year has been particularly difficult. However, I appreciate from a recent visit to Cuba that it is now delighted to have a British Council representative in the embassy there.
The British Council has done much to raise money for itself, particularly through English teaching for which there is great demand. It has also succeeded in focusing on the three high priority areas, all of which support the Government's agenda: export promotion, which includes cultural industry exports and education and training export promotion; the promotion of modern Britain; and good governance and human rights.
Cultural industry exports are worth at least £7 billion a year to the United Kingdom. I know that the Council, working closely with the DTI and the Foreign Office, has selected five countries globally and five sectors for special promotion. In Latin America, the country is

1081
Brazil and the sector is design. The project kicked off with a London seminar at the DTI on exporting design to Brazil for 50 design companies. In November 1997 there was a three-day design seminar and exhibition in Sao Paolo with themed sessions on privatisation, retail banking, "own brand" retailing, transport infrastructure and design education. Ten UK companies took part with the aim of doing real business as well as developing partnerships. That tied in with the Council's agenda of promoting modern Britain in a way which complements the more traditional elements of the United Kingdom which attract the tourists.
In opening, the noble Baroness emphasised the importance of education. I know that the promotion of education and training partnerships, including studying in the UK and encouraging distance learning partnerships between UK universities and overseas institutions, has also been an important focus. During 1997 the Council produced and launched seminars in the UK, education and training market opportunity plans for Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Colombia. In Brazil there has been dramatic growth in this area. From nothing, the Council's educational web pages now receive 14,000 hits a month and its educational promotion service there had 25,000 inquiries last year, 1,000 student counselling interviews and 150 direct placements. The Council organised British university fairs in four major Brazilian cities which took place in October with 58 British universities present. Exchange student numbers have been increasing rapidly with a 70 per cent. increase in three years to 13,200.
Another example is Mexico. There are currently 600 Mexican postgraduate students in the UK. They come; they study; and they go. They frequently rise to influential positions in government and industry and yet, until recently, there had been no serious attempt to introduce those young people to the private sector in this country before they returned so that advantage could be taken of their goodwill and country knowledge. That has now been done.
I have so many examples of wonderful things which have been done by the British Council in Latin America in the cultural field with exchanges of musicians, orchestras and so on and also in the area of governance, administrative reform and human rights, to which the noble Baroness referred in opening. I applaud all that has been done and I applaud the dedicated staff who make it possible. I hope that it will continue, increase and improve. In a spend of £28 million in this financial year, £9.5 million came as government grant. Much has been achieved in Latin America. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about future funding in order to ensure that the excellent work continues and goes from strength to strength.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I join with all noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness on this timely debate. I have a special interest in it because I am the chairman of the British Council's music advisory panel.
1082
I believe that music is the best of all ambassadors and not only because it is quite obviously a universal language. I can think of no country more fortunate than we are in the sheer breadth, diversity and richness of our musical life. I do not just mean in performance; I mean in creativity as well. I do not just mean in classical music; I mean in jazz, folk, rock and all forms and all ethnic backgrounds of music.
The days when we used to send our best music and musicians abroad simply to show how wonderful we British are are over. As the noble Baroness said, the educational aspect, especially in music, is all important. By education, I do not just mean the giving of lectures or the rather grand and Olympian master classes. I mean real collaboration with the musicians of the country in question.
The best example I can give is a body of musicians who are great favourites of mine. They rejoice in the name of "Ensemble Bash". They are a group of blindingly talented percussion players and every time they go abroad, they invariably return with a wonderful stock of new and exotic percussion instruments. Last time they went on a tour of Africa for us, they came back not merely with lots of new and interesting instruments but with a complete troupe of African drummers, and they proceeded to give concerts with them all over the country. It is that sort of collaboration which is really important these days in our cultural diplomacy.
It is not only in performance, in music itself, that we can be helpful to other countries. We can be helpful also in relation to the background and infrastructure of music. So many countries have lately been liberated from oppressive regimes that the demand for the British Council's advice and, indeed, its presence in many countries grows all the time.
For example, in Russia all those years of tyranny were also fairly tyrannical in the musical world. There was no such thing as an impresario. The concert agency was just called Gosconcert, a fairly grisly organisation. The idea that there should be a musical impresario in Russia is simply unthinkable. The people there are starting from scratch and we can help in the whole sphere of marketing, promotion, how to put concerts together and how to spread music throughout the land. That is badly needed.
The musical world in which we live is now not only very broad and varied but it is also extremely helpful to the countries which we visit. And yet all that is against a background where finance is never quite adequate; never adequate at all, in my view. The noble Baroness mentioned that we now have a presence in 109 countries. Ten years ago we had a presence in 89 countries. So that is 20 new countries in the past 10 years. And yet there has been a cut of something like 14 per cent. in our funding over the past five years alone.
I suggest that for once, the Government should not do the obvious thing. They should not look at the budget of the British Council and add a percentage point or two for the sake of generosity. I suggest that the Government should look at the work of the British Council—the

1083
sheer width, variety and value of it—and ask themselves whether the whole funding package is remotely adequate for that job. Is it remotely commensurate with the effort which the British Council puts in and the absolute devotion of people to it all over the world? I suspect that, if the Government do that, they will find that that budget does not bear any real relation to the importance of the work of the British Council. It would be a novel and timely exercise for the Government to undertake.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, bearing in mind that what I have to say is almost entirely unstinted praise of the British Council, in particular its literature department, I must declare an interest. My work and my career have benefited greatly from the attention that I have received from the British Council and I am sure that I shall do so in the future. On the many occasions that I have been on reading and speaking tours in European countries, one of its representatives has always been present to give me help and support.
The main aim of the literature department, which is part of the Council's arts group, is to advance the appreciation of British and Commonwealth literature; in particular, the poetry, fiction, biography and other work of contemporary writers.
The British Council works in partnership with a wide range of organisations to support literature events overseas—reading tours, lecture tours, festivals, conferences, seminars, workshops and writers-in-residence schemes. Those may be organised in partnership with a local institution such as a university or school.
"Eye on Books" was a successful festival which took place in Hong Kong last September. A novelist undertook a two-week residency at Hong Kong University and creative writing workshops for children were held during the festival. An exhibition, "The Writer's Eye", was produced for the festival featuring more than 50 writers and including such established figures as Fay Weldon and Salman Rushdie. Two months later, a tour across Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands featured some of our best-known writers giving readings and talks about their work.
The African Literature Association conference was held at the University of Texas in the previous July in conjunction with the British Council, at which three writers visited schools and colleges and talked about their experiences as black writers living in Britain. The Cambridge seminar on contemporary literature, to which I contributed in 1997, is a regular event and attended by publishers, academics and festival organisers.
The work done by the British Council to promote the Booker Prize internationally may not be known to your Lordships. Last year's event at the British Library to celebrate 30 years of the prize was organised by the Council.
As to the future, the way in which writers use conflict in fiction will be discussed at the Belgrade seminar in March 1999. A seminar on writing from Britain will be
1084
arranged in the coming April in New Zealand, where authors from this country will participate in panel discussions with those from Australia and New Zealand. The regular annual seminars will be held in Brussels, Walberberg and, of course, here in Cambridge. There will be a poetry tour in India and several British writers will undertake residencies abroad.
The literature department provides support to the teaching of literature overseas, arranging for writers, critics and educationists to visit universities and other teaching institutions to advise on curriculum development and to conduct lectures, seminars and workshops. It produces a wide range of publications as a means of promoting British literature, including Literature Matters and, in association with a publisher, the anthology New Writing, featuring contemporary British poetry, fiction, drama and criticism, as well as a series of books entitled Writers and Their Work. The department distributes the highly successful and popular Poems on the Underground overseas.
Encouragement of translation is becoming an important aspect of literature policy. The department is in the process of putting together an exhibition on the Internet which will focus on translation and will aim to promote literary translation as an art form and encourage people to read more books in translation. Much British writing is, of course, regularly translated into foreign languages. Young writers appreciate how their visits, arranged by the British Council to bring their work before an interested audience, may well lead to translation into, for instance, French, German, Spanish, Swedish and many other languages. However, only a small percentage of overseas writing is translated into English, despite the fact that many people on the continent of Europe and more distant parts of the world will very likely read English. Fewer people here are able to read a foreign language with ease.
The British Council already makes a small cash contribution (which I am sure it can ill afford, considering what we heard here this evening) to the Arts Council's translation department, whose purpose is to aid the translation into English of more foreign language writing, and a British Council representative sits on its committee. While that and the idea of the exhibition are encouraging, it is to be hoped that one project for the British Council in the future and in conjunction with publishers will be the translation into our own language of more literature from our fellow Europeans and from Asia and South America. The literary department's attention to young writers is laudable. May it have the funding to continue.
7.12 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out, the British Council is a key player in international development and that can only reinforce the public's support for it. I believe that the Council has adapted well to the changes forced on it by the last government and it should now be granted all the resources it needs to continue its work both abroad and in education here.

1085
After all, those are only a proportion of the funds it manages on behalf of DfID and others and which in turn add value across the spectrum of development.
That is the whole point about the British Council. It has moved beyond the normal perception which is rightly characterised by solid educational work in its promotion of the English language and culture into a less advertised, sophisticated management and contracting role which is often right in the front line of poverty alleviation.
I have some knowledge of work with NGOs in India, Kenya and Ethiopia. I know the Council developed techniques in strengthening local NGOs in countries like Ghana. Its record in sensitive countries like Burma, Iran and Nigeria is to be applauded. It is involved in human rights and peacekeeping. Half of its work is in countries on the Development Assistance Committee list. It has embarked on new IT programmes like the Global Knowledge network, which are designed to benefit countries like India and South Africa. That is perhaps as near as we get to that conversation with mankind.
The Council tackles some of the structural causes of poverty such as the position of women in society. It does pioneering work in the former Soviet Union which, incidentally, is referred to in some detail in the latest House of Lords Select Committee report on the TACIS programme. All that work is central to the underlying purpose of the Government's White Paper—Sustainable International Development. It is called "capacity building", finding new ways of reviving civil society in post-conflict countries and emerging democracies where critical engagement and the discreet support of NGOs in the right place—provided they are not over managed as can happen—can make a significant difference and speed up the process of education and training.
That is not an easy task and I should like to ask the Minister a question arising out of the International Development Select Committee's report on the department in which the Permanent Secretary, Mr. John Vereker, refers to,
"The excessive use … of western-northern NGOs which could inhibit the development of local civil society. … We are only beginning to scratch the surface of understanding these dynamics within developing countries".
In the same evidence he acknowledges the difficulties faced by the Council while operating in those remote areas and in a fragile institutional environment. Is the Minister concerned that the Council may not yet have proved itself in that environment or acquired enough experience in contracting out projects in such conditions? It increasingly has to do that in the open market in competition with other agencies. Or does she believe, as I hope she does, that this is a process in which only a flexible, strong, internationally recognised agency like the British Council can engage?
Exactly three years ago, led by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we were debating the drastic cuts threatening the Council—28 per cent. in its ODA grant in real terms over three years and 16 per cent. overall. That could have meant up to 25 per cent. staff redundancies. That policy was being defended—I felt rather unwillingly—by the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. The result of that debate and
1086
other representations to the FCO led us to believe that the crisis was avoided. We now know that the cuts have come down to only 13.4 per cent. over five years which has been barely manageable. We are now in a new era with a White Paper saying we need precisely the kind of thing the British Council is doing, yet we still expect it to operate in a chilly economic environment and increasingly in the free market.
That again raises the question of overall funding. Are we still on course to reach the 0.37 per cent.? I do not mean the 0.3 per cent. mentioned in the Government's latest response to the IDC report and about to be flagged in the DAC report next month, but the 0.37 per cent. European average for last year. Or are we already falling short of that target? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the Council should be able to look forward to a secure future and should not be in constant fear of uncertainties in the corridors and boardrooms of Whitehall which undermine the loyalty and activities of so many thousands around the world.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for introducing this debate and wish her well in her appointment as chairman of the British Council.
The noble Baroness and myself share a distinction. We are perhaps the only Members of your Lordships' House—and certainly of those taking part in this debate—who have worked for the British Council teaching the English language abroad, the noble Baroness in Germany at the outset of her career and myself at the end of my military career. I was selected as one of a team of six to go to the Baltic states in September 1994 and led a small team that taught 38 officers and NCOs of the Estonian army for six months. They needed the English language because at the end of six months they were to be trained by the Royal Marines training team for a further six months, after which they would then return to their countries, raise companies of 120 men and be deployed on operations in the former Yugoslavia and later in the Lebanon.
We worked for six months. There were two in my team, two in Latvia and two in Lithuania. At the end of the six months the President of Estonia, Mr. Lennart Meri, came to see us. He thanked me and my assistant for teaching his officers not so much the English language, but democracy. Since then, the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians have decided to raise not just a company, but a battalion to serve as peacekeepers in Europe and outside. From small acorns large oak trees grow.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby told me before this debate that she regretted very much that she could not be here. But she pointed out to me a similar situation. The British Council arranged at the last election for journalists from the Russian Federation and from central and eastern Europe to come and monitor individual candidates in the election process in Great Britain. At the end of the election they went to Paris where there was a conference. Members of Parliament

1087
and failed candidates who had taken part in the election went over for a debriefing. Those are but two examples of the work of the British Council.
I fully understand that many British Council education training projects fail. Ours succeeded by the skin of its teeth. I shall suggest reasons why such projects fail: poor selection of teachers, lack of funds, very small salaries, and often poor working conditions. Nobody goes to teach in the British Council for money, and if they have a family back home—which I did not—there are problems.
Does the British Council have a satisfactory recruitment policy? I was given just one week to prepare to leave for Estonia. That suited me, but it would not suit everybody. The reason for those failures comes down to lack of funding. Our project was but one of 15 running at the time in central Europe with only one project manager, in Manchester. The poor British Council has been cut to the bone. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that the Government must look again at how they fund the Council.
I pay tribute to the offices of the British Council in central Europe, especially in the Baltic States. In Riga, for instance, one has to walk up 80 stairs to the third floor before one reaches the British Council office. If it were a museum in Britain, it would be closed down for allowing the old, infirm and the young to walk up 80 stairs. Can the Minister look, through the embassies, at ways in which we might improve the offices of the British Council in central and Eastern Europe?
Ten million British citizens live and work abroad. Five thousand of those work for the British Council. We are enormously proud of them. Will the Minister give credit to those 5,000 people and their marvellous assistants, such as Mrs. Imbis Karsis in the British Council office in Tallinn? She often controls that office because the Council is so short staffed that it cannot fill vacancies immediately and therefore locals must direct its activities abroad.
If I were given the choice between the British Embassy in Tallinn and the British Council, at present, I would sack the ambassador and keep the director of the British Council. I have nothing against the British Ambassador or his embassy, but I suggest that at present the cultural arm of the Foreign Office does more for our relations than our diplomatic service.
I wish the noble Baroness enormous success in her job. I thank the parliamentary liaison team of the British Council who are establishing very strong contacts with Members of your Lordships' House and, indeed, the other place, so that we can continue to press Her Majesty's Government to support the British Council with all the might and money they can supply.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I must apologise deeply to your Lordships that I may not be able to attend the end of this debate—something which has never happened to me before—as I have a previous engagement and had expected the debate to end at 8 p.m.
1088
I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, both on initiating this debate so excellently, and on becoming the new Chairman of the British Council, to which I am sure she will add much lustre. I hope she will also be able to relieve the ever-tightening financial margins under which the British Council works, having increased its return by 40 per cent. over the past 20 years, whereas the government grant which represents nearly a third of its income has increased by only 13.7 per cent.
In fact, from a healthy overall profit of around £10 million in 1997, there was in 1998 a total loss of over £1 million, which has meant dipping into reserves; not a healthy situation. As far as one can see from the summarised results, that appears to have resulted from considerably less income in grants, contracts and agency receipts—around £17 million—and around £3 million less in fees and income. At the same time, running expenses and costs do not appear to have increased very much. Bearing in mind the important promotion of Britain which is undertaken by the British Council, I feel confident that the noble Baroness, the new chairman, will be able to sort out this situation.
I have two interests to declare. The first is that my aunt worked for many years for the British Council at its headquarters in London, after running the Queen Victoria Club for Girls in Lambeth from 1922 until its close during the war. She was very proud of her involvement with the British Council, and of the great good it did in spreading the British way of life round the world. From Albania to Zambia, from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe, the British Council is actively promoting the image of Britain throughout the globe.
Not only does the British Council promote the learning of the English language, one of our greatest gifts to the world—the other was our constitution, which we appear to be trying to demolish—it also promotes education, helps with development in poorer countries, and promotes the spread of science, information technology and the arts. I was delighted to read, which seems to have escaped my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, that a Scottish musical group called Shooglynifty has been touring India with great success.
Last year, when I visited Bulgaria in an Inter-Parliamentary Union group, we insisted on visiting the British Council in Sofia, and were immensely impressed by the warm reception we received—tea, of course—and much enthusiasm, and we learnt how popular were the English library, and above all the television videos for the learning of English, particularly "Pride and Prejudice". That brings me to my second interest to declare. As I was the only Conservative, the only hereditary Peer (indeed the only Member of your Lordships' House) and the only woman, I was in a slight minority. However, perhaps as a result, I was the lucky person selected to receive a lovely bunch of flowers from the British Council, which I treasured throughout my visit. I now thank them for their bouquet. This short speech is my small bouquet for them.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I should like to talk about the Council's visual arts programme, which is impressive. Current British Council exhibitions include New British Art on show in Japan, Francis Bacon in the United States, A Century of British Silver and Metalwork in Prague—soon to travel to Berlin; a show of paintings by Aubrey Williams in Barbados, along with various other exhibitions in such countries as Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany and Mexico.
It is unlikely that most members of the general public will have heard of any of these shows, but they are nonetheless drawing large audiences and successfully promoting British culture past and present. Indeed, at a time when British art enjoys an enviably high profile and prestige, it is perhaps surprising and certainly praiseworthy that the British Council has managed to keep up to date and to reflect the exciting contemporary arts scene as well as continuing to present interesting historical aspects.
It is, however, debatable as to whether the Council will be able to maintain such a wide-ranging and exciting programme for much longer. In the first place, the Council's visual arts programme is due to have its internal funding cut by around 20 to 25 per cent. Furthermore, as has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the longstanding grants scheme which has, until this year, helped overseas museums and galleries to mount exhibitions of British art has been suspended until the next financial year—a suspension that will probably be permanent because of recent cuts. Equally unsatisfactory, the mounting of exhibitions of work by British architects cannot even he entertained because it would stretch a budget that is already under pressure.
The British Council is responsible for curating and overseeing 40 major exhibitions a year, involving loans from national, regional and private collections. In addition, there are a number of touring exhibitions of works drawn largely from the British Council collection, which was started in 1938 and consists of over 6,000 art works and is growing. Priority is given to countries which have little direct access to British art, from Korea and Vietnam to large areas of South America and central and eastern Europe. The total number of exhibitions a year in which the British Council has direct input usually amounts to around 100, with dozens more in which it has a minor participation.
The visual arts department's brief is to develop and expand overseas knowledge and appreciation of the best of British painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, photography, crafts and architecture, working closely with the Council's 109 overseas offices. The department is also responsible for British participation in regular international events such as the Venice Biennale, the Sao Paulo Bienal, the Johannesburg Biennale and the Indian Triennale.
The arts division of the British Council is in a difficult position. No matter how successful its programmes—whether in visual arts, theatre, music or literature—it will never receive much recognition at home because so much of its work is overseas and many of its activities
1090
are unknown here and receive virtually no publicity. This does not, however, negate its continuing striving for excellence. Indeed, the promotion of Britain as a culturally alive and vibrant place is of ever more importance in terms of trade, tourism and cultural recognition, competing as it must against other countries promoting their own interests.
As Britain's principal agency for cultural relations overseas, the British Council plays a valuable part in our foreign policy, encouraging a wider knowledge of the UK and of its desirability, both for trade and culture. At a time when our painters, sculptors, designers and architects have never been in such demand worldwide, it seems bizarre that the British Council's visual arts programme should be under threat from its other wings. The Arts Council's visual arts programme, by contrast, has just received a 15 per cent. increase in funding.
The projects that are most likely to be axed are those in the developing world. Opportunities for British involvement in the heritage trade—sending restorers and conservators to countries without equivalent skills; to provide valued expertise in areas such as building conservation, as the British Council has done to Bosnia—are likely to suffer. Areas of the world such as the Caribbean and Lisbon are likely to see the withdrawal of the British presence. The British presence in many smaller international manifestations such as the Perth Festival, the Ljubljana, Kwangju, and Cairo Biennales will also be withdrawn. What this will mean is that Britain will no longer be seen as an international partner. I find it hard to believe that that is something this Government would willingly participate in.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for initiating this important debate. The breadth of the contributions we have heard goes some way to reflecting the breadth of the work of the British Council. I want to focus my comments on a sister organisation to the British Council, the British Youth Council, which is not connected to it although it is a related organisation.
What is the British Youth Council? It is a representative forum of young people aged between 16 and 25 in the United Kingdom. It is run by young people to make their views known in international forums and to governments and decision-makers. Membership consists of about 100 national organisations and about 400 local youth councils across the United Kingdom. They range from political parties, trades unions, church organisations, environmental organisations, and even the Scouts.
What is the relationship between the British Council and the British Youth Council? As I said, the two bodies are in no way formally related, but the British Council funds much of the work of the British Youth Council through its youth exchange centre. In particular, it has funded the development of the Youth Council of the Isles in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland. The chair of the British Youth Council told me last week that the best way to help its work was to

1091
strengthen the funding of the British Council as much of its funding comes from there. He spoke particularly about the international role of the British Youth Council.
What is the history of that very small organisation? The British Youth Council was founded in 1948 by the Foreign Office. It was called the British National Committee of the World Assembly of Youth. It existed to promote global co-operation against communism in the wake of the Second World War. That arrangement continued quite happily for many years but, unfortunately, in 1994 the Foreign Office substantially withdrew its funding from the British Youth Council, which severely hampered its work. The British Youth Council has gone from being the leading youth council in the world to having only the scantiest profile at, and participation in, international forums. That is a terrible shame. The few staff that the British Youth Council does have are restricted by the nature of their funding to work on other projects, so the international work suffers even further.
Sadly, it is not only the British Youth Council's international profile which has been limited by the cut in funding. It is Britain itself, which is simply not represented in many forums which are extremely important and which are attended by many of the world's most senior politicians and political leaders, including Kofi Annan. That absence is noticed—and is only to the detriment of Britain as a whole.
In spite of that, the British Youth Council managed to attend various events in 1998 such as the World Festival of Youth, the United Nations Youth Forum and the Commonwealth Youth Ministers meetings. However, that represents very much less participation than previously, which is to be regretted.
The British Youth Council is regularly called upon by the Foreign Office and the Council of Europe to try to arrange meetings with international groups and influential visitors to the United Kingdom. All that is done on a very ad hoc basis. The British Youth Council is very much looking forward to having an international officer so that such work can be far better co-ordinated.
In 1994 this House debated the future of the British Council. At that stage, all sides made very clear how much they valued the work of the British Youth Council. That was said even by those on the Government Front Bench but, despite commenting on its usefulness, they still cut its funds.
I echo the words of all who have spoken, but particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who said that the British Council needs to be judged on its achievements and not against overall spending limits within a much larger government review. That is exactly the right approach.
In conclusion, one of the briefs that I received directly from the British Council described it as the "Heineken Beer" of British diplomacy—presumably because it reaches the parts that other organisations fail to reach. That puts it well. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kennedy on her appointment.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, it is clear from the debate that many of your Lordships have had long and distinguished links with the British Council. I wish that I could claim the same, but I fear that, say, 20 years ago, I would have been in much the same position as those who collar the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and ask, "What does the British Council do?". Twenty years ago I would have said simply that it helped to spread the English language and English literature. I know better now.
Perhaps I may pick up one point made by the noble Baroness in her opening speech. She referred to promoting women in public life and mentioned workshops in Nigeria. This is a matter close to my heart as I certainly wish to promote women going into public life. They need much help and encouragement, particularly in many countries where there is little democratic tradition.
I believe that in Nigeria, following the workshops that have been mentioned, local groups were set up which I believe are called the 100 groups. They have gradually expanded and provide a marvellous network for women who probably would not have known each other prior to that. Therefore the work goes on far beyond the staging of a workshop at a given point in time. In 1997 there was a successful series of training workshops provided by the British Council in Egypt for those women who wished to stand for election at local or perhaps even national level. That was crowned by a conference addressed by women MPs from other countries. There was a wonderful interchange of views and opinions.
Even where the British Council has not been able to fund such arrangements itself, it has provided help and some funding for other organisations. I refer to an example from my own direct experience. For several years now I have worked with an organisation called Project Parity, the objective of which is to help in practical ways women who wish to enter public life. The organisation has worked particularly in the former communist countries of eastern Europe where there is a tremendous amount of work to be done. I attended one such workshop in Bratislava as a trainer in December 1997. The help of the British Council was invaluable. It provided many contacts when setting up the workshop. It was able, out of its meagre funds, to provide funding so that the women attending the workshop could do so on a residential basis. They could not have afforded to do that without help. Anyone who has attended a conference will be aware that much help is provided by means of chatting with people and establishing contacts when the formal sessions have ended. That was a valuable and helpful workshop.
That workshop—I imagine this applies also to British Council workshops—was immensely practical. It is not a question of giving lectures on this and that to passive participants. The intention is to get the women concerned involved in a practical way. A distinguished election agent gave much information about running a campaign and then the women participants were asked to explain how they would run an election campaign

1093
and what difficulties they would experience. They learnt about election literature but they were also asked to compile such literature, working in groups of three. I gave them some tips on public speaking and on running meetings. I also explained what it was like to he a political candidate. For such women, who have few role models, it is useful to hear someone who has experience of being a political candidate. I hesitate to say whether I have performed that role well or badly. Nevertheless my experience was useful for those women.
There have been subsequent contacts with the women who participated in the workshop. I have given them information on other subjects and one or two attended a seminar in Oxford last year. We were able to make contact. That was extremely valuable. My only regret is that I wish the British Council was in a position to fund more such workshops itself. I worry about what the British Council cannot do because it does not have the funding. I hope I have given some indication of the kind of work that is carried out and the tremendous value of the British Council in this field as in so many others.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I am one of those who had much to learn from this debate. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I have concluded from listening that our purpose should be not only to help the Minister in the development of her policies but also to persuade those who guard the ledgers in Her Majesty's Treasury that judicious, additional investment in the British Council would improve the contents of those ledgers. As a former guardian of the ledgers I wish to develop that theme in terms that may be understood in those quarters.
Higher education is one of the great growth industries of our times. It has become a major, tradeable international service in which institutions and governments compete with vigour to acquire market share. It is a market in which, through the reputation and quality of the research and teaching in British universities, this country has a competitive advantage. It is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom to have the assistance of the British Council. It would be the economics of madness for 100 or 150 institutions of higher education to maintain a full-time capability in 10 to 20 countries. It is essential that they have the underpinning support of the British Council in their marketing activities. We are talking of an income to the United Kingdom measured in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
This market has become highly competitive. I shall give some illustrations of that. Australia, of which I have some direct knowledge as a member of the council of the University of Melbourne, sees itself, with justification, as a country which in relation to its population has the largest market share of overseas students of any country. It has developed that market share through a strong partnership with the Government of Australia who have done the market research both on outlet opportunities and on competitors and have given
1094
financial support to the universities in developing markets, particularly in south-east Asia. It is a strong and effective competitor to British institutions.
I turn to Japan which has plans to double the numbers of overseas students. France and Germany were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. They, too, are concerned about the number of overseas students they attract. Germany is concerned not to become an insular community but an outward looking one. It is appreciative of the long-term influence that would be gained for Germany from having students who gain an empathy from studying in Germany. France is naturally concerned about the growing influence of the Anglo-Saxon community. I have seen figures which reveal such ambition to increase the number of overseas students attracted to France that I forbear to quote them. To say that France speaks of doubling that figure would be a modest statement with regard to the figures I have seen.
I have had the opportunity to experience the work of the British Council during visits I have made at the request of overseas universities. I have been impressed by its knowledge, influence and the quality of the service it offers to British institutions, and not only to those involved in higher education. I was astonished to find when I visited Athens recently that the British Council there organises, on behalf of University of Cambridge local examination syndicates, examinations in the English language for 160,000 candidates a year in 1,000 centres that have to be identified. That is some service. I have seen in Japan how the British Council has assisted in securing a 50 to 60 per cent. increase in students from that country over the past three years.
As a public servant I was involved on behalf of various governments in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s in moderating the decline of once great industries. In that cause billions of pounds have been spent. The future of this country lies in exploiting markets that are growth markets where we have real competitive advantage. Higher and further education are such markets. I urge the Government not to miss the opportunity while we have that advantage. I hope the Minister will take back to the Treasury the arguments that have been advanced in this House and that the ledgers will be improved by additional, judicious investment in the British Council.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for initiating this debate. I should also like to congratulate her on her assumption of the chairmanship. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, also mentioned the work of her distinguished predecessor, Sir Martin Jacomb, who took the Council through some very difficult years.
There have been two sorts of speaker this evening. All of us have spoken so far as friends of the British Council, but there have been knowledgeable and closely involved friends and slightly more detached friends and admirers, among whom I count myself.
I should like to make three very straightforward points. First, there is the work of the British Council in Northern Ireland, to which the noble Baroness,

1095
Lady Kennedy, referred in her introductory remarks. It is an extraordinary achievement in Northern Ireland—which is, for those who know it, a very special place but, in some ways, quite inward looking and, at times, almost claustrophobic—to have the virtues of the British Council active there. It acts as a window on the wider world and helps people around the world to understand the very particular strengths of Northern Ireland at time when Northern Ireland is so easily represented around the world simply in terms of the troubles.
My second point relates to Eastern Europe. I have an interest as chairman of the English College in Prague, to which the British Council has consistently been extremely helpful in a practical way. This is exceptionally important. Several noble Lords have referred to the end of the Cold War and the removal of the Iron Curtain. One of the things that that has left behind in Eastern and Central Europe is almost a vacuum of values. We have been extremely good at arguing against communism during the years of the Cold War, and we were extremely effective at getting in there very quickly—with merchant banks and other people—and telling them about the virtues of capitalism. What we have not been sufficiently good at is helping to fill the civic vacuum which exists in Eastern Europe.
To my personal observation and knowledge, as someone who goes often to Prague and sometimes to Warsaw and Budapest, the British Council has done extraordinary work in communicating the full values of a civic culture, including the issue of human rights, in which the noble Baroness and I share such a close interest. When we think of the work of the British Council on the English language, English culture and the legal and political system of which we are rightly proud, there is also the question of British values. Of course, being British, we do not like to talk about them too much, but it is in the communication and articulation of those values that the work of the Council is most important. I have seen it work and work well in Eastern Europe.
One noble Lord spoke about our competitors, France and Germany. It is certainly a great reproach to the Treasury and the British Government as a whole that the French and Germans spend at a much higher level than we do. They recognise the importance of this sort of work. We live in a modern world where competition and co-operation also go together. You only have to look at industry; there is both competition and co-operation there. Perhaps we live in a competitive/co-operative world.
I ask this question as much of the noble Baroness as of the Minister: is there scope for some co-operation with the Goethe Institut and the Alliance Francaise? Perhaps it is happening already, but, as well as the central role of putting forward British values and culture, there must be some real scope for advancing in a very small world the enduring values of European civilisation.
Finally, we do have to think of value for money. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke about the British Council being part of our marketing effort. One could almost think of the FCO, the World Service and the British Council together as the external affairs department of UK plc. If they are, I should like to see a more concerted and coherent effort by the three of them working together. As we have seen in your Lordships' House, the FCO has its
1096
friends, the World Service certainly has its friends and, as we have heard tonight, the British Council has a very great body of support. Together they could probably make the sort of impact on the Treasury which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has just referred to. He is quite right too.
The Treasury needs to be beaten up. Those who represent the interests that your Lordships have spoken about tonight ought to get their act together and then perhaps we shall have some effect on the Treasury.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for initiating this debate. I would like to add my voice to the chorus of support that we have heard this evening for the British Council, which is, above all, a force for civilisation. As the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, has said, much of its work cannot really be quantified. It happens between individuals and therefore the Government must resist the temptation of seeing it as an extension of the British tourist office.
I also feel sympathy for what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said. Individual artists should be supported whether or not they are well known, or will necessarily become well known; some probably will. In either event, it is the experience that they will gain abroad and bring back to this country, as well as the message that they will take to people in other countries, that is important.
I feel very strongly that, when funding for the Council is considered, it cannot be looked at as some sort of business. I very much like the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, of having a totally new approach to funding. Whether the Government will do that, I imagine is very doubtful. But one thing is certain—the level of funding at the moment is far too low for what the Council does, and should not remain static.
7.57 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I shall speak about the work of the British Council in Sudan and its future. The British Council has now been in Sudan for 50 years and has enhanced the sense of partnership and the historic relationship between our two countries. The celebrations of this half century included debates, discussions, arts events and so on. They were to have culminated last December in a seminar on Sudanese-British relations. Unfortunately the seminar did not take place because of the political fall-out following the events of 20th August and the subsequent withdrawal of British Council staff. I very much hope that the seminar, which was attracting so much interest in Britain and Sudan, can be reinstated once our relations with Sudan are normalised and the British Council staff are back at post.
The British Council has continued to make a strong impact in Sudan over recent years through its library and information services. The Council was the first to make the Internet available to the public in Sudan through library membership, providing an important window on Britain, Europe and the West. BBC world television has also been available through the British Council library in Khartoum for several years. Now, of course, British newspapers are available on the Internet.

1097
Work in the fields of English language, environmental awareness, governance—including women's issues—and the arts have been much appreciated by the Sudanese. Links in education, medicine and other subjects continue to be supported to some degree, despite the cuts to the British Council's budget over the years, which all noble Lords have mentioned tonight.
There is one problem which British Council staff find in Sudan. It is difficult to get people with a commitment to the future of the country because there is a tradition in Sudan of professionals going abroad, to the Gulf and so on. So the Council staff find it difficult to maintain a continuing relationship with people.
Ever since I became interested in the Sudan in 1994 I have stressed the importance to the UK of close links with Sudan, whether under the present or a future government. We are talking about the largest country in Africa, with nine neighbours and oil reserves which are believed to equate with those in Saudi Arabia before extraction commenced. I am sorry if that sounds mercenary but it is an important aspect of the effect of the work of the British Council.
I should like to mention two English language initiatives which have the support of the British Council and which may help to mitigate the expected reduction in British Council funding. The first is the Sudan Volunteer Programme, initiated by Mr. David Wolton. Last year, 20 volunteers from Britain, twice the number in 1997, were distributed among five universities and three schools. They provide exposure to English as used by native speakers and take part in other activities, mainly the English Club established in most recipient institutes by the volunteers themselves.
The second initiative is the setting up in the Sudan of the English Language Foundation. The British Ambassador to Sudan, Alan Goulty, who I hope and anticipate will soon be back at post in Khartoum, has been a leading light in this. Others involved are prominent members of the Sudanese British community. The English Language Foundation will be funded entirely by public subscription and will do a number of things. It will help students prepare to take the internationally recognised British language examinations, it will operate a mobile library to provide access to material written in English, it will organise courses for Sudanese teachers of English and it will help to recruit volunteer teachers for the Sudan Volunteer Programme.
I am sure that the British Council will continue, whatever its level of funding to Sudan, to provide excellent service and excellent value for money to those Sudanese who want to find out about British culture or learn the English language. I am particularly pleased that the British Council has offered to run seminars to boost the work already being done in the country itself to improve human rights education and observance in the Sudan. This implements the United Nations' requirement for technical assistance to Sudan in this field.
8.2 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, little can be added to this debate. However, I wish to make two points, but most importantly to wish the best of luck to the chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I hope that she is heartened by the broad support received this evening.
When I see the efforts that particularly France makes to ensure that its culture and language are protected, a key point made by my noble friend Lord Dearing, and when, as I travel around emerging markets—most latterly, for example, in Central Asia—I am struck when meeting the Ministers by the importance they place on cultural awareness; and for good reason. Relevant to Britain, for example, is that, as the European Union inevitably deepens, there will be additional pressures on language protection. We cannot afford to be smug about such matters and take it as given that English has won the day.
Secondly, perhaps I may say a word about the situation in Tehran. As will be known to all, rapprochement was effected at the latter end of last year, with a number of initiatives ensuing, not least the upgrading to ambassador level. That said, there is a lot of work still to be done. The Iranian President has called for a dialogue of civilisations. We in this country must rise to his challenge while remaining sensitive to the internal political circumstances of that country. I understand that a strategic decision has been made to kick-start British Council activities there, but without necessarily in the early stages opening a dedicated office. I would have no doubt that activities could be self-financing.
It should be recognised that, while the overall objectives are worthy, there possibly remains the need for a certain amount of official wooing in Tehran. I must tell the noble Baroness, however, of the added complication of diplomatic staffing levels, which must be addressed for other reasons as well. Will the Minister kindly have her office keep a watching brief on this matter, because I believe we need to react positively as bilaterals improve?
In conclusion, British Council operations must be strengthened generally—indeed seen as an imperative—in order to help to achieve our foreign policy objectives.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has caught me out yet again by making a very concise speech. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for initiating this debate. I have visited many British Council offices around the world, from Pakistan to Yemen and from Estonia to Tanzania, and have always found them to be amazing places of calm tranquillity and learning.
One strand that has come through in every speech in the debate will come as no surprise to the Minister. I refer to the issue of funding. I initiated a debate on the British Council in 1996 to call attention to the cuts that the Council was facing at that time. It did not know how to deal with those cuts because they were coming from two angles. First, they came from the cut in the

1099
grant by the FCO and, secondly, they came from a cut in the grant from the ODA. That was an unfortunate position. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, mentioned that the British Council now finds itself being the tail on the rather handsome FCO dog. However, in that position there were two dogs and only one tail, which was being docked. The British Council found itself in a difficult position because, as Sir Martin Jacomb himself said at the time, the British Council is not a Whitehall warrior. Judging by what has been said by its friends around this House, to a degree it does not need to be because it has so much support in the Government and from all Benches.
The problem facing the British Council at the moment is that its funding comes directly from the FCO. The direct grant to the British Council will be increased only if the FCO sees the British Council as a priority in its spending requirements. I believe that the present Government see the British Council as more of a priority. The only way to avoid the problem of being within the FCO budget would be by being directly funded from the Treasury, although I do not believe that such a suggestion would meet with much joy in the Treasury itself.
The position has changed since that debate in 1996 was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. The question that we pressed was how the British Council would fund the redundancy packages when it had no reserves to meet such a crisis. Luckily, in this debate we are not considering such dire proposals.
The British Council has faced a 13.6 per cent. fall in budget over the past five years. However, the level of funding that is predicted for the next three years indicates that the Government are looking at more support for the Council's work. The major difficulty, however, is that, while there has been only a 10 per cent. increase in funding over the past five years, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in activities.
In addition, the British Council, like any successful organisation, has been faced with expansion into new areas of operation—for example, in the Caspian Basin and in China. That means that budgets in close geographical locations are under pressure. I refer to the budgets for Russia and other countries in the Far East. Lack of funding and pressure to reallocate resources has placed existing offices under pressure; British Council offices are having to fund other offices. On a decreasing budget, that means that the Council's activities have to be curtailed.
One question that must be asked is: at what point is a British Council office effective in what it sets out to do? If no new funding is found, will the prospect of office closures have to be faced? One solution to the funding crisis in 1996 was a cut in the domestic staff of the British Council. Clearly, that cannot happen again. Without real increases in funding, it is possible that there may be office closures overseas.
An area in which the British Council has been very successful is IT. It seems that almost every British Council library is now linked up to the Internet. I wish to ask the Minister whether a one-off funding package
1100
can be found to standardise the Council's IT network. One problem faced by the Council is the diversity in its computer systems. It would be difficult for the Council to find a significant amount of money in order to upgrade all its systems together.
The backbone of the British Council is the teaching of English. The point was mentioned by a number of speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, spoke eloquently on the subject. It should be strongly emphasised that overseas students who come to this country inject £2.5 billion into the British economy. That is an amazingly large figure compared with the small amount of money that is invested through direct grant in the British Council. Although we have a natural advantage as regards instruction in English, there is not a vacuum in English teaching in the international community. The Americans are first in the field; followed closely by the Australians, who have increased their market share dramatically.
The British Council faces the problem that, if America and Australia pump in far more resources and their teaching capacity is more attractive, this could have a harsh direct impact on one of the largest sources of finance that the Council has. The French and German initiatives through the Alliance Francaise and the Goethe Institut were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham. However, having seen some of the activities of the French Institute, it seems that it is acting not so much in the teaching of English as in support of the French language.
Over a number of years the British Council has faced the problem of "death by a thousand cuts". Structural cuts over the long term have depleted its resources. That could have a direct effect on the standard and morale of the Council. However, as I, like other noble Lords, have complained about funding, perhaps I may end on the point that the British Council is an expanding institution. There are significant positive areas that should be looked at. On the issue of development, I commend the work that the British Council has undertaken in conferences on human rights and good government. I pay tribute to the Government for increasing funding to the Council. At a recent meeting held at the British Council there was a new atmosphere of optimism. The feeling was that the worst has now been faced and that, under the leadership of Tom Buchanan, the British Council has a bright future.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is to be congratulated on her success in securing this debate on the role and future of the British Council. It is a subject which, as today's eloquent contributions have confirmed, is of great interest to this House. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness on her unanimously supported appointment as Chair of the British Council, a role which I have no doubt she will perform with a distinction equal to that of her predecessor, Sir Martin Jacomb. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to him, together with the director-general, Sir John Hanson, both of whom retired

1101
last year. This country owes a great debt to them for their distinguished stewardship of the British Council over the past six years.
The British Council and the BBC World Service have long been acknowledged, and indeed envied, across the world as two of Britain's longest serving and most successful ambassadors. Both are national institutions of which we can be proud and, in the armoury of international diplomacy, they are two of the most potent resources upon which this country is able to draw.
The British Council plays an essential role in promoting Britain's influence and interests around the world. As we have heard, it is often described as our main instrument of cultural diplomacy. While it is unparalleled in that respect, the Council's work in complementing our diplomatic effort, in enhancing our prestige and in supporting our exports, secures a return for us far in excess of the traditional notions of cultural diplomacy, bringing inestimable benefits to Britain in terms both of goodwill and of economic gain. The promotion of people-to-people contacts has provided an equally effective counterweight to the formal channels of government-to-government diplomacy.
The Council draws on Britain's enormous wealth of resources, expertise, creativity, innovative capacity and intellectual capital to work with partners here and overseas to build long-term relations with people and institutions in the A-Z of the globe, from Albania to Zimbabwe. From workshops in India on HIV and AIDS, to international seminars on renewable energy, through to the staging of Shakespeare in Japan, the British Council has been effective in promoting this country and our interests across the world.
At the click of a mouse it is possible to demonstrate the impressive scope and variety of the Council's work by accessing the Council's website. This excellent information resource provides a virtual gateway to Britain and the work of the Council.
One of the tasks in shaping the future role of the Council will undoubtedly be the need to find a harmonious balance between those activities that are undeniably marketable and bring tangible economic benefits, and those activities whose benefits are less tangible but without which the Council would come adrift from its anchoring founding principles.
To take a good example of striking that right balance, the British Council has contributed enormously to an increase in our invisible exports in one of its original objectives; namely, the teaching of English. The English language is a major cultural and economic asset. In today's world it is truly a global language. It is the language of the Internet, the language of science, the language of business, and the language of diplomacy. Three hundred and fifty million people speak English as a first language, 350 million more use it regularly as a second language and over 100 million people speak it fluently as a foreign language. By the year 2000, an estimated 1 billion people will be learning English worldwide. Last year, the Council taught 1.1 million class hours in its 127 teaching centres worldwide. At any one time, more than 130,000 students are learning English in those self-supporting centres.
1102
So it is important to ask the Government what importance they attach to the British Council's work in diversifying into teaching skills through English, including management studies and British studies and in forming new strategic partnerships, which have been alluded to this evening, to take forward the areas of distance learning, open learning and new technologies, as well as developing projects such as English 2000, which seeks to forecast future uses of English worldwide in order to inform the development of language policies.
Education and training are another example. The global education and training market is estimated to be worth £7 billion a year and rising fast. The Council, with its English language centres, the central bureau and its huge network of 209 libraries and computer centres, is well placed to access this market and to capitalise on Britain's international reputation for the quality and diversity of its education services.
The education of today's foreign students lays down the foundations for tomorrow's trading relationships. Many overseas students who study in Britain, some of whom are the recipients of Council-supported Chevening scholarships or British Marshal scholarships, will become the leaders and opinion formers of tomorrow in their countries. That was pointed out and reinforced by my noble friend Lady Hooper. She was right. When Britain is the educating country, that frequently brings us future tangible benefits of trade and intangible benefits of friendship, understanding and co-operation. I ask the Minister what role she envisages for the Council in continuing to secure for Britain a sizeable market share in the global education and training export business.
Science is another example of the Council's successful marriage of pragmatism and principle. The collaborative nature of scientific research easily lends itself to the partnerships pioneered by the British Council. Indeed, the Council's work in science, research, technical training and engineering and technology exchanges accounts for more than a quarter of its total activity, with over 9,000 scientific visits a year and more than 1,300 research links. Will the Minister assure the House that, through dialogue on the official leg, if I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, it will work with the British Council to further those partnerships in scientific and cultural research?
Funding has inevitably been touched on. Coming as it does in advance of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the funding of the British Council, it is not surprising that much of the debate has concerned funding arrangements for the Council. As someone whose early career in another place was slowed down—as was made clear to me—by not supporting a vote of my own party when in government on the FCO budget, I suggest to the House that what I am about to say is said both personally and I hope now by my party, with commitment. I hope that a regular addition of £25 million in grant in aid, 5 per cent. of the total income or 10 per cent. of the grant in aid, will be considered favourably by the Government.

1103
I shall use the last two minutes to look to the future. The British Council is faced with a number of key questions to which answers must be found; namely, how to maximise the impact of available funding and to develop the most appropriate mix of activities for a range of contexts, while at the same time developing and stimulating the local market's desire for British Council goods and services.
No institution, no matter how successful, can afford to stand still while the world around it changes. A rolling assessment and evaluation of the British Council's mission and long-term strategy should not therefore carry negative connotations. Indeed, in response to the demands and the issues of today's world, the Council has already increased its focus on science, human rights, governance and gender issues, including the empowerment of women. That was alluded to brilliantly by my noble friend Lady Fookes.
For the British Council to be equipped to meet the needs and challenges of the 21st century it must find the right balance: a balance between keeping faith with its founding principles, while responding to the realities of the changing environment in which it operates; a balance between the tangible benefits of exports and the intangible benefits of goodwill and friendship. The best of British tradition, culture and history must be married with aspirations and values of the modern successful Britain within the realities set by the income and funding which the Council is able to generate.
On all those points, I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's response and the assistance that the Government intend to offer to ensure that those objectives are accomplished.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to reply to the debate calling attention to the work and the future of the British Council. It is an organisation which enjoys the wholehearted support of both the Government and, as this evening's debate demonstrates, of noble Lords who have spoken. I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy for initiating the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, the British Council is a distinctive but integral part of Britain's international effort, supporting and complementing our diplomatic, commercial and developmental agendas. It is a dynamic organisation, skilled at responding to new challenges and opportunities, as has been demonstrated by the speed with which it has adapted to this Government's foreign policy priorities, particularly with respect to human rights and the projection of a modern and dynamic Britain.
It has developed and is delivering programmes which specifically underpin our policies, which spread our values and enrich our lives through partnerships and collaboration with those who share our interests overseas.
Much has been said this evening on funding. Last year saw a number of significant events affecting the British Council. The comprehensive spending review
1104
resulted in the amalgamation of the FCO and DfID grants-in-aid to the Council into one, administered by the FCO. The change will reduce the administrative load on the Council and enable it to carry out its activities as a seamless whole. In addition, the Government were able to secure for the Council an uplift for inflation on the grant-in-aid for the three-year CSR period from 1999 to 2000, plus a further real increase of £2 million a year. That is in line with the Foreign Office's own settlements.
Given the heavy pressure on all aspects of our diplomatic effort and the difficult choices that had to be made, I believe that the final distribution of resources was the best available in the circumstances. More importantly, the CSR settlement reverses the fall in the real value of the grant-in-aid over the last four years, amounting to an 8.9 per cent. cut since 1994–95. The three-year settlement also allows the Council to plan ahead on a more stable and secure basis. The noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Chorley, Lord Redesdale and the noble Earls, Lord Glasgow and Lord Drogheda, all made those points forcefully.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She made the point that the settlement received reverses the fall of 8.5 per cent. over the three previous years. It does not. It accepts the fall but then starts to build back again at a rate of approximately 1 per cent. a year. That fall, which I regret, is now a fact and that must be understood. It is not reversed. One of the difficulties is that one is building now on a smaller financial base in grant in aid.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact is that the process is being reversed. This Government demonstrate their real commitment to the British Council not only by meeting inflation, but by building upon that in real terms. We were very pleased to be able to give a real increase of some 1.5 per cent. I say gently to the noble Lord opposite and to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that they failed lamentably to do the right thing on funding when their party was in office. They now demonstrate an enthusiasm for funding that they did not demonstrate when their party was in office. This party is doing the right thing.
In July of last year my noble friend Lady Kennedy took over the chair of the British Council. Under her energetic direction the British Council completed a fundamental review of its purpose under which a revised strategy was adopted aimed at focusing the Council's work on a single clear purpose, that purpose being to enhance the reputation of the UK in the world as a valued partner. The results of the review have been endorsed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and we welcome the new drive and momentum that my noble friend has brought to the Council. We warmly welcome her to her new role as many other noble Lords have done. It is important however to note that although the Council's core funding comes from government, the proportion of total income from government grant has declined steadily. Under one third of the Council's income now comes from government. The rest comes from English teaching, running British examinations,

1105
administering training programmes and managing development contracts. All of these activities enhance Britain's presence overseas at no cost to the British taxpayer.
Many noble Lords have referred to a wide range of activities in which the Council is involved. I should like to deal with some of them. I begin with human rights to which I referred a moment or two ago. In the promotion of human rights, civil liberties and democracy the Council has responded through a number of innovative programmes, some funded through the FCO's Human Rights Project Fund. The Council is involved in managing over half of the projects under this fund. One of the most notable is the Palestinian Rights Programme which includes a project on the development of a children's charter of rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, raised the question of women. The British Council has been involved in work to support the status of women and their participation in the political, social and economic life of their society as instanced by the four-year project on political skills for women running for local government in Nigeria; in judicial and legal training through its Indian young lawyers scheme and practical training schemes for young Chinese lawyers; and in ethnicity where it is publishing a magazine in Zimbabwe with accounts by visiting professionals about being black in Britain. Those are just a few examples of the work of the Council in the important areas of equality and human rights.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Moynihan, made reference to the very important role played by the British Council in overseas student recruitment. Over 200,000 students are currently enrolled in British higher education. Of those, approximately half come from the 14 countries where the Council operates its education counselling service. Independent estimates of the value of overseas student business to our economy are put at £1.5 billion. The education counselling service co-financed by the Council and British academic institutions is an excellent example of partnership in action. Partnership and collaboration are the basis of the Council's work in this and many other areas of work.
The British Council in 1998 helpfully agreed to administer our new, one-year scholarship scheme, designed to help students from Indonesia, Korea Malaysia and Thailand studying, or planning to study, in the United Kingdom in 1998 and to overcome the financial problems they face as a result of the significant currency fluctuations in their countries. Principally financed by the FCO, the private sector and British universities and colleges, but with contributions also from the British Council and the DTI, the British scholarship scheme has generated much goodwill towards the United Kingdom in the countries concerned. Some 2,800 students have benefited from the scheme and it has received particularly warm support from business co-sponsors.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reminded us that the Council also manages on a long-term basis the prestigious Chevening Scholarships funded by the Foreign Office and the DfID. These scholarships enable future leaders, decision-makers and opinion formers
1106
from around the world to study in the United Kingdom at a formative stage in their careers. In doing so, they develop an understanding of British values, institutions and our way of life. On returning home they make important contributions to the development of their own societies. For ourselves, having friends of Britain in high places overseas helps to further our long-term political, commercial and developmental interests.
The Council also helps with the administration of a range of co-sponsored schemes including the very successful John Smith Fellowship Programme initiated by my noble friend Baroness Smith in honour of the late leader of the Labour Party. I am grateful to my noble friend, as I am sure is my noble friend Lady Kennedy, for her very appreciative words this evening. I entirely agree with noble Lords that the importance of attracting more foreign students to the United Kingdom cannot be too strongly emphasised. I believe that that point was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. A cross-Whitehall study has just been undertaken on exactly how we should do this. Its genesis was a visit from the Prime Minister to China where he was struck by the value and effectiveness of British scholarship schemes. The British Council will be a natural partner in the implementation of any recommendations that result from that study.
Many noble Lords, but particularly the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, drew our attention to English language training. Undoubtedly the English language is one of our major assets. The UK is the leading international provider of English language teaching and services. The Council's own teaching network of 127 centres in 54 countries stands as a bench-mark of quality and best practice, with over 1.1 million class hours taught worldwide every year. But the Council is equally concerned to help other countries develop English teaching in their schools and other institutions. Ideally we should like all those who need or want it to have access to English, the language which best opens windows in the modern world. It also opens windows to our traditional and contemporary literature so vividly described by my noble friend Lady Rendell.
Several noble Lords referred to the work and expertise of the British Council in promoting Britain's achievements in the arts, literature and design which attract plaudits from all over the world. Over the past year it has provided a major input to a number of events organised by FCO missions overseas to promote the UK, such as Festival UK98 in Japan and UKaccents, a year-long festival in Ottawa aimed exclusively at young people which includes leading examples of British youth culture, with DJs, fashion designers, performance artists and film-makers. Rarely can a Council venture have had such a spectacular outcome as David Hare's brilliant play "Via Dolorosa" written after a Council-sponsored visit to Israel and the occupied territories.
The Council also helps to promote British exports in the fields of education and training and the creative industries through overseas missions, seminars, fairs and showcases, together with exhibitions of visual work as the noble Lord, Freyberg, reminded us. Together these sectors account for some £15 billion of exports. The Council has been actively involved in the recent drive

1107
to develop and promote our booming creative industries where it is working with the FCO. DCMS, DTI and some 40 trade associations in the sector to develop fresh export promotion initiatives. The Council's renowned skills and expertise as Britain's principal agency for cultural affairs makes it the natural choice to organise events in this very important field.
Perhaps I may refer to the Council's work in developing countries. The fact that the British Council now receives a single grant-in-aid from the Foreign Office does not mean that it has given up its long-standing interest in working in and with developing countries. It will continue to run substantial programmes in developing countries, in particular in the field of libraries and information, education and the English language and the encouragement of better practice in the field of governance and human rights. The Council's approach, based on partnership and mutual interest, helps to further the values which we believe support fruitful co-operation with developing countries. I took very much to heart the points made by the noble Earl on the way in which the Council should be working on the ground with NGOs.
Some attention has been focused on the recent downturn in the value of DfID contracts awarded to the British Council. Both the DfID and the British Council have undertaken statistical analysis of the downturn. The DfID analysis shows clearly that there has been a substantial reduction in the overall value of contracts. But not all British Council business obtained from the DfID is in the education sector. The picture is complex. There are variations from one overseas country to another reflecting different factors.
The Council is understandably concerned to build up a picture of future prospects as soon as possible. The DfID is very ready to provide information on its planned approaches under individual bilateral country programmes and to talk through the likely opportunities with the British Council and others. Like others, the Council will no doubt want to keep in contact with the DfID. I understand that the British Council had a helpful meeting with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the DfID yesterday. I hope that by those kinds of contact we shall be able to inform the Council of the way in which matters are developing.
I wish to comment on some of the specific industries in particular countries which have been referred to by noble Lords. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised the question of film making. The Council has contributed significantly to the setting up of a British film office in Los Angeles; and it has also embarked on a series of activities to help develop the fledgeling film industries in a number of other countries, in particular South Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, spoke of the important work done by the Council in the field of music. Noble Lords may be interested to know that when the Prince of Wales visited South Africa in 1997, an important element of his visit was the youth exchanges between the young people of Britain and South Africa who worked together to produce a concert in South Africa. And the British Council sponsored the Women in Africa
1108
concert which brought together a number of different museums which performed in the Festival Hall. It was a unique experiment at that time.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I understand that the Council's grant-to-artists scheme was suspended due to internal budgetary constraints during the course of last year. But from the next financial year it will be restored. It is a worthwhile scheme, and the Council is now free to decide the priorities it wants in that sort of expenditure.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in relation to Latin America. The Council's representation in Latin America enables it to support the Government's agenda in three priority areas: the promotion of modern Britain; good governance in human rights; and of course export promotion, in particular in cultural matters. As the noble Baroness said, much work has been going on in Brazil, focusing on the design sector in particular. But the Council also supports the network of culturas, the locally based anglophile English teaching centres which exist in many Latin American countries. Some of those are very big. They are of very high quality and a considerable asset to British interests. When I visited Cuba in the autumn of last year, I was delighted to be able to tell our friends in Cuba of the appointment of the British Council representative there.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, the British Council is also active in all three of the Baltic States. The noble Earl talked in particular about his experiences in Estonia. But the British Council is focusing resources now on the challenges of the EU accession process where, in conjunction with our Ministers, the Council can deliver high profile programmes across a number of different relevant subjects. The Council has assisted the Ministry of Education in Estonia to establish 40 regional teachers' centres and has set up eight outreach centres in Latvia and five in Lithuania, each of which has a collection of English language teaching texts and general information about the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord McNair. We hope that the Council will be able to plan to extend some work in the Sudan through the resource centres, perhaps to other cities and towns.
I turn now to Iran in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. The Council has looked at a range of options for resuming activity in Iran. Any decision to resume British Council activity there will have to take account of Iranian sensitivities, as the noble Viscount acknowledges. Agreement would need to be reached with the Iranian authorities further to raise the ceiling of staff allowed in our embassies—a matter we have discussed on previous occasions.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede on the sheer ingenuity of his contribution in bringing in the British Youth Council. My noble friend can rest assured that the Government wholeheartedly support the work being done by the British Youth Council.

1109
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised interesting points in relation to co-operation with our counterparts in France and Germany. There is co-operation, for example, in the Ukraine, Venezuela and Namibia. I shall be happy to send examples of that to the noble Lord if he would like me to pursue those matters with him in correspondence. There are some worthwhile examples of co-operation.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. When I go abroad I am always impressed by my visits to the British Council. It is often the most visible part of the British presence in any one country—although I am sure that some of my colleagues in the Foreign Office will read the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, about the relative value of the Foreign Office and the British Council with considerable interest. The specialist talents in the British Council—the programmes and the contacts it makes—are invaluable contributions to our international relationships. Of course there will always be periods of difficulty. Of course there are times when it is difficult to adapt. But we know that the Council is keen to ensure that noble Lords are fully briefed on its activities. To that end, it is proposing to form a parliamentary association group. I think that that is a terrific idea and I encourage noble Lords with an interest in the British Council to join that group.
On a previous debate on this matter, one noble Lord described the Council as a priceless asset. It is. The Government recognise the valuable role which the Council plays in enhancing Britain's reputation and prestige abroad. The Government are determined to see the Council continue and develop, and to develop the reputation of this country in the world as a valuable partner in that great conversation of mankind.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I thank everyone for participating in this interesting debate. It has been truly heartening to hear your Lordships speak with such warmth for, and admiration of, the work of the British Council. It is a special organisation, as all noble Lords have said. It always seems a shame that not enough people in Britain know of its contribution, not just to our nation but to the world.
Coming into the British Council, I have said that I see my role as an advocate on its behalf. The truth is that the Council has many advocates, as we have seen here tonight. We have to sing its song loudly and to a wider public, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, could wave his conductor's baton and have us singing in harmony.
One of the great achievements of the British Council is its ability to meet the challenges of the modern world. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that around the world, probably tomorrow morning, conscious of this debate, Council staff will be getting on line to read all that noble Lords have said. They, I am sure, will be inspired and cheered on by your enthusiasm and high regard. I thank all noble Lords for making time to participate in the debate. In particular I thank my noble
1110
friend the Minister for her generous words, reassurance and support. Of course the issue of funding will remain thorny.
I think it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness when I say that I intend to be a warrior in Whitehall on the British Council's behalf. I can be quite doughty when I set my mind to it! Perhaps together she and I can make that assault on the Treasury which was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It is certainly my intention.
I wish finally to express my gratitude to noble Lords who organise the business in this House. They succumbed to my blandishments and made space for the debate. They know who they are, and I am truly indebted to them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Mary Bell Case: Press Complaints
8.50 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what changes in procedure and liaison between the Home Office and the Press Complaints Commission have taken place following their respective inquiries into the circumstances surrounding press serialisation of Cries Unheard concerning the case of Mary Bell.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is once again on the night shift, although I am extremely pleased to see him in his place. I am pleased also to see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. There are not two men in public life whom I admire more than the two noble Lords and I hope what I have to say about their respective organisations is put in its proper context.
I want to open the debate by quoting from two distinguished journalists who specialise in commenting on the press. Brian MacArthur, writing in The Times on 1st May, had this to say about the press treatment of Mary Bell and her family in the spring of 1998:
"it was the fault of the tabloid editors who have mercilessly hounded her. It need not have happened and there were many journalists around me who were ashamed of their trade".
Harsh words, indeed. But Mr. Roy Greenslade, writing in the Guardian on 23rd July 1998 following the Press Complaints Commission adjudication, wrote:
"In siding with the editors who have published—and paid handsomely for—the stories of the convicted criminals, the Press Complaints Commission shows it is living in the real world".
Two journalists, both of whom I respect, and two different views: street of shame or the real world. It is because there are conflicting opinions and unanswered questions that I ask this Question tonight. I thought long and hard about whether to resurrect the issue. My intention is certainly not to turn the spotlight once again on Mary Bell and her family or on the family of her victim but to look at what is needed in this sensitive area of press freedom and press responsibility.
My criticism of the Home Office is not that it mishandled its responsibilities towards the press but that it mishandled its responsibilities towards Mary Bell and her daughter. Perhaps the Minister can tell us again tonight whether those responsible for Mary Bell's supervision informed Ministers that she was co-operating in the writing of a book about her crimes or that payment was involved.
If Ministers were not involved and misjudgments occurred at lower levels, have lessons been learnt? In certain high profile cases, supervising authorities, whether they be social services departments or Home Office departments, should ensure that developments in these cases are brought to ministerial attention. Secondly, in relation to this case, perhaps the Minister can tell us why the injunction which carries the name of "a Mary Bell Order" was so late in applying to the very persons it was initially designed to protect.
On broader government policy towards the media, there is also a real need for clarification. At a House of Lords lunch on 11th December for newspaper editors, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, was quoted in press reports as saying that although he did not approve of criminals profiting from their crimes he was hostile to censorship. He was reported as saying that there was public interest in knowing about these crimes. Some newspapers seemed to take this as a green light for payment of criminals. I shall return in a moment to this matter of public interest, because it has also been used as a justification by the Press Complaints Commission for its adjudication. I did, however, write to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and ask for clarification of reports of his views. With his usual great courtesy, he replied as follows:
"Media reports of my remarks are somewhat exaggerated. One of the questions I was asked concerned a convicted football hooligan who had written a book about his experiences. I was asked if he should profit from his crime. I made it clear that I regarded profiting from crime in this way as repugnant, but I could not bring myself to prohibit a book of this kind which could add to the sum total of human knowledge about the genesis of crime. There might be a public interest in knowing about these things and freedom of expression was a real issue. Other journalists suggested different examples, including the book on Mary Bell and the hypothetical prospect of a book involving James Bulger's murderers … I made it clear that my instinctive reaction would be to resist censorship."
As I say, that is a reply of characteristic courtesy and, if I may say so, characteristic honesty. It is interesting, however, that the Lord Chancellor talks about the freedom to publish a book. The Press Complaints Commission, in its findings, called in aid a review of Cries Unheard by Mary Margaret McCabe of the Department of Philosophy at Kings College, London, which posed the question:
"Should this book have been published? The answer is a firm 'yes'".
But the Press Complaints Commission and the Lord Chancellor surely missed the point: an academic study may well be in the public interest. What happens when that kind of public interest—that is, a genuine extension of understanding of an issue—is transformed by the press into salacious titillation for no other reason
1112
than to sensationalise and to sell newspapers? The commission view that it was publication, not serialisation, which provoked the search for Mary Bell is doubtful, I believe, and the statement that the furore about payments to Mary Bell would have occurred whether or not there had been serialisation begs the question of whether the serialisation finances the payments; that is, it is the serialisation rights which provide the funds for the criminal.
The commission, referring to a point I have already made, states that Mary Bell's daughter was covered by an existing injunction, and I await the Minister's comments on that. However, it goes on:
"no complaint of harassment was received—without which it was impossible for the Commission to formally investigate."
If that is the case, I believe that the commission should change its rules. To allow a situation to arise where newspaper reporters are camped outside the house of a 14 year-old girl supposedly under the protection of the courts, in flagrant abuse of the spirit of the PCC code, is tantamount to a fireman watching a house burn down but doing nothing because no one inside has dialled 999.
Let us get things into context. In the Press Complaints Commission we have a body which is an improvement on its predecessor. It is growing in public respect and its code of conduct is increasingly written into the contracts of employment of journalists. It is clear that the Press Complaints Commission works in normal circumstances, but when it fails it fails spectacularly. It fails because journalists, editors and publishers throw self-regulation and codes of conduct to the wind when they think a story sensational enough to abandon all restraint. Let me emphasise that I am not calling for the PCC to assume pre-publication censorship powers. What I am doing is looking for it to give itself powers to investigate and intervene without specific complaint from someone directly involved—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord understands the difficulties that the Press Complaints Commission has—and I declare an interest here as a commissioner—over intervening in a situation where the person involved does not actually want any publicity or any investigation of the situation. This is a problem we face very frequently.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I appreciate the dilemma to which the noble Lord refers. These are not easy cases. I made the point that in most cases 80 per cent. of Press Complaints Commission work is dealt with by conciliation. We are dealing with hard cases, but in certain of them there is a duty to intervene even if the persons involved are reluctant to do so.
I also wish to block any loophole which exists which allows payment to an author who in turn pays a criminal. I believe that the time has come to consider sanctions of a hefty fine—I mean seven figures—to deter breaches of the code. As one journalist said to me, "When the hunt is on, a journalist who quotes the code as justification for missing out on a story will be given short shrift by his editor. And that editor, in turn, will

1113
be given short shrift by the proprietor." So it is the proprietor who has to feel the pain for flagrant breaches, and I believe that means fines.
In a speech at University College London, on 8th January this year, Professor Robert Pinker, of the LSE and a member of the Press Complaints Commission, said, referring to the commission's voluntary code of practice:
"Any further changes in the Code of Practice must wait on the forthcoming review of the existing law relating to these matters which the government currently has under consideration".
I should be interested to hear the Minister's observations about that review and how it relates to what he believes is necessary in legislation and in a tightening up of the code.
However, no one who watched the saga unfold last spring can be happy to leave things as they are. Mr. Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, addressing the same conference as Professor Pinker, had this to say:
"We are going to have to think what sort of PCC we want: whether we are going to give it more powers so that self-regulation is genuinely believed to be working or whether the courts will have to make amends for what they see as the failure of the PCC to give adequate redress".
He went on:
"We are also going to have to think much more about those much abused words 'the public interest'".
Quite so, my Lords.
This is not a debate about censors and free spirits. It is about how a free society balances conflicting rights and freedoms. It is important that we both learn the lessons from the events of last year and that we are clear for the future what powers and responsibilities we want the PCC to have and how they mesh in with the rights and responsibilities imposed by legislation. It is in that spirit that I pose my Question and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising these issues. I am delighted to give your Lordships an account of my role in the matter. The serialisation by The Times of the book on Mary Bell aroused a great deal of emotion, as did—and I am glad that the noble Lord concentrated a great deal on this because it is the big issue which worries me—the events which followed relating to Mary Bell's daughter.
The Press Complaints Commission, of which, as your Lordships will know, I am chairman, examined the issue in great detail over the summer. In July we published a long and carefully thought-out adjudication in which we ruled that The Times had acted in accordance with the industry's code of practice.
I must emphasise that at this point our decision was taken strictly in accordance with that code. It was not a moral judgment about whether the book should have been written. It was not a judgment about Mary Bell's decision to accept money. It was not a judgment about whether it is right or wrong to pay criminals, which is a matter for Parliament and the law. It was a judgment
1114
made only on the basis of a code which says that newspapers can pay criminals like Mary Bell—either directly or indirectly—provided that there is a public interest in doing so and payment is necessary for that to be done.
I have to tell your Lordships that the commission found the public interest put forward by The Times in this case to be overwhelming. It was, in a nutshell, this: does the criminal justice system actually deliver justice to children as damaged as Mary Bell was and, if not, how can it be improved?
I have to say that the public interest oozes from every pore of the book and in turn from the extracts from it which were serialised in the newspaper. They included circumstances of how a child who grew up in surroundings of depravity came to be a murderer; the connection between Bell's own crime and the abuse to which she was herself subjected; and the first authoritative account of how the penal system deals with child criminals.
All those matters were of genuine public interest—very different, I must emphasise, from what is of interest to the public, which I accept is not a justification in any circumstances—and the commission believed that the public had a right of access to the material. That is why we believed The Times was right to serialise the book and did not breach the code in doing so. What the author had to say was important and deserved a wide audience. The serialisation produced that.
In many ways, that part of our deliberation was straightforward. What disturbed me far more about the whole question of Mary Bell is what followed; namely, the alleged harassment of Mary Bell and her daughter and the apparent fact that Mary Bell was forced to reveal her identity to her daughter for the first time.
The commission had massive sympathy for Mary Bell's daughter—as indeed, if I remember rightly, did The Times—but was constrained in what action it could take. In the first place, there was an existing injunction covering the identification of Mary Bell which no one seemed to want to enforce.
Secondly, no one made a complaint to the commission, although we encouraged the social services and others to do so. Without such a complaint, it was impossible to get at the facts. It was not that we could not do anything. It was merely a question of how to get at the facts if the people concerned were not prepared to make a complaint to us.
I should have welcomed a complaint about the alleged harassment which took place and which concerned so many people. It would have given us an opportunity to make clear that the harassment of any child is unacceptable and that we shall always condemn it. But I did not have an opportunity to do so.
I make one final point about the harassment. I believe that the furore about the payment to criminals and the alleged harassment that took place would have occurred whether or not there was a serialisation of the book in The Times or any other newspaper. Concern was being expressed in some quarters about the book itself long before The Times decided to serialise it.

1115
I make a final general point. I said that the PCC's decision on the complaints about the book's serialisation was not a judgment about whether it was right or wrong to pay criminals, because that is, rightly, a matter for Parliament and the law. In the wake of the controversy in relation to the serialisation of the book and other high profile cases such as the payment to two nurses convicted of murder in Saudi Arabia, the Government indicated that they would be reviewing the law in this area.
I know that that will be an extremely difficult task, not least because of the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights and its guarantee of freedom of expression for everyone, including criminals. But, as I have said before—and am very happy to repeat—the Press Complaints Commission and I will co-operate fully with the Government in any review. We shall share with them everything that we have learnt during this tragic case and any other of our investigations.
9.9 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, at this particular moment in time, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Like, I am sure, all noble Lords, I am delighted that he is to be the chairman of the Royal Commission dealing with the future of this House. It may be said that he is moving from one impossible job to another. But be that as it may, he will handle the situation with exquisite skill and integrity and I am extremely pleased to follow him this evening.
I join in the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising this subject. I shall make three brief points, although we are not as constrained for time this evening as we often are on these occasions.
The first question is whether criminals should profit from their crimes. In that connection, people discuss the position of Dennis Nilsen, who I have visited off and on for the past five years. He strangled 12 young men. Should he be allowed to write his memoirs? I believe that his memoirs are likely to be published. It will be of great interest to know how someone like that—a very able man, in my experience—came to commit such awful acts. It will be terrible if we declare that prisoners are not permitted to write books.
When the books are published, should the authors be allowed to make money? There is shock when a vast sum is paid. Nilsen has said that he will give all the money to charity. That perhaps raises a different question. But surely a criminal who is willing to give all the money to charity should be allowed to write a book. Anybody who has been in prison for many years, accepting his full punishment, should be allowed to be rewarded and paid for his work. Otherwise, we should be adding to his punishment. I know that it is not an easy question, particularly when a vast sum of money is mentioned. However, I believe that it would be wrong to say that prisoners, particularly those convicted of very grave offences, should not be allowed to write a book and be paid for it.
1116
The second question is whether the Press Complaints Commission is adequately briefed for the work involved. Noble Lords have heard me say often that I regularly visit prisoners. In fact, I saw a couple this morning. Prisoners are helpless people. It may be said that they have put themselves in that position, but they are helpless and at the mercy of the tabloid press. As human beings, as near to God as any of us, are they to be protected against gross maltreatment by the press and the tabloids in particular? They clearly deserve some protection.
I am afraid that at the present time the Press Complaints Commission is not constructed in a way that allows prisoners to defend themselves in all cases. I am thinking in particular of a case which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, may remember; he was very helpful to me at that time. It was a complicated case. The prisoner was a brilliant man in prison for serious offences. He was maltreated and libelled in a disgraceful way in a popular newspaper.
I took up the matter. It was complicated and took some time to sort out. It is not possible to obtain legal aid in such cases and in the end we found a solicitor who was ready to act for nothing. Eventually the case was presented but by that time it was too late; it was out of time. One must present a case within a month or the case becomes out of time.
My second point is that the Press Complaints Commission should look again at its rules which say that if complaints are not brought within one month they will be out of time.
I want to turn to something a little wider; that is, the general protection of prisoners. They are helpless people, maltreated, and often grossly libelled by the press. For instance, Myra Hindley—who I have known for 30 years—was described by the Sun newspaper as an "evil monster". People have called me some terrible things in my time, but not an "evil monster", at least not yet. The question is whether it is right for any newspaper to be allowed to say that and get away with it. That is the present situation.
To cut a long story short, in that case I am speaking of somebody I have known for 30 years. She is a very religious woman, as a number of Catholic priests today could testify and, indeed, as one of the close relatives of one of those who is to follow me would testify. She is a good, religious woman. There is no protection for that person, and in my opinion there is no way to give her protection unless we alter the law of libel so that she can obtain legal aid. There would need to be close restrictions on it, otherwise every prisoner would complain every day of the week, as would politicians. So, there will be no real protection for the helpless in our society until the law of libel is altered.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I had not intended to do so but became interested in the debate and hope that my brief intervention will add something rather than subtract.

1117
I am very glad that my noble friend Lord McNally introduced this important subject. As someone who, in the past, has had the misfortune from time to time to take a different view from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and what he said about the Human Rights Bill, the Press Complaints Commission and the right to privacy, on this occasion I agree with him and the way in which the Press Complaints Commission adjudicated, within their limited powers, in the case of Mary Bell. It reached the right decision but there are lessons to be learnt.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, referred to the European Convention on Human Rights and some of the difficult problems that arise. Perhaps I can make one or two fairly obvious points. First, once the Human Rights Act comes into force in the year 2000, the courts will have to balance free speech and personal privacy, including free speech for prisoners and ex-prisoners. The American Supreme Court some time ago held in the "Son of Sam" case that one could not prevent prisoners or ex-prisoners making money out of their books because it would breach the first amendment of the US Constitution, in my view—I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford—rightly so. Prisoners must have rights to free speech unless the public interest is against them for overwhelmingly strong reasons.
It is important that the Press Complaints Commission is given the power to provide effective remedies so that the courts are only involved in the last resort and not as a matter of course. The media clause which the Government wrote into the Human Rights Act is a great incentive to the press to give powers to the Press Complaints Commission since the privacy code will be taken into account by judges when they decide upon what remedies to grant.
I have earned my living in arguing free speech cases for newspapers. I am convinced, first, that the right to personal privacy is not sufficiently protected, certainly for private persons like Mary Bell's daughter, wholly innocent third parties. Secondly, unless the Press Complaints Commission is given powers to provide effective remedies, especially compensatory remedies in cases where there may or may not be a victim complaining, the courts will have to intervene. That may be a good thing in some cases but I hope that one of the lessons that is learnt by the press—it is not a matter for the Government—is that it must put its house in order by giving greater powers to the Press Complaints Commission.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I have not put my name down to speak and I think that in many ways I am not entitled to speak. However, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House to do so on this first occasion. I had not intended to speak but I felt that I could hardly refrain when I learnt that the matter of the Press Complaints Commission was being debated here. As a former chairman of the Press Council, I believe that I have some locus standi to make one or two observations.
1118
First, I should like to support the present chairman of the Press Complaints Commission in the doctrine he enunciates that, if there is sufficient public interest—if the matter is one of public interest not just of interest to the public—it justifies publication, and the press, the media, should be permitted, in those circumstances, to pay for procuring the story. That has to be a right which is carefully watched. We laid down that rule years ago in a case which all your Lordships will remember, that of the "Yorkshire Ripper". That was a case of disgraceful conduct by the press of a most intrusive character. It included people waiting outside the house of the Yorkshire Ripper's wife, Mrs. Sutcliffe, and pushing notes through her letterbox offering to pay £1,000 more than the previous offer pushed through the letterbox. That was one of the disgraceful episodes in the effort to procure that story. Finally, in the most Dickensian and horrific fashion, on the night before her husband was due to be tried at the Old Bailey, her house was entirely surrounded by the press until after midnight. She escaped to catch the milk train by climbing over her back wall because she was so harassed. In the Mary Bell case too there have been reports of harassment which are gravely to be deplored.
The only other point I wish to address relates to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The noble Lord said that the Press Complaints Commission should have power to administer effective remedies. That is an old cry from the days of the Press Council. The remedies include such matters as requiring a particular form of publication to be made by the offending journal—a power possessed by the Press Complaints Commission in India—and a power to enjoin future publications or financial penalties, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who raised this important matter in his Unstarred Question.
My difficulty with that is that, as soon as one gives that sort of power to the Press Complaints Commission, it is inevitably turned into a quasi-judicial tribunal where the place is packed and there is no right to refuse to let lawyers come and argue their cases. One has to concede that right under the Human Rights Convention, under, I believe, Article 6, but at any rate in the spirit of the convention lawyers would have to be allowed to appear. What then happens to the unfortunate complainant who may have made a complaint on his or her own without any assistance? Will the complainant be provided with legal representation? Your Lordships can foresee the result. The commission would be turned into a form of court and there would have to be an appellate system and so on. I believe that that would be a retrograde move.
I urge upon your Lordships the view that that would not be helpful in the development of self-control by the press as regards its own affairs and putting its own house in order. That should not include penalties of the sort which carry with them the full panoply of legal process and due process. While I am grateful that this issue has been raised, I hope that it does not end up with a move towards legal process in the Press Complaints Commission.
9.24 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I find myself in the role of being the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, on his maiden speech. He has succeeded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in the chairmanship of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The noble Lord's speech added to our debate and its unexpectedness was matched only by the noble Lord's eloquence. We are all grateful to him.
As I understand it, the first set of complaints relating to this issue was made in April last year due to the serialisation by The Times of the book Cries Unheard. I understand that, in the case of Mary Bell, the publication of Cries Unheard took place 30 years after the crime had been committed and therefore fell outside the time set in statute in this regard. The commission took note of that.
I read the commission's report with interest. It found the newspaper's public interest arguments in this case to be compelling. Anybody who read the serialisation realised that it was a most extraordinary tale. The views of the commission must be considered carefully. The commission noted that the newspaper was only serialising the work. Arguments of freedom of expression and of public interest attached to the case, but the material had already been put into the public domain as a result of the willing co-operation of Mary Bell herself and what she had to say about the original material and the issues relating to crime and punishment.
As my noble friend said—as was bound to happen—whether as a result of the book or the serialisation, a number of newspapers began to search for Mary Bell. That led to allegations of harassment of Mary Bell and her daughter. The most extraordinary episode of all was the fact that Mary Bell was forced to reveal her past identity to her daughter for the first time.
I know that the Press Complaints Commission had a great deal of sympathy for Mary Bell's daughter, but it felt that, under Clause 16 of its code, it could not take that matter into account. The intrusion into Mary Bell's private life and that of her daughter was covered by an existing injunction. However, as my noble friend said, no complaint of harassment was received. Therefore, under the current rules, it was impossible for the commission formally to investigate. I am sure that all noble Lords will have listened carefully when my noble friend said that the commission would have welcomed a complaint from one of the interested parties so that it could look into these issues. That is the nub of the matter.
Should the Press Complaints Commission's current rules be changed? One must remember that the press are not always totally to blame when they go too far. To realise that, one need only remember the mass of photographers outside the house of Kevin Maxwell at 5 a.m. when he was arrested. It was clear that somebody somewhere within the system had tipped them off. Indeed, one need only read the front page of today's
1120
edition of The Times, which reports the arrest of a Roman Catholic Archbishop who,
"immediately denounced the leaking of his case to a Sunday newspaper.
If the press are fed in that way, they are bound to use the material.
So, one must consider where the material comes from. I believe that the Government must judge that issue because in the past it has all too often been obvious that information about the conduct of criminal cases has been leaked to the press. Of its nature, the press play "grandmother's footsteps" with both the Press Complaints Commission and, perhaps, the Government.
The press are better behaved nowadays. It is a tribute to the leadership of my noble friend Lord Wakeham that the Press Complaints Commission has improved the behaviour of the press. There is no doubt of that. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is also a member of the commission. The behaviour of the press has improved particularly with regard to what one might term people from ordinary walks of life who often do not have the influence, the money or the ability to stand up to the press when they are bullied.
We all know that the rich and famous or politicians may suffer from the attentions of the press, but sometimes they have a chance to fight back. However, the problem is, of course, that by and large the press follow the rules, but if a story is big enough they often break the rules. We have to accept that circulation matters and in those circumstances it is not a matter of the public interest but what is of interest to the public. However, nowadays that rarely happens. That is a tribute to the work of the Press Complaints Commission.
Perhaps the nub of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, concerns whether third party complaints should be addressed by the Press Complaints Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave a reason why that should not occur. The commission has examined third party complaints. To those who are not involved in a case, the Press Complaints Commission may appear to be distant from the public. I accept the argument expressed by many editors that if every third party complaint was addressed they would never do any other work. In this day and age editors receive hundreds of communications every day, whether by fax, letter or the Internet, from people who say they do not agree with a story, and that the editors should look into the matter.
The Government are reviewing the existing law to determine whether it is adequate in this area. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the timetable of the review. However, I do not expect that he will be able to give many details of it. As a review is taking place, that presents an opportunity for the Press Complaints Commission also to review some of its rules. We must remember that the commission is a self-regulating body which is largely run for the benefit of the industry. It is not run entirely by the industry as it contains independent members such as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. If the commission does not want to consider the whole range of third party complaints—which I quite understand—it may wish to consider whether a particular case is relevant to another case

1121
which it is currently considering. The commission may also wish to consider whether in its opinion there is an overwhelming public interest issue at stake. In those circumstances the commission may wish to consider a particular case. That is a matter for the commission to ponder. As I say, there is an opportunity for the Press Complaints Commission to consider its rules in conjunction with the Government's review.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene twice in this timed debate, but one has to think of the party who is involved and whether that party wishes a complaint to be brought into the open. Someone may be aggrieved but nevertheless he or she may far rather not have the case brought into the public domain. That is the problem that we face.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. That is an aspect that the Press Complaints Commission would have to take into account before taking any decision, if indeed it decided to change its rules. In many cases the point the noble Lord has made may be a factor. However, that would not prevent the commission from considering the principles of the matter we are discussing. It addresses the newspaper industry regularly about principles; it could look at the matter in general terms and make its views known to the industry.
9.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, when one considers the issues that have been raised this evening, which go a good deal wider than the form of the Question—and rightly so—one feels a sense of infinite pity and sadness for those who are embroiled as innocents. After all, the daughter of Mary Bell was innocent of any wrongdoing, as were the relatives of the small children who were killed by her mother, and, indeed, the families of those who were murdered by Myra Hindley and Dennis Nilsen. They are innocent victims.
Let me deal specifically with the form of the Question and then turn to the wider issues which have been raised in such an interesting and moderate way. The short answer to the noble Lord's Question is that there have been no formal changes to the procedures for liaising between the Home Office and the Press Complaints Commission. As the noble Lord, with his experience, knows, primary responsibility rests with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but of course the Home Office has regular contact with the Press Complaints Commission and others who have interests in this field.
Our stance is quite plain. I am happy to repeat it. A free press in a free society is a necessity, not a luxury. I can say with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that we have very close personal contact, not only in the context of the Human Rights Bill but in the context of the Data Protection Bill, where it was necessary in the wider public interest—and I use those words with care—to make
1122
sure that the position of the free media, broadcast or print, was safeguarded. It is an important, indeed essential, freedom.
We discuss things formally and informally. I am bound to say that I have never had anything other than a courteous and co-operative hearing, whether from the noble Lord as chairman or from his officials as they have changed over the years.
A number of specific questions were raised. I was very happy—if I may say so without being apparently patronising—to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said. I do not think anyone could have been more robust in his condemnation of the harassment of Mary Bell's child. Nor could anyone have made it more plain that, had there been a complaint, there would have been the most rigorous condemnation of the allegations if proved. That is a very worthy public expression of what most people would feel, and I welcome it.
The noble Lord is also extremely generous in his offer of co-operation in the inter-departmental review of the law. I am more than happy to take him up on that. I do not know—it is a matter for the commission—but at the same time the commission might wish to consider any possible improvement to its own rules. I know that the noble Lord attended to such matters very promptly after the death of the Princess of Wales.
A question was raised about third party complaints. There is of course a further category of own volition complaints. I was chairman of the professional conduct committee of the Bar for two years and vice-chairman before that, and we did sometimes raise complaints of our own volition. One must bear in mind the cautionary note that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised. One can sometimes have own volition complaints, and if the person adversely affected by the alleged conduct says, "I don't wish you to take it any further", you can discontinue at that stage.
I take the point of the two noble Lords who have PCC experience that without a complaint one sometimes cannot get the evidence. That is so. Sometimes, without further evidence, one can bring home own volition complaints. I am simply offering that as a question if we are going to review this exceptionally delicate and sensitive area. I am simply stressing my response to the noble Lord's very generous offer about co-operative approaches in this area.
A number of questions were raised about the injunctions relating to Mary Bell. What happened there was that the Official Solicitor, acting in the interests of the child, applied for and was granted a wider anti-solicitation injunction, in stronger terms than the original injunction, which was designed to protect the daughter. One needs to bear in mind that the commission itself has powers, as I read the rules, in two distinct contexts. First, paragraph 4 of the code, which specifically deals with harassment, states:
"Journalists … must neither obtain nor seek to obtain information or pictures through intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit".

1123
So the power is there, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, indicated, had there been a complaint. One has a specific protection for children in paragraph 6. Paragraph 16(ii) states:
"Payment or offers of payment … must not be made directly or through agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates"—
and these are the important words—
"except where the material concerned ought to be published in the public interest and payment is necessary for this to be done".
So, objectively looked at, that is a quite high hurdle which the PCC concluded The Times had been able to overcome.
The further specific questions that were raised relate in particular to what had happened in the period of time when Mary Bell was—I am taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—known or was thought to have been writing a book. The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, set up an internal inquiry. The matter was taken very seriously. Indeed, he asked the Permanent Secretary to report. On 22nd July last year (at col. 550 of Commons Hansard) he gave a very full reply to a question for Written Answer asked by my honourable friend Caroline Flint. He said that it was clear that, with hindsight, on a number of occasions Ministers might reasonably have been informed of developments in the Mary Bell case. The Permanent Secretary has recommended to the Home Secretary procedural and other improvements to help guide Home Office staff in assessing future cases where Ministers might need to be kept informed of developments. I commend that very full Answer which sets out essentially all the conclusions that the Permanent Secretary came to.
I was asked about review of the law. I want to give your Lordships a little detail to indicate the seriousness with which we have approached this matter. The Home Secretary set up an interdepartmental body to look at these difficult issues: to look at the scope of existing powers, to consider whether, and if so how, the law might be amended, and to deal with the question of profits, and in particular the consequent distress that is caused to families. There is a legitimate distinction—quite a subtle one perhaps, but an important one—to be drawn between publication which causes certainly some distress and payment for such publication which may cause lasting, justifiable, understandable anger. I think there is a distinction there.
The interdepartmental committee has six representatives from the Home Office, two representatives from the Prison Service and representation from the Scottish Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the Cabinet Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is intended that it should carry out a comprehensive review. It is hoped that those conclusions by way of recommendations will be available by this summer. It is a very difficult area,
1124
as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, he and I having been adversaries in the field of defamation, press freedom and contempt for a long period of time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the issue of forfeiting or prohibiting profits, will the review take into account that that is an interference with free speech under Article X? There is a good deal of case law, American and otherwise, indicating that simply to deprive a writer of remuneration for the writing, even in the case of a prisoner, might well give rise to a breach of basic rights and freedoms where the public interest in publication is clear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was the sentence that I was about to utter. One has to take into account all of the wider repercussions of Article 10, together with those questions of private and family life which are equally to be safeguarded by virtue of the incorporation of the convention into our law. They are exceptionally difficult answers to find.
The noble Viscount is quite right. The crimes of Mary Bell were committed 30 years ago. So most limitation periods would have expired after a maximum of six years whether in the context of the civil or the criminal law. One has to bear in mind that crimes vary. Is crime to be the subject of an attempted prohibition when it might be the murder of very small children? It might, on the other hand, be a question of political offences, for which, for example, Mr. Mandela was committed in South Africa. I do not put that point in any debating spirit. I merely raise the question that simply to attach the label "crime" or "criminal" will not eventually be sufficient to deal with the whole spectrum of matters that one is considering.
Perhaps I may offer another example. Albert Speer's memoirs were published. Ms. Sereny wrote a book about him. Similar complaints and troubles did not arise, as I recall it, in the context of what at that stage was perhaps regarded as historical memoir.
These are very difficult questions, and one has to separate them out as calmly, rationally and carefully as one can. I do not think that there is a Member of this House who has not felt the sense of shame and horror referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in the context of the alleged treatment of Mary Bell's daughter. That, again, is different from the payment of criminals or their relatives. It is different again from whether they have a right to publish their thoughts or writings, as was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
The noble Viscount raised the question of leaks. This is the second consecutive occasion when it has been alleged that improper leakage of police information has occurred. I do not know what the truth is. All I can say is that it is a disciplinary offence for a police officer to make an unauthorised disclosure. It is the sort of disciplinary offence that is exceptionally difficult to prove, because journalists will say—in some ways understandably—that they wish to protect their sources and therefore there is no evidence. In my experience it

1125
is very difficult to bring home disciplinary charges against a police officer. But it is quite wrong that such leaks should occur. The Government's attitude is plain: it is an improper divulging of confidential information if the allegations are true.
Not to be presumptuous, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on his maiden speech. Aspects of the difficulties in this area were admirably pointed out by the noble Lord. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has frequently urged the PCC to take stronger powers, including compensatory powers. From my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, I am familiar with the difficulties of producing an over-formal tribunal for what is essentially intended to succeed by way of conciliation. In strict parenthesis, I remember that the Industrial Tribunal was originally set up to provide speedy, non-formal, "non-over-legalistic" remedies for those who had lost their work. I merely say: look what happened.
I am not sure that the proposals to be produced in the summer will satisfy everyone. The difficulties are significant. If we can encourage the Press Complaints Commission at least to review its present powers, to see whether or not they are working effectively, in the end that may be the best way forward to protect the interests of the innocents, of press freedom, and of what most people would regard as a decently regulated civil society. There is virtue in that course of action, if the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is minded to have the review. It is only a suggestion that I make; I hope he will accept it as intended at least to be helpful.
As the noble Lord has often said many complainants want an explanation and an apology. He has told us in the past that in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is brought about to the satisfaction of complainant and
1126
newspaper. I know of no system in the discovered world that has found the answer to the questions. I repeat the sense of deep shame we all felt about the alleged treatment of that young child.
It is fair to say, without being unduly complacent, that the history of the press over the past 10 to 15 years has been of continued responsible improvement. A person does not need to be very elderly to bear in mind that the excesses of the press, which were rightly complained of 25 years ago, have significantly diminished. It is true and trite, particularly when one is not the immediate victim, that we cannot have a democratic, free society without a press which is free. A free press is bound, on occasions, to overstep the limits. The scheme that we need is for the Press Complaints Commission to remedy those wrongs which it can and for only the rarest of cases to need to be the subject of legal formalistic proceedings.
The debate has ranged quite widely, more widely than the strict terms of the Question. That was a necessary device—I put that with congratulation rather than condemnation—to open up the matter. There are deep questions of philosophical approach, jurisprudential approach and practical approach. What we want is a practical outcome for the protection of those who sometimes have insufficient protection from the commission by virtue of its role on complaints or from the law because the law is too rigid or does not offer appropriate remedies, or the remedies available are not what people want.
I believe that most people want an explanation, an apology and an expression of regret rather than anything further. I am grateful for every contribution made by your Lordships.
House adjourned at eight minutes before ten o'clock.